return of exactly 2 per cent. Chamberlain. But his affection Rich men may, of course, amuse is, like Lord Rosebery's, purely themselves by making model platonic. The Free-Fooder will villages on these conditions; not accept facts from the but it is not business, and land Colonies which do not tally and houses are regarded as busi- with his theories, his prejudices, ness matters everywhere save or with the information which in rural districts. The Free- was painfully imparted to him Fooder shuts his eyes and closes at school. Like Lord Rosebery, his ears to every agricultural he prefers the views of unheardproblem. It is nothing to him of secretaries of commercial that the agriculturist has lower associations to the reported wages than any other skilled speeches of the leaders of labourer, that the farmer has parties. Like Lord Rosebery, ceased, save in exceptionally he will doubtless lament that favoured districts, to make his Mr Balfour is going to ask the calling remunerative, that land people of Britain to authorise has ceased to be a profitable him to call the Empire together investment for the purchaser. in council. He has already done He is not alarmed if he is told more. One of his favourite that while the net agricultural journals, in Mr Balfour's own rental of England and Wales Scotland, on the day after Mr was over £48,000,000 in 1883 Balfour's Edinburgh speech, it is £33,500,000 in 1903-an failed to understand the imannual loss of 14 millions to portance of the Prime Minister's the landowners in twenty years, declaration, and announced in while the farmers' loss has been a leading article that a Colonial calculated to be equal to a Conference was to be sumdecrease of their capital by moned at once. Here we have £200,000,000. Even Lord unintelligence and misrepreRosebery recognises, or from sentation. Mr Balfour declared time to time has recognised, that he would, after next the parlous condition of the general election, if he was emagricultural industry; but, of powered by the British electcourse, he has no remedy to orate, summon a great Impropose, no policy to urge. perial Council. The significance of the declaration is great,so great that small minds failed to grasp it. Mr Balfour gave Home troubles are but one side of a serious problem. Like Lord Rosebery, your FreeFooder declines to come to close quarters with the Colonial question. He, like Lord Rosebery, professes a sincere affection for those of us who live in Canada, Australia, and Africa, he is less interested in the unhappy colonists of the West Indies, whose only friend has been Mr - to the Scottish Conservative Club-what he rightly and constitutionally refused to the House of Commons, which had other work to do a rough draft of his next election address. He said that when the time came he proposed to ask for power to make a departure in the method of governing this Empire, which, if the electors are wise enough to grant it, will have far-reaching effects. Colonial conferences have been held, summoned by Ministers on their own responsibility. Mr Balfour is going to ask the people of Britain to call their brothers into council with them. The invitation, if it is given,—and it must be given if the Imperial instincts of the race have not died out in the old country,-will come directly from the people of Britain-not from their Ministers. The whole question has been lifted by Mr Balfour on to a higher plane; and were we a more serious, a more informed people, the voice of minor controversies would be hushed and the verdict of the nation would be waited for with bated breath. Is it conceivable that the Free-Fooders will still murmur dissent, will still doubt, tremble, and shiver? Will they not leave all side-issues, and at last be content to be guided by a statesman whose skill, prudence, and patriotism have never been shown more clearly than in his latest utterance. If they are still obdurate, then they will not escape the verdict that unintelligence and "Free - Foodism" are essentially synonyms. They have till now been the "foolometers" of the party. The pace has been kept back to suit them. Now is the parting of the ways. If they fail to understand Mr Balfour, if they fail to see that Mr Chamberlain at Luton desires no more than they to split the Unionist party, then they are indeed hopeless. Surgical operations may help them, less drastic treatment will not. If they recover their intelligence, they will see that the controversy between them and Mr Chamberlain is one of words and phrases, not facts; and they will also discover that with the Prime Minister they cannot possibly have any controversy at all. Humility is a virtue to be commended to them: they have had little acquaintance with it. They will find it more comforting than humiliation. No proposal to improve the position of agriculture by raising the prices of home produce by means of an import duty has been made by Mr Balfour or Mr Chamberlain. Will the Free-Fooders accept that plain statement? It is permitted to doubt that they will. For years they have followed Mr Balfour and have applauded Mr Chamberlain; but the moment that these statesmen ventured to question the wisdom of allowing the country to be flooded by inferior manufactures and to be the dumping-ground of surplus foreign products-the moment it is suggested that by negotiation America might be induced to open her markets to our farmers by reducing the prohibitive duty of £2 per ton on potatoes-the moment it is hinted that Canada might send us better corn than the United States, if it were helped to increase its productive area,—they shy off, and, more, they suspect deep designs or sinister motives. This, of course, is the game of the Opposition, and is played by Mr Asquith for all it is worth. Mr Asquith est dans ses droits. Unionist FreeFooders, however, have no business in that galley, for it is being steered in a direction they detest and to a whirlpool they justly fear: yet they pull an oar and obey the whip of the slave-master on the poop. The Unionist Free-Fooders are as opposed to Home Rule as any of the party, are as anxious in sentiment for the closer union of the Empire as Mr Chamberlain is, in fact; yet they have given up place and power, have spoilt careers, and have just failed to disintegrate the Unionist party, because, though they accepted Sir Michael Hicks-Beach's 1s. duty on corn, they could not conscientiously agree to one of 2s., which should not apply to the produce of the Colonies. Free Trade within the Empire is an ideal which they would support-perhaps because it is unattainable; but any step towards lessening inter-Imperial tariff restrictions is to be opposed tooth and nail at any personal sacrifice. 