affairs in Canada. The papers of all political opinions continued very largely to publish cabled or contributed or copied articles by T. P. O'Connor and W. T. Stead; the former politician made an interesting and picturesque tour of the Dominion; Sir Alfred Mond, Sir Joseph Lawrence and a couple of dozen members of the House of Lords or Commons visited Canada and discussed British public questions; there was an increasing tendency visible in Canada to criticize or denounce the House of Lords and Bishop Mills, at Kingston, on June 14, declared that God made the land for the people and not for the Peers and that the House should certainly be reformed; while The Pioneer, the organ of Prohibition interests, on July 22nd, published a vigorous attack on the "Liquor Lords," the assumptions of landlords, and the claims of hereditary position; the Toronto Globe (Lib.) published a series of articles from its special correspondent in London giving the extreme Radical view of the Lords, the Fiscal issue, and the political situation.

Early in November it was announced that the Veto Conference had failed and that the issue must go to the people. The contest was very soon under way. Messrs. Churchill and LloydGeorge declared the question to be once more that of Lords against the people; the Chamberlains and Mr. Bonar Law described Tariff Reform and Unemployment as the great issues; Lord Lansdowne and Mr. Balfour and Lord Rosebery admitted the desirability of Upper House reform and the Unionists promised to carry it out; the Osborne Judgment, under which the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords' final Court, decided that Union funds could not legally be applied to the payment of members of Parliament put the Labour Party in a serious position and gave the Liberal leaders a problem which they met by promising legislation according a salary to all members of Parliament; the Socialist party published a pamphlet in which it was declared that no Socialist could be a Christian. The announced platform of the Unionist Party was as follows:

1. A Supreme Navy; Poor Law Reform; Insurance against Broken Health and Unemployment; Housing Reform.

2. Tariff Reform-more employment and better wages; taxing the foreigner as he taxes us; protection of British workers against sweated foreign labour and unfair competition; preference to the Colonies.

3. Land Reform-state aid to purchase homes or holdings.

4. Licensing Reform-fair and equitable treatment of the Licensing trade.

5. Constitutional Reform-abolition of hereditary principle in House of Lords; construction of a strong Second Chamber; the people to arbitrate in case of deadlock.

The Liberal policy included the abolition of the Lords' Veto and opposition to any reform which would strengthen the Upper House; the abolition of plural voting and establishment of the one man, one vote principle; the maintenance of Free Trade; the hold

ing of all elections on one day; disestablishment of the Church in Wales; State insurance against unemployment, and self-government for Ireland. As the short contest developed Messrs. LloydGeorge and Winston Churchill were biting in their denunciation of the Peers, the classes, the wealthy persons of the State; the Suffragettes took part in the fight but rather feebly and in the main fruitlessly; the Free-trade Unionists-Lords Cromer, George Hamilton, Goschen, Robert Cecil, Hugh Cecil, Balfour of Burleigh and Avebury-announced their support of Mr. Balfour in his fight against what was practically a Single Chamber; much was said about an alleged guarantee given or refused by the King to Mr. Asquith for the creation of enough Peers to swamp the existing majority in the Upper House; on Nov. 29th Mr. Balfour came out unexpectedly. in favour of submitting Tariff Reform to a popular vote or Referendum should the Unionists win and, in doing so, was expected to hold the Free-trade Unionists of Lancashire while he did, in fact, offend the Protectionists of other sections. The Elections were over by Dec. 23rd.

Canadians were very prominent in the contest. Mr. W. M. Aitken, a well-known and wealthy young financier of Montreal, was nominated as the Unionist candidate for Ashton-Under-Lyne and, after a stiff contest, carried that seat back into the Unionist column by a substantial figure-changing a Liberal majority of 293 into a Unionist one of 196. Ashton was 7 miles from Manchester, the electorate was mostly composed of cotton operatives, the enthusiasm aroused was sudden but effectual, the speeches of the candidate were short and sincere, the central thought was protection and preference. Mr. Bonar Law-a Unionist leader and a Canadian by birth-contested a Manchester Liberal seat on the policy of Tariff Reform plus the Referendum and was defeated after a spectacular struggle which interested all England. Joseph Martin, K.C., ran again in East St. Pancras and although his defeat was looked for by the Unionists, and feared by the Radicals, he won out by an increased majority. Sir Gilbert Parker (Unionist) again carried Gravesend while Donald Macmaster, K.C., was returned unopposed for Chertsey. Mr. Hamar Greenwood, ex-M.P., (Liberal) won a notable victory at Sunderland where he headed the poll with 1,697 majority over the Unionist candidate JoynsonHicks. Other Canadian-born candidates and their records were as follows:

Various Canadians took part in the campaign as speakers. George E. Drummond of Montreal helped Mr. Aitken; George T. Blackstock, K.C., went into the fight as the result of a cabled invitation from the Unionist managers; A. C. Pratt, M.L.A., for South Norfolk and Alex. W. Wright, a one-time Conservative-Labour campaigner in Canada, accepted an invitation to speak on Tariff Reform and Preference; W. F. Cockshutt, ex-M.P., of Brantford spoke for Lord C. Beresford, Sir G. Doughty and other Unionists; R. L. Richardson, ex-M.P., of the Winnipeg Tribune was offered but declined a Radical nomination in South St. Pancras; Major J. A. Currie, M.P., and R. R. Gamey, M.L.A., were invited to speak for Tariff Reform but were unable to accept.

As to the cabled news regarding this Election the press did not give the same space to it and the public did not indicate quite the same interest in it as had been the case in January. The Toronto Star sent Mr. John R. Bone, Managing-Editor, to act as special correspondent while The Globe deputed Mr. J. F. Watson, its permanent London correspondent, who was also on the staff of the London Chronicle, to act in a special capacity. These gentlemen sent out strong Radical despatches indicating, with ability and deliberation, the party side of the situation. In their estimates as to results they turned out to be very accurate-Mr. Watson stating on Nov. 25, with prophetic accuracy, that "the Tories cannot improve their position of last January when they polled to the last man." On Dec. 1 he stated with obvious party feeling, and in reference to Mr. Balfour's Referendum idea, that "more than ever is Toryism revealed as an organized hypocrisy." Mr. Bone's writings and despatches were more reasonable in their view. In Montreal Mr. Percy Hurd of London continued to act as special correspondent of The Star under the name of "Windermere " and his statements were Unionist in tone as were a series of articles by Mr. J. S. Willison of the Toronto News.

A conspicuous feature of the campaign, and into which Canada and Canadians were drawn, was the O'Connor and Redmond tourthe one in Canada and the other in the United States. The $200,000 which they brought back with them was described by the Unionists as a bribe from America with which to destroy the constitution of Great Britain and "dollar dictation," republican or American money, became a sensational issue of the fight. Into it were interjected vague references to a Federal system of Home Rule and the Conservatives claimed that it was this policy-one not really before the British electorate-which had won support in Canada. Of the total collection $25,000 was said to have come from the Dominion and $25 to have been personally given by Sir Wilfrid Laurier. The two following cablegrams were widely published in the British press-the first from Hon. C. J. Doherty, a Conservative leader in Montreal, to the Daily Mail, the second from Mr. Castell Hopkins (President of the Empire Club, To

ronto) to Rt. Hon. Walter Long, President of the Union Defence League:

1. Mr. Doherty:-Certainly subscribed. Stood with Parnell and stand with Redmond and O'Connor in belief not only that Home Rule is Ireland's right, but that its granting would be the greatest service English people could render Empire. Canada's experience is Home Rule makes for loyalty as well as liberty.

2. Mr. Hopkins:-O'Connor's speeches, Canada, based on Federal system for United Kingdom and Empire, as was Canadian Parliamentary Resolution 1882. Redmond's United States speeches based on Nationalism and Parnellism. Laurier's subscription response to O'Connor call.

