Lancashire was further represented by no less than four and twenty supporters of the Government who might seriously hesitate between the interests of their constituents and those of their party. Sir Henry James opened his speech by asserting that the cotton manufacturers of Lancashire were perfectly willing to enter into competition with the Indian textile industry, but they asked that the race should be run with level weights. If undue weights were not used, Lancashire was content that the interest of India should be the first subject of consideration. It was only when a specific advantage was given to the Indian cotton trade that the manufacturers of Lancashire complained. This was by no means a wayward complaint, for it was seriously contended that the import duty was a dead weight upon the Lancashire trade. The matter was brought under the notice of the House as long ago as 1877, when import duties on cotton were condemned on the ground that they were protective in their character and contrary to sound policy. Again, in 1879 the House passed a resolution declaring that an Indian import duty on British goods was unjust both to the Indian consumer and to the English producer, and that it ought to be abolished. Considering that this resolution was on the records of the House, commercial men in Lancashire believed that their position was impregnable, and that it would not be open to the Executive to reverse that position, as they had done, without the matter being discussed in the House of Commons. In point of fact, there had been no opportunity until now to bring the subject of the new import duties forward for discussion. In 1882, in pursuance of the policy declared by Parliament, import duties were abolished, and the markets were thrown open. Subsequently there arose the necessity of dealing with an Indian deficit, and the Anglo-Indian officials, whose incomes had been considerably curtailed owing to the fall in the value of the rupee, joined with the Bombay millowners in an agitation to obtain the imposition of an import duty on cotton in order that exchange compensation might be granted. He suggested that the Secretary of State for India. had been misled by those officials, and had failed to ascertain the opinions of Lancashire manufacturers, whose interests had been wholly neglected. He altogether denied that the excise duty imposed on cotton goods manufactured in India counteracted the import duty or afforded any protection to the British producer. The Lancashire cotton trade was not in such a position that it could easily bear an artificial burden put upon it, for in view of the losses constantly accruing it might happen that in a short time the manufacturers might find themselves unable to keep their mills open.

The Secretary for India, Mr. H. Fowler (Wolverhampton), at once rose to reply, and in a weighty and statesmanlike speech disposed of the whole case without the waste of a single word. He placed before the House the bearings of the question in a

manner which carried conviction to those who might have been disposed to support Sir H. James' motion on party grounds. Mr. Fowler, at the outset discarding mere forensic arguments, repudiated in the most emphatic manner the imputation that there had been an agitation or conspiracy on the part of particular classes in India in order to deal with the finances of that country unjustly and to the injury of Lancashire. Sir H. James had charged him with sacrificing the interests of England to those of India, but had failed to give any proof in support of that assertion. His impartiality was indicated by the circumstance that the censures passed upon him in India equalled in severity those passed upon him in Lancashire. He had endeavoured, in dealing with the financial proposals of the Government of India, to steer an even course and to do what was fair and just to the interests of Lancashire and to the interests of India. Duties on the cotton imports into India had been imposed ever since the Government of that country was handed over to the Crown. Originally they were 5 per cent., subsequently they were 10 per cent., and various reductions were made until they were attacked and abolished in 1882 on the ground of their protective character. At that time, however, the financial condition of India was such as to allow of their repeal. But when the Budget of 1894-5 was under discussion, the Government found themselves face to face with a serious financial difficulty, as they had to meet a deficit of Rx.3,000,000. That deficit the Indian Government proposed to meet by import duties, and he, on being consulted, stated that he saw no objection to such a course if the new duties were accompanied by corresponding and countervailing excise duties, and if the element of protection were thus removed. Import duties and protective duties were totally distinct from each other, and he denied that any principle of free trade was violated by the imposition of a Customs duty unless protection accompanied it. Further, he denied the charge that he had placed a heavy burden on Lancashire, inasmuch as the new tax would, like all import duties, be paid by the consumers. He maintained that the countervailing excise duty was sufficient for its purpose, and declared that the Government had all along acted on the principle that there should be no protection. At the same time he said frankly that if the Lancashire manufacturers could prove that any injustice had been done to them, he would do his best to remedy that injustice. It was, however, a question for inquiry, and it was impossible to discuss it across the floor of the House. The new duties were imposed because they were required for urgent financial reasons. Beyond all doubt the imposition of the duties was popular in India, and if the Imperial Government had taken the course which Sir H. James recommended it would have had a very serious political effect. The deliberate conclusion at which her Majesty's Government arrived was that there would be a widespread feeling of dis

satisfaction, and that a danger would be created if the opinion of the people of India on this question were disregarded. In conclusion, Mr. Fowler observed that all members of the House of Commons, in a certain sense, represented India, and he called upon them to discharge their gigantic task with wisdom, justice, and generosity, and without being influenced by any selfish or party feeling.

