Sir,In two articles in your issues of the 22nd and 24th inst., you have referred to my action in endeavouring to bring the views of the British Empire League in Canada—views which are almost universally shared byCanadians—before the people of this country. Will you kindly allow me to bring one or two points before your readers in defence of my action?The British Empire League here has not adopted our views, but has maintained a position of neutrality, being only willing to show to the Canadian Branch the courtesy of giving facilities for bringing its views forward. I have spoken already at four large banquets, and to the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce, without the British Empire League having had anything to do with the matter, either directly or indirectly.You speak of all that Free Trade has done for this country, the priceless boons, the carrying trade of the world, increased commercial relations with other nations, etc. I wish in a few words to point out why the Canadians are anxious about the present state of affairs in the interests of the whole Empire, in which our fate as a people is inextricably involved.1. We see every nation in the world armed to the teeth, the great nations increasing their navies with feverish anxiety. We see that you are alarmed in this country, for your naval expenditure has almost doubled in the last fifteen or twenty years. If war is out of the question this great expenditure is useless.2. We see that the United Kingdom which once grew 17,000,000 quarters of wheat, now produces about 6,500,000 quarters. We see that a combination of two Powers with an embargo on food would bring you to your knees in a few months, and compel you to surrender, and perhaps pull us down also as a people in the general smash of the Empire which might ensue. We know that our Empire cannot be either a free, independent, or great Power, until it is self-sustaining, and has its food grown on its own soil, and in the hands of its own people.3. We see a great Empire with great possessions, with resources unparalleled, with possibilities of future strength and prosperity almost beyond imagination; with no organisation, no combination, no completesystem of defence: and this in the face of what you admit to be a possibility of the dangers of war.4. We see a commercial war going on of the most extreme type—many nations seemingly organising all their forces to injure the trade of Great Britain. We see that your export trade for the ten years 1881-1890 amounted to £2,343,000,000, while in the following ten years, 1891-1900, it had only increased to £2,398,000,000, or an increase of £55,000,000 in the ten years. But the exports of coal in the first ten years amounted to £125,000,000, in the last ten years to £210,000,000—an increase of £85,000,000; which makes the exports of manufactured goods less by £30,000,000 during the years 1891-1900 than during the previous ten years, for export of coal is only a sale of national assets or capital.5. We see that while your trade is stationary at less profits, foreign nations are increasing theirs enormously. German exports in 1895 amounted to £171,203,000, in 1901 to £237,970,000. The United States in 1871 exported about £90,000,000, in 1901 about £300,000,000 (1,487,764,991 dollars). While your trade is in a weak condition, we see also the carrying trade passing into the hands of our rivals. The Morgan combine will control the North Atlantic trade if something is not done. It will fix the rates of freight, and, as a great portion of your food comes from the United States, they can make the British people pay the extra rates which will enable them to carry American manufactures of all kinds at the smallest cost, and so deprive your workmen of their employment and wages at the cost to themselves of dearer food.6. Canadians have seen the difficulty, and have given this country a preference of one-third the duty in their markets without any return orquid pro quo. We have contributed to an all British cable to Australia for Imperial reasons. I advocated at Liverpool a large tariff on wheat in the United Kingdom against everyone, including Canada. I advocated a tariff of five toten per cent. on all foreign goods at every port in the Empire to raise a fund for the common defence, and to combine the Empire for trade. We in Canada do not require this change if you do not. We are prosperous; our exports are mounting up by leaps and bounds; the balance of trade is in our favour: but we are in the Empire; we have made up our minds to stand by it. We have spent the lives of our young men, and our money, in that cause in the past. When, therefore, we see your manufactures going down, your export trade barely holding its own in spite of a great increase of population, your carrying trade slipping from your hands, your agricultural interests being destroyed, three quarters of Ireland disloyal, principally because their farming has been ruined by what must seem a false policy to them, is it any wonder that we should wish to appeal to you to do something? Is it not only fair that you should listen to us, and if we can combine in any way to defend our Empire from foreign aggression, either in war or in trade, should we not all endeavour to do so?Yours, &c.,George T. Denison.President British Empire League in Canada.[The picture which Colonel Denison paints in such gloomy colours is unhappily true in a large degree. But the remedy is not to be found in impoverishing the people, increasing the price of the necessities of life, stopping the current of Free Trade through our markets, and establishing the principle of scarcity and dearness in the place of abundance and cheapness. Such a remedy would simply hasten the catastrophe that Colonel Denison foreshadows.—Ed.D.N.]
Sir,
In two articles in your issues of the 22nd and 24th inst., you have referred to my action in endeavouring to bring the views of the British Empire League in Canada—views which are almost universally shared byCanadians—before the people of this country. Will you kindly allow me to bring one or two points before your readers in defence of my action?
The British Empire League here has not adopted our views, but has maintained a position of neutrality, being only willing to show to the Canadian Branch the courtesy of giving facilities for bringing its views forward. I have spoken already at four large banquets, and to the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce, without the British Empire League having had anything to do with the matter, either directly or indirectly.
You speak of all that Free Trade has done for this country, the priceless boons, the carrying trade of the world, increased commercial relations with other nations, etc. I wish in a few words to point out why the Canadians are anxious about the present state of affairs in the interests of the whole Empire, in which our fate as a people is inextricably involved.
1. We see every nation in the world armed to the teeth, the great nations increasing their navies with feverish anxiety. We see that you are alarmed in this country, for your naval expenditure has almost doubled in the last fifteen or twenty years. If war is out of the question this great expenditure is useless.
2. We see that the United Kingdom which once grew 17,000,000 quarters of wheat, now produces about 6,500,000 quarters. We see that a combination of two Powers with an embargo on food would bring you to your knees in a few months, and compel you to surrender, and perhaps pull us down also as a people in the general smash of the Empire which might ensue. We know that our Empire cannot be either a free, independent, or great Power, until it is self-sustaining, and has its food grown on its own soil, and in the hands of its own people.
3. We see a great Empire with great possessions, with resources unparalleled, with possibilities of future strength and prosperity almost beyond imagination; with no organisation, no combination, no completesystem of defence: and this in the face of what you admit to be a possibility of the dangers of war.
