• Mr. Balfeur's second speech, delivered on Thursday, was one
the general drift of which we regret. He defended the right of the Government to overrule the popular wish of a mere dependency, like India, in relation to any policy which it thinks mischievous to that dependency. We do not dispute such a right; and if the British Government had held it wise and right to overrule the policy of Financial Protection in India, on account of its mis- chievous results to India, we should have had little to say in the way of censure. But Mr. Balfour must know very well that the British Government makes no pre- tence of that kind. It does not insist on Free - trade for India. It protects several other Indian industries, in spite of its pretended scruples as to protecting the cotton industry ; and its only serious motive for refusing to protect the cotton industry, is to be found in the angry feelings of its Lancashire supporters, and not in any statesmanlike desire to insist on Free-trade for India. We do not like to see a statesman of Mr. Balfour's rank discussing the Indian cotton duties in a spirit of so much deference towards his Manchester constituents as Mr. Balfour displayed.
Previous page
