increase is presented by our trade to Egypt, which is as much an Imperial asset as our trade to India. In short, the whole rise of value shown by our exports to all the neutral markets in the quinquennium 1900-1904, as compared with 1895-1899, will be found to be about £12,000,000 sterling, and fully half that sum is derived from bunker coal, from the nominally foreign but really Imperial trade to Delagoa Bay and Egypt, and from the inflated prices of cotton. Let us, however, exclude coal only, and we have the following summary:
| Mill. £. | ||
| 1. | Average 1895-1899 | 54·9 |
| „ 1900-1904 | 64·2 | |
| Increase | 9·3 | |
| 2. | Details of the increase in the various geographical divisions of the neutral markets: | |
| Far East (China, Japan, East Indies) | 2·7 | |
| Egypt | ||
| Argentina | 1·8 | |
| Scandinavia (Sweden, Norway, Denmark) | 1·0 | |
| Near East, Middle East, and North African markets (other than Egypt) | 1·2 | |
| Portuguese Colonies | 0·8 | |
| Mexico and Central America | 0·6 | |
| Miscellaneous | 0·1 | |
| +10·0 | ||
| 3. | Deduct decrease in South American markets generally, apart from Argentina | −0·7 |
| 9·3 |
Can we build our commercial security upon our relations with any of these markets? Let us see. In Egypt we are for all practical purposes in possession. The special progress we make in that country is entirely due to our special political position. Were the representative of any other European Power in Lord Cromer's place, the commercial returns would show a much less encouraging result. As regards Portuguese East Africa,
