The Struggle for Imperial Unity: Recollections & Experiences

by George T. Denison

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 8d. 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 8d. 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 arrange ments 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.

---

[CHAPTER XXVII]