VISIT TO ENGLAND, 1890
In December, 1889, the Council of the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce
passed the following resolution unanimously:
That whilst the Council approve of the objects of the Imperial
Federation League as set forth in their circular of November the 13th
last, they are of opinion that the primary essential condition of
Imperial Federation is a customs union of the Empire.
This adoption of the main point in the policy of the Canadian Branch of
the League was very gratifying to us.
The Annual Meeting of the League in Canada took place on the 30th
January, 1890, and there was considerable discussion on the question
of preferential or discriminating tariffs around the Empire, although
no formal resolution was carried, as direct action at that time was
thought to be premature.
I moved a resolution: "That this League wishes to urge on the
Government the importance of taking immediate steps to secure a
universal rate of penny postage for the Empire." This was seconded by
Mr. McNeill, and carried.
A resolution was also carried against the German-Belgian Treaties
which prevented preferential tariffs within the Empire.
Lt.-Col. W. Hamilton Merritt suggested that the League should send its
organisers to England, as it was there the missionary work would have
to be done. Mr. McGoun supported this view, saying that "the policy of
the Canadian League should be to send delegates to England to promote
the gospel of commercial unity of the Empire."
It will be seen that at this early period of the movement the Canadian
Branch of the League felt that the real work would have to be done in
England. We had discovered that there were clauses in two treaties with
Germany and Belgium which positively forbade any special advantages in
trade being given by Great Britain to any of her colonies, or by the
colonies in favour of Great Britain or each other, that should not be
given to Germany and Belgium. This as a necessary consequence would
take in all nations entitled to the favoured nation clause.
It was essential, as the very first step towards our policy being
adopted, that these two treaties made in 1862 and 1865 should be
denounced. The earliest period that either of them could be denounced
was on the 1st July, 1892, provided that a year's notice had been given
before the 1st July, 1891, in order to secure that result.
After full discussion in our Executive Committee, I agreed to go to
England with two objects in view, first to endeavour to prepare the way
for the denunciation of the treaties, and, secondly, to urge the policy
of preferential tariffs around the Empire. A special resolution was
adopted to authorise me to represent the Canadian Branch of the League
while in England.
I arrived at Liverpool on the 27th April, 1890, and found a message
requesting me to speak at a meeting at the People's Palace,
Whitechapel, the next evening. This meeting was called by the League
in order that Dr. George Parkin might deliver an address on Imperial
Federation. The Duke of Cambridge was in the chair, and Lord Rosebery,
Sir John Colomb, and I were the other speakers. I was requested to say
nothing about preferential tariffs, and consequently was obliged to
refrain.
On the 13th May I happened to be at a meeting of the Royal Colonial
Institute. Col. Owen read a paper on the military forces of the
colonies. In the discussion which ensued Sir Charles Dilke, after
complimenting other colonies, viz.: Australia, New Zealand, and Cape
Colony, then proceeded to comment adversely on Canada.
I answered him in a speech which will be found in the Appendix "A."
On the 19th May I addressed a meeting at the Mansion House, under the
auspices of the London Branch of the Imperial Federation League, in
favour of Australian Federation, and once more I was requested not to
touch on the question of preferential tariffs.
On the 15th May I had attended the meeting of the Executive Committee
of the League, and with some difficulty and considerable persistence
had secured the insertion of the following clauses in the draft Annual
Report:
10. As anticipated in last year's Report, a strong feeling continues
to exist in Canada against the continuance in commercial treaties
with foreign countries of clauses preventing the different portions
of the Empire from making such internal fiscal arrangements between
themselves as they may think proper. The League in Canada at its
Annual Meeting, held in January last, passed a resolution condemning
such stipulations. Most of the treaties obnoxious to this view
terminate in 1892, and it is expected that strong efforts will be made
by the League in Canada to obtain the abrogation of such clauses where
they exist, and the provision under all treaties that the favoured
nation clause shall not have the effect of extending to foreign
countries the advantage of any preferential arrangement between
different parts of the Empire. Any action in this direction taken by
the Dominion Government will have the hearty support of the Council.
The 13th clause of the Report contained a copy of Mr. Mulock's loyal
address to the Queen from the Dominion House of Commons. The 14th
clause was as follows:
The significance of this action of the Dominion Parliament cannot be
overrated, and the League in Canada is to be congratulated upon this
most satisfactory outcome of its steady and persevering work during
the past three years.
