ORGANISATION OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE LEAGUE
I left for England on the 27th June 1894, arrived in London on the 9th
July, and at once called upon Sir John Lubbock, M.P., now Lord Avebury.
I breakfasted with him on the 13th, when we thoroughly discussed the
whole question. I pressed upon him the urgent need there was that we
should have a head office in England, and how important the movement
was in order to spread and maintain the Imperial sentiment in Canada.
He was most sympathetic and friendly, and said that if it would be
convenient for us he would gather a number of men favourable to the
idea to meet us at his house a week later, on the 20th July. I wrote to
the members of the delegation, and gathered them the day before at Lord
Strathcona's rooms on Dover Street, and secured the attendance of Sir
Charles Tupper, who was then High Commissioner for Canada, and also a
member of our League, and we added him to the committee. We discussed
our policy at considerable length, and arranged to meet at Sir John
Lubbock's in St. James's Square the following morning at eleven a.m.
I happened to be breakfasting at the United Service Club that morning
with Lord Roberts and General Nicholson, and Lord Roberts hearing that
I was going to Sir John Lubbock's, said that he had been asked to
attend the meeting, but had not intended to go. I prevailed upon him to
accompany me.
Sir John Lubbock had a number of gentlemen to meet us, among whom
were Sir Westby Percival, Agent-General for New Zealand, the Hon. T.
A. Brassey, Messrs. C. Freeman Murray, W. Culver James, W. H. Daw, W.
Becket Hill, Ralph Young, H. W. Marcus, and others. Sir John Lubbock
was in the chair and Mr. Freeman Murray was secretary. As chairman
of our deputation, I put our case before the meeting, following the
lines agreed upon at the conference at Lord Strathcona's rooms the
day before. I spoke for about forty minutes, and naturally urged very
strongly the importance of preferential trading throughout the Empire,
as a practical means of securing a permanent unity, and I insisted that
we should make the denunciation of the German-Belgian Treaties one of
the definite objects of the League.
The City of London Branch had prepared a programme of a suggested
constitution, which contained nearly all the clauses afterwards agreed
upon as the constitution of the British Empire League. Our Canadian
delegation accepted all their suggestions, but we insisted on a clause
referring to the German and Belgian Treaties. Our English friends were
evidently afraid of the bogey of Free Trade, and seemed to think that
any expressed intention of doing away with the German and Belgian
Treaties would prevent many free traders from joining the League. I
urged our view strongly, and was ably assisted by speeches from Sir
Charles Tupper, Lord Strathcona, and Sir Westby Percival. Our English
friends still held out against us. At last I said that we had agreed
with all they had advocated, had accepted all their suggestions, but
that when we asked what we considered the most important and necessary
point of all, the denunciation of the German and Belgian Treaties,
we were met with unyielding opposition, that there was no object in
continuing the discussion, and we would go home and report to our
League that, even among our best friends, we could not get any support
towards relieving us of restrictions that should never have been
placed upon us. Mr. Becket Hill seeing the possibility of the meeting
proving abortive, suggested an adjournment for a week. Mr. Herbert Daw
immediately rose, and in a few vigorous sentences changed the tone. He
said that the Canadians had agreed with them in everything, and that
when they urged a very reasonable request they were not listened to.
He said that was an unwise course to take, and urged that an attempt
should be made to meet our views.
Sir John Lubbock then said: "Perhaps I can draw up a clause which
will meet the wishes of our Canadian friends," and he wrote out the
following clause:
To consider how far it may be possible to modify any laws or treaties
which impede freedom of action in the making of reciprocal trade
arrangements between the United Kingdom and the colonies, or between
any two or more British Colonies or possessions.
I said at once that we would accept that clause, provided it was
understood that we of the Canadian Branch should have the right to
agitate for that which we thought was the best, and the only way,
probably, of unifying the empire. We claimed we were to have the right
to work for the denunciation of the treaties with the view of securing
preferential tariffs around the Empire, and that in so doing we were
not to be considered as violating the constitution of the League,
although the central council was not to be responsible for the views of
the Canadian Branch. That settled the matter at once, and the League
was formed. Difficulty was found in deciding upon a name. We wished to
retain the old name, but the arguments in favour of a change were so
great that we yielded to the wishes of our English brethren. A number
of names were suggested, most of them long and explanatory, when Mr.
