Allan Octavian Hume
over twenty printed pages, and Mr. Hume's to nearly sixty; but I will give ample extracts from the text, with a summary of the arguments on both sides.
Looking to these considerations, Sir Auckland's letter of remonstrance, and Mr. Hume's answer, vindicating his action, may be taken as the pleadings in the Congress case at the most critical period of the movement; showing what could be said for and against the bold and drastic policy of appealing to the masses of the Indian people, on the lines marked out and followed in England by Bright and Cobden. Sir Auckland considered that this new departure was premature and dangerous; on the other hand Mr. Hume held that it was the path of safety, and the only way of averting national disaster.
Upon this issue Sir Auckland's argument may be summarized as follows. The question, he said, was one of both principle and methods. As regards principle and the general objects of the Congress, he was more or less in sympathy; especially he was in favour of the expansion of the Legislative Councils. And as regards
methods, he saw little to object to in the earlier proceedings of the Congress, as manifested at Bombay and Calcutta in the sessions of 1885 and 1886. But his sympathy received a "severe check" after the Madras Congress of 1887, when the propaganda became aggressive, on the model of the Anti-Corn-Law campaign in England. He considered that in the existing political condition of India such a propaganda was premature, and likely to defeat the objects in view. He further anticipated definite mischief from this aggressive or denunciatory method, because it tended to excite hatred of the Government and the officials, and because agitation would produce counter-agitation, dividing the country into strongly hostile camps. He objected to the tone
68
