By no

unfair to British taxpayers. Mr. Thos. Cave, member for Barnstaple, denounced the whole thing as 'a colossal job,' and, with reference to Mr. Adderley's remark that the proposed Railway would render Canada entirely independent of the United States (not a very acute remark, it must be confessed) said that he did not see what interest England could have 'in so entirely severing the Canadians from the United States. He thought the safety of that country consisted in friendly communication Iwith the United States.' Be this as it might, 'It would be better to have the whole onus of its defence thrown upon Canada itself. If, instead of giving £3,000,000 with a view of separating it from the United States, we were to give £10,000,000 to join and unite them it would be more patriotic.' Did these sentiments provoke a perfect storm of indignation in the House of Commons? means; nobody was moved to indignation at all, and Mr. Gladstone who followed did not think it necessary to do more than repel the insinuation of jobbery that Mr. Cave had (of course most unjustly) thrown out. As regards the significance to be attached to the proposed guarantee, he said (page 752) that, 'far from considering it as an expression of the will and readiness of any government of this country or of Parliament to undertake additional responsibility with respect to the ordinary work of the defence of the Province of Canada, he placed on it an exactly opposite construction, and, but for that opposite construction, he should find it impossible to justify the proposal now made. He looked on this guarantee as auxiliary to the great work of Confederation, the purpose of which was the development of the resources of the colonies, and, along with that, the gradual and speedy development of their self-reliance.' England had long occupied, he went on to say, a false position in regard to colonial defence,

shouldering our burdens and doing our thinking for us just as if these colonies • were not inhabited by an intelligent and free population.' The way to escape from this false position was to give a higher civil and political position to these communities themselves.' The only officer in the colonies appointed by the Colonial Secretary was the Governor; and Mr. Gladstone believed 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.' The British North America Act had been passed 'with a promptitude which, if it had been a measure affecting ourselves, would have been precipitancy.' This was, however, 'an acknowledgment of the title of these colonies to deal practically with their own affairs,' and it was hoped that the result would be 'the development along that great extent of territory of a stronger sense of political existence, more self-reliance and more self-reliant habits.' England had herself in the past weakened the selfreliance of the colonies by too visibly taking them under her protection; and the way to remedy that was now 'to raise their political position to the very highest point, in order that with that elevated position their sense of responsibility may also grow. The system of vicarious defence-the system of having the burden of its frontier defence borne by anotherenervates and depresses the tone of the country in which it prevails; and its withdrawal is necessary in order to bring the country to the full possession and enjoyment of freedom."

Then followed Mr. Lowe, now Lord Sherbrooke, who objected (page 760) to the guarantee precisely because it was represented as being auxiliary to Confederation.' The British North America Act had been passed with the expedition commented on by Mr. Gladstone, just because Parliament felt it was a matter with which it had

only the most formal concern; and that being the case, Mr. Lowe wholly failed to see why that measure should be followed by a pecuniary guarantee which was a matter, not of formal, but of real concern to the British people.

Such a guarantee, moreover, was calculated to teach Canadian colonists the very false lesson that England took a peculiar interest in the manner in which they chose to regulate their internal affairs and their relations with the United States. Now that we have given them self-government, let them manage their affairs their own way, and do not let us make ourselves responsible for the manner in which they regulate their internal or foreign relations. The management of our own affairs is quite sufficent for us, without mixing ourselves up in matters with which we have no concern, and over which we do not for a moment profess to exercise the slightest control.'

Now, what is my object in making these quotations? Simply to show how wide of the mark it is to pretend that there is anything in the relations subsisting between Canada and England to call for or justify the kind of 'loyalty' which Mr. Todd assumes to be burning in Canadian bosoms. The men who speak with the most authority in the British Parliament disclaim wholly the idea of any dependence of Canada upon Great Britain, and equally disclaim the idea that Great Britain is prepared to recognize such a relation of dependence on the part of this country. Mr. Gladstone touched the quick of the matter when, after saying that the Imperial Parliament would willingly allow the colonies to name their own Governors if they wished, he went on to observe that even more than this had already been granted in the liberty accorded to the colonies of taxing British goods. If there is one thing,' I quote the eminent statesman's own words, which we are entitled to insist upon as a limit to

6

colonial self-government, it is that British merchandise should enter these provinces on certain terms; but, instead of that, the assent of the Queen has been given to acts imposing duties of 10, 15, 20, and 25 per cent. upon products of English industry entering Canada.' This gives us the key of the whole situation. Colonies are planted for purposes of trade, and so long as they can be made subsidiary to the trade of the parent state, so long does the latter prize and value them. On the other hand, just as they begin to have separate interests of their own, and practically to consult those interests, does the interest which the parent state take in them dwindle, until it gets down to the point indicated in the debate of which the above are some of the most significant portions. For Canada to choose her own Governor-or, I suppose, for that matter, President-would be a small thing in the eyes of the present British premier, compared with taxing British goods, even as they were taxed in the year 1867. It should be remarked, too, that Hansard gives us no intimations of dissent upon the part of the House at large from any of the sentiments advanced, even from Mr. Thos. Cave's suggestion that it would be a good thing for England to pay us $50,000,000 to go and join the United States. The only statement that called forth cries of No!' 'No' was one that fell from Mr. Lowe, to the effect that, in creating the Confederation, England would be credited with trying to set up on this Continent a rival power to the United States. Upon this point honorable members were very anxious to clear themselves; but when Mr. Lowe asked what England had to do either with the internal affairs of Canada or with her foreign relations, there was no movement, no sensation, no interpellation, no expression of surprise. Let it be remembered, too, that this debate probably took place in the presence of the Canadian delegates who had been

sent to London to arrange the details of Confederation, and who had for months been doing their best to interest members of the government in the affairs of Canada. To what extent they had succeeded let the facts declare.

Will it be said that a change has since come over the feeling of the British public in regard to the colonies? If so, I should like to see some distinct evidence of it. The British public and British representative men would have to push want of interest and sympathy almost to the point of brutality if, in spite of the effusive character of Canadian loyalty, as officially and conventionally expressed, they absolutely refused us, on their part, any answering expressions. But where, I ask, are the signs that Great Britain desires any closer union with, or larger responsibility for, Canada now than she did at the time of that debate? Must we not conclude that as the causes which brought about the feeling then manifested have been in steady and progressive operation ever since, the indisposition of England to assume any responsibility for Canada of a nature to call forth loyalty on our part as its fitting return is greater today than at any previous period?

Is any one to blame for this? As well ask whether any one is to blame for the fact that the chicken that has learnt to take care of itself in the barn-yard ceases to cause solicitude to the old hen. As well ask who is to blame for the fact that the grown-up son founds a family of his own, and rules that family according to his own will and judgment. As well ask who is to blame because the ripe pear drops from the tree. Had things come to such a pass between Canada and England as they did between the thirteen American colonies and England, we might well ask who was to blame; for things could not get so far wrong without somebody being seriously to blame. But at present let us be thankful nobody is to blame. The course

of events, the healthy development of this country, has brought us where we are to-day; and let us be thankful that we are where we are, and that the sufficiency of Canada for the burdens and responsibilities of complete self-government have been recognized in so high a quarter as the Parliament at Westminster. For this, and nothing less than this, was the meaning of that debate; this, and nothing less than this, has been the thought expressed, tentatively and even furtively I grant, in so many articles in the London press, but particularly in The Times, during the last fifteen years, those articles which every one here assured us were so far from reflecting the sentiments of the British people, but which some of us none the less took to heart as precious indications of the duty that Canada had to face. I have said that nobody is to blame. Alas! I must retract that so far as to say that Canada has herself been a little to blame in being so slow to read the signs of the times, or to draw the lessons which practical men in England were drawing from the political and commercial development of these North-American colonies. What Mr. Gladstone said was quite true: 'England had been our nursing mother too long.' What Mr. Adderley said was quite true : 'There had been on our part a certain langour of dependence upon the Mother Country.' What Mr. Lowe said was quite true: 'England has nothing to do with controlling, or even representing, to the world a country the political system of which is so fully developed as that of Canada.' 'She is of age; let her speak for herself,' was the sentiment, if not the precise expression, of the acute member for Calne. We have been to blame in allowing the organ of a purely conventional opinion to persuade us that what meant everything meant nothing, and that what meant nothing-namely, the expressions of interest extorted from British politicians by our persistent and al

"

most pathetic 'loyalty'-meant everything.

However, there is not much harm done. To have moved too slowly in such a matter is better than to have moved too fast. There exist no impediments at the present moment to the most amicable and cordial relations between Canada and the Mother Country; only, what the latter desires, and is quite right in desiring, is that Canada shall offer, not her loyalty that is too muchbut her friendship as an independent state. To have on this Continent a nation bound to her by the strongest ties of sympathy and good will, a nation whose institutions would, in the main, be hers, and that would be disposed to throw whatever influence it could exert on the side of any reasonable claims she might make, would be a real and, one would judge, important advantage to Great Britain; while the knowledge that she could not be attacked on Canadian territory would take an immense burden and responsibility off her shoulders. Those who look favourably upon Canadian independence are sometimes asked what grievance they have against the Mother Country. We have no grievance; far from it, we feel that we have every reason to cherish the warmest feelings towards that country, and we do cherish such feelings. We hold (if I may venture to speak for many who I know share the views expressed in this article) that the public policy of England to-day is governed by higher moral standards than that of any other nation of the world. We consider our country fortunate in having learnt in the British school; and our hope is that when the people of Canada shall have relieved the Parent State of all responsibility on their behalf, they will show the world that their education has been a good one, and that if they have not got on in all respects as fast as certain more highly stimulated communities, they have at least learnt a few im

the idea is preposterous. Would England ask us what we had to complain of if we were respectfully to suggest that the time had come for us to start upon an independent career of our own? Imagine such a question being asked by the House of Commons that listened either approvingly, or else with indifference, to the speeches of Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Lowe, to say nothing of Mr. Cave.

