would increase revenue, bi-oaJeu tbe basis of taxa^ 

 tion, protect borne markets, tbereby increasing 

 employment and wages, and produce macbinery 

 for preventing unfair competition in the home 

 market. When we taxed things which we could 

 produce, such as meat, dairy produce and manu- 

 factures, then tbey entered into competition with 

 the home articles, and the foreignei would pay if 

 not the whole, the greater part, but in taxing the 

 thin>»s that we at present taxed, he maintained 

 that'the consumer had to pay, because there was 

 no competition between the taxed and the untaxed 

 supply. The moment we taxed a thing we could 

 produce ourselves, there was competition between 

 the taxed and the untaxed supply. All Free 

 Traders seemed to forget the home market. The 

 foreigners raised tariffs against us, but we let 

 them in here free. Cocoa was one of England's 

 protected industries. Kaw cocoa wixs taxed one 

 penny per pound, and manufactured cocoa 2d. per 

 lb. Why should cocoa manufacturei-s object to 

 the extension of the .same benefits to other manu- 

 facturers ? Was it unreasonable to say that other 

 manufacturers would also reap benefit by such 

 protection ? 



Mr. W. T. Leeming said they were not there as 

 partisans of anv political party, and he thought 

 in a society like that they might legitimately 

 discuss that or any other question of the day. He 

 came with the conviction that the absence of 

 import duties was to our advantage and that the 

 imposition of those duties would be to our 

 disadvantage. He firmly believed also that England's 

 future prosperity would not lay in import duties 

 but the better provision of education and other 

 legislation which would bear upon employment 

 and other things that occurred in the labour 

 market. England was after all in a special position. 

 We must depend upon duty free imports, foreign 

 produce for our daily food, and raw materials for 

 our daily occupations. America could build a wall 

 .uround herself, but England required a free and 

 open market. If we protected our home market 

 by keeping manufactured goods from coming 

 in, then we could not increase our revenue in 

 the proportion that was suggested by the 

 exponents of that policy. One would like to think 

 that the foreigner would pay the greater part of 

 the duty, but experience had shown that that was 

 not the case. It the foreigner did pay the tax, 

 why should there have been a remission of 

 JcliiO.OOO taxation made to English sellers in 1903, 



when the shilling tax on corn put on the year 

 before was removed ? We could not expect 

 German imports from England to be always at 

 their high water mark, because in Germany they 

 had an education superior to that in any other 

 part of the world, and until we realised that fact 

 we should expect to have keen competition in 

 couunercial matters from the (lermans. Mr. 

 Leeming said he would like to see the taxes off 

 cocoa altogether, and went on to state that import 

 duties raised the cost of livmg and that raw 

 material in one case was often the manufactured 

 article in another. 



Mr. J. G. Johnson maintained that a scientific 

 tariff' was altogether different and more beneficial 

 than the present tariff which we placed on 

 articles which we could not possibly raise our- 

 selves. 



Mr. Underbill faid that nearly evexy other 

 country had Protection, but they did not seem to 

 go down, comparatively, at the same rate as 

 England. If Germany could get along so well 

 under Protection, surely it would be beneficial to 

 England to adopt some of their ideas. 



JMr. A. Lander said the essential difference 

 between taxing for revenue and taxing for Pro- 

 tection was that in taxing for revenue they put 

 the same amount on the article made in 

 this country as on the imported article, while in 

 the case of Protection they simply put a tax on 

 the imported stuff, the whole idea at the bottom 

 being that the manufacturers could make an 

 extra profit to put in their own pockets. 



Mr. Cozens pointed out the necessity of remem- 

 bering that Tariff Reform meant re-arranged 

 taxation. He then gave iin instance in his own 

 business, where he iound that on a marble head- 

 stone, which he had to send to America, there 

 would be a duty of £i> lOs. if it was worked by 

 his men in Canterbury, but only lOs. if sent to 

 America to be worked. Did the Americans 

 l^rotect tlieir masons, he asked, or did we protect 

 ours ? 



In a brief reply to the discussion, Mr. Mist said 

 that the British Empire could, like America, 

 produce everything she wanted within her 

 borders. 



It was not the intention to put the question 

 to a vote, so the meeting closed, after thanks had 

 been expressed to Dr. Graham AVills and the 

 speakers. 



"THE HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS OF SCOTLAND." 



In the Eetorence Library at the Beaney 

 Institute, Canterbury, on Wednesday, .January IK, 

 a very interesting lecture was given on the " High- 

 lands and Islands of Scotland." 



Dr. Graham Wills, the President of the Society, 

 was in the chair, and after the disposal of the 

 ordinary business, which included the election of 

 a, new member— Mrs. H. J. Reid — he introduced 

 the lecturer, and said he would be glad to have 



expressions of opinion from the members as to 

 whether they approved of the iuaovation of lectures 

 of this kind. 



Mr. Leeming pointed out that the slides were 

 lent by the Royal Photographic Society, to which 

 the East Kent Natural History Society is 

 affiliated, and that the lectur.' was written by 

 Mr. John Hodges. Mr. Leeraiug, drawing upon 

 his own knowledge gained Ihr. igh travelling in 



