tionists outside Parliament-is of the same futile character as that offered by their compeers in Parliament. The principal resolution carried at the two meetings referred to reads as follows:

'That this meeting cordially approves of preferential trade between the mother-country and Australia, having at all times due regard to the industries of the Commonwealth.'

Mr S. Barker, secretary of the Trades-hall Council, and representing it at the Melbourne Town-hall meeting, explained the meaning of the qualifying clause in this resolution as follows:

'He would support Britishers against any other nationality, but wanted the local market protected for our own workers. If on enquiry it was found that those seeking preference would grind down the people, they would have nothing to do with it. When there were articles which we could not manufacture, should we not give the British manufacturer preference over the outsider?'

Of the remaining bodies under whose auspices these meetings were organised, the Protectionists' Association had previously passed the following resolution :—

'It is further resolved that every tariff alteration made for this purpose' (Preference) 'should be based on the principle that the Commonwealth protective duties continue to cover the difference between the cost of labour in Australia and that of other parts of the Empire, so that the fiscal preference given shall be by additional duties upon imports from foreign countries and by discrimination in the free-list or merely revenue-producing items.'

As showing the attitude of the third body, the Chamber of Manufacturers, it may be stated that one of its members, Mr I. Jacobs, has repeatedly urged the necessity of defining the Preference which the Chamber would be prepared to accept. Being unsuccessful, he moved, at the meeting of the Chamber on December 19, 1904, the following resolution, which was made a notice of motion for February 6, 1905, when his object was again defeated, an amendment being carried deleting all the words after 'local industry' :

That this Chamber earnestly desires to encourage and foster trade with the United Kingdom in preference to trade

with foreign nations, subject to the paramount necessity of promoting and conserving local industry. To obtain both these results it recommends a preferential fiscal treatment of British goods, provided that the duties imposed on such goods equal the difference in labour-cost of such goods as between the United Kingdom and Australia, plus the freight payable to Australian ports.'

The Melbourne 'Age' also has constantly urged that preference to British goods must not be allowed to interfere with the exclusive policy of Protection. Thus, on October 5, 1904, it said :

'Preferential trade with Great Britain can be brought about in two ways. One is by reducing our present tariff duties on English goods and retaining them against the foreigner; the other is by increasing our duties against the foreigner while retaining them, as at present, against British exports. Seeing that our present tariff is so low in its duties, we cannot consent, either from the revenue or the protective standpoint, that these duties be decreased. We therefore reach the conclusion that a preferential trade policy in Australia means a considerable increase of duty as against the foreigner.'

This attitude of the Australian Preferentialists has, of course, been repeatedly dwelt upon by the opponents of the policy. To quote only the most important of these critics in the press, the Melbourne Argus,' on October 9, 1904, wrote as follows:

'Seeing, then, that we can gain no advantage for ourselves, are the proposers of the preferential revival so generous that they are prepared to give away something to the mothercountry? The fact that they comprise our most severe restrictionists answers this question. They are the people who complain that Great Britain is dumping her manufactures on our shores. They are the advocates for starting an iron industry at enormous cost to the electors in order to shut out British iron. They are crying for the raising of duties on imports from Great Britain. Mr Chamberlain has been led to believe that Australians are eager to admit British trade; and all the "preference" the restrictionists are prepared to give them is to put up the duties on goods which Great Britain does not export to Australia.'

The Sydney' Daily Telegraph' wrote, on September 15, 1904 :

'One result of the preferential trade debate in the House of Representatives has been a frank avowal of the selfish provincial grounds on which the Preferential party here advocates what Mr Balfour and Mr Chamberlain profess to believe necessary for the high patriotic purpose of solidifying the Empire and maintaining its unity. No substantial remissions of duty are to be made in favour of Great Britain; and the compensation proffered to the Britisher for having the price of his food increased is the knowledge that the foreigner is being treated even worse than himself.'

The Sydney 'Morning Herald,' on December 16, 1904, wrote in the same strain.

The representative mercantile associations of Australia are the Chambers of Commerce of the several states, which are combined under a general council. At the two last annual sittings of the 'General Council of the Chambers of Commerce of Australia,' the question of fiscal preference was debated with the following results. At the annual meeting held in June 1903, Mr S. J. Jacobs (Adelaide), president, moved :

'That in the opinion of the Council the adoption by the Commonwealth of Australia of preferential trade arrangements with Great Britain is calculated to place the export trade of Australia at a serious disadvantage, and is inimical to the best interests of the commerce of Australia.'