James L. Hughes suggested that as the object was the maintenance of
the British Empire why not call the League simply "The British Empire
League." This appealed to all, and it was at once adopted, so that Mr.
Hughes was the godfather of the League.
It was then arranged that a meeting of the old City of London branch of
the Imperial Federation League should be called at the London Chamber
of Commerce. It was held on the 26th July, when several of us addressed
the meeting, and an organising committee was formed for undertaking
the work of the reconstruction of the League. It consisted of the
Canadian deputation and the following gentlemen: The Earl of Derby,
Earl of Jersey, Earl of Onslow, Earl of Dunraven, Field Marshal Lord
Roberts of Kandahar, Lord Brassey, Lord Tennyson, Sir John Lubbock,
Bart., M.P., Sir Algernon Borthwick, Bart., M.P., Sir Charles Tupper,
Bart., Sir Westby Percival, Sir Fred Young, Major General Ralph Young,
Lieut.-Colonel P. R. Innes, Dr. W. Culver James, Messrs. F. Faithful
Begg, M.P., W. Herbert Daw, E. M. Headley, W. Becket Hill, Neville
Lubbock, Herman W. Marcus, John F. Taylor, and Freeman Murray.
Addressing this meeting at some length, I endeavoured to show the
importance of settling the North-West, as well as other portions of
Canada, with a population of British people if possible, who would
grow grain to supply the wants of the mother country. I stated that a
preferential tariff against the United States would keep our people
in Canada, and would cause settlers from Great Britain to make their
homes in that country; and that in a very little time the North-West
Territories would be occupied by a large population of loyal people,
who would be devoted to the Empire, and would be able to supply all
the bread-stuffs that England would require. In order to impress that
upon the audience, I drew their attention to the fact that if England
was engaged in a war with continental countries, say, for instance,
Russia and France, it would cut off the supply of wheat from the former
country; and that if hostilities were also to break out between the
United States and England, it would confine the mother country's wheat
supply to India, Australia, and Canada; that the distance was so great
that it would take an enormous naval force to keep the sea routes open,
and that these would be constantly liable to attack and interruption
unless England had absolute command of the sea.
I then went on to say that I was aware that there was a strong feeling
in England that there was no possibility of a war with the United
States, but warned the meeting that they must not rely upon that
belief, and I quoted several facts to prove my view.
Within eighteen months the Venezuelan Message of President Cleveland,
followed as it was by the warlike approving messages to Mr. Cleveland
from 42 out of the 45 Governors of States, proved how easily trouble
might arise.
Mr. James L. Hughes also addressed this meeting, and we were strongly
supported by a member of the Fair Trade League, who used some powerful
arguments in favour of some steps being taken to improve the position
of the "Food Supply." He was answered by Mr. Harold Cox, Secretary
of the Cobden Club, who said that my proposition was one that would
abolish Free Trade, and substitute Protection for it. In spite of his
appeal to the intense prejudice of the British people, at that time
in favour of Free Trade, the idea of an Imperial Preferential tariff
seemed to have considerable weight upon those who heard it expounded.
Lord Tennyson was present at the meeting and spoke to me afterwards,
approving of much of my speech, but regretting I had spoken so freely
about the United States. I replied that the very fact of his criticism
was a strong proof of the necessity for my speaking out, and told him
I would send him some publications which would enable him the better
to appreciate our view. This I did. He has been a strong supporter of
the British Empire League and acted on the Executive Committee from the
first.
I addressed a large meeting at Hawick, Scotland, on the 17th August,
1894, and for the first time in Scotland advocated our Canadian policy.
My friend Charles John Wilson organised the meeting. I spoke in much
the same strain as in London. Although my remarks were well received it
was evident that free trade opinion was paramount, and that I did not
have any direct support in the meeting. One member of the Town Council
told me at the close that, while they were all free traders, yet I had
given them food for thought for some time. At the Congress of Chambers
of Commerce of the Empire held in London in July, 1906, my friend Mr.
Charles John Wilson, who spoke at my meeting in Hawick in 1894, was a
representative of the South of Scotland Chamber of Commerce, and made
a powerful speech in favour of the Canadian resolution which endorsed
Mr. Chamberlain's policy of preferential tariff, and his Chamber of
Commerce voted for it.
