existence in India will doubtless engage the close attention of the Commission to whose enquiries reference has already been made.

The popular demand for assistance in the matter of enterprise does not mean that the State should import manufacturers from countries where they are in ample supply. This course, which might conceivably be the shortest road to the desired result, would be intensely unpopular with the classes by whom the demand is expressed. They are apt to look jealously on the profits of English manufacturers, as constituting an important element in that 'economic drain' of the country's wealth which is still a prominent article in the creed of many Indian politicians; and their object is to establish indigenous industries of which the entire profits shall remain at home. For practical purposes the demand is that the State shall undertake the toil and risk of the pioneer, and that it shall start new industries and carry them through the experimental stage, making room for private enterprise when the experiment has proved a success, and in the meantime training a sufficient number of apprentices to pave the way for further developments. The justification of this demand is to be sought in the recent industrial history of India. Cases have unquestionably occurred in which the pioneers of new industries have lost their money, while their factories have subsequently proved a success in the hands of others; and, as has been indicated above, the supply of industrial energy is not so great as to induce many men to enter on a path which is known to have proved fatal to their predecessors. Economists of the strictest English school will doubtless object that the notorious industrial inefficiency of governments will render such a test entirely fallacious, but the fact remains that, if inefficient State management proves a financial success, the experiment is decisive, while, in cases where it fails, the publication of the results will sometimes enable men of business to put their finger on the weak spot, and, by utilising the experience for which the State has paid, to turn the failure into a remunerative enterprise.

In the popular view, however, the case for Statepioneering rests on the success which has actually been achieved in one or two conspicuous instances. The

aluminium industry in Madras was established directly by the provincial Government, and its pioneer-factory was sold to a company when the stage of experiment had been passed; while in Northern India a dairy established by the State for purposes of demonstration was subsequently sold to the expert who had been placed in charge, and now forms the nucleus of the largest dairying concern in that part of the country. Ten years ago pioneering in this sense was regarded in India as a legitimate function of the Government; and its prohibition by the Secretary of State came as an unpleasant shock to many who were working for the utilisation of the resources of the country. The Industrial Commission has been authorised to go into the question afresh ; and, without attempting a forecast of its recommendations, the remark may be offered that, so far as the writer is aware, no other practicable solution has been put forward of the greatest practical difficulty in the way of industrial development.

The next item in the popular programme, the remodelling of administrative machinery in the interests of industrialism, has been conceded in principle, though it is still imperfectly realised in practice. The Imperial Government has its Department of Commerce and Industry; the provinces are being equipped with organs designed to assist enterprise in all its forms; the consumption of goods made in the country is enjoined on the various spending departments; the Railway Board is paying attention to the modification of freights in the interests of production; and the official attitude towards industrial ventures has undoubtedly undergone a marked transformation. The classical instance of what the State can do in such directions is furnished by the case of the steel-city to which reference has already been made. Its foundation was rendered possible by an agreement in which the Government of India undertook, among other things, to build the railways required for assembling the raw materials, to grant special concessions on the carriage of the machinery, and to buy for a term of years a quantity of steel rails sufficient to provide the nucleus of a remunerative market. So far as can be judged at present, this agreement has been amply justified by results; and it may be urged that the precedent is

sufficient to indicate the true lines of State-action, and that interference in the supply of capital and enterprise is neither necessary nor desirable. It must, however, be remembered that the circumstances in this case exceptional. The negotiations were conducted on one side by some of the ablest financiers in India, and on the other by a Member of Council who was determined to put the matter through; and it is doubtful whether more modest undertakings, negotiating with local officers of limited powers, can count upon an equally happy result. Patronage and concessions are unquestionably of great importance, but they will scarcely suffice to solve the problem without concurrent action in the other directions we have indicated.

