other open spaces, which are worth more than much fine gold; but waste land which is waiting until some enterprising builder thinks it' ripe.' I have seen numbers of empty army huts left in deserted camps; if these have become uninhabitable, others could be built. Might not tramways be run out to hut settlements, tramways which should be free? By degrees the tenants of rooms in the worst slums could be moved out to the huts, to temporary homes. They might take all their furniture which could be cleansed and disinfected; the rest should be destroyed and replaced. Then there might be a glorious burning down of the disgusting boxes misnamed houses. Of course all temporarily evicted tenants would have the promise of being restored to better rooms at the same rent.

I am asked how this would help the overcrowding. As a rule the worst houses are low-only a basement and two storeys; there seems to be no reason why the new houses should not be one or two storeys higher. I would not allow anyone to sleep in the basements; they should be put to their proper use for coal and other storage, possibly for washhouses.

'It would cost an enormous amount. England cannot afford it.'

Can England afford dirt and degradation? Can she afford to let a mother, her two nearly grown-up daughters, and a grown-up son sleep in the same room? Can she afford to let a large number of her men get entirely out of the habit of work? A big effort of this kind would employ a small army, and would give work to dozens of different trades. It would be very costly, but when the bill was paid there would be something to show for our money. At present we throw away large sums on patching up a state of things of which we are ashamed. England may or may not be able to afford a grand fight against a great evil, but I am pretty well sure that she will not long be able to afford Poplar.

SYDNEY K. PHELPS.

The Editor of THE NINETEENTH CENTURY cannot undertake to

return unaccepted MSS.

It is six months since the conclusion of the Imperial Economic Conference, and it may be useful to consider the effect of the discussions that occurred during that time upon the commercial organisations of Great Britain, and the various criticisms that have been levelled at the policy of Imperial Preference. There are clear indications that many of the leaders of British commerce and industry are gradually becoming aware of the importance and significance of the preferential advantages given by the Dominions and certain Crown Colonies to this country.

Prior to the Conference certain special trades were fully conscious of these benefits, and saw that their interests were fully represented to the Governments in the self-governing Dominions. It must, however, be remembered that the ordinary British

1 Previous articles on this subject in The Nineteenth Century and After during the last few months have been Imperial Preference,' by the Right Hon. Stanley M. Bruce, Prime Minister of Australia, February 1924, and 'New Zealand,' by the Right Hon. W. F. Massey, Prime Minister of New Zealand, November 1923. VOL. XCV-No. 567 635

TT

manufacturer or merchant has had little experience of tariffs; he has been brought up and conducted his business in an atmosphere which was hostile to the general ideas of Protection. He is therefore apt to discount the importance of the preferential advantages given by the Dominions. He sees the tariff wall only and does not readily perceive the large welcoming passage way which has been made in that wall in favour of his industry.

A rapid change is now taking place. Both during and since the Conference considerable publicity has been given to the tariffs and preferences of the Dominions, and the British manufacturer is finding that the advantages that he enjoys are substantial and of great value. It is probable that if any large and responsible body, representative of British industry, was asked whether it would prefer Australia and New Zealand to adopt a completely Free Trade policy, leaving Great Britain to the free competition of the world in the Australian markets, or to continue their present policy of giving substantial preference to British industry, the choice would be in favour of the latter alternative. In making this statement it must not be assumed that it is suggested that British manufacturers prefer Protection to Free Trade in this country, but that they are beginning to realise that a country in which fiscal policy is protective, and in which substantial preference is given to British goods, may, owing to its tariff, be a more favourable market for British enterprise than one in which the products of all countries are admitted duty free.

Evidence of this new realisation of the importance of Dominion preferences has been forthcoming from a number of sources. The Associated Chambers of Commerce carried, with, I believe, only one dissentient, a resolution asking the Government to recommend to Parliament the implementing of the Economic Conference resolutions.

More significant still was the action of the Chamber of Shipping, whose members are generally regarded as staunch adherents to Free Trade as a general policy. This Chamber, in concert with the Liverpool shipowners, prepared a most ably expressed Free Trade memorandum for the President of the Board of Trade prior to the Imperial Economic Conference. The annual meeting of the Chamber of Shipping was held on February 22, and carried unanimously a resolution of a similar nature to that of the Associated Chambers of Commerce.

The representatives of the Welsh tinplate industry have pointed out the advantages that they enjoy under the Dominion preferential tariffs, and have drawn the attention of the Government to the danger of any failure to recognise, and in some degree to reciprocate, the attitude of the Dominions.