The organising committee appointed at the London meeting took a
considerable time in arranging the details. Lord Avebury told me that
he had considerable difficulty in getting a prominent outstanding
man as President, and that the negotiations took up a great deal of
time. He wished to secure the Duke of Devonshire, and he being very
busy, could not give much time, and only agreed at length to take the
position on the understanding that Sir Robert Herbert who, for many
years had been the Permanent Under Secretary for the Colonies, and was
about to be superannuated, should undertake to act as chairman of the
Executive Committee and attend to the management of the League.
When all was arranged, a large meeting was held at the Mansion House
on the 27th January, 1896, the Lord Mayor in the chair, and then the
British Empire League was formally inaugurated, the constitution
adopted, and a resolution, moved by Lord Avebury, carried:
That the attention of our fellow-countrymen throughout the Empire is
invited to the recent establishment of the British Empire League, and
their support by membership and subscription is strongly recommended.
It may be mentioned that when our deputation reported to the League
in Canada the arrangements we had agreed to, it was suggested that an
addition should be made to the constitution by the insertion of what
is now the second clause of it. "It shall be the primary object of the
League to secure the permanent unity of the Empire." This, of course,
had been well understood, but the Canadian League desired it to be
placed in the constitution in formal terms. The request was made to the
committee in England, and it was at once acceded to.
A special general meeting of the Imperial Federation League in Canada
was held in the Tower Room, House of Commons, Ottawa, on the 4th March,
1896, to consider the annual report of the Executive Committee, and the
recommendation therein contained, that the League should change its
name to that of the British Empire League in Canada, and affiliate with
the British Empire League.
As President of the League I occupied the chair. Among those present
were: Sir Charles Tupper, Bart., G.C.M.G.; Sir Donald Smith, K.C.M.G.;
the Hon. Arthur R. Dickey, M.P.; Senators W. J. Almon, C. A. Boulton,
John Dobson, Thomas McKay, Clarence Primrose, W. D. Perley, and Josiah
Wood. The following members of Parliament: W. H. Bennett, G. F. Baird,
T. D. Craig, G. R. R. Cockburn, Henry Cargill, George E. Casey, F. M.
Carpenter, G. E. Corbould, Dr. Hugh Cameron, Emerson Coatsworth, D. W.
Davis, Eugene A. Dyer, Thomas Earle, Charles Fairburn, W. T. Hodgins,
A. Haslam, Major S. Hughes, David Henderson, Charles E. Kaulbach, J.
B. Mills, A. C. Macdonald, J. H. Marshall, James Masson, J. A. Mara,
W. F. Maclean, D'Alton McCarthy, G. V. McInerney, John McLean, H.
F. McDougall, Major R. R. Maclennan, Alex. McNeill, W. B. Northrup,
Lt.-Col. O'Brien, H. A. Powell, A. W. Ross, Dr. Thomas Sproule, J.
Stevenson, William Smith, Lt.-Col. Tisdale, Thomas Temple, Lt.-Col.
Tyrwhitt, Dr. N. W. White, R. C. Weldon, R. D. Wilmot, W. H. Hutchins,
Major McGillivray, William Stubbs, J. G. Chesley, A. B. Ingram; and
Messrs. S. J. Alexander, Sandford Fleming, C.M.G., N. F. Hagel, Q.C.,
James Johnston, Thomas Macfarlane, Archibald McGoun, C. C. McCaul,
Q.C., Joseph Nelson, J. C. Pope, E. E. Sheppard, J. G. Alexander, J.
Coates, Joseph Nelson, McLeod Stewart, R. W. Shannon, Major Sherwood,
Major Clark, Dr. Kingsford, Dr. Beattie Nesbitt, Prof. Robertson,
Dr. Rholston, Lt.-Col. Scoble, Captain Smith, George E. Evans (Hon.
Secretary), and others.
I moved the adoption of the annual report, which contained a copy of
the constitution of the British Empire League, and recommended that the
Canadian League be affiliated with that body.
