of the Report, may do much to help this new movement to develop on lines which are in accordance with the public interest, and to avoid some of the disastrous features which characterised the earlier stages of the Trust development in America.

We may deal more briefly with the third main chapter of the Report on Agriculture. The injury done to agriculture by the relative increase in the prices of manufactured goods, aggravated in many countries by credit difficulties and increased fiscal charges, is emphasised. A number of recommendations then follow as to credit institutions, co-operative sale and purchase, the campaign against diseases of plants and animals, and the collection of more complete agricultural information. On these subjects the effect of the resolutions is rather to encourage the work already in progress through the Institute of Agriculture and other institutions than to initiate new developments.

The Report concludes with five resolutions of a more general character. Of these we may note two as of special interest. The participation of members of all the countries present (who, of course, included Russia) is regarded as a happy augury for a pacific commercial co-operation of all nations 'irrespective of differences in their economic systems.' And finally we may quote a resolution of permanent interest, the importance of which is strongly emphasised in the President's survey. The Conference, ' recognising that the maintenance of world peace depends largely upon the principles on which the economic policies of nations are framed and executed, recommends that the Governments and peoples of the countries here represented should together give continuous attention to this aspect of the economic problem, and looks forward to the establishment of recognised principles designed to eliminate those economic difficulties which cause friction and misunderstanding.' The principles are not stated. Their definition and acceptance are obviously the work of many years. But the future peace of the world probably depends upon the extent to which it proves possible to build on this foundation: to devise and apply a set of restraining principles which will restrict the uncontrolled action of individual States in applying economic policies which react disastrously upon the interests of other countries.

V

Here, then, is the most authoritative advice that is available to the world as to the direction in which the general interest requires that economic policy should be changed. We come to the most critical and crucial question of all. How is practical effect to be secured to the recommendations and what are the prospects of success? The Conference was authoritative, but

not official; its advice has great influence, but no binding force. At every important stage the action of individual sovereign States is needed. It is clear, therefore, that the future results depend upon those who within each country, whether acting individually or through organisations, can move their Governments to adopt and apply the advice of the Conference. Some Governments have already declared their intention to do so, but many more must follow, and give effect to their declarations, before we can be sure that the Conference will mark, as its members declared unanimously that they desired, the beginning of a new era.' International organisations-the International Chamber of Commerce and the League itself—can do something to mobilise the forces and gather the harvest. But the main burden must fall upon those who in each country desire reform of the kind the Conference advises, and are willing to work to secure it. What the Conference gives them is a basis of international authority and the consciousness of world-wide support and sympathy.

The obstacles ahead are obvious and formidable. Every trade barrier has a vested interest to defend it; and every vested interest means political influence. At the same time the considerations which encourage hope are also powerful. The composition of the Conference which has given this unanimous advice is of the utmost importance and significance. It included every shade of responsible opinion from every quarter of the globe. The members were appointed by Governments, and their collective advice can scarcely be disregarded. It is true that the advice implies a radical change in existing policies, but so did that of the Brussels Financial Conference and the Dawes Committee. In both these instances the members were appointed on the same principle, and in both their essential task was to recommend, not what was at the moment in accordance with the wishes of the appointing Governments, but what the Governments could be induced to accept under the pressure of a collective report by experts appointed by themselves. In both cases success followed, though in the first case it was several years before the result was certain. Moreover, the Economic Conference revealed, in much greater strength than had been expected, the existence of a widespread feeling in many countries that the process of increasing the impediments to international trade had gone too far and must be stopped. The revelation, expression, and consolidation of such an existing force is likely to be more effective than any initiation of a new movement, not rooted in an already existing demand, could possibly be.

Another consideration tends to the same conclusion. The Conference showed clearly and strikingly that the worst abuses

which they condemned had resulted from causes which have now largely disappeared or are diminishing.

And, lastly, we may remark that no opinion as to the chances of success can be so authoritative as that of the members of the Conference itself. No body of people could better understand the difficulties. But it is impossible, as we read the actual phrasing of the resolutions in which they record their advice and their wishes, not to feel that 'the unanimous desire' that the Conference will mark the beginning of a new era' is not only a desire but a confident hope.

