laws or regulations, to say nothing of Legislatures; with customs as to inter-marriage, infant marriage, prohibition of widows' re-marriage (even infant widows) and the appalling infant mortality due to deep-rooted superstitions and customs running into dim centuries of the past; with conditions of semi-servitude and almost satisfied slavery amongst millions and with scores of other millions of the lower castes living in hopeless social outlawry whose touch or even shadow was regarded as pollution; were not indicated or even discussed. Native agitators would not do so; British statesmen could not very well do so.

Yet the latter did not in 1917 seem to be afraid of these conditions; they strove to meet alleged elements of discontent, vague threats of trouble by agitators and Eastern politicians, through all kinds of promises and plans. Anyone looking for discontent in a bundle of hundreds of millions of antagonistic races and castes and creeds would find, and will always find, what he sought; the statesman should seemingly do his best not to stir up such a hornet's nest of age-long prejudices, hatreds and conflicting traditions as the life of India embodied. Party politics, a pure Indian Civil Service, an untainted Judiciary of the British kind, an impartial educational system, appeared as utterly alien to the real Eastern conception of government as the ethics of Christianity would be to a Brahmin at the altar of his special god or to a peasant throwing himself under the wheels of Juggernaut! Yet men experienced in Indian administration urged self-government as a panacea. Lord Carmichael, late Governor of Bengal, told the Royal Colonial Institute (Nov. 14) that "whether we like it or not, a spirit of discontent is growing, both in intensity and in volume, every day in India among all classes. The discontent may lead to disaster if through it Indians lose their sense of proportion, but it will lead to triumph if through it Indians learn to share in a real partnership with Britain." Like Sir Wm. Wedderburn, a continuous agitator, Mrs. Besant, the late Charles Bradlaugh, the Hindu National Congress and others, Lord Carmichael appeared to think that a great Western constitutional structure evolving out of centuries of totally different conceptions of life could be built upon a basis of Oriental customs and thought. Lord Chelmsford, like some of his predecessors-notably Lord Hardinge -believed in a modified form of this evolution and the new Secretary of State for India (Rt. Hon. E. S. Montagu) in 1917 took very definite ground in this respect. On Aug. 20 he made this important statement in the British Commons:

The policy of His Majesty's Government, with which the Government of India are in complete accord, is that of the increasing association of Indians in every branch of the administration, and the gradual development of self-governing institutions, with a view to the progressive realization of responsible government in India as an integral part of the British Empire. . . . I would add that progress in this policy can 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 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.

As a preliminary step the bar would at once be removed upon the admission of Indian officers to the British Army. Mr. Montagu, himself, would visit India and see what the situation was. Lord Chelmsford described this announced policy as "a landmark in the constitutional history of England and resonant with hope." To the Associated Press (N.Y. Tribune) the Secretary for India on Sept. 15 carefully guarded and yet exemplified his recent utterance: "This ideal of ours must be approached by easy stages. The man who thinks Home Rule for India is a practical policy is either wholly ignorant of the situation or designedly mischievous. Steps towards responsible government will be taken at different stages by different parts of India. Great provinces will fit themselves for it at different times. But the chief thing is that we are going ahead firmly on the path toward the end which we all, British and Indian alike, desire. The measures we adopt must be adequate. They must show real progress." In November Mr. Montagu was in India receiving addresses from the National Congress, the Moslem League, the Home Rule organization and others, and visiting Princes and statesmen and public bodies.

Meanwhile there had been a livelier expression of Indian discontents than at any time since the War began. The Indian National Congress, which had been moderate in its Home Rule demands under the control of men like G. K. Gokhale, Sir P. Mehta and Sir S. P. Sinha, fell into the hands of extremists who refused to co-operate with the Government along lines of evolution and arrived at a selfgovernment advocacy dangerously akin to separation and to conditions which, in India, would involve anarchy. At the Lucknow meeting of the Congress late in December, 1916, the President had urged a radical and immediate change in the government of India and illustrated the weakness of his school of thought by stating that revolution rested in economic conditions and would disappear under the blessings of freedom. He demanded the abolition of the India Council, complete financial, legislative, and administrative autonomy, the separation of Executive and Judicial functions, the repeal of the Arms and Press acts, the withdrawal of all repressive measures, and a national militia open to all races. The splendid British Civil Service and Judiciary, which had held India along lines of internal peace and the controlled unity essential to its divergent races and animosities, was a bureaucracy which must be got rid of.

