The extraordinarily interesting letter which we publish from Colonel Denison, the president of the British Empire League in Canada, shows how deeply sensible was the late Lord Salisbury of the obstacles which prejudice and tradition offer to the adoption of a genuine policy of tariff reform, and how conscious he was of the difficulties to a practical statesman of overcoming them. The London _Globe_ said: Few more remarkable contributions have been made recently to the controversy over fiscal reform than the letters of the late Marquis of Salisbury, which Colonel Denison, of Toronto, has communicated to _The Times_. The _Outlook_ said: The invaluable letter in _The Times_ from Colonel G. T. Denison, of Toronto, has disposed once for all of Lord Hugh Cecil's theory that the system of free imports ought to be regarded as a Conservative institution. Passages cited by Colonel Denison from unpublished letters and forgotten speeches prove that the late Lord Salisbury's agreement with the principles of Mr. Chamberlain's policy was complete. Lord Hugh Cecil had the following letter in _The Times_ of the 20th May, 1905. SIR, I have no desire to enter into any controversy with Colonel Denison as to Lord Salisbury's opinion in 1891 or 1892. The extracts from the letters published by Colonel Denison do not seem to me to have any bearing on Lord Salisbury's attitude towards any question that is now before the public. I myself think that it is undesirable to quote the opinions of the dead, however eminent, in reference to a living controversy. But since the attempt continues to be made by tariff reformers to claim Lord Salisbury's authority in support of their views, it is right to say that I have no more doubt than have any of my brothers that Lord Salisbury profoundly dissented from Mr. Chamberlain's proposals so far as they were developed during his lifetime. Not only did he repeatedly express that dissent to us, and to others who had been in official relations with him, but he caused a letter to be written in that sense to one of my brothers. In conclusion, may I point out that it would have been more courteous in Colonel Denison, if he had at least consulted Lord Salisbury's personal representatives before publishing extracts from Lord Salisbury's private correspondence? Yours obediently, ROBERT CECIL. _19th May._ I replied to this in the following letter to _The Times_, which was published in the issue of 13th June, 1905: SIR, I have seen to-day, in _The Times_ of the 20th inst., Lord Robert Cecil's letter in reply to mine, which appeared on the 18th inst. As his letter contains a reflection on my action in publishing extracts from the late Lord Salisbury's letters to me, I hope you will allow me to make an explanation.