Governor-General of India

When the boast is made that Great Britain has given India generous but gradual reforms and that England's purpose is to teach India the difficult Anglo-Saxon art of self-government as rapidly as India can learn, the cynic will suggest that the measures of self-government granted to India have been more in the nature of concessions in response to Indian agitation than of unwelcome lessons forced on a sluggish student.

The first great reform was adopted in 1909 and is popularly known as the Morley-Minto Constitution, since it was adopted largely at the urging of Lord Morley, then Secretary of State for India, and Lord Minto, then Viceroy.

It was adopted at a time when unrest was very prevalent in India.

The National Congress had long been in existence.

Native newspapers had sprung up all over the land and were boldly criticising the government.

And there was a particular grievance.

In 1905 the brilliant but high-handed Lord Curzon, then Viceroy, had cut the huge province of Bengal into two provinces, largely for reasons of administrative efficiency, hardly realising the dangers involved in the probability that the Bengalese, who might almost be said to possess a nationality of their own, would regard this as an outrageous violation of their unity, or that the Hindus of Eastern Bengal would resent being included in a new province with a Muslim majority when they had previously enjoyed the position of a majority in the whole province.

The division of Bengal aroused nothing short of fury.

From 1858 to 1908, India was governed by a viceroy with the aid of his official staff and provincial governors and with the advice of a council of appointed, not elected, members.

chosen because of their official experience or their prominence.

Though he was to a certain extent subject to the general direction of the Secretary of State for India in London and by the British Parliament, London was several thousand miles distant, and in India the Viceroy's power was so great that he may well have been described as the most potent autocrat in the world.

Autocratic the government remained until the agitation in India became serious.

When the boast is made that Great Britain has given India generous but gradual reforms, and that England's purpose is to teach India the difficult Anglo-Saxon art of self-government as rapidly as India can learn, the cynic will suggest that the measures of self-government granted to India have been more in the nature of concessions in response to Indian agitation than of unwelcome lessons forced on a sluggish student.

The first great reform was adopted in 1909 and is popularly known as the Morley-Minto Constitution, since it was adopted largely at the urging of Lord Morley, then Secretary of State for India, and Lord Minto, then Viceroy.

It was adopted at a time when unrest was very prevalent in India.

The National Congress had long been in existence.

From 1858 to 1908 India was governed by a viceroy with the aid of his official staff and provincial governors and with the advice of a council of appointed, not elected, members.

chosen because of their official experience or their prominence.

Though he was to a certain extent subject to the general direction of the Secretary of State for India in London and by the British Parliament, London was several thousand miles distant, and in India the Viceroy's power was so great that he may well have been described as the most potent autocrat in the world.

Autocratic the government remained until the agitation in India became serious.

When the boast is made that Great Britain has given India generous but gradual reforms, and that England's purpose is to teach India the difficult Anglo-Saxon art of self-government as rapidly as India can learn, the cynic will suggest that the measures of self-government granted to India have been more in the nature of concessions in response to Indian agitation than of unwelcome lessons forced on a sluggish student.

The first great reform was adopted in 1909 and is popularly known as the Morley-Minto Constitution, since it was adopted largely at the urging of Lord Morley, then Secretary of State for India, and Lord Minto, then Viceroy.

It was adopted at a time when unrest was very prevalent in India.

The National Congress had long been in existence.

Did a king on the border of British territory interfere with British ships, he must forfeit his kingdom.

Consider, by way of specific illustration, the administration of Lord Dalhousie as governor-general of India from 1848 to 1856.

Hardly had he arrived at his post when two Englishmen were murdered in the Sikh kingdom of Punjab in western India, and the Sikhs arose in arms against the British.

What could Dalhousie do but organize a strong army of sepoys, hired native soldiers, under British officers, with a few British troops, and subjugate the kingdom and annex it, and thereby earn for himself a step higher in the peerage from Earl to Marquess? Or when the king of Burma, to the east of British India, insulted the British flag by stopping British merchant vessels, could Dalhousie do otherwise than punish such insolence and annex part of Burma? Footnote.

From 1858 to 1908 India was governed by a viceroy with the aid of his official staff and provincial governors and with the advice of a council of appointed, not elected, members.

chosen because of their official experience or their prominence.

Though he was to a certain extent subject to the general direction of the Secretary of State for India in London and by the British Parliament, London was several thousand miles distant, and in India the Viceroy's power was so great that he may well have been described as the most potent autocrat in the world.

Autocratic the government remained until the agitation in India became serious.

When the boast is made that Great Britain has given India generous but gradual reforms, and that England's purpose is to teach India the difficult Anglo-Saxon art of self-government as rapidly as India can learn, the cynic will suggest that the measures of self-government granted to India have been more in the nature of concessions in response to Indian agitation than of unwelcome lessons forced on a sluggish student.

The first great reform was adopted in 1909 and is popularly known as the Morley-Minto Constitution, since it was adopted largely at the urging of Lord Morley, then Secretary of State for India, and Lord Minto, then Viceroy.

It was adopted at a time when unrest was very prevalent in India.

The National Congress had long been in existence.

When the boast is made that Great Britain has given India generous but gradual reforms, and that England's purpose is to teach India the difficult Anglo-Saxon art of self-government as rapidly as India can learn, the cynic will suggest that the measures of self-government granted to India have been more in the nature of concessions in response to Indian agitation than of unwelcome lessons forced on a sluggish student.

The first great reform was adopted in 1909 and is popularly known as the Morley-Minto Constitution, since it was adopted largely at the urging of Lord Morley, then Secretary of State for India, and Lord Minto, then Viceroy.

It was adopted at a time when unrest was very prevalent in India.

The National Congress had long been in existence.

Native newspapers had sprung up all over the land and were boldly criticising the government.

And there was a particular grievance.

In 1905 the brilliant but high-handed Lord Curzon, then Viceroy, had cut the huge province of Bengal into two provinces, largely for reasons of administrative efficiency, hardly realising the dangers involved in the probability that the Bengalese, who might almost be said to possess a nationality of their own, would regard this as an outrageous violation of their unity.

Shop the Sherwin-Williams Fall Sale and get 35% off paints and stains September 15th through the 21st, with prices starting at $29.86.

Did a king on the border of British territory interfere with British ships, he must forfeit his kingdom.

Consider, by way of specific illustration, the administration of Lord Dalhousie as governor-general of India from eighteen forty-eight to eighteen fifty-six.

Hardly had he arrived at his post when two Englishmen were murdered in the Sikh kingdom of Punjab in western India, and the Sikhs arose in arms against the British.

What could Dalhousie do but organize a strong army of sepoys, hired native soldiers, under British officers with a few British troops, and subjugate the kingdom and annex it, and thereby earn for himself a step higher in the peerage from Earl to Marquess? Or when the king of Burma to the east of British India insulted the British flag by stopping British merchant vessels, could Dalhousie do otherwise than punish such insolence and annex part of Burma? Footnote.