an increased duty was imposed upon sugar, from which $25,500,000 was anticipated, and an increased levy upon incomes was expected to net $19,000,000. Power was asked to borrow $300,000,000 by means of consols. Much disappointment was expressed in Canada, in other Colonies and in many quarters in England that some attempt had not been made to raise money by Preferential duties which would have not only increased the revenues for Imperial defence but have consolidated the commercial interests of the Empire.

Speaking on April 23rd, at the Dinner of St. George's Society in Toronto, Lieut.-Col. G. T. Denison expressed a good deal of current opinion in a few words: "We can understand that in England Sir Michael Hicks-Beach has many difficulties, as the country has been trained in trade conditions which have muddled the brains of the people. They should understand that all those influences and conditions which made their trade policy a splendid thing years ago, have entirely changed. They are unable to shake off their delusion and see that what is necessary now is to adapt their conduct to the present posture of affairs." Speaking at London on May 31st, Mr. R. L. Borden said that Canada should not adopt a policy of drift. "They (the Conservative Party) believe that there is a strong public sentiment in England in favour of better trade relations between Great Britain and the Colonies and that Canada, as the foremost Colony of the Empire, should make a strong and determined effort to achieve that great policy."

The subject came up for general discussion in the Imperial House of Commons at a later date. On June 18th Sir C. E. Howard Vincent proposed to insert in the tea tariff the enactment that "in respect of goods from British Possessions one-fourth part of 25 per cent. shall be remitted." There must, he declared, be a beginning somewhere, and this proposal would help the tea industry in Ceylon and India and develop it in Australia and the Mauritius. He believed there was a growing feeling in favour of Imperial Preferential trade and deprecated the opposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Sir M. E. Hicks-Beach, in reply, sympathized with the general idea of closer union, stated that India and Ceylon were already driving foreign competitors in tea out of the British market and declared, amid Opposition cheers, that revenue considerations would not permit of accepting the suggestion.

Two days later, Mr. Ernest Flower, of Bradford, in connection with the sugar duties, proposed an amendment which would have had the effect of reducing the duty on sugar from sugar from British countries by 33 per cent. He pointed out the great advantage this would be to Jamaica and Queensland and estimated the revenue loss at only $300,000. The time was ripe to respond in a sympathetic spirit to Colonial wishes and "encourage the gradual formation of inter-Empire trade." The Chancellor of the Exchequer replied that practical proof of sympathy had been given in the relief grants of $1,600,000 to the West Indies during the past five years. The plan suggested was "the policy of 40 years ago which had been abandoned

after long trial." Moreover, it would increase the cost of sugar to the home consumer and it would be a dangerous beginning to a system in which preferences would be asked by the Colonies for corn and flour, timber and wool and meat. "If granted, and the same favours refused to foreign countries, the result would probably be an abrogation of the most favoured nation clause in many existing treaties. "With every desire to assist West Indian trade he declined to take a path which would lead to as bad a fiscal mistake as this country could make."

Sir Howard Vincent followed and declared that the free trade policy was going to be reversed in the near future; that trades-unions and large bodies of workingmen were objecting to the unfair advantages now enjoyed in the British market by foreigners; that foreign countries only showed their appreciation of the free market in Great Britain by yearly increased duties upon British goods. Sir William Harcourt expressed his pity for the poor workingmen, who under such a proposal as this would have to pay not only the interest on $750,000,000 of debt and the new taxes on tea and sugar, but also additional taxes for the benefit of the Colonies. The whole of the foreign trade of Great Britain would be endangered by a system of Preferential duties. Mr. Edward Blake thought the plan quixotic, if not absurd, and the disadvantages greater than any possible benefits. Mr. Henniker Heaton was much surprised at this last expression of opinion. He hoped the amendment would carry and thus show appreciation of Colonial sacrifices in the war. Mr. James Bryce was glad this bubble had been so well pricked by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The policy was only possible by the establishment of one authority for the Empire imposing duties for the whole Empire. As now proposed it meant a shifting tariff, an endless series of bargains and an unworkable fiscal system. Mr. J. C. Mason thought that England had been great before free trade and would be great after it had disappeared. Mr. W. H. Holland deprecated the proposal to help Canada by giving a preference to the West Indies. The House then divided, 366 votes being recorded against the amendment and 16 for it. Writing to the Toronto Globe under date of July 20th, Colonel Sir Howard Vincent declared that this division did not represent the actual feeling of the House or the public upon the broad question of a general preference to the Colonies. He was hopeful of the future, and grateful to Canada for what she had done in the past. He referred with gratification to the visit then being paid the United Kingdom by Mr. Alex. McNeil, EX-M.P., the enthusiastic Canadian advocate of Preferential duties. Amongst other addresses which the latter gave about this time, was one to the Belfast Chamber of Commerce, which attracted considerable local attention. At the annual meeting of the British Empire League, held at Manchester, on July 31st, references were made in the Report of the Council to this subject, and phrases used which were subsequently criticised by Mr. McNeil as throwing cold water on the advocates of Preferential trade. "It must not be overlooked," said the Report, "that this country is

