only to restrict the liberty of the individual by demanding securities with or without sureties, by restricting his residence or requiring notification of change of residence and demanding abstention from certain acts, such as engaging in journalism, distributing leaflets, attending meetings, etc., but also to deprive him of it by arresting and confining him. The abuses to which similar pro visions of the Defence of India Act and the rules promulgated under powers conferred by it had been put showed the country what these proposals meant and they naturally created consternation in the country and when armistice was declared in the autumn of 1918, India was seething with discontent at what she rightly considered to be a betrayal of her after the time of “the need of the Empire” had passed away. Suspicion was naturally roused that the promised Reforms would be postponed and the ordinary rights of the citizen to enjoy freedom of movement and sanctity of home and home life taken away on the pretext of the existence of a revolutionary conspiracy in the country. When at last on the 6th of February, 1919, the Rowlatt Bills, embodying the recommendations of the Rowlatt Committee, were introduced by Sir William Vincent into the Imperial Legislative Council at Delhi, the whole country rose like one man against this most unwarranted encroachment on the ordinary rights of free citizens. It was the beginning of an agitation throughout the country the like of which had never before been witnessed. Innumerable meetings were held in all parts of the vast peninsula, and in the Council itself not a single Indian was found to support its drastic provisions even with a silent vote. But all this was of no avail and the Government with the help of official votes passed one of the Bills into an Act in the third week of March, 1919.
