Page:A Nation in Making.djvu/274

The two questions to which I devoted the largest measure of attention in my address in England in 1909 were the modification of the Partition of Bengal, and the introduction of Self-Government in India; and, from the manner of the reception accorded to them by British audiences, I was convinced that both were coming, that the Partition would be modified sooner or later, and that a feeling was spreading in England that India was rapidly growing ripe for some measure of self-government. After I had spoken in Manchester in reply to the toast, several members of the Imperial Press Con- ference, delegates from the Overseas Dominions, from Canada and Australia, said to me, 'Mr. Banerjea, if there are men like you in India, self-government should be conceded without delay.'

The war strengthened the gathering forces, and the national awakening which was stimulated by the anti-Partition and Swadeshi movements and the repressive measures that followed in their train made the demand for self-government in India more vocal and insistent, until it was no longer possible to ignore it. Almost on the eve of the Message of August 20, 1917, several heads of provinces tried this impossible feat; but all in vain. Canute-like, but without his humour, they essayed to roll back the rising tide. Canute-like they failed. Their efforts recoiled on themselves; and served only to add to the volume and intensity of the rising movement.

I should not be doing justice to myself or to my English visit on this occasion, if I did not refer to a small party held at Mr. Stead's house. It was a quiet, informal gathering in which there were no set speeches, no conventionalities, where every one opened his heart and spoke out his mind without fear or favour. The idea of the gathering was Mr. Stead's. He organized it and led its deliberations. Its aim was an informal discussion of the burning topics of Indian interest. All India remembers Mr. Stead's tragic death when the Titanic was lost in the Atlantic in 1912. Many were his admirers in India. His puritanic austerity, his hatred of modern abominations, his sympathy for human freedom, no matter whether the persons concerned lived on the banks of the Ganges or of the Neva, raised him above the common level of humanity and excited veneration wherever his name was pronounced. Twelve years have elapsed. The same feelings continue, though perhaps in a diminished degree, for time blunts the edge of even our sharpest sorrows.

The gathering was characteristic of the man—it was Mr. Stead all over—cosmopolitan in its breadth and comprehensiveness, and direct in its aims and utterances. There were present in that