mation of the social condition of the inhabitants.... As for the commercial success of the Congo, . . . enough had been said to show that it was disputable whether the resources of the country were such as to sustain a permanent trade, even with the help of the railway. ... The immense development of wealth and commerce, and of civilized populations following the establishment of some of the colonies of Europe, had encouraged the belief that all adventures to which the same name could be given must be crowned with the same success. Yet the conditions which had secured this success in the past could be easily indicated, and it became a simple inquiry whether like conditions were to be found in any land offered for new enterprise... We were justified in saying that nothing could be deduced from the history of American colonization or Indian domination to justify hopes of a lucrative commercial expansion in Central Africa. Missionary and philanthropic labor might be spent there with approval, and with some measure of slow success, but the foundation of healthful colonies furnishing outlets for population and commerce was not hopeful.

"Sir R. Giffen moved a vote of thanks to Mr. Courtney for his valuable paper, which was seconded by Sir F. S. Powell, who thought this country ought to be congratulated that the Congo State did not belong to us. (Cheers.)"

Here was an instance where a gathering of very influential and representative Englishmen put itself on record as being highly gratified that England did not own the Congo, because there was no money in it, although the opportunities for civilization and philanthropy there were recognized as immense. If civilizing were the actual as it is the feigned object of England this is the very kind of country that she would choose to own and to colonize, on account of its unbounded needs. The law of imperialistic colonizing is this: No outlay shall be made for ‘civilizing' purposes which does not promise to return, sooner or later, the usual rate of

returns on invested capital. The corollary of this law is that civilization is not an end in itself but a means to an end—a means for increasing and firmly establishing commerce. This simple principle is the key to the entire mighty network of imperialist dogmas concerning duty, religion, humanity, unselfishness and civilization. Lord Rosebery skilfully admitted and used this principle in his eulogy of the Sirdar's college, when he said that 'if our civilization was to prevail against other contending European civilizations, etc., . . . he [Kitchener] saw that a beginning must be made in the way of a center of education.'

5. Is India Happy?

The dealings of England with her lower subject races are a sturdy proof that civilizing and uplifting are not her ends excepting as they increase and strengthen her sources of income. Of the recent terrific slaughter of the Soudanese by machine guns, I shall not speak here, but shall take the illustration that is most favorable to England the Indian Empire. One word first, however, as to what civilization and race upbuilding is. It is the boast of English Imperialists that England 'brings into the minds and into the lives of the subject people, not as phantoms of the imagination, but as solid, vivid realities, the ideas of order, justice and humanity.' (Mr. Asquith.) But these ideas alone are very far from civilizing. The dog in distinction to the wolf has these ideas, learned from contact with civilized man. He is tender, kind, orderly, and true, he is even just, but he lacks that which the concept of civilization demands. He lacks independent development, self-development, the power of standing alone and going forward without leaning or being led. Order, justice, and humanity are developed in chattel slaves, but they lack a prime requisite of civilization, without which civilization is not. They are not free. Now the glib lords and lawyers, bishops

*Dec 28, 1898. Reported in the London Daily Chronicle.

and parliamentarians and prophets of England are fiery in praise of the order and security that England establishes, but they do not explain to us just what these are worth without freedom, self-government, and self-development, a thing that we should very much like to know.

To what extent is England developing the Indians, strengthening their character, training them to be selfsustained, independent, and free? As to this none can speak better than Indians themselves. The London Indian Society held its annual conference for 1898 not long ago* and the members gave very vigorous expression to their opinion of British treatment of India. The chairman, Mr. D. Naoroji, moved a resolution:

"That in accordance with the oft-declared and pledged policy of the British people, through Acts and Resolutions of Parliament and Proclamations of Her Majesty the Queen, to treat Indians exactly as the British subjects in this country; . . . this conference is of opinion and urges upon the government in the name of British justice. and honor, that Indians should be allowed commissions. and command in the Indian army in the same manner and through the same methods as are open to English

men..

