APPENDIX II. 181

that it maintains in the country anumber of enterprising
men of various occupations, who are to a considerable
degree men of light and leading. It isa costly way of
getting or keeping them, but it seems the only way
npen to Canada.

(D 1.)—I should decidedly answer this question in
the negative.
(D2.)—Cottons and woollens, at least, seem to
require better protection against Great Britain, while
it may be that we shall have to increase our tariff at
many points against the United States in order to
prevent a general slaughtering of American manufactures
 in Canada.
(D 3.)—Personally Iam for what Lord Farrer called
a safe and gradual approach to Free Trade as it is in
England. There are plenty who agree, and who think
we have been getting it since 1897. The British preference
 of that year was a long step, in favouring you
because you take all we can send.
(D 4.)—Speaking generally, no; though a tariff
inquiry might show industries suffering under existing
conditions. But any general increase in the Canadian
tariff would be indefensible.
(D 5.)—A number of industries, notably cotton,
woollen, and iron, claim that they do require additional
protection against the world.
(F.)—1I don't know if they requive it, but many are
calling out for it—notably steel and woollens—the
latter suffering mainly from English competition, I
believe.
(F 1.)—Canadian industries are, according to views
of Liberals, already sufficiently protected. Manufacturers
 in some branches are always looking for more
protection.
(G.)—Every Canadian manufacturer is in favour of
more protection upon the article he manufactures.
He wants his raw material free. I think our tariff is