Page:A Nation in Making.djvu/347

ment of the Bengal Municipal Act and the Bengal Local Self-government Act. It is unnecessary for me to say that if the Reforms are to succeed our local institutions must be strengthened at the base.'

I was able during my term of office to amend the Calcutta Municipal Act, to introduce a Bill to amend the Bengal Municipal Act and a short Bill to amend the Local Self-government Act in regard to one or two important matters. Before proceeding further may perhaps refer to the amendment of the Bengal Municipal Act as involving a notable departure from the present law. Under the law now in force one-third of the commissioners of every munici- pality except that of Calcutta are appointed by the Government; and under executive orders, one-third of the members of every District Board are appointed by the Commissioner of the Division, subject to the administrative control of the Local Government. In practice the control of the Local Government was, before my time, more or less nominal. I felt, however, that it must be real, as the Minister representing the Local Government Department was res- ponsible to the Legislative Council, and the responsibility could only be properly exercised by his personal control of these appoint- ments. In the exercise of this responsibility, which was altogether new and created by the Reforms, I had sometimes to override the decision of the local officers. Usually they took it in good part, but on occasions there were differences and the semblance of fric- tion; my authority, however, upon which my responsibility rested, was always upheld by His Excellency the Governor. In one case I had to use strong language and to say that local officers must realize the new order of things and adapt themselves to it. The general disposition was in favour of such adaptation. And here it is only right that I should say that the attitude of both Lord Ronaldshay and Lord Lytton in relation to their Ministers was that of a constitutional sovereign, upholding, encouraging and assisting them in their work. I do not remember a single instance in which there was any serious difference of opinion leading to a dissent. I felt that I was supreme in my department, having behind me the authority and support of the Governor, and subject only to the restraint, at times somewhat irritating, of the Finance Department. On one occasion I had to urge that it was not at all the business of the Finance Department to enquire whether a particular depart- ment under me was overstaffed. That was a matter for us to decide and they must accept our decision. They had only the financial