142 AGRICULTURE AND TARIFF REFORM. 



bery, which make liis present position anything 

 but logical. On April 4th, 1900, his lordship was 

 not such an ardent advocate of free trade or free 

 imports as he now appears to be. " Have they ' 

 (foreign nations), he asked, " realised what tl: 

 free trade of the empire means to their mer 

 chants? Why, we know in how many parts of 

 the world — partly owing to our free trade and 

 partly owing to our generous encouragement of 

 other nations — their commerce has begun to push 

 ours out." We prefer the Lord llosebery of 

 1900, when preferential tarilf reform was not on 

 the carpet, and vrheu he saw free trade was in- 

 juring us, to the Lord Eosehery of 1904, v/ho in 

 the latter year of grace seems afraid to stand to 

 his guns in support of Mr. Chamberlain. Is it 

 unfair to suppose that his opposition takes the 

 character rather of party political opposition thari 

 that of a statesman who desires to raise the whole 

 issue above mere party politics? 



In the second place, v.hat is the attitude of Sir 

 Henry Campbell-Bannerman, as representing the 

 other Vv'ijig of the Liberal Party? At Perth, in 

 June, 190-5, he told us that " there is about 30 per 

 cent, of our population under-fed, on the verge 

 of hunger. Thirty per cent, of 41 millions comei 

 to somethinij over 12 millions." In October of 

 the same year, at lioltou, he declared that "the 

 mass of trade increases, and the signs of well- 

 being with it." 



Tlie two quoted statements (and others from 

 the same source could be mentioned) are self- 

 contradictory, and we venture to think that no 



