6

the Union of British North America, and to the assent thereto of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and have consequently agreed that provision should be made for its immediate construction by the Government of Canada, therefore,' &c., &c. What is said of the Pacific Railway, and of the indemnity for the non-performance of the treaty is, that they are too likely, in the opinion of many, to furnish another illustration of the expensiveness of the Imperial connection.' In reply to my distinct and positive assertion that the Imperial Government was in no sense whatever responsible for either of the public works in question, Mr. Goldwin Smith rejoins: The Imperial character of the two works will scarcely be disputed when each has received an Imperial guarantee,' and he adds that both of them are rather political and military than commercial. So, in the opinion of Mr. Goldwin Smith, it is consistent with propriety and fairness to represent to the Canadian people that they have been led by Imperial influence' to undertake what he represents as unnecessary public works, because, at the urgent solicitation of the Canadian Government, the Imperial Government had the generosity to give it a guarantee, and thus to enable it to raise money on more advantageous terms than it could otherwise have done. I may observe, with regard to the Pacific Railway that it is not strictly correct to describe the Imperial guarantee as given to that work. There is no ground for supposing that an application for a guarantee for that work on its merits would have been granted. The guarantee was given expressly on two grounds, 1st, on the condition that Canada abandoned her claim to a guarantee promised some years previously for the erection of fortifications, and, 2nd, as a compensation for losses incurred by Canada in repelling the Fenian invasions. was my duty to state the case, in 1872, in my budget speech. The Canadian

It

Government felt strongly that it was entitled to compensation for its losses owing to the Fenian raids, and the Imperial Government, there is reason to believe, shared that opinion. It was, however, found impossible to obtain redress from the United States, and even if England had admitted her own liability-a very improbable contingency-it would have been a matter of considerable difficulty, and would have involved a great deal of expense and irritation to have established a fixed amount of compensation in money. It happened that, at the very time, when the sanetion of the Treaty of Washington was under consideration, Canada, without any consultation with the Imperial Government, agreed with British Columbia to construct the Pacific Railway, and as that work was likely to require a large expenditure it was suggested by the Canadian Government that an Imperial guarantee for part of it would be a satisfactory equivalent for the Fenian compensation claim and the fortification guarantee. I submit that the foregoing statement of facts is a complete refutation of Mr. Goldwin Smith's charge against the Imperial Government with reference to the Pacific Railway.

Mr. Goldwin Smith has referred in the following words to another instance of the disastrous results of British connection. 'The annexation of Manitoba and of British Columbia to Canada-with which the latter, at all events, has no geographical connection-is by some thought to have been a disastrous, by all allowed to have been a most critical, step. It was taken under the auspices of the late Lord Lytton, a brilliant and prolific novelist, brought into the Govvernment to make set speeches.' I pointed out, in my former article, that Lord Lytton was in no sense responsible for either of the measures referred to, and Mr. Goldwin Smith admits in his rejoinder that his expression 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 without even the shadow of foundation. 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. After Confederation 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, confirmed 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

6

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 tutelage, 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 ar

6

istocracy 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 himself 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

6

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 which 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 devotion 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 hesi tation 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 'erroneous 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 came. 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. 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

He