As to the question of changing the name of the League, I said:
That the Canadian delegation had urged the retention of the name
Imperial Federation League, but the arguments in favour of the
change were so great that we felt we had to yield to the wishes
of our English brethren. The word Federation was objected to by
some, and there is no doubt that to attempt to prepare a fixed and
written constitution for a federated Empire, with all its divergent
interests, would be a very difficult thing to do. If a dozen of
the very ablest men in all the Empire were to devote any amount
of time and their greatest energies to prepare a scheme for such a
federation, and succeeded in making one practical and workable under
existing conditions, might not ten or twenty years so change the
conditions as to make a fixed written constitution very embarrassing
and unsuitable? Such a method is not in accord with the genius of the
British Constitution. The British Constitution is unwritten; it has
"broadened down from precedent to precedent," always elastic, always
adapting itself to changing conditions. So should the idea of British
unity be carried out. Let us work along the lines of least resistance.
The memorial included in the report urges a conference to consider
the trade question. A conference might arrange some plan to carry out
that one idea; in a year or two another conference could be called to
consider some other point of agreement. Soon these conferences would
become periodical. Soon a committee would be appointed to carry out
the wishes of the conferences in the periods between the meetings;
and then you would have an Imperial Council, and Imperial Federation
would have become evolved in accordance with the true genius of the
Anglo-Saxon race. Let us take one step at a time, and we shall slowly
but surely realise our wishes.
These remarks outlined the policy that the Executive Committee had
agreed upon, and foreshadowed much that has since occurred.
Mr. Alexander McNeill seconded the adoption of the report, which was
carried unanimously.
Sir Charles Tupper then moved the first resolution:
Whereas the British Empire League has been formally inaugurated in
London with practically the same objects in view as the Imperial
Federation League, this meeting expresses its sympathy and concurrence
therewith, and resolves that hereafter the Imperial Federation League
in Canada shall be a branch of the British Empire League, and shall be
known and described as the British Empire League in Canada.
In his speech he gave a short sketch of the progress of the old League,
and pointed out that it was an important fact that this organisation
had committed itself to the policy of removing the obstruction to
preferential trade with Great Britain which existed through the
treaties with Belgium and Germany.
Mr. D'Alton McCarthy seconded the resolution. He also spoke of the work
of the old League which he had founded in Canada, and of which he was
the first President. He said:
That no mistake was made in forming the League, because at that time,
twelve years ago, the feeling was towards independence or annexation.
The League did very much to divert public opinion in the direction in
which it was now running. As to the treaties between Great Britain and
other countries, he did not look upon them as an obstruction but as
an impediment. For his part he was prepared to do anything to advance
Canadian trade relations with England at once, without postponing it
until those treaties were terminated by Great Britain.
This last sentence shows that at that time he was contemplating the
adoption of the policy of a British Preference, which I believe in the
following year, with Principal Grant's assistance, he succeeded in
inducing Sir Wilfrid Laurier and his Government to adopt.
The constitution, by-laws and rules for the governance of branches were
then adopted, and the work of the old Imperial Federation League in
Canada has since been carried on under the name of "The British Empire
League in Canada."
I have always felt that this success of our mission to England was most
important in its result, or at least that its failure would have been
very unfortunate. The collapse of the Imperial Federation League had
disheartened the leading Imperialists very much, and the deputation to
England was an effort to overcome what was a very serious set back.
Had we been obliged to come home and report that we could get no one
in Great Britain sufficiently interested to work with us, it would
necessarily have broken up our organisation in Canada, and the movement
in favour of the organisation of the Empire, and a commercial union of
its parts, would have been abandoned by the men who had done so much
to arouse an Imperial sentiment. The effect of this would have been
widespread. Our opponents were still at work, and many of the Liberal
party were still very lukewarm on the question of Imperial unity.
Our success, on the other hand, encouraged the loyalists, and led the
politicians of both sides to believe that the sentiment in favour of
the unity of the Empire was an element to be reckoned with. Sir John
Macdonald had made his great appeal to the loyalty of Canada in 1891,
and had carried the elections, the ground having been prepared by the
work of the League for years before. The general election was coming on
in 1896, and it was most important that the Imperial sentiment should
not be considered dead.
