The Cotton Industry of India

PART THREE

CHAPTER V

THE COTTON INDUSTRY OF INDIA

I

HISTORICAL SURVEY

“The birthplace of cotton manufacture is India, where it probably flourished long before the dawn of authentic history. Its introduction into Europe took place at a comparatively late period where, for a long time, it existed like a tropical plant in northern latitudes, degenerate and sickly, until, by the appliance of modern art and science, it suddenly shot forth in more than its native luxuriance.” (Baines, History of Cotton Manufacture, 1835, page 2).

Early Mention. The arts of spinning and weaving, which rank next to agriculture, are supposed to have been invented very early in the world’s history. In the time of Joseph, 1700 B. C., it is recorded that “Pharaoh arrayed him in vestures of fine linen”—and the writer quoted above adds; “it is extremely probable that cotton was manufactured in India as early as linen in Egypt.”

Herodotus, writing about 445 B. C., stated that cotton was the customary wear of the Indians of that period. The subsequent writings of Europeans and Asiatics testify to the same fact. Strabo, whose authority is Nearchus, mentions “their flowered cottons, or chintzes, and the various and beautiful dyes with which their cloths were figured.”

The first mention of cotton as an article of trade occurs in that valuable record of ancient commerce, “The Circum Navigation of the Erythean Sea,” by Arrian, an Egyptian Greek living in the first or second century A. D. He describes particularly the imports and exports of several Indian towns, in their trade with the Arabs and Greeks. From this record, it appears that the Arab traders brought Indian cottons to Aduli, a port of the Red Sea; that the ports beyond the Red Sea had an established trade with Batala, on the Indus, Ariake and Barygaza (the modern Baroach); receiving from them among other things, cottons of various weaves; that Barygaza largely exported calicoes, muslins and other cotton goods made in the province for which this was the port, as well as in the more remote provinces of the interior. Mosalia, or Masulipatam, was famous then as now for its manufacture of cotton piece goods, and the muslins of Bengal were superior to all others, receiving from the Greeks the name of Gangi,— i.e., made on the banks of the Ganges.

In the days of the Roman Empire, silk, both raw and manufactured, was an important article of commerce throughout India and Persia. Two Persian monks brought silk-worms and the art of silk manufacture from China to Constantinople, in the reign of Justinian, 352 A. D. Indian cotton goods were imported into the Eastern Empire in the same age, as they are found in the lists of dutiable goods in the Justinian Code.

From India, the art of cotton manufacturing went to Arabia. The English word “cotton” is a modification of the Arabian “Quttan.” Marco Polo states that cotton was abundantly grown and manufactured in all the provinces on the Indus,—and was the staple manufacture of the whole of India. In the thirteenth century, the art of cotton manufacture went to China and thence to Japan. In the tenth century it travelled to Spain, being introduced by the Moors, and thence to Italy about the fourteenth century. The Mohammedans introduced it into Africa even earlier. Thus it spread east and west, “from its native seat in India across the breadth of the old continent to Japan eastward and the mouths of the Tagus and Senegal westward.” (Baines, page 47.)

Excellence of Indian Cotton Fabrics.

“The Indians have in all ages maintained an unapproached and almost incredible perfection in their fabrics of cotton—some of their muslins might be thought the work of fairies or insects, rather than of men,” said Baines in 1835, when Indian fabrics were still being made. The Arabian travellers of the ninth century say; “In this country, India, they make garments of such extraordinary perfection, that nowhere else is their like to be seen,—sewed and woven to such a degree of fineness, they may be drawn through a ring of moderate size.” Marco Polo (thirteenth century) says: “The Coast of Coromandel and especially Masulipatam, produce the finest and most beautiful cottons to be found in any part of the world.”

Many authorities show the quality of cotton cloth manufactured in India up to the end of the eighteenth century. In spite of the raw material not being brought to its highest state of cultivation, despite crude machinery and little division of labour, the products were, according to Baines, “fabrics of exquisite delicacy unrivalled by any other nation, even those best skilled in the mechanic arts.” He ascribes its excellence to the “remarkable fine sense of touch, and the patience and gentleness of the Hindus.”

Even now, fine muslins are woven in India, but since the introduction of machine-made cloths, the industry has suffered both in quantity and in quality.

Extent of the Cotton Industry in Olden Times.

“On the coast of Coromandel and the province of Bengal, it is difficult to find a village in which every man, woman and child is not employed in making a piece of cloth. At present much of the greatest part of the provinces are employed in this single manufacture (409). The progress of the linen (cotton) manufacture includes no less than a description of the lives of half the inhabitants of Hindustan.”[^1]

Upon this and other testimony, Mr. Baines remarked in 1835 that cotton manufacture in India was not carried on in a few large towns or districts; it was universal. The growth of cotton was nearly as general as the growth of food. Bengal was noted for the finest muslins; Coromandel coast for chintzes and calicoes; Surat for strong and inferior goods of all kinds; table cloths of superior quality were made at Patna. The basius or basinets came from the northern Circars. Condaver furnished the beautiful handkerchiefs of Masulipatam, the fine colours of which are obtained from a plant growing on the banks of Kishna and the coast of Bengal. Chintzes and ginghams were made chiefly at Masulipatam, Madras, St. Thome and Paliam Cotta. Long cloths and fine petticoats came from Madras. Besides these, there were endless varieties of fabric known to the markets of Europe, Asia and Africa.

Indian commerce was extensive from the Christian era to the end of the eighteenth century. For many hundred years, Persia, Arabia, Syria, Egypt, Abyssinia and all the eastern parts of Africa were supplied with cottons and muslins from the markets of India. Owing to the beauty and cheapness of Indian fabrics, the manufacturers of Europe were apprehensive of being ruined by their Indian competitors. The Dutch traders and the East India Company imported large quantities of these cotton goods in the seventeenth century. As early as 1678, a loud outcry was raised in England against the admission of Indian fabrics, which “were ruining our ancient woollen manufactures.” We quote from a pamphlet of the period:

The woollen trade “is much hindered by our own people who do wear many foreign commodities instead of our own; . . . instead of green sey that was wont to be used for children’s frocks, is now used painted and Indian stained and striped calicoes; . . . and sometime is used a Bangale brought from India, both for lynings to coats and for petticoats too. . . . It would be necessary to lay a very high impost on all such commodities as these are . . .”

A writer of 1696 laments the misfortune of Indian muslins and silks becoming the general wear in England.

