What is one to say of a statement which not
only could be but was generally interpreted as signifying a break-down of political unity in regard to India ? It is always difficult to disentangle motives when a mess has been made, but we may not be far wrong in supposing that there was a wish to " bounce " Mr. Baldwin into the " firmer " policy. If this was so the irresponsibility was lamentable. The-Unionists, not without reason, pride themselves upon their knowledge of Imperial policy, in which they have had a long training. They would not be indulgent to lapses by Labour Ministers who have had no such training. Yet the Committee placed their convic- tions above the hopeful truce in India. They passed a resolution which gave a new twist and a different emphasis to all that Mr. Baldwin had said. This semi-private Committee insubordinately took the shaping of Indian policy into their own hands. We write before the debate on India which will begin just after we have gone to press, but we shall be astonished if Mr. Baldwin does not honourably stand by his pledges.' * * * *
