j
more representations from the Scottish and Lancashire manufacturers. But Elgin was so far not prepared to yield, for there was again
2
commotion in the Viceroy's Executive Council. This had no effect on Fowler and he accepted the retention of \ per cent duty only as
3
a temporary measure. He further informed Elgin that he was under 4 the pressure to meet the deputation from Lancashire on 27 Hay 1895*
The deputationists professed that they were unjustly treated in 5
respect to the cotton duties. Fowler did not seem to be impressed.
1 Telegram, S.S. to Viceroy, 27 March 1895* E.P., vol. 18. 2 Elgin to Fowler, 1 April 18951 Confidential, ibid., vol. 138. 3 Telegram, S.S. to Viceroy, 21 May 1895* India Sep. Rev. Fin. and
Com. Department Proc., vol. 5031* No. 767, July 1896. ^Hereafter cited as Sep. Rev. Proc._7 See also Indian Govt. Notification, 25 May 1895* ibid., No. 775* July 1896.
4 Fowler to Elgin, 17 May 1895, E.P., vol. 13.
5 Lancashire deputation to Rt. Hon. H.H. Fowler, 27 May 1895* India Sep. Rev., Proc., vol. 5031* No. 785* July 1896. The deputation was accompanied by Mr Holland, M.P. and consisted of the
following representatives of the industry. Mr Tom Garnett, President of the United Cotton Manufacturers' Association, Mr Gordon Harvey, Mr V. Noble, Mr V. Thompson, Mr Calder Clegg, Mr John Whittaker, Mr Luke Barker, Mr W. Tattersal, Secretary, Mr T.F. Mack ins on, the Federation of Master Cotton Spinners Association, Mr Joshua Rawlinson, The North and North East
Lancashire Cotton Spinners and Manufacturers Association and James Mawdsley, operative Secretary.
The Lancashire arguments were conspicuously loaded with threats of their political and economic strength. During the discussion, Fowler was reminded of the said at least five times by the
successive representatives.
i
10
While reporting his iiterview to Elgin he said that Lancashire argued 1
on the same lines as Scottish manufacturers. He stated that their case was not based on facts and if the facts were forthcoming, he
2
pledged that he would remove the inequality. The result of this was that Manchester drew up a formal statement of their case and sent it to the Secretary of State on 9 July 1895-
In the meantime the Liberal Government was overthrown. The Conservatives came back to power; the significance of which on the cotton duties controversy might not be under-rated. Godley informed Elgin that the Conservative had won with an overwhelming victory
and stated, nOne feels safer and less likely to see experiments tried which were considered dangerous, who knew India best.” But he gave
4 a warning that the question of cotton duties might give trouble. But the most revealing letter to Elgin came from Lieutenant General Brackenburry. He wrote, nI am rather anxious as to the effect this change may have on the Cotton Duties question. Lord George Hamilton, you may remember, voted with and spoke in favour of Sir Henry James'
1 Scottish cotton manufacturers of Glasgow to S.S., 3 April 1895, Enc. No. 1, to Despatch No. 99 (Bev.), 5 September 1895) Revenue Despatches to India, vol. 16.
2 Fowler to Elgin, 12 June 1895, E.P.,vol. 13.
3 Statement drawn by John Whittaker, on behalf of Joint Committee of Cotton Manufacturers, 9 July 1895• India Sep. Rev. Proc., vol. 5031, No. 791, July 1896.
4 Godley to Elgin, 30 July 18951 E.P.,vol. 30.
Same feelings were recorded by Sir A.P. MacDonnell (Lt. Gov. of N.W.P. and Oudh on leave to England, to Elgin, 21 July
1895, ibid.
C
107
Motion. His brother is one of the M.P.s for Manchester. Sir
Henry James is in the Cabinet, Lord Salisbury had the Cotton Duties 1
repealed. Lord Cross is strong on Lancashire interests.”