4. We see a commercial war going on of the most extreme type—many nations seemingly organising all their forces to injure the trade of Great Britain. We see that your export trade for the ten years 1881-1890 amounted to £2,343,000,000, while in the following ten years, 1891-1900, it had only increased to £2,398,000,000, or an increase of £55,000,000 in the ten years. But the exports of coal in the first ten years amounted to £125,000,000, in the last ten years to £210,000,000—an increase of £85,000,000; which makes the exports of manufactured goods less by £30,000,000 during the years 1891-1900 than during the previous ten years, for export of coal is only a sale of national assets or capital.
5. We see that while your trade is stationary at less profits, foreign nations are increasing theirs enormously. German exports in 1895 amounted to £171,203,000, in 1901 to £237,970,000. The United States in 1871 exported about £90,000,000, in 1901 about £300,000,000 (1,487,764,991 dollars). While your trade is in a weak condition, we see also the carrying trade passing into the hands of our rivals. The Morgan combine will control the North Atlantic trade if something is not done. It will fix the rates of freight, and, as a great portion of your food comes from the United States, they can make the British people pay the extra rates which will enable them to carry American manufactures of all kinds at the smallest cost, and so deprive your workmen of their employment and wages at the cost to themselves of dearer food.
6. Canadians have seen the difficulty, and have given this country a preference of one-third the duty in their markets without any return orquid pro quo. We have contributed to an all British cable to Australia for Imperial reasons. I advocated at Liverpool a large tariff on wheat in the United Kingdom against everyone, including Canada. I advocated a tariff of five toten per cent. on all foreign goods at every port in the Empire to raise a fund for the common defence, and to combine the Empire for trade. We in Canada do not require this change if you do not. We are prosperous; our exports are mounting up by leaps and bounds; the balance of trade is in our favour: but we are in the Empire; we have made up our minds to stand by it. We have spent the lives of our young men, and our money, in that cause in the past. When, therefore, we see your manufactures going down, your export trade barely holding its own in spite of a great increase of population, your carrying trade slipping from your hands, your agricultural interests being destroyed, three quarters of Ireland disloyal, principally because their farming has been ruined by what must seem a false policy to them, is it any wonder that we should wish to appeal to you to do something? Is it not only fair that you should listen to us, and if we can combine in any way to defend our Empire from foreign aggression, either in war or in trade, should we not all endeavour to do so?
Yours, &c.,
George T. Denison.President British Empire League in Canada.
[The picture which Colonel Denison paints in such gloomy colours is unhappily true in a large degree. But the remedy is not to be found in impoverishing the people, increasing the price of the necessities of life, stopping the current of Free Trade through our markets, and establishing the principle of scarcity and dearness in the place of abundance and cheapness. Such a remedy would simply hasten the catastrophe that Colonel Denison foreshadows.—Ed.D.N.]
Lord Masham, speaking to me afterwards about this letter, laughed most heartily and said, “Just think, to get that letter before the readers of theNews. Thatis capital, how the editor must have grudged printing it.”
I spoke at the Canada Club dinner on the 8th May in response to the toast of “The Dominion of Canada,” and at the Colonial Club dinner on the 28th May in response to the toast of “The Empire.” On the 2nd June I addressed the Chamber of Commerce at Tunbridge Wells. On the 4th June I addressed a large meeting in Glasgow, the Lord Provost in the chair. On the 5th June another in Paisley, and on the 6th June I addressed a joint meeting of the Edinburgh and Leith Chambers of Commerce in Edinburgh.
On the 5th June the GlasgowHeraldhad an article criticising my speech. It gave me an opportunity which I used by sending them a letter which they published the next day, the 6th. The same issue of theHeraldhad an article referring to my letter. To my gratification it closed with these words:
The question remains an open one whether, when the Colonies are prepared to accept some of the burdens of the Empire, we should accord them preferential treatment in respect of products in which they compete with foreigners.
The question remains an open one whether, when the Colonies are prepared to accept some of the burdens of the Empire, we should accord them preferential treatment in respect of products in which they compete with foreigners.
I have already referred to the uneasiness and anxiety among the Liberals about my mission, and in addition to Mr. Bryce’s speech in Aberdeen a large meeting was held in Edinburgh on the 8th June, where the Rt. Hon. John Morley spoke in reply to my speeches in Scotland. Among other things he said:
You have got a gentleman now, I observe, perambulating Scotland—I am sure in perfectly good faith—I have not a word to say against it—perambulating Scotland on this subject, and it will be the subject,depend upon it, because it is in the hands of a very powerful and tenacious Statesman. Therefore excuse me if I point out a fifth broad effect. On the chances of some increase in your relatively small colonial trade, you are going to derange, dislodge, and dislocate all your immense foreign trade.
You have got a gentleman now, I observe, perambulating Scotland—I am sure in perfectly good faith—I have not a word to say against it—perambulating Scotland on this subject, and it will be the subject,depend upon it, because it is in the hands of a very powerful and tenacious Statesman. Therefore excuse me if I point out a fifth broad effect. On the chances of some increase in your relatively small colonial trade, you are going to derange, dislodge, and dislocate all your immense foreign trade.
And he also said that it meant the abandonment of Free Trade, and “would overthrow the very system that has placed us in the unexampled position of power and strength and wealth.”
On the 11th June I addressed the Chamber of Commerce of Bristol, and my meeting attracted considerable attention from the local newspapers. TheWestern Daily Presshad on the morning of the meeting a long and quite friendly article, bespeaking earnest attention to my address, even if I laid down “lines of fiscal policy along which the majority may be reluctant to travel.” The BristolMercurygave a very full report of the meeting and of the speeches, and had a long article discussing the proposition from a strong Free Trade and hostile point of view.
On the 10th June in the House of Commons my work caused a passing notice. After I had left Canada the Executive Committee of the League in Canada published in pamphlet form a report of the Annual Meeting of the League in Canada containing my Presidential Address in moving the adoption of the Annual Report, and they had an extra quantity printed and sent a copy to every member of the House of Lords and the House of Commons.
