tain was more surprised at the verdict of the jury thatt Mr. Tilak himself !" With his inborn faith in British Justice and in the truth and righteousness of his cause, he had hoped — a hope supported by the best legal advice available — to prove to the British Democracy how the lofty, lawabiding patriotism of the Nationalist Party had been grossly perverted to mean an illicit and unholy alUance with the terrorist and the anarchist. Standing on the crest of this victory he had hoped to- explain to the British Democracy the tenets of the advanced political party in India. All these hopes were dashed to the ground. It was not for nothing that Sir Valentine had declared through his Counsel that he
- could have avoided the whole of this litigation by an
apology and by a subscription to the Indian Wax ReUef Fund, but, in the interests of the Empire he felt that, to make an apology under the circumstances of this case or to withdraw or retract what he had deli- berately stated and published would have been a disaster of the very gravest kind as regards the Government of India/' The Morning Post, might ridicule Mr. Tilak for his " singular lack of humour " in setting out to prove " the t3Tanny of a nation by pursuing one of its own members through its own courts." Mr. Tilak *s opponents have stigmatised this as " inconceivable folly " and even some of his friends have called it a * blunder *. It is easy to be wise after the event. Mr. Tilak never required his character to be " whitewashed " so far as Indians were concerned. It was to cure the British Democracy of the " slow and persistent poison " which had been at work against his political party, that he dared mortgage all
