The Indian papers spoke strongly of his ‘unique position,’ and a fund of £400 was raised and transmitted to England to pay the expenses of another contest. It arrived too late, but went towards the expenses of the contest at Hackney in 1880. Another sum of £350 was then raised in India, which was placed in the hands of trustees with a view to a future election, and in due time was devoted to some purpose connected with India. Fawcett’s first speech to his Hackney constituents was delivered in March. What he said there, then and later, was distinguished by his fearless and frank adherence to what were considered unpopular principles. He denounced what he deemed the unworthy competition between Gladstone and Disraeli, saying that when the former announced that in case of his election he would repeal the Income Tax, the latter promptly announced that he would do the same. Fawcett considered that neither could carry out this promise, and that it was merely a discreditable bid for votes. He said that he would continue in his efforts for India, then threatened anew by famine. [Sidenote: The Times.] The _Saturday Review_, not usually favourable to his party, hoped for his return as the ‘one man,’ out of official circles, who cared for India. The _Times_ said ‘he offended publicans by refusing to use their houses as committee rooms; he offended the advocates of the Permissive Bill by declaring his resolution to vote against it; he offended shopkeepers by his zeal in favour of the co-operative movement; he offended working men by his opposition to the latest movement for limiting the hours of labour of adult women; he offended old-fashioned Liberals, and Liberals who are getting old-fashioned, by his persistent advocacy of reforms that had not come within the range of their education when they were young; and Liberals of a later growth remembered how often Fawcett had found himself unable to acquiesce in Mr. Gladstone’s policy and plans. Yet he must have secured the support of men of all these sections, who concurred in sending him to Parliament, because they believed that his presence there would be advantageous, in spite of errors of opinion which each section in turn lamented.’