in fact invited to seek to promote one-fourth of its external trade at the expense (as many apprehend) of serious disturbance and diminution of the remaining three-fourths, and in return for no considerable advantage in the Colonial markets."

On November 26th the National Union of Conservative Associations of England and Wales met at Wolverhampton, with Sir Alfred Hickman, M.P., in the chair, and a Resolution in favour of an equivalent countervailing duty being imposed on merchandise imported from abroad, on which bounties were allowed, was carried by 57 votes to 25. During the year the Imperial Argus was started in London in order to advocate closer Empire relations, and considerable space was given in one of its numbers to the opinions of prominent English manufacturers upon this subject-nearly all of whom appeared to be in favour of some form of protection. The London Daily Express also declared itself during the year as strongly in favour of an Imperial Preferential policy. Mr. Robert Meighen, of Montreal, President of the Lake of the Woods Milling Company, returned in August from a visit to England, and told the Montreal Gazette of August 26th that: "I firmly believe the time is not far distant when the people of Great Britain and Ireland, realizing that a moderately protective duty is absolutely necessary, will make their will felt upon Parliament and parties; and that the British Government, bowing to the inevitable, will adopt once more the principle of Protection."

Mr. H. S. Foster, ex-M.P., of North Suffolk, England, told the same paper on September 19th that public opinion was changing in Great Britain. Protection was needed, and free trade was not now considered a divine institution. "The United States products should not be admitted to the English market on the same terms as those of Canada." At the annual meeting of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association in Montreal, on November 6th, it was unanimously decided: "That this Association place itself on record as being heartily in favour of reciprocal Preferential trade between Canada and every part of the British Empire, with which arrangements can be effected to their mutual benefit, and by means of which each would receive substantial advantages as a result of its national relationship."

At the banquet given by the Association in the evening, Sir Wilfrid Laurier stated his belief that the mutuality of trade, the free exchange of commodities between the 400,000,000 subjects of the world-wide Empire of our Sovereign, would be not merely of benefit to each part of the Empire, but to the whole fabric. The British Empire had been built more by colonization and trade than by conquest, and the establishment of a policy of Imperial trade would result in the greatest development the world had ever seen." On the day following this, Mr. T. W. Evans, Vice-President of the Board of Trade in Montreal, made a rather pessimistic comment upon these views by telling the Montreal Star that his recent visit to England had convinced him that the English people were hopelessly wedded to their free trade doctrines. In the Toronto Globe of December

25th, Mr. John A. Cooper, Editor of the Canadian Magazine, had a review of the position from the same negative standpoint, and with the conclusion that "another ten years of commercial and industrial expansion in Canada and Australia may eliminate the question from even theoretical politics."

Parliament and Prefer

During the Budget debate in the Canadian House of Commons, March 14th-28th, this subject came in for ential Trade consideration-especially in connection with the Preferential clause in the tariff. The Minister of Finance, speaking on March 14th, took the ground that while the Government did not deny some advantage from a British preference they believed it to be a question for the British authorities and not for us. He did not think it could be obtained at present or that there was likely to be any immediate change of thought in the Imperial Government upon the question. "Yet I would not speak of the future. We live in times of great movements and great changes. I will not say that at no future time in the history of the Empire, and the early future possibly, shall this preference be given. Again and again I have stated in this House that that is a question which we must be content to leave to the future."

Mr. Clancy, on behalf of the Opposition, denounced this policy of waiting on events. Had the Conservative party remained in power "it would have entered upon a preference, if a preference at all was entered upon, that would have had two sides, and would have commended itself to both countries." He wanted to know if we were ever to get such a preference by declaring that it would be madness for England to give it, and impudence for Canada to ask it. His party would continue to press upon Great Britain the advantages flowing from such a policy in the way of closer union and the probability that a reasonable British tax upon foreign products would not raise the price of the home consumer. "We must help to educate the people of England."

Sir Richard Cartwright, in defending the Preferential tariff, as now existing, made the point that if the Preference to England was so trivial and useless as the Opposition claimed, it was rather an audacious request on their part, and would also be on the part of the Government, to ask that the English people should abandon their old and well settled policy for so trifling a consideration. Mr. R. L. Borden, in turn, asked why it was that the sentiment which Liberal speakers declared to have been so strongly aroused in Great Britain by their one-sided Preference, as to have effected an immediate and permanent increase in British consumption of Canadian products, should cease just at that point and not contribute toward the giving of a preference to Canada! He quoted from various sourcesLiverpool Journal of Commerce, the Saturday Review, the Imperial Trade Defence and Anti-Free Imports League, the United Planters' Association of India, the correspondent of the N. Y. Tribune, to prove that there was a rapidly forming public opinion in favour of a Preferential trade policy within the Empire. In conclusion he moved

the following clause to a general Resolution embracing the tariff policy of the Conservative party in Canada :

That, in the opinion of this House, the adoption of a policy of mutual trade preference within the Empire would prove of great benefit to the Mother Country and to the Colonies, and would greatly promote the prosperity, unity and progress of the Empire as a whole, and that at the present time, when the Commonwealth of Australia is laying the foundation of its fiscal system, it is particularly opportune for taking prompt and energetic steps towards the furtherance of this object.

In his reply to the Leader of the Opposition, Sir Wilfrid Laurier took high ground against this contention. He admitted the great advantage to Canada of a preference in the British market. "But we cannot have it so long as we have a protection tariff, or a customs tariff in Canada." It was impossible to even hope that England would change its whole fiscal system and impose duties on food and raw material while Canada and other Colonies maintained protective duties upon British goods. "But the moment we are ready-it may take a long time but I hope that some day it shall come-to discard our tariff, the moment we come to the doctrine of free trade, then it is possible to have a commercial mutual preference based upon free trade in the Empire."

Mr. Clarke Wallace took the opposite view of the subject. "The people of Great Britain can give a preference in the markets of Great Britain to the productions of the various portions of the Empire, to agricultural products, and still retain the policy that is existent there to-day." This could be done by imposing a duty of, say, $4 per bullock and 5 cents per bushel of wheat, which would net a sum of $12,726,000. The tax of $19,581,000 on tea-which was not a luxury but a necessity-might then be reduced by the amount of the new taxes on cattle and wheat. Such a policy would give all the Colonies a marked advantage over foreign nations, would greatly help Canada in its competition with the United States, and would make the country so well known in England as to largely increase its population. It would not raise the price of bread, even if the consumers paid the duty, as 23 cents on a barrel of flour would be only one-sixth of a cent per pound of bread. And it would not be many years before the whole food-supply of Great Britain would come from within the British Empire.

Mr. A. E. Kemp, of Toronto, spoke at length upon the subject. He quoted Lord Selborne, Under-Secretary for the Colonies, as saying that "I believe free trade not to be a religion but a policy," and the Rt. Hon. C. T. Ritchie as stating that "the days of the strict Manchester free trade school are passing away." His argument was of a general character and included quotations from the Saturday Review and the Financial News of London. Mr. C. B. Heyd quoted from Mr. C. T. Ritchie, Mr. M. G. Mulhall, Mr. Chamberlain and Lord Rosebery to prove Sir Wilfrid Laurier's contentions that Imperial free trade must precede the commercial union of the Empire. But even if this latter policy were possible, he was opposed to it as tending to