September 15, 1895
TO
THE EDITOR
The Natal Mercury
SIR,
I would venture to make a few remarks in reply to Mr. T. Marston Francis’s letter on the Indian question.
I believe your correspondent’s description of the Indian municipalities, as also of the Legislative Councils, is not quite accurate.
To mention only one instance, I do not think that the chairman of an Indian municipality must be a covenanted civilian. The present president of the Bombay Corporation is an Indian solicitor.
I have never contended—nor do I contend now—that the franchise is as extensive in India as it is here. It would also be idle for me to say that the Legislative Councils in India are as representative as the Legislative Assembly here. What I do contend, however, is that, whatever the limits of the franchise in India, it is extended to all without distinction of colour. The fact that the Indian’s ability to understand representative government has been recognized cannot be gainsaid. What Mr. Francis says, viz., that the qualifications for the franchise are not the same in India as in Natal, has never been denied. Under such a test no one coming from even Europe would be entitled to the franchise, for the qualifications in the different European States are not surely the same as here.
This week’s mail brings the latest proof that the Indians have never failed in the real and only test, viz., whether or not they understand the principle of representation. I quote from the article on “Indian Affairs” in The Times:
