year to year. Even the amount of the growth is fairly calculable. One year with another, there is an expansion of two millions with the same taxes, so that in ten years twenty millions a year may be counted on. Consequently, there should be no exultation over small surpluses and no depression at small deficits.

There is, nevertheless, in the course proposed, a great When danger, on which a final word must be said. indirect taxes are talked of, the tariff reformer rushes immediately to the front. Practically, he affirms, the failure of the Government in its Budget is to the advantage of tariff reform. There must be import duties; and import duties and tariff reform, it is said, are identi

Unfortunately also there is too much talk on the Liberal and Radical side to the same effect. The distinction between protective and non-protective import duties is forgotten; and duties on such articles as tea, sugar, corn, etc., are argued against on wrong grounds, as if they were altogether bad, because they fall on the necessaries of the poor. An import duty on corn especially, however small in amount, is most vehemently reprobated, as taxing a necessary of life; and the smallness of the advantage it gives to the home grower, which made it tolerable to the Free-trade leaders of a former time, is ignored. Thus protective and non-protective import duties are alike condemned. These tendencies in argument were but too manifest in the recent debates. It was common ground on both sides that the only alterlatives are the present Budget or tariff reform.

We hope, in spite of many omens to the contrary, that the financial reform Government of the future will ape the suggested blunder, which will be a most serious To substitute indirect taxes certain to disturb intry for taxes pressing directly and severely on the taxpayer will be no great gain. It should help to keep Our future leaders in a saner course if they rest in the

Conviction that it is always Free-trade import duties which are productive of revenue, and not protective Import duties. Out of about 19,000,000l. derived from customs duties in France, about 13,000,000l., or twoare from coffee, mineral oils, sugar, and such

thirds,

protection, or

like articles where there can be no little protection; and the remainder of the long list of

duties yields little money in proportion. Similarly, in this country, duties on such articles as corn, with a preference to the colonies, are only likely to be productive if kept at a low rate, so as to yield but a small advantage either to the home or colonial grower. Still more is this the case with such articles as tea, where colonial preference would almost be fatal to the productiveness of the duty, since the articles in question are mainly produced in British possessions themselves. The same is the case with a timber duty, if such a duty should be tried. Timber is largely imported from British possessions, so that here again a preference to colonies would diminish the productiveness of the tax.

Both sides, then, it may be maintained, are in error in the expectation that the financial failure of the present Government makes tariff reform more certain. The circumstances may give some encouragement to the trial of a sham scheme of tariff reform, for the sake of catching votes or pacifying a large party; but the difficulties of the subject, from a financial point of view, are overwhelming, and will infallibly give pause to the leaders, whatever the followers may think. Still, there is plentiful cause of anxiety for Free-traders in the present condition of politics, with a Radical party in power trying one set of financial measures contrary to Free-trade principles, and an Opposition intent upon carrying another set of financial measures still more opposed to those principles. The Free-trade cause, how ever, is by no means lost, since bad proposals, wher actually brought forward, will rouse opposition, and b subjected to a kind of criticism very different from wha is expected by most Tariff Reformers.

ROBERT GIFFEN.

* In France the import duties for 1907 produced the following amountscoffee, 136.7 million francs; mineral oils, 56.3 million; cereals, 26.4 million cacao, 24.7; machines, 22.1; French colonial sugar, 20 8; coal, 20·5; an timber, 17 7-total 325.2 million francs; all other articles, 154 4-total 479 million francs (19,184,000l.).

Art. 10.-GEORGE CANNING AND HIS FRIENDS.

1. George Canning and his Friends, containing hitherto unpublished Letters, jeux d'esprit, etc. Edited by Capt. Josceline Bagot. Two vols. London: Murray, 1909. 2. Speeches of the Rt Hon. George Canning, with a Memoir of his Life. By R. Therry. Six vols. London: Ridgeway, 1828.

3. The Political Life of George Canning. By A. G. Stapleton. Three vols. London: Longmans, 1836.

4. Jain Hookham Frere and his Friends. By Gabrielle Festing. London: Nisbet, 1899.

5. Gorge Canning. By W. Alison Phillips. London: Methuen, 1903.

Life of Canning. By H. W. V. Temperley. London:

Finch, 1905.

·

Transactions of the Royal Historical Society. Papers on Canning and Spanish America, by Col. E. M. Lloyd; on Canning's Rhyming Despatch,' by Sir H. Poland, K.C.; and on Canning and the Secret Intelligence from Tilsit, by J. H. Rose. New series. Vols. xviii, xx. London, 1904, 1906.

