CHAPTER XXI

I have come here from Canada to make one or two suggestions. In the first place in reference to preferential tariffs, we have shown you that we wish togive you a preference in our markets. (Cheers). But treaties interfere with us in the management of our own tariff, and I wish to emphasise the fact that some steps should be taken to place us in absolute freedom to give every advantage we wish to our fellow-countrymen all over the world. (Cheers.) We wish to give that advantage to our own people, and we do not wish to be forced to give it to the foreigner. (Hear, hear.) . . .Now my last point is this. In Canada we have viewed with considerable alarm the fact that the wealthiest and most powerful nation in all history is at this moment dependent for her daily food for three out of every four of her population upon two foreign nations, who are, I am thankful to say, friendly to her, and who, I hope, will always be friendly, but who, it cannot be denied, might by some possibility be engaged in war with us at some future time. These two nations might then stop your food supply, and that harm to you would spread great distress among the people of our country. I have been deputed by the League in Canada to ask you to look carefully into this question. If there is no real danger, relieve our fears; but if you find there is any danger let me urge upon you as strongly as I can to take some steps to meet that danger. Let the method be what it may, great national granaries, a duty on food, a bounty or what not, but let something be done.

Now my last point is this. In Canada we have viewed with considerable alarm the fact that the wealthiest and most powerful nation in all history is at this moment dependent for her daily food for three out of every four of her population upon two foreign nations, who are, I am thankful to say, friendly to her, and who, I hope, will always be friendly, but who, it cannot be denied, might by some possibility be engaged in war with us at some future time. These two nations might then stop your food supply, and that harm to you would spread great distress among the people of our country. I have been deputed by the League in Canada to ask you to look carefully into this question. If there is no real danger, relieve our fears; but if you find there is any danger let me urge upon you as strongly as I can to take some steps to meet that danger. Let the method be what it may, great national granaries, a duty on food, a bounty or what not, but let something be done.

A special meeting of the Council of the League was held on the 7th July, 1897, to meet the deputation of our League. In my address I once more dealt with the question of the German and Belgian treaties. I said, “The Canadian people have now offered, in connection with their desire regarding these treaties, to give what they propose to all nations, but with the express intention of giving an advantage to our own people. Iam deputed to ask you to use what influence you can on the Government and people of this country to give us that full control of our own tariff to which we contend we are entitled.”

Lord Salisbury in 1890, although favourable to the idea, was not able to secure the denunciation of the German and Belgian treaties, although I knew from his conversation with me that personally he felt that they should be denounced. In 1892 Lord Knutsford peremptorily refused a request by Canada to denounce the treaties. Lord Ripon was not quite so peremptory in 1894-’95 after the Ottawa Conference, but he refused permission to Mr. Rhodes to arrange a discriminating tariff in Matabeleland. We had been held off for six years, but the action of the Canadian Government brought matters to a head.

During June and July, 1897, in London the most profuse and large-hearted hospitality was shown on every hand to the colonial visitors, and I was fortunate enough to be invited to all the large functions. I felt the importance of taking every opportunity to press upon the leading men in England the necessity for the denunciation of the treaties, and I knew Sir Wilfrid Laurier could not urge it with the freedom or force that I could. Consequently in private conversations I talked very freely on the subject, whenever and wherever I had an opportunity.

I found that in meeting friends, almost the first remark would be an approving comment on the friendliness of the Canadian Parliament in giving the British people a preference in the markets of Canada. My reply always was that it was no more than was right, considering all that Great Britain had done for us. This was usually followed by the remark that theGovernment were afraid, from the first impression of the law officers of the Crown, that Great Britain would not be able to accept the favour. My reply was very confidently, “Oh yes! you will accept it.” Then the remark would be made that the German and Belgian treaties would prevent it. “Then denounce the treaties,” I would say. “That would be a very serious thing, and would be hardly possible.” My reply was, “You have not fully considered the question, we have.” Then I would be asked what I meant, and would reply somewhat in these terms:

Consider the situation of affairs as they stand. To-day at every port of entry in Canada from Sydney, Cape Breton, to Victoria in the Island of Vancouver, along 3,500 miles of Canadian frontier, German goods are charged one-eighth more duty than goods from Great Britain, and goods from Great Britain one-eighth less duty than on German goods. This was being done yesterday, is being done to-day, and will be done to-morrow, and it is done by the Government of Canada, backed by a unanimous Parliament, and behind it a determined and united people. We have made up our minds and have thought it out, and have our teeth set, and what are you going to do about it?

This did not usually bring out any indication that any clear decision had been arrived at by them, and then I would go on:

Of course we know that you can send a large fleet to our Atlantic ports, and another to our Pacific ports, and blockade them, paralyse our trade, and stop our commerce, until we yield, or you may go farther and bombard our defenceless cities, and kill our women and children. Well, go on and do it, and we will still hold out, for we know that any British Government thatwould dare to send her fleets to jamb German goods down our throats when we want to buy British, would be turned out of office before the ships could get across the Atlantic. The thing is absurd, the treaties are an outrage, and the only course out of the difficulty is to denounce them.

These arguments carried weight with all to whom I spoke, and I spoke to Ministers, Privy Councillors on the Government side, M.P.’s, and others. Once only the head of one of the great daily newspapers seemed to be annoyed at my aggressive attitude, and said, “You had better not be too sure. We might send the fleet and be very ugly with you.” My reply was, “Well, go on and send it. You lost the southern half of North America by trying to cram tea down their throats, and you may lose the northern half if you try to cram German goods down our throats. I should have hoped you had learned something from history.”

It will be seen that the plan which was, I understand, originated by D’Alton McCarthy, worked out very successfully. There could only be one result, and within a month the treaties were denounced, and I felt that the first great step of our programme had been made. The amusing feature, however, was, that this object for which we fought so hard three years before at the meeting at Lord Avebury’s, when the British Empire League was founded, and which was opposed by nearly all our English friends, was no sooner announced as accomplished, than men of all parties and views seemed to unite in praising the act, and the Cobden Club even went so far as to present the Cobden Medal to Sir Wilfrid Laurier.

Sir Wilfrid Laurier in all his speeches had upheld abstract theories of free trade, and with considerableskill succeeded in allaying the hostility of the free trade element. This, I think, helped to secure the denunciation of the treaties, with the approval of all parties. On my return to Canada I was interviewed in Montreal by the representative of the TorontoGlobe. Being asked by the reporter my opinion of the probable effect of the denunciation of the German and Belgian treaties, I said:

The denunciation of these treaties marks an epoch in the history of the British Empire. The power of Canada has made itself felt not only in British but in European diplomacy. It has affected Germany, Belgium, and other countries, and every one of these countries knows that it was Canada’s influence that produced the result. Another point in connection with the denunciation of these treaties is, that it is a tremendous step towards preferential trade within the Empire. Great Britain was going along half asleep. Canada has awakened her, and made her sit up and think. She has been jostled out of the rut she has been following, and is now in a position to proceed in the direction that may be in her own interest and in that of the Empire.

Being then asked if I had any opinions to express in regard to the Premier’s remarks in Great Britain on the question of free trade, I said:

His remarks were general and theoretical. The great point of the whole movement was to secure the denunciation of the treaties. Nothing could be done while these treaties were in existence, and in my opinion it would have been a most indiscreet thing for Sir Wilfrid Laurier to have pursued any line of argument that would have aroused the hostility of the great free trade party in Great Britain. The great point was to secure the united influence of all partiesin favouring the denunciation of the treaties, which was an important step in advance.

Being asked to account for the fact that Sir Howard Vincent, of the United Empire Trade League, a strong protectionist, and the Cobden Club both united in applauding the denunciation of the treaties, I replied:

Sir Howard Vincent and his League saw plainly that this action made for a preferential tariff. The Cobden Club are whistling to keep up their courage.

In the Conference of Premiers, held in 1897, it was not possible to secure an arrangement for mutual preferential tariffs. The other colonies were not ready for it, the Imperial Government was not ready for it, nor were the people, but as the German and Belgian Treaties were denounced to take effect the following year, in August, 1898, the path was cleared, and from that date the Canadian Preference came into force, and has since been in operation.

It will be remembered that the deputation of our British Empire League to England, in 1897, was instructed to express the great desire of the Canadian Branch that, as a guarantee of the general safety of the Empire, vigorous steps should at once be taken to provide that the British Food supply should be grown within the Empire. As chairman of the deputation I did all in my power to stir up inquiry on the subject. Being introduced to Principal Ward of Owens College, Manchester, when at that city, I talked freely with him on the point, and he suggested I should discuss it with Mr. Spencer Wilkinson, the well-known author and journalist. He gave me a letter introducing me to Mr. Wilkinson, and we hadseveral interviews. Shortly after reaching London I called to see my friend Lord Wolseley, then Commander-in-Chief. He took me with him to his house to lunch, and as we walked over, I at once broached the subject of the food supply, principally wheat and flour, and he told me that the Government had been urged to look into the matter some two or three years before, and that there had been a careful inquiry by the best experts, and the report was that the command of the sea was asine quâ non, but if we maintained that, and paid the cost which would be much increased by war prices, the country could get all the grain they would want.

I said suppose a war with Russia and the United States, what would be done if they combined and put an embargo on bread-stuffs? How would it be got then even with full command of the sea? He did not seem himself to have understood the difficulty, or studied the figures, and said, “I cannot explain the matter. All I can say is that the Government obtained the advice of the best men in England on the subject, and that is their report.” My reply was, “I wish you would look into it yourself,” and I dropped the subject.

I met Lord Roberts shortly after and I pressed the matter upon him. He had not known of the Government report, and consequently listened to my arguments attentively and seemed impressed, for I may say that 1897 was the worst year in all our history as to the manner in which the supply of food was distributed among the nations.

Mr. Spencer Wilkinson seemed to be much interested in my talks with him, and one day he said, “I wish you could have a conversation with some great authority on the other side of the question, who wouldunderstand the matter and be able to answer you.” I replied, “That is what I should like very much. Tell me the best man you have and I will tackle him. If he throws me over in the gutter in our discussion it will be a good thing, for then I shall learn something.” Mr. Wilkinson laughed at my way of putting it, and said, “If that is what you want, Sir Robert Giffen is the man for you to see.” I said I would try and get a letter of introduction to him. Mr. Wilkinson said he would give me one, and did so.

I called to see Sir Robert Giffen. He received me very kindly, and we had an interesting interview of about an hour. The moment I broached the subject of the food supply he said at once, “That question came up some two or three years ago, and I was called upon to inquire into the whole matter and report upon it, and my report in a few words was, that we must have the command of the sea, and that once that was secured, then, by paying the somewhat enhanced war prices, we could get all the grain required.” My reply was, “Then, as you have fully inquired into the question, you can tell me what you could do under certain conditions. In case of a war between Great Britain and Russia combined with the United States, followed by an embargo on food products, where and how would you get your supplies?” Sir Robert said, “We do not expect to go to war with the United States and Russia at the same time.” I said, “You were within an ace of war with the United States only a year ago over the Venezuelan difficulty, and Great Britain and Russia have been snarling at each other over the Indian Frontier for years, and if you go to war with either, you must count on having the other on your hands.”

Sir Robert then said, “But I said we must have the command of the sea.” I replied, “I will give you the complete, undoubted, absolute command of the sea, everywhere all the time, although you are not likely to have it; and then in case of an embargo on wheat and foodstuffs where are you to get your supplies?” He said, “We would get some from Canada and other countries.” I pointed out that all they sent was only a fraction. Sir Robert then said, “They could not put on an embargo, for it would ruin their trade.” I told him that I was talking about war and not about peace and trade, and said that no desire for trade induced the Germans to sell wheat to Paris during the siege of 1870. His idea had been that, in case of war with Russia or the United States, or both, holding the command of the sea, Great Britain would allow foodstuffs to be exported to neutral countries such as Belgium or Holland, and then England would import from those countries. My answer to that was, that if England had the command of the sea, the United States or Russia would have only one weapon, an embargo, and they would certainly use it. He seemed cornered in the argument, and said, “Well, if we cannot get bread we can eat meat. I eat very little bread.” I said, “The British people use about 360 lbs. per head of wheat per annum, and about 90 lbs. of meat, and a great deal of meat would be stopped too”; and I said on leaving, “I wish you would investigate this thoroughly again, and let the Government know, for I know they are depending upon your report at the War Office”; and then I left him.

When at Liverpool shortly after on my way back to Canada, I asked the manager of the Bank of Liverpool, to whom I had a letter of introduction, if he wouldintroduce me to the highest authority on the corn trade in Liverpool. He introduced me to the late Mr. Paul, ex-President of the Corn Exchange, and I had a long conversation with him on the question of the food supply. As soon as I mentioned the subject he told me that the corn trade people in Liverpool had been asked from London to make a report on the possibility of supplying grain in case of war. Mr. Paul told me that they had considered the matter (I suppose he meant the leading corn merchants), and that their report was practically that they must have the command of the sea, that was essential; but that secured, and the enhanced war prices paid, they could supply all the corn required in any contingency. I questioned him as I had Sir Robert Giffen and found the same underlying belief. The law of supply and demand would settle the question. The corn would be allowed to go in neutral ships to neutral ports, and then be transhipped to England. An embargo had not been considered or treated seriously as a possibility, and when I cornered him so that he could not answer my arguments, he said, “Well, if we could not get wheat we could live on potatoes.” I told him potatoes could not be kept over a year, that a large quantity was imported which would be stopped. I said he had better make another report. The whole thing was very disheartening to me, for I saw how the Government were depending upon peaceful traders for information how to guard against war dangers.

In 1902 when Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, proposed a small tax on wheat and flour, I was pleased to see that Sir Robert Giffen was the first prominent man to write to the Press endorsing and approving of the bread tax, as it wascalled. It showed me that Sir Robert had carefully considered the question, and was manly enough to advocate what was not altogether a popular idea.

After my return to Canada I prepared an article for theNineteenth Centuryon the “Situation in England,” and it appeared in the December number, 1897. In this I pointed out the danger of the condition of the food supply, and the article attracted a considerable amount of attention in the British Press, in comments, notices, letters, etc. Sir Michael Hicks-Beach in a speech at Bristol, in January, 1898, referred to the question, and in a way contradicted the points I had brought out in theNineteenth Centuryarticle. My conversations the summer before with Lord Wolseley, Sir Robert Giffen, and Mr. Paul had so alarmed me at the false security in which the Government were resting, that when I saw Sir Michael Hicks-Beach relying on the same official reports, I determined, although I had never met him, to write him direct, and on the 20th January, 1898, I wrote, drawing his attention to a remark which he was reported to have made that “in any war England would have many friends ready to supply corn,” and I said, “Our League sent a deputation to England last summer to draw attention to the danger of the food supply. I was chairman of it. Since my return I published an article in theNineteenth Centurygiving our views. I enclose a reprint which I wish you could read. If you have not time please give me one minute to examine the enclosed diagram (cut out of theChicago Tribune) showing the corn export of the world. This shows that Russia and the United States control, not including the Danubian ports, nearly 95 per cent. of the world’s needs, and if they were to put an embargo on the export of food ofall kinds, where would be the ‘many friends ready to supply England with corn?’”

Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, now Lord St. Aldwyn, with great courtesy wrote me a personal letter, in which he thanked me for my letter, and went on to say:

I do not think that the sentence you quote “that in any war England would have many friends ready to supply corn” quite accurately represents what I said on that subject. The report was necessarily much condensed. But it would be true if (say) we were at war with the United States alone: or if we were at war with one or more of the European Powers and the United States were neutral. In either of such cases the interests of the neutral Powers in access to our market would be so strong, that our enemy would not venture to close it to them, in the only possible way, viz.: by declaring corn contraband of war. And I think that if the United States were the neutral party, self-interest would weigh more with them than their ill feeling towards us, whatever the amount of that feeling may be.It is possible, though most improbable, that the two great corn-producing countries might be allied against us. If they were, I believe that our navy would still keep the seas open for our supply from other sources, though no doubt there would be comparative scarcity and suffering. I am no believer in the enclosed diagram, the production of corn is constantly increasing in new countries such as the Argentine, and better communication is also increasing the total amount available for export. Bad harvests in the United States and Russia, and good ones in India and the Argentine, would show quite another result to that shown in the enclosed, though, as I have said, I do not believe it is true, even of the year which it professes to represent.

It is possible, though most improbable, that the two great corn-producing countries might be allied against us. If they were, I believe that our navy would still keep the seas open for our supply from other sources, though no doubt there would be comparative scarcity and suffering. I am no believer in the enclosed diagram, the production of corn is constantly increasing in new countries such as the Argentine, and better communication is also increasing the total amount available for export. Bad harvests in the United States and Russia, and good ones in India and the Argentine, would show quite another result to that shown in the enclosed, though, as I have said, I do not believe it is true, even of the year which it professes to represent.

On receipt of this letter I wrote to Mr. Geo. J. S. Broomhall, of Liverpool, editor of theCorn Trade News, and author of theCorn Trade Year Book, and received from him a certificate of the correct figures of corn exports. I forwarded it to Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, showing that in 1897 India and the Argentine only exported 200,000 qrs. and 740,000 qrs. respectively, and that the diagram I sent could not have been a very great way out. In 1902 Sir Michael Hicks-Beach put a tax of one shilling a quarter on imported wheat, and as I have already said, Sir Robert Giffen wrote to theTimesapproving of it. I was very glad to see this action on the part of both of them.

On the 4th December, 1897, the Hon. George W. Ross gave an address before the British Empire League in St George’s Hall, Toronto, in which he strongly favoured preferential tariffs and came out squarely against reciprocity with the United States. This action was a great encouragement to our cause and attracted considerable attention all over Canada.

On the 8th December, 1897, the National Club gave a complimentary banquet to his Excellency the Earl of Aberdeen, Governor-General. I attended the banquet and sat second to the left of the president of the club, Mr. McNaught. I was under the impression that Mr. Blake, who had been a few years away from Canada, and who had joined the Irish Nationalist party, would be sure to speak in a strain not acceptable to our club. I mentioned this to Dr. Parkin who sat next to me. When Mr. Blake began to speak he very soon uttered sentiments strongly opposed to all that the Canadians had been working for in the Imperial interest. I said to Parkin that as an ex-president of the club, and president of the British Empire League,I would not allow his remarks to pass without comment. I leaned over and told the chairman I intended to speak a few minutes when Mr. Blake finished. He raised some objection, but I told him I must speak. He mentioned it to the Governor-General, who said he would wait for fifteen minutes. I told Dr. Parkin I would divide the time with him.

After Mr. Blake sat down, I said:

I have been a member of this club almost from its foundation. I was for many years on the Board of Directors, and for some years its President, and I feel that I should state that the speech of my friend Mr. Blake does not represent the views nor the national aspirations which have always been characteristic of the National Club. . . .I agree with what Mr. Blake has said as to the importance of preserving friendly relations with the United States. We hope to live at peace with them, but because we do not wish to beg for reciprocity or make humiliating concessions for the sake of greater trade, it is no reason why we should be charged with wanting war. We want peace, and no one can point to any instance where the Canadian people or Government have been responsible for the irritation. Mr. G. W. Ross pointed this out clearly in his admirable speech of Saturday night. The great causes of irritation have come from the United States. The invasion of 1775, the war of 1812, the Trent affair, and the Venezuelan business were all matters in which we were absolutely free from blame. Nor were we to blame some thirty years ago when I had to turn out with my corps to help defend the frontier of this province from the attacks of bands of Fenians, organised, armed, and equipped, in the United States, who invaded our country, and shot down some of my comrades, who died defending Canada. These raids were maintained by contributions from our worst enemies in the UnitedStates, but we drove them out, and now I am glad to say that, while the contributions still go on, the proceeds are devoted to troubling the Empire elsewhere, and I hope they will continue to be expended in that direction rather than against us.I approve of Mr. Blake’s remarks about the defence of Canada, and the expenditure of money to make our country safer, but I object strongly to the hopeless view he takes. We are 6,000,000 of northern men, and, fighting on our own soil for our rights and freedom, I believe we could hold our own in spite of the odds against us, as our fathers did in days gone by, when the outlook was much more gloomy.