After Sir John's death the Conservative party suffered several severe
losses in the deaths of Sir John Abbott and Sir John Thompson, and
in the revolt of a number of ministers against Sir Mackenzie Bowell,
who had been appointed Prime Minister. The party had been in power
for about eighteen years, and was moribund, many barnacles were
clinging to it. My brother, Lt.-Col. Fred Denison, M.P., was a staunch
conservative, and a strong supporter of the Government, but for a year
before his death, that is during the last year of the Conservative
_régime_, he privately expressed his opinion to me that, although
he could easily carry his own constituency, yet that throughout the
country the Government would be defeated, and he also said he hoped
they would. He was of the opinion that his party had been in long
enough, and that it was time for a change; and he held that the success
of the Liberals at that time with their accession to office, and the
responsibilities thus created, would at once cause them to drop all
their coquetting with the United States, and would naturally lead
them to be thoroughly loyal to a country which they themselves were
governing.
About the 1st January, 1896, President Cleveland issued his Venezuelan
message in reference to a dispute between Great Britain and Venezuela.
It was couched in hostile terms, and was almost insolent in its
character. Among European nations it would have been accepted almost
as a declaration of war. This was approved of by the United States
as a whole. Nearly all the Governors of States (forty-two out of
forty-five was, I believe, the proportion) telegraphed messages of
approval to President Cleveland, and many of them offered the services
of the militia of their States, to be used in an invasion of Canada.
This aroused the feeling of our people in an extraordinary degree, and
in all Canada the newspapers sounded a loyal and determined note. I
was anxious about several papers which had opposed us, and had even
advocated independence or annexation, but indignant at the absolute
injustice of the proposed attack upon Canada they came out more
vehemently than any. The _Norfolk Reformer_ struck a loyal, patriotic,
and manly note, while Mr. Daniel McGillicuddy of the _Huron Signal_,
who used to attack me whenever he was short of a subject, was perhaps
more decided than any. He said in his paper that he had always been
friendly to the United States and always written on their behalf,
but when they talked of invading the soil of Canada, they would find
they would meet a loyal and determined people who would crowd to the
frontier to the strains of "The Maple Leaf Forever" and would die in
the last ditch, but would never surrender. Mr. McGillicuddy had served
in the Fenian raid in the Militia, and all his fighting blood was
aroused. This episode of the Venezuela message ended the annexation
talk everywhere, and Mr. McGillicuddy has been for years a member of
the Council of the British Empire League.
I had but little influence myself in political matters, but I had
great confidence in Sir Oliver Mowat and the Hon. George W. Ross, and
among my friends I urged that they should be induced to enter Dominion
politics, as their presence among the Liberal leaders would give the
people of Ontario a confidence which in 1891 had been much shaken in
reference to the loyalty of the Liberal opposition. I was much pleased
to find that before the election in 1896, arrangements were made that
Sir Oliver Mowat was to leave the Ontario Premiership, and support Sir
Wilfrid Laurier in the Senate.
In the early spring of 1896, while the Conservative Government were
still in power, I wrote to Lord Salisbury and told him what I thought
would happen, first that the Conservatives would be defeated, and
secondly that the Liberals, when they came into power, would be loyal
and true to the Empire, and that he need not be uneasy, from an
Imperial point of view, on account of the change of Government. I knew
that with Sir Oliver Mowat in the Cabinet everything would be right,
and I felt that all the others would stand by the Empire.
In 1897, during the Jubilee celebration in London, I saw Lord
Salisbury, and he was much gratified at the action of the Canadian
Government in establishing the British Preference, and said that they
had been anxious about the attitude of the Liberal party, until Sir
Wilfrid Laurier's first speeches in the House after his accession to
office. I laughingly said, "You need not have been anxious, for I wrote
telling you it would be all right and not to be uneasy." His reply was,
"Yes, I know you did, but we thought you were too sanguine."
As soon as the new Government were sworn in, we endeavoured to press
our views of preferential tariffs upon them, D'Alton McCarthy and
Principal George M. Grant exerting themselves on that behalf, and
during the autumn of 1896 a deputation of the Cabinet consisting of
the Hon. Wm. Fielding, Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright, and the Hon. Wm.
Patterson travelled through the country inquiring of the Boards of
Trade and business men as to their views on the question of revision of
the tariff.
