(1) Direct taxation within their provinces. (2) The right of borrowing money on their own credit. (3) All education other than higher education. (4) Agriculture. (5) Hospitals. (6) Municipal institutions. (7) All local works and undertakings within their provinces. (8) All roads and bridges within their provinces. (9) Markets and towns. (10) Fish and game preservation. (11) The right of fine and imprisonment, and (12) Generally all matters which, in the opinion of the Governor-General in Council, are of a merely local or private nature. Ireland would not very much mind that kind of unionism! The fact is, of course, that this instance of South Africa is a typical example of the principles of unity and division working at the same time. In regard to South Africa as a whole, the Union Act was a great and beneficent grant of Home Rule. It was the end of a long period of harassing interferences with the affairs of South Africa on the part of the Imperial Government at home, through its High Commissioner on the spot. That process is even now unfinished. It will probably in the end have to be brought to completion by the inclusion within the authority of the South African Parliament of countries like Rhodesia, and even, perhaps, of Basutoland. But in regard to South Africa itself, the same Act was a case of true unionism required and necessitated by the conditions of the country. Before 1909 the South African states were suffering within themselves from excessive division of functions. They were quarrelling over railways and tariffs. They were unable to pursue any common policy or common aim. That perpetual division of functions weakened them in the presence of the world, and rendered them unfit for local guidance. We should have a similar situation in this country if England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales were all under separate governments, with separate tariffs and separate policy. In that case the doctrine we should be preaching to-day would not be Home Rule, but Unionism. For these two tendencies throughout the world are like a see-saw. Both are required for efficient government. Both may be carried to excessive and exaggerated lengths. Our case in regard to the United Kingdom is that unionism has been carried to excessive lengths, and requires to be tempered by Home Rule.