There is no doubt a great difference between subventions and preferences.  A subvention may be raised by a perfectly orthodox fiscal process.  No more money is taken from the taxpayer than is required.  The whole yield of the tax by which the subvention may be raised certainly goes to the Exchequer, and when the subvention is paid to the foreign or Colonial Government, it does not go, as a preference would go, to benefit particular interests in the Colony, but it goes to the Government of the Colony for the general purposes of State, and not for private advantage on either side.  Therefore it seems to me that the method of subvention is on all grounds to be preferred to the method of preference.

It is of course necessary, however, in examining a question of subvention to look at it on its merits.  This proposal of 1 per cent. put forward by Mr. Deakin carried the support of the official spokesman of the Opposition.  Let us look at it on its merits.  Look first at the proportions on which this new fund was to be subscribed.  Canada was “to dedicate”—­that was the expression used by Mr. Deakin—­L400,000, New Zealand L20,000, Newfoundland L6,000, Cape Colony L40,000, Natal L26,000, Great Britain L4,500,000, and Australia—­the proposing body—­what was she to “dedicate” to this fund?  No more than L100,000 a year, or one forty-fifth part of the contribution which was to be made by this country.  And for what object was this fund to be accumulated?  It is hard enough for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to raise the money to carry on so great an establishment as this country is forced necessarily to maintain.  But here is a proposal to raise no less than L4,500,000 of extra taxation.  For what objects?  For objects not specified, for objects not yet discovered, for objects which could not be stated by those who made the proposal.  The right hon. gentleman said that there was to be a meeting of the representatives of the different Colonies in the different great cities of the Empire—­one different great city each year for seven years, excluding London, where there was to be no meeting, and they were to search for a method of spending this money.  Such plans have only to be stated to fall to pieces.

The House will see that the real essential fallacy of the protectionist proposal is the idea that taxation is a good thing in itself, that it should be imposed for the fun of the thing, and then, having done it for amusement, we should go round afterwards and look for attractive methods of expenditure in order to give support to the project.  These are the actual proposals made to us at the Colonial Conference.  These are the sort of proposals in respect of which we are, forsooth, to be censured because we have not found it possible in the name of the Government of this country to give our assent to them.