On the discussion of the Finance Bill in the House of Commons on the 10th June, Sir W. Harcourt, after saying that the Colonies could only join the mother country on the basis of protection, went on to say:“I received the other day the Manifesto of the Canadian Imperial League, which seems to be a very authoritative document, containing, as it does, the principal names in Canada, and which I would ask the committee to examine in relation to the Budget. The first article of the constitution of the League is thus laid down: ‘To advocate a trade policy between Great Britain and her Colonies, by means of which discrimination in the exchange of natural and manufactured products will be made in favour of one another and against foreign countries.’ Of course, that is the only basis on which the Colonies will deal with us. If they give up their preferential duties against us, they will expect us to institute preferential duties against other nations. In the annual report of the Executive Committee of this British Imperial League, dated February 1, 1902—months before the introduction of the present Budget—we learn that at its meeting, which was held at Toronto, the following resolution was adopted: ‘Resolved, that this meeting is of opinion that a special duty of 5 to 10 per cent. should be imposed at every port in the British possessions on all foreign goods’; and we are told, further, that the proceeds are to be devoted to Imperial defence. But I come to the speech made by the president of the League, which bears particularly on the Budget. He said:
“New methods of taxation are absolutely necessary in Great Britain, and there is no difficulty in the way except the over confidence against which Kipling writes, and the strong prejudice in the English mind against taxing wheat. It is a remarkable thing that two months after this declaration was made we have, for the first time, a tax imposed upon wheat. The joint action of the poet and the financier has overcome theprejudice in the English mind against taxing wheat; then we are to have this duty of 10 per cent. on all food introduced into this country against the foreigners, and the whole thing is accomplished. I say that that is a policy of pure and simple protection. The Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday disavowed any intention of adopting this policy of universal duties to be levied upon all foreign goods. He said we are to proceed on the principles of free trade. But he introduced a sentence that something may be done in that direction. A great deal of doubt has been raised in reference to that sentence.“Mr. Austen Chamberlain said the right hon. gentleman the member for West Monmouth had adopted a remarkable line of argument. He had produced a pamphlet containing the report of an executive committee of a private association in Canada, and had referred to that document as if he could find in it an official explanation of the intentions and policy of His Majesty’s Government.“Sir W. Harcourt.—I quoted it as the view to be presented by the Canadian Government. I believe I am perfectly justified in that statement.“Mr. Austen Chamberlain said he thought the right hon. gentleman had gone a good deal further than that. The views of the association were entitled to the respect which they commanded on their merits, and for the ability with which they were put forth; but they were not binding on the Canadian Cabinet, still less on the Government of this country. It was rather a far-fetched suggestion that in such a report as that was to be found the basis of the action which His Majesty’s Government were now proposing. As a matter of fact the report appeared two months before the tax. Allusion had been made to a speech delivered by his right hon. friend the Colonial Secretary at Birmingham. But in that speech the Colonial Secretary was commenting on a speech made by the leader of the Opposition. He was not arguing infavour of preferential relations, but he was refusing to be deterred from proposing a tax which he believed to be good on its merits merely because it might be used, if the people of this country so willed, to draw closer the ties between the Motherland and the Colonies. That was a declaration which was emphasised by his right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Monday. The whole question between the Opposition and the Government now was that hon. and right hon. gentlemen opposite wished to extort from the Government at this stage a declaration that in no circumstances and at no time would they consent to preferential arrangements with the Colonies. He thought it would be a strange proceeding if, before learning authoritatively what the Prime Ministers of the great self-governing Colonies intended to propose, before learning the arguments with which those Ministers would support their propositions, the Government were to slam the door in their faces and solemnly declare that they would not listen to any arguments on the subject. That would not be a very friendly act. It would not be courteous in dealing with strangers, and it would not be decent in dealing with our kinsmen.”
“New methods of taxation are absolutely necessary in Great Britain, and there is no difficulty in the way except the over confidence against which Kipling writes, and the strong prejudice in the English mind against taxing wheat. It is a remarkable thing that two months after this declaration was made we have, for the first time, a tax imposed upon wheat. The joint action of the poet and the financier has overcome theprejudice in the English mind against taxing wheat; then we are to have this duty of 10 per cent. on all food introduced into this country against the foreigners, and the whole thing is accomplished. I say that that is a policy of pure and simple protection. The Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday disavowed any intention of adopting this policy of universal duties to be levied upon all foreign goods. He said we are to proceed on the principles of free trade. But he introduced a sentence that something may be done in that direction. A great deal of doubt has been raised in reference to that sentence.
“Mr. Austen Chamberlain said the right hon. gentleman the member for West Monmouth had adopted a remarkable line of argument. He had produced a pamphlet containing the report of an executive committee of a private association in Canada, and had referred to that document as if he could find in it an official explanation of the intentions and policy of His Majesty’s Government.
“Sir W. Harcourt.—I quoted it as the view to be presented by the Canadian Government. I believe I am perfectly justified in that statement.
“Mr. Austen Chamberlain said he thought the right hon. gentleman had gone a good deal further than that. The views of the association were entitled to the respect which they commanded on their merits, and for the ability with which they were put forth; but they were not binding on the Canadian Cabinet, still less on the Government of this country. It was rather a far-fetched suggestion that in such a report as that was to be found the basis of the action which His Majesty’s Government were now proposing. As a matter of fact the report appeared two months before the tax. Allusion had been made to a speech delivered by his right hon. friend the Colonial Secretary at Birmingham. But in that speech the Colonial Secretary was commenting on a speech made by the leader of the Opposition. He was not arguing infavour of preferential relations, but he was refusing to be deterred from proposing a tax which he believed to be good on its merits merely because it might be used, if the people of this country so willed, to draw closer the ties between the Motherland and the Colonies. That was a declaration which was emphasised by his right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Monday. The whole question between the Opposition and the Government now was that hon. and right hon. gentlemen opposite wished to extort from the Government at this stage a declaration that in no circumstances and at no time would they consent to preferential arrangements with the Colonies. He thought it would be a strange proceeding if, before learning authoritatively what the Prime Ministers of the great self-governing Colonies intended to propose, before learning the arguments with which those Ministers would support their propositions, the Government were to slam the door in their faces and solemnly declare that they would not listen to any arguments on the subject. That would not be a very friendly act. It would not be courteous in dealing with strangers, and it would not be decent in dealing with our kinsmen.”
