which is less fertile on account of the War. Luxuries are beyond the purse of the worker, who, living from hand to mouth owing to the fluctuations of the mark, finds it impossible to save.

But, if Germany has had enormous losses in man-power, the natural fecundity of the German people is rapidly making these good, and the mass of non-producers who were formerly drafted into the army, are now available for the needs of industry. By an orderly system of reasonable co-operation, Germany has been able, to a great extent, to avoid disastrous strikes and to eliminate, very largely, industrial wastage, and by skilful foresight, careful and calculating reorganization, has been able to get far on the way towards the perfection of what may presently be the most formidable industrial machine in the world. Her controlled exports fetch the highest possible values. She has large holdings in foreign currencies; she is rebuilding her mercantile marine, and is regaining not only her old but exploring the possibilities of capturing new markets. There are many disquieting features in the country from the German point of view; there are many difficulties ahead; many vital problems awaiting solution; but there can be no doubt as to the reality of the German economic recovery and her proximate prosperity.

J. A. ROY.

Recent Indian History.

Last session's record of the Indian members of the Legislative Council and the Council of State went far to justify the confidence of the promoters of the new system of governing India. A welcome sense of responsibility was shown in both Houses in the treatment of highly contentious proposals aimed at the Government. In the Legislative Assembly two motions (one of them sponsored by Dr. Gour of Nagpur, one of the ablest men in India) which sought to end the so-called 'repressive measures' were rejected by decisive majorities. Again, in the Assembly, Mr. S. 'Chamnad proposed the release of the

Ali brothers, but at that time the Government did not consider that a feasible measure, and after a strong speech from Sir William Vincent the Assembly unanimously negatived the proposal, not even Mohammedan members who had spoken in favour of the motion venturing to vote for it. These are only specimens of the new Indian statesmanship.

There seems to be an impression that the British members of the Assembly are able to hold the balance between parties, and that when the Indian members and the nonofficial British members unite, their influence is almost irresistible. For example, last session this combination secured the passing of a proposed recommendation to the Viceroy, that in future the whole Budget, and not only certain 'votable' items, should be submitted to the Assembly.

There are increasing indications that the sting has been withdrawn from the 'non-co-operation' movement. When this movement began, Mr. M. R. Jayakar, barrister, one of the leading Advocates of the Bombay High Court, was one of its adherents. After eighteen months in the wilderness he has decided to return to his political loyalty and his income. In a long and illuminating letter to the Secretary of the District Congress Committee of which he was President, he gives his apologia for his change of front. He had, it seems, tried to found in Bombay a well-equipped and modern College as a rival to the Government-supported institutions already in existence; but his educational schemes proved abortive owing to the 'opposition of some of the disruptive and reactionary forces in the movement': (He hints also at a 'secret history of the non-co-operation movement'). He is now 'more convinced than ever that courts and councils cannot be boycotted with advantage' and has 'no desire to spend any more time in enforced inactivity or on undertakings which do not suit my taste or temperament'. He wishes it however to be understood that he is no rebel against the Congress, being much too humble an individual to rebel against a body so august. This gentleman's proceedings from beginning to end are characteristically Indian and shed a curious light on the question, why Britain has so long governed India.

Mr. J. M. Sen Gupta, of Chittagong strike fame, promptly followed Mr. Jayakar's example and resumed his profession, though, unlike Mr. Jayakar, he scorned to give any explanation of his defection.

Dr. Hafiz Mohammed Bashir, former President of the Amritsar Congress Committee, who abandoned his nonco-operation activities (or should it be 'non-activities'?) about the same time, has described the situation very frankly:

'(1) The boycott of schools and colleges was fruitless so long as some equally suitable means of imparting education to our youths could not be devised. Many students have already ruined their lives by giving up their studies...

(2) As a matter of fact the boycott of courts has always remained unaccomplished. . .

(3) The boycott of foreign cloth seems to be more futile. . .

(4) Swaraj is difficult of attainment so long as we do not lift the untouchables, the labour classes and the other people whom we slight...'

