get us into any war at all.'

Reference

is made elsewhere to the war against the French Republic, the war of 1812 with the United States, and the Lorcha war with China, which was voted unjust by the House of Commons.' I admit that the wars referred to 'are not regarded by all Englishmen as just,' but I believe that the wars with France towards the end of the last, and the beginning of the present century were deemed by the great majority of the nation necessary for its self-preservation. The war of 1812 was declared, not by England, but by the United States, and was strongly opposed by the most enlightened portion of the population of that country, notably by that of New England. The war with China, though voted unjust by the House of Commons,' was approved of by the nation on a dissolution, on which occasion Mr. Bright was rejected by Manchester. What strikes me as extraordinary is, that while throughout the article Mr. Goldwin Smith exhibits a decided leaning in favour of the peaceat-any-price party, he should, nevertheless, endeavour to make Canadians dissatisfied with treaties, by which, in order to preserve peace, territory was surrendered, to which Great Britain and Canada believed they had a good title. I may remark that these treaties were based upon mutual concessions of claims, and that the United States, it may fairly be supposed, believed their case to be as good as Great Britain and Canada believed theirs to be. Under this head of divergence of interest,' reference is made to the 'economic interests' of Canada, a subject which I shall notice elsewhere.

The third great force, more momentous than even the divergence of interest, is the divergence of political character.' It is alleged that there is an antagonism between the aristocracy, hierarchy, and militarism of old-world England and democratic Canada. We are reminded that, nearly a century ago, Mr. Pitt contemplated establishing a Canadian peerage, and that he did lay

the foundation of an endowed Church; but no peerage ever saw the light in Canada; the Church lands have been secularized, the University once confined to Anglicanism has been thrown open.' Unfortunately for the argument, the chief difficulty in the way of carrying into effect the wishes of the people, both in regard to the Clergy Reserves and the University endowment, arose, not in aristocratic England, but in democratic Canada. In a pamphlet which I published some years ago, I stated that from the year 1828 the responsible advisers of the Crown in England seem to have been desirous of complying with the clearly expressed wishes of the Canadian people.' In 1831, Secretary Lord Goderich not only declared the entire concurrence of His Majesty's Government in the views of the Assembly, but sent to the LieutenantGovernor a draft message and draft bill, which latter he suggested should be introduced by the Attorney-General.' The object of that bill was to reinvest the Reserves in the Crown, discharged of all trusts, a simple but effectual measure of secularization. The opposition of powerful parties in Canada was too great for the Secretary of State. Mr. Goldwin Smith is of opinion that 'to keep the same political roof over the heads of British aristocracy and Canadian democracy would be an undertaking only one degree less hopeless than to keep the same political roof over the heads of slavery and aristocracy.' If this is sound reasoning, I fail to comprehend the meaning of the term. What analogy, I would ask, is there between a State with a large slave population, governed by the owners of those slaves, and Canada, enjoying, to use Mr. Goldwin Smith's own words, 'perfect self-government,' the people exercising all the rights of freemen, with a liberal elective franchise and vote by ballot?

The fourth great force, 'sure in the end to be attractive and not repulsive,' is the identity of race, language,

and general institutions in the United States for the British population, and for the French portion its connection with the Catholic Church of the States. The same reference is made under this head to Economic influences,' as under the second head. I had admitted that if it were practicable the abolition of the frontier custom-houses would be beneficial to both countries,' as would be acknowledged by any one who has travelled on the European continent and experienced the much greater inconvenience to which people are subjected at the custom-houses there. I did not feel it necessary to discuss the subject in connection with Mr. Goldwin Smith's article, although I might have pointed out the unfairness of the statement that Canada is excluded from the United States market

as a dependency of England.' She is excluded simply because she is not an integral part of the United States. If Canada were united to the Republic, she would doubtless have certain commercial advantages, which would be more than counterbalanced by her having to submit to the tariff of the United States, the most oppressive in the civilized world. I am told that I have covered my retreat by 'an irrelevant appeal to the prejudice against American character and insti tutions.' I did not say a word against American character, nor did I make any appeal to prejudice, but I stated that hitherto the effect of discussing measures of commercial policy with the United States has not been either to induce Canadians to admire the institutions of their neighbours or to be attracted towards them in any way.' I confess to having a decided preference for the British system of government, which Canada enjoys, over that of the United States; but I think that the weakness of the latter is particularly felt in negotiations with Foreign Powers. My remark was, in my judgment, perfectly relevant to the subject under discussion.

Mr. Goldwin Smith is unable to dis

cover any force whatever in what I termed 'the greatest force of all,' viz.: 'the reluctance of the people of any country to engage in revolutionary proceedings;' and in answer to my statement, that I was unaware of any political revolution involving a change of allegiance having taken place without a civil war, he rejoins that 'the history of Europe is full of changes of allegiance without civil war by cession, exchange, purchase, marriage of heiresses, division of inheritance. In our own time Neufchatel, the Ionian Islands, Savoy, Nice, Alaska, the Transvaal and Cyprus have changed their allegiance without civil war.'