Mr. Naoroji referred to the bravery and heroism shown by the native soldiers... They ought by rights to be treated as British citizens, but the practice of the authorities was the very reverse. The chairman quoted opinions which showed that the native soldiers had remained true to their salt, even to the extent of fighting bravely against their own kith and kin.... He claimed something more than justice from the British people; he claimed their gratitude. (Cheers.) It was the money and blood of India which had built up the British Empire there. (Cheers.)... The present system was not only an injustice; it was a gross insult to the whole Indian nation. (Cheers.) He had been in communication with the War Office on the matter, and had been told that the Queen's Warrant forbade Indian subjects holding commissions in the Indian army.'

It would be unnecessary to read further to learn the degradation of Indian character under British rule. Although debarred of all promotion and compelled to serve in the lowest rank against their own countrymen, against their own flesh and blood, they obey. True to their salt, less manly and chivalrous than common mercenaries or bandits, they slaughter fathers, brothers, sons. at the command of foreigners. They are proud of it. The fashion of their grievance is that they want a share of the military offices. And on the other hand the civilizing English cannot spare them-they want all good things for themselves. And yet the British people through acts of Parliament and other means 'had often pledged themselves to treat Indians exactly as British subjects in England.'

Seconding the resolution, Mr. Mahtab Singh said that 'as loyal subjects they wanted to warn the British Government of the danger of its present policy, which if not altered would turn a nation of patriotic and loyal subjects. into rebels, whose aim would be to destroy the British rule. (Cheers.)'

The resolution was carried unanimously.

Mr. Romesh Chunder Dutt moved a resolution 'deploring all legislation restricting self-government in India.’ Under Northbrook's vice-royalty, he said, 'representative government was first introduced into India, which conferred upon the rate payers of Calcutta the right to select two-thirds of their municipal councillors. Since then this measure has worked extremely well, and the new municipal council had transformed Calcutta into one of the healthiest places in India. The time had now come for the extension of municipal government to other municipalities, but the present Government was no friend of municipal government. It had been striving to curtail the powers of the London County Council, and therefore there was no wonder that it was trying to abrogate Lord Northbrook's valuable measure. (Shame.) Never within his memory had there been such a state of alarm through

ure.

out the whole of Bengal as had been caused by this measThe impression was spreading that it was not possible to obtain any new rights by constitutional methods. There had been forty years of peace and loyalty, and now the Government by its action was teaching a very dangerous lesson to the people of India. (Cheers.)'

Mr. R. C. Sen said it was a mistake to trust too much to the generosity of the English people.'

Mr. Bipin Chunder Pal moved: "That this meeting condemns the new Sedition Law of India, (1) which makes invidious distinctions between different classes of her Majesty's subjects; (2) which seeks to restrict the free discussion of Indian measures by her Majesty's Indian subjects in England, by threats of prosecution on their return to India; (3) which takes away the liberty of the press that has been enjoyed in India for over half a century, and substitutes a method of repression, unworthy of the British government; (4) which empowers magistrates in India, who are heads of the police, to demand security for good behavior from editors of newspapers, to refuse such security when offered, and to send the editors to jail with hard labor without trial for any specific offense; . . ."

No people in the world have said more in censure of the French methods of justice exposed by the case of Dreyfus, or of the German gag laws and Imperial prosecutions for the terrible crime of speaking as you think, called lese majestat, than the English, yet here is England jailing Indian editors without trial, through her Dogberry police magistrates and depriving her Indian subjects of the right of free speech. This is the England that, as Mr. Asquith says, makes the ideas of order, justice and humanity, solid, vivid realities' in the minds and lives of the people dependent on her.

Mr. Pal enforced his resolution by declaring that "those who had drawn it up had committed sedition under the new law over and over again. (Laughter and cheers.) Further the people who had been speaking that afternoon