A great welcome had been given to Mrs. Besant, her extreme denunciations of British rule applauded, her seditious utterances in New India apparently accepted and she, herself, elected President for 1917. At the same time the All-India Moslem League had met also at Lucknow and elected as President for 1917 Mohammed Ali, who was in prison on charges of sedition. A Committee of this League came into agreement, for the first time, with a Committee of the Congress and this promised a moderating influence despite the Presidency matter. The Indian National Congress dated from 1885 and was essentially Hindu in composition; the League dated from 1906 and was primarily intended to protect Mohammedan interests but with British loyalty as a distinctive principle.

A development along lines which suited the latter organization was the representation of India at the Imperial War Conference. The Delegates, who came by invitation of the British Government were the Maharajah of Bikaner, Sir James Meston and Sir Satyendra Sinha. The War Conference passed a Resolution-supported by Sir Robert Borden for Canada-declaring that India should be fully represented at the regular Conferences of the future. H.E. Lord Chelmsford, in addressing the Legislative Council at Simla on Sept. 7, dealt with these proposed constitutional reforms and declared that the British Government intended to advance as follows: (1) In the domain of the local self-government of a village or by a municipal council; (2) in the responsible employment of Indians under the Government; (3) in the domain of Legislative Councils. Early in November the Viceroy addressed a Conference of the Princes and ruling Chiefs of India at Delhi and advised them to wait until further experience indicated the lines on which the informal Imperial Conferences could be most appropriately developed in the joint interests of the Princes and the Empire at large. He warmly thanked the Princes for providing adequate reserves for the Imperial troops and for raising recruits for the army.

As to the War itself India helped considerably in 1917. Its troops had served in Gallipoli, in Mesopotamia, in Egypt, in Palestine, in German East Africa, in China, in Persia, and in France; the ruling Princes of India had contributed largely of their standing armies and had taken effective measures to guard the 6,000 miles of Indian land-frontier from intrusion or invasion; Indian forces had undertaken several military operations of magnitude on the North-West Frontier; Lord Chelmsford stated (Sept. 5) that the Man-Power Board of India had provided recruits for the Army increasing from thousands to tens of thousands, and that the Indian Army reserve of officers numbering 40 in 1914 now exceeded 3,000. In this year General Sir Charles Munro, who had seen much war experience in 1914-16, was appointed Commander-in-Chief and in performing his duties visited the Mesopotamian front and the centres of India. On Mar. 2 the Indian Defence Force Bill, making military service compulsory for all British subjects of European origin between the ages of 16 and 50, became law. General Allenby's despatches from Palestine showed that contingents of Ghurkas took part in the capture of positions around Jerusalem and General Smuts in his official reports paid high tribute to Indian troops in East Africa. By the close of the year India had contributed 1,000,000 men to the forces of the Empire.

A collateral subject was the Mesopotamia Report issued in June and dealing with the muddle of the first Kut campaign, when thousands of Indian troops were captured by the Turks. Some, at least, of the trouble was due to pre-war starving of the military forces along lines of economy; much was due to the division of authority and responsibility between London and Delhi-the Indian Secretary of State and the Viceroy. The Commissioners, headed by Lord George Hamilton, censured Sir John Nixon who led the advance, and Gen. Sir Beauchamp Duff who commanded in India, and Sir

Edmund Barrow, Military Secretary of the Indian Office; they held that political responsibility rested upon Lord Hardinge as Viceroy and Austen Chamberlain as Secretary for India. The causes of the disaster, in brief, were inadequate strategy, poor supplies and equipment, insufficient reinforcements, bad transport, medical neglect and lamentably insufficient preparation. Lord Hardinge in his defence (Lords, June 26) claimed that the Commission did not give sufficient consideration (1) to the unexampled effort of India at the beginning of the War, (2) to the risks and troubles of the Government in 1914 and 1915 as to internal and border matters, (3) to the point that the Government of India opposed an advance on Bagdad without reinforcements, (4) to the fact that he was deceived and mis-informed as to river transport and medical conditions. Aga Khan, the Moslem leader of India, wrote The Times (July 27) supporting Lord Hardinge and blaming the situation upon the failure of London to recognize the military needs and resources of India when war was known, during the past ten years, to be imminent.

