himself to social and political reforms in his own country. In 1854 he was Professor of Mathematics and Natural Philosophy at Elphinstone College, Bombay; in 1855 he visited England, and was appointed Professor of the Gujrati language at University College, London. He gave his evidence before the Finance Committee of 1873, as we have stated before. In the following year he was appointed Prime Minister of Baroda State, when the State was suffering from misgovernment, and urgently required reforms. Returning to England after a few years, he once more devoted himself to an untiring advocacy of the cause of his country. And in 1892, at the ripe age of 66, he was elected Member for Central Finsbury, and entered the House of Commons.

With a zeal and capacity for work undimmed by age, with a sincerity of patriotism which called forth the admiration even of his opponents who disagreed with his opinions and resented his vehemence, Mr. Naoroji continued his labours in the House of Commons for three years. If anything could add to the fame and influence of such a patriot, it was the absolute sincerity of his convictions, the unsullied purity of his motives, the childlike simplicity of his character, the beauty and charm of his private life. Like the great Gladstone, Mr. Dadabhai Naoroji riveted his hold on the hearts of his countrymen as much by his life-long political work as by his high and spotless private character. And men of all classes and persuasions in India were as proud of their Grand Old Man.

For three years Mr. Naoroji pressed for financial justice to India in the House of Commons, and his endeavours bore fruit. A Royal Commission was appointed in May 1895, to inquire into the administration and management of the Military and Civil Expenditure incurred under the authority of the Secretary of State for India in Council, or of the Governor of India, and the apportionment of charge between the Governments of the

United Kingdom and of India for purposes in which both are interested." Lord Welby was the President of the Commission, and Leonard Courtney, George Nathaniel Curzon, Sir William Wedderburn, Sir Donald Stewart, Thomas R. Buchanan, William S. Caine and Dadabhai Naoroji, were among the Commissioners. Mr. Curzon resigned his seat on the Commission in the following year on being appointed Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

The Commission began their work well, and recorded a mass of valuable evidence given by such witnesses as Sir Charles Bernard, Sir David Barbour, Sir Auckland Colvin, Lord Cromer, Lord Wolseley, Lord Northbrook, Lord Roberts, Lord Lansdowne, Lord Ripon, and a number of other distinguished witnesses. All this evidence was recorded within two years, from November 1895 to July 1897. And the Commission then went to sleep for

three years!

When the final report was at last submitted in 1900, there was a feeling of disappointment in England and in India. Sir Henry Fowler himself gave expression to this sense of disappointment in the House of Commons. The Commission had elicited much valuable evidence; but the majority of them hesitated to come to the obvious conclusion. They would not radically disturb the existing financial relations between Great Britain and India. They would not withdraw from the Indian tax-payer charges for which India alone was not justly liable. In the closing year of the century, a year in which India was suffering from the severest famine known in the history of modern times, her starving population failed to obtain that financial justice which they had expected from the British Parliament and from a British Royal Commission.

The majority of the Commissioners submitted a Report which, with reservations, covers 150 folio printed pages. A few of the recommendations made on the apportionment of charge deserve mention.

Civil Charges.-The majority of the Commissioners recommended that the United Kingdom should contribute £50,000 towards the expenses of the India Office, and should pay half the charges incurred at Aden and in Persia.

Employment of Indian Troops out of India.—They held that India had a direct and substantial interest in keeping open the Suez Canal, in questions affecting Siam, Persia, and the Arabian coast, and in questions affecting Afghanistan and Central Asia. That India had sole interest in punitive expeditions on her borders. That India might have a modified interest in questions affecting the East Coast of Africa as far as Zanzibar. That subject to these principles questions of apportionment of charge between India and Great Britain might be referred to a tribunal for mediation.

Naval Charges.-They found that India maintained a local marine, was responsible for the defence of her coasts, and contributed £100,000 for general naval defence undertaken by the Admiralty. They held that the contribution was not excessive.

Army Charges. They held that the Capitation Charge of £7, 10s. on every British soldier sent out to India should be continued. But they recommended that half the cost of the transport of troops to and from India should be paid by Great Britain. On the point urged that the Indian Army was maintained largely for the Imperial purposes of Great Britain, they stated: "When the time for revising the present arrangement arrives, the exceptional position of India as to military charges should be borne in mind. If, on the one hand, she imposes a certain strain on the Imperial resources in the supply of services which she properly pays, on the other she renders services to the Imperial Government which should not be disregarded."

The only relief to India, therefore, which the Commission recommended out of the Imperial Exchequer

was:

In aid of the charge for the India Office
Half the military charges for Aden

Increased contribution to the charge of the Persian Mission
Half the cost of the transport of troops to and from India.

£ 50,000

108,000

5,000

130,000

A minority of the Commissioners consisting of Sir William Wedderburn, Mr. Caine, and Mr. Naoroji submitted a separate report, covering forty printed pages, and pointing out more thoroughly the financial injustice done to India, and the redress which was needed.

To

The Government of Lord Salisbury acted on the report of the majority with some modifications. contribute £50,000 from the Imperial Exchequer towards the cost of the India Office would be to enable Members of Parliament to bring on a debate on India by moving a reduction of this supply. The India Office does not appreciate such debates on Indian administration, and the proposed contribution was not made on account of the India Office.

On the other hand, the really larger questions of reduction of the Indian Debt, reduction of the Home Charges and of taxation, and reduction of the military expenditure remained untouched. The duty of relieving the Indian tax-payer of the burden of a heavy and excessive taxation remained unfulfilled. The problem of bringing to the lives of the two hundred millions of British subjects in India something of that comfort and prosperity, which are the heritage of British subjects elsewhere in the world, remained unsolved.

We conclude this chapter with a few extracts from the very valuable evidence recorded by the Commission. The evidence with appendices fills nearly 1500 folio pages, in double columns and small print. Our extracts, therefore, do not pretend to be a summary of this enormous quantity of evidence, but will only convey to readers the opinions of some notable witnesses on some important points of administration.

LORD CROMER ON A COURT OF ARBITRATION.

13,642. That is what we should like to hear?

My view of the question of the Home Charges is this: I believe there is a very general wish in this country, in Parliament, and amongst Ministers of whatsoever party, to deal not only justly, but even generously, with India; but I think it would be an extremely good thing if you could arrange in some way a Court of Arbitration to deal with these matters. It is not only that the Settlement should be just, it is of the highest importance that everybody in India should think it is just, not only Natives, but the European public, who have also to be considered, and the Government of India themselves. Under the present system, although I am not alluding to any special point, or saying that the distribution has been unjust, there is no means of making the people in India think it is just. It is supposed to be arranged between the various departments and the India Office, and the general impression, rightly or wrongly, is that the English view is advocated with greater strength, and more successfully, than the Indian view. Whether that be right or wrong, the mere fact that such an opinion exists is an evil, and therefore I should be very glad if something could be done to have some Court of Arbitration to settle these matters. That is all the more desirable, because a great many of these matters must be rather the subject of equitable compromise than anything else. Take the case of Aden, to which somebody alluded in the course of these discussions; it is perfectly impossible for anybody to make any precise calculation as to what contribution India should pay for Aden. India is very much interested in Aden, and so are Ceylon, Hong Kong, and the Straits Settlements, and English commerce generally. It is a matter of judgment how much India should pay; and it would satisfy Indian opinion, and do a great deal of good in