It would be impossible within the limits of the present article to deal fully with all the aspects of this vitally important question.  Attention may, however, be drawn to the very weighty remarks of Sir Fleetwood Wilson when he speaks of “the great alteration which a tariff war in India would effect in the balance of our trade, in the arrangements that now exist for the payment of our external debt, and in the whole of our exchange policy.  This aspect of the question is one of extraordinary complexity, as well as of no small speculation.”  On the whole, although the proposals made by Sir Roper Lethbridge and his associates deserve full and fair consideration, it is most earnestly to be hoped that party leaders in this country will insist on their elaboration in full detail, and will then study every aspect of the question with the utmost care before giving even a qualified pledge to afford them support.  The situation is already sufficiently difficult and complicated.  It is not improbable that the difficulties and complications, far from being mitigated, would be increased by the pursuit into the economic wilderness of the ignis fatuus involved in the idea that it is possible for a nation to impose a tax on itself and then make the inhabitants of other countries pay the whole or the greater part of it.

[Footnote 96:  It may be noted that Sir Gangadhar Chitnavis’s idea of Preference differs widely from that entertained by Sir Roper Lethbridge.  The former apparently wishes to abolish the excise duty on Indian cotton goods, but to maintain that levied on similar goods imported from the United Kingdom, whilst levying a still higher duty on goods from other countries.]

XXI

ROME AND MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT[97]

"The Spectator,” July 19, 1913

In spite of the obvious danger of establishing doubtful analogies and of making insufficient allowance for differences, the history of Imperial Rome can never cease to be of more than academic interest to the statesmen and politicians of Imperial England.  Rome bequeathed to us much that is of inestimable value, both in the way of precept and example.  She also bequeathed to us a word of ill omen—­the word “Imperialism.”  The attempt to embody the broad outlines of a policy in a single word or phrase has at times exercised great influence in deciding the fate of nations.  M. Vandal[98] says with truth, “Nul ne comprendra la Revolution s’il ne tient compte de l’extraordinaire empire exerce a cette epoque par les mots et les formules.”  Imperialism, though infinitely preferable to its quasi-synonym Caesarism, is, in fact, a term which, although not absolutely incorrect, is at the same time, by reason of its historical associations, misleading when applied to the mild and beneficent hegemony exercised by the rulers and people of England over their scattered transmarine dominions.  It affords a convenient