I agree with what Mr. Blake has said as to the importance of preserving friendly relations with the United States. We hope to live at peace with them, but because we do not wish to beg for reciprocity or make humiliating concessions for the sake of greater trade, it is no reason why we should be charged with wanting war. We want peace, and no one can point to any instance where the Canadian people or Government have been responsible for the irritation. Mr. G. W. Ross pointed this out clearly in his admirable speech of Saturday night. The great causes of irritation have come from the United States. The invasion of 1775, the war of 1812, the Trent affair, and the Venezuelan business were all matters in which we were absolutely free from blame. Nor were we to blame some thirty years ago when I had to turn out with my corps to help defend the frontier of this province from the attacks of bands of Fenians, organised, armed, and equipped, in the United States, who invaded our country, and shot down some of my comrades, who died defending Canada. These raids were maintained by contributions from our worst enemies in the UnitedStates, but we drove them out, and now I am glad to say that, while the contributions still go on, the proceeds are devoted to troubling the Empire elsewhere, and I hope they will continue to be expended in that direction rather than against us.

I approve of Mr. Blake’s remarks about the defence of Canada, and the expenditure of money to make our country safer, but I object strongly to the hopeless view he takes. We are 6,000,000 of northern men, and, fighting on our own soil for our rights and freedom, I believe we could hold our own in spite of the odds against us, as our fathers did in days gone by, when the outlook was much more gloomy.

Dr. George R. Parkin followed with an eloquent and powerful speech pointing out the various arguments which showed the growth of the movement for Imperial unity.

It was thought at that time that Mr. Blake had some idea of returning to Canadian politics, but the result of this meeting and the Press comments must have put an end to any such idea if it ever existed.

In the autumn of 1897 the report of a Royal Commission on the condition of affairs in the West Indian Islands was published. Field-Marshal Sir Henry Norman disagreed with the other two members of the Commission, and put in a minority report, showing in effect that the real way to relieve the distress in the sugar industry of the West Indies, was for Great Britain to put countervailing duties on bounty favoured sugar coming into her markets. I was much impressed with Sir Henry Norman’s report as to the condition of the West Indies, and came to the conclusion that we in Canada might do something to aid on Imperial grounds.

I wrote, therefore, to Principal George M. Grant, one of our most energetic and brilliant colleagues, asking him to let me know when he would be in Toronto, as I wished to have a long conference with him. On the 29th December, 1897, we met, and I discussed the whole question with him and asked him to go to Ottawa, and urge Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Mr. Fielding to increase the sugar duty in order that Canada might be able to give a preference to West Indian Sugar. I pointed out that such action would be popular, and that I was satisfied both parties would support it. Ihad been pressing Sir Wilfrid and the Government on many points, and thought that in this matter they had better be approached from a different angle. Grant took up the idea eagerly, and promised to go to Ottawa and do his best. On the 3rd January, 1898, he wrote me “(Private and confidential)”:

A Happy New Year to you! I have just returned from Ottawa. Had an hour with Fielding discussing the West Indian question, which he understands thoroughly. I think that something will be done, though perhaps not all that we might wish at first.Had an hour also with Laurier. First, the preference hereafter is to be confined to Britain. That is settled, but this is of course strictly confidential.Secondly, he seemed at first to think that we had gone far enough with our twenty-five per cent. reduction, till we could see its workings, but when I argued for going steadily along that line he said, “I do not say yea, but I do not say nay.” I intend to push the matter.He is in favour of the cable, but thinks that we cannot take it up this session.He impresses me favourably the more I study him. He has a truer understanding of the forces in Britain than Tupper in my opinion.Of course I told Fielding that the West Indian suggestion was yours, and that I cordially endorsed it. He is anxious to do something, but thinks that we must ask in dealing with them aquid pro quo.

Had an hour also with Laurier. First, the preference hereafter is to be confined to Britain. That is settled, but this is of course strictly confidential.

Secondly, he seemed at first to think that we had gone far enough with our twenty-five per cent. reduction, till we could see its workings, but when I argued for going steadily along that line he said, “I do not say yea, but I do not say nay.” I intend to push the matter.

He is in favour of the cable, but thinks that we cannot take it up this session.

He impresses me favourably the more I study him. He has a truer understanding of the forces in Britain than Tupper in my opinion.

Of course I told Fielding that the West Indian suggestion was yours, and that I cordially endorsed it. He is anxious to do something, but thinks that we must ask in dealing with them aquid pro quo.

Shortly before it was announced Sir Wilfrid Laurier told me the Government were likely to give West Indian sugar a preference. And on the 5th April, 1898, Mr. Fielding introduced his Budget, and in a most eloquent and statesmanlike speech declared that Canada had her Imperial responsibilities, and that shewould lend “a helping hand to our sister colonies in the south.” This was received with great applause from both sides of the House, and Grant and I were not only much pleased at the success of our efforts, but still more gratified to find the universal feeling in Canada in favour of Mr. Fielding’s action. A few days after, on the 9th April, Grant wrote to me:

I am sure that my thorough discussion on the West India matter with Mr. Fielding did good, but the suggestion came from you. We may be well satisfied with the action of the Government, but it will be bad if the public gets the idea that the British Empire League is pressing them. It is our task rather to educate public opinion. Things are moving steadily in the right direction.P.S.—Mulock is evidently aiming at Imperial penny postage. Good!

P.S.—Mulock is evidently aiming at Imperial penny postage. Good!

Some time after this the German Government put the maximum tariff against all Canadian goods, and Mr. Fielding met this by a surtax of ten per cent. on all German goods entering Canada. This changed the whole supply of sugar for Canada from Germany to the West Indies to their great advantage.

On the 10th March, 1898, the Annual Meeting of the British Empire League was held in the Private Bills Committee Room in the House of Commons. It was a most successful meeting. Four Cabinet Ministers were present, Sir Louis Davies, Sir Wm. Mulock, Hon. J. Israel Tarte, and Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick. Sir Charles Tupper and Sir Mackenzie Bowell ex Prime Ministers, and many members of the Senate and the House. Those named above addressed the meeting as well as Principal Grant and Colonel Sam Hughes.

Sir Wm. Mulock succeeded this year in securingImperial Penny Postage, which was one of the objects for which the British Empire League had been working. It was managed with great boldness and skill by Mr. Mulock. His first step was to announce that on and after a certain date some three or four months in advance, all letters stamped with the ordinary three cent domestic rate would be carried to Great Britain without further charge. He knew that objection would be raised to his action, but that it would bring the question to the forefront. The Imperial Government objected to deliver the letters, and said the matter would have to be considered at a conference. Mr. Mulock then answered that a conference should be held, which was agreed to, but he insisted it should not be a departmental affair, that he should only be asked to discuss it with men of his own rank, that is with Cabinet Ministers. This also was agreed to, and it was not long before the matter was settled. Mr. Mulock sent me a cable telling me of his success as soon as he came out of the meeting where the resolution was passed.

On the 28th August, 1898, a large deputation of the Executive Committee of the British Empire League met Mr. Mulock at the Toronto railway station on his arrival from England, to welcome him home, to congratulate him upon his success, and to invite him to a complimentary banquet to be given in his honour.

The banquet took place on the 15th September, at the National Club. Principal Grant, Alexander McNeill, and Sir Sandford Fleming all came to Toronto to attend it. It was a most successful affair.

The Lieut.-Governor Sir Oliver Mowat, who was one of our vice-presidents, attended, also Lord Herschel, Hon. Richard Herschel, Hon. Charles Russell, SirFrank Smith, Mayor Shaw, and a large and distinguished company.

I was in the chair and proposed the health of Mr. Mulock. TheWorldof the following day, the 16th September, 1898, reported me as follows:

Colonel Denison, inspired by the nobility of the dominant idea of the evening, looked like a general standing on the ramparts just won by his troops. He spoke of the double aim of the League, to preserve the permanency of the British Empire, and secondly to procure closer intercourse between the parts. He dwelt on the wonderful advance made by the idea of federation and the disappearance of the “Little Englander.” It was not enough to denounce the German and Belgian treaties, or to have a preferential tariff. There should be no rest until a mutual preferential tariff had been secured.

Lord Herschel, Sir Oliver Mowat, Mr. Mulock, Principal Grant, Alexander McNeill, Sir Sandford Fleming, Mr. George Hague of Montreal, Geo. E. Casey, and W. F. Maclean all made loyal and patriotic speeches, Alexander McNeill’s being especially eloquent and powerful.

Our League was much gratified not long afterwards at an article which appeared in the LondonDaily Mailof the 21st November, 1898, under the heading “Where Imperialism comes from.” After referring to many things Canada had done, preferential tariffs and preferences to the West Indies, penny postage, &c., it concluded as follows:

By their works ye shall know them, and by the record of Canada’s works is her magnificent, constructive, peaceful Imperialism made known to the world. Yet its full strength can only be measured by going among Canadians in their homes and noting—and becomingaffected by—the palpitating Imperialist life of the people, which even the coldness of the mother country cannot damp. When future historians come to write the history of the Empire’s later development they will have much to say of Canada’s Imperialist lead. At present we don’t make half enough of this rich and beautiful Dominion—an Empire in itself—and its enthusiastically loyal sons.

The Fourth Annual Meeting of the League in Canada was held in Ottawa on the 6th April, 1899. In moving the adoption of the Annual Report, I made an address which clearly outlined the policy of the League at that time, and may therefore be worth quoting. It appears in the report printed by order of the annual meeting as follows:

The year that has passed since we last met has been a most important year in reference to the work of the British Empire League, and many striking events have happened which teach us lessons that we should carefully consider in framing our policy for the future. We have many things upon which we can look with great satisfaction. Since we last met the preference in our markets, which under certain conditions had previously been open to all countries, has been restricted to our empire. A preference has also been given to our sister colonies in the West Indies, and this example, we are gratified to find, has in a way been imitated by the Government of India, with the approval of the British Government, which is another move in the direction of the aims of our league. Almost simultaneously we see the LondonTimesdiscussing a duty on wheat and sugar as a means of raising revenue. As this would not only raise revenuebut help to raise wheat in Britain as well, it would aid to that extent in strengthening the empire. In reference to the preference to West Indian sugar, I wish to point out that I am informed that cane sugar in the United States has a preference through duties on beet root sugar, which, at present, is an advantage to West Indian sugar to the extent of 27 cents per hundred pounds, while the preference we have given in our market is only about 18 cents per hundred pounds. I may suggest that we in Canada should increase our preference to, say, 40 per cent. of the duty, which would give our fellow-colonists a slightly greater preference than they now receive under the United States tariff. I need not say much about the fast Atlantic service, for all parties are united in favour of it, and we can only hope that it will be established at the earliest moment, for nothing would help more to show our position as a separate community upon this continent. We have been too backward in the past, and we should endeavour more and more to assert ourselves among the countries of the world.There is one point I wish to press upon this meeting: there has been in the last twenty-five or thirty years a revolution in the affairs of the world in reference to national relations and methods of defence. Germany has united, and we remember that it was accomplished under the stress and trial of war. The German Empire was inaugurated in the greatest palace of France, to the sound of the German cannon firing upon the capital city of their enemy. Italy, as the result of three wars, has been united and consolidated. The United States during the last year have launched out into the politics of the world, have adopted expansion as their policy, and are pressing their views on the Filipinos with rifles, maxims, and field guns. We have discovered this year once more by hard facts what history in all ages has shown—that nations cannot expect to exist upon the security of their natural moral rights, unless those rights are supported by physical strength.Spain has been taught that might prevails, and she has been crushed and humiliated for doing what the United States are now obliged to do themselves in the Philippine Islands. The greatest lesson of all, however, which this last year has taught us is that which we learn from the impending fate of China. There is a nation of three hundred to four hundred millions of people, honest traders, I am told, certainly most inoffensive and unaggressive; a nation which, from its peaceful character, industrious habits, and natural reserve, should have been the last to have aroused hostility. It has neglected its defences and has taken no effective steps to protect itself from wrong, and what do we see now as the result? The nations in the possession of navies and armies are commencing to tear it to pieces and divide the spoils.Do we hear of any of these nations being worried by conscientious scruples, or complaining of the moral wrong of this partition? No; the whole disputing is concentrated over the division of the spoils. Now what is the lesson this thing teaches us? It is this; that nations can only enjoy their freedom by being able to defend it, and that the true policy for nations under present conditions is to be closely united within themselves, to be thoroughly organised and equipped, and to be able in case of necessity to use their whole strength to the greatest advantage for the common safety—and to do this nations must be self-sustaining. (Applause.)In trade, also, we see the selfish war going on and increasing. While England is talking about the “open door,” which is a fine phrase for theorists, she is finding other nations busily engaged in shutting their own doors. Each nation year by year is being forced to protect its industries by tariff regulations. France is following this policy; Germany and Russia also, and the most prosperous of them all, the United States, is carrying the principle to the greatest extent. One can see that this principle is growing and will grow,for the selfishness of nations seems, if possible, to be increasing every day. Now, how is the British nation placed? It has the best chances of all if it sees how to take advantage of them.It has the largest territory, with every variety of climate and products, with the greatest possibilities of development, with prospects of an internal trade far beyond all other countries. It has the best coaling stations scattered everywhere, but to secure and retain her advantages the empire must be consolidated, both for trade and defence, and this can be fully accomplished without the slightest aggression. (Hear, hear.)If we Canadians desire to be free and safe it must be in that empire to which we are attached by every tie, and to which we must be ready to give our strength for the common defence, if we expect the enormous reserve force of that empire to be at our back if our life as a free people should ever be threatened. (Applause.)It is necessary, therefore, for the prosperity and safety of all the parts, that the United Kingdom, India, Australasia, South Africa, and Canada should all be firmly united so as to show a square front to any enemies that may attack us. This is the object of our league; to secure the permanent unity of the empire; and with the extraordinary development of nations and of military progress in them, our empire must also, if it desires security, be ready in every part to pay for that security and be ready to defend it.In past ages the wars between nations have been carried on by moderate sized armies, while the great bulk of the people attended to their usual business, except where interrupted in the actual theatre of war. For a thousand years wars had been conducted upon that principle, until the French Revolution, when in 1793, being threatened with invasion by combined Europe, 1,300,000 men were conscripted in France to defend her frontier. This was the first example of a nation almost taking up arms to defend herself. It changed the organisation of armies; but later, underNapoleon, the nation returned more nearly to the old system of regular armies. In 1870 and since, however, the revolution in military defence in most civilised countries except our own has been completed. Now in France, Germany, and Russia the whole people practically are trained for war. The war footing of the army in France is about 4,000,000 and some thousands of field guns; in Germany just about the same; in Russia the army on a war footing is said to be 3,400,000; Austria has a war strength of 2,750,000. As these forces in these countries are all organised, and arms, equipment, and field guns ready, it will be seen that never before in history were such enormous military preparations made. The navies have increased almost in the same ratio, our navy fortunately being more than equal to any two navies combined. With this outlook, with this condition of affairs outside, it is only wisdom for the wealthiest of all nations to consolidate its power in order to preserve its wealth, possessions, and liberty.And what are we in Canada doing? We are following the example of the Chinese, and trusting to the forbearance and sense of honesty of other nations, instead of relying upon our own strength and the strength of the empire, to which we could better appeal if we did our own share properly.Thirty-eight thousand militia, drilled spasmodically, without the necessary equipment and departments, without reserves, or even rifles to arm them, is no contribution to the strength of the empire. This should be changed at once. We should establish depots for training our fishermen and sailors to supplement the royal naval reserve, and the guns with which to train them, the barracks in which to house them, and the permanent instructional staff necessary to drill them, if judiciously placed in batteries in front of St. John, N.B., Charlottetown, Quebec, and other seaports, would be aiding the British navy, which protects our mercantile marine, while matters could be arranged tomake them a defence for those seaports, which at present would be at the mercy of any swift cruiser that, evading pursuit, might approach their wharves. (Hear, hear.)Our militia should be largely increased, and supplies of all kinds provided, and in agreeing to do our share in developing and strengthening the military resources of the empire, in our own borders, we could fairly ask the mother country to remedy a danger which at present menaces the safety of our race.I spoke very plainly on this point of the food supply last year, but the intervening months have produced such strong evidence in support of my arguments that I wish to draw attention to the subject again. I said last year that an embargo on foodstuffs in Russia and the United States, rigidly carried out, would force the surrender of the mother country in a very few months. I have been told by trade theorists in England that the demand would create the supply, and that England could purchase food through neutral countries. I argued that an embargo by the two countries mentioned would necessarily be followed by an embargo in all important countries at once, and in all other countries as soon as their surplus was exported. This last year has seen this view triumphantly vindicated. Mr. Leiter effected a corner in wheat in Chicago, purchasers became alarmed, prices increased, and wheat began to be picked up in other countries. What was the result? Spain, a country which about feeds itself, put on an embargo. I believe Italy did the same, or was on the point of doing so, while an embargo was being discussed in France and Germany. If this could be the result of the cornering operations of one dealer in one town in one exporting country, what would have happened if those two countries which control nearly nine-tenths of the wheat exports of the world were to withhold that amount?I have been told that no country could put on an embargo, that the people would rebel against beingprevented from selling their produce, but I have one example which conclusively proves my argument. The southern States had the bulk of the cotton supply of the world when the Civil war broke out in 1860. Their main industry was growing cotton, their capital, labour, and business were mainly involved in the production and sale of it. To force Great Britain to recognise and assist them, in other words, to bring pressure to bear upon a neutral power, the southern Government placed an embargo on the export of cotton. At Great Britain’s request the northern Government agreed to give permits to let it go to England. So that it was not the blockade alone which prevented its export. The southern Government maintained a strict embargo. When their troops were forced back the stores of cotton were seized and paid for by the Confederate Government by receipts and Government bonds, and the cotton was burned. Mrs. Jefferson Davis, in her memoirs, says that her husband grudged every pound that got out. Now let us see what was the result of this embargo, and how far it was possible to enforce it. In 1860, England imported from the United States 1,115,890,608 pounds; in 1861, England imported from the United States, 819,500,528 pounds; in 1862, England imported from the United States 13,524,224 pounds; in 1863, England imported from the United States 6,394,080 pounds; in 1864, England imported from the United States 14,198,688 pounds. The drop from 1,115,890,608 to 6,394,080 pounds, about one-half of one per cent, shows how complete this embargo was. The cotton famine has not been forgotten. The loss to the English people has been computed at £65,000,000, and yet this only affected one industry in one section of one kingdom. (Hear, hear.)Nine-tenths of the population were able to help; the tenth affected, and there was abundance of food for all. But extend that pressure, and let it be in food, which no one can do without, and let it extend over the whole ten-tenths (as would be the case in the event of astoppage of food) and try to imagine the misery that would follow. Food would have to be rationed to rich and poor alike, for the starving masses would not allow all there was to be monopolised by the wealthy. Under such conditions, what heart could the Government be expected to display in the conduct of the struggle? Russia and the United States could control the export of 40,000,000 quarters out of 45,375,000 quarters exported by all nations in 1897. The late war between the United States and Spain is said to have cost the States nearly $500,000,000. If the Government of Russia and the United States bought the full surplus from their people of 320,000,000 bushels at the present market price, it would only cost them about $225,000,000, while even at $1 a bushel it would only be $320,000,000—the cheapest and most effective war measure that could be adopted. And this could be done by these countries without their having one war vessel. I repeat, therefore, that this is the weak point of our empire; our food should be grown under our own flag, or there should be large stores in England, and a preference which would increase the growth of wheat to the extent of 10,000,000 quarters additional in the British Isles would be the best spent money for defence that could be expended, and a preference to the colonies would soon produce the balance within the Empire. (Hear, hear.)We should urge this upon the mother country, not because it would help us enormously, though that is no reason why we should not urge it, but because danger to the mother country is danger to us all.These are the two points for us to look forward to, a thorough organisation of our own forces in Canada, with a liberal assistance from us toward the royal naval reserve and other defences of the empire, and a provision, for the food supply of the empire being made safe. These should go together, for there is not much use in our sending our sailors, well trained, to man war vessels, to defend our empire, unless it is understood thata ship without food is as useless as one without guns, or powder or coal or men. A number of requisites are absolutely necessary to make an effective navy, or an effective defence, and the want of one makes all the others useless, and food is one of these indispensable requisites. We cannot press this too earnestly upon the mother country, but we cannot talk to them about their duties or necessities until we first attend to ours, and show our willingness to take up our share of the common burden. The answer to my argument from the English point of view is that my suggestion to secure a safe supply of food might be a great material advantage to Canada. This should not be considered. A preference to the British farmer would increase the growth of wheat to sixteen or seventeen million quarters in the United Kingdom. This would do us no good financially, but would be a great service to us, because it would make our empire more secure.If large stores of grain were accumulated in England, it would be no advantage to us pecuniarily, but it would strengthen the whole empire, and I for one would be delighted to see either plan adopted, for at present none of us are safe. No nation or power can be independent that is not self-dependent. The lesson taught us by the course of events is to consolidate and unite our empire, both for trade and defence. (Applause.)

There is one point I wish to press upon this meeting: there has been in the last twenty-five or thirty years a revolution in the affairs of the world in reference to national relations and methods of defence. Germany has united, and we remember that it was accomplished under the stress and trial of war. The German Empire was inaugurated in the greatest palace of France, to the sound of the German cannon firing upon the capital city of their enemy. Italy, as the result of three wars, has been united and consolidated. The United States during the last year have launched out into the politics of the world, have adopted expansion as their policy, and are pressing their views on the Filipinos with rifles, maxims, and field guns. We have discovered this year once more by hard facts what history in all ages has shown—that nations cannot expect to exist upon the security of their natural moral rights, unless those rights are supported by physical strength.Spain has been taught that might prevails, and she has been crushed and humiliated for doing what the United States are now obliged to do themselves in the Philippine Islands. The greatest lesson of all, however, which this last year has taught us is that which we learn from the impending fate of China. There is a nation of three hundred to four hundred millions of people, honest traders, I am told, certainly most inoffensive and unaggressive; a nation which, from its peaceful character, industrious habits, and natural reserve, should have been the last to have aroused hostility. It has neglected its defences and has taken no effective steps to protect itself from wrong, and what do we see now as the result? The nations in the possession of navies and armies are commencing to tear it to pieces and divide the spoils.

Do we hear of any of these nations being worried by conscientious scruples, or complaining of the moral wrong of this partition? No; the whole disputing is concentrated over the division of the spoils. Now what is the lesson this thing teaches us? It is this; that nations can only enjoy their freedom by being able to defend it, and that the true policy for nations under present conditions is to be closely united within themselves, to be thoroughly organised and equipped, and to be able in case of necessity to use their whole strength to the greatest advantage for the common safety—and to do this nations must be self-sustaining. (Applause.)

In trade, also, we see the selfish war going on and increasing. While England is talking about the “open door,” which is a fine phrase for theorists, she is finding other nations busily engaged in shutting their own doors. Each nation year by year is being forced to protect its industries by tariff regulations. France is following this policy; Germany and Russia also, and the most prosperous of them all, the United States, is carrying the principle to the greatest extent. One can see that this principle is growing and will grow,for the selfishness of nations seems, if possible, to be increasing every day. Now, how is the British nation placed? It has the best chances of all if it sees how to take advantage of them.

It has the largest territory, with every variety of climate and products, with the greatest possibilities of development, with prospects of an internal trade far beyond all other countries. It has the best coaling stations scattered everywhere, but to secure and retain her advantages the empire must be consolidated, both for trade and defence, and this can be fully accomplished without the slightest aggression. (Hear, hear.)

If we Canadians desire to be free and safe it must be in that empire to which we are attached by every tie, and to which we must be ready to give our strength for the common defence, if we expect the enormous reserve force of that empire to be at our back if our life as a free people should ever be threatened. (Applause.)

It is necessary, therefore, for the prosperity and safety of all the parts, that the United Kingdom, India, Australasia, South Africa, and Canada should all be firmly united so as to show a square front to any enemies that may attack us. This is the object of our league; to secure the permanent unity of the empire; and with the extraordinary development of nations and of military progress in them, our empire must also, if it desires security, be ready in every part to pay for that security and be ready to defend it.

In past ages the wars between nations have been carried on by moderate sized armies, while the great bulk of the people attended to their usual business, except where interrupted in the actual theatre of war. For a thousand years wars had been conducted upon that principle, until the French Revolution, when in 1793, being threatened with invasion by combined Europe, 1,300,000 men were conscripted in France to defend her frontier. This was the first example of a nation almost taking up arms to defend herself. It changed the organisation of armies; but later, underNapoleon, the nation returned more nearly to the old system of regular armies. In 1870 and since, however, the revolution in military defence in most civilised countries except our own has been completed. Now in France, Germany, and Russia the whole people practically are trained for war. The war footing of the army in France is about 4,000,000 and some thousands of field guns; in Germany just about the same; in Russia the army on a war footing is said to be 3,400,000; Austria has a war strength of 2,750,000. As these forces in these countries are all organised, and arms, equipment, and field guns ready, it will be seen that never before in history were such enormous military preparations made. The navies have increased almost in the same ratio, our navy fortunately being more than equal to any two navies combined. With this outlook, with this condition of affairs outside, it is only wisdom for the wealthiest of all nations to consolidate its power in order to preserve its wealth, possessions, and liberty.

And what are we in Canada doing? We are following the example of the Chinese, and trusting to the forbearance and sense of honesty of other nations, instead of relying upon our own strength and the strength of the empire, to which we could better appeal if we did our own share properly.

Thirty-eight thousand militia, drilled spasmodically, without the necessary equipment and departments, without reserves, or even rifles to arm them, is no contribution to the strength of the empire. This should be changed at once. We should establish depots for training our fishermen and sailors to supplement the royal naval reserve, and the guns with which to train them, the barracks in which to house them, and the permanent instructional staff necessary to drill them, if judiciously placed in batteries in front of St. John, N.B., Charlottetown, Quebec, and other seaports, would be aiding the British navy, which protects our mercantile marine, while matters could be arranged tomake them a defence for those seaports, which at present would be at the mercy of any swift cruiser that, evading pursuit, might approach their wharves. (Hear, hear.)

Our militia should be largely increased, and supplies of all kinds provided, and in agreeing to do our share in developing and strengthening the military resources of the empire, in our own borders, we could fairly ask the mother country to remedy a danger which at present menaces the safety of our race.

I spoke very plainly on this point of the food supply last year, but the intervening months have produced such strong evidence in support of my arguments that I wish to draw attention to the subject again. I said last year that an embargo on foodstuffs in Russia and the United States, rigidly carried out, would force the surrender of the mother country in a very few months. I have been told by trade theorists in England that the demand would create the supply, and that England could purchase food through neutral countries. I argued that an embargo by the two countries mentioned would necessarily be followed by an embargo in all important countries at once, and in all other countries as soon as their surplus was exported. This last year has seen this view triumphantly vindicated. Mr. Leiter effected a corner in wheat in Chicago, purchasers became alarmed, prices increased, and wheat began to be picked up in other countries. What was the result? Spain, a country which about feeds itself, put on an embargo. I believe Italy did the same, or was on the point of doing so, while an embargo was being discussed in France and Germany. If this could be the result of the cornering operations of one dealer in one town in one exporting country, what would have happened if those two countries which control nearly nine-tenths of the wheat exports of the world were to withhold that amount?

