On the 17th June, a letter from Sir Robert Giffen appeared in the London _Times_ severely criticising the policy I was advocating. As a great statistician and Free Trader, and formerly Secretary of the Government Board of Trade, he was considered the ablest expert on the subject and his name carried great weight. His objections were in substance: First, that under such a system at 10 per cent., the United Kingdom would pay £41,000,000 annually, and the colonies but £3,500,000, of which Canada and Newfoundland would contribute £2,400,000, whereas on the basis of population the Colonies are one quarter of the United Kingdom. Second, the effect of such a tax would be infinite disaster to the trade of the United Kingdom, by raising the cost of raw material and by requiring harassing regulations in regard to the entrepot trade. Third, the increase of existing duties in the Colonies by 10 per cent. would effect no such injury to their trade as the substitution of duties for the Free Trade system of the United Kingdom. Fourth, the duty on foreign goods entering the United Kingdom and preference given to colonial goods, would increase the price for colonial goods imported in the United Kingdom by £11,000,000, and the Colonies would thus gain much more than their contribution. Fifth, the difficulty in arranging bonding privileges in such free ports as Singapore and Hong Kong. This letter was so plausible that even the _Times_ in an article on the 19th June, said: Colonel Denison is a representative Canadian of the highest character and proved loyalty, and no doubt his views prevail widely in British North America. At the same time the criticisms of his plan from a strictly economic point of view which Sir Robert Giffen published in our columns on Tuesday appear to us to be conclusive. This attack was satisfactory to me as it gave me an opening for a reply which I made as follows: SIR, In your issue of yesterday there is a letter from Sir Robert Giffen commenting upon my address to the London Chamber of Commerce, and requesting me to give information on certain points. May I give my answer? He asks (1) how much under the scheme I proposed the Mother Country would have to pay; (2) how much each of the principal Colonies; (3) how the trade of each would be probably affected; (4) what exceptions would be made as to Hong Kong and Singapore, which are distributing centres?