In 1708 Daniel Defoe wrote in his weekly review:

“The general fansie of the people runs upon East India goods to that degree that the chintes and painted calicoes, before only made use of for carpets, quilts, etc., and to clothe children and ordinary people, become now the dress of our ladies; and such is the power of a mode as we saw persons of quality dressed in Indian carpets, which but a few years before their chamber maids would have thought too ordinary for them; the chintz was advanced from being upon their floors to their backs, and even the Queen herself at this time was pleased to appear in China silks and calicoe . . . it crept into our houses; our closets, and bed chambers; curtains, cushions, chairs and beds themselves were nothing but calicoes or Indian stuffs, and in short, almost everything that used to be made of wool or silk, relating either to the dress of our women or the furniture of our houses, was supplied by the Indian trade.”

Defoe’s complaint was not of an evil existing in 1708 when he wrote, but of one a few years earlier, for the prohibition of Indian goods had taken place in 1700, by Acts 11 and 12 of William III, Cap. 10. The introduction of Indian silks and printed calicoes for domestic use as either apparel or furniture was forbidden under penalty of £200 on the wearer or seller, and as this did not prevent the use of Indian goods, other acts were passed at later date. This “evil” of the consumption of Indian manufactures did not disappear by 1728, and other countries of Europe were making similar efforts to penalise the import and use of Indian fabrics.

Baines says: “Not more than a century ago, the cotton fabrics of India were so beautiful and cheap that nearly all the governments of Europe thought it necessary to prohibit or load them with heavy duties, to protect their own manufactures.”

What, adds he, could not be achieved by legislation in Europe, was brought about by the exercise of political power in India. This is evidenced partly by the following petition submitted by the natives of Bengal to the British Government, in September, 1831:

“To the Right Honourable, the Lords of His Majesty’s Privy Council for Trade, etc.

“The humble petition of the undersigned Manufacturers and dealers in Cotton and Silk Piece goods, the fabrics of Bengal;

“Sheweth; that of late years your petitioners have found their business nearly superseded by the introduction of the fabric of Great Britain into Bengal, the importation of which augments every year, to the great prejudice of native manufactures.

“That the fabrics of Great Britain are consumed in Bengal without any duties levied upon them to protect native fabrics.

“That the fabrics of Bengal are charged with the following duties when they are used in Great Britain:

“On manufactured cottons…. 10 per cent. On manufactured silks……. 14 per cent.

“Your petitioners most humbly implore your Lordships’ consideration of these circumstances, and they feel confident no disposition exists in England to shut the door against industry of any part of the inhabitants of this great empire.

“They therefore pray to be admitted to the privilege of British subjects, and entreat your lordships to allow the cotton and silk fabrics of Bengal to be used in Great Britain free of duty or at the same rate which may be charged on British fabrics sold here.

“Your Lordships must be aware of the immense advantage the British manufacturers derive from their skill in constructing and using machinery, enabling them to undersell the unscientific manufacturers of Bengal in their own country; and although your Petitioners are not sanguine in expecting to derive any advantage from having their prayer granted, their minds would feel gratified by such a manifestation of good will towards them; and such an instance of justice to the natives of India would not fail to endear the British Government to them.

“They therefore confidently expect that your Lordships’ righteous consideration will be extended to them as British subjects without exception of sect, country, or colour.

“And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.”

The petition was signed by 117 natives of high respectability. (P. 82.)

In a footnote, Baines remarks that “this reasonable request has not been complied with, the duty on Indian cottons being still 10 per cent. The extra duty of 3½d. per yard on printed cottons was removed when the excise duty on English prints was repealed, in 1831. English cottons imported into India pay duty of only 2½ per cent.” This document in his opinion furnished abundant proof how a manufacture which had existed without a rival for thousands of years withered away under the competition of a Power which had arisen but yesterday.

Decline of the Indian Industry. Let us enumerate the causes which made the English industry flourish while the Indian declined:

1. The invention of the power loom and other mechanical appliances ranks first. But these might have been of no avail had not the capital for their development been taken from India, as shown in a previous chapter.

2. The monopoly created by the East India Company in their own favour.

3. The imposition of a heavy tariff in England on Indian cottons. The following scale of duties on imported cotton goods is copied from Baines (P. 325).

Rate of Duty on Cotton Goods Imported

N. B. The importation of cotton goods other than from the East Indies, was inconsiderable until 1825.

Cotton Manufactures of all Sorts, Not Made Up. 1825 10 per cent. ad valorem, additional duty of 3½d. per sq. yd. if printed. 1832 Repeal of the additional duty of 3½d. per sq. yd. on printed goods.

Inspector General’s Office, Customs House, London, January 21, 1834. Signed; WM. IRVING.

In 1783 Parliament passed a law sanctioning bounties on the exportation of British printed cottons, viz.:

Under value of 5d. per yd.; (before printing) ½d. per yd. Value 5d. under 6d. " " ; 1d. per yd. Value 6d. under 8d. " " ; 1½d. " "

Besides the Drawback of the Excise Duty.

These bounties were continued for more than thirty years, when they were repealed. The duties on Indian goods were raised from time to time, till in 1813 and later, up to 1831, they stood at the figures quoted below. The following statement is taken from the evidence of Mr. Ricards given before the Select Committee of the House of Commons in 1813. (See Report Appendix, page 581.)

“The duties of many articles of East India produce are also enormously high, apparently rated on no fixed principle, and without regard to market price. . . . The rates of duty imposed on Indian imports into Britain when compared with the exemption from duty of British staples into India (cotton goods being subject to a duty of only 2½ per cent), constitute an important feature in the present question. Indians within the Company’s jurisdiction, like English, Scotch, or Irish, are equally subjects of the British Government. To make invidious distinctions, favouring one class but oppressing another, all being subjects of the same empire, cannot be reconciled with the principles of justice; and whilst British imports into India are thus so highly favoured, I know that Indo-British subjects feel it a great grievance that their commodities when imported into England should be so enormously taxed.”

The following charges on cotton manufactures in 1813 are significant:—

(Digby, p. 90.)

John Ranking, an English merchant, when examined by the Select Committee of the House of Commons in 1813, said that he looked upon these duties as “protecting” duties, to “encourage our own manufactures.”

The real object of the Parliamentary Enquiry in 1813 was to promote the interests of the manufacturers of England. This is evident from the nature of the questions that were put to the witnesses that were examined then as also in 1831. For instance Warren Hastings was asked: “From your knowledge of the Indian character and habits, are you able to speak to the probability of a demand for European commodities by the population of India, for their own use?”