In this connection the Daily Chronicle gave Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Sir L. Gouin, Hon. W. Scott, Hon. R. McBride, Hon. J. J. Foy, Hon. C. Murphy, W. F. Maclean, Sir Thomas Shaughnessy and Sir B. E. Walker as subscribers to the Home Rule fund. Unionist writers and papers resented particularly the Canadian Premier's action and asked (Arnold White in The Referee for instance) how he would like the British Premier interfering in Canadian politics? Mr. White's statement was particularly strong: "This is life and death to England. Canada does not contribute a farthing to the Civil list of the King. Canada leaves to the people of England the privilege of paying 91 per cent. of the cost of Empire.' Meanwhile, Unionist leaflets quoted speeches by Sir W. Laurier which seemed to be favourable to Tariff Reform and Dr. T. S. Sproule, Orange Grand Master in Canada, sent a message to Belfast denying that any prominent Orangemen attended O'Connor's meetings in Canada and that the Order remained unalterably opposed to Home Rule. To Ian Malcolm, a Unionist candidate, the Canadian Premier cabled on Dec. 14th in reply to an inquiry as to his views on "Federal or Separatist Home Rule" that "in the heat of a campaign such as is now going on in the United Kingdom I would not like to say anything which would seem like interference either for or against the idea. I notice my name being used that way, but I must protest my strong desire that it should be kept out of the contest."

The Dissolution had taken place on Nov. 24th and by Dec. 21st the returns were complete. They showed 272 Unionists, 272 Liberals, 42 Labourites, 74 Nationalists and 10 Independent Nationalists, or a total Coalition vote of 398 against 272 Unionists. The latter, however, had polled the largest single one of the popular votes-2,415,280 against 2,293,894 for the Liberals, 382,158 for the Labourites, 95,426 for the Nationalists and 39,470 for the Independent or O'Brien Nationalists. In connection with the general issue of the Elections Mr. Wallace Nesbitt, K.c., late of the Supreme Court of Canada, made a striking statement in a speech at Hamilton on Dec. 2nd:

We have been brought up to reverence the British constitution under which we live. We have been taught that a constitutional Monarchy

where were the three separate custodians of power-the King, the Lords and Commons-provides the best safeguard in the way of a constitution for our rights and liberties that the world has ever seen. It is not perhaps realized in Canada that in law the Imperial Parliament is supreme over our affairs. Our constitution could be repealed at any Session of the Imperial Parliament. Speaking for myself I have of late begun to wonder whether Canadians would not soon begin to reflect on what was passing in Great Britain in relation to the Constitution. Have the statesmen of Great Britain reflected that the Over-seas Dominions may become anxious as to who are to be the custodians of ultimate power in relation to their affairs? If blind political fury is allowed by Great Britain to destroy or cripple two of the great constitutional safeguards-the Monarchy and the Second Chamber-we, in Canada, have I think some reason for anxiety.

The British
Preference
Proposals

and Canada's
Fiscal Policy

One of the vital issues in both of the British General Elections of 1910 was the attitude of Canada in respect to the British preferential policy of Mr. Chamberlain and the Conservative party; with the possible effect of this policy upon Canada and the other Dominions of the Empire. It may be premised that British trade in 1909 included Imports from Foreign countries of £479,453,018 and from British countries of £145,251,939 with Exports to Foreign countries of £331,653,354 and to British countries of £137,871,632-a total trade of over £1,094,000,000. The inter-British part of this trade was £283,000,000 in 1909 as compared with £250,000,000 in 1905; the Foreign part of it was £811,000,000 in 1909 and £723,000,000 in 1905. The duties imposed by Britain under Free-trade at this juncture averaged $140,000,000 a year-the total on tobacco, tea, spirits, sugar, wine and a few minor products was $1,402,500,000 in the ten years ending Mch. 31, 1907, while the Excise revenue in that period was about the same amount. The total Import trade was £615,000,000 in 1907, £624,000,000 in 1909 and £678,000,000 in 1910; the Export trade was, respectively, £517,000,000, £469,000,000 and £533,000,000. Associated with these figures was the fact that British consumption of wheat averaged about 250,000,000 bushels a year; that the British farmer, if Foreign competition were lessened, could probably produce 100,000,000 bushels more than the 50,000,000 grown under existing conditions; that British imports of wheat in 1908 were 165,000,000 bushels of Foreign and 47,000,000 Empire-grown. Tariff Reformers claimed that great changes could be made in this production and importation. During the January elections the Montreal Star asked for messages to Canada from a number of prominent men in the contest. Some of the replies may be briefly quoted here:

Mr. W. A. S. Hewins: What we see is, firstly, a demonstration of the inapplicability of the present fiscal system to the ordinary needs of the community; secondly, the growing realization of this fact by the electorate; thirdly, the formulation on traditional British lines of a policy to meet these new conditions. With Tariff Reform and in no other way can England provide the necessary revenue to secure naval supremacy, pay