willing to go on the land. We cannot, again, be blamed if those of British race do not come forward. Our past shows us that we can make Canadians out of most people and that is of vast importance. Great Britain i must not blame us if we cannot absorb her unemployed. The unfortunate thing is that the real problem of immigration is not political and social but economic absorption. The vast percentage of our immigrants are only too glad to submit to the former. The latter is our present crux. I might add here two observations-one derived from i close contacts with groups of unemployed in Great Britain, and one a surmise. I think the Great War produced a new mentality in Great Britain. Millions of men went out from an island home in an unprecedented experience of going overseas. I have found in the Old Country a widespread impression that many are fed up with travel. In addition-and this I write with deference, as I do not care lightly to criticise British domestic life— the Home Governments seem to me to have so developed paternalism that the people of Great Britain are slowly destroying any pioneer spirit left. From the beginnings of the 19th century industrial developments were gradually robbing Britons of the land hunger which is the very essence of immigration incentive so far as Canada is concerned. That 'urge' has become less and less owing to the extraordinary growth of governmental and state benefits. We do not want in Canada any one who has not moral fibre. Canada is not the fabulous land of promise. We need men and women with stout hearts, strong hands, fine courage, and endless perseverance. We are not, however, in the charity organisation business. We are not a dumping-ground for people who will be an economic charge on us. In addition, given suitable immigrants from Great Britain, they were well pre-informed that we do not expect them to run the country. We have our faults, heaven knows, but our economic and social life is built up out of experience, and is attuned to continental conditions. The immigrant must realise that he is not passing merely from one British parish or county to another. He is coming to a nation with its peculiar economic organisation, its idiosyncratic group life, its characteristic culture. If he does not at once realise this in the spirit of a learner and pupil, he had better not arrive. We do not want 'superior' people. For the honest, willing, sincere settler on the land there will be a glad and honest welcome. And that type we shall take from northern and central Europe-from anywhere. We can assimilate him economically, and that is the real point. For Canada, on the other hand, the problem of immigration has its duties. We must encourage more and more community settlement and a diligent after care of the immigrant. This, I am glad to say, is in process of excellent development. There lies on us, however, a more serious duty. We must develop by downright individual initiative our natural resources. It is sometimes said that if we have our lands full, prosperity will follow. I should like to think that the true and sound process is to develop our limitless mineral and forest and other resources, and immigrants will flock to the country. Here Great Britain can help in a real way. There is no use sitting in some club and moaning that Canada is being overrun with American capital. We need capital and we are going to have it. It seems to me that there is a strange perversity, on the one hand, in blaming us for not using British capital and on the other in refusing to supply it. It is possible for any financial group in Great Britain to obtain as accurate and scientific reports on our undeveloped wealth as any American group. I have a profound contempt for criticism which is of a self-evidently captious nature. In relation to political and social problems, I would once more make some emphatic appeals. Unity flourishes under personal contacts and wide knowledge. I want to see the day when the King will openly express his desire for a Canadian diplomatic minister at London, when there will be a regularly organised exchange of civil services between our foreign offices. There is no necessity to labour these points-their benefits are manifest. Of almost greater importance is a knowledge of our history and actual life. Every Canadian school child is taught British History. In our great universities every modern history school is based fundamentally on British, Australian, South African, and New Zealand history. It is a deplorable fact that Canadian history is comparatively neglected in Great Britain. British universities will allow a student to read almost anything except an intimate, documentary course in the history and daily life of the British Nations. I am well aware that a certain amount of 'colonial' history is taught, but from the point of view of 'the expansion of England.' Any sensible man could grasp the essentials of that approach in a term. What is needed is something which will provide an intimate study of Canada or Australia and so on, as an organised nation-not a mere projection of Great Britain, for that we are not-with a fascinating past, with constructive contributions to politics, economics, and sociology, with a limitless outlook, with surging hopes, not a few fears. For this I plead in serious earnestness. From your universities you draw your largest number of statesmen, legislators, administrators. It is well that they should know the medieval constitution, the French Revolution, the industrial revolution-all soundly studied history is of value-but it is better far that they know those nations that revolve with Great Britain in the orbit of a free associated union. On that note, I should like to conclude. There need be no fear of the future-except that sober fear which teaches wise men to take heed, while standing, that they do not fall. Canada is free as the winds of heaven, but it is a beautiful and delicate freedom which binds it in a commonwealth not by statute or bond but by the common political language which we all speak and by the traditions of a deathless history. It is our duty in Canada to foster the state of mind making for unitysomething transcending formalism and legalities. En revanche, a deep and serious duty lies with Great Britain -to understand us, to learn to know us, to realise that we are the political equals of her own people. Ever widening knowledge is for the future the essential principle of political obligation. In this, the 'diamond' Jubilee of our Federation, we can look back with solemn pride to serious accomplishments, and we can look forward into the years ahead with confidence and undimmed hope. In that confidence and hope Great Britain must be a well-informed partner. Great Britain must realise, among those especially on whom will fall inevitably the honourable and glorious task of guiding her destinies, that she is only a small part of a political union greater than the world has ever known-esto perpetua-and that no swift triumphs of modern science can ever take the place of free human contracts, of personal activities, of the interplay and interaction of generous minds. I believe that we Canadians are creatively conscious of a spirit of unity. I believe we are trying to hand on to the newer generation a conception of political and social duty which will find its true complement in the Britannic interdependence. To England, as to our Motherland of freedom, we have one message: 'Ah, let us for a little while abate The outward roving eye, and seek within W. P. M. KENNEDY. Art. 7.-OLD ENGLISH FURNITURE. 1. The Dictionary of English Furniture. By Percy Macquoid and Ralph Edwards. Vols. I and II. Country Life,' 1924 and 1925. 2. Early English Furniture and Woodwork. By Herbert Cescinsky and Ernest R. Gribble. Two vols. Routledge, 1922. 3. Old Oak Furniture. By Fred Roe. Methuen, 1905. 4. The Present State of Old English Furniture. By R. W. Symonds. Duckworth, 1921. 5. An Encyclopædia of English Furniture. Introduction by Oliver Brackett. Benn, 1927. With an 6. A Glossary of English Furniture of the Historic Periods. By J. Penderel-Brodhurst and Edwin J. Layton. Murray, 1925. And other works. THE collection of old furniture and domestic objects of art, as such, is now so widespread as to be actually popular. It is, for the most part, prompted by a purely modern taste; though in this connexion taste is often too dignified a word to use, for craze or fashion is not infrequently the guiding principle behind the impulse to acquire 'old things,' so that objects æsthetically and intrinsically worthless are apt, nowadays, to command artificial and absurd prices. The Post Office London Directory of sixty years ago shows the names of less than twenty antique dealers as against upwards of five hundred at the present time: since the late Victorian ' renaissance' of the 'eighties (chiefly associated with the name of William Morris), about three times as many books on this subject-exclusive of books about pictures -have been published as have years elapsed, and by far the greater proportion of these have appeared in the present century. Indeed, as time goes on, the literature of the subject threatens to be reproduced to the same extent as the specimens with which it is concerned. An interest in furniture began with a few connoisseurs and spread to innumerable experts; and now so complacent is the modern collector in the security of the prevalent taste that he is apt to forget that the acquisition of antiques, or specimens that are so called, is not to be |