Similar questions were asked Sir John Malcolm and other witnesses, among them Sir Thomas Munro, who in reply to a question whether the civilisation of the Hindus could not be improved by the establishment of an open trade said:

“I do not understand what is meant by the civilisation of the Hindus; in the higher branches of science, in the knowledge of the theory and practice of good government, and in education which, by banishing prejudice and superstition, opens the mind to receive instruction of every kind from every quarter, they are much inferior to Europeans. But if a good system of agriculture, unrivalled manufacturing skill, a capacity to produce whatever can contribute to convenience or luxury; schools established in every village for teaching reading, writing and arithmetic; the general practice of hospitality and charity amongst each other; and above all, a treatment of the female sex full of confidence, respect and delicacy, are among the signs which denote a civilised people, then the Hindus are not inferior to the nations of Europe; and if civilisation is to become an article of trade between the two countries, I am convinced that this country (England) will gain by the import cargo.”[^2]

In less than seventy-five years (from 1757 to 1829) India was reduced from the position of a manufacturing country to that of a supplier of raw materials. By 1830 the English people had begun “to look to India for the means of rendering Great Britain independent of foreign countries for a considerable portion of raw material upon which her most valuable manufactures depend. . .”[^3] By this time the Manchester school of free traders had come into prominence who in the interests of English industrial workmen were anxious to have cheap food for them imported in exchange for the products of their manufactures, which had by then been well established. Cobden and Bright could not under the circumstances be expected to give a thought to the devastation of Indian industries, but what escaped their notice was observed by a German economist (quoted by Dutt) as far back as 1866. He wrote:

“Had they sanctioned the free importation into England of Indian cotton and silk goods, the English cotton and silk manufacturers must, of necessity, soon come to a stand. India had not only the advantage of cheaper labour and raw material, but also the experience, the skill and the practice of centuries. The effect of these advantages could not fail to tell under a system of free competition.

“But England was unwilling to found settlements in Asia in order to become subservient to India in manufacturing industry. She strove for commercial supremacy, and felt that of two countries maintaining free trade between one another, that one would be supreme which sold manufactured goods, while that one would be subservient which could only sell agricultural produce. In the North American colonies, England had already acted on those principles in disallowing the manufacture in those colonies of even a single horse-shoe nail, and still more, that no horse-shoe nails made there should be imported into England.—How could it be expected of her that she would give up her own market for manufactures, the basis of her future greatness, to a people so numerous, so thrifty, so experienced, and so perfect in the old systems of manufacture as the Hindus?

“Accordingly, England prohibited the import of the goods dealt in by her own factories, the Indian cotton and silk fabrics. The prohibition was complete and peremptory. Not so much as a thread of them would England permit to be used. She would have none of these beautiful and cheap fabrics, but preferred to consume her own inferior and more costly stuffs. She was, however, quite willing to supply the Continental nations with the far finer fabrics of India at lower prices, and willingly yielded to them all the benefit of that cheapness; she herself would have none of it.”[^4]

In 1840 the East India Company, who had now ceased to be directly interested in Indian trade, in their new character of administrator pure and simple, responsible for the good of the people of India, presented a petition to Parliament for the removal of invidious duties which discouraged and repressed Indian industries. A Select Committee of the House of Commons was appointed. One of the witnesses examined was a certain Mr. J. C. Melvill. We take the following questions and answers from his evidence:

“Have native manufactures been superseded by British?” Melvill was asked.

“Yes, in great measure,” was his reply.

“Since what period?”

“I think principally since 1814.”

“The displacement of Indian manufactures by British is such that India is now dependent mainly for its supply of those articles on British manufacturers?”

“I think so.”

“Has the displacement of the labour of native manufacturers at all been compensated by any increase in the produce of articles of the first necessity, raw produce?”

“The export of raw produce from India has increased since she ceased largely to export manufactures; but I am not prepared to say in what proportion.”[^5]

Mr. Andrew Sym said that “the people of India deprived of their occupations,” by the displacement of Indian labour by the introduction of English manufactures — clothing, tools, implements, glassware, and brass articles, turned “to agriculture chiefly.”

Testimony of G. G. de H. Larpent, and other Britishers. Mr. Larpent supplied the Committee with the following figures relating to the import of Indian cotton goods into England, and the export of English cotton goods into India.

Cotton Piece Goods Imported into Great Britain from the East Indies.

British Cotton Manufactures Exported to India.

In spite of this decline in the Indian manufacture, and the increase of British manufacture, British cotton goods were still imported into India on payment of an ad valorem duty of 3½ per cent, while Indian cotton goods imported into England were subjected to an ad valorem duty of 10 per cent. Quoting from Mr. Shore, witness read: “This supersession of the native for British manufactures is often quoted as a splendid instance of the triumph of British skill. It is a much stronger instance of English tyranny, and how India has been impoverished by the most vexatious system of customs and duties imposed for the avowed object of favouring the mother country.” Mr. Larpent did not agree with Mr. Shore in these observations to the full extent; but they showed the feeling of a distinguished servant of the Company, a feeling which was likely to prevail among the people of India.

Silk Goods. British silk goods were admitted into Calcutta on payment of a duty of 3½ per cent. Indian silk goods were subjected to an import duty of 20 per cent. in England. Corahs or Indian silk piece goods in the grey (unprinted), were imported into England mainly for being printed in England and then exported to other European countries. The following figures were given for Corahs imported into England:

Bandannas or Indian printed pocket-handkerchiefs were imported into England in considerable quantities. Mr. Larpent pleaded strongly for the equalisation of duties between Great Britain and India with regard to silk goods. Mr. Brocklehurst, one of the members of the Select Committee, represented British silk manufactures, and necessarily desired the continuance of unequal duties to the advantage of England.

Mr. Brocklehurst.—You give your opinion without reference to the effect it would have on the British producer?

Mr. Larpent.—I have no doubt there would be, to a certain extent, a rivalry in competition with the silk manufactures of this country; but I submit on principle that India ought to be admitted as one of our own possessions. The argument has been used that while our manufactures are allowed to go into India at a very reduced duty, we ought to have admitted theirs on as low a duty.

Mr. Brocklehurst.—Is there any colony of this country whose manufactures are admitted on so low a scale as those of India?

Mr. Larpent.—There is no colony of this country whose manufacturers are of a magnitude calling for it. We have destroyed the manufactures of India. (And then the witness quoted the views of the Court of Directors, stated in Lord William Bentinck’s minute of May 30, 1829: “The sympathy of the Court is deeply excited by the report of the Board of Trade, exhibiting the gloomy picture of the effects of a commercial revolution productive of so much present suffering to numerous classes in India, and hardly to be paralleled in the history of commerce.”