After a number of speeches from Indian authorities such as Sir George Chesney (Oxford City) and Captain Sinclair (Dumbartonshire), and from Lancashire members of different shades of political opinion such as Mr. Sidebottom (Stalybridge), Hon. P. Stanhope (Burnley), Mr. Whiteley (Stockport) and others, Mr. Goschen, in the absence from illness of Mr. Balfour, indicated the line which he proposed to take. Premising that he spoke rather in his individual capacity, he insisted that members ought to sink party interests, and to range themselves on the side of the Executive Government, when they were told that the adoption of a particular course involved danger to India. He reminded his hearers that they were responsible for the prosperity of the Indian Empire. Dealing with the minor aspect of the question, he suggested a conference of all the parties interested with the view of removing differences of opinion as to the details of the compensating excise duties. This debate ought to be followed by an endeavour on the part of her Majesty's Government to see whether they could not bring Indian opinion and Lancashire opinion closer together than they were at the present moment.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer at once accepted the olive branch thus held out to the Government. He declared that Mr. Goschen deserved the highest credit for the language he had used, and promised that her Majesty's Government would do all they could to promote a reconciliation of the great interests of this country and of India. With regard to the imposition of the duties, the Cabinet never hesitated for a moment in making that decision which they believed to be necessary for the interests of India, and they did not consider what effect it might have on their party and political position. If, however, Mr. Goschen had saved the Government from the defeat which before the debate their own supporters had anticipated, Lord George Hamilton (Ealing, Middlesex) was determined to show that some, at least, of the Conservatives were not prepared to follow Mr. Goschen's lead. To support his contention that the Liberal Government, by reimposing import duties, were reversing the policy of the House of Commons, he cited the views of the most distinguished economists of the Liberal party, whom, for some unexplained reason, he accepted as his leaders and teachers. He declared himself so little satisfied with Mr. Fowler's statement that he was prepared to support Sir Henry James, not to turn out the Government, but as a protest against the inaction of the

Government upon the currency question, which had led to hasty action as regarded the imposition of the cotton duties, and also as a protest against the unwisdom and unfairness of putting the whole burden of sustaining the solvency of the Indian Government upon the shoulders of an already very depressed industry.

The division was then taken, and the motion for adjournment was negatived by 304 to 109, the minority consisting chiefly of Conservatives and Liberal Unionists, supported by several Lancashire Radicals, although several representatives of the same county supported the Government, as did about fifty Conservatives.

These prolonged debates had at least had the result of clearing the ground for the introduction of the important measures promised in the Queen's Speech. Meanwhile, outside the two Houses of Parliament, certain events had happened deserving of notice. The persistently recurring question of the relative value of voluntary and rate-supported schools had been advanced a step by the report of the Archbishops' Committee, presented to both Houses of Convocation. The Committee had come to the unanimous conclusion that not only should existing voluntary schools be maintained, but that an effort should be made to extend them in proportion to the growth of the population. Putting aside the amount of money actually raised and spent upon the existing school buildings, it was pointed out that in view of the recent and more stringent requirements of the Education Department, at least 500,0002. had been raised to effect the necessary improvements in school buildings, and probably a further sum of 250,000l. would have to be spent before they could be placed on an equality, as regards structural comfort, with the Board schools. Moreover, it was found that wherever Board schools and voluntary schools were existing side by side there was a distinct drifting of pupils from the latter to the former. The explanation seemed to be that the Board schools were not only better equipped with the modern apparatus of instruction, but being in a position to pay higher salaries to their teachers, they attracted a better qualified teaching body. Added to these the effect in certain districts of the abolition of school fees rendered the prospects of voluntaryism dark and doubtful. Moreover, as the law stood a School Board could refuse its consent to the erection of a new voluntary school within its own district, though there might be persons willing to find the funds and parents ready to send their children. The Archbishops' Committee unanimously recognised, in the first place, the necessity of obtaining further State aid for voluntary schools, with the understanding that the standard of instruction should not in any degree be inferior to that given in the Board schools, but they were about equally divided on the question whether the increased contribution should be provided out of the local rates or from the imperial exchequer. To meet,

however, what might be the views of those who might object to any increased funds being placed in the hands of the school managers, the Committee recommended that the Education Department should take over the payment of all teachers in voluntary schools, either in whole or in part, and that in return it should fix the number of teachers, decide upon their fitness, and determine their salaries.

The triennial elections for the London County Council were looked forward to with great interest as tending to throw some light upon the Parliamentary elections, which were thought likely to follow at no considerable interval. Leaders of both parties, to whom the questions of local government were either familiar or attractive, took part in the preliminary meetings. On the one hand the Moderates, and on the other the Progressives, reflected pretty accurately the Parliamentary parties. There was a less marked line of demarcation between those who supported the "unification" of the government of London and the advocates of "tenification" or the subdivision of the metropolis into a number of manageable bodies. Mr. Chamberlain, in a speech at Stepney (Feb. 6), and speaking in support of the Moderate candidates for that division, announced himself in favour of the latter policy. In taking up his position as an opponent of the existing Progressive majority in the County Council, Mr. Chamberlain claimed the right to appeal to his experience in connection with the work of the municipal government of Birmingham, and asked why London, which was ten times as populous, and probably more than ten times as rich, should remain without any of these advantages. There were, he said, two schools of thought on municipal questions in regard to London. That to which he himself belonged-and he had been led to it, not by passion, not by party feeling, but by his own experience-believed that they could only attain a satisfactory result by giving all power, all dignity, and all authority to purely local municipalities-municipalities which would adequately express the wishes and the feelings of the districts which they represented, which could deal with the infinite detail of municipal government, and which attracted to themselves all the ability which was to be found in the district. The other idea was to leave all the drudgery to the local bodies. and to take all the honour and the dignity to themselves. Their conception was of a great municipal planet somewhere in the neighbourhood of Spring Gardens, with several little satellites revolving round it and shining with a pale and reflected light.

Mr. Chamberlain went on to say that the two greatest unsolved problems of London local life were the rehousing of the poor and the question of the unemployed. What was wanted was new work-not on the lines of the municipal workshops proposed by the London County Council, but in work that could be profitably undertaken. The work which was wanted, and would be remunerative, was that of the recon