I have been told that no country could put on an embargo, that the people would rebel against beingprevented from selling their produce, but I have one example which conclusively proves my argument. The southern States had the bulk of the cotton supply of the world when the Civil war broke out in 1860. Their main industry was growing cotton, their capital, labour, and business were mainly involved in the production and sale of it. To force Great Britain to recognise and assist them, in other words, to bring pressure to bear upon a neutral power, the southern Government placed an embargo on the export of cotton. At Great Britain’s request the northern Government agreed to give permits to let it go to England. So that it was not the blockade alone which prevented its export. The southern Government maintained a strict embargo. When their troops were forced back the stores of cotton were seized and paid for by the Confederate Government by receipts and Government bonds, and the cotton was burned. Mrs. Jefferson Davis, in her memoirs, says that her husband grudged every pound that got out. Now let us see what was the result of this embargo, and how far it was possible to enforce it. In 1860, England imported from the United States 1,115,890,608 pounds; in 1861, England imported from the United States, 819,500,528 pounds; in 1862, England imported from the United States 13,524,224 pounds; in 1863, England imported from the United States 6,394,080 pounds; in 1864, England imported from the United States 14,198,688 pounds. The drop from 1,115,890,608 to 6,394,080 pounds, about one-half of one per cent, shows how complete this embargo was. The cotton famine has not been forgotten. The loss to the English people has been computed at £65,000,000, and yet this only affected one industry in one section of one kingdom. (Hear, hear.)

Nine-tenths of the population were able to help; the tenth affected, and there was abundance of food for all. But extend that pressure, and let it be in food, which no one can do without, and let it extend over the whole ten-tenths (as would be the case in the event of astoppage of food) and try to imagine the misery that would follow. Food would have to be rationed to rich and poor alike, for the starving masses would not allow all there was to be monopolised by the wealthy. Under such conditions, what heart could the Government be expected to display in the conduct of the struggle? Russia and the United States could control the export of 40,000,000 quarters out of 45,375,000 quarters exported by all nations in 1897. The late war between the United States and Spain is said to have cost the States nearly $500,000,000. If the Government of Russia and the United States bought the full surplus from their people of 320,000,000 bushels at the present market price, it would only cost them about $225,000,000, while even at $1 a bushel it would only be $320,000,000—the cheapest and most effective war measure that could be adopted. And this could be done by these countries without their having one war vessel. I repeat, therefore, that this is the weak point of our empire; our food should be grown under our own flag, or there should be large stores in England, and a preference which would increase the growth of wheat to the extent of 10,000,000 quarters additional in the British Isles would be the best spent money for defence that could be expended, and a preference to the colonies would soon produce the balance within the Empire. (Hear, hear.)

We should urge this upon the mother country, not because it would help us enormously, though that is no reason why we should not urge it, but because danger to the mother country is danger to us all.

These are the two points for us to look forward to, a thorough organisation of our own forces in Canada, with a liberal assistance from us toward the royal naval reserve and other defences of the empire, and a provision, for the food supply of the empire being made safe. These should go together, for there is not much use in our sending our sailors, well trained, to man war vessels, to defend our empire, unless it is understood thata ship without food is as useless as one without guns, or powder or coal or men. A number of requisites are absolutely necessary to make an effective navy, or an effective defence, and the want of one makes all the others useless, and food is one of these indispensable requisites. We cannot press this too earnestly upon the mother country, but we cannot talk to them about their duties or necessities until we first attend to ours, and show our willingness to take up our share of the common burden. The answer to my argument from the English point of view is that my suggestion to secure a safe supply of food might be a great material advantage to Canada. This should not be considered. A preference to the British farmer would increase the growth of wheat to sixteen or seventeen million quarters in the United Kingdom. This would do us no good financially, but would be a great service to us, because it would make our empire more secure.

If large stores of grain were accumulated in England, it would be no advantage to us pecuniarily, but it would strengthen the whole empire, and I for one would be delighted to see either plan adopted, for at present none of us are safe. No nation or power can be independent that is not self-dependent. The lesson taught us by the course of events is to consolidate and unite our empire, both for trade and defence. (Applause.)

Another movement which has spread over the Empire was started this year to help Imperial sentiment. Mrs. Clementine Fessenden of Hamilton wrote to the Hon. G. W. Ross suggesting the establishment of an Empire Day to be celebrated in the schools by patriotic exercises, readings, and addresses. Mr. Ross was favourably impressed with the idea and inaugurated the movement at a large meeting held in the Theatre of the Normal School, Toronto, on the 23rd May 1899, which wasattended by most of the school teachers of the City and many others. I was asked by Mr. Ross to address the meeting, which I did. Mr. Ross himself, Mr. N. F. Rowell and Mr. Sanford Evans were the other speakers. This idea has been taken up by Lord Meath in England, and has spread throughout the empire, but that meeting in the Normal School was the beginning of the movement.

During the summer of 1899 the relations between the British and the Boers in the Transvaal became very strained. As early as the 26th April, 1899, Mr. George Evans, Secretary of the British Empire League received the following cablegram from Kimberley, South Africa. “Twenty-one thousand British subjects, Transvaal, have petitioned Imperial Government obtain redress grievances and secure them status which their numbers, industry, stake in country, entitle them. We strongly sympathise, if you do too, would you as kindred Societies cable Imperial Government sympathetic resolution.” “Signed, South African League Congress, Kimberley, representing 10,000 enrolled members.”

At this time we knew very little of the state of affairs in South Africa, or of the merits of the dispute, and there was a hazy idea that the Boers had opened up the country and should not be disturbed, and after a conference of the principal members of the Executive Committee it was decided to forward the cable to the Head Office of the League in England leaving the matter in their hands. A cable was sent to Kimberley telling them that we had asked the Head Office to decide what to do. Principal Grant at thebeginning of the difficulties in South Africa, in the early summer of 1899, was in sympathy with the Boers as against the gold seeking speculators of Johannesburg, and publicly expressed his views in that way. I sympathised somewhat with his view, but advised him to keep quiet, saying we could not tell how events might shape, and we might have to take a strong stand on the other side. I felt I did not understand the question.

In the following July, Mr. J. Davis Allen, representing the South African Association, came from England to Ottawa, and explained to the Canadian authorities the situation in South Africa and urged the passing of a resolution that would strengthen the hands of the British Government, in its negotiations with Mr. Kruger and the Transvaal Government. Mr. Alexander McNeill naturally took up the cause and wrote to me asking me to go to Ottawa to help Mr. Davis Allen in his efforts. I declined to go, saying I did not sufficiently understand the question, but a few days later, on the 31st July, 1899, Sir Wilfrid Laurier introduced and Parliament unanimously adopted a resolution which concluded as follows:

Back to Index Next