But Mr. Brocklehurst was not convinced. He returned again and again to the subject.

Mr. Brocklehurst.—Are you aware that they have already so far displaced silk handkerchiefs made in this country, that attempts are now made to introduce a spurious article from waste silk as a substitute?

Mr. Larpent.—I have heard that an article is introduced made of waste silk; and that as I stated before, the ingenuity and science of the parties who are making those goods, will probably introduce into the home market a quantity of goods at a low price, which will be in very general use.

Mr. Brocklehurst.—Driving the British manufacturer to make inferior articles to maintain his ground in competition?

Mr. Larpent.—The articles alluded to are those made here; the British manufacturers have made those inferior articles.

Mr. Brocklehurst.—It would be more desirable perhaps that India should produce the raw material, and this country show its skill in perfecting that raw material?

Mr. Larpent.—The course of things in India is decidedly leading to that; and it is in the main articles such as we have already alluded to, that we do think every assistance should be given to the agricultural produce of India; but I submit that as this is the last of the expiring manufactures of India, the only one where there is a chance of introducing the native manufactures, at least let it have a fair chance, and not be oppressed with the duty of 20 per cent., in favour of the British manufactures.

Testimony of Montgomery Martin.

“I have examined at considerable length, and for a series of years, the trade of India. I have taken the utmost pains to arrive at correct conclusions by examining various documents which the Honourable Court of Directors of the East India House, with their usual liberality, permitted me access to. And I have been impressed with the conviction that India has suffered most unjustly in her trade, not merely with England but with all other countries, by reason of the outcry for free trade on the part of England without permitting to India a free trade herself.” And he added that, “on all articles except those where we are supplanting the native manufacturers, and consequently impoverishing the country, there is a decreasing trade.”

Cotton Goods. In 1815 the cotton goods exported from India were of the value of £1,300,000. In 1832 they were less than £100,000. In 1815 the cotton goods imported into India from England were of the value of £26,300. In 1832 they were upwards of £400,000. “We have during the period of a quarter of a century compelled the Indian territories to receive our manufactures; our woollens, duty free, our cottons at 2½ per cent., and other articles in proportion; while we have continued during that period to levy almost prohibitory duties, or duties varying from 10 to 20, 30, 50, 100, 500, and 1000 per cent. upon articles, the produce from our territories. Therefore the cry that has taken place for free trade with India, has been a free trade from this country, not a free trade between India and this country. . . . The decay and destruction of Surat, of Dacca, of Murshedabad, and other places where native manufactures have been carried on, is too painful a fact to dwell upon. I do not consider that it has been in the fair course of trade; I think it has been the power of the stronger exercised over the weaker.”

Evidence such as this brought about a keen controversy between the witness and Mr. Brocklehurst, the representative of the British manufacturer.

Mr. Brocklehurst.—The fact being that weavers, either in the one country or the other, must be sacrificed, and that sacrifice having already taken place in India, you wish to revive the population of India at the expense of this country?

Mr. Martin.—I do not wish to revive it, but I wish to prevent continued injury to India. But it does not necessarily follow that the weavers of England would be destroyed by admitting the natives of India to compete with them in this country, because the natives of India have no power looms, and no means of employing skill and capital to the extent that the manufacturers of Glasgow and Manchester have.

Mr. Brocklehurst.—The questions that have been asked refer entirely to fine fabrics which cannot be woven by power. The question is, whether we are to give up fine weaving in this country, or retain it?

Mr. Martin.—If it is only to be retained at the expense of injustice to India, my answer is, that England ought to act with justice, no matter what the result may be. That she has no right to destroy the people of a country which she has conquered, for the benefit of herself, for the mere sake of upholding any isolated portion of the community at home.

Mr. Brocklehurst.—When the transfer of India to the Government of this country took place in 1833, the destruction of weaving in India had already taken place, and therefore it is not a question of destruction, for that is past; and we have it in evidence that India is an agricultural rather than a manufacturing country, and that the parties formerly employed in manufactures are now absorbed in agriculture. Does it occur to you that there is an opening in this country, if manufacturers are displaced, for the people to turn to agriculture?

Mr. Martin.—I do not agree that India is an agricultural country; India is as much a manufacturing country as an agricultural; and he who would seek to reduce her to the position of an agricultural country seeks to lower her in the scale of civilisation. I do not suppose that India is to become the agricultural farm of England; she is a manufacturing country, her manufactures of various descriptions have existed for ages, and have never been able to be competed with by any nation wherever fair play has been given to them. I speak not now of her Dacca muslins and her Cashmere shawls, but of various articles which she has manufactured in a manner superior to any part of the world. To reduce her now to an agricultural country would be an injustice to India.

Another committee with John Bright as chairman was appointed to inquire into the growth of cotton in India. The evidence given before this committee laid stress on the necessity of land assessments being reduced to put heart into the cultivator and also on the improvement of means of transportation. Some members also spoke of the economic drain. On the condition of the cultivators of Madras and Bombay the committee remarked that they were “almost wholly without capital or any of those means which capital alone can furnish by which industry may be improved and extended. They are in reality a class of cultivators in the most abject condition.” Their other recommendations are not relevant to this part of our subject. Duties on the import of cotton (raw) into England from Bengal had been abolished in 1836, those on Bombay cotton in 1838 and those on Madras cotton in 1844.

II

THE HISTORY OF IMPORT DUTIES AND THE PRESENT STATE OF THE INDUSTRY

Legislative Acts.— Various acts were passed from time to time between 1833 and 1853 by the Indian Legislature to regulate trade and navigation and to fix the tariff. We have already stated in the previous section how the export of raw cotton was freed of any duty between 1836 and 1844. In 1853 the import duties ranged from 3½ per cent. to 5 per cent. ad valorem except in the case of foreign (i.e., non-British) cotton and silk goods, foreign cotton thread and yarn and foreign marine stores and foreign metals. These foreign goods had to pay double duty. These duties were imposed for revenue purposes and not for protection. In the case of cotton and silk manufactures there was no question of protection as there was no industry in India to be protected and later when the industry did come into existence, the duties were more than once remitted. The higher duties on foreign goods, though, were a sort of protection to British goods.

