1614 THE framers of that part of the Congress resolution on non-co-operation which relates to the boycott of foreign goods, like their predecessors of fifteen years ago who supported Bengal in her boycott of British goods, knew what they were about. They knew that there is no appeal to which John Bull is more responsive than to an appeal which forcibly touches his pocket. No one can say that the Government of India, in their recent tariff proposals, were actuated by an intention of satisfying the non-co-operator, but one small part of their proposal happens to have this in common with the non-co-operator’s programme that it touches the pockets of an influential class of English manufacturers. This has thrown the class in question as well as its representatives in Parliament and its organs in the Press into a state of uncontrollable excitement. The Manchester Association of Importers and Exporters lost no time in sending a letter to Mr. Lloyd George, Mr. Montagu, and the Department of Overseas Trade declaring that “the increased import duty on cotton goods into India would disastrously affect the industry in Lancashire and would bear heavily upon India,” and suggesting that the raising of the countervailing excise to the level of import duty would more readily attain the object of producing the desired revenue. Then we have the so-called pro-Indian journal, the Manchester Guardian, readily endorsing this plea. In an article, it declared that the Parliament was not elected on a fiscal issue and was not entitled to set free trade aside or help others to do so, as in this case it had controlling powers. At a meeting of the executive of the Federation of British Industries, a resolution of the Manchester District Committee was submitted for approval, protesting against the action of the Government of India in sanctioning the increased Indian duty on cotton goods without discussion in Parliament and urging withdrawal of the sanction.