6

To appreciate this table it is necessary carefully to compare the period preceding the grant of preference, 1890-1898, with that succeeding it, 1898-1906. The Edinburgh Reviewer's choice of years, or rather his neglect of the course of Canadian trade prior to 1898, the first year after preference, has led him into error. He says: 'The total value of the twelve groups of dutiable imports from the United Kingdom rose from 16,627,737 dollars in 1898 to 39,095,419 dollars in 1906, an actual increase of 22,467,682 dollars, or 135 per cent. The corresponding value of dutiable imports from all countries other than the United Kingdom rose from 18,569,987 dollars in 1898 to 47,658,756 dollars in 1906, an actual increase of 29,088,869 dollars, or 156 per cent. And this far greater actual increase, as well as percentage increase, was achieved in face of the " preference" being granted on all these groups to the United Kingdom.' The argument would be downright disingenuous if the reviewer had ever studied the statistics for the years before 1898. If, instead of looking only at the period since preference was granted, he had looked also at the previous period, and had compared the course of trade since preference with the course of trade before it, he would never have allowed himself to make the above grossly one-sided statement. It is true that between 1898 and 1906 dutiable imports from the United Kingdom in the above twelve classes increased by 22,470,000 dollars, or 135 per cent., while from the United States the increase was 22,490,000 dollars, or 144 per cent.; but in the previous eight years the imports from the United Kingdom had steadily and largely declined by 8,180,000 dollars, or 33 per cent., while the imports from the United States had increased by 7,470,000 dollars, or 91 per cent. It may be that the larger increase in the case of the United States was achieved in face of the preference'; but that in this same period the British trade showed any increase at all, or that the United States increase was not even much greater than it proved, can only be explained by the existence of the preference.

If the foregoing table be closely examined it will be seen that the decline in imports from the United Kingdom in the period 1890-1898 occurred not in two or three groups alone, but in eleven out of the twelve groups selected by the reviewer; in the twelfth group (oilcloths) there was an increase of about 10,000 dollars. In the same interval the imports from the United States showed increases in every group. On the other hand since preference was granted there have been in each of the twelve groups to which the preference applies considerable increases in British imports, in some cases greater, in others less than in the corresponding imports from

• There is a mistake in the Edinburgh Reviewer's figures. The imports of leather goods from all other countries' in 1898 should be 1,512,000 dollars instead of 512,000 dollars, and this figure should consequently be 19,569,987 dollars instead of 18,569,987 dollars.

the United States. And when the examination is carried out with even greater minuteness of detail than I have here attempted, the course of trade being followed not in groups but in separate items, and not in periods of eight years but year by year—an examination which is possible with the aid of the 'Trade and Navigation Accounts' instead of the Trade and Commerce Accounts' employed by the Edinburgh reviewer as well as by myself in this article-an eye being always kept on the changes of tariff and increases of preference, the conclusion is irrefutable; for it is then found that in practically every case the change in the course of British trade took place in 1897, when British imports first received a preference over the United States, and to an even more marked extent in 1900, when the preference was appreciably enlarged and was in operation against all foreign countries. It appears to me that demonstration can go no further. Is there any possibility of ignoring the significance of these figures? The date of the grant of preference marks a clear turning-point in the competition between the United Kingdom and all foreign countries. Where, before preference, we were decidedly losing ground we have, since preference, been as decidedly gaining it. Let those who belittle preference produce some other cause which can account for the change.

This improvement in our position relative to the United States after the grant of preference in respect of those articles in which we compete in the Canadian market is a fact of first-rate importance. Its significance is in no way obscured by the huge totals of imports from the United States, including as they do many things which we do not produce as well as many others in which, for obvious reasons, we do not compete with them on anything like equal terms. Throw the sword of Brennus into the scale, and the other weights count for little. It is by lumping together all the imports from the United States that the Edinburgh Reviewer has succeeded in obscuring in his unanalysed totals the effect of preference, which is so clear in the analysed figures. Even preference, I fully admit, unless indeed it be carried to unjustifiable extremes-if, that is to say, Canada were to impose really prohibitive duties on United States imports, which nobody desires or dreams of even preference cannot enable the United Kingdom to compete with the United States on even terms in the Canadian market except with regard to a certain number of articles. Proximity alone is bound to exercise a very potent influence. On all goods in the price of which the cost of carriage is a predominant factor it would need much more than an advantage of one-third in the rate of duties, amounting to an average of less than 10 per cent. of the value of the goods, to enable British manufacturers to compete, in the heart of Canada, with those of Pennsylvania and Massachusetts. But proximity is not the only advantage which the United States possess. They have also the advantage of a greater