When the Council Meeting was held on the 19th May to adopt the Report
for presentation to the Annual Meeting, clause after clause was read
and passed without question, until the 10th clause quoted above was
reached, when at once an elderly gentleman rose and objected strongly
to it, and moved to have it struck out. He made a speech strongly
Free Trade in its tenor, and urged that nothing should be done to aid
or assist in any preferential arrangements. Seeing at once that this
reference to their favourite fetish appealed to the sympathies and
prejudices of those present, I was sure that if not stopped other
speakers would get up and endorse the view. I jumped up at once as he
sat down, and made a short speech, saying, I did not know when I had
heard a more illogical and inconsistent speech, that I gathered from
his remarks that the gentleman was a Free Trader, that his whole speech
showed that he was in favour of freedom of trade, and yet at the same
time he wished to maintain treaties that were a restriction upon trade;
that if we in Canada wished to give preferences to British goods, or
lower our duties in her favour, or if we wished to have free trade with
Great Britain, these treaties would forbid us doing so, unless Germany
and Belgium and all other countries were included; that I felt Canada
would give favours to Great Britain, but would positively refuse to
give them to Germany, and could anything be more inconsistent than for
a man declaring himself a Free Trader on principle, and yet refusing
to help us in Canada who wished to move in the direction of freer
trade with the Mother Country, and I begged of him to withdraw his
opposition? This he did, and my clause was passed.
I found out afterwards that my opponent was Sir Wm. Farrer. Years
afterwards when Canada gave the preference to Great Britain in 1897,
and the treaties were denounced, the Cobden Club gave to Sir Wilfrid
Laurier the Cobden gold medal.
The Annual Meeting of the Imperial Federation League was held three
days later, on the 22nd May. I was announced in the cards calling the
meeting as one of the principal speakers, and as the representative
of the League in Canada, and was to second the adoption of the Annual
Report. The day before the meeting, when in the offices of the League,
a number of the Committee and the Secretary were present, I once more
said that I wished to advocate preferential tariffs around the Empire.
It will be remembered that this was one of the two points that I was
commissioned to urge upon the parent League. I had been restrained at
the People's Palace and at the Mansion House, but being a member of
the League, a Member of the Council, and of the Executive Committee,
and representing the League in Canada by special resolution, I made
up my mind to carry out my instructions. The moment I suggested the
idea it was at once objected to, everyone present said it would be
impossible. I was persistent, and said, "Gentlemen, I have been stopped
twice already, but at the Annual Meeting I certainly have the right to
speak." They said that Lord Rosebery would be annoyed. I said, "What
difference does that make; the more reason he should know how we feel
in Canada; there was no use in my coming from Canada, learning Lord
Rosebery's views, and then repeating them. I thought he could give his
own views better himself." They then said "that it would be unpleasant
for me, that the meeting would express disapproval." I said, "The
more reason they should hear my views, and I do not care what they do
if they do not throw me out of an upstairs window," finally saying,
"Gentlemen, if I cannot give the message I have undertaken to deliver I
shall not speak at all, and will report the whole circumstances to the
League in Canada, and let them know that we are not allowed to express
our views." This they would not hear of, and agreed that I could say
what I liked.
Lord Rosebery, who presided, made an excellent speech; among other
things he said:
You will look in vain in the report for any scheme of Imperial
Federation. Those of our critics who say, "Tell me what Imperial
Federation is, and I will tell you what I think about it," will
find no scheme to criticise or discuss in any corner of our Annual
Report. If there were any such scheme, I should not be here to move
it, because I do not believe that it is on the report of any private
society that such a scheme will ever be realised. But I will say that
as regards the alternative name which Mr. Parkin--and here I cannot
help stating from the Presidential Chair the deep obligations under
which we lie to Mr. Parkin--has given to Imperial Federation, namely,
that of National Unity, that in some respects it is a preferable term.
But if I might sum up our purpose in a sentence, it would be that we
seek to base our Empire upon a co-operative principle. At present the
Empire is carried on, it is administered successfully owing to the
energies of the governing race which rules it, but in a haphazard and
inconsequential manner; but each day this society has seen pass over
its head has shown the way to a better state of things.
Lord Rosebery's idea of a "co-operative principle" is not very far
removed from the idea of a "Kriegsverein and a Zollverein."