Reports of the Historical MSS. Commission. (Thirteenth Report.) Dropmore Papers and Lonsdale MSS. Lon

don, 1892-1908.

And other works.

CANNING has lacked neither eulogists nor critics; but that he has hitherto found no adequate biographer is the commonplace of all who have essayed to write his Nor is the explanation far to seek. That it is not e to any lack of interest either in the personality of te man or in the political events of which he was the Tot, is obvious to any one conversant with the historical rature bearing on Canning and his time. But, despite hpatient investigation and not a little brilliant criticism, Canning the man has hitherto eluded analysis; and his place in the history of English statesmanship has not yet been finally determined. The fact is that English statesmen fall into two very distinct categories. Some find, almost at once, their appropriate niche in the temple of fame; and no subsequent criticism avails to dislodge them. The shades of others flit uncertainly

through the aisles, finding no assured or final restingplace. Walpole, Chatham, Pitt, and Peel belong indisputably to the former class; Bolingbroke, Carteret, Shelburne, Castlereagh, and most conspicuously Canning, to the latter.

6

Canning has thus curiously belied the prediction of his great opponent Metternich. The task,' said Metter nich, which the impartial historian will have to fulfi concerning the public life of this man will be easy. H has shaken everything and destroyed a great deal, bi he has built up nothing'; and again, writing to Esterha on hearing of Canning's death, England is deliver from a great scourge.'* Metternich, it must be admitte was not alone in his opinion. A letter from the Prince Lieven (January 27 [Feb. 8], 1827) throws an interestin light upon the views of the diplomatic world:

6

'Mr Canning is very ill, and nothing is more likely than the he may die. Many people are finding satisfaction in th thought; I am not one of them. . . . He is the only membe of the English Cabinet who is well disposed, entirely wel disposed, towards Russia. . . . As between the two Minister who hate one another (Canning and Metternich), Canning i not the greater rogue.' †

Even his supporters could be under no illusion as to th extent of his unpopularity. It remains now for h friends (wrote Lord Melros to Sir Charles Bagot) on to endure the torture that the unappeasable hostilit of his enemies will inflict upon them by their attack on his character and memory.' Death, as was natura momentarily softened this asperity of judgment. Th we find a Whig antagonist declaring his belief the Canning had greater weight abroad than any of o statesmen since Lord Chatham.' 'I think so too,' ad Lord Lyttelton, who quotes this favourable opinion Long years, however, were to elapse before Sir Spenc Walpole could describe him as the most brilliant minist of the nineteenth century,' and before Lord Acton cou affirm, without fear of contradiction, that no Foreig Secretary has equalled Canning.' History may inde correct the harsh and hasty judgments of conter

poraries, but it cannot ignore them. Explain it how we may, the fact remains that Canning was the best hated man of his time. He has more enemies than anybody living,' wrote his friend Lady Malmesbury in 1801; and there is obvious reticence rather than exaggeration in the following letter from Lyttelton to Charles Bagot: 'I have too much aidos about your old connexion with Canning to tell you one thousandth part of what I think about him; but take this along with you as a matter of fact, that of all the public men who have appeared in our time, there is assuredly not one that ever had so many bitter enemies, pable and private.'*

And it is notorious that he was hardly less mistrusted by his allies than by his opponents.

What is the explanation? His friends were apt to ribe it partly to the malice generated by political stility, and still more to 'the natural hatred borne by Mockheads to transcendent talent.' That this should have been the glib explanation accepted by a group of friends who had lived with him on terms of affectionate intimacy, and who bitterly deplored the untimely death of one who was hunted to his grave,' is natural enough. But impartial history cannot accept it as adequate or satisfactory. Political hostility does not always generate

malice;

and there have been men of transcendent talent, en in politics, who have not failed to conciliate blockbeads. Canning was undeniably impatient of mediocrity, and never learnt the supreme but difficult art of successparty-leadership-to suffer fools gladly. Lord Strangford alluded to him as our classical and choleric chief

Ferready in giving tongue.' Lord Erskine declared dat he rarely delivers an important speech without

making an enemy for life.' His jests were often unasonable, and occasionally (as in the allusion to 'the tate. By the exclusive ring who considered political revered and ruptured Ogden') they exhibit lapses of office as the monopoly belonging to a few great families,

Canning

was

But so was

regarded as an interloper and an adventurer. were apt, as we know, to look with small favour and Castlereagh. The high and dry' Tories much suspicion upon those 'confounded men of genius.'

* Bagot, ii, 27.