preference in Great Britain if Britain felt it in her own interest.
Convinced believers in self-government for themselves, however, they
were willing that the United Kingdom should have the same privilege,
and declined to intervene in the British campaign. Mr Borden took the
same stand as to intervention; but many of his followers were not
hampered by such scruples, and Mr Foster made eloquent speeches in
England on Mr Chamberlain's behalf.
The Conference of 1907 was essentially an appendix to the Chamberlain
campaign. Imperial preference found vigorous advocates among colonial
prime ministers, notably Dr Jameson of the Cape, Mr Ward of New
Zealand, and especially Mr Deakin of Australia, {277} whose eloquent
appeal was one of the chief features of the Conference. All expressed
themselves as not wanting the United Kingdom to set up a protective and
preferential system unless convinced it was for her own good; but with
more persistence than success they sought to prove that it would be for
her good, and especially to show that prices to the English consumer
would not be increased, and yet that colonial producers would gain.
The representatives for the United Kingdom, ministers in the British
Government, fresh from a three-year discussion of the whole issue and
backed by the largest parliamentary majority on record, were equally
frank in their rebuttal of the arguments advanced and their refusal to
lead Britain to commit what they considered commercial suicide. Mr
Asquith and Mr Churchill were especially uncompromising; Mr Lloyd
George showed more temperamental sympathy with protection in the
abstract, but was equally clear that free trade had been proved best
for Great Britain beyond question.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier was the doyen of the Conference, the only member
present for a third time. He took a less vigorous part than in the
previous meetings, letting the younger {278} lions roar. He had opened
the debate by announcing his intention to move again the preference
resolutions of 1902, and did so in a brief speech at the close, making
his position clear. Canada had given a free preference to British
goods deliberately, and had not repented. If it had not done for the
British manufacturer all that he would like, more could be done by a
system of mutual preference. 'Yet this is a matter,' he continued,
'that is altogether in the hands of the British people, and if they
think on the whole that their interests are b
|