« НазадПродовжити »
the Union of British North America, Government felt strongly that it was and to the assent thereto of Nova entitled to compensation for its losses Scotia and New Brunswick, and have owing to the Fenian raids, and the consequently agreed that provision Imperial Government, there is reason should be made for its immediate con- to believe, shared that opinion. It struction by the Government of was, however, found impossible to Canada, therefore,' &c., &c. What is obtain redress from the United States, said of the Pacific Railway, and of and even if England had admitted her the indemnity for the non-performance own liability-a very improbable conof the treaty is, that they are too tingency—it would have been a matlikely, in the opinion of many, to fur- ter of considerable difficulty, and nish another illustration of the ex- would have involved a great deal of pensiveness of the Imperial connec- expense and irritation to have estion.' In reply to my distinct and tablished a fixed amount of compensapositive assertion that the Imperial tion in money. It happened that, at Government was in no sense whatever the very time, when the sanction of responsible for either of the public the Treaty of Washington was under works in question, Mr. Goldwin consideration, Canada, without any Smith rejoins : The Imperial charac- consultation with the Imperial Govter of the two works will scarcely be ernment, agreed with British Columbia disputed when each has received an to construct the Pacific Railway, and Imperial guarantee,' and 'ne adds that as that work was likely to require a • both of them are rather political and large expenditure it was suggested by military than commercial.' So, in the the Canadian Government that an opinion of Mr. Goldwin Smith, it is Imperial guarantee for part of it consistent with propriety and fairness would be a satisfactory equivalent for to represent to the Canadian people the Fenian compensation claim and that they have been led by Imperial the fortification guarantee. I submit influence to undertake what he repre- that the foregoing statement of facts sents as unnecessary public works, be- is a complete refutation of Mr. Goldcause, at the urgent solicitation of the win Smith's charge against the ImpeCanadian Government, the Imperial rial Government with reference to the Government had the generosity to Pacific Railway give it a guarantee, and thus to enable Mr. Goldwin Smith has referred in it to raise money on more advantage- the following words to another inous terms than it could otherwise have stance of the disastrous results of done. I may observe, with regard to British connection. The annexation the Pacific Railway that it is not of Manitoba and of British Columbia istrictly correct to describe the Impe- to Canada—with which the latter, at rial guarantee as given to that work. all events, has no geographical conThere is no ground for supposing that nection—is by some thought to have an application for a guarantee for that been a disastrous, by all allowed to work on its merits would have been have been a most critical, step. It granted. The guarantee was given was taken under the auspices of the expressly on two grounds, 1st, on the late Lord Lytton, a brilliant and procondition that Canada abandoned her lific novelist, brought into the Gove claim to a guarantee promised some vernment to make set speeches.' I years previously for the erection of
pointed out, in my former article, that fortifications, and, 2nd, as a compensa- Lord Lytton was in no sense respontion for losses incurred by Canada in sible for either of the measures rerepelling the Fenian invasions. It ferred to, and Mr. Goldwin Smith was my duty to state the case, in 1872, admits in his rejoinder that his exin my budget speech. The Canadian pression was perhaps not so precise
as it ought to have been, but I meant to refer to the origin, not to the legislative consummation, of the scheme. What Mr. Goldwin Smith clearly meant, both first and last, was to fasten upon the Imperial Government the responsibility for two measures, which ‘some,' including, it is to be inferred, himself, are of opinion were disastrous' to Canada, while all admit them to have been critical.' I affirm that in both cases the charge is
tion. Lord Lytton is no more responsible for either of those measures than Mr. Goldwin Smith himself. The Imperial Government, at the solicitation of Canada, lent its valuable assistance in obtaining the surrender of its territorial rights in the North-West from the Hudson's Bay Co. Lord Lytton was Secretary of State for the Colonies in 1858-9, eight years before the enactment of the British North America Act, which contained a provision for the admission of the Colony of British Columbia into the Confederation on such terms and conditions as might be agreed to by the respective Legislatures. AfterConfederation some three years elapsed before the commencement of negotiations, and it was actually eleven years after Lord Lytton had ceased to be Secretary of State, before those negotiations took place, which resulted in an agreement, which, having been approved of by the respective parties, was, in accordance with addresses from the Senate and House of Commons of Canada and the Legislative Council of British Columbia, contirmed by an order of the Queen in Council. My chief object being to establish the unfairness of Mr. Goldwin Smith's charges against the Imperial Government, I am not called on to defend the policy of the Canadian Government and Parliament. It is sufficient that they alone are responsible to the Canadian people, and that if their policy has been a disastrous one, the onus does not lie on British Connection. I