We have left to the last the measure which stands in the forefront of the popular programme, a tariff sufficiently high to afford substantial protection to nascent industries. Protection would be the most popular measure which could be introduced in India. Apart from the mercantile interests centred in the Presidency towns, it has the practically unanimous support of every class which has so far found a voice; and opinion is looking eagerly for any indication that the curt refusal of the authorities even to regard the subject as open to discussion will be reconsidered in the revision of the commercial institutions of the Empire which must follow close upon the termination of the war. It is not our present purpose to enter on an examination of the merits of this question; it is sufficient to say that, while the ultimate results of a tariff would probably be less than its more ardent supporters anticipate, the immediate effect would be to supply a stimulus to enterprise such as no other measure would afford.

The insistent demand for so large and varied a measure of State-aid may be taken as an indication of the magnitude of the difficulties in the way of establishing organised industries on a scale sufficient to modify materially the dependence of the people on the income derived from agriculture. A keen appreciation of these difficulties, coupled with a not unreasonable apprehension regarding the social reactions resulting from the aggregation of workmen in the conditions which prevail in Indian towns

and cities at the present day, has led some observers to suggest that the solution of the fundamental problem must be sought elsewhere. According to these critics, the economic salvation of India lies not in building factories, but in developing the ancient handicrafts of the country. Much has been attempted in this direction during recent years; and, as the result of the experience which has been gained, there are good grounds for thinking that some handicrafts can be saved from extinction, while others may be substantially benefited by facilitating the supply of raw materials and suitable implements, by providing training in technique and design, and by such an organisation of markets as will free the individual worker from the heavy financial yoke of the middleman. The scope for such action is, however, limited. It is reasonable to suppose that there is a hopeful future for handicrafts employing artistic skill and producing goods which appeal to individual taste; but, from the nature of the case, these form only a small proportion of the whole, and it is difficult to believe that the bulk of Indian production can be carried on for an indefinite period by methods which have been abandoned by nearly every country in the world. The solution of the problem of India's poverty must be sought in the fullest utilisation of her resources, both human and material; and the true course is to endeavour to profit by all the lessons of industrial organisation which the experience of the world can furnish. Handicrafts and factories are alike indispensable to the necessary increase in the income of the people; and the limits of either form of production cannot be laid down with certainty in advance.

W. H. MORELAND.

Vol. 227.-No. 451.

Y

Art. 2.-THE RURAL PROSPERITY OF FRANCE.

As a nation we are apt to praise but reluctant to imitate foreign methods. Though we may see a problem, with which we are struggling, solved successfully by a neighbouring nation, we remain firmly convinced that no foreign solution can throw any light upon our own. This national attitude has been conspicuously displayed by our Liberal land-reformers. From the outset of the land campaign, the Liberal Government steadfastly set its face against any consideration of the Continental land-systems; and the Land Enquiry Committee, in diagnosing the causes of our rural depopulation, altogether ignored the fact that the exodus of the agricultural labourer is a phenomenon not confined to this country. Such an attitude lays itself open to criticism. While the prescription which suits one patient may be inapplicable to another, it will be universally admitted that a physician, whose study of a disease is limited to the symptoms of one case, is less likely to diagnose it aright, or to prescribe for it efficiently, than one whose knowledge of it has been acquired on a wider field of investigation. Similarly, with regard to the problems or diseases common to European civilisation, though different nations may require different remedies, it is superficial reasoning to suppose that we can derive no benefit from the experience and example of others. In order to arrive at the root of these diseases, we need to study them in their widest manifestations; and behind all effective treatment we shall find certain fundamental principles.

To trace the path along which our brilliant neighbour, France, during the critical period of the last century, has succeeded, where we have failed, in retaining almost half her population upon the land, is to obtain some striking light upon the principles which form an essential part of a sound land system. The selection of France, as an object-lesson in agricultural development, instead of one of the smaller European countries, such as Belgium or Denmark, which have become famous to-day for their progressive methods, has two points in its favour.

In the first place, from an agricultural standpoint, France is Europe in miniature. Owing to the variety