Our League naturally took advantage of this opportunity to press our
views upon the Government, and urged Mr. Fielding and his colleagues
very earnestly to take steps to secure a system of preferential
tariffs. A curious incident occurred on this occasion that is worth
recording. While our deputation were sitting in the Board of Trade room
in Toronto waiting our turn to be heard, a manufacturer was pressing
the interests of his own business upon the Ministers. It was amusing
to hear him explain how he wanted one duty lowered here, and another
raised there, and apparently wanted the tariff system arranged solely
for his own benefit. There was such a narrow, selfish spirit displayed
that we listened in amazement that any man should be so callously
selfish. Mr. Fielding thought he had a good subject to use against us,
so he said to the man, "Suppose we lower the duty say one-third on
these articles you make, how would that affect you?" "It would destroy
my business and close my factory." "Then," said Mr. Fielding, "here
is a deputation from the British Empire League waiting to give their
views after you, and I am sure they will want me to give Great Britain
a preference." The man became excited at once, he closed up his papers
and in vehement tones said, "If that is what you are going to do, that
is right. I am an Imperial Federationist clear through. Do that, and I
am satisfied." "But what will you do?" said Mr. Fielding. "It will ruin
your business." "Never mind me," he replied, "I can go into something
else, preferential tariffs will build up our Empire and strengthen it,
and I will be able to find something to do." "I am an Imperialist," he
said with great emphasis as he went out.
I turned to someone near me and said, "I must find out who that man is,
and I will guarantee he has United Empire Loyalist blood in his veins."
He proved to be a Mr. Greey, a grandson of John William Gamble, who was
a member of a very distinguished United Empire Loyalist family. I am
sure this incident must have had some influence upon Mr. Fielding, as
an illustration of the deep-seated loyalty and Imperialism of a large
element of the Upper Canadian population.
The members of our League were delighted with the action of the
Government in the Session of 1897, in establishing a preference in our
markets in favour of British goods. It will be remembered that we had
been disappointed in our hope that Lord Salisbury would have denounced
the Treaties in 1892, when the thirty years for which they were fixed
would expire, but five years more had elapsed and nothing had been
done. I believe the plan adopted by our Government had been suggested
by Mr. D'Alton McCarthy, our former President, and in order to get over
the difficulty about the German and Belgian Treaties, the preference
was not nominally given to Great Britain at all, but was a reduction of
duty to all countries which allowed Canadian exports access to their
markets on free trade terms. This of course applied at once to Great
Britain and one of the Australian Colonies (New South Wales). All other
nations, including Germany and Belgium, would not get the preference
unless they lowered their duties to a level with the duties levied by
Great Britain. The preference was first fixed at one-eighth of the duty
just to test the principle.
Shortly after this was announced in our Commons, Kipling, who saw at
once the force of it, published his striking poem "Our Lady of the
Snows," which emphasised the fact that Canada intended to manage her
own affairs:
Daughter am I in my mother's house,
But mistress in mine own.
The gates are mine to open
As the gates are mine to close,
And I set my house in order
Said Our Lady of the Snows.
. . . . . . .
Another strong point was illustrated in the lines:
Favour to those I favour
But a stumbling block to my foes,
Many there be that hate us,
Said Our Lady of the Snows.
. . . . . . .
Carry the word to my sisters,
To the Queens of the East and the South,
I have proved faith in the heritage
By more than the word of the mouth.
They that are wise may follow
Ere the world's war trumpet blows,
But I, I am first in the battle,
Said Our Lady of the Snows.
This poem pointed out to Great Britain that Canada had waited long
enough for the denunciation of treaties which never should have been
made, and which were an absolutely indefensible restriction on the
great colonies.
At a meeting of the council of the British Empire League in Canada held
in May a week or two after the Annual Meeting in Ottawa, a resolution
was passed:
That the President and those members of the Canadian Branch who are
members of the Council of the League in England be hereby appointed
a deputation (with power to add to their number) from the League
in Canada to the League in the United Kingdom; and that they be
instructed to lay before the members of the Parent League the views
of the Canadian Branch on matters of national moment, such as the
organisation of a Royal Naval Reserve in the colonies, and also to
express their opinion that, as a guarantee of the general safety of
the Empire, vigorous steps should at once be taken to provide that
the British food supply should be grown within the Empire.
The deputation consisted of the following: The Hon. R. R. Dobell, M.P.,
George R. Parkin, J. M. Clark, A. McNeill, M.P., Sir Charles Tupper,
Bart., John T. Small, Sir Sandford Fleming, K.C.M.G., Lieut.-Colonel
George T. Denison, D'Alton McCarthy, Q.C., M.P., Lord Strathcona, H. H.
Lyman and J. Herbert Mason.