Another interesting Indian and Empire development was the cotton goods question. For many decades there had been a small customs duty on the cotton goods imported (nearly all from Lancashire) into India. This duty was balanced by a corresponding excise duty on cotton goods manufactured in India itself; it had thus no protective character but existed for revenue only. Cotton formed the sole clothing of the vast majority of India's population, the bulk of whom lived in a degree of poverty almost beyond the imagination of Europeans or Canadians, and spent money on scarcely anything except salt and a few implements and utensils. As the tax was not protective, its whole yield went to the Indian Government, and it was kept very low-312 per cent. For decades, also, there had been an agitation by the Bombay mill-owners to make the duty protective by abolishing or differentiating the excise; and in this they had had the support of native Indian politicians. Freetrade England was keenly opposed to this policy, especially Manchester and Lancashire.

Meanwhile the industry in India developed largely and its output increased between 1901-11 by 185%. At this stage in 1917 the Indian Government decided to raise the Import duty to 72% while leaving the excise untouched-a distinctly protectionist measure. Mr. Chamberlain, Secretary for India, sanctioned the policy and there followed a perfect storm of free-trade indignation in England, with, of course, a practical side to it amongst the Lancashire operators. A large deputation waited on Mr. Chamberlain (Mar. 12) and he told them the duties must stand though he was threatened with a Lancashire "ablaze with wrath" and the anger of an industry exporting $635,000,000 worth of material a year, of which 29% went to India, employing 450,000 workers and representing $375,000,000 of capital. His chief ground of refusal was that the Government could not accept a gift of $500,000,000 from India and at the same time veto an Indian fiscal policy because it touched the pockets of some British manufacturers.

The Empire

as a Unit in

Problem of

Imperial
Unity.

The King's position in the War was not always clear to the public of the outer Dominions but to the War; The their statesmen-as expressed in Conferences and in speeches-it was obvious that a primary element in maintaining the Empire as a unit in war or peace was the position and the function of the Monarchy. It was the keystone of the Imperial arch. Personally, the King led in all forms of self-sacrifice required by war conditions-Prohibition, food restrictions, economy, generous gifts to War funds, etc. Always and naturally, by much travel and experience and association with Empire leaders, he was an Imperialist. At the opening of Parliament on Feb. 7 His Majesty had a special Imperial escort composed of 92 officers representing the Indian army, both Native and British, and the Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, South African, Newfoundland and British West Indian forces. To Parliament he made, in his Speech, two Empire allusions:

(1) My people throughout the Empire and my faithful and heroic Allies remain steadfastly and unanimously resolved to secure the just demands for reparation and restitution in respect of the past, and guarantees for the future which we regard as essential to the progress of civilization.

(2) I invited representatives of my Dominions and my Indian Empire, which have borne so glorious a share in the struggle, to confer with my Ministers on important questions of common interest, relating to the War. The steps so taken will, I trust, conduce to the establishment of closer relations between all parts of the Empire

The King's selection of the designation of Windsor for his House and family was approved throughout the Empire and it is worthy of record that at the Privy Council (July 17), when he announced the decision, South Africa and Australia were represented by General Smuts and W. P. Schreiner for the former and Andrew Fisher for the latter. Sir George Perley, not being a member, was, of course, not present. Royal contributions to War funds were many but only two can be mentioned here $50,000 to the Empire Red Cross collection of Oct. 18 and $5,000 in aid of Halifax Relief. As to the former the King sent a Message to all his representatives throughout the Empire, describing the great work of this Society: "In every theatre of the War, regardless of distance, discomfort or danger, the task of alleviating pain and suffering and of ministering to those in need, is performed with unparalleled devotion by the men and women who have taken service under the Red Cross." The King and Queen Mary sent a Christmas message to the Canadian and other Imperial troops and at the close of the year appealed to his people by Proclamation throughout the world to hold a special day of prayer for victory: "The world-wide struggle for the triumph of right and liberty is entering upon its last phase. The enemy is striving by desperate assault and subtle intrigue to perpetuate the wrongs already committed and stem the tide of a free civilization. We have yet to complete the great task to which more than three years ago we dedicated ourselves."

Second only in importance to the War Conference in 1917 was the Final Report of the Dominions Royal Commission which,