CHAPTER XXVI

MISSION TO ENGLAND IN 1902

I left for England on the 10th April, 1902, and arrived in London on

21st April. The following members of the League and of the Executive

Committee, staunch friends and supporters of the cause, came to the

station to see me off: W. B. McMurrich, President of the Navy League,

H. J. Wickham, J. M. Clark, John T. Small, George E. Evans, Fraser

Lefroy, H. M. Mowat, K.C., Colonel Grasett, and J. W. Curry, K.C. I

was much impressed with the tone of their conversation; they seemed to

feel that I was going upon an almost hopeless errand, but let me know

how strongly they sympathised with me. I can never forget the loyal

support and assistance I have always received in all circumstances from

the spirited and unselfish patriotism of the advocates of Imperialism

in Canada. The greatest satisfaction I have is to feel that for so many

years I was working in a cause which rallied around it such a splendid

galaxy of upright and honourable men.

Mr. Foster was not able to go to England that year, but he went the

following year, and did great work in speaking through England, and

in Scotland, in support of Mr. Chamberlain's policy of Tariff Reform,

which was what we had been working for for so many years. The Hon.

George W. Ross came over late, being delayed by the Ontario General

Elections, and he supported me by a powerful and eloquent speech at the

annual meeting of the League in London. Dr. Parkin was also delayed,

but he had never fully accepted our trade policy, and as negotiations

opened at once between him and the Rhodes Trust to secure his services

for their work, he was not able to address any meeting, so that for

two months the whole burden fell upon me, and I was obliged unaided to

endeavour to break the ice, and get the movement started.

To look back now it is hard to call to mind the state of affairs

in England at this time. No prominent statesman had said one word,

in public, in support of mutual preferential tariffs except Lord

Salisbury, and he was discouraged and disheartened by the lack of

support, and at that time was in such failing health that no assistance

could be expected from him. I felt that I was facing a very hard

proposition, and one almost hopeless in its prospects. I was afraid of

being ignored or simply sponged out. I was very anxious to be attacked.

I knew if I was vehemently assailed it would be a great advantage, for

I felt I had the facts and arguments, and could defeat my opponents

in discussion. I had been for years studying the question, reading

constantly articles _pro_ and _con._, and had classified, organised,

and indexed my material, until I felt every confidence in my cause.

I arrived in London on the 21st April, and on that morning my first

stroke of good luck occurred. The papers had just published the

announcement of the Morgan combine of the Atlantic Steamship Lines.

This had positively startled the British people. It shook them up and

alarmed them, and caused them for the first time for many years to

be uneasy as to their pre-eminence in mercantile marine. They were in

a mood to listen to questions as to their future prospects. I used

Morgan's action in conversation to support my view that Great Britain

must follow the advice of the Prince of Wales and "wake up."

The _Daily Express_ sent a representative to interview me on the Morgan

affair, and on the 25th April, 1902, it published an interview of over

a column in length. I pointed out the widespread danger of Morgan's

combination if it succeeded, that the Canadian Pacific Railway might

be secured, and then no other line of steamships could compete, for if

the United States combine controlled the railways, they would control

the freights, and so the vessels; and if they dominated the Atlantic

and Pacific, the British Empire would be split in twain. I wound up the

interview by a plan to checkmate the combine, saying, "The right method

is to run a competing line, tax everything the combine vessels bring

into this country and let the things that the other line brings come in

free."

On the 1st May the _Express_ had another interview on the same question.

On the 26th April I spoke at the banquet given to the Lacrosse Team

at the Hotel Cecil, and touched upon Imperial questions, but the

newspapers reported nothing.

On the 28th April Sir Gilbert Parker gave a lunch for me at the

Constitutional Club, and invited several editors to meet me. On

the 30th April I attended the annual dinner of the Royal Colonial

Institute, where I was assigned to respond to the toast of "The United

Empire." This was my first chance of speaking to a large audience,

and it was composed of the foremost men in England interested in the

Colonial Empire. Sir George Taubman Goldie sat next to me and proposed

the toast. It came last. An extra toast to the Houses of Parliament

inserted to give Lord Halsbury, the Lord Chancellor, an opportunity to

speak, made it very late when my turn came. Sir Taubman Goldie said

it was too late and he would not speak. I felt it was too important a

chance for me to allow to slip, and I said to him that I must speak for

five minutes.

The next morning none of the daily papers had any report of my speech.

The _Times_ included it under the words "other toasts followed." This

was the treatment I had been most afraid of. I knew there was no

chance of doing anything if I was simply ignored. It was not that my

speech was not important, but it was late and I was a stranger. Mr.

I. N. Ford, representative of the New York _Tribune_ and the Toronto

_Globe_, was present, and he at one saw the importance of the policy

I propounded, and cabled to New York, and all over the States, and

to Toronto a report of the dinner. His report, in view of subsequent

developments, may be reproduced:

The most interesting episode of the last twenty-four hours has been

the breath of fresh air at the Imperial function, the annual banquet

of the Royal Colonial Institute in Whitehall Rooms. The speaking began

after nine o'clock and was perfunctory for two hours. Lord Grey, as

chairman, opened the proceedings quietly, and there was nothing of

exceptional interest. The Hon. Henry Copeland, representing New South

Wales, suggested that the three sons of the Prince of Wales, should

have the titles of Princes of Canada, of Australia and of South

Africa, and the daughter Princess of New Zealand. Lieut.-General

Leslie Rundle asserted that a good feeling had been brought about

between the colonial contingents and the British Army. The Lord

Chancellor talked about the utility of Parliament. Lord Grey paid a

tribute to the unselfish idealism of Mr. Cecil Rhodes.

It was not until eleven that real interest was created by the response

of Colonel Denison to the toast of "The United Empire." He was only on

his feet five minutes, but he carried the representative audience of

240 colonials with him.

He then gave a summary of the speech and concluded:

Colonel Denison's policy excited murmurs of dissent at first, but was

applauded with great vigour at the close as a practical sequel to the

tax on grain and flour.

I give the verbatim report of this speech, and it will be seen that it

contains the whole principle of the Tariff Reform movement which has

since made such headway:

As a member of this Institute, and one who has worked most of his

life in the interests of the United Empire, I should have very great

pleasure in responding to this toast at some little length, but I must

be brief at this late hour. This year is one of the most important

years of the history of the Empire. We speak of the United Empire,

and although we have an Empire which in one sense is united, still in

another sense it is not a United Empire. It is not combined in any

way, or organised for defence, and I think it is absolutely necessary

that steps should be taken at the earliest possible moment to have it

properly combined. The coming conference of Premiers will be one of

the most important events in the history of the British race. I am

under the impression that when this conference meets it will either

do some good work in connection with the unification of the Empire,

or it may be that either through sloth, or indolence, or lack of

appreciation of the extraordinary importance of the occasion, the

critical moment may be allowed to lapse, and we may soon see our

career as a great and powerful people approaching a close. ("No.") I

certainly hope not, but speaking as a Canadian watching closely the

trend of affairs in that country, and having had a good deal of work

in the fight we had some fifteen years ago against Commercial Union

with the United States, I tell you this is a most critical period, and

that this Empire must combine for defence and for trade. For defence

because every great thinker and every man who has studied the subject

knows that we may have war upon us at any moment. Take the last words

of that great statesman, Lord Dufferin, when he said that nothing,

neither a sense of justice, nor the precepts of religion, nor the

instincts of humanity, would prevent any of these foreign nations

from attacking us at the first favourable opportunity. Why did Lord

Salisbury two years ago, at the Primrose League gathering, say that

"The whole thing may come as a wave upon us." Is it not necessary

that we should combine the Empire both for trade and defence? Now we

have considered this subject carefully in Canada, and held meetings

all over the country, and the proposal we wish to see adopted at this

conference--a proposal I have been asked by the British Empire League

to lay before you--is that at that conference every representative

there should agree to a proposal to put from five to ten per cent.

duty on all foreign goods at every port in every part of the Empire.

What for? Not for Protection or Free Trade, but to form a fund for

defence. That is why it has got to be done, and you will require

large sums of money to put the thing on a proper footing. We want

also to combine for trade. We want some proposal which would help to

a certain extent to protect the trade of the Empire in every part,

which would tend not only to protect trade in every part, but to stop

the merciless attacks made on the trade of this country by foreign

nations. We have never had to face such a pitiless commercial war in

all our history. The commercial war in the time of Napoleon was a mere

incident in actual war, but we are to-day feeling the attacks at every

turn. I think this proposal which the Canadian people wish to see

adopted would have one other effect. We have 400,000,000 of people in

this Empire, but only 50,000,000 of British stock and bound together

by ties of kindred, race, and blood. The rest are satisfied to be in

our Empire. But why? On account of the just administration of affairs,

the freedom and liberties they enjoy under the British flag, and for

one other reason also, because of the great prestige we have hitherto

held as a great and dominant power. The proposal we suggest would have

the effect of giving a direct trade interest to all these alien races

under our flag to-day.

I believe our good friend Mr. Seddon, of New Zealand, will soon be in

this country and will be with us on this point. I hope our Australian

friends will be with us also, and that the people of England will be

willing to make some slight sacrifices for the purpose of holding our

great and powerful Empire together, and at the same time we also shall

be making sacrifices, and doing much more than ever before for the

common cause.

This banquet was on the 30th April. As an indication of the interest

taken in the matter in the United States, on the 5th May the Chicago

_Tribune_ had a portrait of my brother, Lieut.-Colonel Septimus

Denison, which they believed was mine. Over the top were the words

"Projector of plan for Union of the British Empire against the World";

at the foot of the portrait "Colonel Septimus Denison."

Several hundred representatives of the British Colonies grew wildly

enthusiastic at a banquet in London on Wednesday night, over a plan

proposed by Colonel Denison, of Toronto, for a union of Great Britain

and all its colonies for commercial defence against the rest of the

world. Colonel Denison's scheme, as outlined in his speech, is to levy

a tariff of from five to ten per cent. at all British and colonial

ports on all goods not from Great Britain or one of its colonies and

establish free trade within the Empire.

On the 4th May I lunched with Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, and discussed

with him the policy that I was advocating. He argued the matter with

me, bringing forward any number of objections, which I answered as well

as I could. I soon came to the conclusion that he was quietly taking my

measure, and testing my knowledge of the question. I then warmed up in

my arguments and put my views strongly and emphatically, and soon came

to the conclusion, from a mischievous expression in his eye, that he

was not as much opposed to me as his remarks would lead one to think.

When leaving I felt that although he did not say a word in support of

my plan, yet he was not altogether unfavourable.

On the 5th May I met Sir Douglas Straight, editor of the _Pall Mall

Gazette_, and after some conversation he suggested to Mr. Sydney Low,

who was with us, to interview me on behalf of the _Pall Mall Gazette_,

and a long interview appeared on the front pages of that paper on

the 12th May, in which I put our views forward clearly and strongly.

After pointing out the precarious condition of Great Britain's food

supply I said that we in Canada felt that it would be a sheer waste

of money for us to pay for ships, troops, and coaling stations, while

taking no precautions to secure adequate supplies of food, and that a

preferential tax on food would help greatly to overcome the danger. I

concluded with the following words:

I do not wish to enter upon the whole economical and financial

question; but everything I have seen and read convinces me that your

industrial situation is a perilous one, that you are paying for your

imports largely out of capital, and that you are depending far too

much on the profits of the carrying trade, of which, as you have been

very forcibly reminded during the past few weeks, you cannot expect

to have a virtual monopoly much longer. If you do not speedily make

arrangements to secure yourselves some markets, where you will be

able to deal at an advantage, you will be in a very serious position

indeed in the course of the next few years. The opportunity of solving

at once the defensive and the industrial problem seems to us to have

arrived; and we have great hopes that British statesmen and the

British public will take advantage of it.

On the 6th May there was a special meeting of the Council of the

League held in a room at the House of Commons, at which Lord Avebury

presided. It was called to hear my appeal for assistance in obtaining

opportunities for placing the views of the Canadian Branch before the

British people. There were a number of prominent men present, among

others the Duke of Abercorn, Earl Egerton of Tatton, Sir Walter Butler,

Sir Edward Carbutt, Rt. Hon. Sir John Cockburn, Sir Charles Fremantle,

W. Herbert Daw, Sir Robert Herbert, W. H. Holland, M.P., Dr. Culver

James, Sir Guilford Molesworth, Sir Charles Tupper, and Sir Fred

Young. Lord Avebury introduced me and I put my case before them. After

I had spoken at some length Sir Charles Tupper followed, supporting

me strongly. Mr. W. H. Holland--now Sir William Holland--criticised

my views from the Free Trade Manchester standpoint, and was totally

opposed to me. Captain Lee, M.P., was critical but not hostile. Mr.

Talbot Baines was not favourable to my views, but thought I should

have opportunities of putting them before the public. Sir Guilford

Molesworth and Sir Fred Young supported me strongly, as did Dr. Culver

James and Sir John Cockburn. I wound up the discussion, particularly

replying to Sir William Holland's remarks. Among other things Sir

William Holland had said:

I might say that the trade of which I know the most, the cotton trade,

would be affected considerably by such a scheme. If an important duty

of five or ten per cent. were imposed on all cotton coming into this

country from territory outside the limits of the British Empire, we

should at once penalise that great industry by enhancing the cost of

the raw material by five or ten per cent., and as the cotton trade is

largely dependent on markets outside British territory, I am afraid it

might have a disastrous effect on our ability to compete in the great

neutral markets of the world, if our raw material was penalised to

that extent.

When I rose to reply, I said:

Will Mr. Holland kindly wait a few moments? I have just a few words to

say in reply to his remarks. He is interested in the cotton trade, and

has given us one or two ideas upon it. . . . With regard to cotton,

I will give you one fair warning about that. You are engaged at this

moment--the British people are engaged--in one of the most pitiless

and merciless wars ever waged in commercial history. Napoleon's war

was nothing to it. The United States have made up their mind that they

are going to use you up in every quarter. They are taking your ships

from you, and they are going to take your boot trade altogether.

I came over here with the president of their great combine, and

he explained it to me. "We shall destroy the whole shoe trade of

England," is what he said. Now about your cotton trade. I want to warn

you. Do not be surprised if before long there will be a heavy export

tax put upon cotton in the United States, because I understand that

they may likely keep it for manufacturing with themselves. If that is

done--and it may be easily done--such a proposition as I have made of

putting a ten per cent. duty on imports into the ports of the empire

might cause cotton to be grown in Africa, in India, in Egypt, and

in other places, and I think for the benefit of having cotton grown

inside the Empire it will be a good thing to put on the duty, because

you are not safe for a day with the United States. They are waging war

upon us now at every turn.

Sir Wm. Holland evidently was impressed with my remarks about the

danger of the United States reducing their sale of cotton. It was

only about a month after that the public heard of the organisation of

the British Cotton Supply Association, with a subscription of £50,000

to make experiments in growing cotton under the British flag. I have

always had a very high opinion of Sir Wm. Holland ever since.

It was unanimously resolved at that meeting "to give Colonel Denison

every possible facility for stating his views to Chambers of Commerce

and other influential bodies without committing the League to an

endorsement, and it was referred to the Executive Committee to embody

this decision in a formal resolution in the name of the Council."

At a meeting of the Executive Committee held on the 15th May the

resolution was passed in these words:

That while maintaining its traditional policy of neutrality in all

matters affecting tariffs and fiscal arrangements, the Council of the

League have pleasure in resolving that it will do everything in its

power to provide facilities for Colonel Denison, the distinguished

President of the League in Canada, to express publicly his views

before the Chambers of Commerce and other important bodies in this

country.

This resolution was published in the newspapers, and the action of the

Council was known to the Liberal leaders.

On the 7th May I dined at the Annual Banquet of the Newspaper Society,

and responded to the toast of "The Guests," where I had an admirable

opportunity of bringing my proposition before a large number of editors

of newspapers from all over Great Britain.

The Aberdeen _Journal_ commenting upon this dinner said:--

Perhaps the most interesting speech of the evening was the last one.

It was delivered by Colonel Denison, a Canadian, and President of the

Empire League in Canada. He stated that he had been sent over to this

country to do what he could to promote a movement for the defence of

the Empire, and indicated that one of the proposals to be discussed

at the Colonial Conference at the coronation would be one to impose

a duty on foreign imports at every port in the Empire, in order to

raise an Imperial Defence Fund common to the whole Empire. He said the

duty might be 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9 per cent. There was one exclamation

of dissent when this proposal was mentioned, but Colonel Denison's

breezy, confident manner, and evidently strong conviction on the

subject, excited general sympathy. Lord Tweedmouth's attitude during

the Colonel's speech, as it may be described, suggesting an Imperial

war tax, was rather quizzical than sympathetic.

By this time the newspapers were beginning to notice my work.

Fortunately for me about the same time Mr. Seddon had been speaking

on similar lines in South Africa, and Sir Wilfrid Laurier also in the

Canadian House of Commons. This alarmed the Liberal party, and the

_Manchester Guardian_ began to criticise and find fault with me to my

great satisfaction, for I knew I could stand anything better than being

ignored.

A friend of mine in the Liberal ranks told me about this time that the

leading Liberals were in a great state of anxiety at my work. They

believed, he said, that Chamberlain, Seddon, and Sir Wilfrid Laurier

had all agreed that the scheme was to be put through at the Imperial

Conference, and that I had come over as an advance agent, to break

the ice, to open the discussion, and prepare the way. I evaded making

any definite reply to this suggestion, jokingly saying that I was not

surprised to hear that they were anxious.

I had another hint that the Liberal party purposed arranging for a

great meeting at Leeds, at which Lord Rosebery was to speak, and a

direct effort made to rally the whole Liberal party together, under

the banner of Free Trade, as against the proposed corn tax, and the

preferential arrangements with the colonies, I thought it desirable

that I should have a talk with Lord Rosebery at once, and wrote asking

him for an interview. He invited me to lunch the next day, the 8th May.

There was no one present but his son and his secretary, and I appealed

to him earnestly, appealed to his sympathy with Imperialism, and to

his services to Imperial Federation, and urged him to assist me in my

work. I pointed out the dangers of the precarious food supply, and the

disintegrating influences that might break up the Empire, and put my

case as clearly as possible. He seemed to get more and more serious as

he saw all the arguments on that side, and when I was leaving I said to

him; "It is too bad of me to come and unload all my gloomy forebodings

upon you." His reply was, "I share a great many of them with you." I

knew then, as I knew at the meeting in 1890, that at heart he was a

warm Imperialist, but is terribly hampered and embarrassed by his party

affiliations. The meeting took place at Leeds on the 30th May. In his

speech he made two or three remarks which showed he was not as opposed

to my policy as I expected. In reference to the corn tax he said:

Not another acre of wheat, we were told by one Minister, would be

planted in consequence of this tax, which removed, to my mind, the

sole inducement to vote for it, for if more of our country could be

placed under wheat it would solve some of the difficulties connected

with the land.

Again he said:

But there is a much graver issue connected with this corn tax--an

issue which has, in reality, only recently been imported into the

discussion. It is, I think, quite clear from the last speech of

the Colonial Secretary, that it is intended as a prelude to a sort

of Zollverein or Customs Union throughout the British Empire. Now,

speaking for myself, I cannot summarily dismiss any proposal for the

closer union of the Empire, because it has been the ideal of more than

the last twenty years of my life (hear, hear), an ideal of which I

spoke to you at Leeds when I was last here. I do not say that Free

Trade is a fetish, a religious dogma, which must be accepted and

applied on all occasions without consideration or reservation. . . . I

do not know, my mind is open, and I shall wait to hear.

His speech was more friendly than I expected, although some of his

party objected to an "open mind."

Before the Leeds meeting the Liberals held a meeting in Scotland,

at Aberdeen, on the 20th May, where the Rt. Hon. James Bryce made a

vigorous speech against the corn tax, which it was believed was being

put on preparatory for the Imperial Conference.

On the 23rd May I addressed the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce under

the chairmanship of its President, Sir Alfred Jones, who treated me

with the most unbounded hospitality. The meeting was very large and

successful, and although my views aroused criticism and were objected

to by some speakers, I had a chance to reply in acknowledging a vote of

thanks, and as I had the strongest arguments I had little difficulty in

effectively answering objections.

The _Westminster Gazette_ of the 21st May, the day before I went to

Liverpool, had the following article:

Mr. Bryce stated the case against the bread tax with admirable point

and force in a speech last night at Aberdeen. He dealt with its

protective aspect, and the part it seemed destined to play in helping

on an Imperial Zollverein, and had an excellent passage as to the

effect of the tax on the very poor: he said:

And when you get lower still, when you approach that large section

of our people--in many places 30 per cent. of the population--which

lives on the verge of want, it becomes a crushing burden, which

means reduced subsistence, frequent hunger, weakness of body, and

susceptibility to disease. The poor man suffers not merely because his

margin is so small that the least addition to price tells, but because

he can only afford the simplest and cheapest kinds of food. Bread to

him is not only an article of first necessity, but of last necessity,

etc.

The comment, "He dealt with its protective aspect and the part it

seemed destined to play in helping on an Imperial Zollverein," shows

the alarm in the Liberal ranks. One of the speakers at the Liverpool

meeting, who objected to my arguments, spoke of the marvellous

prosperity of Great Britain, all due, as he said, to Free Trade. In my

reply I used with great effect this extract from Mr. Bryce's speech,

and said that if about 8_d._ per head for a whole year meant to 30

per cent. of the population "a crushing burden, which means reduced

subsistence, frequent hunger, weakness of body, susceptibility to

disease," I could not see that it could be called a prosperous country.

I said I do not believe that gentleman ever saw a prosperous country.

Let him come to the protectionist United States of America, or to

protectionist Canada, and he will see countries where there is hardly a

soul who does not spend at least 8_d._ a week on pleasure or amusement.

This was apparently an unanswerable retort. I found this paragraph of

Mr. Bryce's very useful on more occasions than one.

I was told some five months after I had returned home, by one of the

newspaper men who visited Canada at that time, that he had heard, on

undoubted authority, that Mr. Joseph Chamberlain had privately asked

Sir Alfred Jones to get up a meeting, and invite me to go down and

address it. The result must have been satisfactory, for the meeting

was much more successful than I had any hope for. I think Mr.

Chamberlain's part leaked out and still further alarmed the Liberals,

and still more aided me.

The Liverpool papers gave good reports of the meeting, and the

editorial comments of two of them were not unfavourable, while one was

opposed to me. The _Courier_ of the 24th May said:

Now Canada proposes--and no doubt she will not be alone--that the

Empire as a whole accept this challenge. Colonel Denison suggests

that a five per cent. tariff should be laid on foreign goods in every

part of the Empire, and that the money be ear-marked for the defence.

It is, of course, premature to discuss details, but the final words

of the Canadian Imperialist deserve the most earnest attention. He

shows that Mr. Chamberlain has not misread the signs in saying that

an opportunity of closer union is about to be offered, and a chance

given, perhaps once for all, of keeping British trade in British

hands. If the occasion should be rejected, fair warning is given

that the elements of disintegration will inevitably begin to operate

among the colonies thus flouted, disappointed, and rebuffed. But we

are asked to remember what Mr. Bryce says as to the percentage of the

population always on the verge of want, and to whom an important duty

would be fatal. They have not this terrible dead-weight in Canada, and

neither have they anything of the sort in the United States. Is it

not rational to suggest that this vast proportion of the population,

ever ready to be submerged, is a result not of dear commodities, but

of restricted production. On the score of mere cheapness there is

assuredly little to complain of. The biggest and cheapest loaf costs

something, and its price has to be earned. The question is, Are we to

face this commercial struggle alone and unarmed, or are we to unite

with the daughter nations in securing a not dubious victory?

On the 13th May, ten days before the meeting in Liverpool, I was dining

at Lord Lansdowne's at a dinner given to Count Matsugata, formerly

Prime Minister of Japan. The Premier and five Cabinet Ministers,

Lord Roberts, the Duke of Abercorn, and several others were present.

I was seated between Mr. Chamberlain and Lord George Hamilton. I

took advantage of the opportunity to discuss our policy with Mr.

Chamberlain, and pressed it as earnestly as I could put it, and we

had a long conversation. I pleaded with him to help us, that I was

still afraid of reciprocity with the United States, and that I felt we

were drifting, drifting, and that every year made it worse. Whether

my remarks had any weight on him or not I cannot say. I think he had

long been privately on our side, but anyway, three days after he made

a speech in Birmingham, which was the most hopeful thing that had

happened in all our struggle. In that speech he said:

"The position of this country is not one without anxiety to statesmen

and careful observers. Political jealousy, commercial rivalry, more

serious than anything we have yet had, the pressure of hostile

tariffs, the pressure of bounties, the pressure of subsidies, it is

all becoming more weighty and more apparent.

What is the object of this system adopted by countries which, at all

events, are very prosperous themselves--countries like Germany and

other large Continental States? What is the object of all this policy

of bounties and subsidies? It is admitted--there is no secret about

it--the intention is to shut out this country as far as possible

from all profitable trade with those foreign States, and at the

same time to enable those foreign States to undersell us in British

markets. That is the policy, and we see that it is assuming a great

development, that old ideas of trade and free competition have

changed. We are face to face with great combinations, with enormous

trusts, having behind them gigantic wealth. Even the industries and

commerce which we thought to be peculiarly our own, even those are in

danger. It is quite impossible that these new methods of competition

can be met by adherence to old and antiquated methods which were

perfectly right at the time at which they were developed.

At the present moment the Empire is being attacked on all sides, and

in our isolation we must look to ourselves. We must draw closer our

internal relations, the ties of sentiment, the ties of sympathy--yes,

and the ties of interest. If by adherence to economic pedantry, to

old shibboleths, we are to lose opportunities of closer union which

are offered us by our Colonies; if we are to put aside occasions now

within our grasp; if we do not take every chance in our power to keep

British trade in British hands, I am certain that we shall deserve the

disasters which will infallibly come upon us.

This was the first public utterance of Mr. Chamberlain, in which he

endorsed in general terms the policy I was advocating. In the remarks

I have quoted, it will be seen that he endorsed the salient points

of my five minutes' speech a fortnight before at the Royal Colonial

Institute. Political jealousy, commercial rivalry, the pitiless

commercial war, the ties of sentiment, the ties of interest, the

keeping of British trade in British hands, etc. Nothing inspirited

me so much as this speech. I had preserved as a profound secret

Mr. Chamberlain's promise to me in 1890 that he would study up the

question, and, if he came to the conclusion it would be a good thing

for our Empire, that he would take it up. I had kept silent waiting

for twelve years, until I read that speech on the morning of the 17th

May, and I then told my wife the story of the interview in 1890, for I

felt he had adopted the policy.

The _Daily News_, in two articles on the 22nd and 24th May, made an

attack on Mr. Chamberlain and me, and found fault also with the British

Empire League for giving me any countenance, and strongly criticised

our policy. The first article was entitled "The Empire Wreckers." I was

delighted to see these articles, as well as others, in the _Westminster

Gazette_, the _Manchester Guardian_, and other Liberal papers. I saw

that my greatest difficulty had been overcome, and that I was not to be

ignored, but that I was likely to succeed in getting the whole matter

thrown into the arena for public discussion.

After quoting the proposition I was advocating in full, the _Daily

News_ went on to say:

We leave to others the task of finding the appropriate adjectives for

this composition, but Colonel Denison will forgive us if we observe

that there is a certain inconvenience in conducting a campaign of this

kind during the coronation festivities. We have no notion whether he

is acting as the advance agent of Mr. Seddon and others, whose views

on tariff preferences are of an extreme character, nor do we know

how far he speaks as the representative of his fellow-colonists. But

he and those who are acting with him must surely see that this is

not the time for launching a campaign which is bound to give rise to

differences, and possibly to heated differences. Everyone is anxious

to give a cordial welcome to the visitors who will be coming to our

shores next month, and nothing would be more unfortunate than to find

ourselves involved in a dispute about preferences and tariffs with our

own people. . . .

There can be no doubt, however, that Mr. Chamberlain is the person

primarily responsible for these proceedings, and it is with him that

the Chambers of Commerce will have to deal if they wish to call their

souls and their trade their own much longer. Ever since he came into

office the master motive in Mr. Chamberlain's mind has been to put the

Empire on a cash basis, to run it frankly as a commercial venture, and

to occupy the position of managing director of the concern . . .

From the standpoint of national trade and Imperial security it is

the maddest scheme that was ever offered to a country as a policy.

It ignores the fact that we do four times as much trade with foreign

countries as with our Colonies and Dependencies, and that it ties our

hands in our fiscal arrangements, and to all intents and purposes

constitutes our Colonies as the predominant partner. Who would have

thought that it would be necessary at this time of day to do battle

against such midsummer madness? We repeat that if Mr. Chamberlain is

allowed his way, and the British Empire comes to stand for starvation,

misery, and loss of economic freedom for the mother country, the

Empire will soon become a thing of the past.

