There is, of course, nothing very new in all this.  It has been pointed out over and over again by all who have considered Indian or Egyptian problems seriously that the creation of some sort of rather spurious patriotism when all the elements out of which patriotism naturally grows are wanting, is rather like searching for the philosopher’s stone.  At the same time, when so sympathetic a critic as Mr. Mitra bids us study the “psychological traits” of Indian character, it is certainly worth while to inquire whether all that is possible has been done in the way of evoking sentiments of loyalty based on considerations which lie outside the domain of material advantage.  The most imaginative British statesman of recent years has been Lord Beaconsfield.  Himself a quasi-Oriental, he grasped the idea that it would be possible to appeal to the imagination of other Orientals.  The laughter which was to some extent provoked when, at his suggestion, Queen Victoria assumed the title of Empress of India has now died away, and it is generally recognised, even by those who are not on other grounds disposed to indulge in any exaggerated worship of the primrose, that in this respect Lord Beaconsfield performed an act dictated by true statesmanship.  He appealed to those personal and monarchical sentiments which, to a far greater extent than democratic ideas, dominate the minds of Easterns.  The somewhat lavish expenditure incurred in connection with the King’s recent visit to India may be justified on similar grounds.  Following generally the same order of ideas, Mr. Mitra has some further suggestions to make.  The question of opening some field to the very natural aspirations of the martial races and classes of India presents, indeed, very great practical difficulties which it would be impossible to discuss adequately on the present occasion.  All that can be said is that, although the well-intentioned efforts so far made to solve this thorny problem do not appear to have met with all the success they deserve, it is one which should earnestly engage the attention of the Government in the hope that some practical and unobjectionable solution may eventually be found.  Mr. Mitra, however, draws attention to other cognate points which would certainly appear to merit attention.  “The first thing,” he says, “necessary to rouse Indian sentiment is to give India a flag of her own.”  He points out that Canada, Australia, South Africa, and some of the West Indian islands have flags of their own, and he asks why, without in any way serving as a symbol of separation, India should not be similarly treated?  Then, again, he remarks—­and it would be well if some of our Parliamentarians took careful note of the observation—­that “British statesmen, in their zeal for introducing their democratic system of government into India, forget that India is pre-eminently an aristocratic land.”  This appreciation of the Indian situation formed the basis of the political system favoured by no less