In seconding the adoption of the Report I pointed out the many
difficulties we had to face in Canada through the action of the United
States, and concluded my speech in the following words:
Now with reference to a scheme of Imperial Federation, I quite agree
with the noble lord, our President, that we cannot go into the
question of a scheme. At the same time I do not think it would be out
of the way to mention here that it would be of the utmost importance
to Canada that we should have some arrangement that there should be a
discriminating tariff established. (Cheers.) The effect would be to
open up a better state of trade than ever between the two countries. I
feel that we in Canada would be willing to give for a discriminating
tariff very great advantages over foreign manufacturers with whom
the trade is now divided. I think if this matter is only carefully
considered, it is not impossible for the English people, for the sake
of keeping the English nation together, to make this little sacrifice.
I have spoken to numbers of people in England, and I find a great many
would be willing to have some such arrangement made if England were
assured of some corresponding advantage. They seem to think it is a
question which ought to be considered; but they think that England
has committed herself to another policy to which she must stand.
Well, I do not think that that is the case. My opinion is that it
is to the interest of the Empire, and to the interest of the Mother
Country, that something should be done which would knit the Empire
together. I believe the English people are open to reason as much as
any people in the world. That policy would be of immense interest to
us considering that the United States are our competitors. Then again
look at the advantages which might be offered in the way of emigration
to a country under your own flag, with your own institutions, and with
those law-abiding and God-fearing principles, which we are trying to
spread through the northern half of the continent; and at the same
time it would be adding strength to you all here at home. I must not
detain you too long, but I thought I would like to mention these one
or two points to you. I speak on behalf of the great masses of the
Canadian people, and I think I have shown you some of the annoyances
under which they have been living up to the present, and I am quite
sure that if any sacrifice can be made the Canadians will be willing
to meet you half-way. But it ought not to be all one way. There ought
to be give and take both ways.
During my speech I was loudly applauded, and felt that a large majority
of the meeting was with me. When I sat down, I was just behind Lord
Rosebery, and to my astonishment he turned around, shook hands with me,
and whispered in my ear, "I wish I could speak out as openly." I knew
then that I had neither frightened him nor the meeting. The Report was
unanimously adopted.
I felt that I had succeeded in my mission as far as the Imperial
Federation League was concerned, but while I was on the spot I was
using every effort to urge the views of my colleagues in other
directions. Believing that the two strongest men in England at the time
were Lord Salisbury and the Colonial Secretary, Mr. Chamberlain, I had
been at the same time endeavouring to impress our views upon them.
I had met Mr. Chamberlain in 1887 in Toronto, and had spoken at the
same banquet which he there addressed. I wrote and asked him for an
interview, and discussed the whole question of preferential trade,
and the condition of affairs in Canada with him at great length. Our
interview lasted nearly an hour. I then used with him many arguments
which he has since used in his contest in England for Tariff Reform.
After I had put my case as strongly as I could, I waited for his reply.
He said, "I have listened with great interest to all the points you
have brought forward, and I shall study the whole question thoroughly
for myself, and if, after full consideration, I come to the conclusion
that this policy will be in the interests of this country and of the
Empire, I shall take it up and advocate it." I said, "That is all I
want; if you look into it and study it for yourself you are sure to
come to the same view," and got up to leave, but he then said to me
with the greatest earnestness, "Do not tell a soul that I ever said I
would think of such a thing. In the present condition of opinion in
England it would never do."
The result was that, though I was greatly cheered by his action, there
was not one word that I could use, or that could be used, to help us
in our struggle in Canada. I always felt, however, that it was only a
question of time when he would be heartily with us.
Lord Salisbury about this time invited me to an evening reception at
20 Arlington Street. When there I mentioned to him shortly what I had
come over for, and told him I wished to have a long talk with him if he
could spare the time. He said, "Certainly, we must have a talk," and he
fixed the following Wednesday, the 14th May.
At this time there was an acute difficulty between the United States
Government and the British Government over the seizures of Canadian
vessels engaged in the Behring's Sea seal fisheries. A number of
Canadian vessels had been seized by United States cruisers, their crews
imprisoned, and their property confiscated. The Canadian Government
had complained bitterly, and, after much discussion, two Canadian
Ministers, Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper and Sir John Thompson, were in
Washington engaged, with the assistance of the British Ambassador, in
negotiations with the Hon. James Blaine, United States Secretary of
State, endeavouring to settle the Behring's Sea question, as well as
several other matters which were in dispute.
Having watched matters very closely in the United States, I had come
to the conclusion that the Washington authorities had no serious
intention to settle anything finally. We had made a treaty with them
before in 1888, which had arranged the matters in dispute upon a fair
basis, and when everything was agreed upon and settled, waiting only
for the ratification by the United States Senate, that body threw it
out promptly and left everything as it was. This action was at once
followed by the retaliation message delivered by President Cleveland,
which was a most unfriendly and insulting menace to Canada. I felt
confident that they were determined to keep the disputes open for some
future occasion, when Great Britain might be in difficulties, and a
_casus belli_ might be convenient.
