224 



THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY.— SUPPLEMENT. 



for the time being, of the different parts of the 

 empire, means separation sooner or later. 



4. That, under the union-during-pleasure con- 

 dition, much is being done to hasten separation. 



5. That the mother-country is entitled to re- 

 tain and consolidate her possessions. 



6. That confederation is desirable, and would 

 be fraught with advantage, both to the parent- 

 country and the colonies, in the shape of in- 

 creased trade, increased value of property, the 

 augmented happiness of the people, and the sav- 

 ing of much misery and disaster. 



7. That its accomplishment does not present 

 great difficulties. 



Before examining these propositions seriatim, 

 I shall venture to submit a few general remarks 

 on Sir Julius Vogel's paper. I shall, of course, 

 write as a Canadian, and from a Canadian point 

 of view. I have no satisfactory means of form- 

 ing an opinion as to the feelings or wishes of the 

 people in the other self-governing colonies, but I 

 should be much surprised to learn that people 

 who are free from the difficulties with which Cana- 

 dians have to contend, from their proximity to 

 the great American Republic, are less favorable 

 than they are to the subsisting connection with 

 Great Britain. 



On reading Sir Julius Vogel's paper, I was at 

 once struck with its bearing on political parties 

 in England. It is asserted that there was "a 

 supposed desire " on the part of several members 

 of the Liberal Government to detach the colonies 

 from the empire, and the indirect pledge on the 

 part of the Conservatives " to respect the integri- 

 ty of the empire " is said to have been satisfac- 

 tory to the masses of the people, as the feeling 

 was general that " the Liberals did not care how 

 soon it was broken up." It is far from desirable 

 that there should be any appeals to party preju- 

 dices, either in the mother-country or the colo- 

 nies, in regard to their relations with one another. 

 Canadians have occasionally been over-sensitive 

 on the subject of English opinion. Instances 

 might be cited in which a strong article in the 

 Times has caused so much exasperation as to 

 lead thoroughly loyal men to utter very disloyal 

 sentiments, owing to their wounded pride at find- 

 ing the connection undervalued by that influential 

 journal. In my judgment, the action of Parlia- 

 ment and the dispatches of the responsible minis- 

 ters of the crown are the only safe guide as to 

 the national opinion regarding the relations be- 

 tween the parent state and its dependencies. 



Whatever may be Sir Julius Vogel's opinion, 

 and it must be admitted that he is cautious as to 



making any specific charge, Canada has had no 

 reason to complain of imperial policy since con- 

 federation, and it would hardly be possible to use 

 language stronger than that of Mr. Goldwin Smith 

 in support of this assertion. Sir Julius Vogel is 

 certainly mistaken in thinking that any Canadian 

 governor " discussed the separation of the colo- 

 nies as a contingency neither remote nor improb- 

 able," and it may be doubted whether the extract 

 quoted from a speech of Sir Philip Wodehouse 

 has not been distorted, so as to convey a very 

 different impression from what was intended. 

 Sir Philip Wodehouse, it is well known, was 

 averse to the introduction of responsible govern- 

 ment at the Cape, and was not likely to view 

 with particular favor its working in other colo- 

 nies. If "New Zealand was virtually given to 

 understand that she was at liberty to secede from 

 the empire," it seems probable that such a sug- 

 gestion must have been caused by some very rep- 

 rehensible proceeding on the part of its govern- 

 ment. 



, Sir Julius Vogel dwells chiefly on English 

 public opinion, which he seems to think is not 

 favorable to the present state of our relations. 

 Referring to Lords Carnarvon and Kimberley, he 

 is of opinion that the former " administers the 

 Colonial Department as if he thought the colo- 

 nies would remain with the empire," while the 

 latter administered it " in a manner that indi- 

 cated his aim to fit the colonies for a career of 

 independence." I should be sorry to think that 

 the paper under consideration was written with 

 the view of extolling one and disparaging the 

 other of the great English political parties. I 

 find no evidence whatever that the English Lib- 

 eral party is favorable to any change in the sub- 

 sisting relations between the parent state and the 

 colonies, beyond some vague utterance in favor 

 of imperial confederation, attributed to the Right 

 Hon. W. E. Forster, on the occasion of his mak- 

 ing a speech at Edinburgh, in November, 1875. 

 Sir Julius Vogel quotes part of a speech, deliv- 

 ered by Mr. Disraeli, in 1872, to the Conservative 

 Association, in which, while frankly acknowledg- 

 ing the propriety of conceding self-government 

 to the colonies, the Conservative leader expressed 

 his regret that it had not been conceded "as part 

 of a great policy of imperial consolidation." He 

 then proceeded to explain that it ought " to have 

 been accompanied by an imperial tariff, by securi- 

 ties to the people of England for the enjoyment 

 of the unappropriated lands, which belonged to 

 their sovereign as their trustee, and by a military 

 code, which should have precisely defined the 