The following amendment was moved by Mr R. J. Alcock (Melbourne), and carried by ten votes to seven :

"That this Council declares that the adoption by the Commonwealth of preferential trade relations with Great Britain is one that requires earnest and thoughtful consideration, but the Council is unable to express a different opinion thereon until more fully acquainted with the details of the proposal.'

At the annual meeting for the year 1904 an even more pronounced course of apathetic inaction was adopted Mr W. H. Phillips (Adelaide) moved :—

"That, having due regard to the geographical position of Australia, the circumstances which govern its production, and the consequences of limiting our markets, it has not yet been shown that it is advisable for us to enter into preferential trade arrangements with the United Kingdom.'

On this resolution an amendment was moved by Mr R. J. Larking (Melbourne) to the effect

"That this Council reserves its opinion on the question until the result of the special board of enquiry in England be known.'

After an interesting debate both the original motion and the amendment were withdrawn, the meeting separating without any pronouncement on the subject.

The attitude of the Australian press towards Preferentialism is generally hostile. Of the important dailies, the 'Age' (Melbourne), the 'Advertiser' (Adelaide), and the 'Courier' (Brisbane), advocate it; while the 'Argus' (Melbourne), the 'Daily Telegraph' (Sydney), the 'Register' (Adelaide), the 'Morning Herald' (Sydney), and the West Australian' (Perth), as well as The Miner' (Kalgoorlie), are hostile. Hostile also is the whole of the Labour press throughout Australia, inclusive of the 'Bulletin' (Sydney), politically the most influential weekly publication in the Commonwealth.

A few words more are needed to make clear the attitude of the Labour party, which elects one third of the members of the House of Representatives and nearly one half of the members of the Senate. This party includes both Free-traders and Protectionists-the fiscal question being treated as not a party subject. Mr J. C. Watson, the leader of the party, is a moderate Protectionist, and, like the rest of that section of the party, gave a mild support to Preferentialism at the general elections. The Victorian members of the party are all Protectionists, as is the great majority of their electors. The latter are politically represented by the Trades-hall Council and the Political Labour League. These two bodies, till quite lately, supported Preferentialism, subject to its not interfering with the protective policy. Through various causes, the principal of which is to be found in the attitude of the English Labour Unions, this support has now been changed into opposition. Thus the Political Labour League passed the following resolution, and sent it for publication to the press on December 5, 1904 :

'That this meeting of the Melbourne branch of the Political Labour Council of Victoria resolves that the Chamber

lain scheme of preferential trade will be of no benefit to the working classes of Australia; that it tends to further increase national and racial animosities; that it is against the economic development of Australian industry; and further, that we call upon our fellow-workers in Australia and the United Kingdom to be not misled by the sophistry of capitalistic cliques, whose sole aim and object is the continued exploitation of the working classes of both hemispheres.'

More significant still is the change which has come over the attitude of the Melbourne Trades-hall Council. In October 1904 this body resolved, by a considerable majority, to join in the propaganda for Preferentialism. On December 3, 1904, it was moved to rescind this resolution, and the motion was carried by 23 votes to 17; but, as a majority of two thirds was required, the motion was declared lost. Repeated efforts have since been made by the majority to obtain a declaration expressing hostility to Preferentialism, but have so far been defeated by an ingenious use of the standing orders. Still, the fact remains that the majority of the Tradeshall Council, previously favourable, is now as hostile to Preferentialism as are the working classes generally.

The following, then, is a summary of the situation as it exists in Australia to-day :

(1) The vast majority of the people are utterly apathetic as regards Preferentialism.

(2) The active friends of Preferentialism are mainly protected manufacturers, who expect that an increase in existing duties against foreign goods may give more complete protection to their own products, but will not consent to such a reduction of duties on British goods as would make it easier for these to compete with native industries. (3) Till such time as Preferentialism has been adopted in the United Kingdom as an Imperial policy, the Commonwealth will take no steps towards preferential treatment of British goods.

(4) If Preferentialism is adopted in the mother-land, the majority of the Australian people will, in all probability, be in favour of concluding some arrangement for reciprocal preferential trade relations within the Empire.

(5) Even then, it is doubtful whether a majority