The New York _Daily Commercial Bulletin_ openly declared in November,
1888, that the questions of the fisheries, etc., "in all human
probability will be purposely left open in order to force the greater
issue (viz., political union) which, as it seems to us, none but a
blind man can fail to see is already looming up with unmistakable
distinctness in the future."
At this reception at Lord Salisbury's I was discussing the negotiations
at Washington with Lord George Hamilton, then First Lord of the
Admiralty, expressing my fears that they would come to nothing, and
pointing out the dangers before us. He seemed somewhat impressed, and
said, "I wish you would talk it over with Sir Philip Currie," then
permanent Under-Secretary of Foreign Affairs, and he took me across the
room and introduced me to Sir Philip, to whom I expressed my opinion
that the negotiations at Washington would fail and that the United
States Government would not agree to anything. While I was talking to
him I was watching him closely, and I came to the conclusion, from his
expression, that he was positively certain that the matter was either
settled or on the very point of being settled, and I stopped suddenly
and said, "I believe, Sir Philip, you think this is settled. You know
all about it, and I know nothing, but I tell you now, that although
you may believe it is all agreed upon, I say that it is not, and that
either the Senate or the House of Representatives, or the President, or
all of them put together, will at the last moment upset everything."
I do not think he liked my persistence, or felt that the conversation
was becoming difficult, but he laughed good-naturedly and said, "Nobody
will make me believe that the Americans are not the most friendly
people possible, but I must just go and speak to Lord ----" whose name
I did not catch, and he left me.
The next week I had my interview with Lord Salisbury and put my
arguments from an Imperial point of view as powerfully as I could,
told him of the dangers of the Commercial Union movement, of the
desperate struggle I could see coming in the general election that was
approaching in Canada, told him of our dread of a free expenditure
of United States money in our elections, and pointed out to him that
the real way to prevent any difficulty was to have a preferential
tariff or commercial union arrangement with Great Britain, which would
satisfy our people, and entirely checkmate the movement in favour of
reciprocity with the States.
Lord Salisbury listened attentively and at last he said, "I am fast
coming to the opinion that the real way to consolidate the empire would
be by means of a Zollverein and a Kriegsverein." I was delighted,
"That," I said, "gives me all my case," and I urged him to say
something publicly in that direction that we could use in Canada to
inspire our loyal people, and put that hope and confidence in them
which would carry our elections. He did not say whether he would or
not, but I knew then that at heart he was with us.
As a matter of fact, he did speak in a friendly tone at the Lord
Mayor's Banquet at the Guildhall on the 9th November following, and
afterwards followed it up with a much more direct speech at Hastings on
the 18th May, 1892.
I then said that nothing could be done until the German-Belgian
Treaties of 1862 were denounced. He asked me why, and I told him the
effect of the treaties was to bar any such arrangement. He did not know
of the particular clauses and could hardly believe they existed. When
told he would find I was right, he said, "That is most unfortunate,
and they will have to be denounced." I thanked him for taking that
view and felt that I had a strong ally on both points. From subsequent
conversations and from many letters received from him during the
following ten or twelve years, I always relied upon him as a true
friend who would help us at the first possible opportunity.
On this occasion I also spoke to him seriously as to my forebodings
as to the failure of the negotiations at Washington and told him I
believed he was under the impression that the matter was about settled,
but warned him that at the last moment either the Senate or the
President, or someone, would upset everything.
I had spoken very plainly at the Canada Club not long before on the
Behring's Sea business, and some of my remarks were published in
several papers. On this point I said:
We in Canada are for the British Connection. In years gone by when
we thought that the British flag was insulted, though it was not
a matter in which we were concerned and happened hundreds of miles
from our shores, our blood was up, and we were ready to defend the
old emblem. Can you wonder, then, that we in Canada have failed to
understand how your powerful British ironclads could be idle in the
harbours of our Pacific coasts while British subjects were being
outraged in Behring's Sea and the old British flag insulted? No, that
to us has been beyond comprehension.
