THE POLITICAL DESTINY 01 CANADA. 



227 



rule, are ardently loyal," and he assigns no spe- 

 cial reason why they should wish to change their 

 condition. He acknowledges that the young 

 persons born in the colonies "are taught to ven- 

 erate and love the mother-country," but he in- 

 sists that there is an idea of future independence, 

 and he would rashly try the experiment of calling 

 on the colonies to contribute to imperial services, 

 over the expenditure on which it would be utterly 

 impossible for them to exercise any control. If 

 Sir Julius Yogel really desired the dismember- 

 ment of the empire, which I am not so unchari- 

 table as to believe, he could hardly have devised 

 a more efficacious mode of accomplishing his ob- 

 ject than that which he has suggested. I write 

 of course from a colonial, or perhaps from a Ca- 

 nadian, point of view. I believe that the changes 

 suggested by Sir Julius Vogel would cause in- 

 tense dissatisfaction in Canada, and I deny that 

 there is any occasion, having reference to Cana- 

 dian public opinion, for reconsidering the rela- 

 tions which now exist, and which are of the most 

 satisfactory character. In much of what Sir Ju- 

 lius Vogel urges as to the importance of the col- 

 onies to Great Britain I concur, but I draw a 

 very different conclusion from what he does. I 

 do not think that the self-governing colonies 

 ought to cause any extra expense to Great Brit- 

 ain, and I am therefore of opinion that it would 

 be a most unwise policy to call upon them for 

 contributions toward imperial services. I see no 

 reason why Canada should not continue for an 

 indefinite period in connection with Great Britain 

 on her present footing. The question is whether 

 Great Britain is satisfied. 



I have endeavored, not, I admit, with much 

 success, to learn something of English opinion 

 from Sir Julius Vogel's paper. I find that Sir 

 John Lubbock is referred to as having made 

 " laborious investigations," the results of which 

 have been published in the Nineteenth Century. 

 I have read Sir John Lubbock's article " On the 

 Imperial Policy of Great Britain" with pleasure, 

 and I most cordially subscribe to his conclusions : 



" That the policy of Great Britain has been char- 

 acterized by justice and even generosity ; that as 

 regards the colonies we (the imperial authorities) 

 have exercised our authority, not for our own profit, 

 but for their advantage ; that our country has ex- 

 ercised its great trust in a wise and liberal spirit, 

 and governed the empire in a manner scarcely less 

 glorious than the victories by M'hieh that empire 

 was won." 



Sir John Lubbock's article was written to repel a 

 charge made by " one of our most distinguished 



statesmen " that in its policy in reference to its 

 colonies and to other countries England displayed 

 " a reckless and cynical selfishness." Sir John 

 dwelt at length on the imperial expenditure both 

 in the colonies and in foreign wars undertaken 

 for laudable objects, but he made no complaint 

 whatever that such expenditure had been unwise, 

 nor did he suggest that any attempt should be 

 made to enforce contributions from the colonies 

 toward imperial expenditure. It ought to be 

 clearly understood that the aim and object of the 

 advocates of imperial confederation is to establish 

 a common purse, out of which certain classes of 

 expenditure are to be defrayed. 



Admitting, as I do, the soundness of Sir John 

 Lubbock's conclusions, I cannot fully subscribe 

 to the correctness of his details. For instance, 

 he contends that until 1870 England "bore the 

 military expenses of the colonies," and that " this 

 has been by degrees to a great extent discon- 

 tinued." Now, the correct way of stating the case 

 is that England, for imperial purposes, maintains 

 a considerable standing army, which of late years 

 has rather been increased than diminished. The 

 old policy of the War Department was to distrib- 

 ute the troops in the colonies, with a compara- 

 tively small reserve in the United Kingdom, 

 whereas the modern policy has been to concen- 

 trate the troops in the United Kingdom. I am 

 unable to concur in opinion with Sir John Lub- 

 bock that, having reference to the extent of the 

 Canadian Dominion, and to the fact that from St. 

 John, New Brunswick, to Victoria in British Co- 

 lumbia, there is not a company of soldiers, it is 

 fair to treat the cost of a garrison retained at 

 Halifax, Nova Scotia, for imperial objects As a 

 payment for the military defense of Canada. 

 Those who removed the garrison from the citadel 

 of Quebec would not hesitate a moment to re- 

 move it from Halifax if it suited their convenience. 

 That garrison does not add to the military expen- 

 diture of England, as Sir John Lubbock must be 

 well aware. 



The main point, however, is that Sir Julius 

 Vogel has adduced no evidence to prove that 

 England requires imperial confederation, in order 

 that the colonies may bear what may be consid- 

 ered a just proportion of the military and naval 

 and perhaps the diplomatic expenditure of the 

 empire. It appears that an attempt was recently 

 made to induce the Australasian colonies to share 

 in an expenditure of a peculiar character, viz., 

 the cost of the government of the Feejee Islands 

 annexed to the crown in compliance with their 

 own wishes. The excess of expenditure over 