The new policy of the irreconcilables is not to boycott the Imperial and provincial parliaments but to capture them. If they succeed we may see some very 'pretty fighting'.

If Britain is to retain even a shadow of effective control in the Government of India a nucleus of British officers in the administrative services seems essential. The number of British officials has always been small; looked at in a purely theoretical way, even absurdly small; and the proportion of Indians to Europeans in the superior posts has been steadily rising. Within the last year or two the European element has been depleted both positively and negatively. On the one hand young Britons of the required capacity are showing a marked unwillingness to find their sphere in Government service in India. At the last examination for the Indian Civil Service the former proportions of British and Indian candidates were almost exactly reversed. On the other hand an alarming number of officers had expressed the desire to take advantage of the premature retirement offered to men who were dissatisfied with the new regulations. For example, in

the Panjab half of the senior members of the police service had intimated a wish to retire. This anxiety to 'take their pension' was in part occasioned by a Government ruling to the effect that officers who wished to take advantage of the privilege of premature retiral must do so by March 31, 1924. Accordingly the Government, apparently dismayed at the result of this rule, at the beginning of July extended the date for claiming the 'retiral' option.

Extraordinary resentment seems to have been stirred in India, and among people of practically all shades of opinion, by the speech of the British Prime Minister delivered in the House of Commons on August 2. The sentence which provoked the fiercest indignation among Indians was that in which Mr. Lloyd George said that the changes in the method of governing India 'were in the nature of an experiment, and they must be treated as an experiment—a great and important experiment but still an experiment'. It is true that in inaugurating the new system the British Government categorically claimed the right in ten years' time to "extend, modify, or restrict the degree of responsible government then existing'. But so quickly do events move in the unchanging East that the newspapers of the spring of this year read almost like ancient history. In the same speech Mr. Lloyd George paid a very high tribute to the members of the Indian services, but a large number of the members of these services, present and potential, have already shown in the most effective way what they think of the new system. Their considered judgement is that 'fine words butter no parsnips'.

In reply to a deputation that went to the Viceroy to protest against the Prime Minister's speech, Lord Reading stated that the Prime Minister had two objects in view: first, to give a serious warning against 'wrecking' tactics on the part of extremists who might succeed in getting majorities in next Councils; and secondly, to reassure the members of the Government services. It is somewhat disconcerting to find that at the time Mr. Lloyd George spoke there had been already under discussion for several months a circular letter sent by

the Government of India to the provincial Governments asking their opinion on two questions: (a) Should the recruitment of Europeans for the appointments now included in the AllIndia services be discontinued or largely reduced, and (b) if so, in what services and to what extent in each service? The Government of India discusses these questions with a thoroughness which shows they are intended to be taken seriously. Had Mr. Lloyd George seen this circular when he said: 'Great Britain will in no circumstances relinquish her responsibility to India... We stand by our responsibilities. We will take whatever steps are necessary to discharge or enforce them'? Does not the very publication of the document (which apparently was intended to be 'confidential') radically alter the whole situation?

In all the circumstances it was only natural that the Council Chamber was crowded to its utmost capacity when the Viceroy opened Assembly and Council of State on Sept. 6. Lord Reading's speech reminded us once more that in the last resort India is governed from London rather than from Delhi. He emphasized the Prime Minister's reference to the declaration and the preamble to the statute, in which it is made quite clear that 'the goal is the increasing association of Indians in every branch of the Administration with a view to the progressive realization of responsible government within the empire. The advance is to be made by stages, and the time and manner of advance are to be judged by the British Parliament. Their judgement is to depend on the co-operation of the people of India and the development of their sense of responsibility'. To the uninitiated it is not clear how these bold words are to be made good with a small and rapidly decreasing number of disgruntled British officials. The Viceroy was refreshingly frank about the 'deplorable impression upon the British people throughout the Empire' created by the antics of the non-co-operationists, especially during the Prince's visit, and had to confess that 'the mischief was deliberately done, and in spite of the solemn warning I ventured to give of its inevitable effect upon the British people and the British Parliament'.