Welsh Journals

key factors in a 'shifting, murky, and infinitely complicated situation'- is effective, though it involves considerable cross-checking and assumes that the reader is familiar with the chronology of events. But he is to be congratulated on his balanced and humane treatment of a complex, bitter, and, in many respects, horrifying episode of contemporary Irish politics. His analysis is necessarily incomplete, ending with the establishment of the (now defunct) Northern Ireland Assembly in June 1973. Were he now putting the finishing touches to his book he might, unfortunately, end on a less hopeful note. But this reviewer does not dispute his judgement that 'Protestant Ulster is not just an outlying part of British society, nor is Catholic Ulster indistinguishable from the rest of Catholic Ireland', nor his conclusion that in some form of power-sharing between Protestant and Catholic, and in co-operation between Northern Ireland and the Republic, 'the best hope of a settlement would seem to lie'. D. G. BOYCE Swansea BRITAIN AND INDIA: THE INTERACTION OF Two PEOPLES. By M. E. Chamberlain. David and Charles, Newton Abbot, 1974. Pp. 272. £ 5.25. This is another volume in the series-Library of Politics and Society- edited by Michael Hurst. It is an attempt to assess from the work of other historians (including the most recent research) the effect of the British connection on Indians and of the Indian connection upon Britons. Did the British ever intend to do the impossible and 'conquer' India? If very few did, how did it happen? What influence had the authori- tarianism of the Utilitarians or the tolerance of the 'Conservatives' upon British politics? What was the reaction of Indians? Is it possible to speak of a 'national' reaction ? Was the mutiny anything more than a limited sepoy revolt? What effect had the Mutiny on the relations of British governments and Indian leaders subsequently? Did the British connection distort the Indian economy or India distort British foreign policy? These are the questions Dr. Chamberlain seeks to answer, with remarkable sympathy and understanding, with impressive range and knowledge, and above all with the most judicious balance of judgement. Hers is too good an historical sensitivity to be swept along by polemical prejudice. How could the majority of Indians be educated whether in western or eastern ways when contemporary governments did not consider universal edu- cation in Britain to be a governmental responsibility? (p. 73) So, too, in her assessment of the weakness of Dutt's economic arguments, the points she makes are sensible and careful. Furthermore, she could have shown how it was British free trade, not monopoly, which affected the Indian textile industry. Moreover the modest industrialization in India was predominantly on Indian capital and by Indian management; goods from Lancashire did not sell well for only the dearer lines were imported. India represented a very small fraction both of British overseas trade (far greater with non-colonies than with dependencies), and of British investment, three-quarters of which was at home anyway. It would be