In 1858 when Queen Victoria assumed the direct sovereignty of the Indian Empire, the import duties, as before, stood at 3½ per cent. ad valorem upon cotton twist and yarns and at 5 per cent. on other articles of British produce and manufacture, including cotton piece goods. The duties on foreign articles were still double. In 1859, on account of the heavy financial pressure after the Mutiny, all differential tariffs were abolished; duties on all articles of luxury were raised to 20 per cent. ad valorem; duties on other articles, including cotton piece goods, were raised to 10 per cent.; and those on cotton twist and yarn to 5 per cent.

In 1860, only a year later, there was another change in favour of uniform tariff of 10 per cent. ad valorem, with special rates upon beer, wines, spirits and tobacco.[^6] In 1861, the duty on cotton twist and yarn was reduced to 5 per cent. In 1862 it was further reduced to 3½ per cent. and the duty on cotton and other manufactures was reduced to 5 per cent. In 1863 the duty on imported iron was reduced to 1 per cent. In 1867 a great number of articles were added to the free list. In 1870 a new Tariff Act was passed which placed the import duties generally at 7½ per cent. on manufactured goods and raw materials, at 5 per cent. on piece goods, at 3½ per cent. on twist, at 1 per cent. on iron and at 10 per cent. on tobacco.

The law was again changed in 1871 but the alterations were not material.

A select committee of the House of Commons which sat from 1871 to 1874 took evidence on the operation of the duties, in which objection was made to the import duty on cotton piece goods and to the export duty on grains. At that time there were only two or three cotton spinning and weaving mills in Calcutta.

Sir Bartle Frere expressed himself in favour of keeping down the import duty on cotton piece goods in order to foster the sale of British goods. He confessed that “the interests of India and England on that point seemed to be at variance. No doubt some considerable increase of revenue might be realised by increasing the import duties; say upon piece goods and yarn, but the direct result of that would be to diminish consumption and to stimulate production on the spot,” which, of course, he and his countrymen did not desire.

Mr. Walter Cassels, a Bombay merchant who had been a member of the Bombay Legislative Council, agreed that even the small import duty of 5 per cent. on cotton piece goods operated as a protective duty, though he added he did not desire its abolition on that ground. He stated that at that time there were twelve cotton mills in Bombay employing 319,394 spindles, 4199 looms and 8170 hands.

A glimpse into the helplessness of the Government of India in the matter of its fiscal policy can be had by a study of questions that were put to Lord Lawrence by Henry Fawcett and the answers given by the former. Lord Lawrence had tried to raise the export duties on jute and other Indian products in 1865, to get a little additional revenue and save the country from a deficit. But British interests had been too strong for him and the Secretary of State for India had disallowed his proposals. Eight years after, when he was questioned by Mr. Fawcett, he guardedly expressed his painful impressions of the influence of British trade over the financial policy of India. The British trade interests have virtually dominated the fiscal policy of the India Government ever since British occupation of India, and they do so to this day.

In 1874, the Lancashire manufacturers, by a memorial addressed to the Secretary of State for India, started their attack on the 5 per cent. and 3½ per cent. duties on cotton piece goods and cotton twist respectively, representing them as protective duties. The complaint was that on account of the duties a protected trade in cotton manufacture was springing up in British India to the disadvantage of both India and Great Britain. The reference to India is very amusing. The interests of India and of the poor people of India have always been present before the mind of the English merchant and his protector, — the Secretary of State for India. We shall find it referred to, in feeling terms almost every time a mandate has had to be issued to the Government of India for the furtherance of the interests of British trade, so often that we are afraid the reader might be disgusted by its constant reiteration and repetition in documents so palpably harmful to Indian interests.

The reply of the Secretary of State to this memorial being rather evasive on the main points raised by the memorialists, they found it necessary to state in so many words that what they objected to was the opening of new mills in India. They said:

“The statements as to the harmful operation of these duties on commerce, and on the best interests of her majesty’s subjects, both in India (!!) and England are abundantly confirmed by the latest advices from Bombay, which show that, under protection extended by the levying of duties on imports, to the spinning and weaving of cotton yarns and goods in India, a large number of new mills are now being projected.[^7]”

On this, the Government of India appointed a committee to consider the question. All the members, we are told by Dutt, were English merchants and officials. Yet the committee was unanimous in rejecting the Manchester demand for the repeal of import duties on cotton yarns and goods.

Lord Northbrook, then Viceroy of India, a free-trader, refused to sacrifice a source of revenue which in his opinion did not operate as protection. A new Tariff Act was passed which retained the import duties on cotton yarn and goods; largely reduced valuation; and imposed a 5 per cent. duty on the import of long staple cotton “to prevent Indian Mills competing at an advantage in the production of the finer goods.”[^8] They also abolished all export duties except on indigo, rice and lac, reduced the general rate of import duties to 5 per cent. and raised the duties on spirits and wines. This resulted in a total loss of £308,000 to the Indian revenues. Meanwhile by the turn of the political wheel in England, the Conservative party had come into power and Lord Salisbury had been appointed Secretary of State for India, in the administration of Disraeli. In July, 1875, he wrote to the Viceroy:

“If it were true that this duty is the means of excluding English competition, and thereby raising the price of a necessary of life to the vast mass of Indian consumers, it is unnecessary for me to remark that it would be open to economical objections of the gravest kind. I do not attribute to it any such effect; but I cannot be insensible to the political evils which arise from the prevalent belief upon the matter.

" These considerations will, I doubt not, commend to your Excellency’s mind the policy of removing, at as early a period as the state of your finances permits, this subject of dangerous contention.”

Lord Northbrook replied by cable that the Bill had been passed, giving the substance of its provisions. Lord Salisbury wired back his dissatisfaction and objections.

The dispute between Lord Salisbury and Lord Northbrook raised a question of principle, viz., the competency of the Governor General in Council to pass any important measure without obtaining the previous sanction of the Secretary of State for India. Finding himself unable to accept this principle, Lord Northbrook resigned his office. His resignation was accepted, and Lord Lytton appointed in his place. After this affair, Lord Salisbury laid down the principle in black and white, in a despatch to the Viceroy — a view from which two of his counsellors dissented. Ever since, the Government of India has been in theory as well as fact " a government by mandate.”

With Lord Lytton succeeding Lord Northbrook to the Viceroyalty of India, the path of Lord Salisbury became smoother. He at once ordered the repeal of the import duty on cotton goods in spite of the dissent of three members of his council.

Lord Lytton, though quite willing to do the bidding of the Secretary of State, found that in the meantime the terrible famine of Madras had affected the financial situation of India so seriously that even he could not sacrifice this item of revenue immediately. So, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, the import duties had to be continued for two years longer.

But the manufacturers of Lancashire were losing patience. The question was raised in the House of Commons and that august body resolved :

" That, in the opinion of this House, the duties now levied upon cotton manufactures imported into India, being protective in their nature, are contrary to sound commercial policy, and ought to be repealed without delay, so soon as the financial condition of India will permit. "

Lord Salisbury forwarded the Resolution to the Government of India and referred to the fact " that five more mills were about to begin work ; and that it was estimated that by the end of March, 1877, there would be 1,231,284 spindles employed in India. " (Letter to the Governor General in Council of August 30, 1877.)

So in the coming year, the Government of India began by exempting from duty certain kinds of imported goods with a calculated loss of £22,227 to the Indian revenue. Lancashire was not satisfied and pressure was brought to bear upon the Government of India to repeal the duties on cotton imports altogether. The Council of the Governor General, however, was not unanimous on the point and the minutes of the dissenting members speak for themselves.

Mr. Whitley Stokes’ first objection was in the interests of Indian finance :

" We have spent our Famine Insurance Fund, or what was intended to be such. We are carrying on a costly war with Afghanistan. We may any day have to begin one with the King of Burma. We have now to borrow five crores (five millions sterling) in India, and we are begging for two millions sterling from England.

“Secondly, because the proposed surrender would eventually lead to the surrender of the import duty on all cotton goods. ‘The powerful Lancashire manufacturers will be encouraged by their second victory to new attacks on our revenue. . . . If ever we have any true surplus, we should, in my opinion, lessen some of our direct taxes rather than abolish any of our moderate import duties.’

. . . . . .

“Fifthly, because, by the proposed repeal, ‘the Manchester manufacturers would practically compel the people of India to buy cotton cloths adulterated, if possible, more shamefully than such goods are at present. The cost of the clothing of the people would thus be increased rather than lessened.’

“Sixthly, because Indian newspapers will proclaim in every bazaar that the repeal was made ‘solely in the interest of Manchester, and for the benefit of the Conservative party, who are, it is alleged, anxious to obtain the Lancashire vote at the coming elections.’ Of course the people of India will be wrong; they always must be wrong when they impute selfish motives to the ruling race.”[^9]

Among other objections he also pointed out that the repeal was demanded by the manufacturers of Lancashire and not by the people of India.

Sir Alexander Arbuthnot pointed out that

“The people of India attribute the action which has been taken by her Majesty’s Government in this matter to the influences which have been brought to bear upon it by persons interested in the English cotton trade; in other words by the manufacturers of Lancashire. It is notorious that this impression has prevailed throughout India from the time, just four years ago, when the Marquis of Salisbury informed a large body of Manchester manufacturers that the Government of India would be instructed to provide for the gradual abolition of the import duties on cotton goods.

“Nor is this feeling limited to the Native community. From communications which have been received from the Chambers of Commerce at Madras and Calcutta, it is evident that the feeling is shared by the leading representatives of the European mercantile community in those cities.

“It is equally shared by the great body of the official hierarchy throughout India. I am convinced I do not overstate the case when I affirm my belief that there are not at the present time a dozen officials in India who do not regard the policy which has been adopted in this matter as a policy which has been adopted, not in the interests of India, not even in the interests of England, but in the interests or the supposed interests of a political party, the leaders of which deem it necessary at any cost to retain the political support of the cotton manufacturers of Lancashire.” [The italics are ours.]

Similar protests were made by Mr. Rivers Thomson (afterwards Lieutenant Governor of Bengal) and Sir Andrew Clarke. Against all these protests, and in defiance of the opinion of the majority of his Council, Lord Lytton, with the concurrence of Sir John Strachey and Sir Edwin Johnson, exempted from import duty “all imported cotton goods containing no yarn finer than 30’s.” The Secretary of State of course approved of the act of Lord Lytton, though seven members of his own Council, including Sir Frederic Halliday, Sir Robert Montgomery, Sir William Muir, and Sir Erskine Perry, dissented.

This shows conclusively how even the Anglo-Indian Administrator is helpless to protect Indian interests, when the latter clash with the financial interests of Great Britain.

The question of cotton duties has been one of the most exciting questions that have exercised the public mind in India for the last fifty years. It is one of those few questions on which the Indians and the resident Anglo-Indians hold exactly the same views. It affects an industry, in the prosperity of which the Indian and the resident Anglo-Indian mill owners are equally interested. To proceed with the story, the tariffs were again tampered with during the viceroyalty of Lord Ripon, with the result that in March, 1882, the remaining import duties were also abolished, excepting those on salt and liquors.

For the next twelve years the matter remained at rest, until the financial embarrassments of the Government of India forced the latter to reopen the question in 1894, when the Indian Government had to face a deficit of more than two million pounds sterling.

A committee, called Lord Herschell’s Committee, was appointed, which recommended the re-imposition of import duties except on cotton goods. When a tariff bill was brought before the Council, on the lines of the recommendations of the Committee, it met with strong opposition from the non-official members of the Council on the ground that it exempted a class of goods which should pre-eminently bear an import duty and a duty that would yield the best results, as “the volume of trade in cotton goods and yarns then represented nearly one-half of the total imports from abroad.” It was argued that “the exemption of these important commodities when practically every single commodity was being subjected to an import duty could not be justified on its merits as a sound fiscal measure much less when it was an admitted fact that the Budget would still show a deficit.”[^10] The Government of India, however, could not accept these views, as they had a mandate from the Secretary of State for India which they dared not ignore. This Act was thus passed in the teeth of the strong and united opposition of the Indians and the Anglo-Indians, in March, 1894, but in December, 1894, the subject was re-opened under instructions from the Secretary of State who in the meantime found out another way of propitiating Lancashire without sacrificing revenue — viz., by imposing a counteracting excise duty upon yarns produced in Indian mills, which could possibly compete with Lancashire yarn. Accordingly two bills were introduced in the Legislative Councils, the first of which subjected cotton yarn and fabrics to the general import duty of 5 per cent ad valorem and the second imposed an excise duty on all cotton yarns of 20’s and above produced by Indian mills. In introducing this latter bill, the then Finance Minister, Sir James Westland, stated in the Council that the policy underlying its provisions had been imposed on the Governments of India by the Secretary of State in pursuance of the resolutions of the House of Commons passed in 1877 and 1879. The law, however, satisfied nobody. The Indian mill owners were of course dissatisfied with the whole policy but they also added another objection and pointed out how impossible it was to spin precisely to a particular count. Lancashire on the other hand contended that the bill left loopholes for evasion. Consequently the matter was reconsidered in 1895 and another Act (II of 1896) was passed by which yarn was altogether exempted from duty and a uniform duty of 3½ per cent. was imposed on all woven goods whether imported or manufactured in India. The measure was of course opposed by both Indian and Anglo-Indian non-official members. Mr. Stevens, afterwards Sir Charles Stevens, representing the Bengal Chamber of Commerce, 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.”

What has happened since then may be stated in the words of the writer of the article on this subject in the Indian Year Book of 1915:

" New Factors in the Situation. Since the passing of this measure into law the policy of the Government of India in this respect has frequently been the subject of attack in the press and in the Legislative Councils while it has also formed the subject of continued representations by the industrial interests affected and political organisations. In more recent years the agitation in favour of the abolition of the Excise duties has been revived by the growth in England of a strong body of public opinion in opposition to the policy of Free Trade. Advantage has been taken of this new phase in English economic thought to press on behalf of India the acceptance of a policy of Protection, and the removal of the Excise duties is now claimed by the opponents to this measure as a necessary corollary of the application to the British Empire of the principles associated with the name of Mr. Chamberlain. A new factor in the situation which has strengthened the position of those who are in opposition to the Excise duties is to be found in the severe competition which Indian mills have to face in China as well as in India from the Japanese industry. The Japanese market was lost to India in the early years of this century. More recently, however, Japan has entered as a competitor with India into the China market, while within the last few years it has pushed its advantage as against the Indian mill-owner in the Indian market itself. Again it is claimed that the recent enhancement of the silver duty has materially affected the position of the Indian spinner who relied on the China market. On two occasions within the last five years the question of Excise duties has come prominently to the front as a result of debates in the Viceroy’s Council. The official attitude is firmly based on the position that the Excise duties stand and fall with the import duties. Against such an attitude all arguments based either on the advantages of a Protectionist as opposed to a Free Trade policy or on the handicap to which the present system exposes the Indian millowner can, of course, make no headway. The Government of India are confronted with a heavy recurring loss in their revenues as a result of the abolition of the opium traffic. The import duties on cotton piece-goods represent nearly fifteen per cent. of the total revenue collected as Customs duty while the Excise duty itself realised no less than 47 lakhs in 1912-13. The strength of the arguments which support the Government position is so patent that the movement in favour of the total abolition of the Excise duty is gradually giving way to a feeling that a solution may be found in maintaining the Excise duty at its present rate while enhancing the import duties to the level of the general rate of Customs duty. This policy which is frankly of a protective character, can to some slight extent be supported by the change in the position of Lancashire in respect of the imports of cotton piece-goods. In 1894 when the duties were first imposed the share of Lancashire was no less than 98 per cent. of the total import trade in piece-goods. Foreign competition, notably from Japan has reduced its share to 91 per cent. and it may be expected that the success of this attack on the position of Lancashire will in the near future loom largely in the arguments of those who favour a modified form of protection within the Empire.”

In spite of these drawbacks the cotton industry received a great and extraordinary stimulus by the Boycott and Swadeshi movements started by the Indian Nationalists in 1905 as a protest against the administration of Lord Curzon; but as the momentum created by the movement has declined by the force of time and change in circumstances the rate of progress in the development of the industry has also gone down.

In 1904 there were 191 mills in the whole of British India, working 5,118,121 spindles and 45,337 looms. By 1909 the number had risen to 259 mills, with 6,053,231 spindles and 76,898 looms. In 1910 the number rose to 263 mills, covering 6,195,671 spindles and 82,725 looms. In 1911 the number of mills remained stationary though there was a slight increase in spindles and looms. In 1913 the number of mills rose to 272 with a total of 6,596,862 spindles and 94,136 looms. In 1914 there has been no increase in the number of mills, though there has been a slight increase in the number of spindles and looms. The number of the latter stood on August 31, 1915 at 6,898,744 and 108,009 respectively. The following figures about the trade in cotton goods might be useful for purpose of reference: In 1915-16 the Indian mills’ outturn in yarn was a little over 722 million lbs. and in woven goods a little over 352 million lbs., of which 160 million lbs. of yarn and tweed and 113 million yards of piece goods were exported as against 198 and 89, in 1913-14 and 136 and 67 in 1914-15. In 1913-14 the total value of the exports of cotton manufactures from India, is given at a little over 8 million lbs. sterling. The imports of cotton manufactures in that year were valued at over 66 million pounds sterling. In March, 1916, at the time of the Budget discussion, Sir William Meyer informed the members of the Indian Legislative Council that in deference to the unanimous opinion of the non-official members, Lord Hardinge’s Government had proposed to the Secretary of State the abolition of the excise duty and an increase in the duty on imported cotton goods, but that the Secretary of State had decided that the consideration of the matter might be postponed, during the war.[^11] So while the Government of India increased the price of salt (manufactured in India and a Government monopoly) they had to submit to the decision of the Secretary of State in the matter of the duties on cotton goods. The matter has been thus summed up by the writer of the article on " Industrial and Economic Conditions” in the volume of the Oxford Survey of the British Empire dealing with Asia (pages 140, 141):

“It is but natural that Indian politicians should express dissatisfaction with the meagre results at present achieved in industrial enterprise. They complain that, in the interest of Lancashire, their cotton fabrics were first excluded from the English market and now suffer from unrestricted competition at home. They are not content with the exportation of raw materials as an indication of prosperity, but rather regret that these are not profitably used up in the country. They quote the dictum of Mill that ’nascent industries’ may be legitimately protected. They point to self-governing colonies which are allowed to impose a tariff even against the mother country. They point also to the analogous case of Japan, whose industrial development, fostered by the State, already threatens rivalry in their own markets. These complaints, when uttered by Indian representatives in the reformed legislative Councils cannot be ignored, especially when it is known that Anglo-Indian opinion, both official and commercial, largely sympathises. As long as no fresh taxation is required, a final solution of the problem may possibly be postponed; but when the time comes it will test, as no other question has done, the altruism of English statesmanship.”

Before bringing this chapter to a close, we must, in fairness to the other side, mention some “alleged recent discoveries” of a retired Indian Civil Servant, Mr. C. W. McMin, who in 1908 read a paper before the East India Association, extracts from which have since been incorporated into a pamphlet entitled: “Truths About India.” The obvious purpose of this document, which may be had for the asking, is to show the world that the charge brought against England of the “destruction of indigenous Indian industries” is unfounded.

A few extracts, copied verbatim, are appended below, with comments by the author opposite.

