a recommendation which ultimately led to the India Councils Act, passed by Parliament in 1892. On the other hand, the army and military expenditure of India were vastly increased under his administration; and there was a mischievous and wasteful activity once more beyond the North-West frontier of India.

Lord Lansdowne succeeded Lord Dufferin in 1888. He, too, had been Governor-General of Canada, and therefore went out to India with considerable experience as an administrator. But he was wanting in the tact and discretion and the quiet strength of Lord Dufferin. A silly Imperialism predominated in his Council, and wasteful expenditure beyond the Indian frontiers proceeded at a more rapid pace. A distinguished administrator, who was himself behind the scenes during these years, says that while Lord Lansdowne's urbanity and high distinction conciliated and impressed all with whom he was brought into personal contact, yet, as time passed, it became evident that his thoughts were more occupied with affairs beyond the North-West frontier of India than with the interests of good government within its limits. The influence exercised over the Viceroy by his chief military and political advisers became more and more matters of universal comment. Under their influence, and probably with the approval of the British Cabinet, Lord Lansdowne renewed in substance Lord Lytton's policy, and the wars which have drained India of money and men since 1896, were due to the course of action adopted by Lord Lansdowne in the years preceding. There never was a time since 1838, when Simla was more actively the centre of ambitions, and of designs beyond the Indus. The most favoured type of Indian official was no longer the Provincial Governor or the sagacious Resident, but that Warden of the Marches of Beluchistan, Sir Robert Sandeman, whose unique aim was to extend the zone of British influence beyond the frontier, and whose method was to participate in tribal dissensions,

and to benefit by them. 'Sandemania,' which had proved so contagious, then first became epidemic in high quarters."

In pursuance of this restless and ambitious policy, Lord Lansdowne took some action in regard to the State of Kashmir which created alarm in India, and brought on a discussion in the House of Commons. The post of Gilgit is over a hundred miles to the north of Kashmir; and it was Lord Lytton's policy, as we have seen before, to have a hold over this distant place through the Kashmir State. Lord Lansdowne improved on this policy; for a time he set aside the ruler of Kashmir; and he virtually controlled the affairs of that State through the British Resident.

A Resident had been first appointed in Kashmir by Lord Dufferin in 1885, on the accession of the new ruler, Maharaja Pratap Singh. Mr. Plowden became Resident in the following year, and began to assume an authority over affairs which alarmed even the Foreign Office of India. "I do not agree with Mr. Plowden," wrote the Foreign Secretary to Lord Dufferin. "He is too much inclined to set Kashmir aside in all ways." "If we annex Gilgit, or put an end to the suzerainty of Kashmir over the petty principality of the neighbourhood, and above all if we put British troops into Kashmir just now, we shall run a risk of turning the Darbar against us, and thereby increase the difficulty of the position." "If we have a quiet and judicious officer at Gilgit, who will get the Kashmir force into thorough order and abstain from unnecessary exercise of his influence, we shall, I hope, in a short time, have the whole thing in our hands without hurting any one's feelings." Lord Dufferin was a cautious statesman. Plowden was transferred from Kashmir in And in the same year Lord Dufferin himself left

1888. India,

1 Sir Auckland Colvin.

2 Letter dated May 1888. Quoted in Mr. William Digby's Condemned Unheard (London, 1890).

His successor, Lord Lansdowne, acted with less tact and wisdom. Early in 1889, the new Viceroy of India deprived the ruler of Kashmir of all powers, and placed the administration in the hands of a Council to act under the advice of the British Resident. The reasons which led to this measure, as stated by Lord Lansdowne himself, were these:

(1) Unfavourable reports about the administration. (2) Disorder in the finances.

(3) Neglect to carry out reforms.

(4) Treasonable letters alleged to have been written by the Maharaja.

(5) Offer of the Maharaja to abdicate.

The first three charges were of a general nature, and had no special application to the short time that Pratap Singh had been on the throne. His State was annually visited by hundreds of Englishmen, and they spoke of no oppression and no misery among the people. There was worse distress in the British Provinces of Madras and Orissa, in the very year when the letter was written.

