Then on the 2nd of December, he says: "Let it be clearly understood that the Congress-League scheme represents the irreducible minimum which admits of no curtailment here or excision there and then which no more moderate demand can be conceived under the circumstances." It seems to me, gentlemen, that a scheme more moderate than the Congress League scheme can be conceived and Mr. Surendranath Banerjea of to-day has conceived that (laughter). Then on December 12th, he says: "Too long have we been given the shadows of things--empty forms--which may please the infantile mind, but which the adolescent nation spurns away as a child's plaything.... Not only should justice be done, but that the people should be convinced of it, ... not only should the Government be satisfied, but that the people should be convinced that a substantial measure of responsible government has been granted." THE GREAT TRANSFORMATION. Gentlemen, you will find similar expressions of his opinion in January and one or two in February. In March, Mr. Surendranath Banerjea went to Delhi and from that moment--well I am reminded of the "Rake's progress"--I shudder to think of the last step--I think, we the people of Bengal--we are entitled to ask for an explanation of this phenomenon. We are entitled to ask Sir Surendranath--I beg your pardon, gentlemen, I beg his pardon too--coming events cast their shadow before and I was caught in that shadow just for a moment--I think, gentlemen, we are entitled to ask Mr. Surendranath why is it that yesterday he was determined not to have any measure of self-government which was not satisfactory, which was not responsible, which was not wide in its scope and why is it that to-day in the month of June, 1918, he is of opinion that whatever scheme the Secretary of State puts forward should be accepted by the people--if it is satisfactory it should be accepted, if it is not satisfactory, even then it should be accepted because if we did not accept it, the British people might not grant anything at all. We want an explanation of this. He is the leader of Bengal--he claims that. I am free to acknowledge that claim, but we the people of Bengal who have loved him, followed him and honoured him, we who had "learnt his great language" and "caught his clear accents," we who had followed him with all the devotion of our hearts, we who had lived "in his mild and magnificent eye" for the last 30 years, are we not entitled to ask him to explain to us the inner significance the deeper meaning of this change? (Hear hear,) It cannot be for "a handful silver," we are told, it is not for "a riband to stick in his coat." What is it then? WAS IT TOUCH OF HAND OR TURN OF HEAD?