Mr.

Goldwin Smith has convinced me that he is unable to refute my assertion. Not a single case that he has mentioned bears the slightest analogy to that of Canada, nor is there any reason among those that he has assigned that is possible in our case, unless, in making his forecast of the future, he should predict that Great Britain is likely to cede Canada to the United States for a money or other consideration. In such a contingency, I might concede that resistance on the part of Canada would be vain, but I do not believe that even Mr. Goldwin Smith imagines such a mode of annexation probable. I willingly concede, likewise, what Mr. Goldwin Smith seems to think a strong point in favour of his position, viz., that England, in case of a quarrel with Canada, would not resort to coercive measures, such as she did adopt in the case of the United States. I had no reference whatever to English coercion, and I do not think I could better illustrate my argument than by citing the case of the revolution of the United States, which Mr. Goldwin Smith says I had in my mind, though he evidently thought it right to warn me not to overlook the teachings of experience.' Unfortunately I am at issue with Mr. Goldwin Smith as to facts. He alleges that his great forces, viz., 'distance, divergence of political character, and

divergence of interest, operating in the past, have led, in the case of the United States, to a complete political separation from the mother country.' Elsewhere he alleges that the American colonies were ripe for independence,' and that to keep a full-grown community in the leading strings of dependence was a struggle against nature.' I deny the correctness of these statements. The American colonies preserved their loyalty unimpaired until, owing to what is now universally admitted to have been a gross blunder, they were taxed by a Parliament in which they were unrepresented. The cry was raised 'taxation without representation is tyranny,' and resistance to taxation was met by the cry of rebellion, and, although with great reluctance on the part of the Colonists, hostilities were commenced. Admitting, as I do, that all speculations on the subject are unprofitable, I have no doubt in my own mind that, if the mother country had acted towards the old colonies as she has been acting towards her dependencies in modern times, there would have been no separation without civil war. No one can judge by the feelings of American citizens in our time of what they would have been, if no cause of complaint had been given. The revolutionary war of course caused intense bitterness of feeling, and before that had time to subside the war of 1812 renewed it, and in later times the irritation has been intensified by the events consequent on the civil

war.

It is impossible to form an idea of what the feeling would have been under wholly different circumstances. Mr. Goldwin Smith imputes to me an opinion that it is 'contrary to principle to allow a British colony to take out its freedom as a nation, without bloodshed.' This is not a fair way of putting the case. My contention is, first, that we have our freedom, 'perfect independence,' in Mr. Goldwin Smith's own words, and, secondly, that the Canadian people do not de

sire change, and that those who prefer republican institutions will find it more profitable to emigrate to the other side of the lines, than to resort to force to compel their neighbours to adopt their principles. Mr. Goldwin Smith is candid enough to declare that 'there is not a man in the Dominion to whom, individually, it matters less what course political events may take than it does to me.' This reminds me of the old fable of the fox that, having lost his tail, wished to persuade other foxes to part with that appendage. Those who feel no interest whatever in the country are scarcely likely to be the best advisers of others. I reiterate my assertion that I am unaware of any case in which a political revolution has taken place without civil war, and I regard the reference to such cases as the Ionian Islands, Alaska and Cyprus as trifling with the subject. With regard to the 'secondary forces,' to his enumeration of which Mr. Goldwin Smith says that I take no serious exception, I may remark that I could take no exception to an admission that nearly all the elements of our population were Conservative as to the connection. Finding that the French Canadians, United Empire Loyalists, English immigrants, Anglican Church, Orangemen, those hostile to the Americans, and the politicians were all specified, I saw no reason why the Scotch should not be added to the list, being of opinion that they are just as loyal as the English; but I did not mean to imply that they desired to act separately. I have a few remarks to offer in reply to the rejoinder to the introductory remarks in my former article with reference to a sermon preached in Montreal on St. George's Day, by a much respected clergyman of the Church of England. Admitting, as he could not fail to do, that the preacher is personally entitled to the highest respect, Mr. Goldwin Smith takes exception to my statement that he is fairly entitled to be considered

impartial, and he makes a general charge against the clergy of the Church of England, of having taken an active part in all the great attempts to overthrow English liberty.' In Canada 'it longs to bring back the new world under salutary bondage to the old world.' This is not the only place in which the Essayist has imputed a political bias to the clergy of the Church of England. Admitting, as I do, that in the earlier part of the present century, the clergy of the Church of England took a considerable interest in party politics owing to the questions of the Clergy Reserves, Rectories, and University endowment, having been those on which political parties were divided, I am bound to state that in the present day, as far as my observation extends, there is no body of clergy in the Dominion that abstains more scrupulously from taking part in political controversies than the Anglican.

It is hardly necessary for me to say much regarding Orangeism. Believing that that organization has no raison d'être in Canada, I lament its existence, but I cannot ignore the fact that it does exist; and although I am not so sanguine as Mr. Goldwin Smith that it is likely to become extinct either in Ireland or Canada, I feel assured that those who hold the sentiments of the members of the order, will be found ranged on the side of British Connection, should an emergency arise.

