establishment of a full representative system in India.  In the cities of mediaeval Italy, when the conflict of parties became so acute that neither side could expect justice from the other, the practice grew up of electing a podesta from some foreign city to act as an impartial arbiter.  The British power in India has played the part of a podesta in restraining and mediating between the conflicting peoples and religions of India.

But again (and this is even more fundamental), for thousands of years the history of India has been one long story of conquests and tyrannies by successive ruling races.  Always Might has been Right, so that the lover of righteousness could only pursue it, like the mediaeval ascetic, by cutting himself off from the world, abjuring all social ties, and immolating the flesh in order to live by the spirit.  Always Law had been, in the last resort, the Will of the Stronger, not the decree of impartial justice.  Always the master-races, the predatory bands, the ruling castes, had expected to receive, and the mass of the people had been accustomed to give, the most abject submission; and these habits were difficult to overcome.  ‘In England,’ says Sir Thomas Munro, ’the people resist oppression, and it is their spirit which gives efficacy to the law:  in India the people rarely resist oppression, and the law intended to secure them from it can therefore derive no aid from themselves. ...  It is in vain to caution them against paying by telling them that the law is on their side, and will support them in refusing to comply with unauthorised demands.  All exhortations on this head are thrown away, and after listening to them they will the very next day submit to extortion as quietly as before.’  How could representative institutions be expected to work under such conditions?  They would have lacked the very foundation upon which alone they can firmly rest:  respect for law, and public co-operation in the enforcement of it.  Thus the supreme service which the government of India could render to its people was the establishment and maintenance of the Reign of Law, and of the liberty which it shelters.  In such conditions representative government would be liable to bring, not liberty, but anarchy and the renewal of lawless oppression.

But although the extension of the representative system to India neither was nor could be attempted in this age, very remarkable advances were made towards turning India in a real sense into a self-governing country.  It ceased to be regarded or treated as a subject dominion existing solely for the advantage of its conquerors.  That had always been its fate in all the long centuries of its history; and in the first period of British rule the trading company which had acquired this amazing empire had naturally regarded it as primarily a source of profit.  In 1833 the company was forbidden to engage in trade, and the profit-making motive disappeared.  The shareholders still continued to receive a fixed