ARTHUR SALTER

(Director of the Economic and Financial Section of the League of Nations).

THE REFORMS AND THE INDIAN ARMY

THE introduction of the Reforms into India has stirred up all kinds of unexpected problems of which no one took any account at the time of the inception of the proposals. There are many who, while not at all out of sympathy with the general principles involved, regret that proposals of such magnitude should have been rushed through while the war was still on and during the first year after, at a time when men's minds were full of hundreds of other questions. The Montagu-Chelmsford Report itself shows that its authors felt the necessity of guarding against future dangers inherent in their scheme, and possibly thought they had done so effectively. Thus Lord Curzon, in introducing the Reform Bill into the House of Lords, laid down four principles -that there should be no lowering of the standards of the Indian Civil Service, that the authority of the Central Government must not be impaired, that nothing should be done to weaken the British Raj to the multitudes, and that nothing should be done to encourage the belief that India can cut adrift by herself. Since then other politicians have shown that they never intended that any harm should result either to India or to the British Empire. Mr. Lloyd George has spoken of the 'steel frame' of the Indian Civil Service, and Lord Winterton of the very necessary third party,' the British soldier, while Lord Birkenhead has explained how essential and how much desired by all is the British connexion with India. Such expressions sound extremely well in British ears, but it is impossible to ignore the fact that certain other words which have been stressed in connexion with the Reforms carry quite different meanings to Indian minds and in plain reality.

་

The word 'Swaraj,' which has been used by some wellmeaning personages, does not actually connote Indian selfgovernment, but Hindu self-government, and those who made most play with the word in the land of its birth had no desire whatever for a democracy. They wished for the establishment of Hindu rule, firmly based, as of old, on the caste system, with Khatri kings, guided by Brahman priestly advisers, ruling over the other functional groups, all of whom would be kept properly

in their places on non-democratic lines. Even the comparatively young and militant sect of the Arya Samaj, which tends towards some reduction in the number of castes and to the uplifting of the untouchables, has in its religious book, the Satyarth Parkash, the definite claim that India should be ruled by a Hindu king who, with his Ministers, must be versed in the Vedas.

If, however, Swaraj does not suggest democratic self-government, the words 'responsible government' can carry no other meaning. The announcement of August 1917 stated the policy of gradual development of self-governing institutions with a view to the progressive realisation of responsible self-government in India. Responsible government clearly denotes government on the approved Western lines of counting heads the rule of a democracy. We have in Great Britain, after centuries of struggle and thought, worked out, though only comparatively recently, that the right method of carrying on the administration is one by which every adult person in the country can have his say by means of the vote. Naturally it seemed to the originators of the Reform scheme that what must be good for us must be good for other people. Moreover, those Indians who asked for an advance are educated in English on the lines of Western thought. Indeed, the various races in India are so numerous, and the area of the country is so vast, that it is only the alien language (English) and the Western method of education which enable the limited number of the intelligentsia in each place to communicate with each other. It therefore seemed reasonable that, if there was to be a change in the Constitution of India, it should be on the lines of Western democracy. Nevertheless, a little more forethought at the time might perhaps have resulted in modifications more adjusted to the country into which the scheme was being introduced.

The late Mr. Montagu prided himself on his 'profession of politician,' and certainly as a politician he was most adroit. The situation was so skilfully manœuvred that all political parties were put in the position of having approved of the Reforms in the form in which they were issued. Although this fact must be faced, it should not prevent a study of the events which have happened since the Reforms were introduced and of the logical consequences which are likely to follow in the future, and it should not discourage consideration of the right method of bringing in improvements. Apart from a great show of anti-British hate which signalled India's welcome of the generous boon, the first and most natural result of the new proposals to start an Indian democracy was the violent outbreak of hostility all over the country between Mahomedans and Hindus. From the Malabar country, where the casualty list ran into thousands, to Calcutta