Before I left England my anticipations were realised, and suddenly,
without any apparent reason, President Harrison broke off the
negotiations just as Mr. Blaine and our representatives had come to
an agreement, and he gave orders to United States vessels to proceed
at once to the Behring's Sea and capture any Canadian vessels found
fishing in those waters. This was about the end of May. I sailed for
home from Liverpool on the 5th June. On the _Parisian_ I met as a
fellow passenger the Rt. Hon. Staveley Hill, M.P., whom I had known
before and who had taken a most active part in the House of Commons
in favour of the Canadian view of the Behring's Sea difficulty. After
we had got out to sea he said to me, "I will tell you something that
you must keep strictly to yourself for the present; when we reach the
other side it will probably all be out," and he went on to say that
the British Government had made up their minds to fight the United
States on account of President Harrison's action. I was startled, and
asked him if they were going to declare war at once. He replied, "No,
not yet, but they have sent a message to the United States Government
saying that if they seized another Canadian vessel it would be followed
and taken from them by force from any harbour to which it would be
taken." I at once said, "That is all right; if that message is
delivered in earnest, so that they will know that it is in earnest, it
means peace and no further interference."
When we arrived at Quebec, to our surprise not a word had come out,
and no one seemed to have the slightest suspicion that anything had
happened. Some weeks elapsed and yet nothing was said, and I was under
the impression that there had been some mistake, although Mr. Staveley
Hill told me he had heard it directly from a Cabinet Minister.
I saw in the newspapers that large additions were made to the
Atlantic and Pacific fleets, the latter being more than doubled in
strength. About two months after my return a member of the House of
Representatives got up in the United States Congress and drew attention
to these extensive preparations, to the increase of the garrison
of Bermuda, to the work going on in the fortifications of the West
Indies, and asked that the House should be furnished with copies of the
despatches between the two Governments. These were brought down, and
Lord Salisbury's ultimatum appeared in the following words:
Her Britannic Majesty's Government have learned with great concern,
from notices which have appeared in the Press, and the general
accuracy of which has been confirmed by Mr. Blaine's statements to
the undersigned, that the Government of the United States have issued
instructions to their revenue cruisers about to be despatched to
Behring's Sea, under which vessels of British subjects will again be
exposed in the prosecution of their legitimate industry on the high
seas to unlawful interference at the hands of American officers.
Her Britannic Majesty's Government are anxious to co-operate to the
fullest extent of their power with the Government of the United States
in such measures as may be found expedient for the protection of the
seal fisheries. They are at the present moment engaged in examining,
in concert with the Government of the United States, the best method
of arriving at an agreement on this point. But they cannot admit
the right of the United States of their own sole motion to restrict
for this purpose the freedom of navigation of Behring's Sea, which
the United States have themselves in former years convincingly and
successfully vindicated, nor to enforce their municipal legislation
against British vessels on the high seas beyond the limits of their
territorial jurisdiction.
Her Britannic Majesty's Government is therefore unable to pass over
without notice the public announcement of an intention on the part of
the Government of the United States to renew the acts of interference
with British vessels navigating outside the territorial waters of the
United States, of which they had previously had to complain.
The undersigned is in consequence instructed formally to protest
against such interference, and to declare that her Britannic Majesty's
Government must hold the Government of the United States responsible
for the consequences that may ensue from acts which are contrary to
the established principles of International law.
The undersigned has the honour to renew to Mr. Blaine the assurance of
his highest consideration.
JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.
_14th June, 1890._
This correspondence showed me that the information given Mr. Staveley
Hill had been based upon a good foundation, but this was followed in
Congress a few days later by a demand for a return of a verbal message
which was said to have been given by the British Ambassador to the Hon.
James Blaine. The answer was that a search in the records of the State
Department did not discover any reference to any such verbal message.
I have no doubt but that some such message was given.
About a year afterwards I was discussing matters with Sir C. Hibbert
Tupper, and I asked him if when they were in Washington they were not
at one time quite confident that the matter was practically settled.
He said, "Yes, certainly; we had been discussing matters in a most
amicable way, and had been coming nearer together, and at last we
agreed to what we thought was a final settlement, when President
Harrison interfered and broke off the whole negotiations."
Lord Salisbury's bold and determined action had the desired effect, and
soon an agreement was arrived at for an arbitration, which took place
in Paris in 1893. In spite of the false translations and unreliable and
false affidavits which appeared among the evidence produced on behalf
of the United States claims, the decision on the point of International
law was in our favour, and a large sum was awarded to our sealers
for damages. Canada therefore came out of the dispute with credit
to herself, owing to the firm and courageous stand of the Imperial
Government under the leadership of that great Prime Minister, Lord
Salisbury. My forecast to him of what he was likely to encounter in the
negotiations was fully verified.