Then if England does not want our loyalty, if, as Mr. Lowe said, Englishmen have enough to do to mind their own affairs; if, as Matthew Arnold puts it, England, like the fabled Atlas, is already staggering under

'The too vast orb of her fate,'

to whom, to what, is our loyalty due, on what altar can we profitably lay

it? Ask the index to the last volume of the CANADIAN MONTHLY, and it will tell you that what Mr. Todd might have discoursed upon, but did not, was 'Loyalty to Canada.' Here, where we have our home, here in this land whose resources it is ours to develop, and which it may be ours to raise from weakness to strength, from obscurity to honour in the eyes of the nations, here we may find ample scope and exercise for all the loyalty of which our natures are capable.

Let

It

us then, as we considered some time ago what loyalty to England on the part of Canada meant and implied, consider now what the loyalty of Canadians to Canada means and implies. It means that we desire the separate national existence of our country. means that we valne our institutions, and would grieve to see them replaced by others of a different order and growth. It means that the distinctive life of Canada and the distinctive character of her people are dear to us. It means that this is our home and that as such we cherish it. It means that we see in our country the elements of future greatness, and that

we have confidence in the ability of Canadians to deal wisely with the splendid trust committed to their hands. It means, in a word, that we feel there is a place in the family of nations for Canada, and that our ambition is that she should fill it.

Considering the matter further we find that whereas there is little or nothing we can do by way of giving a practical turn to our loyalty to England, there is everything to do when we once make up our minds that what is needed is loyalty to Canada. Not a day passes over our heads without bringing us opportunities of doing something directly or indirectly for the good of our common country. The true patriot is not he who swaggers over what his nation can do, or who waxes eloquent over its vast extent of territory, its boundless resources and its unimaginable future; but he who labours practically, in however humble a sphere, to advance its interests. Every honest vote cast is a service to the commonwealth. To pay honest dues to the Government, to do honest work for it at an honest price, is a better proof of loyalty than to make loyal speeches or to drink loyal toasts. If the practical good sense and good feeling of our people had not taught them better there would by this time have been in their minds an almost complete divorce between the ideas of loyalty and the general idea of good citizenship; -seeing that loyalty, as presented to them, was almost wholly a thing of phrases and vague sentiment. As it is, there is no doubt that Canada has suffered much from the weakening of the idea of loyalty consequent upon the uncertainty existing as to its proper direction or object. The effort to sit on two stools generally results in sitting on neither. The loyalty heretofore preached was loyalty to Great Britain; the loyalty demanded by circumstances, but never preached, was loyalty to Canada, as a country destined to enter sooner or later on an inde

pendent career. The result has been a lack in Canada of that public spirit which depends for its development upon a strong sense of political existence,' to recall an expression used by Mr. Gladstone. This lack nearly all thoughtful Canadians feel it constitutes one of the leading differences between Canada and the neighbouring republic, where public spirit has been developed in an eminent degree. To take but one illustration. We have two cities in Canada of considerable population and wealth. In many respects we feel that we can be proud of them; but in neither does there exist such a thing as a public library accessible to all classes. Yet, in either city, a very small percentage subtracted from the superfluous wealth expended upon private residences would have provided such a library, and done. away with what has often been felt as a reproach. Upon this point, however, it is needless to insist. It is vain to look for a healthy growth of public spirit so long as the position of Canada is as indeterminate as it is to-day. If there have been any recent grounds for encouragement in this respect, it is because something in the air tells us to prepare for the better destinies awaiting us in the future.

I am not forgetful that the foremost statesman of Canada has recently denounced all our aspirations towards a change of political status for Canada as 'veiled treason,' and has avowed his preference for anexation to the United States, if independence were. the only alternative. That opinion will carry great weight; but the question is one which interests too intimately every Canadian, whatever his position in society, for any weight of authority to be wholly conclusive. We must all think this matter out for ourselves, and shape our conclusions under the gravest sense of responsibility. Canada must belong, we arə told, either to the British system or to the American system. Strictly speaking, however, there is no 'British