FOOTNOTES:
[98] “India is suffering seriously in several ways, and is sinking in poverty.” (Poverty of India, by Dadabhai Naoreji.)
[99] “India is, on the whole, a very poor country: the mass of the population enjoy only a scanty subsistence.” (Lord Lawrence, 1864.)
“I admit the comparative poverty of this country as compared with many other countries of the same magnitude and importance, and I am convinced of the impolicy and injustice of imposing burdens on this people which may be called crushing or oppressive.” (Lord Mayo, March, 1871.)
“It is not too much to say that the very existence of our rule in India may be gravely imperilled unless the finances of the country are placed in a more satisfactory position.” (Professor Fawcett, Feb., 1879.)
“The first thing to do is to point out well that frequent iteration, which alone impresses political masses, that India is of no real use at all to us, that we should be richer, stronger, better, happier without it, that we are cramped, distracted, and impoverished by it.” (Why keep India? by Grant Allen.)
[100] Dr. Watson’s Report.
[101] Government of India Records. Home Agriculture, and Revenue Department, clx. p. 16.
| Cotton | 37,300,000 |
| Silk | 2,400,000 |
| Grain | 66,800,000 |
| Flax | 8,700,000 |
| Sugar | 22,400,000 |
| Tea | 10,900,000 |
| ————— | |
| 148,500,000 |
[103] “With a more certain market for wheat, it would, in many districts” (of Australia), “be profitable to bore for or to store water and open railways or make rivers navigable, and thus enormously increase the area of profitable wheat production.” (Duke of Manchester, Nineteenth Century, 1881.)
[CHAPTER XXVII.]
I know a maiden fair to see. Take care!
Trust her not, she is fooling thee. Beware!!
Fair Trade! Reciprocity! Retaliation! Such are the cries that have been raised by those who have felt the evils of Free Trade, without fully realising the mischievous principle involved in it.
England, with its dependencies, if properly governed, might be independent of foreign nations for its trade, commerce, markets and productions.
“Retaliation” is an action at once undignified, inexpedient and unjust.
Are we to injure ourselves by the imposition of protective tariffs, which are mischievous when unnecessary, and to attempt to injure our neighbour, because he declines to imitate our folly in ruining ourselves for an economic “ignis fatuus?”
The only true and statesmanlike policy of a great nation like England is to pursue the even tenor of her way, governing the empire with its dependencies as one vast country, the interests of any one portion of which should be considered inseparable from those of the whole;—protecting jealously every industry; seeking every possible means of employing the labour and developing the resources of all;—fostering every industry when it needs fostering, and releasing the fostering care as soon as such care is seen to be unnecessary; protecting only to the extent that may be needed to prevent the decay of an existing industry, or to enable a new industry to spring up; the primary aim being to utilise the labour and produce of the whole, and to ensure a market for the produce in our own great United Empire.
With our enormous territory, two-half times as great as that of America,—with our enormous capabilities and varied productions, we ought, if governed rightly, to be able to secure this; and holding such an immense area of territory we should have no want of healthy competition without calling in foreign nations to compete with us.
We have within our grasp an imperial policy which would enable us to outstrip America in a far greater degree than she is now outstripping us.
By an imperial policy I do not mean that narrow insular policy which takes all it can from its dependencies, and gives nothing in return;—I do not mean that selfish policy which drove America to separate from us, and which is now disgusting our Colonies, and forcing them to federation—the first step towards separation.
I mean a generous enlightened policy, which considers the welfare and prosperity of each and every dependency identical with its own.
We want the federation of union with England, not the federation of separation from her. But where are we to look for such a policy, surely not to the littleness described by M. Merimée, which “commits all possible faults to keep a few doubtful votes—the policy that disquiets itself about the present, and thinks nothing of the future,”—not to the politicians who put party before nation,—not to the petty caucuses of those economic charlatans who have impoverished the empire. We want an extension of franchise, but not mob franchise such as Chamberlain and his crew propose. We want extension of franchise to India and the Colonies. We want, in the House of Commons, representatives of the interests of England’s dependencies. We want practical, far-seeing, intelligent men—those who have seen the world in its different aspects, and know, by experience, its wants; not mere “globe-trotters” and travelling M.P.s, who return to their country more ignorant and puffed up with their partial knowledge than when they started; but representative men who have lived out of England long enough to have shaken off the idea that their “Little Pedlington,”—be it London or Liverpool, or Manchester or Birmingham,—is the pivot on which the world revolves. We want in fact an Imperial Parliament, not a wretched caucus of narrow-minded party politicians, whose view is limited to the horizon of the coming election, and whose whole business in life is to stump the country, making flatulent speeches, with exuberant verbosity, to gaping admirers, and pandering to the fleeting popularity of the mob.[104]