The final meeting of my campaign was at the London Chamber of Commerce on the 13th June. Mr. Morley had spoken at Edinburgh on the 8th of June, and had said generally that the policy I was advocating was contrary to the principles of Free Trade under which England had built up her wonderful prosperity, had maintained it for years, and which was the foundation of Great Britain’s present great prosperity. I had been urged very strongly by all my friends to be very cautious not to refer directly to either Free Trade or Protection. I was told that the feeling in favour of Free Trade was so strong, that it would be unwise to refer to it in set terms, and I wasadvised simply to argue for the war tax of 5 to 10 per cent. to raise a defence fund. Up to this time I had followed this advice, but when Mr. Morley attacked me, and raised the question, I felt that the time had arrived for me to come out boldly and in clear and unmistakable terms. I found in my movement about the country that there was much more feeling in favour of Protection than anyone believed. I therefore made up my mind to take advantage of the meeting of the London Chamber of Commerce to make a direct and vehement attack on Free Trade in order to test feeling in that centre. I carefully prepared as strong a speech as I could arrange, although I kept my own counsel as to my intentions. I decided to make my address a direct reply to the Rt. Hon. John Morley and to use his attack upon me as my excuse for criticising Free Trade in hostile terms.
The room was crowded, with a number of prominent men present. I referred to Mr. Morley’s remarks and said that I took issue with him, and that I denied that Free Trade was the cause of Great Britain’s progress. I said her position was established under a system of protection, that it was maintained by a protection of a different kind for years, and that now she was not prosperous. I gave a great many figures, and traced the trade returns at intervals from 1805 until the year 1901, and in reply to Mr. Morley’s statement of the wonderful prosperity of Great Britain I repeated the argument I used at Liverpool, and quoted again Mr. Bryce’s statement about the crushing burden the 1s. a quarter on wheat would be on about 30 per cent. of the population.
When I had finished, Lord Charles Beresford madea speech that was quite friendly to my proposition, saying, “that the time had arrived when we had to do something to bind the Mother Country and the Colonies more closely together, and to do something also by which we might mutually benefit by the trade of the Empire, in view of the enormous competition directed against us by the rest of the world.”
Sir Guilford Molesworth and Mr. Ernest E. Williams then spoke strongly supporting me. They were followed by Mr. Faithfull Begg, who made a short but remarkably clever speech. He began by saying, “Is this the London Chamber of Commerce? Can I believe my eyes and ears? I have sat here and listened to what I am satisfied was the strongest attack upon Free Trade that has been heard in these walls in two generations, and in an open discussion no one has said a word in defence of the old policy. I was a Free Trader and I can no longer support the principle, but will no one say a word in defence of the old cause?” This taunt brought up a Mr. Pascoe, who used a number of stock arguments of the Cobden Club school. General Laurie, Admiral Sir Dalrymple Hay, Sir S. B. Boulton, and the Chairman, Sir Fortescue Flannery, then followed in speeches distinctly favourable to my proposition, and the meeting closed.
The effect of this meeting cannot be better shown than in the editorial comments of theFinancial Newsof the next day, the 14th June, 1902:
It was indeed a remarkable gathering which assembled at the London Chamber of Commerce yesterday to hear Colonel Denison speak upon the National Food Supply and cognate trade questions; and the essential feature of the meeting—more essential if Colonel Denison will allow us to say so, even than his own speech—was thatto which Mr. Faithfull Begg drew attention when he announced his surprise that in a discussion upon Free TradeversusProtection, no one, in that erstwhile typical house of Free Trade, stood up to champion the old cause. Most of those present were in Mr. Faithfull Begg’s own position; they had recently been forced by the logic of events, from acquiescence in or championship of Free Trade, into a conviction that it would no longer do. True, Mr. Faithfull Begg’s challenge brought forth a solitary advocate of the discredited philosophy; a young man to whom the meeting listened with obvious impatience; for as General Laurie said, every one of his points had been answered in advance by the lecturer, and the quality of his arguments might be gathered from the fact, that among them was an assertion that, as an explanation of our adverse trade balance there was no question as to there being anything in the nature of an export of securities in progress! That this should have been the only voice raised upon the Free Trade side would be a mightily significant circumstance in any gathering of business men; but to those who are familiar with the London Chamber even in its recent history, the significance is greatly heightened. For a body professedly independent, there was, until the other day, no association in England (unless it be the Royal Statistical Society) more thoroughly and openly upon the Free Trade side in the economic controversy. With the surrender of the London Chamber of Commerce it is really time to dictate conditions of peace.
It was indeed a remarkable gathering which assembled at the London Chamber of Commerce yesterday to hear Colonel Denison speak upon the National Food Supply and cognate trade questions; and the essential feature of the meeting—more essential if Colonel Denison will allow us to say so, even than his own speech—was thatto which Mr. Faithfull Begg drew attention when he announced his surprise that in a discussion upon Free TradeversusProtection, no one, in that erstwhile typical house of Free Trade, stood up to champion the old cause. Most of those present were in Mr. Faithfull Begg’s own position; they had recently been forced by the logic of events, from acquiescence in or championship of Free Trade, into a conviction that it would no longer do. True, Mr. Faithfull Begg’s challenge brought forth a solitary advocate of the discredited philosophy; a young man to whom the meeting listened with obvious impatience; for as General Laurie said, every one of his points had been answered in advance by the lecturer, and the quality of his arguments might be gathered from the fact, that among them was an assertion that, as an explanation of our adverse trade balance there was no question as to there being anything in the nature of an export of securities in progress! That this should have been the only voice raised upon the Free Trade side would be a mightily significant circumstance in any gathering of business men; but to those who are familiar with the London Chamber even in its recent history, the significance is greatly heightened. For a body professedly independent, there was, until the other day, no association in England (unless it be the Royal Statistical Society) more thoroughly and openly upon the Free Trade side in the economic controversy. With the surrender of the London Chamber of Commerce it is really time to dictate conditions of peace.
This was a conclusion to my campaign far beyond my most sanguine expectations. It was a coincidence that about the time I concluded my campaign at this successful meeting, Dr. Fred W. Borden, Minister of Militia of Canada, who had lately arrived in England, in an interview with Mr. I. N. Ford, representative of the New YorkTribune, stated that I representednobody’s views except my own, and pretended that he did not know of me even by name, until Mr. Ford let him understand that he was too well informed for that to be accepted. In an interview with one of the London newspapers he also spoke in a hostile manner of me and my views. As he had been quite friendly to me personally when we had met a day or two before, I was at a loss to account for his action. After consideration, I came to the conclusion that the Canadian Government had taken up some new position upon the question of preferential trade, and that I was wrong in my previous belief that I was working directly in their interests and in accordance with their views in a general way.
Mr. Ford telegraphed on the night of the meeting to his various papers across the Atlantic, the following account of my concluding words at the London Chamber of Commerce:
Colonel Denison closed his series of addresses in the United Kingdom on a tariff for Imperial Defence by a speech before the London Chamber of Commerce in which he announced that he represented the British Empire League in Canada, and had accomplished his purpose. This had been to raise the question of a British tariff for defence and business. The subject had been discussed in Parliament, and had been taken up by the Press throughout the Kingdom. The Dominion Ministers would be in England next week, and the responsibility for carrying the question into the Imperial Conference or dropping it altogether would be theirs not his.
Colonel Denison closed his series of addresses in the United Kingdom on a tariff for Imperial Defence by a speech before the London Chamber of Commerce in which he announced that he represented the British Empire League in Canada, and had accomplished his purpose. This had been to raise the question of a British tariff for defence and business. The subject had been discussed in Parliament, and had been taken up by the Press throughout the Kingdom. The Dominion Ministers would be in England next week, and the responsibility for carrying the question into the Imperial Conference or dropping it altogether would be theirs not his.
When I sailed for home Mr. Ford cabled:
Colonel Denison will sail for Montreal to-day. He has gone so far and so fast in presenting the plans ofthe British Empire League of Canada that neither Imperialist nor colonial has been able to keep abreast with him. His views on a war tax around the Empire are not considered practicable by the Canadian Ministers, but the energy with which he has forced the business side of Imperial Federation upon public attention here, is generally recognised.
Colonel Denison will sail for Montreal to-day. He has gone so far and so fast in presenting the plans ofthe British Empire League of Canada that neither Imperialist nor colonial has been able to keep abreast with him. His views on a war tax around the Empire are not considered practicable by the Canadian Ministers, but the energy with which he has forced the business side of Imperial Federation upon public attention here, is generally recognised.
The Annual General Meeting of the British Empire League was held on the 7th July, where the Hon. George W. Ross and I represented the Canadian Branch. I moved a resolution which Mr. Ross seconded. I spoke as follows:
Your Grace, my Lords, Ladies, and Gentlemen,—I shall only occupy two or three minutes of your time, as I am fortunate to have with me one of the very best and most active members of our League, the Prime Minister of Ontario. I am here at this moment under a resolution of the League in Canada which reads as follows:“That he also be empowered and requested to advocate that a special duty of 5 to 10 per cent. be imposed at every port in the British possessions on all foreign goods in order to provide a fund for Imperial Defence, which fund should be administered by a committee or council in which the Colonies should have representation.”That resolution I need not tell you is one which this League did not feel disposed to endorse because the League had held itself open, and I wish to thank the President, the Council, and the Members of this League for the broad-minded liberality and generosity with which they enabled me to speak, and say what we Canadians wished to lay before the people of this country. I thank this League for its courtesy, and for the broad-minded spirit in which it was done, more particularly as I happen to know that the well-considered resolution adopted by the Executive Committeewas drafted by probably one of the most vehement opponents of my policy. That broad-minded spirit I have seen all over England and I wish publicly, as I am going away in a day or two, to express my thanks for that British spirit which allows such free discussion.I shall only take one or two minutes more because I wish Mr. Ross to have an opportunity of speaking at greater length. I have listened with a great deal of attention to what our noble President has said in his speech with respect to three questions, of defence, commercial relations, and political relations, and if you think of it, we have combined all three in these two lines: “A duty in order to provide a fund for Imperial Defence, which fund should be administered by a committee.” The duty helps all questions of commercial relations, helps your trade, helps your food supplies, and it also furnishes a fund for defence, and provision is made for a committee to administer the political relations. The whole thing can be done by an adaptation of that resolution. As to the question of defence, I wish to say that we Canadians are in favour of any method that may be devised to defend this Empire, but we know that no system of defence can be made worth a snap of the finger that does not secure the protection of the food supplies of this Mother Country, and yet you persist in spending on ships, troops, fortification, on coaling stations on Naval Reserves, on everything but food, the most important of all. I urge you to do all you can not only to make your food supply safe, but also to save your trade, your merchant shipping, and to put all these things in a safe position.
Your Grace, my Lords, Ladies, and Gentlemen,—I shall only occupy two or three minutes of your time, as I am fortunate to have with me one of the very best and most active members of our League, the Prime Minister of Ontario. I am here at this moment under a resolution of the League in Canada which reads as follows:
“That he also be empowered and requested to advocate that a special duty of 5 to 10 per cent. be imposed at every port in the British possessions on all foreign goods in order to provide a fund for Imperial Defence, which fund should be administered by a committee or council in which the Colonies should have representation.”
That resolution I need not tell you is one which this League did not feel disposed to endorse because the League had held itself open, and I wish to thank the President, the Council, and the Members of this League for the broad-minded liberality and generosity with which they enabled me to speak, and say what we Canadians wished to lay before the people of this country. I thank this League for its courtesy, and for the broad-minded spirit in which it was done, more particularly as I happen to know that the well-considered resolution adopted by the Executive Committeewas drafted by probably one of the most vehement opponents of my policy. That broad-minded spirit I have seen all over England and I wish publicly, as I am going away in a day or two, to express my thanks for that British spirit which allows such free discussion.
I shall only take one or two minutes more because I wish Mr. Ross to have an opportunity of speaking at greater length. I have listened with a great deal of attention to what our noble President has said in his speech with respect to three questions, of defence, commercial relations, and political relations, and if you think of it, we have combined all three in these two lines: “A duty in order to provide a fund for Imperial Defence, which fund should be administered by a committee.” The duty helps all questions of commercial relations, helps your trade, helps your food supplies, and it also furnishes a fund for defence, and provision is made for a committee to administer the political relations. The whole thing can be done by an adaptation of that resolution. As to the question of defence, I wish to say that we Canadians are in favour of any method that may be devised to defend this Empire, but we know that no system of defence can be made worth a snap of the finger that does not secure the protection of the food supplies of this Mother Country, and yet you persist in spending on ships, troops, fortification, on coaling stations on Naval Reserves, on everything but food, the most important of all. I urge you to do all you can not only to make your food supply safe, but also to save your trade, your merchant shipping, and to put all these things in a safe position.
Mr. Ross followed me with a very able and powerful speech in which he expressed the views of the Canadian League with great eloquence and vigour.
On the 17th June, a letter from Sir Robert Giffen appeared in the LondonTimesseverely criticising thepolicy 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.
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 theTimesin 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.
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?1 and 2. These I shall answer together, dealing only with Canada, as space will not admit my going fully into the whole question. I will take Sir Robert Giffen’s figures, although he puts the foreign imports of Canada and Newfoundland together at £24,000,000; while the statistical abstract for colonial possessions gives the figures for Canada alone at over £27,000,000 for 1900. Taking Sir Robert Giffen’s figures, however, Canada would have to pay, on a basis of ten per cent. on foreign imports, nearly £2,400,000 per annum. As the normal amount Canada has been spending on defence in years past, has been about £400,000 per annum, this would mean an additional payment by her of £2,000,000 a year. Sir Robert Giffen claims that the United Kingdom would have to pay £41,000,000 per annum. This is an extraordinary statement. The expenditure of the United Kingdom upon the Army and Navy in ordinary years, not counting war expenses, far exceeds £41,000,000. So that the United Kingdom would not pay one farthing a year more under the proposition than she always does expend.This answers the first two points. The United Kingdom would pay nothing additional, Canada would expend £2,000,000 more than she has been doing.As to Canada’s paying in proportion to her population, that would be an unfair basis, because she is a young country with very little accumulated wealth, and is developing and opening up enormous tracts of territory at a great cost to the sparse population. Great Britain is a small country with a large population, and has been in process of development for nearly 2,000 years, for I believe some Roman roads are in use to-day. The time will come when Canada will be able to do far more.3. As to how trade would be affected, I answer that the trade of the United Kingdom would be greatly benefited. The duty would tend to protect for yourselves your home market, which you are rapidly losing. It would give you advantages over the foreigner in the markets of 360,000,000 of people in the British possessions, in which at present you are being attacked in the most pitiless and disastrous commercial war. It would turn emigration into your own dominions, instead of aiding to build up foreign, and possibly hostile, countries. In the British Colonies the inhabitants purchase from the United Kingdom many times as much per head as the inhabitants of foreign countries, and it is the direct interest of the Mother Country to save her population to build up her own Empire. Your food supply also, which is in a most dangerous and perilous condition—a condition which leaves our Empire dependent upon the friendship of one or two nations for its very existence—would be rapidly produced upon British soil among your own people, and would make you once again an independent and powerful nation. At present you are existing upon sufferance.4. Sir Robert Giffen speaks about the entrepot trade and the difficulty of allowing goods to pass in bond. We Canadians have so many goods passing in bond through the United States, and the United States have so many passing in bond through Canada, without the slightest difficulty on either side, that we cannotsee how there could be any trouble about such an arrangement. This system could apply to Hong Kong and Singapore, and it should not require much thought or ingenuity to arrange minor details of that kind, if the broad principle was once agreed upon.The question of taxing raw material for manufactures and its effect upon exports to foreign countries could be easily arranged by the simple expedient of granting a rebate of the duty on goods sent to foreign countries. I fancy this is an expedient well understood by most civilised nations.It is asked also what would be result of putting an extra 10 per cent. on exports from the United States into Canada. It ought very largely to increase the sale of British manufactured goods in Canada, but I notice that Sir Robert Giffen, in counting the advantage to the United Kingdom, leaves out the United States, and only counts European competitors. This is rather remarkable, when we remember that the Canadian imports from the United States in 1900 were £22,570,763 and from all European countries under £4,000,000. In this connection it is interesting to note that British imports into Canada had been declining for some years before 1897, but when the 33 1/3 per cent. preference was given to the United Kingdom the imports from it into Canada rose from £6,000,000 worth in 1897 to £9,000,000 in 1900.Sir Robert Giffen claims that the Colonies would gain the full amount of the 10 per cent. tax on the foreigner in increased prices. If so, why should not the United Kingdom gain the 10 per cent. on all she sold in the Empire? The rule should certainly work both ways; but, as a matter of fact, a large portion of the duty would be borne by the foreigner. The greater part of the present tax on flour is now being paid by the United States railways, through the reduction of their freight rates in order to meet it.Sir Robert Giffen repeats a second time, to impress it upon his readers, that the proposed preferential arrangements would impose a charge upon the people of the United Kingdom of £42,000,000, as if the people would have to pay that amount more than they do now. This I emphatically deny. It will only mean a rearrangement of taxation. A little more would go on grain and manufactured goods and other things, but it could come off tea and tobacco or income tax, so that the taxpayer would pay no more, and it makes little difference to him on what he pays it, if he actually pays out the same amount for his needs each year.In Canada we feel that Great Britain is steadily losing her trade, that her home markets are being invaded, that she is in great and constant danger as to her food, that her mercantile marine is slipping from her, her agriculture being ruined, and that anything that would tend to keep the markets of the Empire for the Empire would be of enormous advantage to her. The British Empire League in Canada suggested the scheme they have urged me to advocate in this country. This scheme has received general support in Canada, but the League will, I am sure, be pleased with any effective plan which will put matters in a better position for the advantage of the Empire as a whole.Your obedient servant,George T. Denison.18th June.
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?
1 and 2. These I shall answer together, dealing only with Canada, as space will not admit my going fully into the whole question. I will take Sir Robert Giffen’s figures, although he puts the foreign imports of Canada and Newfoundland together at £24,000,000; while the statistical abstract for colonial possessions gives the figures for Canada alone at over £27,000,000 for 1900. Taking Sir Robert Giffen’s figures, however, Canada would have to pay, on a basis of ten per cent. on foreign imports, nearly £2,400,000 per annum. As the normal amount Canada has been spending on defence in years past, has been about £400,000 per annum, this would mean an additional payment by her of £2,000,000 a year. Sir Robert Giffen claims that the United Kingdom would have to pay £41,000,000 per annum. This is an extraordinary statement. The expenditure of the United Kingdom upon the Army and Navy in ordinary years, not counting war expenses, far exceeds £41,000,000. So that the United Kingdom would not pay one farthing a year more under the proposition than she always does expend.
This answers the first two points. The United Kingdom would pay nothing additional, Canada would expend £2,000,000 more than she has been doing.
As to Canada’s paying in proportion to her population, that would be an unfair basis, because she is a young country with very little accumulated wealth, and is developing and opening up enormous tracts of territory at a great cost to the sparse population. Great Britain is a small country with a large population, and has been in process of development for nearly 2,000 years, for I believe some Roman roads are in use to-day. The time will come when Canada will be able to do far more.
3. As to how trade would be affected, I answer that the trade of the United Kingdom would be greatly benefited. The duty would tend to protect for yourselves your home market, which you are rapidly losing. It would give you advantages over the foreigner in the markets of 360,000,000 of people in the British possessions, in which at present you are being attacked in the most pitiless and disastrous commercial war. It would turn emigration into your own dominions, instead of aiding to build up foreign, and possibly hostile, countries. In the British Colonies the inhabitants purchase from the United Kingdom many times as much per head as the inhabitants of foreign countries, and it is the direct interest of the Mother Country to save her population to build up her own Empire. Your food supply also, which is in a most dangerous and perilous condition—a condition which leaves our Empire dependent upon the friendship of one or two nations for its very existence—would be rapidly produced upon British soil among your own people, and would make you once again an independent and powerful nation. At present you are existing upon sufferance.
4. Sir Robert Giffen speaks about the entrepot trade and the difficulty of allowing goods to pass in bond. We Canadians have so many goods passing in bond through the United States, and the United States have so many passing in bond through Canada, without the slightest difficulty on either side, that we cannotsee how there could be any trouble about such an arrangement. This system could apply to Hong Kong and Singapore, and it should not require much thought or ingenuity to arrange minor details of that kind, if the broad principle was once agreed upon.
The question of taxing raw material for manufactures and its effect upon exports to foreign countries could be easily arranged by the simple expedient of granting a rebate of the duty on goods sent to foreign countries. I fancy this is an expedient well understood by most civilised nations.
It is asked also what would be result of putting an extra 10 per cent. on exports from the United States into Canada. It ought very largely to increase the sale of British manufactured goods in Canada, but I notice that Sir Robert Giffen, in counting the advantage to the United Kingdom, leaves out the United States, and only counts European competitors. This is rather remarkable, when we remember that the Canadian imports from the United States in 1900 were £22,570,763 and from all European countries under £4,000,000. In this connection it is interesting to note that British imports into Canada had been declining for some years before 1897, but when the 33 1/3 per cent. preference was given to the United Kingdom the imports from it into Canada rose from £6,000,000 worth in 1897 to £9,000,000 in 1900.
Sir Robert Giffen claims that the Colonies would gain the full amount of the 10 per cent. tax on the foreigner in increased prices. If so, why should not the United Kingdom gain the 10 per cent. on all she sold in the Empire? The rule should certainly work both ways; but, as a matter of fact, a large portion of the duty would be borne by the foreigner. The greater part of the present tax on flour is now being paid by the United States railways, through the reduction of their freight rates in order to meet it.
Sir Robert Giffen repeats a second time, to impress it upon his readers, that the proposed preferential arrangements would impose a charge upon the people of the United Kingdom of £42,000,000, as if the people would have to pay that amount more than they do now. This I emphatically deny. It will only mean a rearrangement of taxation. A little more would go on grain and manufactured goods and other things, but it could come off tea and tobacco or income tax, so that the taxpayer would pay no more, and it makes little difference to him on what he pays it, if he actually pays out the same amount for his needs each year.
In Canada we feel that Great Britain is steadily losing her trade, that her home markets are being invaded, that she is in great and constant danger as to her food, that her mercantile marine is slipping from her, her agriculture being ruined, and that anything that would tend to keep the markets of the Empire for the Empire would be of enormous advantage to her. The British Empire League in Canada suggested the scheme they have urged me to advocate in this country. This scheme has received general support in Canada, but the League will, I am sure, be pleased with any effective plan which will put matters in a better position for the advantage of the Empire as a whole.
Your obedient servant,
George T. Denison.
18th June.
This letter was not replied to. Lally Bernard writing from London to the TorontoGlobeof the 8th July says:
There is a great deal of argument going on in a quiet way regarding the controversy between Sir Robert Giffen and Colonel George Denison, on the subject of an Imperial Zollverein, and the reply of Colonel Denison to Sir Robert Giffen’s letter in theTimeshas aroused the warmest admiration even from those who are diametrically opposed to his theory.
There is a great deal of argument going on in a quiet way regarding the controversy between Sir Robert Giffen and Colonel George Denison, on the subject of an Imperial Zollverein, and the reply of Colonel Denison to Sir Robert Giffen’s letter in theTimeshas aroused the warmest admiration even from those who are diametrically opposed to his theory.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier with Sir Wm. Mulock, Mr. Fielding, and Mr. Patterson, arrived in London a few days after this. I had been surprised at Dr. Borden’s attempt to weaken and destroy the effect of what little I had done to prepare public opinion, and thinking that Sir Wilfrid and the other Ministers must have sympathised with what he had done, I came to the conclusion that there was no use in me taking any further trouble in the matter. I ceased any work, and although I was constantly meeting Sir Wilfrid and his colleagues I never once spoke to them upon the question.
I had been having several conversations with Mr. Chamberlain, and knew exactly what his position was, and he had asked me to press the Canadian delegates to take a certain course. In view of Dr. Borden’s action I had not attempted to do anything on the line Mr. Chamberlain suggested. This was the condition of affairs when I had to leave for home, which was just before the meeting of the Conference. I went down to the Hotel Cecil the morning before leaving, and called on Sir Wilfrid to say good-bye. He seemed astonished when I told him why I had called, and asked when I was leaving; I told him the next day. He urged me to stay over a week or two, but I said it was impossible as my passage was taken and all my arrangements made, and I said I knew he was going to a meeting and that I would not keep him. To my great astonishment he said, “Sit down; I want to talk to you,” and then he surprised me by asking my opinion as to what could be done at the Conference. I was so astonished that I said, “You ask me what I would do in your place?” He said, “Yes. You have been here for over two months, you have been about the country addressing meetings,you have been discussing the question with the leading men, and you have studied the subject for years, and I want the benefit of your opinion. Now what would you say as to moving the resolution you have been advocating?” I thought for a moment and said, “No, Sir Wilfrid, I would not do that.” He asked me why. I said, “Because it could not be carried. I have discussed it with Mr. Chamberlain and he is not ready for it. Sir Edmund Barton tells me that they are having a great fight over the tariff and could not take it up now. Sir Gordon Sprigg says they are not in a position to do it on account of the war in Cape Colony, and Mr. Seddon is so full of another scheme connected with shipping, that while he would support it, it might not be as vigorous support as would be required.”
