superficial plausibility of this argument did at one time undoubtedly affect American opinion. Happily, the commonsense view prevailed that it is not the business of a neutral nation to make good the inequalities of two belligerents. Nevertheless, it is conceivable that if the pro-German and anti-English currents of feeling in the United States had been. somewhat stronger a different view might have been taken, and the American people might have refused to supply the commodities we required because they could not render a similar service to Germany. There is certainly a possibility that such a situation might arise in the future.

In both these directions there is a danger that ought to be carefully weighed. Its existence furnishes a valid argument for examining afresh the policy of the open door which has been the basis of our national and of our colonial system for threequarters of a century. Under that policy the wealth of these islands has grown at a rate unparalleled in our history. Our population, our shipping, our manufacturing industries, our international banking business, have all increased enormously. At the same time the comparatively small Empire that remained to us after the revolt of the American colonies has, during the era of the open door, grown without ceasing, till now the British Empire, taken as a whole, possesses a greater population, a more extended commerce, and more realised wealth than any other national unit within the world. These facts should make us cautious in adopting any fundamental change of system; they do not prove that we ought to refuse to consider specific changes which may be suggested by the revelation of new dangers.

Nor are we the only nation to whom this problem is presented; our Allies, although their commercial policy differs very widely from ours, are equally conscious of similar dangers, and it was with a view to considering the possibilities of combined action that a very important conference of the Entente Powers met in Paris in May last. It recommended various steps which the Allies should take conjointly for the defence of their common interests. In the following July the then government of the United Kingdom appointed a committee to consider the commercial and industrial policy 'to be adopted after the war, with special reference to the con'clusions reached at the Economic Conference of the Allies.'

The Committee were further instructed to have special regard to the following questions:

(a) What industries are essential to the future safety of the nation? And what steps should be taken to maintain and establish them ?

(b) What steps should be taken to recover home and foreign trade lost during the war and to secure new markets?

(c) To what extent and by what means the resources of the Empire should and can be developed ?

(d) To what extent and by what means the sources of supply within the Empire can be prevented from falling under foreign control?' ('The Times,' Feb. 21, 1917.)

Lord Balfour of Burleigh was appointed chairman of the Committee, and among his colleagues were such well-known men as Mr. W. A. S. Hewins, Lord Faringdon, and Mr. Henry Birchenough to pick out only a few names from a distinguished list.

After sitting for six months, this Committee suddenly addressed to the present Prime Minister a letter enclosing resolutions in favour of the principle of preferential tariffs. No attempt was made to show how this principle would affect the problems which the Committee had been appointed to consider. With great frankness the Committee explained that they proposed to deal with their appointed task at a later date. The reasons they gave for issuing a sudden pronouncement on an extraordinarily complex and difficult problem were, the imminence of an Imperial Conference, and their own belief that it was necessary for the sake of the unity of the 'Empire that a serious attempt should now be made to meet 'the declared wishes of the Dominions and Colonies.' To emphasise this argument the Committee recited the facts that both in 1902 and in 1907 the Prime Ministers of the 'self-governing Colonies unanimously urged the expediency 'of granting in the United Kingdom preferential treatment 'to the products and manufactures of the Colonies, either by 'exemption from or reduction of duties then existing or there' after to be imposed.' The Committee went on to add :

'We think that, regard being had in particular to the sacrifices made and the services rendered by our fellow subjects overseas for a common purpose during the present war, the time has now arrived at which this request should be granted to the fullest extent which is now or may hereafter become practicable.'

No other reason was given, and the Committee carefully announced that they proposed to consider later the 'practical difficulties involved' in carrying out the policy which they recommended the Government of the United Kingdom to adopt at once. In plain words colonial preference was to be set up, not on its merits, but because the Dominion Premiers had asked for it, and because the Committee thought that the colonies ought to be paid for their loyalty. Whether this pronouncement was spontaneous on the part of a committee which had been appointed for another purpose, or whether it was produced on a hint from higher quarters, there is no public means of knowing. Presumably, in neither case was the pronouncement intended as an insult to our fellow citizens whose homes are across the seas. But those who know anything of the spirit which brought thousands of gallant men from Canada, Australia, and New Zealand to die in Flanders or Gallipoli will regret that a responsible Committee should have so reflected upon the memory of these brave men.

Very different has been the action of another body appointed to deal with similar problems. The Dominions Royal Commission was appointed in April 1912, in consequence of a resolution passed by the Imperial Conference of 1911. The business of the Commission was to inquire into and report upon the following subjects:

(a) The natural resources of the five self-governing Dominions and the best means of developing these resources.

(b) The trade of these parts of the Empire with the United Kingdom, each other, and the rest of the world.

(c) Their requirements, and those of the United Kingdom, in the matter of food and raw materials, together with the available sources of supply.'

The Commission in its final shape was composed as follows: Lord D'Abernon, chairman, Sir Rider Haggard (Norfolk), Mr. T. Garnett (Lancashire), Sir W. Lorimer (Scotland), Mr. Tatlow (Ireland), Sir Alfred Bateman (formerly of the Board of Trade), Sir G. E. Foster (Canada), Mr. J. R. Sinclair (New Zealand), Sir J. W. S. Langerman (South Africa), and Sir E. R. Bowring (Newfoundland). During its five years' existence this Commission has travelled round the selfVOL. 225 NO. 460.

2 C

governing Dominions, so that the members of it have been able to see with their own eyes the greatness of the Empire, and to get into personal touch with the men who are helping to make that Empire greater still. Not the least valuable part of the final report of the Commissioners is contained in the opening pages, where the Commissioners paint in glowing words a picture of what they themselves have seen. They speak of the size and wealth of Canada, with its enormous forests still untouched, with thousands of acres of fertile prairie-land still waiting the plough. They refer to Tasmania as "one of the most lovely islands known'; they record the spacious prosperity of Melbourne and Sydney. They note the reserves of timber in Western Australia, the sugar possibilities of Queensland, the wonderful beauty of New Zealand, with its snow-capped mountains and fertile plains, its forests and swiftly-flowing rivers, and the fiords of its western coast.' They declare that ' South Africa is a country of infinite variety ' of natural resources,' of which few have yet been developed. Finally, they pay a tribute to little Newfoundland, with its vast forests and hardy fisher-folk.

This wide survey of our wide Empire leads up to a detailed examination of the natural resources of each of the selfgoverning Dominions. The information here concisely set forth ought to be of very great service both to politicians who are engaged in planning commercial policies for the Empire and also to the mere business man who troubles himself little about general policies, but sees where a particular thing can be done, and does it. Specially interesting is the analysis which the Commissioners make of the more important raw materials required by the human race, and of their distribution within the British Empire. They divide these materials into three groups: (i) those mainly or wholly produced within the Empire, (ii) those of which the Empire's requirements are approximately equal to the Empire's production, and (iii) materials mainly produced and controlled outside the Empire. The first group is much larger and more important than most Englishmen have hitherto suspected. The Empire has a practical monopoly of the following commodities: nickel, cobalt, asbestos, mica, diamonds, and jute. In addition, the Empire possesses the major portion of the world's supply of palm-nuts and plantation rubber; it produces

40 to 45 per cent. of the world's supply of wool, and 60 per cent. of the world's output of gold. As regards this group of articles the Commissioners point out that no extraordinary measures are needed to encourage further development. 'The Empire's needs are fully met, and a large export trade ' is carried on with the outside world.' But it might become I desirable to use the possession of these assets as an instrument ' of commercial negotiation,' much in the same way that Germany has used her possession of a monopoly of the supply of potash to bring pressure to bear upon other countries.

Passing to the second group the Report deals with such commodities as wheat, meat, butter, wool, and cheese. In most of these the Empire is approximately self-supporting. In this group are also included certain minerals, which, before the war, had passed under the commercial control of foreign countries. The Commissioners rightly urge that steps should be taken to prevent the renewal of that control after the

war.

The third group comprises the articles the supply of which within the Empire is insufficient for the needs of the Empire. Such are quicksilver, platinum, borax, potash, sulphur, petroleum, timber, cotton, maize, and nitrates. As regards some of these commodities the Commissioners suggest that a more careful mineral survey of the Empire may lead to further discoveries. It should be added that as regards one of the most important of these articles-namely, petroleum-the course of the war has already brought under British control some of the most valuable of the world's oil-fields. But it is more than probable that the Empire will remain dependent upon foreign countries for several essential commodities. So far as these are concerned the Commissioners properly insist that, in the general interests of the Empire,' we should draw our supplies, whether they be required for civil or for military use, from as many sources as possible, and not depend on a 'single foreign country.'

All this is practical wisdom. Equally sound is the broad general principle which the Report lays down as the necessary basis for an imperial commercial policy:

'In our opinion it is vital that the Empire should, so far as possible, be placed in a position which would enable it to resist any pressure which a foreign Power, or group of Powers, could exercise