The new Ministry, however, neither contemplated, nor did anything new. Yet the thumping victory of the Conservative Party must have
influenced Elgin.
Lord George Hamilton the new Secretary of State in his
first private letter to Elgin clearly opened his mind on the long 2
drawn controversy. With this letter he sent the Lancashire
memorial. The contention of the Memorialists was that the Indian manufacturer had a very substantial advantage over Lancashire as he paid excise duty on the grey y a m value only, while the
Lancashire manufacturer had to pay an import duty on the value of
the finished goods, bleached, woven, dyed or printed. They represented that Indian woven goods made from yam s just below the excise line
could compete with and take a place of imported woven goods liable at 5 per cent duty. The Lancashire deputation laid stress on the statement that it was impossible to work fairly to both the Indian and British manufacturer on artificial dividing line at 20S or at any other count and they cited the experience of 1878-82 in India to show
1 Lt. Gen. Brackenbury to Elgin, 30 June 18951 ibid., vol. 66. The new Cabinet consisted of three former Secretaries of State besides Hamilton; Lord Salisbury, Lord Cross and Lord Devonshire. 2 Hamilton to Elgin, 16 August 18951 ibid., vol. 13*
108
that any attempt to draw such a line would break down and would 1
result in fiscal inequality. Commenting on the memorandum, Hamilton fully agreed with the deputationiststhat excise on yarn was insufficient and hammered on the pledge of his predecessor to the Parliament "that no savouring of protection should be associated with these customs duties, and that the excise duties should completely
counterbalance the customs duties.... The unconditional promise Sir of
Henry Fowler gave as to the removing/all protective tendency can 2
not be escaped, and it is obligatory upon both of us."
Elgin assured Hamilton that he would do his best to accommodate his views. He wrote, "you could find no one more ready to acquiesce
3
in the extreme gravity of any decision.11 Elgin sent all the papers 4
to Westland for his information and comments. The first impression of Westland was that "Manchester 'case was greatly overdrawn and open to challenge even in its general features; but that I admit they have enough of case, in the eyes of the public at all events to render
5
it necessary for us to do something towards meeting their claim." 1 Lancashire Memorial, Enc., ibid.
2 Hamilton to Elgin, 16 August 1895i op. cit.
Also Hamilton to Elgin, 26 September 1895» E.P.» vol. 13. 3 Elgin to Hamilton, 3 September, Hamilton Collection, MSS. Eur.
D. 509/1 vol. 1. ^Hereafter cited as H.
c._7
4 Elgin to Westland, 4 September 1895» vol. 67 (E.P.), 5 Westland to Elgin, 6 September 18951 ibid.
109
Elgin agreed that something must be done to meet the claims of Lancashire.^
In the meantime Hamilton kept on pressing that Lancashire trade was in a depressed condition and he was under obligation to meet another Lancashire delegation. He emphasised that customs
2 duties must be changed.
Elgin sent to Hamilton the note prepared by Westland on the representation of Manchester. In this note Westland discussed the question of the abolition of the duties but agreed to exempt all imports up to 20S from duty.
Hamilton was not entirely pleased with Westland's note and in a letter to Elgin he attached his own note on cotton duties in reply to Westland's Memorandum. He admitted that a certain but very
/
limited amount of goods under 20S were imported into India from England, but asserted that the small value of goods did not "justify the infringement of the parliamentary engagement made nor would such
4
a plea be listened in the House". Hamilton thought that Lancashire's arguments as to the difference between the initial value of the
y a m and the final value of the completed cloth constituted protection
1 Elgin to Hamilton, 10 September 18951 H.C., D. 509/1, vol. 1. 2 Hamilton to Elgin, 3 October and 31 October 18951 E.P., vol. 13. 3 Elgin to Hamilton, 16 October l895i H.C., D.509/1, vol. 1. 4 Hamilton to Elgin, 7 November 18951 E.P., vol. 13*