But taking our stand on Free Trade alone, it cannot be made out that in the duties, as they have hitherto been levied, there can be any protection afforded to India. Properly speaking it is only 30 s. and 40 s. of the Indian goods that can enter into direct competition with Manchester."

"If the articles manufactured in India out of the yarns of 20 s. and lower were excised, no advantage is gained by any foreign dealer. . . . But at the same time millions will have to buy their coarse cloth at an unnecessarily higher price, which is sure to tell heavily on their impoverishment. Those who are best able to pay a tax, and that too in proportion to their higher comfort, will have their tax reduced, and the deficit will be filled up by the poorest."

Mr. Anand Charlu, representing Madras, also pointed out that there was no competition in the coarser goods, and to excise the coarser goods in India would be going beyond the pledges given to Lancashire. He added:

"I beseech the responsible Ministers who have the power, if they possess the will, to see that our interests are not ruthlessly jeopardised. To them I shall say, also, that they are drifting-let me say unwittingly-beyond even the pledges given by the Secretary of State for India; for that officer has promised relief only against injustice and only against protection."

Mr. Stevens, afterwards Sir Charles Steevens, representing Bengal, said :

I fear it must be owned that the measure has not received the support of the public as a whole. For this there are two main reasons. First, the suspicion existing in some quarters that it has been called for by the exigencies of party politics in England rather than by the wants of India; secondly, that the trade will be disturbed to the disadvantage of important industries and of poor consumers in this country."

All these protests were in vain. Indian Legislative

Councils have no independence. Sir James Westland, the Finance Minister of Lord Elgin, was in charge of the Bills, and had little difficulty in having them passed.

Section 6 of the Cotton Duties Act of 1896 runs

"There shall be levied and collected at every mill in British India, upon all cotton goods produced in such mill, a duty at the rate of 3 per centum on the value of such goods."

The reader will observe that this legislation altogether stands apart from any previous fiscal legislation which had ever taken place in India. In 1879 cotton duties were surrendered. In 1882 all import duties except on salt and liquors were repealed. In 1894 import duties were re-imposed, and an excise duty was imposed on such Indian goods as competed with Lancashire goods. But the surrender of 1896 went farther and deeper. It imposed an excise duty on all cotton goods produced in India. It taxed the coarse Indian fabrics with which Manchester had never competed and never could compete. It threw a burden on Indian mills which competed with no mills in Europe. It raised the price of the poor man's clothing in India without the pretext of relieving the poor man of Lancashire.

As an instance of fiscal injustice, the Indian Act of 1896 is unexampled in any civilised country in modern times. Most civilised Governments protect their home industries by prohibitive duties on foreign goods. The most thorough of Free Trade Governments do not excise home manufactures when imposing a moderate customs duty on imported goods for the purposes of revenue. In India, where an infant industry required protection, even according to the maxims of John Stuart Mill, no protection has ever been given. Moderate customs, levied for the purposes of revenue only, were sacrificed in 1879 and 1882. Home-manufactured cotton goods,

which were supposed to compete with imported goods, were excised in 1894. And home goods, which did not compete with foreign goods, were excised in 1896. Such is the manner in which the interests of an unrepresented nation are sacrificed.

The result of this iniquitous legislation, combined with the recent famines and currency legislation, has been disastrous. The following figures will show how the industry has been checked in the closing years of the century.

New mills are struggling into existence in spite of every check, but the output in yarns and piece goods shows a lamentable decline.

In the fiscal controversy which is going on in England at the present time (1903), Protectionists, Retaliationists, and Free Traders, all appeal the good of the people of Great Britain as the final test. Protectionists urge that Protection secures the interests of the people. Retaliationists argue that it is necessary to point the revolver at the foreigner to secure justice to the people. Free Traders insist that absolute Free Trade is the only possible policy to save the overgrown population of Great Britain from dear-loaf, penury, and starvation. All parties agree in regarding the good of the people as the final aim and end of fiscal legislation; they only differ as to the method by which it can be best secured. Will Englishmen honestly apply this test to India? Will they dare to be just to the Indian manufacturer, and legislate in the interests of the Indian industries and the Indian nation?

CHAPTER X

RAILWAYS AND IRRIGATION

"RAILWAYS are now almost completed," wrote an official chronicler in 1873, "so that with the cessation of heavy outlay on construction, the financial position may be expected to improve.'

" 1

"Sir Arthur Cotton proposes the summary and indefinite suspension of nearly all railway schemes and works," wrote the Select Committee headed by Lord George Hamilton in 1878. "He would, however, devote ten millions annually for the next ten or twenty years to irrigation works."

"Among the means," wrote the Famine Commission of 1880, "that may be adopted for giving India direct protection from famine arising from drought, the first place must unquestionably be assigned to works of irrigation." 8

These anticipations and recommendations have been disregarded. There was no " cessation of heavy outlay on the construction of railways. There was no "suspension" of new railway schemes and works. "The first place" among famine-prevention works was not assigned to irrigation.

The reasons are, that the Indian administration is very considerably influenced by the trend of public opinion in England, and not by the opinion of the people of India. Englishmen understand railways, and do not understand the importance of irrigation for India.

1 Moral and Material Progress and Condition of India, 1872-73.

2 Select Committee's Report.

Famine Commission's Report, 1880, Part II., p. 150.

English manufacturers look to the opening of distant markets in India by means of railway extension. English merchants demand fresh facilities for trade with India by new lines of communication. British houses of trade influence Indian administration, both through Parliament and by direct correspondence with the India Office. Members of Parliament urge the construction of new railway lines by frequent questions in the House of Commons. None cares for irrigation because none in England understands its supreme importance for India. The pious intention recorded in the official report of 1873, to discontinue heavy outlays on new railway lines, was soon forgotten. Sir Arthur Cotton was ridiculed as an enthusiast and a visionary. The Famine Commission's Report slept in official archives. New railway lines were pushed on vigorously beyond the urgent needs of India, and certainly beyond her resources.

But there was a difficulty in constructing new lines in a country where the people were poor and railways did not pay. The policy of guaranteeing profits to private companies, from the revenues of India, had led to extravagance and to a disregard for the comfort of the passengers which were fully exposed before the Finance Committees of 1871, 1872, 1873, and 1874. It was then resolved that the State should itself undertake future constructions with borrowed capital. This policy was followed for a few years; but the famine of 1877 and the Afghan War of 1878 upset Indian finance, and stopped the further construction of State railways.

Endeavours were then made to induce private companies to undertake fresh lines. The endeavours failed; and the Indian Government again fell back to the vicious guarantee system. Again that policy was abandoned, and State railways were commenced; but the fall of the rupee made it necessary for the Government to curtail their gold liabilities, and State railways were discontinued,