similarity of conditions, which enables the Canadian market to be catered for as an additional market to the United States for the same classes of goods instead of as a totally different market possessing exceptional requirements. Thus in Canada, as in the United States, there is abundance of water power, and the provision of machinery for utilising this power is naturally easier for a United States manufacturer, who produces turbines and water-wheels for the two countries, than for a British manufacturer, who has practically no other than the Canadian market for this description of goods. Moreover there is another factor, on which the Edinburgh Reviewer rightly insists, and which, especially of late years, has exercised a great influence in stimulating the demand for United States goods as compared with British. I refer to the great influx of United States settlers into Western Canada. Not only do these immigrants exceed those from the United Kingdom in numbers, but, man for man, they greatly exceed them in wealth. They are better customers, and it is only natural that their custom should go to their country of origin rather than to a distant country, of different habits, with whose products they are not familiar. It is a common experience that every colony, in the first instance at any rate, tends to draw its supplies from the Mother Country rather than from foreign lands. And the United States colonists of Western Canada are no exception to the rule.

And yet, when all is said and done, the effect of preference is clearly visible in the competition of the United Kingdom with the United States. I dwell upon this because it is the strongest possible case, the case of a country in our competition with which preference has the greatest difficulties to overcome. In the case of our other principal rival, Germany, the change since the introduction of preference is much more marked. But even in the case of the United States if preference cannot wholly outweigh the great and manifold advantages which the rival country possesses it does to an appreciable extent counteract them. The disproportion between the increase of United States imports into Canada and the increase of British mports is largely due to the vast amount of United States trade with Canada in goods which the United Kingdom does not produce and therefore cannot supply. If we confine ourselves to articles which the two countries are equally capable of producing the difference is far less marked. Above all there is that marked contrast of tendency to which I have called attention between the period antecedent to the grant of preference and the period subsequent to it. The table on p. 529 shows a number of classes of goods, and they are the most important to us, in which the United Kingdom has competed with the United States with much greater success since the grant of preference than before it. To these may be added glass and earthenware, cordage, paper, metals (other than iron and steel) and manufactures thereof, tobacco, pipes, &c.

And now let me sum up briefly. I maintain that experience in the case of Canada shows-and this experience is not confined to Canada -that preference is capable of effecting what I claim for it. When British goods are competing with foreign goods in any part of the Empire on more or less equal terms even a moderate preference on British goods will turn the scale in their favour. Where they are competing at a slight but decided disadvantage preference can neutralise that disadvantage. But where the disadvantage is very great, owing to distance or other natural causes of a preponderating character, or even to the settled habits or customs of the importing community, no preference that I either expect or desire to see imposed can wholly counteract that disadvantage, though it may certainly mitigate it. In other words, preference cannot work miracles. But it can and does exercise so great an influence on the course of trade that it is well worth making some effort, and even some sacrifice, in order to maintain and extend it. I think the time has come when all fair-minded Free Importers may be reasonably asked to admit this, as some of them, including the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, have admitted it.

MILNER.

THE EUCHARISTIC CONGRESS

In the annals of the Catholic Church in this country, the Eucharistic Congress will take rank as an event of historic importance. In the memory of those who took part in it, it will live as the wonderful week in which they have gazed upon scenes such as have never been witnessed by their fathers even from the days of St. Augustine. For the first time in history seven Cardinals-one-tenth of the whole Sacred College-have met together in England. Their meeting had for its setting a combination of all those elements which stir most deeply the religious feelings of Catholics. The presence of a Papal Legate; the multitude, from all lands, of bishops and clergy in which were commingled home and foreign, East and West, Latin and Teuton; the splendour of the Liturgy which included the Byzantine rite as well as our own; the enormous concourse of the faithful, not only filling the vast cathedral but flooding far and wide the streets around it; the crowded sectional meetings at which were read such excellent papers as those of Abbot Gasquet and Dom Chapman and Lord Llandaff; above all, the faith and fervour which went forth in devotion to the Blessed Sacrament and loyalty to the Holy See, and tuned in the deepest of all harmonies the hearts of all from the stately CardinalLegate down to the tiniest child that bent lowly its infant head at the 'Veneremur cernui'-all these are parts of a picture which is never likely to be forgotten by those who beheld it. Even the dramatic element was forthcoming in the startling incident of the Government intervention. Albeit a circumstance of an external and secondary order, it seemed to be psychologically timed by Mr. Asquith so as to produce the maximum effect of public prominence, and the awakening of a deep thrill of passionate resentment, in which the wounded sense of liberty and citizenship and patriotism was blended with that of religion. It can only be said that the Prime Minister in taking such a step was building more wisely than he knew for the complete success of the Congress.

By those who know most of such Congresses in the past the success of the one which has just been held is regarded as phenomenal. The Eucharistic Congresses assemble for the renewal and expression of