may, however, remark that if I entertained Mr. Goldwin Smith's opinion that the manifest destiny of Canada is absorption in the United States, I might possibly concur in his opinion that British Columbia had been acquired at too great a cost to the older Provinces. Holding a different opinion, I maintain that it was sound policy to consolidate the British possessions in North America under one Government. I shall content myself with simply expressing my dissent from Mr. Goldwin Smith's allegation that Colonial Secretaries are called upon without knowledge or with only the knowledge picked up from Under Secretaries or Colonial frequenters of the office, to decide upon measures vital to the welfare of young nations. I assume, of course, that Canada is one of the 'young nations,' otherwise the remark would have no bearing on the subject, and Canada has had nothing to complain of for many years in the conduct of Imperial Secretaries of State. I had specified in my former article three inconsistencies which I thought might fairly be imputed to Mr. Goldwin Smith. The first had reference to his statement regarding the government of dependencies. In dealing with these statements which, in his rejoinder, he designates as • three distinct statements,' I must observe that they were all made in support of the proposition that the subsisting connection between Great Britain and Canada is disadvantageous to the latter. It is for Mr. Goldwin Smith to explain his object in dwelling at some length in his original article on the 'tutelage of the Mother Country.' I have carefully read his original remarks, and I can draw no other inference from them than that they were intended to support his charge against the Imperial Government of blundering, jobbery and mischief of all kinds.' I thought and continue to think that there is a manifest inconsistency between that portion of his article, and another part,
in which, in a wholly different connection but still with the same object in view, he accounts for Canada not having yet thrown off her allegiance like the American dependencies of Spain, Portugal, France and Holland on the ground of the reduction of Imperial Supremacy to a form '-Mr. Goldwin Smith's articles are an impeachment of the Imperial Government and yet he admits that 'self-government is independence; perfect self-government is perfect independence, and all the questions that arise between Ottawa and Downing St., including the recent question about appeals are successively settled in favour of self-government.' I do not imagine that there would be any difference of opinion among Canadians as to the correctness of the * three distinct statements,' 1st, that political tutelage, while it was really exercised, was an evil.' 2nd, that * to exercise it now would be absurd,' and 3rd, that 'through successive concessions to the principle of self-government political tutelage has been tending to extinction.' I would myself go further, and in accordance with Mr. Goldwin Smith's own language, would maintain that it is extinct. I must add that I have a right to complain of the allegation that each of these statements is unpalatable to Sir Francis Hincks.' It happens, owing to my having survived nearly all of my contemporaries, who were engaged with me in the old conflicts of the past, that there is no man now living, who took as prominent a part, as I did, in putting an end to that political tute. lage, which I am charged with favouring, and yet elsewhere Mr. Goldwin Smith remarks that “it is trying to patience to see men who have spent half their public lives in reducing the power of the Crown to a shadow turn round and denounce us as traitors, because we cannot take the shadow for a substance.' If I am one of those pointed at, as I can scarcely doubt, I deny that I have desired to reduce the power of the Crown or of its repre
sentative, to a shadow. I believe it to be most desirable in the interest of the Canadian people that the GovernorGeneral should exercise precisely the same constitutional prerogatives as the Sovereign. The second inconsistency that I charged against Mr. Goldwin Smith was that he maintained that there were 'no questions great enough to divide parties in Canada, while he mentioned in his article questions quite important enough 'to form dividing lines.' His rejoinder is that · Protection can hardly be called a political question at all,' because in Canada as in the United States the line of division between Protectionists and Free Traders crosses the line of division between political parties,' the meaning of which must be that there are some stronger lines of division between parties than Free Trade and Protection. This, if true, certainly does not strengthen Mr. Goldwin Smith's position that there are no questions on which parties can be formed. I know no difference between parliamentary and party government, and, therefore, I cannot admit that it is unfair to substitute one term for the other. If there were no political question of sufficient importance to divide parties there would be a difference of opinion in the House of Commons as to the best men to be charged with the administration of the government. Mr. Goldwin Smith is of opinion that the English system can have no place in Canada because 'a balance of power between estates is impossible where there is no estate but the Commons,' and again reason enough for the existence of party is supplied by the conflict still undecided between aristocracy and democracy.' I consider such views quite incorrect. The English system is not a balance of power between estates, but just what our own is, an administration enjoying the confidence of the representative branch of the legislature. Again, the contest in England is not, as more than once alleged by Mr. Goldwin Smith, a conflict between aristocracy and democracy. Even before the passage of the first reform bill such a representation would not have been correct, but in the present state of the parliamentary representation it conveys an utterly false impression. Parties in England are not divided into aristocrats and democrats, but each of the great parties embraces aristocrats and members of the middle and industrial classes. Several leaders of what is termed the aristocratic class, notably the Premier and the Lord Chancellor, are men who have sprung from the people, and who owe their peerages to their own abilities, while the leader of the opposition is a member of the aristocratic family of Cavendish and heir apparent to the Duke of Devonshire.
But Mr. Goldwin Smith has him. self declared in his original article that · England is the vast and motley mass of voters including, since the Conservative Reform bill, the most uneducated populace of the towns, people who in politics do not know their right hand from their left ; who cannot tell the name of the leader of their own party; who vote for blue or yellow, and are led by senseless local cries, by bribery or by beer.' The object of this not very flattering description of the English electors was to convince the people of Canada that the representatives of such people, as those described, were not well fitted to govern them, but in his later essay he maintains that the English system is a balance of power between estates, and that party is a conflict between aristocracy and democracy. Because I have admitted the absolute necessity of party under a system of parliamentary government, Mr. Goldwin Smith asks me 'why I pride myself upon being unconnected with either party, after having tried both, if party in this country is a good thing.' In another page he describes me as “a Conservative and a Free Trader” I can reply without any difficulty. I presume that there is some period of life and some length of ser
vice which entitle a man to claim exemption from further duty. After a public service of nearly forty years I ventured to think that I might claim such exemption; but I do not feel it incumbent on me to bind myself to a party, whose policy I have no means of influencing. Mr. Goldwin Smith and I are at direct issue on the subject of parties, or, as he chooses to style them, adopting the more offensive designation, factions. I believe that both parties are desirous of promoting the best interests of Canada, not less certainly than the Nationalists or Canada First party, if that party be still in existence. I never could discover the raison d'être of that party because I have never had reason to doubt that the interest of Canada was the paramount object of all those who have taken part in our public affairs. I believe in the applicability of Lord John Russell's defence of party which Mr. Goldwin Smith considers to be wholly inapplicable to Canada, though not to a country in wbich parties have a meaning · Political divisions and contested elections are the workshop of national liberty and national prosperity. My third charge of inconsistency had reference to the account given by Mr. Goldwin Smith of the different sentiments of different sections of the population, national and religious. In considering this subject, the object of the author must be kept steadily in view. He declared that 'in attempting to cast the political horoscope of Canada,' in other words to establish his position that annexation to the United States was her manifest destiny, the first thing to be remembered is that Canada was a colony, not of England, but France.' "The people (or rather the French Canadians) are governed by the priest with the occasional assistance of the notary.' There is ‘unabated antagonism between the two races and the two religions.' The Jesuits are in the ascendancy, and it is by no means certain that they will not prefer a junction with their main army
in the United States. After thus disposing of the estimated million of French Canadians, 400,000 Irish Catholics are thrown into the scale and 1,400,000 deducted from the total population of four millions 'to reduce to reality the pictures of universal de. votion to England and English interests which are presented by the speeches of official persons.' I ventured to point out what seemed an inconsistency between these statements and a subsequent one, when in enumerating the secondary forces which make in favour of the present connection, Mr. Goldwin Smith led off with the reactionary tendencies of the priesthood which rules French Canada.' I am now told that there is no inconsistency in saying that the priesthood of Quebec is opposed to union with the States from motives of sacerdotal Conservatism, and, at the same time, that the French population of the Province is not devoted to England and English interests.' I am not anxious to press the charge of inconsistency but I would be glad to learn, what I have failed to gather from the rejoinder, whether the French Canadian and the Irish population of Quebec is or is not, in Mr. Goldwin Smith's opinion, favourable to union with the United States. That is the practical question, and I have myself no hesitation in affirming that there is no class of our mixed population more averse to the absorption of Canada in the United States than the French Canadians.
Mr. Goldwin Smith has evidently misunderstood my remarks on the subject of 'erroneous reasoning.' This may be my own fault, but if so, further explanation is the more necessary. I disclaim applying the term reasoning' to the expression of opinions in which I do not concur. I had special reference to the conclusions drawn from the alleged operations of the great and secondary forces. The first of the great forces is distance ;' and it is argued that political insti
tutions must after all bear some relation to nature and to practical convenience. Few have fought against geography and prevailed.' In further illustration it is said that distance
can hardly be much shortened for the purposes of representative government.' I stated that I failed to comprehend this objection and that no inconvenience had yet been felt owing to our distance from England. I find nothing in the rejoinder to explain what is meant by purposes of representative government. The second of the great forces is divergence of interest,' and was mainly supported by allegations that Great Britain had neglected the interests of Canada and yielded to the demands of the United States, when treaties were negotiated. I pointed out, in my former article, that as a rule all treaties are attacked by the Opposition of the day; and I am informed in the rejoinder, that in the case of the Oregon Treaty it was not from the opposition in England but from the Canadians that the complaints
The Canadians, I admit, would have preferred getting more territory, but there is no reason to doubt that the British diplomatists did all in their power to protect the national interests. It would most assuredly have been against the interests of Canada for Great Britain to have gone to war with the United States, as it is implied she would have done, had her own interests been at stake, on any of the questions which were solved by the treaties complained of. Mr. Goldwin Smith appears to me to be inconsistent on the subject of war.
He complains of treaties, by which there have been surrenders of territory, for the sake of peace, and yet he expresses great apprehension as to Canada being involved in
war owing to the influence of the aristocracy, which has
twice within two years brought Canada to the verge of war.' War, he says, is not only the game of aristocracies' but their natural policy,' while the England of the people will never