The second resolution (p. 82 of Report of 1887) reaffirms the resolutions of the two previous Congresses, which demand the expansion and reforms of the various Indian Councils.  Here the first speaker (p. 83) was a Mr. Bannerjee, a newspaper editor, who in his introductory remarks in support of the resolution assured the delegates that “the dream of ages is about to be realized.”  We are not the legislators of the country, he further on remarks, “though we hope to be so some day when the Councils are reconstituted,” and eloquent was the language of the speaker when he subsequently dwelt on the fact that the power of making the laws would at once give them every reform they could desire.  Mr. Bannerjee was succeeded by other native speakers, who dwelt warmly upon the advantages of representative institutions, and these were followed by Mr. Norton, Coroner of Madras, who most highly extolled the resolution.  “That,” he said, “is the key of all your future triumph” (p. 90), and further on in his speech he urges them to persevere up to the day “when you shall place your hand upon the purse strings of the country and the government,” for, he continued, “once you control the finances, you will taste the true meaning of power and freedom.”

And here, after all the talk about the value of representative institutions, and just as the Congress seemed to be on the verge of recommending parliamentary institutions such as we have, the members suddenly wheeled about and practically declared that India was unfit for them by deciding (p. 91) that, as the rural districts might not elect suitable members, the so-called representatives of the people were to be nominated by an electoral college, which was to be composed of members sent up from the various district and municipal boards, chambers of commerce, and universities.  The power of election was thus to be conferred, to use Mr. Norton’s words, on “a body of men who would practically represent the flower of the educated inhabitants.”  These views were much applauded by the delegates, who thus ratified the system of nominating the so-called representatives, and which system, I may add, is carefully laid down in Clause 2 of Resolution IV. of 1886 (p. 217).  Having thus most practically declared that India is quite unfit for representative institutions in the ordinary sense of the word, Mr. Norton proceeded to point out that, as the desired power for reconstituting the government is not likely to be obtained in India, they must work on the people of England, who at present believe, he says (p. 92), that the Indian Government is “being beneficiently carried on.”  “You must disturb that belief,” he continued.  In other words, he might have said, you must do what the Parnellites did, or attempted to do, in England.  And accordingly the Congress wirepullers have set up an agency in London, and have posted placards purporting to be an appeal from 200 millions of India to the people of England.

But after all, the desired majority in the Indian Councils, which the delegates rightly declared to be the key of the whole position, would be insufficiently supported without an army and an armed population at the back of it, and all in sympathy with the native soldiers in the English service.  These wants, however, are carefully attended to in Resolutions 5 and 8, which we will now briefly glance at.