The fourth charge was never proved and never relied on. Lord Lansdowne himself wrote to the Secretary of State: "We are not disposed to attach any excessive importance to these letters." And the Under-Secretary for India said in the House of Commons in April 1889: "The Government of India attach very little importance to the intercepted letters." The letters were never proved, and were probably forged by the Maharaja's enemies.

The fifth charge was based on a letter, written by the Maharaja to his brother under some pressure, and was not an abdication.

The action of Lord Lansdowne was therefore unaccountable. There was an alarm in India, and the impression gained ground that the Viceroy desired to virtually annex Kashmir in pursuance of his Gilgit policy. Mr.

1 Letter to the Maharaja, dated June 28, 1889. Quoted in Mr. William Digby's Condemned Unheard (London, 1890).

Bradlaugh, M.P., who at the time took a keen interest in Indian affairs, gave expression to this alarm. He moved adjournment of the House on July 3, 1890, and brought on a debate on the subject. The motion for adjournment was lost, but the debate stayed the hands of the Indian Government. Maharaja Pratap Singh has since been restored to power, and has ruled Kashmir in peace. No charge of misgovernment or of treason has been brought against him.

Great events had in the meantime followed in rapid succession in England. Mr. Gladstone had endeavoured to pass his Irish Home Rule Bill in his third administration, February to July 1886, and had failed. Ninetythree Liberals had receded from Mr. Gladstone, and had joined the Conservatives in support of the Union with Ireland. In the general election which followed, the Conservatives and Liberal Unionists formed the majority, and Lord Salisbury became Prime Minister for the second time.

The Unionist Government lasted for six years, from 1886 to 1892. But Mr. Gladstone, now over eighty years of age, was still determined to carry through his Irish Home Rule scheme, and vehemently attacked the Government. A general election took place in 1892. The Home Rule was the leading question, and the contest was stubborn. Mr. Gladstone triumphed, and became Prime Minister for the fourth time, with a majority of forty on his side. Lord Kimberley, who had been his] Secretary of State for India in 1886, was again appointed to the post, succeeding Lord Cross the Conservative Indian Secretary. But in 1894 Lord Kimberley became Foreign Secretary, and was succeeded by Mr. Fowler, now Sir Henry Fowler, in the India Office.

Great hopes were entertained in India from the return of the Liberal Government, and from Mr Fowler's accession to the India Office. His undoubted abilities and his clear grasp of facts would surely enable him to comprehend Indian questions in their true light.

Mr. Fowler had been a staunch supporter of Irish Home Rule, and would support and extend Self-Government in India. He had been President of the Local Government Board, and would make the District Boards of India real centres of popular administration. He was a man of the people, and would sympathise with the just ambitions of the people of India. These hopes were widely entertained in India, but they were doomed to disappointment. Under the influence of the times, and under the Imperialist administration of Mr. Gladstone's successor, Lord Rosebery, Mr. Fowler fast drifted into Imperialism. His administration proved more autocratic than that of his titled predecessors. He adopted with vehemence the official idea of an absolute Government in India uninfluenced by popular opinion. He resented, on occasions, with equal vehemence, the just demands and aspirations of the people. He passed no large remedial measures, made no popular concessions. He was a joy to the ruling classes; he disappointed the people of India.

Mr. Fowler continued large extensions of Indian railways on borrowed capital, beyond the resources and the immediate needs of the country. He sanctioned the mischievous activity and the wasteful expenditure of the Indian Government beyond the frontiers of India. A mission was sent to the Amir of Kabul. A delimitation of the frontier was effected. Chitral, Swat, and Wazaristan were included within the British sphere of influence. Seeds were sown for the frontier war which broke out three years after.

Bill had been passed 1893, but had been

Mr. Gladstone's Home Rule by the House of Commons in rejected by the House of Lords. Early in 1894 the aged Minister had retired from Parliament; and in 1898 he passed away, mourned by the entire nation. His greatest political opponents, those who had bitterly resented his foreign policy and his Home Rule scheme, joined with his most ardent followers in doing honour