plans. It is a fact of much significance that so antagonistic are the views held by these two organizations that the second to be heard by Lord Salisbury thought necessary, previous to its interview, to request that he should not commit himself to the ideas of the first -- evidence of an anxiety which seems to have been wholly unnecessary, as it is evident from Lord Salisbury's reply that neither of the societies, so far, has been able to lay before him anything requiring consideration. He has wisely called for a bill of particulars, having had enough of glittering generalities. This is a challenge which admits of no denial if these societies are to justify their continued existence. If they cannot formulate a plan, surely they will retire.

(2) In the first part of the nineteenth century various German states under the leadership of Prussia formed the customs union known as the Zollverein. Kriegsverein, to employ the Carnegie vernacular, went beyond trade to joint action in time of war.

who consume £166,000,000 in favor of those who consume half that amount. With British imports it is just the same, for in 1889 imports and exports to colonies, etc., were only £187,000,000 out of a total of £554,000,000 - one third to the dependencies against two thirds to the foreigners. If there were a prospect of the former trade growing more rapidly than the other, it might be held that the future would justify the sacrifice, but there is nothing to encourage this view; on the contrary, colonial and Indian trade both tend to decline, while that with foreign nations increases. The reason is clear; the older nations have developed their resources, and trade with them is now practically upon its final basis; the colonies have only recently begun to supply their own wants, and are yet to extend their capacity greatly in this direction. It is scarcely to be expected that with double their present population their demands upon Britain will be much increased. Indeed, the present tendency to decline may continue for a time.

Republic would do if she were discriminated against needs no guess, for she has recently lodged in the President power to go so far as to prohibit entirely the products of any country that does so.

(3) Carnegie is manipulating a "paper dragon." The McKinley Tariff of 1890 threatened a prohibition of trade as a means of securing reciprocity; the device was directed against certain products and certain nations, for example Latin America, rather than against Great Britain. The trade in fresh beef to Great Britain took the form of exports of live animals and, after the application of refrigeration to transportation, of chilled or frozen meat. Both of these trades threatened beef producers in Great Britain, but their powerful interest was never able to induce the government to embargo or discriminate by tariff against the American product. Occasionally the British government, alarmed by Texas fever or the "lung plague," pleuropneumonia, clapped on quarantines or enforced them more strictly. A minor dust-up on this score occurred in 1891. In spite of such episodes the fresh beef trade to Great Britain expanded enormously from the seventies on.

she sends here are to be discriminated against? But why continue the list? It is the same story everywhere.

and her people would suffer for food. Britain's house is a whole Crystal Palace - she of all nations should be the last to begin stone-throwing.

(4) Alfred Marshall (1842-1924), British economist.

(5) Richard Cobden (1804-1885); John Bright (1811-1889).

for an old country producing more articles than it could consume was necessarily wise for every country, including those which had diversified home industries yet to establish. Mill and Marshall are right for new countries, always provided such have within themselves the necessary resources and adequate market to eventually furnish the articles at less cost to the consumer than would have to be paid if dependent upon a foreign supply. Thus the United States has succeeded by protection in getting the millions of square feet of plate-glass she uses per annum at less cost than a similar article costs in Europe. She often has her steel rails at less than these could be imported for free of duty. She has failed, however, to produce cheaply her supply of sugar by protection. Hence she wisely abandons the attempt, and makes foreign sugar free. Now, because Britain has not the requisite territory to increase greatly her food-supply, any tax imposed upon food must be permanent. The doctrine of Mill does not, therefore, apply, for protection, to be wise, must always be in the nature of only a temporary shielding of new plants until they take root. It will surprise many if Britain ever imposes a permanent tax upon the food of her thirty-eight millions of people, with no possible hope of ever increasing the supply, and thereby reducing the cost, and thus ultimately rendering the tax unnecessary. A tax for a short period that fosters and increases production, and a tax for all time which cannot increase production, are different things.

The loss owing to this will not be small. While, therefore, it is open to Britain to try "protection," and pay the cost of the experiment, and retrace her steps, he is a bold man who ventures to place an estimate upon the permanent loss to his country which is surely involved in entering upon the "Empire trade" crusade.

has always been the kindest and most neighborly of neighbors to all her less powerful sisters; but the power is there, and this being so, I should like to ask our United Empire Trade League friends what answer Canada would be likely to make to their proposition to discriminate in favor of Britain as against the Republic. Canada may yet, in justice to herself, be compelled to do just the reverse. There is a large party in Canada in favor of such a step. An invitation from Britain to enter upon the policy of discrimination would require Canada to consider for her own interests in whose favor the discrimination should be. The idea suggested by the League may thus return to plague the inventor. Truly our friends of the Trade League have found and are brandishing a dangerous weapon.

destroy the manufactures of their sister colonies? Has any indication been seen of a desire upon the part of any of these colonies to abandon the high aim each has set before itself of becoming a great power with diversified industries, capable of supplying its own necessary wants? The members of the League should endeavor to place themselves in the position of Canada and of Australia, and judge in the case of Canada what its reply to their idea must be, and in the case of Australia what it would be. The officials of that society are, no doubt, preparing their answer to the challenge given by the Prime Minister, and it is to be hoped that it will deal with the points here suggested.