EXTRACTS

A

“In a great work on ‘Economic History’ by R. C. Dutt, it is stated the British imposed ‘unjust and enormous’ duty on Indian cottons of 20 per cent; on reference to the quoted authority I find it was 4d. per cwt. As cotton was 5d. per lb., the rate was less than 1 per cent. This was not printer’s deviltry, for taffetas, sugars, mats are similarly misstated. The truth was that foreign cotton was paying 5s 10d. per cwt. about 20 per cent, while Indian cotton had a preferential tariff, less than 1 per cent.”

ANSWERS

A

Mr. Dutt’s alleged mistake has nothing to do with manufactured cotton and silk goods. How England treated Indian raw cotton has not been treated in this book—it was to her interest to encourage the cultivation of raw cotton in India, and supply it as cheaply as possible to the Lancashire mills. So the point made in the extract is of no significance whatever.

B

“In 1789 England reduced the British tariff tax on tea to 12½ per cent, on piece goods to 18 per cent; and to make up the deficiency so created, in the Inland Revenue, imposed a window tax on the English people. This proved a hardship and evil to the poor and an annoyance to the rich. William Pitt did this; possibly he remembered that Indian trade had made his grandfather rich, and founded the fortune of Chatham. Up to 1860, in tariffs, Britain favoured India more or less. In 1838 there were 43 articles, every important article of necessity or luxury, for which there were preferential light duties for British possessions. For raw silk from Bengal there was a special light duty — it paid 4s. 6d. while the rest of the world paid 5s. 10d. per lb. British tariffs were not only just to India, but even benevolent from 1825 onward. Opium, indigo, tea, jute, cotton, were bringing wealth to the Empire surpassing the Moguls.

I admit that in Bengal especially for the first 20 years after the Company assumed the Dewani, there were most serious drawbacks to the peace and prosperity introduced by British rule. From 1785 amendment commenced due to a great improvement in Customs regulations, and lower tariffs on tea and piece-goods, dating 1780-4.

B

The statement of duties on piece-goods in 1789 does not show Baines’ scale of duties levied on “East Indian White muslins and Nankeen, to be in any way wrong. Baines’ table covers 1787-1814, and shows that the duty varied from 18 per cent. to 44 per cent. ad val. and from £16 15s. 3d. in 1787 to £85 2s. 1d. per piece in 1813. East India dyed goods were absolutely prohibited. On the other hand, bounties were given for the exportation of English cottons. The table of duties filed before the Select Committee of the House of Commons in 1813 shows the duty on “Calicoes” was £81 2s. 11d. for every “100 of value” (also cottons) while the duty on raw cotton was 16s. 11d. per 100 lbs. The duty on tea in 1761, customs and excise is given as £96 0s. 0d., etc. The statement that opium, indigo, tea, jute and ale brought wealth to the Empire is true if by “Empire” is meant England and English manufacturers, who monopolise those industries and the profits therefrom.

C

The East India Company, far from being hostile to Indian manufactures, spent about £160,000,000 in training artisans, establishing factories, buying and transporting to England the piece-goods, silk, salt-petre, indigo, sugar, which were the principal staples. They sold piece goods alone for 659 million pounds in forty years (1771-1810).

C

The last statement is too vague to be tested. The East India Company in its character as trader, was interested in certain industries of which it had the monopoly. We are not told how the £160,000,000 was spent; how much in “training artisans” or in what kind of work, how much in “establishing factories” or what sorts; nor what proportion went into the pockets of the Company’s servants.

Nor was there anything remarkable in the “fact” that in forty years, 1770-1810, the East India Company should have sold goods to the value of 659 millions of pounds,—where and to whom is not stated. An industry like that of the piece goods industry of India could not have been destroyed in a day.

In conclusion it is well to recall the testimony of such competent witnesses as Henry St. John Tucker, Larpent, Montgomery Martin, and others.

That the number of those who depend on textile industries for their living is still declining is made clear by the results of the census of 1911. See Mr. Gait’s report, chapter on occupations, wherein he says that “As compared with 1901, there has been a decrease of 6.1 per cent. in the number of persons supported by textile industries. This is due mainly to the almost complete extinction of cotton spinning by hand. Weaving by hand has also suffered severely.”

Cotton duties—1917 developments. Since the above was written, the duty on cotton goods imported into India has been raised to 7 1/2 per cent. ad valorem while the countervailing excise duty has been maintained at the old figure. The action of the Government of India, taken with the sanction and approval of the Secretary of State for India, as a part of the plan whereby the Government of India was to contribute £100,000,000 to the British war fund as a “free gift,” from India has furnished occasion for a very interesting discussion on the point, between Lancashire and the Free Traders on one hand and the Tory Secretary of State for India and The Times on the other. In the course of the controversy certain admissions have been made in high quarters which corroborate and support the statements made in this chapter.

In the course of a letter addressed to the Westminster Gazette, Lord Curzon says:

“I have always regarded the attitude of Lancashire toward India in respect to the Import duties on cotton and still more of the countervailing excise as an injustice and a wrong. . . . When in India, as Viceroy, I more than once expressed myself in the same sense. On my return to England I made a speech in the House of Lords on May 21, 1908, in the course of which I said that the fiscal policy of India during the last thirty or forty years has been shaped far more in Manchester than in Calcutta. In the speech at Manchester in 1910, I alluded to the same facts, namely, to the subordination of Indian fiscal policy to the Secretary of State and a House of Commons powerfully affected by Lancashire influence.” [The italics are ours.]

Mr. Charles Roberts, M. P., said in the House of Commons: “Long ago we forgave ourselves for the selfish commercial policy of the eighteenth century which crushed out the beautiful fabrics of India by fiscal prohibition.”

Mr. G. W. Forrest, writing to The Times, London, (March 14, 1917), said: “The tale of England’s dealing with Indian industry was one of littleness and injustice. . . . By positive prohibition and by heavy duties, the Indian textile trade in England was destroyed and our own trade was fostered.”

Mr. Harold Smith, M. P., also condemns “the uneconomic and indefensible protection which” the British cotton trade “has received at the expense and the exploitation of India. . . . It is impossible that India can forever remain satisfied with this throttling hold on her own natural development.” (Times, London, March 14, 1917.)

The Times has defended India’s right to levy duties on cotton goods in the course of several leading articles on the subject.

We beg to make a present of these opinions to the East Indian Association of London, with reference to their book called “Plain Truths About India.” This addition to the cotton duties has, however, been characterised as a war measure and we are not quite sure whether it will be maintained after the war is over.