Mr. Goldwin Smith in his rejoinder to my criticism, on his remarks on the faineancy of the Earl of Dufferin, says that he did not arraign the decision of the Governor-General in the case of the Pacific Railway investigation,' and that therefore, I need not have introduced that topic. What Mr. Goldwin Smith alleged in his first paper, and repeats in his rejoinder was, that the Governor-General's decision amounted to a total abnegation of real power, in other words to a declaration of faineancy.' His object clearly was to establish the de

fective character of our constitutional system. There were wide differences of opinion as to Lord Dufferin's conduct, during what may be termed the crisis of 1873. It would be most unprofitable to discuss the subject on its merits, and especially, as the point in controversy with Mr Goldwin Smith, is not whether Lord Dufferin was right or wrong in his decision, but whether he had formed any opinion at all, or acted as a mere faineant. It is incomprehensible to me, how any one can read Lord Dufferin's despatches of 15th and 18th August, 1873, and arrive at any other conclusion than that he had given a careful consideration to the question before him for solution, and that he had acted in accordance with his deliberate judgment. That evidently was the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, which informed him in reply that they fully approve your having acted in these matters in accordance with Constitutional usage.'

I dissent altogether from Mr. Goldwin Smith's opinion as to aristocratic influence, and especially as to any idea being entertained of fostering aristocratic sentiment, since the Conservative reaction in England. Mr. Goldwin Smith alleges that there has been a sudden lavishness' after a period of parsimony, in the distribution of titles. I fail to comprehend this assertion.

6

It has been the practice of the Imperial Government to reward meritorious public services by titles of distinction. Such services as the promotion of Confederation, the settlement of the Fishery question, and the defence of the country in the case of the Fenian invasion, were deemed public services of a meritorious character, and have been rewarded from time to time during the last twelve years; but Mr. Goldwin Smith seems to think that they have been the result of some secret policy hostile to the Canadian democracy.

I am not aware that I have charged Mr. Goldwin Smith with having solicited the co-operation of members of

the House of Commons in support of his views, and I certainly did not mean to do so. My reference was to his writings, and I can hardly be mistaken as to his advocacy of nationalism, until he became convinced that it was 6 a lost cause.' He has since arrived at the conclusion that union with the United States is 'morally certain;' but he does not intend to take any active part in promoting it ; indeed he admits that when at one time inclined to enter public life, I found party politics in the way and at once gave up the idea.' Elsewhere he admits that the party leaders have such an influ ence over public opinion, that there would be no possibility of a 'self-nominated candidate,' being permitted to go before the people with an issue of his own.' The inference which will, I think, be generally drawn is, that public opinion is set very strongly against the issue, which Mr. Goldwin Smith has attempted to raise, and which he has endeavoured to persuade the people of Canada is morally certain of accomplishment.'

Mr. Goldwin Smith has not only done me the honour, which I highly appreciate, of publishing my article along with his own, but has likewise published articles written by the Right Hon. Robert Lowe and Lord Blachford. Mr. Lowe is of opinion that such colonies as Canada are a burthen to the Mother Country, and it may be inferred that he would not object to their separation and independence. I am by no means certain that those Englishmen who concur in Mr. Lowe's views, would

be equally satisfied with the an

nexation of Canada to the United States. In an article to which Mr. Goldwin Smith has referred, which appeared in the Nineteenth Century, I expressed an opinion, which I hold very strongly, that the inevitable consequence of the disruption of the connection with Great Britain would be union, on some terms, with the United States. Those particular remarks

were copied, as I did not fail to notice, by some United States papers, unaccompanied by what I urged in support of the existing connection. I concur with Mr. Lowe in his opinion that the self-governing colonies have by far the best of the bargain, although I do not believe that Great Britain, while saving those colonies a vast deal of expense, is put to much, if any, on their account. If Great Britain, under the influence of opinions similar to those of Mr. Lowe, were voluntarily to dissolve the connection we should necessarily have to submit; but I cannot discover the least indication that such opinions are likely to prevail. As I have more than once pointed out with reference to Canadian nationalism and schemes of annexation, the true test of public opinion is the action of the representatives of the people in Parliament, and so long as the advocates of such measures confine themselves to essays in periodicals, I shall feel no uneasiness on the subject. Lord Blachford's article was written in condemnation of the Pan-Britannic system, regarding which Mr. Goldwin Smith's views are in unison with his Lordship's and my own. Lord Blachford, I am persuaded, is not in favour of any change in the subsisting relations, but having to deal with the argument that Imperial federation was the best remedy for an alleged unsatisfactory Colonial system, he accepted the alternative that the Colonies must become independent nations.' I have no idea that he would contemplate with satisfaction the annexation of Canada to the United States. Goldwin Smith, in reference to my former article observes, that his readers will see at the same time what points and arguments he has passed over in silence, and thus measure the strength of his resolution to deal fully and fairly with the whole question.' I venture to claim from the readers of these remarks, the credit of having tried at least to deal fully and fairly

Mr.