Canada and the States

by Sir E. W. Watkin

Let me give some illustrations. Before we began the, finally successful, movement for the Intercolonial Railway, the confederation of the Provinces of North America, and the final completion of a railway binding the coasts of the Atlantic and Pacific together, the Right Hon. C. B. Adderley, M.P., wrote a "letter to the Right Hon. B. Disraeli, M.P., on the present relations of England with the Colonies." It was a skinflint document, and here are a couple of quotations:—

Page 57.—"I would have the Canadian Government, in the right time and manner, informed that after a. certain date, unless war were going on, they would have to provide for their own garrisons, as well as all their requisite peace establishments, as they might deem fit; and that they should be prepared to hold their own in case of foreign attack, at least till the forces of the Empire could come to their aid."

Page 50.—"Let Canada, however, by all means look to England in the hour of peril also; but if the sight of English red-coats, at all times, has become a needful support of Canadian confidence, and English pay has ceased to be resented as a symptom of dependence, we must bow humbly under the conviction that Canada is no longer inhabited by men like those who conquered her."

Then I must quote my revered friend, Mr. Cobden, who, addressing his relative, Colonel Cole (at one time administrator of New Brunswick), on the 20th March, 1865, only thirteen days before his ever-to-be-lamented death, wrote about Canada: "We are two peoples to all intents and purposes, and it is a perilous delusion to both parties to attempt to keep up a sham connection and dependence, which will snap asunder if it should ever be put to the strain of stem reality. It is all very well for our cockney newspapers to talk of defending Canada at all hazards. It would be just as possible for the United States to sustain Yorkshire in a war with England as for us to enable Canada to contend against the United States. It is simply an impossibility. We must not forget that the only serious danger of a quarrel between these two neighbours arises from the connection of Canada with this country. In my opinion it is for the interest of both that we should, as speedily as possible, sever the political thread by which we are, as communities, connected, and leave the individuals on both sides to cultivate the relations of commerce and friendly intercourse as with other nations." … "There is, I think, an inherent weakness in the parody of our old English constitution, which is performed on the miniature scenes of the Colonial capitals, with their speeches from the throne, votes of confidence, appeals to the country, changes of ministry, &c., and all about such trumpery issues that the game at last becomes ridiculous in the eyes of both spectators and actors."

Speaking in the House of Commons on the second reading of the British North America Bill, in 1867, Mr. Bright said: "Is this new State—or this new nation, as I think Lord Monck described it—to be raised up under the authority of an Act of Parliament—is everything to be done for it? Is it intended to garrison its fortresses by English troops? At present there are, I believe, in the Province 12,000 or 15,000 men. There are persons in this country, and there are some also in the North American Provinces, who are ill-natured enough to say that not a little of the loyalty that is said to prevail in Canada has its price. I think it is natural and reasonable to hope that there is in that country a very strong attachment to this country. But if they are constantly to be applying to us for guarantees for railways, and for fortresses, and for works of defence; if everything is to be given to a nation independent in everything except Lord Monck and his successors, and except in the contributions we make for these public objects, then I think it would be far better for them, and for us—cheaper for us, and less demoralising for them—that they should become an independent State, and maintain their own fortresses, fight their own cause, and build up their own future, without relying upon us. And when we know, as everybody knows, that the population of Canada, family for family, is in a much better position as regards the comforts of home than family for family are in the great bulk of the population of this country—I say the time has come when it ought to be clearly understood that the taxes of England are no longer to go across the ocean to defray expenses of any kind within the confederation which is about to be formed. The Right Honorable gentleman the Under-Secretary of the Colonies (Mr. Adderley) has never been an advocate for great expenditure in the Colonies by the Mother Country. On the contrary, he has been one of the members of this House who have distinguished themselves by what I will call an honest system to the Mother Country, and what I believe is a wise system to the Colonies. But I think that when a measure of this kind is being passed, having such stupendous results upon the population of these great Colonies, we have a right to ask that there should be some consideration for the Revenue and for the taxpayers of this country."

In speaking on the Canada Railway Loan Bill in the House on the 28th March, 1867, Mr. Gladstone, alluding to Canada, said: "We have carried it to this point, that as far as regards the Administration, I believe it may be said that the only officer appointed by the Colonial Secretary is the Governor; and I believe there cannot be a doubt that if it were the well-ascertained desire of the Colonies to have the appointment of their own Governor, the Imperial Parliament would at once make over to them that power."

I may, perhaps without presumption, here add two short speeches of mine in the House of Commons: one, in reply to Mr. Bright in the discussion on the Confederation, or British North America Bill, on the 28th February, 1867; the other, in reply to Mr. Lowe, on the Canada Loan Bill, on the 28th March, 1867.

Language affecting the relations between the Mother Country and the Colonies, such as I have quoted, does infinite mischief—more mischief than those who do not mix with the people can understand. It is as bad in its consequences as the unfortunate policy of Mr. Gladstone: the "Majuba Hill" policy.

[Hansard, vol. 185, page 1187, Feb. 28, 1867.]

"Mr. Watkin said he fully concurred in the statement of the right hon. gentleman (Sir John Pakington), that the House of Representatives and the Senate of Nova Scotia had approved the scheme of Confederation. The representative body approved it in 1861—not 1862, as the right hon. gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty had stated.