'Tis a matter of dogma, of conscience, and to convince requires no attack upon principle -for no true principle is at stake-but an assault upon a prejudice. The prejudice is founded on a mistaken and (pace the odd number of professors) an unintelligent knowledge of the facts, and, to some extent, of the theories, of econ omics; and, further, it is based upon the supreme fallacy that the world is governed by economic, without the disturbing admixture of political, motives. Your Free - Fooder is as unpractical as the Radical angler, who is-happily, so far, in vain -baiting his hook for him. The tariff question has many sides: the Free-Fooder sees one only. Apart from all questions of decaying industries, dumping, depopulation of country districts, agricultural depression, union of the Empire, there is a practical, an immediate question which the FreeFooders ignore. The expenditure of the country shows no signs of permanent decrease, the revenue shows no signs of elasticity. The leaders of the Opposition, as is their duty, cry retrenchment, but they have given no practical suggestions as to how savings are to be effected, while the rank and file of the Liberal party are constantly urging socialistic schemes which would mean heavy drains on the public purse. We cannot reduce the cost of the navy; on the contrary, we must recognise that naval expenditure will constantly increase. Mr Arnold Forster promises some appreciable reduction in the cost of the army. The increase in the annual demands of education will, however, soon wipe out any economies Mr Arnold Forster may effect. Where is retrenchment to be sought? Responsible statesmen and disinterested students of public affairs both answer "Where?" Obviously a broader basis of taxation must be sought. That is one reason for the calm con policy of the Free-Fooders will retard it. Is The development of our selfsideration of Mr Chamberlain's governing Colonies may no proposals. Of course it may longer be the duty of the parent be said, and with some justice, State: it is undoubtedly its that as one of the objects of a interest. They have the liberty preferential tax on corn is to to work out their own destinies; enable Canada to develop the but the task of protecting them North-West and rapidly to is still regarded as a privilege increase the corn-growing area, by the Mother of Nations. we shall soon get little or no that task to be shared in due revenue from a corn-tax, as the proportion by mother and whole of our supply will come children? Is part of the burfrom our own duty-free Colonies. den of Empire to be borne by This may not happen in the the Colonies? Are we to hasten lifetime of those now living, the time when they will guard but it has been calculated that their own frontiers and help to twenty years may produce such police the oceans? These are an economic revolution. The questions which Mr Chambertime is unimportant for present lain answers in no uncertain consideration. What is im- voice; but these are also the quesportant is that Free - Fooder tions which Mr Balfour asks and Radical should remember the people of the mother country that if the burden of Empire to consider, the questions he is to be shared by the Colonies, will, in due time, put to the the arrangement which will Colonies for answer. It is produce that consummation tragic that in view of the vast will be the result of negotia- possibilities before the Empire tions. The Colonies are not yet there should be raised a quesready for greater Imperial tion so alien, so sordid, so irburdens than those they have relevant as the academic disvoluntarily undertaken; but cussion of Free Trade and prosurely it is not a great call tective theories: they have upon the prophetic imagination small bearing on the vastly of any reader of the history of greater question before the the nineteenth century to ask country. If Britain is to conhim to look forward to the day tinue to hold its place and do when Canada will be able to its work among the nations— bear the burden of a hundred not of to-day, but of all the ships of war, and Australia will centuries-it must soon have be ready to send forth as many the organised help of the whole pennants as followed Nelson at Empire. The weary Titan is Trafalgar. The future which not yet an apt metaphor, but holds these things is neither the burden of Empire means in dim nor distant. A preference A preference plain language the burden of with Canada and Australia taxation, and the time will will hasten that future, the come when that burden must It can be shared or lessened. ing that he spoke not only for himself but for the Liberal party, stated that a consultation of representatives of the Empire would be "futile, fraught with mischief, and dangerous to our Imperial Union," he was obviously talking nonsense, for in his next sentence he informed his audience that he "looked forward to the time when these consul Lord Rosebery's garden- tations between the Colonies party speech told us nothing and ourselves would be rethat was new, little that was garded as part of the regular true, and less that mattered. or working machinery of the It was interesting mainly be- Empire." Mr Asquith's concause it showed that the ex- ferences presumably are to disPrime Minister, the ex-leader of cuss everything except matters the Liberal party, might not be of importance. Are they to unwilling to assume both posts collate statistics as to temperagain. It is the natural solu- atures and rainfalls? What tion of an uncomfortable state else can they deal with, if everyof affairs in the Liberal party; thing which by any chance can and as Lord Rosebery is not raise a division of opinion is to likely to lead any party to be excluded from their convictory, good Tories may well sideration? What does Mr desire his reassumption of the Asquith mean? The conferOpposition leadership. It is to ence proposed by Mr Balfour Mr Asquith, and neither to may be "futile "—that remains Lord Rosebery nor to Mr Hal- to be seen. So far all the indane, that we must look for a formation we have seems to indeclaration of the official policy dicate that whatever it may be of the Opposition. He has it is not likely to be that. been given the brief to oppose "Fraught with mischief"-the Mr Chamberlain, and Luton only mischief that seems likely was followed by Ladybank. Mr to result is the further discredit Asquith loves bogies, and the of the Liberal party. "Fraught bogy of ante- Cobdenite pro- with mischief" is perhaps but tection is his favourite. He an oratorical phrase signifying threatened the men of East nothing. It is vague; but we Fife with it, in spite of Mr must accept it as the deliberate Balfour's explicit repudiation. statement of the views of Mr It may have been good elec- Asquith and of the whole Liberal tioneering-in Fife-but it was party within and without the scarcely worthy of the tradi- Tabernacle. Is it the result of tions of British statesmanship. the combined literary efforts of But when Mr Asquith, assert- all the leaders? No; the mis |