If it may not be given to us to realize that grand idea, the confederation of all the nations which have sprung from the race nurtured in these isles, should we not at least use all our energies to promote the union and political consolidation of the Greater Britain which still owns one flag and acknowledges one sovereign?
(6) S. B. Bolton, "Sir John Macdonald on Imperial Federation," Nineteenth Century, XXX (July 1891), 159-160.

(7) Rosebery was one of the charter members of the Imperial Federation League and a member of its executive body. Compelled to assume political responsibilities, he stood against extremists in the League. He thought it should be "educational" and encourage colonial and imperial conferences, but he could not fit imperial preference into his program.

delivers upon the subject, that his hopes of the union of the entire race may still be brighter than those expressed by officials who have spoken for the Federation in his absence. For the present, I take it, we must assume that, like the Trade League, it seeks no longer harmony and cooperation among the various parts of the race. It stands now as a body whose effort is to combine only the minority of the English-speaking race in a solid phalanx, leaving out the majority. While, in the case of the first society, it was necessary to go into particulars, in that of the latter it seems only necessary to examine its aim as recently presented.

(8) Sir John A. Macdonald (181E~1891) was frequently after 1857 a Conservative prime minister of Canada; Sir Henry Parkes (1815-1896) after 1872 served often as prime minister of New South Wales; and Sir Samuel W. Criffith (1845-1920) was prime minister of Queensland.

the masses is only a name - no doubt a name which they can never mention without pride and gratitude, but still only a name, not a country; and a country every man worthy of the name of man will have and worship.

(9) Honore Mercier (1840-1894), premier and attorney-general (1887).

Yes, I am. I regard that policy as treason to Canada. Imperial federation means that Canada must join Britain in her wars throughout the world, and must weigh the interest of the whole Empire before looking to her own. A tie that would thus subject Canada completely to European dominion would be a most unnatural one, and there are not fifty men in the province of Quebec who are favorable to so unpatriotic a policy. The time has, in fact, come to consider in a very peaceful yet very serious way the right of European Powers to govern people living on the continent of America, whose interests and general tendencies, commercial or other, are in certain respects opposed to those of the people of Europe. Accordingly, instead of being disposed

to strengthen the ties at present existing between Britain and Canada, we are, in fact, looking forward with some anxiety to the time when we shall ask for our independence. We shall request it with all due respect to Great Britain, and without any ill feeling toward her people, just as a young man of full age, on leaving his father's home, may sometimes do it with reluctance, but with the proud feeling that he, too, is called upon to take a free and independent share in life. What I say about the province of Quebec may, I believe, be said of the inhabitants of all the other provinces.

In future, England would be the center, surrounded and sustained by an alliance, not only with Canada, but with Australia and all her other possessions; and there would thus be formed an immense confederation of freemen-the greatest confederacy of civilized and intelligent men that ever had an existence on the face of the globe.

(10) On the Pauncefote-Blaine treaty Essay XI, note 8. In 1890 and again in April 1891 Newfoundland sent deputations to London to protest against the principle and arrangement by which France and England arrived at a modus vivendi involving the fishing industry in the colony.

compromise has necessarily been all on one side. The form of arbitration with France is to be adhered to; but after this has been duly performed, Newfoundland's demands will be complied with. Any treaty rights France is found to possess are to be purchased. There was no other course open to Britain. She cannot govern her colonies; for they are full grown and almost of age and now dictate to her. They must be provided with homes of their own speedily if the filial tie is to be preserved.

Spain had great colonies upon the American continent: where are these now? Seventeen republics occupy Central and South America. Five of these have prepared plans for federating. Portugal had a magnificent empire, which is now with the Brazilian Republic. Britain had a colony. It has passed from its mother's apron-strings and set up for itself, and now the majority of all our races are gathered under its republican flag. What is there in the position of Britain's relation to Australia and Canada that justifies the belief that any different result is possible with them? I know of none; on the contrary, all that I know of the sentiment of the people in the colonies satisfies me that there exists this healthy growth toward national life. They would be unworthy of their sires if they did not possess it. It was not a question of taxes that produced the independence of the United States; this was the incident only which precipitated what was bound to come a few years sooner or later, independent of any possible home policy. Franklin and Adams had no idea of separating from the mother-land when they led in the refusal to be taxed from Westminster; but they soon found themselves compelled by a public sentiment, until then latent, to advance to independence. Australasia has begun the natural movement toward change in her relations to the old home. Her leaders-still native-born Britons chiefly-kindly propose that Britain may still be allowed to send an ornamental Governor-General. The tie will be slight, but it is now seen, especially in the most important of the colonies, New South Wales, that, as in the case of America, the British-born leaders may be pushed by the native-born Australians into a movement for complete independence. If it does not evolve now it must do so later, for the "Speaker" (July 18) truly says: "It is the fading class of the home-born which keeps alive the traditions and sentiment of the English connection. Every five minutes throughout Australasia an Imperialist dies; every four minutes a Republican is born."