144 AGRICULTURE AND TARIFF REFORM. 



mistic at one time. For instance, at Leeds on 

 November 24th, 1900, before tariff reform be- 

 came the topic it now is, he remarked that, " In 

 the international markets we are fighting for our 

 trade with all our available strength " ; and yet 

 at Cinderford, on October 8th, 1903 — after Mr. 

 Chamberlain's proposals of that year had been 

 placed before the public — he said that, "' Taking 

 the annual average of five years from 189G to 

 1900, in the protected market of France the free 

 trade United Kingdom sent 24 millions sterling 

 of imports, as against 15 millions sterling from 

 the protectionist country of Germany, whilst into 

 the protected market of the United States of 

 Vmerica the free trade United Kingdom sent 

 27 millions sterling, as against 16 millions from 

 the protectionist Germany." 



It is a little interestiii.o' to observe that in 1900 

 Mr. Asquith Avas in a pessimistic vein, and had 

 every right to be so ; and that in 1903 he is 

 fovmd in an exactly opposite vein. Did the fact 

 that Mr. Chamberlain, in May, 1903, gave forth 

 certain views on preferential tariff reform have 

 anything to do with the Cinderford speech ; and 

 had the attitude which was then (and has ever 

 since been) assumed more of a political origin 

 and character than anything else ; in other words, 

 is it unreasonable to suppose that Mr. Asquith 

 may have been, and is, only following the party 

 game ? 



If we reflect upon the speeches of Lord Eoso- 

 bery, Sir Henry Campbell-Baunerman, etc. ; if 



