an authority than Sir Henry Lawrence, and stood in marked contrast to that advocated by his no less distinguished brother, Lord Lawrence.  Mr. Mitra, therefore, suggests that a certain number of ruling princes or their heirs-apparent should be allowed to sit in a reformed House of Lords.  “Canada,” Lord Meath said some years ago, “is already represented in the House of Lords,” and he pertinently asked, “Why should not India also have her peers in that assembly?” The particular proposal made by Mr. Mitra in this connection may possibly be open to some objections, but the general principle which he advocates, as also the suggestion that a special flag should be devised for India, would certainly appear to be well worthy of consideration.

It is interesting to turn to the view entertained by Mr. Mitra on the recent transfer of the seat of Government from Calcutta to Delhi.  He manifestly does not regard that transfer with any degree of favour.  Moreover, he thinks that from the point of view of the stability of British rule, a great mistake has been made.  Delhi, he says, has “for centuries symbolised Moslem-Hindu collective sentiment.”  He assumes that it is the object of British statesmanship to prevent any union between Moslems and Hindus, and that the recent transfer will go far to cement that union.  “In transferring the capital to the old centre of Indian Imperialism, England has, in a flash, aroused memories to a degree that thousands of demagogues and agitators would not have done in a century.”  He holds, therefore, that the action of British statesmen in this respect may not improbably “produce the reverse of the result they intended.”  The question of whether it was or was not wise to transfer the seat of Government to Delhi is one on which differences of opinion may well exist, but Mr. Mitra is in error in supposing that either the British nation collectively or British statesmen individually have ever proceeded so far on the divide et impera principle as to endeavour in their own interests to foster and perpetuate racial and religious animosities.  On the contrary, although they have accepted as a fact that those animosities exist, and although they have at times been obliged to interfere with a view to preventing one race or religion infringing the rights and liberties of others, they have persistently done their best to allay discord and sectarian strife.  In spite of Mr. Mitra’s obvious and honourable attempts to preserve an attitude of judicial impartiality, it is conceivable that in this instance he may, as a Hindu, have allowed himself to be unconsciously influenced by fear that, in transferring the capital to a Moslem centre, the British Government has, in his own words, “placed itself more within the sway of Moslem influence than the authorities would care to admit.”