On the 24th May, two days later, it returned to the attack on similar

lines. I saw my opening and promptly seized it. I wrote the following

letter to the _News_, which they were fair enough to publish in full

with an editorial note attached. It appeared in the _Daily News_ of the

27th May, 1902:

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 by Canadians--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

complete system 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

or _quid 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 to ten 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 the _News_. That is 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 Glasgow _Herald_ had 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 the

_Herald_ had 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.

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.

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.

The _Western Daily Press_ had 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 Bristol _Mercury_ gave 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 the prejudice 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 in favour

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 was advised 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 made a 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 the _Financial News_ of 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 that to which

Mr. Faithfull Begg drew attention when he announced his surprise

that in a discussion upon Free Trade _versus_ Protection, 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 York _Tribune_, stated

that I represented nobody'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.

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 of the 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 Committee was 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

London _Times_ severely criticising the policy 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.

This letter was so plausible that even the _Times_ in 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.

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 cannot see 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 Toronto _Globe_ of 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 the _Times_ has 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 the remark 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 York

_Tribune_, 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:

Mr. President and Gentlemen of the National Club,--I think it is

fit, I think it is proper, that French Canada should be represented

at a gathering like this. I am not here this evening as a member of

the Dominion Cabinet. Am I a member of the Dominion Cabinet? That is

the question. That is the question I very diplomatically declined to

answer when I was leaving Ottawa to come here. Being a Minister is

not the most care-free life in the world. It is an occupation that is

exposed to accidents of all kinds. A Minister is exposed to tremendous

hazards--to the fire of the newspapers, to the bad temper of members

of Parliament, to the assaults of opponents, and occasionally to the

tender mercies of your best personal friends.

I am present to-night as a British subject of Canadian origin--of

French-Canadian origin--proud of British institutions, and feeling in

that pride that he is speaking the sentiments of his countrymen in

the Province of Quebec. I have been connected with the British Empire

League since 1888. I am not prepared to say that I have approved all

the speeches made by all members of the League, or that I have always

agreed with the speeches that members of the League make here. I have

in mind the fact, however, that decent speeches of other people have

not always been properly appreciated. I was agreed from the start

and am agreed now with the primary object of the League, which is

to promote British interests abroad and at home, to bring about a

better knowledge of our needs and a better understanding between all

portions of the Empire. We belong to a great Empire; great through its

power, great through its wealth, but especially great through its free

institutions.

I have now been thirty years in public life, as a newspaper man, as

a member of the Legislature of my native province, and as a Cabinet

Minister. After having travelled pretty extensively, observing as

I went, after having visited several exhibitions of the world, I

have come to the conclusion that British institutions are the best

adapted to bring about the greatness of this country, as they make for

happiness, safety, prosperity, progress, and permanency.

Since I have been in office as Minister of Public Works, and that

is six years and three months, I have endeavoured to the best of my

ability to build up British and Canadian commercial independence on

this continent. I have done my best to improve and develop trade

between the Empire through Canadian soil, through Canadian channels,

in Canadian bottoms, and through Canadian railways.

Let us not be satisfied, continued Mr. Tarte. Let us make up our minds

to make ourselves at home from a national as well as a commercial

standpoint.

Col. Denison, who is allowed to speak of things of which other

people fear the consequence, has spoken of the tariff. Col. Denison

has spoken of Chamberlain, and has quoted Chamberlain's words on

the tariff. Chamberlain is not Minister of Finance--he is Colonial

Secretary. He has spoken of the tariff, mind you. I think he should be

dismissed. He has violated the Constitution of England, and doesn't

know what he has done. He has spoken on the tariff, and he has spoken

for Protection. He is a dangerous man. He has said foreign nations had

formed combinations, and were maintaining hostile tariffs and that the

English nation was suffering by reason of this. He will be punished.

This was a satirical allusion to the fact that he was being forced out

of the Cabinet, because, as Minister of Public Works, he had discussed

in public meetings the question of tariff policy. He was put out of the

Cabinet the next day.