Having the opening, however, I told him of my conversation with Mr. Chamberlain, and pressed upon him the advisability of taking up Mr. Chamberlain’s idea, which was for Canada to give Great Britain further preferences on certain articles, in fact, if possible free entry of those articles in return for the preference of the one shilling a quarter on wheat. I think this was already his view, but I pointed out all the advantages from a Canadian point of view of this plan, and expressing the hope that he would be able to see his way to it, I said good-bye and left him. I saw my friend and colleague in my work, the Hon. G. W. Ross, and told him of the conversation, and asked him to press the same view upon the Canadian Ministers, which he did.
On my arrival in Toronto the representatives of the Toronto newspapers came to interview me on my work. Among other things, I said:
I am entirely satisfied that Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Mr. Fielding and Sir William Mulock are doing all in their power to obtain some advantageous arrangement for Canada at this Conference. They have all been impressed with the importance of their mission and their speeches have been along the best lines. Hon. Mr. Fielding made an admirable speech at the United Empire Trade League luncheon, in which he expressed the unanimity of the Canadian people in favour of the preference to England, stating that both parties were in favour of it, and appealing to Sir Charles Tupper, who sat near him, to corroborate this.Hon. George W. Ross at the annual meeting of the British Empire League, with the Duke of Devonshire as chairman, made a telling and impressive speech, strongly advocating preferential tariffs within the Empire. But in the face of Sir Frederick Borden’s efforts in the opposite direction, these and the other splendid addresses of Sir Wilfrid and his colleagues could not have the effect that they would have produced had our representatives been of one mind in the matter.I was very much astonished at Sir Frederick Borden’s action in stating that I represented nobody’s views but my own, when he must have known that I never intended to represent anybody’s views except those of the British Empire League, and that at all public meetings I invariably read the resolutions that had been passed asking me to take a certain course. His endeavours to minimise the result of my work and to lull the English mind into believing that everything was well, and that nothing should be done, must have had an injurious effect, as I have said, upon the efforts that Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Sir William Mulock, and Mr. Fielding were making upon behalf of Canada.Col. Denison was asked by one of those present as to the reason for Sir Frederick Borden’s attitude, and he replied, “That I cannot tell you. I can only recall theremark of Lord Beaconsfield, made once in reference to Lord John Russell. He said, ‘Against bad faith a man may guard, but it is beyond all human sagacity to baffle the unconscious machinations of stupidity.’”
I am entirely satisfied that Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Mr. Fielding and Sir William Mulock are doing all in their power to obtain some advantageous arrangement for Canada at this Conference. They have all been impressed with the importance of their mission and their speeches have been along the best lines. Hon. Mr. Fielding made an admirable speech at the United Empire Trade League luncheon, in which he expressed the unanimity of the Canadian people in favour of the preference to England, stating that both parties were in favour of it, and appealing to Sir Charles Tupper, who sat near him, to corroborate this.
Hon. George W. Ross at the annual meeting of the British Empire League, with the Duke of Devonshire as chairman, made a telling and impressive speech, strongly advocating preferential tariffs within the Empire. But in the face of Sir Frederick Borden’s efforts in the opposite direction, these and the other splendid addresses of Sir Wilfrid and his colleagues could not have the effect that they would have produced had our representatives been of one mind in the matter.
I was very much astonished at Sir Frederick Borden’s action in stating that I represented nobody’s views but my own, when he must have known that I never intended to represent anybody’s views except those of the British Empire League, and that at all public meetings I invariably read the resolutions that had been passed asking me to take a certain course. His endeavours to minimise the result of my work and to lull the English mind into believing that everything was well, and that nothing should be done, must have had an injurious effect, as I have said, upon the efforts that Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Sir William Mulock, and Mr. Fielding were making upon behalf of Canada.
Col. Denison was asked by one of those present as to the reason for Sir Frederick Borden’s attitude, and he replied, “That I cannot tell you. I can only recall theremark of Lord Beaconsfield, made once in reference to Lord John Russell. He said, ‘Against bad faith a man may guard, but it is beyond all human sagacity to baffle the unconscious machinations of stupidity.’”
Sir Michael Hicks-Beach resigned from the Cabinet while I was on my way home. I always felt that the desire of Mr. Chamberlain to give a preference to the Colonies to the extent of the one shilling a quarter on wheat had something to do with the retirement of Sir Michael Hicks-Beach. In 1906 I lunched with Mr. Chamberlain and he explained to me why he had been unable to carry out the preferential arrangement that he had outlined to me before Sir Wilfrid Laurier arrived in England in 1902. The difficulty was that Sir Michael Hicks-Beach objected to it because he had imposed the duty avowedly as a means of raising revenue for war purposes, that he had defended it and justified it as a necessity on account of the war expenses, that the war was only just being concluded, and the outlay for months to come could not be diminished. For that reason he was firmly opposed to reducing any portion of the duty for the time. This prevented Sir Wilfrid Laurier’s offers being accepted, and postponed action indefinitely, as the Conference concluded its session about the same time.
Sir Edmund Barton and Sir John Forrest went through Canada on their way home to Australia from the Conference, and they with their party dined at my house. During the day I drove Sir Edmund and Lady Barton about Toronto. I told Sir Edmund what I had been urging Sir Wilfrid to do at the Conference, and the remark he made was peculiar. He said that the proceedings of the Conference were as yet confidential and he could not speak of them, but he might say that I should be well satisfied with my Premier. I was confident then that Sir Wilfrid had taken that line which the official reports shortly afterwards corroborated. The final result was, however, that our efforts had been unsuccessful, and our movement had received a serious set-back.
We were encouraged in October, 1902, by the action of the National Union of Conservative Associations held at Manchester on the 15th of that month, when Sir Howard Vincent obtained the adoption of a resolution in favour of Imperial preferential trade. The New YorkTribune, commenting on this, said: “This news is a great triumph for the Hon. Joseph Chamberlain’s views, and it also no doubt goes to show that Colonel Denison’s recent imperialistic campaign in the Motherland was not without decided educative effect.”
On the 20th October, 1902, the National Club of Toronto gave a complimentary banquet to me in recognition of the work I had done in England that summer for the Empire. Mr. J. F. Ellis, President of the Club, occupied the chair; the Hon. J. Israel Tarte and the Hon. George W. Ross were present. There was a large and influential gathering. I was very much gratified at Mr. Tarte’s presence. Although once associating with the Continental Union League, he had for years been a loyal and active member of our British Empire League. He was at the time a Cabinet Minister, and came from Ottawa to Toronto solely to attend the dinner, and it was at such a crisis in his career that he wrote out his resignation from the Government on the train while coming up. His speech is worth reproducing: