Y^LIE''¥]MH¥IEI^SlIinf«' ILIIIBI^.^IET MWfjmwu^^ Gift of George Pannly Day 19X5 L^yvccr ^^^di. "T- ^nJL-w^- -^ Cv' ^crS-*-*-"*- .f ^- X^ 2^i, THE KINGDOM PAPERS By JOHN S. EWART, K.C. VOLUME II. McClelland, goodchild & stewart publishers :: :: ,:: toronto -4 y Cw, f l^ C CONTENTS Contribution to the British Navy — Mr. Monk's Resignation Page 1 British Protection " 43 British I'roteetioii- -Bell ring Sea Seizures " .'lO Jiritisli ['nilectioji — The North AtlHiitic l''isheries " IJ.;.! I'ornjaiieiit ]S'a\'al I'olii-.i- ' ' 1-10 The Caimiiig Policy — Soiiietiiiies called The .Monroe Doctriue " 169 Gauadian Sovereignty " 193 Sister-States — Is there any Alternative? " 209 Four-fifths of the Last Step " 225 Capture at Sea — Contraband — Blockade " 243 Imperial Projects — The liepublic of Canada " 267 KINGDOM PAPERS No. 11. CONTRIBUTION TO THE BRITISH NAVY. MR. MONK'S RESIGNATION. The first volume of the Kingdom Papers has been bound in cloth and may be obtained at cost of binding and postage from. THORBURN & ABBOTT, Pubhshers. Ottawa. Present and future numbers of the Papers -will be sent free of charge to all person?. applying to. JOHN S. EWART, Otta-«'a. KINGDOM PAPERS, No. 11. CONTRIBUTION TO THE BRITISH NAVY. MR. MONK'S RESIGNATION. (In order to dra-w attention to the purpose for which quotations are employed, italics not appearing in the original are sometimes made use of.) 1\/fR. Monk's action in resigning from the ministry because his colleagues determined to recommend to parliament a grant of some millions to the British navy, without providing for the preliminary assent of the electors, may be considered from two points of view — the constitutional and the personal. Constitutional : If by constitutional, one understands legal (a) no one can pretend that in doing anything it pleased with the public funds, parliament would be acting unlawfully. But, if by con stitutional, one means according to correct practice then the ques tion becomes debatable. If we go back far enough, plenty of precedents can be found in British practice for the grant of large sums of money to foreign governments, not only without reference to the people, but by the ministry of the day without reference to parliament itself. With the growth, however, of the idea that it is the people's will that is the controlling power and not that of the sovereign — that min isters are the servants of the electorate and not of the King, there has arisen a doctrine of parliamentary action to which we all give more or less assent, namely the doctrine of mandate. In Mr. Anson's book (6) may be found the following: (a) That is the sense in which the word is most frequently used in the United States. (6) Law and Custom of the Constitution, Vol. 1, p. 308. 2 Mr. Monk's Resignation. "According to some political thinkers no novel or important legislative measure ought to be introduced in parliament, imless it has been brought prom inently to the notice of the constituencies at a previous general election." Mr. Anson shows that in former days some "very important measures have been introduced into parliament with no such preparatory consideration," but he gives no opinion as to the propriety of the suggested rule. Not to multiply authorities, Mr. Lowell's summation of them may be quoted: "Another sign of the times is found in the doctrine, sanctioned by the highest authorities, that parliament cannot legislate on a new question of ¦vital importance without a mandate from the nation" (o). For example, the Liberal party in England declared, in 1906 that they would not use a majority obtained upon the free-trade issue in order to pass a home-rule biU; Mr. Balfour, at the election in 1910, promised that if successful, no attempt would be made to introduce tariff-reform without specific reference to the people; and one of the principal objections to the present home-rule bill is the allegation that the electorate has never approved the proposal. Mr. Doherty (a close and careful student) thought that the Naval Bill of the Laurier government ought not to become law without previous submission to the electorate, upon the ground that it involved "the most fundamental change in our relations with the mother country, and the rest of the Empire"(6). Construction of a Canadian navy under Canadian control neces sitated some such arrangement with the United Kingdom as that which was agreed to (c), and although itself not a change in the rela tions of the countries almost necessarily led to a clearer definition, if not to a re-arrangement Of those relations. In the long run it involved a revision, or at least a declaration, of the fundamentals of the existing association. Mr. Burrell agreed with Mr. Doherty's contention as to the necessity for a reference to the people of the naval proposals of the Laurier government, and supported his view in a long argument (d). (a) The Ocvernment of Entiland, Vol. 1, p. 426. (6) Hans. 24 February 1910, pp. 4150-1. (c) Kingdom Papers, Vol. 1, pp. 259-261. id) Uans. 28 November 1910, p 319. Ml. Monk's Resignation. 3 for which he apologized on the ground that he might "be accused of threshing out old straw, but my con^viotion that the people's right of consultation has been flagrantly disregarded in this whole matter is so strong" etc. (o). Mr. Burrell pointed out that the navy question had not been discussed by the Prime Minister at the elections and added — "But in spite of that failure to seek or obtain a mandate he does what no responsible minister in the mother of parHaments would do" (6). How does all that apply to the proposal for a cash contribu tion ? It will probably be contended that a mere grant of money in aid of the British navy raises no difficulties. But neither would the mere fact of the existence of a Canadian navy. And if it be said that a navy necessarily involves the consideration of what is to be done witn it, the reply may be made that the grant of money to the British navy has as its very foundation and rationale not the consideration merely but the determination, and indeed the settlement (so far as parliament can settle it) of the ex tremely important question of our relation to British wars. It is an acceptance in advance of all that British diplomacy may do. Our present attitude, the official attitude of the Laurier govern ment was expressed at the Imperial Conference of 1911 in the follow ing wdrds: "We have taken the position in Canada that we do not think that we are bound to take part in every war" (c). And when Sir Edward Grey was asked in the House of Commons "Whether the Japanese government were informed as to what course of action would be pursued by the Dominion should Great Britain be involved in war under article two of that treaty," he replied, in part, as follows: ' ' The action to be taken by the Dominions iu any war in which His Majesty's government may be engaged is a matter to be considered by His Majesty's gov ernment in consultation with the Dominions, and is not for discussion ¦srith any foreign government" (d). (o) Ibid. p. 321. (6) Ibid. p. 323. (c) Proceedings, p. 117. See also Kingdom Papers, Vol. 1, p. 110-2. Id) The Times 21 Julv 1911. 4 Mr. Monk's Resignation. Our present attitude sufficiently appears in our naval statute: "In case of an emergency, the Governor-in-Council may place at the dis posal of His Majesty, for general service in the royal navy, the naval service, or any part thereof" etc. Mr. Borden disagreed with the permissive word may, and moved (3 February, 1910) as follows: "The proposals of the government do not follow the suggestions and recom mendations of the Admiralty, and, in so far as they empower the government to withhold the naval forces of Canada from those of the Empire in time of war, are ill-ad^vised and dangerous" (a). Mr. Borden's resolution was defeated, and the permissive word was retained as part of the bill. Our present attitude appears in our agreement with the British government that our war-ships are to be "exclusively" under our own control and fly our own flag (b) . Our present attitude appears in the an-angeinents made with the British government at the sub-conference of 1909. The main pt)int was "That each part of the Empire is wiUing to make its preparations on such lines as will enable it, should it so desire, to take its share in the general defence of the Empire'' (c). • In reporting that agreement to the House of Commons, Mr. Asquith said: "The result is a plan for so organizing the forces of the Crown wherever they are, that while preserving the complete autonomy of each Dominion, should the Dominions desire to assist in the defence of the Empire in a real emergency, their forces could be rapidly combined into one homogeneous imperial army"(d). Our present attitude is not onl\- perfectly clear and thoroughh' understood and accepted by the British government, but it is in perfect accordance with the traditional principles of the Colonial Office. Mr. Keith, one of the best informed men in that depart ment, when discussing the right of a Governor-General to place colonial troops under a British officer, said that such (a) Hana. p. 2991. (6) Cd. 6746-2, p. 1. (c) Cd. 4948, p. 19. See also p. 38. d) Ibid. p. 19. Mr. Monk's Regisnation. 5 "doctrine would involve the theory that the imperial government could insist on colonial forces taking part in a war, a doctrine opposed to the fundameital principles of self-government, which leaves a colony to decide how far it will participate iu wars due to imperial pohcy" (a). Argument to prove the difference between our present attitude and the attitude represented by a cash contribution to the Britism navy is unnecessary. It is the difference between the late govern-- ment's policy of retaining a right of discretionary action in case o^ war and Mr. Borden's denunciation of that policy as ' ' ill-advised andl dangerous." And the question is not whether a change of that \ character is right or ¦wrong, but whether it is sufficiently momentous to require submission to the electorate before being adopted. Re-distribution: Another factor in the situation should be men tioned. Section 8 of our constitution provides for the taking of a periodical census, and in so doing "the respective populations of the four" tinguished." (now nine) "Provinces shall be dis- The reason for this is shown by section 51: "On the completion of the census the representation of the four" (now nine) "Provinces shall be re-adjusted." — re-adjusted according to the changes in the respective populations. And it becomes, therefore, the duty of parliament, at its next ses sion to re-arrange the representation in the House of Commons. The following table will show the representation of the Provinces at previous periods, and a calculation of the proportions necessitated by the last census. 1867 1872 1882 1887 1892 1902 1906 Ought to be 8265 1915 88 65 21 16 4 6 9265 21 16 6 5 6 9265 21 16 656 4 9265 20 14 576 4 8665 IS13 4 10 7 10 1 8665 1813 4 10 7 1 10 82 65 Nova Scotia 16 H Prince Edward Island a 15 13 North West Territory Yukon 1 Alberta 12 16 ¦' Totals 181 200 211 215 213 214 221 234 (a) Responsible Governments in the Dominions, p. 198. 6 Mr. Monk's Resignation. The proportionate representation therefore, between the eastern and the western Provinces has been as follows: /' ; j' Date East West 1872 190 10 1882 200 11 1887 200 1 15 1S'J2 196 1 17 1902 186 28 1906 186 35 1912 177 57 These figures show that we are in the presence of two phenom ena; first, that while the representation to which the eastern Prov inces is entitled is diminishing, the representation of the west is increasing, and; second, that the approach to equality has been very much more rapid in the last five years than at any previous period. Between 1902 and 1906, the west increased by seven mem bers only, while between 1906 and 1912 the west increased by twenty- two, and the east declined by nine — a diffeience, as they say in parliament, of 31 on a division. In other wciids. while in 1906 the west had only 15.83 per cent, of the total repiesentation, to-day it is entitled to 24.36, or almost one-fourth of the whole House. As the life of the House is five years from the letuin of the Wilts at a general election, the question at once arises whether, consistency with the spirit of the constitution, the Commons as at present constituted ought to continue until the natiu-al end of its term, or, in ^'iew of the veiy large change in the right of representa tion, it ought to give place to one in accordance ¦v\-ith that right. No one can regard as quite satisfactory the continuation of a House of Commons which is out of harmony with the provisions of our constitution. One cannot say, of course, that such a House is unconstitutional, in the sense of being unlawful, but every one must agree with Mv. Anson's -\-iew: "Wlien any large change is made in electoral conditions, as in 1832, in LS07-.S, a,nd in ISSf), it is proper that those new condiiicns should be put to the test, and the newly enfiancliised enjcy their new rights at (he earHest oppor- (uni'y" (a). The change effected by the incrcasoil population in the west v.iiiic mil ('(iinjiui^alilo, in one res])ect, to the change worked hy the ('il /.IPC and Ciistinris of the conslitittion, \'ol, 1, p. 307. Mr. Monk's Resignation 7 statutes referred to by Mr. Anson, is, in another, more important; for while those statutes added many thousands to the polling list, they did not materially affect the proportionate voting of the various parts of the United Kingdom. _ The great significance of our case is that it is precisely the proportions that are affected. Three Factors: We have then the concurrence of two factors, in the present situation — the proposal to legislate on a matter of very great importance, and an important change in electoral con ditions. It may even be said that the synchronizing of these two factors produces a third, namely, that it is extremely probable that upon the subject of proposed legislation, the Provinces that have less than their proper proportion of representatives entertain views quite different from those of some of the Provinces that are in enjoyment of greater representation than they ought to have. Under such circumstances ought the House of Commons to be dissolved, and a new election held — an election which would fulfill two purposes, namely: (1) the constitution of the House in accordance with the rights of all the Provinces, and (2) the ascertainment of the wish of the electorate upon the proposed subject of legislation. For myself, the only opinion I offer is that if legislation is undertaken without an election being held, the Prairie Provinces will probably be heard from. Personal: Whatever may be thought of the points just raised, no one will be surprised if Mr. Monk (or anyone else) should agree with the view which Mr. Lowell tells us is sanctioned by the highest authorities. Mr. Monk, moreover, when the Laurier government was in power had, on several occasions, contended for the validity of that view. He has recently declared that he ' ' was absolutely pledged that nothing of such a character as was contemplated ¦with regard to the naval question would be done without consulting the people, so that even if it had been somewhat more urgent we still would have the right to claim for the people the opportunity to express their opinion." Holding such view and being bound by such pledge, Mr. Monk took the only course open to him. For fear of misunderstanding, I may add that as far as I am aware, Mr. Borden has never com mitted himself to a general election except as preliminary to the settlement of a permanent arrangement with the United Kingdom. 8 Naval Contributions. Contribution to the British Navy. Six reasons are given in support of the proposal to contribute some millions (20 or 30 probably) to the British navy. 1. Because the United Kingdom expended large sums of money in acquiring and keeping Canada, none of which we have ever repaid. To this the following are a few of the more obvious replies: (a) The eastern Provinces of Canada expended $1,500,000 in the purchase of the prairie Provinces; disbursed heavily in obtaining possession; and paid out $25,000,000, to the Canadian Pacific Railway, and other large sums in development. Do the people now in those newer provinces owe the people now in the older Provinces anything? (b) The money expended in the United Kingdom in acquiring Canada, and the money spent by Canada in acquiring the north west were not either charitable gifts or long term loans. They were disbursements of purely selfish character. European nations fought one another for the possession of colonies, not for the fun of the thing but because of the huge financial value of colonies. No one doubts that. If any one does doubt it, I ask him to refer to the first volume of these Papers at pp. 33-4; 61-2. The metropolitan countries acted from purely selfish motives (I am not blaming them) not merely in their acquisition of colonies, but in their subsequent treatment of them. The following language of well-known Imperialists is not too strong. 'Mr. Chamberlain has said: "We began to be, and we untimately became, a great imperial Power in the 18th century but, during the greater part of the time, the colonies were regarded, not only by us but by every European Power that possessed them, as possessions valuable in proportion to the pecuniary advantage which they brought to the mother country, which under that order of ideas, was not truly a mother at all, but appeared in the hght of a grasping and absentee landlord desiring to take from the tenants the utmost rents he could exact. The colonies were valued and maintained because it was thought that they would be a source of profit — of direct profit — to the mother country'' (o). Professor Peacock has said: "In their infancy the colonies flourished on neglect. As they increased they were safeguarded and protected from purely interested motives. The British people who sold 40,000 Africans everj' year to their own and other planta tions could not afford that any other slave-raiding nation of Europe should I (a) Foreign and Colonial Speeches.^p. 242. Naval Contributions. 9 interfere ¦with their market. The London traders who were making colossal fortunes from the sale of hardware in Pennsylvania and Massachusetts could not tolerate the intrusion of the foreigner in their trade. Much of what we now call imperiaUsm — ^the fine creed of union and co-operation from continent to continent — ^had its origin in the jinghng guineas at the bottom of the breeches- pockets of the London merchants. Some of it, perhaps, even to-day is tainted with original sin" (o). Professor Ashley has said: "The relation of Great Britain to the Dominions was that of a monopoHst to tied traders" (6). Herman Merivale (Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, 1847-59) said in his lectures (p. 671) : "The benefit of colonies to the mother country consists solely in the surplus advantage which it derives from the trade of the colonies over the loss. That benefit has been enormous, calculated in figures alone (c). (c) The argument that because the United Kingdom expended money in acquiring Canada, therefore Canada owes her something, becomes very obviously fallacious when put in clearer form. For it is really this, that because the people living in the United Kingdom 150 years ago expended money in acquiring Canada, therefore people now living in Canada, are indebted to people now living in the United Kingdom. But present-day Canadians are partly the descendants of per sons whose country was, by the expenditure, taken from them, and partly the descendants of persons who came here after wards. Is it pretended that either of those classes owe the money? Is it suggested, for example, that the United Empire Loyalists (who were driven from their homes in the south be cause of a stupid British war) or the later emigrants from Europe or the British Islands brought with them an obligation to pay not only for the land which their efforts, and their efforts alone, made valuable, but also to pay a part of the old war-ex penditure ? 2. A second reason for the proposed contribution sometimes given is that Canada is part of the British Empire. That argument was fully dealt with in Paper No. 10 (Vol. 1, pp. 318-21). (a) University Magazine, December 1911, pp. 535-6. (6) British Dominions, p. 11. (c) Upon this subject please read Volume 1, of the Kingdom Papers, pp. 32-48: 64-7. 10 Naval Contribution 3. A third reason, more frequently heard, is that our own safety, indeed our existence depends upon the supremacy of the British navy. If that be true what is it that protects (for example) Uruguay — with a population of a million; a peace army of 4,000; and no navy? What is it that protects Costa Rica — with a popula tion of less than 400,000? What is it that protects every state from Mexico to Cape Horn? I know your answer — the Monroe doctrine. Very well, then it is not the British navy? "No. But we are to depend for protection upon the United States?" In reply please observe, first, that you have abandoned your position that our safety depends upon the British navy; and then consider this Monroe doctrine a little. It is -wrongly named. It should be called the Canning policy, for it was with the greatest difficulty that the great British statesman prevailed upon the Amer ican President to adopt as his own the policy in which the United Kingdom had such supreme interest. Please read ^'^olume I. of these papers at page 149. If neither Canning nor Monroe had ever lived, community of American interest would have produced the same result. Early in the 1860's, pending a boundary dispute between Chile, Peru and Bolivia, Spain sent a fleet to enforce certain claims against Peru, going so far as to assert a right to regain possession of her former colony. The effect was immediate — local difficulties were forgotten. "The outbreak of hostUities between Spain and Peru caused the President" (of Chile) "to imagine that if Spain -n-ere ¦victorious, the Spainards would endeavor to regain control of South America and in 1865 these four South American repubUcs (o) were united against such power as Spain could send across the seas to attack them" (b). Community of interest has been forming such alliances ever since the world began. Monroe did not see that the United States had an interest in the sovereignties of South America until educated to the idea by Canning. Everyone sees it now. .Vnd there is NO humiliation in the fact that Canada and the United States HAVE absolute IDENTITY OF INTEREST WITH REFERENCE TO EU ROPEAN OR .\siATic INVASION OF THIS CONTINENT. That identity of interest makes invasion impossible. The United States will never need to help us, nor shall we have to help the United States. Nobody, while our interests remain identical (that is probably forever) will be foolish enou^jh to attempt the utterly impracticable. (a) Chile, Peru, Bolivia and Ecudor. (6) Akers, fl Histon/ of South fimfdca, p. 326 and see p. 507. Naval Contributions. 11 Reply to the argument that we need the protection of the British navy as against the United States may be found in Volume I. of these Papers, at pp. 301-1. 4. A fourth reason often urged is that the British navy protects our commerce. To this there are several answers: (a) As we shall have no wars of our own, the only danger to our commerce is that war may be brought upon us by the United Kingdom, and for her own sake she must keep the ocean clear. She would make no difference between Argentinian and Canadian wheat ships, and as between American or Russian food ships and 'Canadian lumber vessels, she would (quite pro perly), protect the former rather than the latter. (b) If Canadian independence were not only real (as it is) but also acknowledged internationally, our commerce would, in case of a British war, be in danger only as neutral and not as enemy traffic. We should be no worse off than anybody else. (c) But there need be no danger to commerce at aU, if the United Kingdom would only agree to accept as international law the rule with reference to the immunity from capture of pri vate property at sea that all nations now accept with regard to private property on land. The United Kingdom, being the strongest naval power, feels that she has an advantage over other nations. She wants to be at liberty to destroy private property at sea because of the effect upon the enemy's morale, and financial ability. It is a bit of barbarism that many of her own people are ashamed of, but probably any other nation in her position would do as she does. At the second of the Hague Peace Conference, adoption of the better principle was strongly urged by the United States. Germany, Austria-Hun gary and seventeen other states supported the proposal. The United Kingdom, her allies France and Russia and eight of the smaller states opposed it (a). As long ago as 1856, Lord Palmerston said: ' ' I cannot help hoping that in the course of time those principles of war which are applied to hostihties on land may be extended, -without exception, to hostihties by sea, so that private property shall no longer be the object of aggression on either side" (6). (a) flmerican flddresses at the Hague by James Brown Scott. See also The Two Hague Conferences by Dr. W. J. Hull, pp. 126-141. (a) Quoted Ibid., p. 9. 12 Naval Contributions. British Commerce will be free from capture as soon as the United Kingdom will agree that she will not capture the commerce of other nations. But that, she thus far, declines to assent to. When urged to it in the British House of Commons, Mr. McKenna, on behalf of the government, replied in effect (a) that "We required the right of capture as a method of warfare, in order to hamper an enemy's trade." While declining to agree to immunity of commercial ships of the enemy, the United Kingdom is, of course, interested in the immunity of food-stuffs in neutral ships — that is to say, she is anxious that in case of war with Germany (for example), food supplies com ing to Liverpool in French, American or other vessels should be immune from capture. To accomplish this object, the British govern ment called the great Powers together in London and from the conference came (February, 1909) the agreement known as the Declaration of London. By article 34 of that document, foodstuffs (and some other articles) in neutral ships are not to be subject to capture unless they "are consigned to a fortified place belonging to the enemy or other place serving as a base for the armed forces of the enemy" (6). ^ The Declaration being the work of a Liberal government was opposed by the Unionists, and although it passed the Liberal House of Commons was defeated in the Unionist House of Lords (Decem ber 13, 1911). The food-supply difficulty can be easily got rid of. 5. A fifth reason, sometimes advanced, why Canada should contribute to the British navy is because of the large amount of capital which British investors send here. The argument has two phases: (1) gratitude for past favors, and (2) British abihty and disposition to continue the advances. Neither of them has any validity. The first can be disposed of by asking whether British tenants owe a debt of gi'atitude to British landlords for the loan of their faims and houses, at good rents? Of course, not. Well, why do borroweis of money owe a debt of gratitude to persons who lend them money at good rates of interest? Ought Argentina to con tribute to the British navy because she pays British investors in- (o) Annual Register, 1909, p. 86. (b) The Round Table for March, 1912, has an article[upon"the[subject. Naval Contributions. 13 terest upon $500,000,000? (a) Or ought the United States be sides paying interest on $3,440,000,000 (&) send a $30,000,000 cheque to the British Admiralty by way of gratitude? And how much ought Canada to send to the United States navy, because American citizens have invested over $400,000,000, (c) north of the boundary? British and other investors are only too glad to find places to put their surplus cash. International squabbles over special priv- leges, in that regard, are not infrequent. Look at the Six-Power arrangement — arrived at after long negotiation — ^with reference to the Chinese loans. British disposition to lend money advantageously will last as long as her ability. Perusal of the paragraphs immediately following this one will supply reason for the belief that the well of British wealth is inexhaustible. 6. The sixth reason and the one most generally urged is that which may be known as ' ' the weary Titan" argument. It may be considered under the caption — British Wealth. The argument first appeared in Mr. Chamberlain's appeal to the Colonial Premiers, in 1902, to help him out with the difficulties he had got himself into over the Boer war — "The weary Titan" he said "staggers under the too vast orb of its fate. We have bome the burden for many years. We think it is time that our children should assist us to support it" etc. (d). From that day to this the same appeals have been made, and the spectacle of John Bull's "myriad poor" (e) wasting away under the terrific strain is almost daily presented. What are the facts? The United Kingdom imposes import duties upon very few articles. Substantially they may all be in cluded under the following headings: (1) cocoa, coffee and chicory; (2) currants, raisins, etc; (3) spirits and wines; (4) sugar; (5) tea; (a) Porter; The Ten Republics, p. 63. (6) Capital investments in Canada, by F. W. Field, p. 163. (c) Ibid., p. 24. id) Proceedings of the Col. Conference, 1902, p. 4. (e) As I write comes the Montreal Star of 24 October, 1912, from which I quote the ex pression. 14 Naval Contributions. (6) tobacco and snuff. Sugar and tea are the only necessaries of the ,poor that are hit by this tariff, and the tax on them instead of being increased has actually been reduced within the last few years. \\'hen (in 1908) no less a sum than £3,400,000 was being taken off the sugar duty, Mr. Bonar Law, comparing the taxable resources of the United Kingdom and Germany, said that "there was a prospect of largely increased expenditure" (a) to which Mr. Lloyd George replied that — "The wealth of the cotmtry was great and was growing at a gigantic pace, and the very rich might fairly be asked to make a substantial contribution to improve the lot of the poor" (6). During the next year came the German scare, and the increased expenditure on navy and old-age pensions. To meet it, increased taxes were provided as follows: Customs £ 2,640,000 Excise 4,060,000 Estate Duties 2 , 850 . 000 Stamp duties 650,000 Income tax 3,500,000 Land value duties 500 , 000 £ 14,200,000 If we except the item of tobacco and spirits, practically nothing of these amounts fell upon the poor (c). It was indeed, largely for that reason that the budget was assailed with such violence and was evidently thrown out by the House of Lords. It was declared to be socialistic — "as taxing the rich for to benefit of the poor" (d). "as the first step in the sociahst war against property" (e). "The taxation on great fortunes had been increased by 75 per cent" (/). And so on. But the reply of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was that wealth could well stand the extra taxation, for since 1894— "We had, according to Sir Robert Giffen's estimate, added £3,500,000,000 to our capital, and were adding £250,000,000 yearly" (g). (a) Annual Reg. 1908, p. 117. (6) Ibid. p. 118. (c) On a subsequent occasion Mr. George said that the taxes did not "enchanoe the cost of the necessaries of life". Hans. 2 Apr. 1912, p. 1060. And see Dailv Neivs Vear Rr,nt 1912, pp. 43-4. BOOK, (d) Annual Reg. 1909, p. 100. (e) Ibid. p. 102. (/) Ibid. p. 109. (b) Ibid. p. 110. Naval Contributions. 16 As the increased expenditure for the two subsequent years has been met without any further taxation, we may conclude that the poor have not suffered by the construction of recent battleships. Indeed one of the special features of the 1909 budget was the proper discrimination between the rich and the poor. For example, the income tax is Is. 2d. in the £., but abatements are made as follows : Incomes not exceeding £160 are exempt. Exceeding £160 but not £400, an abatement of £160. 400 " 500 " 150. 500 " 600 " 120. 600 " 700 " 70. If the income does not exceed £2,000, the rate is 9d. instead of Is. 2d. ; and Is. only on incomes between £2,000 and £3,000. All persons who have an income of over £5,000, pay a super-tax (an extra tax) of 6d. in the £ on their receipts over £3,000. A proper distinction, too, is made between earned and unearned incomes, particularly in the smaller figures. The following table shows the respective taxations: Income Earned Unearned Pennies Pennies £ 160 Exempt Exempt 200 1.8 2.8 300 4.2 6.5 400 5.4 8.4 500 6.3 9.8 600 7 2 11.2 700 8.1 12.6 2,000 9.0 14.0 By such arrangements as these the taxation of the United Kingdom is being placed upon those best able to bear it. Turning now to the capability of the wealthy and well-to-do classes in the United Kingdom to pay for their own navy, let it be noticed that the national wealth is simply colossal. The United Kingdom is the great creditor nation of the world. Almost every corner of the globe pays tribute to her. Part of the income of al most every civilized man (and of a good many of the uncivihzed) goes to London to pay the great banker her interest. Her foreign investments amount to about £3,750,000,000, and on this she draws every year the enormous revenue of £180,000,000. What does she do with it? Well, as she has nothing else to do with it, she re invests it. Her new foreign investments last year were about 16 Naval Contributions. £175,000,000 (a). In fifteen years these investments have in creased as follows: Investments in 1911 £3,750,000,000 1896 2,092,000,000 An increase of £1,658,000,000 Or an average annual increase of £110,000,000 The annual enhancement naturally increases in amount as the unexpended surpluses are re-invested. Last year for example exceeded the average of its fourteen predecessors as foUows: Increase in 1911 £175,000,000 Average increase in previous fourteen years ... £110, 000 , 000 An enhancement of £65,000,000 Foreign assets are but one-quarter of the total wealth of the United Kingdom. The magnificent aggregate is . . £16,000,000,000 In 1885, it was estimated by Sir Robert Giffin at . . 9 , 600 , 000 , 000 Increase of wealth in 26 years £6,400,000,000 Or an annual increase of over 246,000,000 Analysis of income confirms these figures. The annual revenue of the wealthy islanders is not less than £2,000,000,000. The portion of this amount upon which income tax is paid can be stated with precision. For the year ending 5th April, 1910, it was £1,011,100,345 In 1896 it was 677,769,850 Increase in fourteen years £333,330,495 Or an annual increase of 23,809,320 As the total income is about twice the income taxed, we may double this annual increase of revenue. The respective amounts, there fore, are as follows: Aggregate wealth £16,000,000,000 Annual income 2,000,000,000 Annual increase in wealth 246,000 000 Annual increase in income 47 qOO 000 (a) A ivritei in The Round Table for March 1912 (page 263) puts the (figure at £200,000,000. I prefer the more conservative figure. Naval Contributions. 17 Figures like these are far from arousing my sympathy. They do not, by themselves, prove poverty or distress. But, possibly, the public debt has grown so enormously in later years that that feature may alter the aspect of affairs. To those who think so, the following table may bring assurance. Gross debt 1854 £802,000,000 1857 (nearly) 837,000,000 1899 635,000,000 1903 798,000,000 1911 (a) 733,000,000 Th increase in 1857 was due to the Crimean war in defence of Turkey, as to which Lord Salisburys aid that ' ' we put our money on the wrong horse." The increase in 1903 was due to the Boer war which cost in money alone, over $1,200,000,000, and resulted in placing the Boers in political control of four states instead of two. Had those two foolish wars never taken place the British national debt would not be more than one-half of what it is. In the last five years, the debt has not only been increased, but it has actually been diminished by nearly £56,000,000. But is not the naval expenditure so enormous that British Chancellors of the Exchequer are at their wits end? Not in the least. On the contrary, the expenditure upon both army and navy is paid out of the ordinary revenue of the nation, and last year there was a surplus, after payment of everything, of £6,545,000. Comparason of the expenditure of the United Kingdom upon her army and navy with that of Germany and France (who spend money upon their colonies rather than ask for subscriptions from them) will hardly prove the case of the Imperialists. Look at the following: United Kingdom — Army £27,690,000 Navy 44,392,500 £72,082,500 Germany — Army (&) £40,814,500 Navy 22,901,700 £63,716,200 France — Army £36,767,138 Navy 17,070,321 £53,837,459 (a) The net debt is arrived at by deducting from the above figure £37,608,000, the value of the Suez canal shares; other property, £4,003,098; Exchequer balances £13,546,172; besides public buildings, lands, etc. £170,000,000. Whittaker's Almanac, 1912, p. 487. Statistical Journal, 1906, p. 722. (6) In addition to expenditure upon colonial defence. 18 Naval Contributions. The United Kingdom carries her expenditure easily, pays for her army and navy out of ordinary revenue, and has a handsome surplus every year. In the German budget, on the contrary, much of the defence expenditure is called extraordinary, and money for those items is provided in this way: 1907 Loan £10,042,550 1908 " 12,791,115 1909 " 33,742,245 1910 " 9,536,515 1911 " 10,848,790 Similarly, while the British national debt would, but for absurd wars be soon paid off, the national debt of France increases and is now the largest in the world. Much of that, too, is due to wars, and the total is enormous. Debt of France £1,301,000,000 Debt of United Kingdom 733,000,000 Compare these figures with those showing the national wealth of the two countries: France £12,000,000,000 United Kingdom 16,000,000,000 The foreign investments of France ane not one-half those of the United Kingdom (a). Is it any wonder that ]\lr. Edgar Crammond (an acknowledged British authority in such matters) can trutlifully say with reference to British war expenditure, that "The aggregate expenditure on the army and navy bears a ratio of only 0045 to the national wealth, and .035 to the national income of the United Kingdom. Both these ratios show the relati\'cly small burden wliich our ex penditure on armaments imposes in relation to our wealth and resources" (6). Mr. Crammond's point may be established either by a com parison of the war expenditure of the United Kingdom with that la) They amount to about the same"as .Germany's £1, .500,000. Webb's A'^eu) Die. of Staliatics, p 82. ¦ i. . (.b). Nineteenth Centuary for August 1912, page 27. In the preparation of this papei, I have been helped by Mr. Crammond's th-oo iirt cles in the Nineteenth Centuary of OcUihev 1911, and March and August 1912. Miin>- of the figures which I have g-ven may be foun 1 cither in those artides or in Statesman's Year BooA-'1912. Naval Contributions. 19 of other countries as above, or by comparison of present expen diture with that of former times: "At one time, for instance, during the great wars at the beginning of the 19th century it was calculated that the British government expenditure, and the corresponding revenue, mostly raised by taxation, were each equal to about one-third of the aggregate of indi^vidual incomes — -that is as £90,000,000 to about £270,000,000. Proportions even higher have not been unkno-wn in his tory, and it is probable that in Russia, India, Egypt and in other countries at this moment, in time of peace, the proportion may amount to one-fourth or one- fifth. On the other hand, some years ago in the United Kingdom before the high expenditure on army and navy began, and before the South African war of 1899-1902, it is probable that with an outlay of less than £100,000,000 by the central government, the proportion of this outlay to the aggregate income of the people was not higher than one-fourteenth. At the beginning of 1902, when the South African war was closing, the normal peace expenditure, even reckoned at £160,000,000, did not exceed one-tenth, while even peace and war expenditure together in 1901, taking them as close on £200,000,000, did not ex ceed one-eighth" (a). Compare these figures with those of the present day or under the deadings total expenditure; total national income; proportion of one of these to the other; and surplus of national income over total expenditure. (All the figures represent millions of pounds) : — Period Expenditure Income Proposition Surplus 90. 100.160.180. 270. 1.400.1.600. 2.000. one-thirdone-fourteenthone- enth one-eleventh 180. Before S.A. -war (peace) 1902 (peace) 1911-12 (peace) 1.300.1.440. 1.819. So far, therefore, from being more and more heavily burdened in proportion to his strength, the Titan is actually carrying less td-day than ten years ago; and his surplus for the year is greater by the magnificent sum of £379,000,000, (6). If the United Kingdom thinks that four more battle-ships should be provided at a cost of say ten millions, her total war ex penditure would only be about one-fifth-part of the national in come. Indeed the extra ten millions could be paid out of the year's increase in wealth (£246,000,000) without making much impression upon it. (o) Encyclopedia Brittanica, Vol. 26, p. 464. (6) That, of course, does not mean a budget surplus. The comparison of the budget expenditure is not with the budget revenue, but -with the gross (not the net) national rev enue. 20 Naval Contributions. Or if it were thought better to pay it out of the income there would still be left an increase in income over the previous year of £37,000,000. And what would be the proportion between the ten millions and the total foreign investments of £3,750,000,000? Is it not one- three-hundred and seventy-fifth part? The poor weary Titan. How can he be expected to meet an emergency without somebody's help. Nobody suggests that there are no poor in the United Kingdom. There are, and far too many of them. But nobody suggests or, at least ought to suggest that they should contribute more than they are now paying, so long as there are such crowds of wealthy people who are well able to meet all demands. Consider the way in which wealth is distributed, and judga whether there ought to be complaints of taxation- weariness : — "By the Doomsday Book of 1875 (a) it appeared that one-fourth of the total acreage (excluding plots under one acre) is held by 1,200 owners, at an average for each of 16,200, acres; another fourth by 6,200 persons at an average of 3,150 acres; another fourth is held by 50,770 persons, averaging 380 acres each; and the remaining fourth by 261,830 persons, averaging 70 acres each (Caird). Peers, in number about 600, hold rather more than one-fifth of all the land in the kingdom. Thus one-half of the whole territory is in the hands of only 7,400 indi'viduals ; the other half is divided among 312,050 indi\-iduals" (6). As the numbei' of persons who o^\¦ned less than one acre was 703,000, and the total population was about 33,000,000, we may construct the following table showing the number of o'wners of land, their average holdings, and the totals owned by each group: — Number of Persons. Average Holdings in acres Totals in acres. 1,2006,200 60,770 261,830 600 (Peers) 703,000 owned 1< 31,076,400 (iwnod n 16,200 3,150 380 70 3wned one-fifth of the total. »sa than 1 acre. othing. 19,530,00019,530,000 19.292,600 18328,, 100 {(I ) That iH I he latest ofliriiil invesiigation. There is, probably, no very substantial change " (6) Encyclopctlia Bndiiti quoted in The Encyclopedia of Social Reforms (Bliss) pp. 792.3. Mr. lOscott gives \\\v B&me ^eurosixi England, its People, Policy and Pursuits, p. 180. I presume that llic figures do not include urban properties. Naval Contributions. MulhaU puts the matter in this way (a) : 21 Land Owners Acres Owned Average 34 841 179,649 6,211,0003,156,000 60,912,000 183,000 3,760 336 And he compares the average holdings in the United Kingdom and Fran(;e this way. Land O-wners Average Holdings in acres Percentage of 0-wnership to Population United Kingdom. France 180,000 3,226.00 390 32 0.5 9. Mr. Lloyd George, in the House of Commons (2 April, 191 5.J speaking of the amounts realized by the death duties for the pre ceding year, said: "The total property passing at death was £270,000,000. Half of the pro perty belonged to 970 persons Three-fourths of the property that passed last year belonged to persons who owned £5,000 and over. The number of those persons last year was over 7,000" (b). In other words, in one year 970 persons died worth an average of nearly $700,000. That happens every year. How many are there of them? Dr. Spahr estimating for the year 1891, and including in his figures all kinds of property, said (c) : — " If we sum up, therefore, the results of our enquiry, we find that less than 2 per cent, of the famiUes of the United Kingdom hold about three times as much private property as aU the remainder; and that 93 per cent, of the people hold less than 8 per cent, of the accumulated wealth." As to incomes he said: "In brief, about 1 per cent, of those ha-ving incomes receive over 35 per cent of the national income, while about 10 per cent, receive half as much again as the remaining 90" (d). (a) Die. of Statistics, 1886, pp. 266,7. MulhaU does not include cotiers, or persons o-wning less than 5 acres. (5) Hans., p. 1061. (c) The Present Distribution of Wealth in the United States, p. 23. Id) Quoted in The Encyolopedia of Social Reforms, p. 1389. 22 Naval Contributions. Or, as to the figures of Sir Robert Giffen, (1885) seem to show, aljout ten per cent, of the people receive nearly one-half of the total income (a). Perhaps the Titan would be a little less weary if he had not. quite so much to carry. A few deductions in dollars from the foreign figures in pounds may be useful. The United Kingdom is not in need of our thirty millions (Is that the figure?), for her parliamentary surplus of revenue over expenditure for the last year (inclusive of the cost of new war ships) was more than that amount. If she needs still another thirty millions, it could be taken off her annual increase in wealth and yet leave that increase at about the sum of $1,200,000,000. Or if she preferred to share her capital and pay t-ie exti.i thirty millions out of income, she could do it, and yet be able to ^Iiow an increase, for the year, in her revenue of about $200,000,03) If the United Kingdom were at war for a year, and if half a million dollars a day were charged against her increase of wealth for the year, there would still be left of it more than §1,000,000. Or if the expenditure were paid out of the increase in income, a balance would still remain of about 850,000,00 0. Observe that we have not been proposing to touch a dollar of either present national wealth or of present national income. The expenditure is to be made out of the year's increase of wealth or income. At the end of the year's war, therefore, both the national wealth and the national income would be enormously greater than when the war began. Evidently if the "weary Titan staggers under the too vast orb of his fate," the orb is one of gold. (a) Essays in Finance, 2ufl series, p. 461. See Mayo Smith, Stat, and Econ., Vol. 2, p. 422. Naval Contributions. 23 Other Parts of the King's Dominions. India. — If Canada ought to subscribe to the British navy, how much more should India? Control of the Mediterranean; occupation of Egypt; and defence of the Suez canal are requisite, we are told, for the security of India. Turcophile policy is essential, so it is said, because of the large Mohammedan population of India. Operations in Persia, and opposition to German and other railways are necessary, we are informed, because of India. The first Japanese alliance (which had the effect eventually of disturbing many things) was indispensable. Lord Landsowne thought, for the protection of India. Very well. Now when we are asked to subscribe to the Britith navy, have we a right to ask, what is India doing? How much does she subscribe? Nothing. Australia. — Canada has been told that she ought to follow the example of Australia. What has Australia done? At the Colonial Conference of 1887, a bargain was made between the British government and Australia by which the Admiralty agreed to place certain war vessels "within the limits of the Australian stations;" that they should be removed only ' ' with the consent of the Colonial governments"; and that of the cost involved, the colonies (Aus tralia and New Zealand) should pay £126,000 per annum. The bargain was fulfilled, the ships were provided, and the money was paid. In 1903 a new agreement was made, and the payment was increased to £240,000 per annum. In 1907, both Admiralty and Australia were tired of .the arrangement, and it was agreed that Australia should spend her money upon ship building for herself. Lord Tweedmouth (the First Lord) saying: "I think, perhaps, it is impossible suddenly to make a change. I would suggest that a beginning should be made, and that probably the best way to start would be to allocate to local purposes, certain portions of the subsidies al ready given" (o). The agreement was drawn up in proper legal form (6). The Lord High Admiral agreed that the naval force on the Australian station should consist of 1 first-class cruiser, 2 second-class cruisers, 4 third-class cruisers, 4 sloops; that its base should be the ports of Australia and New Zealand; that its sphere of operations should be the waters of the Australia, China, and East India stations; (a) Proceedings, p. 131. (b) It may be seen in the Australian statutes of 1903. 24 Naval Contributions. and that no change in these respects should be made without the assent of Australia and New Zealand. "In consideration of the services afore-mentioned, the Commonwealth of Austraha and New Zealand shall pay the Imperial government five twelfths and one-twelfth respectively of the total annual cost of maintaining the naval force on the AustraKan station, provided that the total amounts so paid shall in no case exceed £200,000, and £40,000 respectively in any one year (a). In reaching the total annual cost, a sum equal to 5 per cent, on the prime cost of the ships of which the naval force of the station is composed shall be included." A further clause provided that the payments shall be made "in advance." It will thus be seen that Australia did not contribute a dohar to the British navy. She was dissatisfied with her naval security. She wanted some British ships near by. She bargained for them. And she paid her money for them. Canada asked for nothing, and she paid nothing. New Zealand, — New Zealand was a party to the agreements just referred to between the Admiralty and Australia. Down to 1907 her case was the same as Australia's ,and when it was arranged that the 1903 agreement should terminate, New Zealand did not know what to do. Her budget being smaU, she could not hope to own and maintain a navy of her own, and the withdrawal of the British ships appeared to render necessary the substitution of other defence. As her Prime Minister said at the Conference of 1907 : "We should hesitate to impose upon ourselves the burden of construc tion of ships of war, or of any great liabilities connected ¦with the maintenance of ships of war, or any great financial responsibihties other than we actually commit ourselves to in a defined agreement" (6). The proposal of the Admiralty, he said, for a change from a "money basis" should be carefully considered. He did not want "to raise questions which might be looked upon as troublesome, but we do fear some of the eastern countries, whose teeming milhons, so close to Austraha and New Zealand as they are, under the educational process in years to come, may find the attractions of our country sufficient to induce them to give us some trouble." Pending the termination of the agreement, New Zealand con tinued her annual payments, and two years after the Conference (o) The total cost for one year was £581,964, per Lord Tweedmouth, Times, 31 July, 1907 (6) Proceedings, p. 135. Naval Contributions. 25 under the influence of the German "scare" of 1909, she appears to have conceived the idea of giving a new turn to the old arrange ment — if the Admiralty would not supply ships for New Zealand waters in consideration of receiving one-half of the cost of mainte nance, might not the Admiralty pay the whole cost of maintenance if New Zealand supplied the ships? Whether or not that was the original design, that was the way it worked out. New Zealand paid the cost of a cruiser and at the Sub-Conference of 1909, the Ad miralty agreed that it should be maintained in the China station — at the place from which invasion might come (a). Indeed, New Zealand did better than that, for the Admiralty agreed that part of the China fleet "will be maintained in New Zealand waters as their headquarters" (6). Nevertheless New Zealand is not satisfied. Indications are not wanting that she has repented her act; that she will, almost certainly, join in the Australian plan of a local na'vy; and that her gift ship will eventually form part of an Australasian squadron (c). The South African Union. — The Union has continued the old contributions of Cape Colony and Natal — £85,000. All the other Colonies. — Not a dollar of contribution, and no probability of it ; unless we are to take seriously the reported offer of the Malays and Chinese, of the Federated Malay States, to pay for a battleship in so many years, "if possible". In all this, there appears to be nothing upon which to base an argument for contribution by Canada. If any one were to say that Canada ought to introduce and enforce universal military training because Australia and New Zealand have done so, the simple reply would be that those places believe that their safety depends upon such action, whereas Canada does not. In the same way the fact that those places feel themselves threatened by special danger from over-seas, and are willing to spend money in guarding against it, is no reason why Canada, without any such feeling, should divert her revenue to a similar purpose. And there ought to be no eulogies of the patriotism, gener osity and recognition of duty on the part of Australia and New Zealand. Unfortunately for them, their geographical situation combined with a tremulous timidity which the British race appears to be developing, is such that nothing but universal compulsory military service and battle-ships ready for action can enable them to sleep at night. Safety, and not patriotism or imperialism or generosity, is their motive. (o) Proceedings, p. 19. And see Daily Mail Year Book, 1912, p, 266. (6> Proceedings, page 28. (c) See United Empire, Nov. 1912, p. 859. 26 Naval Contributions. "An Emergency'' Definition and Distinctions: Much of the discussion as to the existence of "an emergency" would be obviated if some little attention were paid to the meaning of the word. Murray's diction ary supplies the following: "A state of things unexpectedly arising and urgently demanding immediate action." For example, as Mr. George E. Foster said, in 1909: — 'When, in 1899, Kruger attempted to drive the British into the sea that was an emergency" (o). Tested by this definition and illustration there is no discoverable emergency. Discussion would be much simplified, also, if proper distinction were made between the sufficiency of British preparation for de fence — that is the capacity of the navy — on the one hand, and, on the other, the ability of the British army to cope with continental forces. For if you say that the British islands or their possessions are insecure, you speak without knowledge; and if you say that the British army is inferior to the French or German, nobody will dispute your assertion. There is a third factor in the situation that ought to be remem bered. It may be stated in the language of The Montreal Star (31 October, 1912): "There is danger at this moment that she", the United Kingdom, "may be drawn into the Balkan trouble. We may have to fight a terrific and costly war, paralysing our trade, thro^wrng our industries out of gear, crippling our finances, weakening our expensive na-vy and spilling the blood of all too many British subjects; and all for a cause in which we are hardly at all concerned. Why should Britain actually go to war to establish a Slav Federation in the Balkans? We have threatened to go to war more than once in the past to prevent something very like this precise result. Yet we may be compelled to shoulder the enormous burden of a great war for this cause which is certainly no more to us than the establishment of a free Persia, which we are indirectly helping to prevent. And why? "Because we are bound to our alUes, as we were not bound before this 'emer gency' arose" (fa). (a) Hans., 29 March, p. ib) This throwsbock the apparation of the phantasm to at least 1908, and possibly to 1904 — the respective dates of the arpproachementi with Russia and France. "The "urgency" created by its arrival must be as old. Naval Contributions. 27 That is very well put. It illustrates, in a striking manner, the utter folly of the recent foreign policy of the United Kingdom. In view of it, may I ask the reperusal of pages 312-7 of Vol. 1 of these Papers ? Please observe that the situation, as described by The Star, does not, in any way suggest the insufficiency of the British navy for defence. Everybody grants that if the United Kingdom con templates the probabiHty of engaging in continental struggles, her land forces are inadequate (that is what Lord Roberts is always saying) (a), and that if she has bound herself to undertake such enterprises, she has blundered. The necessity for these distinctions is obvious. In Canada, we have been asked to subscribe to the British Navy, because British supremacy on the seas was necessary to our own existence as well as to the existence of the Empire; necessary to the safety of our com merce; necessary to the world's civilization, &c. But si^pposing, as the fact is, that these are all perfectly secure; and that what we are asked to do is, in support of Russia, "to fight a terrific and costly war, paralysing our trade, throwing our industries out of gear, crippling our finances and all for a cause in which we are hardly concerned at all," then, I say, that is a very different proposition. Prove to Canada (if you can) that her existence depends upon an inadequate British navy, and she wiU readily subscribe her last dollar. But if you ask her to contribute some millions in order ' ' to establish a Slav Federat ion in the Balkans," I am inclined to think that you will receive rather a cold reply. History of the Subject. — With these preliminary suggestions, let us turn to the history of what has been called an emergency, but what has never been more than a short, foolish scare into which, for a short time, Englishmen talked themselves. (a) Lord Roberts is not only undoubtedly sincere, but for the purpose for which he wants the ne-w battalions (continental -wars) he is indisputably correct. My reply to those who quote him in connection -with the subject of British naval defence is: (1) that they are confusing two subjects that ought to be kept separate — ^defence by the navy, and land fighting on the continent: and (2) that, for my part, I much prefer the old British policy (do-wn to 1904) of non-intervention in continental -wars. Because Lord Roberts advocates a larger army, do not conclude that the British na-vy is insufficient for defence. Keep the two things distinct. The Montreal Star expressed (30 October 1912) the principle objection to Lord Robert's ad vocacy -when it said: "Undoubtedly Lord Roberts' speech was resented in Berlin. If Ger many had a great soldier -with a resplendent war record — a Teutonic replica of Lord Roberts — • and he were told to hold such language as "Bobs" employed, in his Manchester speech, to-wards Britain, the United Kingdom -would no-w be aflame. It is only the admirable calm and self- restraint of the German people which can prevent an outbreak in the Fatherland." 28 Naval Contributions. It might have commenced (but did not) during the Boer war, when the German Reichstag passed the naval bill preceded by the assertion that — "Germany must have a fleet of such strength that, even for the greatest naval Power, a war with her would involve such risks as to imperil its own sup remacy." Ever since that time, Germany has steadily pursued her de clared purpose with the result that to-day, although far inferior in naval strength to the United Kingdom, she is less palpably help less than she was ten years ago. Naturally enough, the United Kingdom does not like the change. She would much prefer being supreme upon the ocean — in a position to dictate, in extra — Euro pean politics, to the rest of the world. And, feeling perfectly confi dent of her own superiority to all considerations but those of abso lute justness and right, she can see but one reason for the existence of a German navy, namely, a predetermined and wanton attack upon the British empire. That is a very foolish attitude, and before finishing this paper I shall endeavor to establish the assertion. Meanwhile, as an aid to the understanding of the history of the scare (the scare of 1909^ the only scare that has arisen) observe that it must be attributed to five factors: (1) the existence of a substantial foreign navy; (2) the timidity of a, powerful and in^'ulnerable nation in presence of another unable to assail her; (3) the play of party-politics working upon that timidity; (4) agitation by militarists, armament-makers and yellow journalists; and (5) a foolish speech (16 March 1909) by Mr. McKenna. Party-politics was the strongest of these factors. The Germany naval bill above referred to was passed in 1900. A new bill provid ing for larger expenditure was passed in 1904 (o). Mr. Balford's (Unionist) government resigned in December 1905. During these five years there was no "scare" and no attempt at arousing appre hension. Mr. Balfour's statement (7 March 1905) that — "The committee of Defence were clearly of the opinion that the invasion of these lands in such force as to inflict a fatal blow or threaten our independence was impossible" (6). being sufficiently salisfactoi'v. (a) Ann. Ileg. 1904, p. 279. (6) As givcTi in Ann. Ileg. 1905, pp. 65,6. -Xnil see Ibid, 1906, p. 36. Naval Contributions. 29 During the next session, the Liberal government reduced the ship-building programme of their predecessors, at the same time assuring parliament that "The Board of Admiralty was satisfied that the modifications of the pro gramme would not impair British naval supremacy'' (a). The reduction was, of course, attacked, and although in the following years large additions to the expenditure were made, the insufficiency of the navy and the consequent danger of German in vasion was, for several years, part of the Unionist election material (6) . The effectiveness of the agitation maybe gauged by the ready credulity with which the silliest yarns was received. For instance The Times (c) published a letter from its military correspondent declaring that the German Emperor had addressed a letter to Lord Tweedmouth (First Lord of the Admiralty), "amounting to an attempt to influence, in German interests, the minister res ponsible for our navy estimates"; and The Times, editorially, demanded production of the letter. During the discussion in parliament, Lord Rosebery said: "I am quite sure that it never entered his'' (the Emperor's) "head, or the head of any educated person outside an asylum in Germany, that by a private communication to my noble friend, he could exercise any influence whatever on the progress of British armamennts" (d) ; and Lord Tweedmouth having given satisfactory explanation. Lord Landsdowne ' ' declared that the Unionists would not press for publication of the correspond ence" (e). But the damage had been done; and by the commencement of the follo'wing year (1909) nervousness had been raised to such a height that a play "An Englishman's Home" depicting a successful German invasion of England was received with enthusiasm. It met with some success even in Canada. The climax came with the debate on the navy estimates (16 karch 1909), when either consciously, for the purpose of placating the (o) Ann. Reg. 1906, p. 194. (6) The increase in the annual expenditure on the navy during the last 5 years is nearly 13 million pounds. The scare is still sometimes made use of. (c) March 6, 1908. (d) Hans., 9 March 1908, p. 1076. le) As given in Ann. Reg. 1908, pp. 59, 60. 30 Naval Contributions. radical members (a), or merely foolishly (that is without sufficiently considering the state of pubhc feeling) Mr. McKenna (First Lord of the Admiralty) gave ground for the impression that, by concealing its activities, Germany had almost reached equality in naval power with the United Kingdom. Mr. Balfour followed, skillfully em phasizing what he termed the ' ' alarming crisis in which this country finds itself I say that the programme as presented by the government is utterly insufficient" (6). The scare had commenced. Mr. Asquith replied that the pro gramme gave ample protection: "I can assure the House that it is with the most serious sense ofresponsi- bihty, and after the most careful consideration of the facts and figures which are at our disposal, that we put forward this programme which we beheve to be adequate, and which we hope the House of Commons -will accept" (c). On a subsequent day (22 March) Mr. Asquith again spoke He said that he hoped: "that grave as, in one of its aspects, the situation undoubtedly was; nec essary, as it seemed to us, as it was to make provision for events, for the new state of things which a year ago was not in existence, yet that there would be a universal feeKng in this country that there was no occasion for an\-thing in the nature, I will not say of panic but of alarm or even disquiet." He said that his hope had not been reahzed, and he proceeded: ' ' to dissipate, so far as I can — and I think I shall be able to do so completely— the absurd and mischievous legends to which currency is being given at this moment as to the supposed naval unpreparedness of this country. .^ more unpatriotic, a more unscrupulous misrepresentation of the actual situation than that which is now being represented in some quarters I have never experi enced" (fa). Ml . Balfour followed. He denied the charge of party motives. He admitted that there was no present danger — " no |)ers()n luis yet disputed that we are safe now" (e). but he declared his aii.xicty for the future, and demanded that (o) Color for this sURKc'Stion can lie found in the Minister's speech on pages 931 of Hansard (6) Hans., p. 954, (c) Ilan.^i., p. 983. (d) lluna. p. 1504. (e) Hans., p. 1612. Naval Contributions. 31 eight new Dreadnoughts should be "taken in hand as soon as possi ble." A week afterwards (29 March) Mr. Arthur Lee moved a resolu tion declaring that the pohcy of the government "does not sufficiently secure the safety of the Empire'' (a). The arguments were repeated, and the resolution was lost by 135 ayes to 353 noes. The party advantage of the agitation was soon apparent. The Annual Register tells us that: ' ' The excitement, however, was greater in London (fa) than in the north of England, or Scotland (c), and was strongly manifested in the Croydon election campaign where 'we want eight and we won't wait' became a refrain of a Unionist song. The Liberal defeat (March 29) was a striking testimony to the effect of the naval agitation and the efforts of the tariff reformers'' (d). After further speeches in the constituencies and at a Guildhall meeting summoned by the Lord Mayor (e), Mr. Asquith, at Glas gow (17 April) explained the situation, declared that: "These facts gave no ground for alarm, but suggested the need of timely and adequate preparation. The British fleet was overwhelmingly superior to any combination of fleets" (/). The Unionist agitation, nevertheless, proceeded, but with rapidly diminishing vitality. I do not say that it was indulged consciously for mere Unionist purposes. But I do say that the agitators were Unionists, whose metier it was to discredit the government. I say that the agitation was the work of one political party. And I say that there was no limit to the stupidity of the stories which were printed in the newspapers, and by many people believed. For example: ' ' Mysterious air-ships were seen at night in various places as far apart as Lowestoft and Cardiff, and one was even discovered at night on a Welsh moun tain accompanied by two men who spoke some foreign tongue Another story was that there were 50,000 stands of Mauser rifles and 160 rounds of ball cartridge for each stored in a cellar -within a quarter of a mile of Charing Cross, ready for the 66,000 German soldiers supposed to be in England (a) Hans., p. 39. (6) Predominantly Unionist. (c) Both strongly Liberal. (d) Ann. Reg. 1909. p. 62. (e) Ann. Reg. 1909, pp. 66, 7. ( ) As given in Ann. Reg. 1909, p. 79. 32 Naval Contributions. The German scare had gone too far even for some of its promotors; and Lord Northchffe, ¦writing from Berlin to the Daily Mail (May 21) quoted passages from the German papers sho^wing that it was causing apprehension, and urged the British press and people to study "the real German danger,' and to refrain from encouraging a gro-wing beUef that England was inhabited by 'nervous degenerates'" (o). It was while foolish excitement of that sort pervaded England that New Zealand responded with the offer of a Dreadnought, and that the Canadian House of Commons, more merely retaining its equilibrium, adopted (29 March) the resolution quoted in Vol, 1 of these Papers at page 271. By that tune indeed, the "scare" had commenced its disappearance in England — a scare which, as Mr. Monk said (12 January 1910): "lasted nearly a month and then blew over"' (6). It subsided, and all efforts to rouse it again have completely failed. Agitation is now directed rather against the alleged insuffi ciency of the army, and, as will shortly appear, the Unionist party, if not admittedly satisfied with the governments naval programme, has greatly modified its complaints and criticisms. Proof of this assertion may be found in the character of the dis cussion prior to the general elections of January 1910, for although the navy was, undoubtedly, frequently referred to "the controvers}' centred round the future of the House of Lords, the merits of the budget and tariff reform" (c). Another general election was held in December of the same year: "The contest, however, was probably not much affected by any issues but the veto, tariff-reform and home rule. Mr. Blatchford (d), indeed, repeatd his warnings of a year before and insisted that the 'German menace' was the greatest issue of all. But Httle was heard of it, or of other famihar questions, though the organization connected ¦with the trade in intoxicants and the Land Union respectively did their best against the government, by advertisement or otherwise" (e). After those general elections, occasional allusions only were made to the departed naval scare. (o) Ann. Reg., 1909, p. 117. (6) Hans., p. 1770. (c) Ann. Reg. 1910, p. 2. (d) A clever journalist. (e) Ann. Reg. 1910, p. 249. Naval Contributions. 33 Since 1909, I say, there has been no naval scare. There never has been an emergency. And if anyone wiU read the debates in the British parliament for the present year, he will be convinced that there is neither scare nor emergency now. It will be remembered that in 1909, Mr. Balfour although satis fied with the then present situation, expressed anxiety for the future. Three years afterwards (10 June, 1912) Mr. Churchhih in answer to a question as to the number of ships actually in commission on a certain day, said: "Germany had 9 'Dreadnoughts' and 'Dreadnought' cruisers on 31st March. We had 15, a sixteenth having commissioned on 6th April." In reply to another question as to the danger from delays in completing other ships, Mr. Churchhih said: "The country ¦will not be involved in any danger" (a). In his speech on the naval estimates, Mr. Churchhill, after des cribing the recent changes in the German navy under three principal headings (new construction, large additions to personnel, and per manency of commission) indicated that he proposed to increase his programme for new ships, for the next five years, respectively, from 3, 4, 3, 4, 3 to 5, 4, 4, 4, 4,. He added that: "The Admiralty are able to announce that they are satisfied with the margin proposed, so far as the next two or two and a half years are concerned." Deprecating pressure, for the present, of announcement of still further arrangements, Mr. Churchhill added: I hope it -wiU be sufficient for me to say that the arrangements proposed ¦will, in the opinion of the Admiralty, be adequate for the needs of 1914 and 1915." Referring to his proposed increase in men, he said : ' ' There is no lack of good and healthy boys and youths in these islands to man the navy." And recognizing the necessity, in naval matters, particularly, for preparation in advance of peril, he added : "Well, do we understand the truth of Mr. Borden's words: 'The day of peril is too late for preparation'." (a) Hans. 523. 34 Naval Contributions. In reply, Mr. Balfour said that he agreed with Mr. Churchhill's "general maxim" that you should not "relax, for one instant, the necessary augmentation of your strength, so that no foreseeable revolution will ever put you at the mercy of some naval or mihtary accident and I am glad that the government have come round to that opinion." Mr. Balfour did not think it probable that the United Kingdom would be at war, without allies, against an European combination, and, contemplating a possible Armageddon, he said that ' ' Looking at it from a naval point of -view, it seems to me that the fleets of the triple entente are not inadequate now, and are not going to be inadequate, to any strain that is going to be placed upon them." His very temperate criticism of Mr. Churchhill's proposed changes in the Mediterranean was : "Is he not running it rather fine?" Mr. Asquith's reply was short. Referring to Mr. Balfour's allusion to the government's change of attitude, he said: "There never has been a moment, and there is not now, when we have not been overwhelmingly superior in naval force against any combination which could reasonably be anticipated" (a). Sir Charles Beresford (whose irresponsible recklessness deprives his utterances of significance) was not satisfied. He declared that "The fleet was di-vided, and altogether was not equal to the German fleet." Compare that with the remarks, on the following day, by Lord Selborne, a leading Unionist who had himself been a First Lord of the Admiralty: "If next year and in the years ensuing, the government acted up to the spirit of utterances of the Prime Minister and the First Lord, they would do their duty" (fa). This confidence is founded upon the following figures: (a) Mr. Asquith also said: "I deprecate anything in the nature of panic or scare. I do not think there is the least occasion for it." (b) The above extracts are taken from The Times of 23 and 24 July 1912. A further de bate is r-(> ported in the issue of tho 25th. Naval Contributions. 35 Tonnage launched in 1910: United Kingdom 176,582 Germany 101 , 830 Expenditure on construction in 1911: United Kingdom £17,566,877 Germany 11,710,859 Present Dreadnoughts and Dreadnought cruisers: United Kingdom 32 Germany 21 Programme of construction for next 5 years: United Kingdom 5,4,4,4,4 Germany 2,2,2,2,2 As a matter of indisputable fact, therefore, there has been, and theie is, no naval emergency. There was a naval scare in 1909. It "lasted nearly a month and then blew over." There has been no scare since then. There is none now. The Unionists are satisfied with the principles of action entertained by the Liberal government. There is no emergency. There has never been one of a naval sort, since Trafalgar. Ask yourself what the British poeple would be doing, and how they would be acting if they believed in the existence of a naval emergency — even if they believed without reason (as in March 1909) — compare that with their comfortable tranquillity with regard to their naval security. They are too much ashamed of the old scare to make themselves, so soon, again ridiculous. Germany's Object. — Fulfilling my promise to deal with the idea that Germany's sole object in building a navy must be to attack the United Kingdom and wreck the British Empire, let me imagine the following conversation: "Why does the United Kingdom require a navy?" First, to defend her coasts; second, to protect her commerce; third, to protect her colonies; and fourth, to give weight to her diplomatic contentions. "Why does Germany want a navy?" For precisely the same four reasons. "But has she any commerce to protect, or is that not mere pretence?" She has a mercantile marine of 4,675 ships with a net tonnage of 2,903,570 tons, and every ship on every voyage is exposed 36 Naval Contributions. to capture by the British fleet. Most of them pass through the British channel. "Well, at least she has no colonies to protect?" Without counting the recent transfer from France to part of the Congo terri tory, Germany's colonial possessions cover 1,027,820 square miles (about nine times the size of the United Kingdom) inhabited by 13,946,200 persons. They are to be found in Africa, Asia, and the Pacific islands. "But we distrust Germany's diplomatic intentions?" And she cannot be absolutely certain that you will always take a dis interested view of questions in which you are interested. "In any case, our food-supply depends upon the supremacy of our navy, and Germany's does not." True, they have the dis advantage as well as the benefit of being insular. That you can be hurt at sea and not on land is hardly a reason why Germany and the rest of the world should refrain from being prepared to meet you there in case of disagreement. Have you considered the effect on Germany of a war with the United Kingdom — I mean the economic effect? An unsuccessful war would mean the absolute destruction of her commerce; the financial ruin of hundreds of thousands of her bankers, merchants and manufacturers; the reduction to poverty of a large part of her population — all that besides her loss of prestige and European hegemony. Ai-gument would be too long to prove that in many of these respects, Germany would suffer tremendously even if her efforts were successful, but I may, by three quotations, suggest the line of thought. The first is from Normen Angell's book Europe's Optical Illusion (The whole book should be read). Reph-ing to the ques tion, What would happen if a German army looted the Bank of England? the author said: "It is as certain as anything can be that were the German army guilty of such economic vandahsm there is no considerable institution in Germany that would escape grave damage; a damage in credit and security so serious as to constitute a loss immensely greater than the value of the loot obtained. It is not putting the matter too strongly to say that for every pound taken from the Bank of England, German f ratio would suffer a thousand" (a). The second quotation is from a speech in 1904 of Count Bulow (the German Chancellor) : (a) Page 47. Naval Contributions. 37 ' ' What would a nation gain today if it overthrew one of its maritime rivals? It would, perhaps, destroy the economic organization of its adversary, but it would, undoubtedly, at the same time infhct the gravest damage upon its own commerce. It would be doing the work of those others who would gladly take the vacant places in the markets of the world, and comfortably establish themselves there. The evil consequences would be permanant I cannot conceive that the idea of an Anglo-German war should be seriously entertained by sensible people in either country. They will cooly consider the enormous damage which even the most successful war of this character would work upon their o-wn country, and when they reckon it out it -will be found that the stake is much too high in -view of the certain loss. For this reason, gentlemen, I, for my part, do not take the hostihty of a section of the English press too tragically" (a)- The third quotation is from the speech of Mr. Balfour of 22 July last (of which a part has already been quoted) : ' ' My hope is based upon the fact that a modern war, especially an all em bracing war would not merely be so frightfully destructive of accumu lated wealth and of human life, but would so profound^ disorganize the indus tries on which, in increasing measure, every great ci-vilized country is now, more and more, dependent, that even the most reckless statesman, when he sees it before him, -will shrink back horrified at the prospect" (fa). Relieving the Emergency. — Now let us suppose that all that has been said is wrong; that there is a naval emergency, that in some way or other it ought to be relieved, and that we want to relieve it — suppose all that, and ask what ought we to do? The proposal that, under such circumstances, we should send a cheque to the Admiralty, appears to me (with all proper respect) the most curious of all possible suggestions. If some oae knew that Lord Strathcona's or Mr. Pierpoint Morgan's life was threatened, would he, with more or less delay, send him a cheque? Send money to the poor, if they need bread. Yes, but to send money, because of danger, to a wealthy man or a wealthy nation — to the great cash- reservoirs — is, I repeat, an exceedingly curious proposal. Its quaintness could be increased only by adding to it this fact, that, before the money could be sent, it would have to be borrowed from the man or the nation to whom it was to be donated! (c) Fancy the following conversation between Canada and the Kingdom: Canada. — Are you in a state of emergency? United Kingdom.^— Not so far as I am aware. Canada. — Well, if you will lend me twenty or thirty million (a) As given in the Ann. Reg. 1904, p. 282. (6) The Times, 23 July 1912. (c) We could, of course, pay thirty millions out of revenue; but only (1) by interfering with expenditure on needed pubUc works, or (2) by borrowing in London. I assume that the first of these expedients will not be adopted. 38 Naval Contributions dollars, I will give it to you to help you in your emergency. Could anything be more whimsical? We pay the British people interest on say eighteen hundred millions of dollars, and we propose to modify the strain of a pressing naval emergency by agreeing to pay interest on thirty millions morel That is neither patriotism nor mere raiUery. It is fantastic imperialism. Summary. A short summary, or index, of what has been said may be useful : 1. The constitutional view of the necessity for a general election: (o) No mandate. (b) Re-distribution. (c) Conjunction of those two factors. 2. Mr. Monk's personal position. 3. Reasons suggested for contribution to British navy: (1) British expenditure on Canada. (2) Canada a part of the British Empire. (3) Protection of Canada. (4) Protection of Canadian commerce. (5) British loans to Canada. (6) The weary Titan is tired. 4. What other parts of the King's dominions are doing. 5. An emergency is "a state of things vmexpectedly arising and urgently demanding immediate action." 6. Distinction must be made between the sufficiency of the navy for defence, and the sufficiency of the army for continental wars. 7. Distinguish between emergency and scare. There has never been a naval emergency since Trafalgar. And there has been only one naval scare — March 1909. 8. Five factors contributed to the scare: (1) The existence of a substantial German navy. Naval Contributions 39 (2) British timidity worked upon by — (3) Party politicians; (4) Militarists, armament-makers and yellow journalists. (5) Mr. McKenna's foolish speech, skillfully exploited by Mr. Balfour. 9. No scare during the Unionist government. 10. Unionist attack upon Liberal government programme of 1906. 11. Scareographs: The Kaiser's letter to Lord Tweedmouth. "An Englishman's Home." 12. Debate d 16 March, 1909: Speeches of Mr. McKenna, Mr. Balfour and Mr. Asquith. The scare commenced. 13. Debate of 22 March. Mr. Asquith's denunciation of "unpatriotic" and "unscrupulous misrepresentation." Mr. Bal four's demand for 8 Dreadnaughts. 14. Motion of censure of 29 March. Defeated by 135 to 353. 15. Croydon election success of Unionists. 16. Stupid stories. Air-ships and concealed rifles. 17. Action of New Zealand and Canada, during the scare. 18. Subsidence of the scare. Present agitation is confined to the alleged insufficiency of the army. 19. Little said about naval question at the general elections of January 1910. 20. Almost no attention paid to it at the general elections of December 1910. 21. Debates in 1912: Increase of British programme. Mr. Balfour's satisfaction. Mr. Asquith's assurance. Sir Charles Beresford's assertion. Lord Selborne's satisfaction. Sufficient reason for it. 22. Germany's objects the same as the United Kingdom's. 23. A British naval emergency could not be relieved by borrow ing British money and donating it to the British government. The last thing in the world that the British people are in need of is money. 40 Naval Contributions. Sir Charle.s Tupper's Letter. In 1891, Lord Salisbury requested a deputation from The Iniperial Federation League to prepare and submit some scheme. The League appointed a committee; the committee failed; and the League dissolved (1893). Sir Charles Tupper was a member of the committee. In its consultations, he had to fight those who proposed colonial contributions; and, afterwards, he wrote as follows : "Knowing as I do that the most active members of the committee were mainly intent on levjdng a large contribution on the revenues of the colonies for the support of the army and navy of Great Britain, I am deUghted to have been able, almost single-handed, to obtain such a report from such a committee." In 1909, shortly after the Naval and Jlilitary Conference of that year (July and August) at which the Australian plan of contribution to the British navy was abandoned, and the scheme of local navies (for which Canada had always contended) had been adopted both by Australia and the Admhalty, Sir Charles Tupper wrote to Jlr. Borden the following letter: The Mount, Bexley Heath, November 20, 1909. "My Dear Mr. Borden, — I have read with much interest the "communication of the Canadian correspondent of the Times on "naval defence in to-day's issue of that paper. I regard that ques- "tion as more important than any mere party issue, and am glad "to learn that you are resolved to maintain the patriotic attitude "of the Conservative party assumed last session. A few years "ago, when Canada was struggling to open up for British settlement "the great granary of the world, a few gentlemen here raised the "question of a Canadian contribution to the imperial navy. / "joined ISSUE WITH THEM AND WAS SUSTAINED BY THE PRESS AND "public OPINION. It was admitted that Canada was not only no "burden to the mother country, but without her harbors and coal "mines on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, Britain would require a "laiger navy. Contrast the progress oj Canada, Australia and "New Zealand under imperial management, and since it was re- " linquished, and it will be seen to whom their present importance ' ' is due. "In an e\'il hour for the British Emphe, Cobdenism was allowed "to sweep away the protection policy which had made England ' ' mistress of the manufactures of the world and place all her colonies Naval Contributions. 41 'in the position of foreigners The confederation of ' Canada which has resulted in such gigantic progress was the work ' of Canadians, and regarded by many British statesmen as a pre- 'lude to getting rid of responsibility. [' ! ' ' Regarding as I do British institutions scs giving greater security 'to life, property and liberty than any other form of government, 'I have devoted more than half a century to increasing efforts to 'preserve the connection oJ Canhda and the Crown. When Great ' Britain was involved in the struggle in the Transvaal I led the 'van in forcing the Canadian government to send aid. But I 'did not believe then, AND I DO NOT BELIEVE NOW, IN TAXATION ' WITHOUT REPRESENTATION. ThE DEMAND WHICH WILL SOON BE 'made by SOME THAT CANADA SHOULD CONTRIBUTE TO THE IM- 'PERIAL NAVY IN PROPORTION TO POPULATION, I REGARD AS PRE- ' POSTEROUS AND DANGEROUS. "I read with pleasure the resolution passed unanimously by 'the House of Commons wliich pledged parliament to proceed 'vigorously with the construction of the Canadian navy and to 'support Britain in every emergency, and all that in my opinion is 'required is to hold the government of the day bound to carry 'that out honestly. Navies are maintained largely to promote 'the security of the mercantile shipping of the country to which 'they belong. "When I remember that in the general election of 1891, the 'friends of British institutions after a desperate struggle, which 'cost that great and patriotic statesman, Sir John A. Macdonald, 'his life, we only secured a majority of about 25, and I have no 'hesitation in saying that had the principle oj a contribution to ' the imperial navy according to our population then been in operation 'that majority of 25 would have been in favor of continental free 'trade and the adoption oj the tariff oj the United States against 'Crreat Britain. Who can question the accuracy of that opinion ' who remembers that in 1896 my government was fiercely denounced ' in Quebec by Liberal candidates and Liberal newspapers on account ' of its militia expenditureis, when they declared that an expenditure ' of $3,000,000 to buy rifles for the militia was a danger to the country ' and that the military programme of the government was 'frightful.' "I do not forget that aU parties in the United States agree in 'the desire to obtain possession of Canada. Under existing circum- ' stances it was of immense importance to have Sir Wilfrid Laurier ' and his party committed to the pohcy which secured the unani- ' mous consent of the House of Commons on a question of such vital 42 Naval Contributions. ' importance, and a great responsibility will rest upon those who 'disturb that compact. "I CANNOT UNDERST.WD THE DEMAND FOR DREADNOUGHTS 'in THE FACE OF THE FACT THAT THE ADMIRALTY AND BRITISH ' GOVERNMENT HAA'E DETER.MINED THAT IT WAS NOT THE BEST MODE 'of MAINTAINING THE SECURITY OF THE EMPIRE, AND ARRANGED 'with Canada and .Vustk.\lia (the latter of whom had offered 'one or two Dreadnoughts) for the con.structiox of the ' local navies to keep open the th.^de route.s in ca.se of war. "All difficulty as to the question of autonomy is now removed 'as it is fully recognized that the great outlying portions oj the ' Empire are sister nations, and that means are adopted to secure ' uniformity in the naval forces of the Empire in the design and con- ' struction of the ships, and the training of the officers and men. They ' are also to be interchangeable and thus secure unifoi'jnity in every ' ' respect so as to act as effective units with, the British navy. ' ' Of course the government of the day will be held accountable ' ' for carrying out the policy thus agreed upon in a thoroughly effective ' ' manner, but I cannot avoid thinking that a fearful responsibility "will rest upon those who disturb or DESTROY THE COMPACT "entered into on this vit.vlly important question," Charles Tupper. The fact that this letter was written after the naval scare of March 1909, adds greatly to its significance. Ottawa, Nov. 1912. ^ John S. Ewart THE KINGDOM PAPERS NO. 12. BRITISH PROTECTION The first edition of the first volume of The Kingdom Papers (9000 copies) is out of print. A second will be ready within four weeks, and may then be obtained for the cost of binding and postage — sixty cents — from THORBURN & ABBOTT, Publishers, Ottawa. Present and future numbers of the Papers will be sent free of charge to all persons apply ing to JOHN S. EWART. K.C, Ottawa, Ont. THE KINGDOM PAPERS. No. 12 BRITISH PROTECTION (In Older to draw attention to the purpose for which quotations are employed, italics not ap pearing in the original, are sometimes made use of.) Speaking to his motion for leave to bring in his navy bill (5th December, 1912) Mr. Borden used the foUowing language: ' ' So far as official estimates are available, the expenditure of Great Britain in naval and military defence for the provinces which now constitute Canada, during the nineteenth century, was not less than $400,000,000. Ever since the inception of our confederation, and since Canada has attained the status of a great Dominion, the amount so expended by Great Britaiu for the naval and mihtary defence of Canada vastly exceeds the sum which we are now asking parliament to appropriate. From 1870 to 1890 the proportionate cost of North Atlantic squadrons which guarded our coasts was from $125,000,000 to $150,000,000. From 1853 to 1903 Great Britain's expenditure on military defence in Canada runs closely up to one hundred milhon dollars (a)". If that is true let us repay the money — not thirty-five millions of it, but every dollar of it. And do not let us say, with Mr. Borden, that we do so "in token of our determination to protect and ensure the safety and integrity of this Empire" (b). On the contrary, let our conscience money be accompanied with our regrets that we have only thus tardily determined to acknow ledge our obligations. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, not to be outdone, attacked some of Mr. Borden's supporters on the ground that — ' ' During the last contest in the Pro^vince of Quebec, the Conservative party, as a rule — with some exceptions which I could count upon the fingers of one hand, or at most upon the fingers of two hands — contended upon hundreds of platforms that Canada owed nothing to England" (c). If Sir Wilfrid is right, let us make instant inquiry as to how much we owe, and when we know it let us hand it over with such apologies for delay as we can think of. That neither of these gentlemen proposed to make full pay ment of our alleged indebtedness is perhaps the very best of evidence that neither of them meant exactly what he said And the pur- (a) Hansard (Unrevised) p. 710. (6) Ibid, p. 715. (c) Ibid, p. 1056. 44 British Protection pose of this paper is to prove (1) that the view denounced by Sir Wilfrid as "harmful doctrine" is, absolutely correct; and (2) that the statement of Mr. Borden cannot be justified unless there be at tached to it such explanation as deprives it of all pertinence. Properly to treat the subject, the history of Canada must be divided into two periods: (1) The purely colonial period — from 1763 to the eighteen-f orties ; and (2) the later period of fiscal free dom. First Period. — If I should shut up some ostriches within a fence and "protect" them from their enemies, in order that I might make money by plucking their feathers, would the ostriches owe me anything? No. And if, besides confining them, 1 treated them harshly, would their case call for poeans of gratitude? No. Well, that is a very fair parallel to the relations between the United Kingdom and Canada down to 1846, for Mr. Chamberlain has very truly said: "The colonies were regarded not only by us but by every European Power that possessed them, as possessions valuable in proportion to the pecuniary advantage which they brought to the mother country, which, under that order of ideas, was not truly a mother at all, but appeared rather in the light of a GRASPING AND ABSENTEE LANDLORD DESIRING TO TAKE FROM THE TENANTS THE UTMOST RENTS HE COULD EXACT. The Colonies were valued and maintained because it was thought that they would be a source of profit — of direct PROFIT TO THE MOTHER COUNTRY" (a). And Earl Grey (Colonial Secretary 1846-52) has said: ' ' In the earhest days of the estabUshment of British Colonies, it was held that the main advantage to be derived from possessing them consisted in the trade we could carry on with them, and that to secure this advantage it was necessary to make them conform to the pohcy of the mother-country in ah that relates to trade. They were accordingly required to submit for its benefit to severe restrictions on their trade with the rest of the world, which were a great obstacle to their individual prosperity" (6). Like the ostriches, Canada was surrounded by a fence which prevented her intercourse with the outside world. We were "pro tected" in order that money might be made by plucking our feathers. And it is now said that for such treatment, we owe some millions of dollars. It was during this first period that the war of 1812 occurred, and British expenditure upon it is probably one of the chief items in Mr. Borden's four hundred millions. It was a foolish war brought upon us by absurd British assertions. One of them was the inhibi- (o) Foreign and Colonial Speeches, p. 242. (h) The Commercial Pol. of the British Colonies, p. 13. See also vol. 1 of these Papers pp. 33-4. British Protection 45 tion by the British Orders-in-Council of United States commercial intercourse with Europe! The Orders were repealed in England almost upon the very day that the protracted exasperation which they had caused produced, in the United States, a declaration of war. The other cause of the war was the British assertion of a right to stop United States vessels on the high-seas, and to impress there from into the British navy, men who were said to be British sub jects! That claim was persisted in, and the war proceeded. Earl Grey (above referred to) has said that the war was: "entirely brought upon her (Canada) by our most impohtic conduct towards the United States" (o). And Kingsf ord in his history of Canada says : "The war was forced on Canada as a member of the imperial system of Great Britain, without a single act of dereUction on her part, without even any sentiment of active unfriendliness" (6). At the- same time the British ministry had "entirely failed to understand the position of Canada, and had neglected to prepare for the war, on all sides in America kno^nm to be imminent" (c). The population of the Canadas did not at that time exceed 425,000; that of the United States was nearly 6,000,000 (d); and "All the regulars in the country were 4,450 men; of this number, 1,500 only were above Montreal. What was equally important, there was but httle specie in the pubhc treasury" (e). Not only so, but a despatch (10th August, 1812) from the Colonial Secretary stated (as summarized by Kingsf ord) — "that owing to the extended warfare in which Great Britain was engaged, the capabihty of defending Canada was hmited. Should Canada be invaded, it was hoped that the known valour of the troops would meet the emergency. No hope was given that the requisition for specie would be met . . . Arms for 10,000 men were being forwarded" (/). "Legislation in Upper Canada provided for the issue of army bills to the amount of $6,000,000, of. which about $4,820,000, was used" (g) — an act that was applauded by the Lieutenant-Governor, who said . "However small a proportion they may bear to the requisite expenditures i you have the merit of giving them all you had" (Ji) . Had the war been popular in the New England States, Canada (o) Evidence before Select Com. of House of 'Commons: Com. Pap. 1861, XIII, p. 253.'. (6) Vol. 8, p. 580. (o) Ibid, p. 194. And see p. 125. - • Having thus completely committed himself and Canada to a per fectly absurd proposal, Lord Salisbury asked the Colonial Secretary (3 March) for- "any observations he may have to offer on the subject." Very properly, but probably much to the sm-prise of Lord Sahs bury, the Colonial Office replied (12 March) that — "it win be necessary to consult the Canadian Government on the proposal to estabhsh a close time for seals in Behring's Sea before expressing a final opinion upon it." Not content with the acceptance of proposals from the United States for the voluntary surrender of Canadian rights. Lord Salisbmy suggested (without a word to Canada) that Russia should be brought into the negotiations. The United States was interested in the east ern part of Behring Sea only (within the above mentioned limits) , it was Lord Salisbury who suggested that his renunciation should cover the western part also. On the same day that he asked the Colonial Office for its ' ' observations" (3 March) , he wrote to the Russian ambassador ' ' I informed you a short time ago that the government of the United States had proposed negotiations with the object of regulating the catching of fur seals in Behring Sea. It would be a source of satisfaction to me if the Russian govern ment would authorize your Excellency to enter into a discussion of the matter with Mr. Phelps and myself. (a) The same words appear in Lord Salisbury's letter to the British Ambassador of 22 October 1890. The Behring Sea Seizures 87 Hard to believe, is it not? Russia having assented, a tripartite conference was held (16 April) of which Lord Salisbury advised the British Ambassador at Washington, on the same date: "At this prehminary discussion it was decided, provisionally, in order to furnish a basis for negotiations, and -without definitely pledging our governments, that the space to be covered by the proposed convention should be the sea bet- ¦WEEN America and Russia north of the 47th degree of latitude ; that the close time should extend from the 15th April to the 1st November and that as soon as the three Powers had concluded a convention, they should join in submitting it for the assent of the other maritime Powers of the Northern Seas.' ' How could Canada hope to do anything after that ? The account of the interview given by the American Ambassador (20 April) shows that it was Lord Salisbury himself who proposed the 47th parallel — ¦ "With a ¦view to meeting the Russian government's -wishes respecting the waters surrounding Robben Island, he suggested that besides the whole of Behring Sea, those portions of the Sea of Okhotsk and of the Pacific Ocean north of north latitude 47 degree should be included in the arrangement." Lord Salisbury made that preliminary agreement without WAITING FOR THE EXPECTED REPLY FROM CANADA. The United States' Secretary (1 May) accepted the proposed terms, and an agreement, though informal, was thus arrived at. That is what i6 called ' ' British protection" ! Canada's reply was dated 9 April — "Such a close time could obviously not be imposed upon our fishermen -without notice or without a fuller discussion than it has yet undergone." "It would appear to follow that, if concurrent regulations based upon the American law were to be adopted by Great Britain and the United States, the privileges enjoyed by the citizens of the latter Power would be httle if at all cur tailed, while British fishermen would find themselves completely excluded from the rights which until lately they have enjoyed -without question or molestation." "In making this observation I do not desire to intimate that my government would be averse to entering into a reasonable agreement for protecting the fur- bearing animals of the Pacific Coast from extermination, but merely that a one sided RESTRICTION SUCH AS THAT WHICH APPEARED TO BE SUGGESTED IN YOUR TELEGRAM COULD NOT BE SUDDENLY AND ARBITRARILY ENFORCED BT MT GOVERN MENT UPON THE FISHERMEN OF THIS COUNTRY." That seems to be clear enough, but the Colonial Office did not like it. The negotiations for renunciation had been almost com pleted. Canadian sealing was to be stopped — to the satisfaction of the United States — and Lord Salisbury was to be freed from all fur ther trouble. Was Canada to upset all that ? Not if a little pressure from the Colonial Office could help it, and so the following telegram 88 The Behring Sea Seizures waj sent to the Governor General (21 April) — "I have the honour to acquaint you that I have this day telegraphed to you, with reference to your despatch of the 9th instant, that negotiations are pro ceeding between Russia, the United States, and Great Britain ¦with regard to the estabh.shment of a close time, during which it would be unla'wful to kill seals at ' SEA, in any manner, to the north of the 47th parallel of latitude between the coasts of Russia and America, and inquired 'whether your Go'vern ment WAS AWARE of ANY OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSED ARRANGEMENT." All that Canada could do was to repeat (25 April) what she had already said — "If proved to be necessary, Canadian government will be ready to join other governments in adopting steps to prevent extermination of fur-seals in Northern Pacific Ocean, but, before final agreement, desires full information and oppor tunity for considering operation of proposed close time. Establishment of close time at sea only, would gi've 'virtual monopoly OF SEAL FISHERIES TO RussiA AND UNITED STATES; the latter Powcr owns the most important breeding places, in which close time would not operate." Was it stupidity, or ignorance, or indifference, or mere pressure for assent, that dictated the foUo'wing reply (9 May) — "With reference to your telegram 25th April, would objections of your government be met if proposal to take 50th degree north latitude be reverted to instead of 47th?" Of course they would not, and Canada answered (11 May) — "The objections of the Canadian government would not be removed by the substitution of the SOth instead of the 47th parallel. A report on close time question is in course of preparation. My government hopes that no decision wiU be taken until you are in possession of it.'' The Canadian report is dated 7 July — "The time proposed as close months deserves consideration, ¦viz., from the 15th April to the 1st November. For all practical purposes, so far as Canadian sealers are concerned, it might as -well read from the 1st Januart to the 31st December. It is a weU-known fact that seals do not begin to enter the Behring's Sea until the middle or end of May; they have practically ah left those waters by the end of October. The estabhshment of the proposed close season, therefore, prohibits the taking of seals during the whole year. Even in that case, if it were proposed to make this close season operative for all, on the islands of St. Paul and St. George as weU as in the waters of the Behring's Sea, it could at least be said that the close time would bear equally on all. But the United States' government propose to allow seals to be kiUed by their own citizens on the rockeries, the only places where they haul out in Alaska during June, July, September and October, four of the months of the proposed close season. The result would be that while all others would be prevented from kilhng a seal in Behring's Sea, the United States would possess a complete mono poly, and the effect would be to render infinitely more valuable, and maintain in perpetuity, the seal fisheries of the North Pacific for the sole benefit of THE United States." The Behring Sea Seizures 89 ' ' It. i? to .be borne in mind that Canada's interest in-this industry is a ¦vital and important one, that she has had a very large capital remuneratively employed in it, and that while by the proposed plan the other Powers chiefly interested have their compensations, Canada has none. To her it would mean ruin so PAR as the sealing industrt is concerned." That document put an end (for the moment) to the negotiations for a voluntary permanent renunciation of Canadian rights. But the effect of the British admissions — -the nearly completed agreements — ^remained, and were made good use of by the United States on three subsequent occasions : (1) As justification for the seizures in the follow ing year — 1889; (2) As a reason for the temporary renunciations of 1891-2; and (3) Before the arbitrators, as evidence of what the United Kingdom had thought to be reasonable restrictions upon Canadian operations. Lord Salisbury's account of the dropping of the negotiations is to be found in his letter of 3 September — "I pointed out the difficulties felt by the Canadian government, and said that, while the scheme was favourable to the industries of the mother country, con siderable apprehension was felt in Canada ¦with respect to its possible effect on colonial interests. I ADDED that I WAS STILL SANGUINE OF COMING TO AN ARRANGEMENT, BUT that time was INDISPENSABLE." In Other words : " I am very sorry that Canada declines to agree to an arrangement that would be beneficial for you and me, but give me time and all will come right." It did. Lord Salisbury and the United States had their waj'. 1889. — Negotiations being at an end, the United States' President issued (22 March) his proclamation threatening further seizures, and Lord Salisbury, probably out of temper with the Canadians, declined to take the smallest step. The Canadian Government (ante, p 69) appealed unavailingly for protection. Lord Salisbury treated the seizures with indifference — telling the Canadians to appeal to the United States' courts for redress (ante, p 71). And, probably feeling that the seizures of their vessels would have produced, among Cana dians, a more submissive state of mind. Lord Salisbury (without any further communication with Canada) proposed (2 October) resump tion of negotiations with the United States for a voluntary and permanent renunciation of Canadian rights. The indispensable "time" had elapsed. It is almost incredible that about seven weeks before he made that proposal. Lord Salisbury had received from Canada a copy of A REPORT WHICH HAD BEEN MADE TO THE UNITED StATES' HOUSE OP Representatives, by a committee specially appointed to con- 90 The Behring Sea Seizures sider the seal question, and WHICH completely confirmed the Canadian view. Part of that report is as foUows — ' ' Let the Government take charge of this reservation, and, instead of kilhng 100,000, take 50,000 seals; and m doing this, let the selection be more thorough, so that the 50,000 skins shall be strictly choice skins, that would average the highest possible price. ' Then abandon the present polict of claiming the Behring's Sea as an inland sea, which cannot be made to stand in the end. Restrict the kilhng of seals ¦within the 3-mile or 6-mile hmit, whatever is decided to be the hmit of what a nation can hold authority over the high seas, and in this WAT IT WOULD PROMOTE THE INDUSTRT OF PRIVATE SEALING TO A MUCH LARGER EXTENT THAN IT NOW IS." Lord Salisbury had not only received that report, but, in the letter sending it to him (9 August) , the Colonial Secretary had said — "Lord Sahsbury will observe that the last sub-inclosure to this despatch tends to show that the shooting of seals in the open sea is not the wanton and wasteful destruction of seal hfe which it is alleged to be by the authorities of the United States." Of that document Lord Salisbury took not the slightest notice, and, having agreed to re-open the negotiation s for voluntary renun ciation, pressure was again applied upon Canada in order to obtain her consent. On 23 November, the Colonial Secretary wrote to the Governor General — "I think I am right in concluding that the Dominion government is now prepared to concur in any reasonable arrangement for the establishment of a close season in Behring's Sea, and I therefore anticipate that your advisers will agree with Her Majesty's Government in thinking it expedient to commence the suggested negotiation at an early date. Her Majesty's Minister being assisted during the negotiations by an officer or officers of the Canadian Government." The negotiations had already been commenced. Canada rejlied (6 December) holding to her former opinion, but (foolishly, as I think) submitting, to some extent to be overruled by the Colonial Office (a) — "In reply to your telegram. Privy Council, at a meeting held to-day, re commend a reply to be sent as foUows: — 1. Satisfactory evidence is held by Canada that the danger of extermination does not really exist. 2. That if United States' Government holds different opinion the proposal should be made by them. If it is deemed expedient by Her Majesty's Government to initiate proceed ings, Canadian authorities consent to a reopening of negotiations on the following conditions: — (a) That the United States abandon its claim to consider Behring's Sea as a mare clausum, and repeal all legislation seeming to support that claim. (b) That as in the cases of the Wa.shington Treaty 1871, the Fishery Commission under that treaty, and the Washington Treaty 1888, Canada shall have direct representation on the British Commission. (a) Canada had a short time before (11 November) sent to the Colonial Office another argument agaiuat the proposal for close season. The Behring Sea Seizures 91 (c) The approval of Canada to any conclusions arrived at shall be necessary. (d) Russia to be excluded from the negotiations in reference to compensa tion and seizures." Mr. Blaine'o reply to this was reported by the British Ambas sador (12 December) — "Mr. Blaine at once expressed his absolute objection to such a COURSE. He said the question was one between Great Britain and the United States, and that his Government would certainly refuse to negotiate ¦with the Imperial and Dominion Government jointly, or -with Great Britain, with the condition that the conclusions arrived at should be subject to the approval of Canada." This and other points having been intimated to Canada, she sent a reply (14 December) — "Canada expects British Government not to conclude arrangement unless Behring's Sea declared in it to be free. She adheres to opinion that agreement as to close season and preservation of seals should be subject to her approval as one of the parties chiefly interested in the question. Agreement as to close season should be terminable by each of the parties to the treaty. Canada fails to understand objection of the United States of America to a Canadian being direct representative of Her Majesty's Government; but to avoid delay will defer without further protest to course decided on by Her Majesty's Government." Mr. Blaine was quite right from his point of view, in objecting to a Canadian representative. He knew that, but for Canada, he could have obtained in the previous year all that he wanted ; and he knew what trouble Sir John A. Macdonald had made for one of his predecessors in the negotiations of 1871. The British Ambassador, too, did not wish that his proceedings should be embarrassed by the necessity for obtaining the assent of Canada,, and consequently when the Colonial Office proposed (16 December) to say to Canada — "that Her Majesty's Government is glad to find that the Dominion Govern ment consents to the negotiations in the form proposed, and will consult that Government at stages, and conclude no agreement as to a close time without their approval, and requests that a representative of the Dominion Government may be ready to proceed to Washington as soon as Sir J. Pauncefote has received his instructions." the Ambassador urged (18 December) that "It would be desirable that proposed communication of Colonial Office to Canada, as to her consent to close season agreement, be deferred." 1890. — Accordingly, without waiting for any concurrence on the part of Canada, and although he knew perfectly well the Canadian view of the situation, the British Ambassador proceeded to discuss the question of a close season with Mr. Blaine and the Russian Ambassador. On the 22 February, he wrote to Lord Salisbury — 92 The Behring Sea Seizures Mr. Blaine, M. de Struve, the Russian Minister, and I, held a prehminary and informal meeting this morning, at which question of the area of the possible arrangement was discussed. Mr. Blaine and M. de Struve then proposed the foUowing area: "From a point on the 50th parallel north latitude, due south from the southernmost point of the Peninsula of Kamtchatka; thence due east on the said 50th paraUel to the point of the intersection with the 160 meridian of longitude west from Green^wich; thence north and east by a straight hue to the point of intersection of the 60th parallel of north latitude ¦with the 140th meridian of longitude west from Green- ¦wich (a). The 50th paraUel, as your Lordship is aware, was the southernmost hmit proposed by Mr. Bayard, and it need only be extended on the west to the Kam tchatka Peninsula, as M. de Struve states that there is no seal fishery in the Sea of Okhotsk. I objected, HOWE^VER, to the limit on the east being extended BEYOND the 160tH meridian of longitude ¦which was the limit PROPOSED BT Mr. Batard, and is q^uite sufficient for the necessities of the case." That was all that he objected to. It was a wholly immaterial point. And of the extent of hLj acquiescence Mr. Blaine afterwards reminded him (29 May) when he was objecting to the United States intended interference with Canadian sealers. "You ¦wiU not forget an inter^view between yourself, the Russian minister, and myself, in which the lines for a close season in Behring Sea laid do-wn by Lord Salisbury were almost exactly repeated by yourself, and -were inscribed on maps which ¦were before us, a COPT OF ¦which is in the possession of the Russian Minister, and a copt also in mt possession." We have here, therefore, almost an e.xact repetition of the pro ceedings of the previous year — negotiations opened; then Canada's assent asked; and, prior to her reply, an understanding that was known to be objectionable to her, and, in her opinion, quite unne cessary, arrived at. Canada afterwards did object, and fought the matter out both in Washington and before the arbitrators in Paris. Her case was a good one, and she succeeded in modifying very consider ably the arrangements which Lord Salisbury and the British Ambaj- jador had tentatively agreed to, but, weighted with their admission^. and the opposition at Paris of the English judge, she could not hope for very great success. Mr. C. H. (now Sir Hibbert) Tupper arrived at Washington, 25 February 1890 (three days after the above conversation), and from that moment the negotiations took on a completely different aspect. Henceforth the question for discussion is not one of area or time, but whether there is any necessity for a close season of any kind. In his next letter (1 March), reporting an interview with Mr. Blaine, the British Ambassador said that he had pointed out that it was (a) These limits take in, not only the whole of Behring Sea — ^from Russia to America but part of the Pacific Ocean to the south of the Aleutian islands. The Behring Sea Seizures 93 ' ' Essential, in the first place, to examine the evidence on which the United States' Government base their contention as to necessity for a close season." No sufficient evidence (in Mr. Tupper's opinion) being offered, the British Ambassador reported (18 March) — "With reference to my despatch of the 1st instant, I have the honour to report that the Behring's Sea negotiations have come to a deadlock, owing to a conflict of evidence in regard to the necessity for a close season for the fur-seal fishery. Mr. Blaine and M. de Struve both agree that the preservation of the fur-seal species is the sole object in -view; but they insist, at the same time, that it will necessitate the total exclusion of seahng vessels from Behring's Sea during the close season. Mr. Tupper, on the other hand, maintains that no close season is necessary at all; but I beheve the Canadian Governinent are ready to give way to some extent on this point. Mr. Blaine says that the arguments on his pro posal are exhausted, and has called upon me to put forward a counter-proposal. I have accordingly prepared a draft convention, which, I venture to state, offers the only prospect of a possible arrangement. Mr. Tupper left for Ottawa last night, taking with him a copy of it, which he -wiU submit for the consideration of the Canadian Government." The Ambassador further reported that Mr. Tupper "sTRONGLT contended that a close season was not NECESSARY FOR THE PRESERVATION OF FUR-SEAL SPECIES. AlL THAT WAS REALLY REQUIRED FOR THAT PURPOSE WAS TO USE GREATER VIGILANCE FOR THE PROTECTION OP THE ROOKERIES AGAINST THE DESTRUCTION OF SEALS ON SHORE BT MARAUDING PAR TIES. This would be effectuaUy carried out by the United States' Government by the employment of additional cruizers, without necessitating the exclusion of all seahng vessels from the Behring's Sea for any period." That Mr. Tupper did good work when in Washington is evidenced by the change -wrought in the opinion of the Ambassador. Writing on 24 July the latter said that the effect of the evidence produced ' ' was to satisfy my o'wn mind that, while measures are called for to protect female seals with young from slaughter during the well-known periods of their migration to and from the breeding islands, and also to prohibit the approach of sealing-vessels vrithin a certain distance of those islands, the inquirt had failed TO ESTABLISH THE CONTENTION CV THE UNITED StATES' GOVERNMENT THAT THE ABSOLUTE PROHIBITION OF PELA& ' SEALING IS NECESSART FOR THE PRESERVATION OF THE FUR-SEAL SPECIES.'' And yet, without that evidence. Lord Salisbury and the Ambas sador had been negotiating for prohibition ! Mr. Tupper subsequently (19 November) criticized the Ambassador's modified view as to the necessity for the sort of protection he referred to. After Mi. Tupper's return, the Ambassador reported (11 April) that he (Mr. Tupper) — "informed me that the Canadian Government obj.-scted to my proposed DRAFT of a Convention for the settlement of the Behring's Sea question in so far as it admitted the necessity of a close season, and provided, although provision ally, for the exclusion of sealers within a certain radius round the breeding islands. 94 The Behring Sea Seizures I understand that the principal objection of the Canadian Government to the radius clause is that it would practically have the effect of an admission that it was necessary for the preservation of the fur-seal species; and thet maintain the position that no interference -with pelagic sealing is NECESSART FOR THE purpose in -VIEW." The Ambassador made another draft (29 April) which was ap proved by Canada. It proposed an inquiry as to the propriety of regulations both on land and at sea, and meanwhile — 1. No seals to be taken (north of 50 degree of latitude) in May, June, October, November or December, either on land or sea. July, August and September were to be open. 2. As protection against marauders on the land, ve^ssels not to approach within 10 miles of islands. Mr. Blaine objected, saying very effectively, amongst other things, that — "Lord Sahsbury's proposition of 1888 was that, during the same months for which the 10-mile privilege is now demanded, no British vessel hunting seals should come nearer to the Pribyloff Islands than the 47th parallel of north latitude about 600 miles." With Mr. Tupper at Washington (even as an assistant) Mr. Blaine could do nothing, and the negotiations terminated \a). He then tried to get Lord Salisbury to forbid the sailing of the Canadian vessels, but Lord Salisbury had no sufficient legal authority. He asked (11 June) that at least a proclamation might be issued request ing that the vessels "should abstain from entering Behring Sea for the present season." To this Canada had no objection (25 June) provided that, if the vessels did go, there should be no interference with them; but that did not suit Mr. Blaine's purpose, and so that proposal dropped. When in 1871, the United States' plenipotentiaries made un reasonable demands (as Sir John A. Macdonald thought) the British negotiators gave in, having (as Sir John said) — ¦ only one thing in their minds — that is to go home to England with a treaty in their pockets setthng everything, no matter at what cost to Canada" (6). When Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Sir Louis Davies found the United States unreasonable in 1899, they came home without a settlement. Mr. Tupper did the same in 1890. .Vnd he lost nothing. The United States' cruizers indeed patrolled tho sea during the ensuing sea son but, beyond warnings and thi-catenings, they refrained from in terference. Had Mr. Tupper submitted, we could not have hoped (o) Mr. Blaine resenlpil and complained (29 May) of the interference of Canada, as a sufficient reason for Lord Salisbury's change of policy. (W Pope, Life of Sir John A. Macdonald, Vol. 2, p. 105. The Behring Sea Seizures 95 for even the modicum of comfort which eventually we got out of the subsequent arbitration. Here we finish part two of the story, namely the relation of the facts with reference to British protection in connection with the nego tiations of 1888-90, for voluntary permanent renunciation of Canadian rights. Lord Salisbury had, from the outset, either (1) accepted the view of the United States as to the necessity for prohibition, or else (2) he had determined to sacrifice the interests of Canada in order to propitiate the United States — ^to sweep Canadian sealers from the open ocean, not (as the leader of the British House of Commons afterwards, 1 June 1891, said) — "on the ground of absolute right or justice, but on the ground that it is a friendly act towards a friendly Power" (a). The former of these suggestions cannot be the true one. There is not the shghtest evidence, or probability, that Lord Salisbury ever examined the subject. If he had, and if he thought Canada in the wrong, he ought to have given her some intimation of that fact. He never did. Whatever his reason, there is, unfortunately, no doubt that Lord Salisbury was twice (1888 and 1890) on the point of making an agree ment with the United States for prohibition of Canadian sealers not only in Behring Sea but in the north Pacific Ocean; that the first negotiations were terminated because of Canadian protest ; that Lord Salisbury then told the United States that he regarded the proposal as "favourable to the industries of the mother country," and that he "was still sanguine of coming to an arrangement, but that time was indis pensable" ; that he stood by, indifferent, while the seizures were renewed in the following year; that, believing Canada, after such chastizing, to be in more complacent humor, he decided (without communi cating with Canada) to re-open the negotiations; that both he and the British Ambassador at Washington arrived at a tentative un derstanding for prohibition, and that, once more, Canada (through Mr. Tupper) succeeded in preventing the consummation of the conspiracy. All attempts at permanent prohibition by consent being now frustrated, we^have yet to see how, by the help of temporary re nunciations and arbitration; the same object was to some extent achieved. Time, as Lord Salisbury had said was indispensable. Time being taken, the thing was done. (o) Hans. p. 1402. 96 The Behring Sea Seizures III.— BRITISH PROTECTION WITH REFERENCE TO THE UNITED STATES' PROPOSAL FOR TEMPORARY RENUNCIATION OF CANADIAN RIGHTS. 1891. — Thus far we have been able to relate almost all of the incidents of the negotiations. Lord Salisbury has been anxious to accomodate himself to the wishes of the United States, but Canada has declined to be sacrificed, and by her expostulations and pluck has kept her sealers at work. From the narrative of the proceedings of 1891, however, Canada must be almost entirely eliminated. Not because she was inactive, but because almost all the papers which would show what she said and did have been suppressed. British blue-books have been printed containing some of the correspondence between Lord Salisbury and the British Ambassador, and between the United Kingdom and the United States, but, prior to the date of the passage of a British act of parliament authorizing the British government to prohibit sealing in Behring sea, only a simple, unin telligible telegram from Canada has been permitted to see the light. The Canadian government, at one time, actuaUy set the correspon dence in type, but at the last moment (no doubt in "the interest of the Empire as a whole") determined to conceal it. How do I know that? Because the officials in charge of the printing of the Canadian sessional papers forgot to alter the Table of Contents of the volume in which the correspondence was to appear. Look at the ' ' List of Sessional Papers" at the beginning of volume 9 of 1891 and you will see — "8 b. Correspondence relative to the seizure of British vesseb in Behring Sea by United States' authorization in 1886-91. Printed both for distribution and sessional papers." But there is no such correspondence in the book, and we shaU have to get on as best we can without it. When we read the docu ments which we have, we shah, aided by what we now know of Canada's attitude, and by gleanings of information here and there, be able to form some opinion as to the reason for the suppression of the correspondence. Eariy in April (1891) Mr. Blaine proposed, as a modus vivendi for the coming season, cessation of killing both on land and sea. Lord Salisbury replied enthusiastically (17 April), and the British Ambassador thereupon told Mr. Blaine (20 April) that Lord Salis bury seemed to approve and wanted to know whether "tOU would PREFER THAT THE PROPOSAL SHOULD COME FROM THEM." Mr. Blaine, finding that he was getting on so well, then proposed as The Behring Sea Seizures 97 an amendment (27 April, 5 May) that killing upon land, to the extent of 7,500 should be permitted. That was forwarded to Lord Salis bury, and was ultimately agreed to. Did Canada agree that her sealing should be stopped? All that we know is as foUows, but it is probably enough: On 16 May (after the proposal had been accepted) Lord Salisbury telegraphed the British Ambassador — "As soon as the Government of Canada have answered communication ad dressed to them I will reply to your telegram''. On 21 May, Lord Salisbury again telegraphed the Ambassador — ' ' No definite reply has yet been received from Canada vsdth regard to the proposed modus vivendi in Behring's Sea". On 27 May, Canada telegraphed (a) — "With reference to your telegrams of the 17th and 23rd instant, the Govern ment of the Dominion accede to the proposition of Her Majesty's Government, provided that compensation be given to the sealers who may be prevented from prosecuting their avocation, and that the authorities of the United States accept at once the terms suggested by Her Majesty's Government, and concurred in by the Dominion Government in August last, as an essential part of the same agree ment." On June 1, the Right Honorable W. H. Smith (leader of the House) introduced into the British House of Commons a bill, the principal clause of which (afterwards amended) was as follows: "Her Majesty the Queen may, by Order-in-Council prohibit the catching of seals by British ships in Behring Sea, or such part thereof as is defined by the said Order, during the period hmited by the Order." Mr. Smith in opening said that Canada's consent to the bill ' ' only reached us late last week." And in reply, he said — "The painful circumstances in which the government of the Dominion are placed render it impossible for us to hold regular official communication ¦with them, and those which had passed were sufficient to satisfy us that the Dominion govern ment were consenting parties to the proposals we had made to parhament subject to the concession of compensation to British subjects for any loss they could be sho^wn to have sustained by reason of the prohibition, and to the acceptance of the terms of arbitration by the United States' government" (6). He further said — " I do not urge the House to accept this bill on the ground of absolute right or justice, 'but on the ground that it is a friendly act towards a friendly Power" (c). (a) This telegram is not printed in the British blue book covering its date. It does not appear, either, in the next blue book — 'book of March 1892. It was thought not advisable to publish it imtil the book of April 1892. Meanwhile a very misleading account was, officially given of it — as we shall see. (6) Hans. p. 1634. See also the remarks of Lord Salisbury, 8 June, p. 1807. ,,.; '.(c) Ibid. 1402. • ¦ • 98 The Behring Sea Seizures I am afraid that Mr. Smith was not very frank. Sir John A. Macdonald was, at the moment, upon his death bed, but that had not prevented governmental action. The above quoted telegram of 27 May ("late last week") was a specific and official declaration of the government's consent upon two conditions. Nor was Mr. Smith correct in saying that Canada's second condition was — " the acceptance of the terms of the arbitration by the United States' government."That would have been to impose a whoUy impracticable condition for the arbitration negotiations were not nearly concluded, and it was not until the 29 February of the following year that the agree ment to arbitrate was signed. Moreover the words of the telegram are that the United States should accept. "the terms suggested by Her Majesty's Government and concurred in by the Dominion government in August last." But all that had happened about arbitration ' ' in August last" was that Lord Salisbury had said that he was willing to arbitrate, and to this there was no reply until 19 December. For a third reason, Mr. Smith's version of the second condition cannot be correct, for, if it were, faith with Canada and the Bi;itish parliament was not kept; for the modus was signed on 15 June, and the terms of arbitration were not agreed to until the foUowing year. It would appear to be clear that the Canadian second condition referred, not to an arbitation agreement at aU, but to the terms of the modus proposed and concurred in when Mr. Tupper was in Washington in AprU (see ante p. 93) — not August as the printed telegram has it. Why do I say so? Because there were no terms of any kind under discussion in August. Because the only terms ever proposed and concurred in are those of AprU. And because the official charged with the censorship of the papers, whUe carefuUy suppressing the documents prior to the signing of the modus, over looked the fact that much of what he was told to conceal appeared in a Canadian Order-in-Council of a date (25 July) subsequent to the modus. In that important document the Canadian government after reiterating its views as to proposals for a close season proceeded: "The undersigned, however, would again revert to the proposal forwarded by Sir Julian Pauncefote to Mr. Secretary Blaine, 13th April 1890, which pro vided for just and equitable close times for seals in Behring's Sea, covering the migrations to and from the breeding-grounds; and which was rejected by the United States' Government." "The imdersigned, therefore desires to impress upon your Excellency this aspect of the matter, ¦with a ¦view to avoiding, in any close season which might The Behring Sea Seizures 99 ultimately be agreed upon, a practical or actual surrender of participation in the seahng mdustry by Her Majesty's subjects; and estabhshing the fact that the carefuUy considered proposal ah-eady rejected by the United States contained THE FULL MEASURE OF CLOSE TIME THAT TOUR ExCELLENCt's ADVISERS ARE AT PRESENT PREPARED TO ENTERTAIN IN THE INTEREST OF CANADIAN SEALERS." That is clear enough. Canada was wUling to agree in 1891 to the terms proposed by the British government in April 1890, and con curred in, then, by Canada. She was wiUing to do nothing else. But Lord Salisbury, m utter disregard of this information, agreed (15 June) to the complete exclusion " untU May next", of Canadians from the whole eastern part of Behring Sea. And he not only agreed to that exclusion, but he agreed that the British navy should co operate with the United States cruizers in the enforcement of the exclusion. The British war-ships at last cleared their decks for action. It will have been observed that one of the conditions of Canada's assent to temporary exclusion was compensation to her sealers. Who paid that ? If the United States was wrong (as she was) in her denial of Canadian rights, the United States ought to have paid it; but Lord Salisbury did not suggest that. He tried to persuade Canada to pay it or a part of it. Canada very properly declined, and so he agreed to pay it out of the British exchequer. It was a case simUar to Canada's claims against the United States in respect of the Fenian raids. The United States ought to have paid for the damage done by her citizens, but she would not, so "as a friendly act to a friendly Power" the United Kingdom withdrew the claims (agreeing, at the same moment, to pay the United States' Alabama claims) and offered to pay them herself! 1892. — The arbitration proceedings being in progress, the United States proposed a renewal of the temporary exclusion until the award should be given. Canada was consulted and rephed (23 February) — "With reference to your telegram of the 16th instant respecting the modus vivendi in Behring's Sea, mt Ministers do not possess ant information to SHOW that a modus "VI'VENDI IS NECESSART, OR THAT IT CAN BE REASONABLT DEMANDED. If, howevcr, such information has reached Her Majesty's Govern ment, the Government of the Dominion would not oppose such a modus vivendi, pro'vided that it were confined to a zone of moderate hmits, say, 25 miles, around THE SEAL islands, AND PROVIDED THAT IT IS ACCOMPANIED BT STRINGENT RES TRICTIONS AGAINST THE KILLING OF SEALS ON LAND, "with better supervision than during the modus vivendi of last year." The British and Canadian members of the joint commission that had been appointed to study the whole question, having been asked 100 The Behring Sea Seizures their opinion, replied — ' ' We do NOT APPREHEND ANT DANGER OF SERIOUS FURTHER DEPLETION OP THE PUR-SEALS RESORTING TO THE PrIBTLOFP ISLANDS, AS THE RESULT OF HUNTING THIS TEAR, UNLESS BXCESSI-VE KILLING BE PERMITTED ON THE BREEDING IS LANDS. As a judicious temporary measure of precaution, however, for this season, and looking to permanent regulations for the fishery as a whole being estabhshed in time for the season of 1893, we would recommend the prohibition of aU kiUing at sea during this season, within a zone extending to, say, not more than 30 nautical miles around the Pribyloff Islands, such prohibition being con ditional on the restriction to a number not to exceed 30,000 as a maximum of the seals kiUed for any purpose on the islands." Lord Salisbury offered these terms to the United States (27 February) saying at the same time — "The consent of Her Majesty's Government was given last year to a modus vivendi solely on the ground that the perservation of the seal species in those waters was supposed to be endangered unless some interval were given during which there would be a cessation of himting both on land and sea. No INFORMATION HAS REACHED HeR MaJESTT's GOVERNMENT TO LEAD THEM TO SUPPOSE THAT SO DRASTIC A MEASURE IS REQIHSITE FOR TWO SUCCESSIVE SEASONS."Good for Lord Salisbury! To further urging by the United States, he rephed (18 March) — "The information which has reached Her Majesty's Government does not lead them to beheve that, in order to prevent an undue diminution of the number of fur-seals, ant necessitt exists for the suspension of sealing for ano ther ¦JTEAR." "As a more equitable arrangement, might it not be agreed that seahng- vessels shaU be at hberty to hunt in Behring's Sea on condition that security is given by the owner of each vessel for satisfying the award of damages, if any, which the Arbitrators may eventually pronounce V This curious idea of shouldering off all lesponsibility on to the sealers — the idea that the United States should busy themselves about security from individuals, was not acceptable to ^Ir. Blaine, who, knowing Lord Salisbury's indifference about the whole matter, replied (23 March) in truculent tone — "If Her Majesty's Government proceeds this season on the basis of its con tention as to the rights of the Canadian Sealers, no choice remains for the United States but to proceed on the basis of their own confident con tention, that pelagic seahng is an infraction of its jurisdiction and proprietary rights. This, in the opinion of the President, constitutes the gravity of the situation, and he is not wilhng to be found responsible for such results as may follow from an insistance on the part of either Government during this hunting season on the extreme rights claimed by it. The two great Governments inter ested in the question would be discredited in the eyes of the world if the friendly adjustment of their difficulties, which is so nearly concluded were to be thwarted, or even disturbed, on account of the paltry profits of a single season. But if TOUR Lordship persists in refusing to join the Government of the United The Behring Sea Seizures 101 States in stopping pelagic sealing promptlt, and insists upon the main tenance OP FREE SEALING FOR BRITISH SUBJECTS, THE QUESTION NO LONGER 18 ONE OF PECUNIART LOSS OR GAIN, BUT ONE OF HONOR AND SELF-RESPECT, SO PAR AS IT AFFECTS THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED StATES.'' As in the Venezuela affair (1895-6) at the word of President Cleveland, so now at the word of Secretary Blaine, Lord Salisbury at once withdrew (26 March). The arbitation treaty being nearly ready for signature. Lord Salisbury said that when it was complete, he would agree to the modus — Her Majesty's government (he might have added) having now (in the shape of a letter from Mr. Blaine) information which has ' ' lead them to suppose that so drastic a mea sure is requisite" — ' ' Inform President that we concur in thinking that when the treaty shall have been ratified there wUl arise a new state of things. UntU it is ratified our conduct, is governed by the language of your note of the 14th June, 1890. But when it is ratified both parties must admit that contingent rights have become vested in the other, which both desire to protect. We think that the prohibition of seahng, if it stands alone, ¦wiU be imjust to British sealers, if the decision of the arbitrators should be adverse to the United States. We are, however, willing, when the treaty has been ratified, to agree to an arrangement similar to that of last year, if the United States will consent that the arbitrators should, in the event of a decision adverse to the United States, assess the damages which the prohibition of sealing shaU have inflicted on British sealers during the pendency of the arbitration; and, iu the event of a decision adverse to Great Britain, should assess the damages which the hmitation of slaughter shaU, during the pendency of the arbitration, have infficted on the United States or its lessees." That was all that Mr. Blaine wanted, and a modus (to last during the pendency of the arbitration) in exactly the same terms as that of 1891 (with the addition of a damage clause) was signed (18 April) without waiting for the ratification of the arbitiration treaty (7 May). There is no reason to think that Canada was consulted prior to that surrender. The rapidity of the retreat left little time for reference to the only people interested. As to what Canada thought and said about it, the blue-books are silent. Here then we have the facts relating to the voluntary, though fortunately only temporary, renunciation of Canadian rights in Be hring Sea. It was agreed to by the British government, and enacted by the British parliament, not because either the government or the parliament beheved that it was necessary for the preservation of the seal species, and not — "on the ground of absolute right of justice, but on the ground that it is a PRIENDLT ACT TOWARDS A FRIENDLT Po'WER." Would the British government have agreed to prohibit herring fishing 102 The Behring Sea Seizures in the North Sea for the same kindly reason? IV.— BRITISH PROTECTION WITH REFERENCE TO ARBITRATION RESPECTING VOLUNTARY RENUNCIATION. The reference to arbitration included two main points — (1) as to the rights of the parties, and (2) in case the United States had no authority to interfere with Canadian sealers, then how much of Can ada's right ought to be given up. Thefirst of these references was proper; the second was unqualifiedly ¦wrong. Canada assented to the first. To the second, she objected. Whether, eventually, pressure pro duced reluctant assent, the blue-books do not say. What class of subjects can be, and usually are referred to ar bitration? The form of the many arbitration treaties agreed to by the United States supplies the answer, namely, "Differences which may arise of a legal nature, or relating to the inter pretation of treaties." The form recently proposed for a treaty between the United Kingdom and the United States was as follows — "All differences. . . .relating to international matters. . . .by ¦virtue of a CLAIM OF right made by one against the other under a treaty or otherwise and which are justiciable in their nature bt reason of being susceptiple op DECISION bt the APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF LAW OR EQUITT.'' No argument is necessary to prove that a question of the extent to which a nation ought voluntarily to renounce the exercise of an undoubted right — either for the benefit of herself or another na tion — ^is not one either "of a legal nature" or "justiciable." In relating the facts connected ¦with the making of the arbitra tion agreement, we are again handicapped by the absence of the suppressed correspondence; but probably, here also, we shaU find that we have sufficient to lead us to two correct conclusions — (1) that Canada's objection to submit any question as to renunciation of the exercise of her rights, and more particularly to the submission of renunciation of her rights at sea in the absence of renunciation by the United States of its rights upon land, and by other nations of their rights at sea, was overruled, disregarded, or otherwise got rid off; and (2) that, afterwards, before the arbitrators, British and Canadian advocates did their best, but unavaUingly, to modify the effect of the British agreement to arbitrate such a question. Consider Canada's position: She had always contended that regulations for the kiUing of seals were much more necessary in res- The Behring Sea Seizures 103 pect of the land operations than with regard to pelagic work. To regulate the operations of the Canadians on the water, while the operations of the Americans on the land were left unregulated, would manifestly be very unfair. And if it were said, in reply, that the United States would herself • enact and enforce such laws as were necessary on the land, the sufficient answer was that Canada might just as well be trusted to enact and enforce (against her own citi zens) such laws as were necessary on the water. It was also manifestly unfair that Canadians should be prohi bited from sealing at sea, unless the citi«ens of other countries were subjected to simUar prohibition. In fact, Canadian success on the question of international right, accompanied by prohibition of the free exercise of that right, was a victory rather for other nations than for Canada; inasmuch as, whUe the right of everybody to take the seals had been established, Canada alone was partially deprived of the benefit of the right. Foreigners were not slow to appreciate that fact, and, for years after the award, although Canadians were, by its effect, excluded from Behring Sea, Japanese and Russians did as they pleased there. Canada had proved that the United States had no right to stop them, and they were not (fortunately for them) colonies of another country which had voluntarily agreed to stop them. Before discussing responsibiHty for the reference to arbitra tion of that which ought not to have been referred, it will be con venient to set out the language of the reference, and to state the effect of the prohibitions which were directed by the arbitrators : The arbitration treaty provided that in case the United States had no right to interfere with Canadian ships — ' ' the arbitrators shaU then determine what concurrent regulations, outside the jurisdictional hmits of the respective governments, are necessary, and over what waters such regulations should extend." "Outside the jurisdictional limits" prevented the arbitrators considering ¦what regulations were necessary on hand. And a pro vision that the parties were "to co-operate in securing the adhesion of other Powers to such regulations" prevented the arbitrators making Canadian obedience conditional upon the assent of the other Powers being obtained. The regulations established by the arbitrators were as foUows : — ¦ 1. No seals to be taken at any time within 60 miles of the islands. 2. No seals to be taken between 1 May and 31 July in the Pacific Ocean (including Behring Sea) north of 35 degree of latitude. (Lord Salisbury's tentative agreement had extended from 15 April to 1 104 The Behring Sea Seizures November — ante, p. 85, 6). 3. Sailing vessels (with the usual boats) only to be used. 4. No nets, explosives or firearms at any time or plaoe; with the exception of shotguns outside Behring Sea during the open season. The history of the negotiations for the arbitration treaty (so far as relates to the prohibitions) commenced with a proposal from Mr. Blaine (17 December 1890). On 21 February 1891, Lord Salisbury replied that the question would "more fitly form the subject of a separate reference." On 14 April, Mr. Blaine — assuming, as he said, that Lord Salisbury did not actually object to the reference as to a close time — proposed another form of words. On June 3, Lord Salis bury proposed that the matter should be referred to four experts, and that the question should be " For the purpose of preserving the fur-seal race in Behring Sea from ex termination, what international arrangements, if any, are necessary between Great Britain and the United States and Russia or any other power?" Canada would have made no objection to that proposal, for it covered her two points — (1) enquiry as to land regulations, and (2) other nations to be equally bound. It looks as though, at this stage, Canada had been consulted and her wishes regarded. On 25 June, the United States (adhering to their proposal for inclusion of the question in the arbitration) suggested the form of words which after wards formed part of the treaty. On 13 July, the British Ambas sador replied that he had been in telegraphic communication with Lord Salisbury with reference to the proposals as to regulations and damages, and that the latter was "the only one which appears to me to raise any serious difficulty" The reference to arbitration, therefore, of the question of volun tary renunciation, without either of the Canadian conditions, was conceded, and Mr. Donald MacMaster, K.C, was undoubtedly right when he said — ' ' From that moment, the case, in so far as regulations were concerned, was given away'' (a). Reference as to prohibitions having thus been agreed to, the correspondence continued upon the damage question, and it was not until 29 February of the following year (1892) that the treaty was signed. Meanwhile, Canada had been informed of what had taken place, and had pressed her objections. How am I aware of that? Because, after five months, Lord Salisbury endeavored (23 November) to secure one of the Canadian objects by adding to the agreed words, the condition (a) Pamphlet, p. 32 ; and see pp. 34-5. The Behring Sea Seizures 105 ' ' that the regulations 'wiU not become obhgatory on Great Britain and the United States until thet ha^vb been accepted bt the other maritime powers. Otherwise, as his Lordship observes, the two governments would be simply hand ing over to others the right of exterminating the seals.'' Mr. Blaine assumed to be ruffled (27 November) — ' ' What reason had Lord SaUsbury for altering the text of the article to which he had agreed?" "The President regards Lord Sahsbury's second reservation, therefore, as a material change in the terms of the arbitration agreed upon by this government; and he instructs me to say that he does not feel wiUing to take it into consider ation. He adheres to every point of agreement which has been made between the two powers, according to the text which you furnished. He ¦wiU regret if Lord SaUsbury shall insist on a substantially new agreement." After telegraphing Lord Salisbury, the British Ambassador gave (1 December) his reason for the proposal — "There is nothing to prevent such third power (Russia, for instance, as the most neighboring nation), if unpledged, from stepping in and securing the fishery in the very seasons and in the very places which may be closed to the sealers of Great Britain and the United States by the regulations." And added — "How is this difficulty to be met? Lord Sahsbury suggests that if, after the lapse of one year from the date of the decree of regulations, it shall appear to either government that serious injury is occasioned to the fishery from the causes above mentioned, the government complaining may give notice of the suspension of the regulations during the ensuing year, and in such case the regulations shaU be suspended untU arrangements are made to remedy the complaint." In reply to a further note from Mr. Blaine, the British Ambas sador said — "I do not understand you to dispute that should such a state of things arise, the agreement must collapse, as the two governments could not be expected to enforce, on their respective nationals, regulations which are violated under foreign flags to the serious injury of the fishery." Mr. Blaine was immovable, and Lord Salisbury gave in (11 December). In doing so, however, he made a reservation which would have covered the point — "Her Majesty's Government of course retain the right of raising the point when the question of framing the, regulations comes before the arbitrators, and it is understood that the latter 'wiU have fuU discretion in the matter, and may attach such conditions to the regulations as they may a priori judge to be neces- ary and just to the two Powers, in -view of the difficulty pointed out.' ' Mr. Blaine flamed up again — "After mature dehberation he (the President) has instructed me to say that he objects to Lord Sahsbury's making any reservation at all, and that ie cannot yield to him the right to appeal to the arbitrators to decide any point not embraced in the articles of arbitration." The Behring Sea Seizures 106 "The President claims the right to have the seven points arbitrated, and respectfully insists that Lord Sahsbury shall not change their meaning in any particular. The matters to be arbitrated must be distinctly understood before the arbitrators are chosen." Lord Salisbury, of course, succumbed, protesting that he had been misunderstood — "Lord Sahsbury entirely agrees 'with the President in his objection to any point being submitted to the arbitrators which is not embraced in the agreement; and, in conclusion, his Lordship authorizes me to sign the articles of the arbitra tion agreement, as proposed at the close of your note under reply, whenever you may be wiUing to do so." One of the points absolutely essential (even in Lord Salisbury's view) to the fairness of the form of the reference to arbitration, was thus given up by Lord Salisbury; and the other one (enquiry and directions as to regulations for kilhng on the land) he appears never to have urged. I do not believe that Canada's assent was ever obtained to the reference in the form agreed to. If it was, I am certain that it was given with the greatest reluctance, and for the same old worn-out reason ' ' the interests of the Empire as a whole." Have I any right in the absence of the suppressed documents to say that ? Yes, I have two principal grounds for the assertion — (1) Any other conclusion would be inconsistent 'with what I have amply shown to have been the position always maintained by Canada; and (2) The Canadian Department, afterwards (1895), forgetting for the moment the necessity for secrecy, printed as part of its annual report, the foUo'wing — "The Canadian go'vernment earnestlt endeavored to keep the QUESTION out OF THE REALM OF ARBITRATION, SEEKING A DECISION ON THAT OF right alone." We see, then, how it came about that a question which ought never to have been referred to arbitration, was so referred. Now let us see how handicapped Canada was, in the discussions before the arbitrators, by Lord Salisbury's admissions and assents. The Arbitration. — There were five arbitrators — one British (Lord Hannen), one Canadian (Sir John Thompson); two Amer icans ; and three Europeans. They, of course, declared "that the United States has not any right of protection, or property, in the fur seals frequenting the islands of the United States in Behring Sea, when such seals are found outside the ordinary 3-inile limit." And having so declared, they proceeded to provide the restric tions upon Canadian rights above mentioned. They said nothing about land-regulations, and nothing about the concurrence or actions of other nations. Prohibition for Canadians on sea without any con- The Behring Sea Seizures 107 ditions as to anybody else (a); and freedom for Americans to do as they pleased with the herd on land. That was the award, and that, of course, is manifestly unjust. But it was the fault of the form of the reference and not the fault of the arbitrators, for they had nothing to do with either land operations by the United States, or sea operations by anybody but the parties before them. British advocates, rather cleverly but quite unsuccessfully, endeavored to introduce into the discussion both of Canada's points. In the British counter-case, they said — " No such regulations can be just or effective unless accompanied hy corres ponding and co-relative control over the islands and over the time, method, and extent oi slaughter upon them by the nationals of the United States of America. To enforce regulations which would shut out British subjects at certain seasons, and from prescribed areas, from the pursuit of pelagic sealing, and at the same time would leave the slaughter of seals on the islands to be pursued according to the mere wUl of the lessees of those islands or by their governinent, would be to establish regulations one-sided in their character and therefore unjust, and also ineffective, for the object in view, namely, for the preservation of seal life." "It is submitted that if any regulations are to be prescribed, they ought to be so framed as only to come into operation through the instrumentaUty of a convention at which aU the Powers interested shaU be represented, and at which proper pro-visions for their enforcement binding on the nationals of all such Powers shaU be formulated, or that they should be conditional upon the adhesion OP such other Po^wers" (a). That is all perfectly true, and being in a document delivered by the British government to the government of the United States, must be taken to be (as it undoubtedly was) the expression of the view of the British government as voiced by its Attorney General. The points are precisely those always maintained by Canada; urged by her upon Lord Salisbury; and by him given up. Now, when too late, they are not only adopted and advanced, officially, but British Counsel are instructed to urge them upon the arbitrators. That they did; but the arbitrators were bound by the form of the reference, and coidd give no relief. The discussion, therefore, was reduced to the question of the extent to which Canada was to be forbidden to exercise her declared right to hunt seals in the open sea. Upon that point we were hope lessly handicapped by Lord Salisbury's admissions and attempted agreements, and the American advocates made full use of their advantage. Mr. Phelps read to the arbitrators almost the whole of the damaging correspondence above quoted (c) ; and when he came to Lord Salisbury's statement that although Canada had "appre- (o) The sea-prohibition applied to Americans, but that was in accordance with America's request and in pursuance of America's policy. It was not an imposition. (6) Pp. 160, 161, 162. c) Proceedings pp. 1861-74. See also the reference to Lord Salisbury's provisional agreement in the opinion read by W. Justice Harian, one of the American Arbitrators. 108 The Behring Sea Seizures hensions" as to the effect of the agreement which he had tentatively . agreed to, yet that he "was still sanguine of coining to an arrangement, but that time was indis pensable" (a). Mr. Phelps made the obvious comment "If, as I said, he had been drawn hastUy into this agreement, or had en tered into some misunderstanding, or if Canada had presented some remons trance which justified him in ac ing upon it and receding, he would have done so. Instead of that, all through the summer he was sating "Ti.mb onlt IS NECESSART; WE SHALL TET BRING IT ABOUT" British and Canadian advocates were handicapped by Lord Salisbury, and Sir John Thompson's efforts among the arbitrators were embarrassed by the opposition of Lord Hannen. The arbitra tors ordered perpetual exclusion from all the sea within 60 miles of the islands; and although Mr. Blaine himself had at onetime (16March 1891) confined his request to 25 mUes, and although the United States had never suggested the necessity for prohibition throughout the whole year, Lord Hannen voted against Sir John Thompson's objection to the clause. Lord Hannen voted, also, in favor of the clause forbidding the use of nets, firearms and explosives with the exception of shot guns outside of Behring Sea. He also voted for the following absurd pro^vision — ' ' The two governments shaU take measures to control the fitness of the men authorized to engage in fur-seal fishing; these men shaU have been proved fit to handle with sufficient skiU the weapons by means of which their fishing may be carried on." He also voted against Sir John's proposal to permit either government to denounce the regulations after ten years. But I make no charge or complaint against Lord Hannen. I do not put him in the same category as Lord Alverstone, who (I do not hesitate to say) played Canada (in the Alaska boundary case) a treacherous trick. It was almost impossible that Lord Hannen should not have come to a study of the facts with a strong prepos session in favor of the attitude assumed by Lord Salisbury. All that I do say is that if Lord Salisbury had not shown himself so defer ential and complacent, Canada would have had a better chance of securing the support of Lord Hannen. Indeed the question of REGULATIONS WOULD NEVER HAVE COME BEFORE HIM. The reception given to the award in Canada, may fairly be judged by the comments of the three Ottawa newspapers : The Citizen said — (o) See his letter of 3 September, 1888; ante, p. 88. The Behring Sea Seizures 109 "It may possibly be too early to draw these large inferences from the neces sarily imperfect information conveyed by the cable, but it appears at present as though the arbitrators had given us the shell, and handed over the kernel to Uncle Sam." The Journal said — "There seems here another instance of the unsatisfactory results of Canadian interests being in the hands of British diplomatists. Lord Hannen, the British arbitrator, gave his vote for the regulations in opposition to the Canadian arbi trator. The Behring Sea dispute would apparently have had little worse result for Canada than this under any conceivable circumstances. It has been the fashion of those opposed to Canadian independence to ask, 'How safe would Canada be against the States without British backing?' And this question has constantly been asked in special connection with this Behring Sea dispute. Let us ask now, 'Could Canada have well had the question settled more injuriously to herself? If, undeterred by respect for Britain, the United States had said to httle Canada, ' Go to blazes, Behring Sea is ours, what do you propose to do about it?' Canada would have apparently been httle worse off than she is now." The Free Press said — "From such 'protection' as that which has been accorded to our interests by Lord Hannen, Canada may well ask to be dehvered. The rights of the Domi nion are once more sacrificed to placate the Americans. The lesson of the Beh ring Sea arbitration is that Canada should have the right to deal directly ¦with foreign nations." v.— SUBSEQUENT HISTORY. The subsequent history was, in one important respect, unfore seen by everybody. Having found the hunting of seals to be very remunerative, Canadians, excluded (to the extent above mentioned) from their former resorts, crossed the Pacific and attacked the herds that bred upon Russian and Japanese territory. That had been foretold. On the other hand, the Japanese took advantage of the decision of the arbitrators and operated freely in the localities from which Canadians had been ejected. That, too, had been foretold. But nobody had divined that the prohibition of Canadian rifles would lead to what an American Secretary of State described as the "marveUously increased efficiency of the pelagic seal-hunters in the use of the shot-gun and the spear" (a) ; and to a preference for the spear, because of its non-disturbance of other seals close by. After the award, Mr. Phelps (one of the United States' counsel) said that — "the stringent regulations propounded in restriction of pelagic sealing will amount, in my judgment, to a substantial prohibition of it and give the United (a) Olney to Gough, 24 June 1895. 110 The Behring Sea Seizures States all the fruits they could have obtained by a decree in favor of the claim of right" (a). In other words, the United Kingdom had maintained her principles, but the Americans had got the seals (a). A single season's experience of the prohibitions of the award having been sufficient to prove that the United States had miscal culated their effect — ^that they were not equivalent to total suppres sion — persistent efforts were made to obtain the assent of the British government to increase their stringency. Canada, on the other hand, wanted greater liberty. For years the matter was debated, and finally (Canada now being strong enough to have her way) a reason able agreement was made (7 July 1911) between the United Kingdom, the United States, Japan and Russia, the principal terms of which are as follows: — 1 . No pelagic sealing north of 35 degree of latitude. 2. The United States to give to Canada 15 per cent, of the skins taken on her territory; and 15 per cent to Japan. 3. Russia to give to Canada 15 per cent, of the skins taken upon her territory; and 15 per cent to Japan. 4. Japan to give to Canada 10 per cent, of the skins taken upon her territory; 10 per cent, to Russia; and 10 per cent to the United States. 5. The agreement to last 15 years. That is a reasonable arrangement. Pelagic sealing is expensive, and, to some extent (by loss of wounded animals and the killing of females), wasteful. At the same time, it is a profitable industry and one that Canada has a right to engage in. As against proposals for voluntary renunciation of the exercise of that right, she protested and struggled. And now, although meanwhUe compelled to suffer the wanton seizures of her ships, and although handicapped by the indif ference and concessions of British diplomacy, she has by her pluck and perseverance, and by her increasing assertion of her right to control her own foreign relations, at length succeeded in obtaining a settle ment which is not only fair but which is consistent with her self- respect. When we remember that Lord Salisbury had agreed tentatively, (both in 1888 and 1890) to the voluntary permanent renunciation of Canadian rights in all the wat ers north of the 47th degree of north latitude between 15 April and 1 November; that he had agreed ab solutely, to temporary renunciation of those rights in 1891, 2 and 3; that he had agreed to refer to arbitration the question of the extent to which those rights ought to be voluntarily renounced; that he had (o) The Empire, 17 Aug.1893. The Behring Sea Seizures 111 so handicapped Canada in the reference, that (1) the arbitrators had no power to regulate the operations of the United States on land ; (2) that the arbitrators had no power to make Canadian exclusion con ditional upon similar exclusion of other nations; and (3) that the arbitrators were, inevitably, strongly prepossessed in favor of the United States by the admissions and arrangements of Lord Salis bury — when all that is recalled, we must, in order to have been able at last to force the United States to a reasonable settlement, have not only had, originally, an extraordinarily strong case, but have had, as weU, a certain amount of good fortune. Lord Salisbury would have voluntarily given away Canada's rights. By the present arrangement we may get half a million a year, and more, besides retaining our self-respect. Conclusion — In confirmation, and as partial summation, of what has been said, let us listen to the language made use of by Mr. C. Hibbert Tupper, ten years after the first of the seizures — "In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, and I have the authority of the Minister of Trade and Commerce for sajdng it, although he is not a lawyer, there never WAS A MORE MONSTROUS ASSERTION OF AN UNTENABLE RIGHT ON THE PART OF ANT COUNTRT THAN THERE WAS BT THE UNITED StATES OF AMERICA IN CONNEC TION WITH THE Behring Sea fisheries. Thet had not a single shadow of EXCUSE POR THE ACTION THET TOOK, AND WHICH THET TOOK FOR THE PURPOSE OF BREAKING UP A GREAT CANADIAN INDUSTRT AND PARALTZING A LARGE PORTION OF OUR MERCANTILE MARINE ON THE PACIFIC CoAST. Without any foundation in international law, against all the traditions of their country, against all their previous interpretations of international law, they simply instructed their revenue cutters to seize right and left on the high seas, fifty, sixty, and seventy miles from la'nd, ANT SHIP FLOATING THE BRITISH FLAG THAT DARED PURSUE AN INDUSTRT WHICH THET DESIRED SHOULD BE LOCKED UP IN THE HANDS OP A MONOPOLT OF THEIR OWN CITIZENS. Eleven years have we been discussing this, but yet, with decisions of a most unmistakable character against them, and vacillating from position to position, the Americans have fought us during the whole period. Some of the men that they ruined have died, many of the ships that were concerned have disappeared, and we are stUl waiting for one doUar of indemnity in com pensation for that gross ¦violation of international law and comity of nations (a) — ¦ a violation that was perpetrated by the United States simply to break do"wn, as they almost succeeded in breaking do^wn, by virtue of the power they were aUowed to exercise regardless of principle — ^the Canadian seahng industry" (6). May I repeat that I find no fault with the action of the British go-\ ernment in this and other features of its diplomatic dealing with Canadian affairs. Possibly we might have required that the indif ference of British governments ought to have been frankly acknow ledged, and that the pretence of benevolent protection should not (a) Indemnity for the seizures was afterwards paid — S463,454.27, including interest. (4) House of Com., Hans, 8 March 1898, p. 1425. For language of somewhat similar character, see speeches of Mr. Mills, 25 April, 1888, Hans, p. 969; of Col. Prior, 26 April 1889, Hans, p. 1577; and of Sir Louis Davies, same date, pp. 1578, 9. 112 T'he Behring Sea Seizures have been so persistently practised. But that, also, would be too much to expect, for the hollowness of the pretence is not apparent to them. To British statesmen a few cod-fish on the Atlantic, or a few seals on the Pacific, or a few thousand square miles of Canadian territory are not of much importance. In matters of any moment (by which they mean any interruption of their sovereignty over Canada, or of the benefit which they derive from that sovereignty) they would unanimously assert that "the last man and the last shilling" etc. I find no fault with British statesmen, but, in view of the facts referred to in this Paper, I do object to a Canadian statesman lauding the advantages of British protection, and talking in the following fashion — "In time of dangerous riot and wild terror in a foreign city, a Canadian rehgious community remained unafraid. Why did you not fear? they were asked; and unhesitatingly came the answer, 'The Union Jack floated over us" (a). That religious community had never heard that Lord Salisbury had expressly disavowed responsibihty for the difficulties which reforming missionaries got themselves into. And, clearly, they had never heard of the 14 Union Jacks taken by United States' cruizers from Behring Sea into United States' ports. Why wUl people rave, when the facts are so well known ? Much good has been done under the Union Jack, and much harm. WhUe thankful for the good (and proud of it, if you wiU) let us not be chUdish enough to deny the harm. And let us cease the foolish rant about the flag protecting the humblest of His Majesty's subjects in the remotest part of the world, and about the whole power of the British navy and the British fleet being ready to avenge his smallest injury. Do we not all know the history of British diplomacy with reference to Canadian affairs? It commenced with Oswald. It ended with Alverstone. It included the Behring Sea seizures. (a) Per Mr. Borden, House of Com., 5 December 1912, Ottawa, March 1913. JOHN S. EWART, KINGDOM PAPERS. No. 14 BRITISH PROTECTION. THE NORTH ATLANTIC FISHERIES NOTICES The second edition of volume one of the Kingdom Papers is now ready. Price, in cloth binding, postage paid, sixty cents. Mr. Ewart's earher book of essays and addresses The Kingdom of Canada is also on sale. Price, postage paid, cne dollar. THORBURN & ABBOTT, Pubhshers, Ottawa. Present and future Papers will be sent free of charge to aU appUcants. Previous Papers pf volume two ¦wiU be sent on receipt of postage — ^ten cents, JOHN S. EWART, K. C, Ottawa, THE KINGDOM PAPERS. No. 14. BRITISH PROTECTION. THE NORTH ATLANTIC FISHERIES(«). (In order to draw attention to the purpose for which quotations are employed, italics not appearing in the original, are sometimes made use o'..) In the history of British North America, there have been but two subjects of dispute with foreign countries in connection with which British Naval protection would have been of value to us — first, our right to take seals in the open waters of Behring Sea; and second, our and Ne^wfoundland's rights in respect of the North Atlantic fisheries. The preceding Paper has proved the worth ies sness of British protection in the Pacific. Its value in the At lantic is the subject of the present essay. Four questions have arisen : (1) The assertion by the United States of a right to fish in our bays. (2) The desire of the French, and the assertion of right by the United States to purchase bait on our and Ne'wfoundland's shores. (3) The assertion of the French of an exclusive right of fishing on the Ne-wfoundland "treaty-coasts"; and of the exclusive use (in connection with their operations) of the adjoining shores. (4) The assertion of the French of an exclusive right to take lobsters on the "treaty-coasts", and an exclusive right to erect lobster- canning factories on the adjoining strand. Upon all these questions, Canada and Newfoundland were indisputably (in British opinion, as weU as in mine) in the right; upon every one of them the British government took sides with our opponents; upon every one of them, we had to fight the inclination of the British government to surrender; and every one of them, in spite of British indifference and opposition, we have managed (a) The quotations appearing in this Paper(when not specifically allocated) may be found in one or other of the following publications : The Cases, Counter-Cases and Arguments of the United Kingdom and the United States respectively in the North Atlantic Fisheries' Arbitra tion; the Appendices to those documents; the proceedings before the arbitration; and a New foundland pamphlet entitled French Treaty Rujhts. 113 114 British Protection — North Atlantic Fisheries to maintain. Judge by the following narration whether my assertions are well-founded. THE BAYS. Our troubles originated with the treaty between the United Kingdom and the United States, at the close of the war of independ ence, by which the British Government not only recognized Am erican independence; and not only gave to the United States huge territories that theretofore formed part of Canada (then Quebec) ; but permitted American fishermen to "take fish of every kind on such part of the coast of Ne^wfoundland as British fishermen shall use . and also on the coasts, bays and creeks of His Britannic Majesty's Dominions in America." That treaty was the worst blow that British diplomacy ever dealt to Canada — taking, as it did, territories from the loyal colonies, and bestowing them, together with fishing privileges in the loyal colonies, upon the rebellious. Mr. George Canning expressed the general view of it when he said in the British House of Commons in 1814— "In our treaty of 1783 we gave away more than we ought; and we never now hear of that treaty but as a trophy of \'ictory on the one hand, or the monu ment of degradation and shame on the other." By declaring war against the United Kingdom in 1812, the United States put an end to that treaty and to all rights under it. The United States, indeed, contended otherwise, on the ground that the treaty was not one of usual character — ^that the Hberty to take fish in British waters was not a grant by the British govern ment to the United States' government, but that the treaty was a partition of property theretofore held by the two nations in common. There was absolutely nothing in the suggestion (a), but nevertheless the British government determined once more to cement the friend ship between the two countries (with Canadian cement), Lord Bathurst saying that although His Majesty's Government could not admit the claim of the United States "yet they do feel that the enjoyment of the hberties, formerly used by the in habitants of the United States, may be very conducive to their national and individual prosperity, though they should be placed under some modifications and this feeling operates most forcibly in favor of concession." The concession was made. By the treaty of 1818, the United States was restored in its liberties in various parts of the fishing (a) At the Hague arbitration, the United States practically withdrew the contention and the Tribunal unanimously condemned it. British Protection — ^North Atlantic Fisheries 115 ground covered by the former treaty, and the United States re nounced their claim to aU the rest, namely all the waters "¦within three marine miles of the coasts, bays, creeks or harbours of His Britannic Majesty's dominions in America not included -within the above mentioned limits." Out of these words the contention arose. The United Kingdom always maintained that the language was unmistakeably clear, namely, that the three miles were to be measured from the "bays," and not from the shores of the bays; that lines ought therefore to be drawn from headland to headland of the bays; and that the three miles ought to be measured from such lines. The United States sometimes contended that the three miles ought to be measured from the shores of the bays; at other times, from a line joining the headlands of bays not more than six miles wide; and at the Hague arbitration a new and more complicated view was advanced. The arbitrators, necessarily condemned these three contradictory con tentions. They held that every body of water was a bay which had the geographical configuration of a bay; they declined to limit the entrances of bays to six miles; and, practically applying their views, they confirmed Canada and Ne^wfoundland in the ownership of all those bays which, twenty-two years before (1888) they had agreed to accept. The question of the construction of the treaty first arose in 1841. It was at once referred by the British government to the law-officers of the Crown, who held (30 Aug.) that the three miles ought"to be measured from the headlands . and not from the interior of such bays or indents of the coasts." Bay of Fundy surrendered. — Thus fortified, the authorities of Nova Scotia seized the United States' schooner Washington in the Bay of Fundy (10 May 1843), and thereupon, diplomatic cor respondence ensued, with the result that Lord Aberdeen maintained his view but surrendered the bay. He wrote (10 March 1845) — "Her Majesty's government must stiU maintain, and in this -view they are fortified by high legal authority, that the Bay of Fundy is rightfully claimed by Great Britain as a bay ¦within the meaning of the treaty of 1818." "But while Her Majesty's government still feel themselves bound to main tain these positions as a matter of right, they are nevertheless not insensible to the advantages which would accrue to both countries from a relaxation of the exercise of that right; to the United States as conferring a material BENEFIT ON THEIR FISHING TRADE; AND TO GrBAT BRITAIN AND THE UnITED States, conjointly and equally, by the removal of a fertile source of disagreement between them. Her Majesty's government are also anxious, at the same time that they 116 British Protection — North Atlantic Fisheries uphold the just claims of the British Crown, to e-vince by every reasonable con cession THEIR DESIRE TO ACT LIBERALLY AND AMICABLY TOWARDS THE UNITED States. The imdersigned has accordingly much pleasure in announcing to Mr. Everett, the determination to which her Majesty's government have come to RELAX IN FAVOR OF THE UNITED StATES FISHERMEN THAT RIGHT -WHICH GrBAT Britain has hitherto exercised, of excluding those fishermen from THE British portion of the Bay of Fundy, and they are prepared to direct their colonial authorities to aUow henceforward the United States fishermen to pursue their avocations in any part of the Bay of Fundy, provided they do not approach except in the cases specified in the treaty of 1818, -within three. miles of the entrance of any bay on the coast of Nova Scotia or New Brunswick.', In mitigation of this surrender, it must be said that, in a previous letter, the United States Ambassador had appeared to admit the validity of the British construction of the treaty, claiming only that the Bay of Fundy was exceptional; and that, prior to the surrender, Lord Aberdeen had taken the opinion of the Nova Scotia Governor, who had replied (17 September 1844,) — ' ' In respect to the expediency of relaxing the strict rule which has hitherto been declared apphcable to American vessels found fishing within the limits of the Bay of Fundy, I have found it difficult to arrive at a conclusion, because although some members of the Executive CouncU beheve, with myself, that such a concession, provided it led to no other of a like nature, would not be productive of injury to Nova Scotia, and might in fairness be granted, other members of the board, among whom is the Attorney-General, entertain a strong opinion to the contrary." After referring to the admission of the American Ambassador, the Governor added — ' ' I cannot but conceive that a great portion of what I have contended for (in my despatch No. 75, date May 8th, 1841, addressed to Lord John RusseU) on the part of the pro-vince, is conceded, and it is therefore my unreserved opinion, provided always that this interpretation of Mr. E-^-erett's phraseology BE correct, that that which is now asked bj' the Americans may be granted, -without evil consequences, if due care be taken that no further preten sions CAN hereafter BE FOUNDED ON THE CONCESSION." All THE OTHER BAYS. — Any doubt as to Mr. Everett's meaning might have easily been re&oh'cd by a request for assurance upon the point. That precaution was not taken. Nothing vfas done, and, as was feared, the concession gave immediate rise to a claim for all the other l)ays. "Why not give these up too?" thought the British go-^'ernment, and thereupon wrote to the Governor (19 May 1845) — ' ' I have to acquaint your Lordship that, after mature dehberation Her Majesty's governinent deem it advisable for the interests of both countries to relax the strict rule of exclusion exercised by Great Britain over the fishing vessels of the United Slates entering the bays of the sea on the British North American coasts. Her Majesty's government, therefore, henceforward propose British Protection-^N orth Atlantic Fisheries 117 to regard as bays in the sense of the treaty, only those inlets of the sea which measure from headland to headland at their entrance the double of the distance of three miles, within which it -will stiU be prohibited to the fishing vessels of the United States to approach the coast for the purpose of fishing." In London, that appeared to be unobjectionable and neighborly. Of what use are bays on the other side of the Atlantic? To Nova Scotia, however, bays on this side of the Atlantic were of gxeat value, and her protests were sufficient to stop the surrender. But the view taken by the British government will prepare us for the indifference which it afterwards evinced, and for its subsequent surrenders. 1852,3. — For a brief period, in 1852 and 3, the British govern ment did display a little interest in the question. The sudden change from protection to free-trade had produced wide-spread commercial disaster in the British Provinces. It had led to the organiz ation of the annexation movement of 1849, and the United Kingdom felt that some attention had to be paid to colonial grievances. Ac cordingly a small force of vessels was directed to watch the movements of the American schooners. Their instructions, as stated by Admiral Seymour (21 July 1853) , were of the mildest possible type — "The vessels employed under my orders in the Gulf have already instruc tions to exercise the utmost moderation: to prefer warning to seizure; and are told, as last year, to drive away, not to actually seize, beyond three miles from the shore, except in the last resort, in case of determined and contumacious encroachment in what are clearly bays of our provinces." The United States' government also sent a small force; the two Admirals had a friendly understanding; and no seizures were made. 1854-66. — The Reciprocity treaty of 1854, by opening the fisheries of both countries to mutual operation, obviated all dis cussion until its termination in 1866. Immediately afterwards the surrenders re-commenced. 1866-70, Licenses. — The United States terminated the treaty (17 March 1866) and once more the parties were relegated to their rights. Canada wanted to adhere strictly to them. The Colonial Office ruled other^wise; and proposed the voluntary continuation of the privileges accorded by the reciprocity treaty to United States fishermen. Canada replied "The Canadian Government receive this expression of the opinion of Her Majesty's Government with the utmost respect, but doubt whether its adoption would not in the end produce most serious evils. They fear there is no reasonable hope of satisfactory commercial relations being restored with the United States ¦within the year. They think the prospect of attaining this result in the future wiU be greatly diminished if the United States fishermen continue to exercise 118 British Protection — North Atlantic Fisheries the rights given by the late treaty. The -withdrawal of their pri-vileges a year hence, -will create more irritation then than now, as ha^ving the character of retaUation. The step, if taken now, is plainly and pubhcly kno-wn to be the consequence of the act of the United States. They, and not Great Britain, have canceUed the agreement, and voluntarily surrendered the right of fishing. The course suggested would certainly be regarded by the American people as evidence of weakness on the part of Great Britain, and of an indisposition to maintain the rights of the Colonies; while it would disturb and alarm the Pro-vinces. The determination to persist in encroachments, and in resistance to the law, would be stronger by the immunity of the past year, and the danger of coUision when exclusion becomes necessary, would thus be much increased; while the value of the right of fishing, for the purpose of negotiation, would be diminished precisely in proportion to the low estimate which the Provinces would thus appear to have placed upon it. The Committee would also respectfuUy submit to Her Majesty's Govern ment that any apparent hesitation to assert an undoubted national right -wiU certainly be misconstrued, and be made the ground for other and more serious exactions, tiU such a point is reached as neither country can recede from with honour." That was all most undoubtedly true, but the answer to it was a direction issued by the Colonial Secretary (Mr. Cardwell, 12 April 1866) that American fishermen "should not be interfered -with either by notice or otherwise, unless they are found -within three miles of the shore, or -within three miles of a line drawn across the mouth of a bay or creek which is less than ten geographical miles in WIDTH, in conformity -ndth the arrangement made -with France in 1839. American vessels found -within these hmits should be warned that by engaging or preparing to engage in fishing they -will be hable to forfeiture, and should receive the notice to depart which is contemplated by the laws of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island, if within the waters of one of these colonies under circumstances of suspicion. But they should not be carried into port EXCEPT AFTER WILFUL AND PERSE'VERlNG NEGLECT OF THE WARNINGS WHICH THEY MAY HAVE RECEIVED ; AND IN CASE IT SHOULD BECOME NECESS.VRY TO PRO CEED TO FORFEITURE, CASES SHOULD, IF POSSIBLE, BE SELECTED FOR THAT EX TREME STEP IN WHICH THE OFFENCE OF FISHING HAS BEEN CO.MMITTED WITHIN THREE MILES OF LAND. Her Majesty's Government do not desire that the prohibition to enter British bays should be generally insisted on, except when there is reason to apprehend some substantial iin-asion of British rights." It will be observed that by this direction — (1) Not only was water, that the British Government held to be British — not only were such valuable bays as the Bay of Chaleurs, opened l-o United States fishermen; (2) But that within the remaining parts of British water, no seizures were to be made "except after wilful and persevering neglect of the warnings they may have received" , (3) That even out of such cases, those British Protection — North Atlantic Fisheries 119 "should, if possible, be selected for that extreme step in which the offence of fishing had been committed within three miles of the land" (the distance claimed by the United States) ; (4) And that there was lo be no general insistence upon exclusion from any part of British Bays ' ' except where there is reason to apprehend some substantial invasion of British rights." Feeling that under such regulations, it would be quite impossible to preserve even a semblance of ownership of her bays, Canada determined to adopt the license system — that is to issue, upon pay ment of a small fee, licenses authorizing United States fishermen to operate in the bays. In this way it was hoped to retain at least theoretical ownership. An Order-in-Council (1866) was accordingly passed, its last clause declaring its limitation and its excuse — ' ' The system of hcense ¦wiU continue for the current year ; but it is proposed to notify the fishermen in all cases, that it -will not be renewed for the future, being only adopted from a desire to avoid exposing them to unexpected loss, their arrangements ha'ving been made before the expiry of the treaty, for this season's fishing" (a). Nova Scotia at first declined to assent to the concession, but was brought to heel by a letter from the Colonial Secretary (26 May 1866) — "I MUST DISTINCTLY INFORM YOU THAT ON A MATTER SO INTIMATELY CON NECTED WITH THE INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS OF THIS COUNTRY, HeR MaJESTY's Government will not be disposed to yield their own opinion op what IS REASONABLE TO INSIST ON, NOR TO ENFORCE THE STRICT RIGHTS OF HeR Majesty's subjects, beyond what appears to them to be required by the REASON AND JUSTICE OP THE CASB". Nova Scotia, quite helpless, withdrew her opposition, and the license system went into operation. It was continued from year to year and was at length terminated (1870) because the United States fishermen (most of them) ceased to apply for the licenses. They ceased for two reasons (1) because the amount of the license fee was increased, and, (2) because those who had no licenses were not made to suffer (b). In a Canadian Order-in-Council of later date (28th July 1871), is the foUowing:— "Reference to the correspondence -wiU prove that the hcense system was reluctantly adopted by the Canadian Government as a substitute for the stiU more objectionable policy pressed upon it by Her Majesty's Government". 1870, Further surrender. — During the licensing period, the Canadian fishery regulations (applicable to Americans who (a) Sess. Pap. 1871, Vol. IV, p. 3. (6) Macpherson's Life of Sir John A. Macdonald, II, 117. 120 British Protection — North Atlantic Fisheries had no licenses) had directed (in accordance with British directions) that seizures should be made only after certain ' ' warnings" had been given. Finding that the United States took advantage of that practice, Canada determined to abolish the warnings and to direct immediate seizure. That, however, was in direct opposition to British policy, and it was met (30 April) by the Admiralty issuing to its officials the following: "The Canadian Government has recently determined with the concurrence of Her Majesty's Ministers to increase the stringency of the existing practice by dispensing -with the warnings hitherto given and seizing at once any vessel detected in violating the law. In view of this change and of the questions to which it may give rise, I am directed by Lord Granville to request that you viuU move their Lordships to instruct the officers of Her Majesty's ships employed in the protection of the Fisheries that they are not to seize any ¦vessel unless it is evident and CAN be clearly PROVED THAT THE OFFENCE OF FISHING HAS BEEN COMMITTED, AND THE VESSEL ITSELF IS CAPTURED WITHIN THREE MILES OP LAND.'' That direction was curtly communicated to Canada in a note of two sentences — ' ' Sir, I have the honor to transmit to you the copy of a letter which I have caused to be addressed to the Admiralty respecting the instructions to be given to the officers of Her Majesty's ships employed in the PROTECTION of the Can adian Fisheries. Her Majesty's Government do not doubt that your Ministers wiU agree with them as to the propriety of these instructions, and wiU give corresponding in structions to the vessels employed by them." Canada protested vigorously (31 May), and received inr eply the following (6 June) — "Her Majesty's Government hope that the United States fishermen wiU not be for the present prevented from fishing except M-ithin three miles of land or in bays which are less than six miles broad at the mouth." Once more Canada protested (7 June) saying that by such procedure — "The whole pohcy of exclusion would be gradually subverted, and com ponent parts of a question vital to the future welfare and interests of Canada become practicaUy abandoned piece-meal." Protest was useless. Canada had to comply (29 June) with dir ections. And meanwhile, without waiting for Canada's rephes, the determination to make the announced surrender was communic ated to the United States (26 May). The reply of the United States (4 June) was as follows — "I am happy to find in the considerate terms in which those instructions are expressed, evidences of a disposition to respect fully the rights of the United State.s under the Convention of 1818." This surrender went, as will be observed, beyond the full extent of British Protection — North Atlantic Fisheries 121 the United States claim, for no one questioned that if a poacher was found fishing within the three miles, he could be followed out to s 3a and arrested there. To require that the capture should be made within the three miles, was to open not only all the bays, but to permit fishing anywhere close to the shore, subject only to the necessity for watching the approach of a police-vessel. That is the sort of "protection" that we received and ought to be so profussly grateful for. Could anything be more abject? In the autumn of the same year, Canada sent Sir Alexander Campbell to England to protest, with the result (according to Sir Alexander's report, 10 September 1870) — ' ' Lord Kimberley admitted that the time had come when Canadians might reasonably expect that the state of things anterior to the reciprocity treaty should be reverted to, or that some other definite arrangements ¦with the Amer icans on this subject should be arrived at." 1871-85.— The treaty of 1871 (8 May), by restoring (with some alterations) the fishing agreement of the reciprocity treaty, removed, for the time, all difficulty. 1886-1910, Continuation of the surrender. — After the termination of the treaty, the surrender-regulations of 1870 were renewed. American fishermen came into our bays as they pleased. The British government still held firmly to the conviction that foreigners had no right there, but would neither stop them, nor permit us to stop them. That continued until the award of the arbitrators in 1910. Why did the United States agree to the submission to arbi tration of a point which had been conceded, in practice, for forty years? We have to thank Newfoundland for that, as we shall see. And how did we suceeed with such a record of concessions against Us? (1) The actual surrender of one of the bays — the Bay of Fundy. (2) The expressed determination of the British govern ment (19 May 1845) to surrender all the other bays. (3) The re duction of our prohibition (12 April 1866) to bays not more than ten miles wide. (4) The opening of all our bays — 1870-1910. Those facts were all pointed to, during the arbitration, as evid ence of the unbelief of the British government in the validity of our contention; and the "contrast between the attitude of the Canadian and British Governments", was strenuously urged. But worst of all, we had to meet a statement made by Lord Fitzmaurice (Under- Secretary for Foreign Affairs) in the House of Lords on 21 February 1907— ' ' In regard to that I can certainly say that according to the -views hitherto accepted by all the Departments of the Government chiefly concerned — the 122 British Protection — North Atlantic Fisheries Foreign Office, the Admiralty, the Colonial Office, the Board of Trade, and the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries — and apart from the provisions of special treaties, such as, for instance, the North Sea Convention, -within the hmits to which that instrument apphes, territorial waters are: first, the waters which extend from the coastline of any part of the territory of a State to three miles from the low-water mark of such coastUne; secondly, the waters of bays the ENTRANCE TO WHICH IS NOT MORE THAN SIX MILES IN WIDTH, and of which the entire land boundary forms part of the territory of a state. By custom, how ever, and by treaty, and in special convention, the sLx-mile hmit has frequently been extended to more than six miles." That is precisely the view for which the United States was contending, and which we were combatting. It was a statement made with an eye on British access to the bays of Russia and Norway; and quite regardless of its effect upon the bays of Canada and New foundland. How did we succeed in the face of all that? and in the face of this too — that the Enghsh Attorney General, who acted as our leading counsel, was embarrassed by the attitude assumed by his government? How? In the first place. Sir Robert Fmlay chaUenged the correctness of the statement of Lord Fitzmaurice. Secondly, I submitted the following: "And, Sirs, at the outset, I admit that there is one Une of statement — ^I cannot properly call it argument — which I cannot meet, and that is the appeal based upon the laxity of the British Government in enforcing its -view of the treaty. If it be the fact that this is an argument capable of affecting the deci sion of this case, I might as well at once cease speaking. For I admit that I cannot answer it — so far as it relates to matter of fact. I can say, and I do say, that it is not an argument; but if I thought the Tribunal, or any member of the Tribunal, took it as an argument and would give any effect to it, I should enter upon the task imposed upon me with a, feeling of great depression, not merely as to the possibihty of the success of my advocacy, but as to the success of international arbitration ; for I feel very strongly that if this Tribunal should in any way indicate that such a Une of argument could have any effect upon the mind of the Tribunal, then there must forever be an end either to inter national arbitration, or to international comity and courtesy and endeavors to get along with one another in the best fashion possible." And thirdly, because our case was so overwhelmingly strong that not even British opposition to it was sufficient to spoil it. THE BAIT QUESTION. French and American cod-fishers have a long way to sail before reaching 1he fishing-banks off Ne'wfoundland. They cannot, even in these cold-storage days, very well bring all the bait that they may require. The success of their operations, therefore, depends British Protection — North Atlantic Fisheries 123 upon their ability to procure supplies of bait near the banks. The only available places are Nova Scotia and the south shore of New foundland, where all the bait fishes keep close to the land and are there fore in Canadian and Ne^wfoundland waters. Moreover these foreign fishermen can much better afford to purchase bait than to catch it — for two reasons: (1) they would have to cumber their boats with special tackle, and (2) their time is more valuable than the time of the villagers. "Those who have bait get the cod", therefore, is applicable not merely as between two boats on a Sunday afternoon, but as between two nations ; and thereby hangs the present tale. Originally the rival fishermen were British and French. During that period the British government appreciated the advantage of control of the bait and by its ordinances and statutes from 1670 to 1824 (a) provided — "that no aUen or stranger whatsoever . . shall at any time hereafter take any bait ... in Newfoundland." The law also prohibited the sale of bait "to any person or persons being the subjects of any foreign state." Afterwards British fishermen ceased to cross the ocean. They operated from their homes in Ne'wfoundland. And, naturally, the view of the British government changed. Why should Ne^wfound- landers and Nova Scotians be so stingy about their bait? In "the interests of the Empire as a whole", they ought to be more neighborly and generous. And the reply of Newfoundland—' ' Let the French stop their bounty system against which we have to com pete; and let the United States be neighborly and generous enough to permit us to sell our- fish in their country" — ^was thought to be but captious and provoking. On that line, British and Newfound landers fought the matter over a period of sixty years. Eventually Newfoundland won. Canada came into the struggle in 1886, protest ing and fighting fairly well; but to Newfoundland belongs the honors. Read the story: By the effect of two treaties (1713 and 1763) Newfoundland became British "But it shall be allowed to the subjects of France to catch fish and to dry them"on the west, and north, and part of the east coasts of the island (called the "treaty coasts" or "French shore"). But the French were not "to erect any buildings there, besides stages made of boards and huts necessary (o) The statutes were 10, 11 Wm. Ill, c. 25; 26 Geo. Ill, i;. 26; 5 Geo. IV, u. 51. 124 British Protection — North Atlantic Fisheries and usual for drying of fish, or resort to the said island beyond the time neces sary for fishing and drying of fish." Accompanying the treaty of 1783 was a declaration which caused a lot of trouble — "To this end, and in order that the fishermen of the two nations may not give cause for daily quarrels. His Britannic Majesty will take the most positive measures for preventing his subjects from interrupting, in any manner, by THEIR competition, the fishery of the French, during the temporary exercise of it which is granted to them upon the coasts of the Island of Newfoundland; and he will, for this purpose, cause the fixed settlements, which shall be formed there, to be removed." The French, therefore, could, themselves, fish for bait on the west coast of the island; but that was too far away from the banks; and besides they wanted liberty to purchase it as well as other supplies. One endeavor after another, they made, with the full sympathy and assistance of the British government, to secure the advantage which they coveted. They set up bogus claims under the treaty, namely, the right to exclude Newfoundlanders from fishing on "the French shore", and the right to prohibit New foundlanders occupying any part of the adjoining land; and then they offered to abandon part of those claims in return for the Ijait- privileges. Their first attempt was in 18^4, but was fruitless. It was renewed in 1846 and again failed. Meanwhile they poached and purchased very much as they pleated. The British statutes were still there, but breach of them did no harm in London. Nor did the petitions and addresses of the Newfoundland legislature cause much uneasiness there. In 1844 the legislature said ' ' We beg to remark that the French fishery is hmited only by the supply of bait, and since the supply from our shores has been obtained it has "greatly increased." "'We beg to remark that in the j'car after the treat)- and declaration of Versailles in 1783, an ,\ct was passed by the Parhament of England, in the 26th year of the reign of your Majesty's august predecessor of blessed memory. King George the Third, absolutely prohibiting any of your Majesty's subjects in Newfoundland from selhng to foreigners any bait whatsoever. AU we now most dutifully ask of your Majesty is such .\ssisT-f.N'CE as may be necessary to carry the said enactment into pr.\ctic.\l operation." In 1845, the legislature tried to stop the sale of bait by imposing an export duty on it, but that was easily evaded; and in 1849, the l('Kislai-urc again appealed to the British government — "The I'n'iich Fisheries are upheld by the supphes of bait they receive from our shores. By the Imperial Act, 26 Geo. 3, this traffic is declared to be illegal; British Protection — North Atlantic Fisheries 125 and yet it is -vigorously carried on because of the absence of a sufficient PREVENTIVE FORCE TO SUPPRESS IT." "Neglect has been our portion", they said. In 1852, the French resumed their efforts. Long negotiations, to which Newfoundland was not a party, took place, and on 16 January 1857 the Colonial Office sent to Newfoundland a copy of a signed convention by which, in return for partial abandonment of the alleged exclusive rights both on the water and on the land, the French were to be permitted to purchase bait on the coveted south ehore, and to take it for themselves if they could not get it by purchase. The Colonial Secretary expected that the arrangement would not meet with very cordial reception in Newfoundland, and, as the concurrence of the legislature was necessary, he said — "You -wiU observe lastly, that although Her Majesty's Government have expressly submitted the treaty to the assent of the Newfoundland Legislature, they have for their part promised to use their best endeavours to procure the passing of the necessary laws. They are most desirous that these words should be taken as expressing their strong anxiety to effect this arrangement, AND their conviction THAT TO MISS THIS OPPORTUNITY OF COMING TO A SETTLE MENT, WILL BE TO CAUSE GREAT INCONVENIENCE AND PROBABLE FUTURE LOSS TO Newfoundland." Newfoundland did not flinch, and the treaty never went into operation. In 1859, the negotiations were renewed. Newfoundland was not notified, but hearing of them, the legislature adopted a series of protesting resolutions — ¦ "Resolved, That the House has heard, with surprise and alarm, that the convention in course of negotiation, between Great Britain and France, on the subject of the Newfoundland Fisheries, is not to be submitted for the assent of the people of this colony. Resolved, That such a procedure, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, would be a violation of the pledge given by Mr. Labouohere, in his despatch dated March 26th 1857, in which it is declared that the consent of the people of Ne-wfoundland is regarded by her Majesty's Government as the essential pre liminary to any modification of their maritime or territorial rights. Resolved, That this pledge, which has been aptly styled the Colonial Magna Charta, cannot be -withdrawn without a breach of faith on the part of the British Government toward all the North American Colonies, and would, necessarily, awaken a strong feehng of indignation in the breasts of those communities of loyal British subjects. Resolved, That we most firmly and earnestly pray the Imperial Government not to disturb the sacred rights of the colonists in the matter in question, for, apart from its injustice, we should deeply regret the stain it would inflict on the honor of the Imperial name.'' The negotiations produced no result. 126 British Protection — North Atlantic Fisheries Newfoundland Legislation. — The illegal but unpunished practices constantly continuing, Newfoundland determined to legislate for herself, and in that way to preserve her undoubt ed right to control the export of its bait. Accordingly a committee was appointed, and a bill was drafted and sent to the Colonial Office. The answer was prompt and clear (3 August 1863) : "That no act can be allowed which prohibits expressly, or is calculated by a circuitous method, to prevent the sale of bait." Beyond protesting, and declining to concur in the abandonment of her rights, Newfoundland was powerless. Indeed on two occasions (1867, 1874) her resolution, in view of persistent British opposition and of certain proposed concessions by the French, seemed for the moment to fail. Treaty 1885. — In 1885 a new treaty was negotiated, by which it was agreed that "French fishermen shall have the right to purchase bait, both herring and capUn, on shore or at sea on the shores of Newfoimdland, free from all duty or restrictions" etc. But once more Newfoundland refused to agree, and the treaty failed to become effective. Reporting to the Colonial Office, the Governor said that the local government had declared (27 April 1886) that control of the bait-supply was a method of counter vailing the French bounty system "and they were, therefore, unwiUing to give up what was regarded as the key OF THE POSITION AND THE ONLY AVAILABLE MEANS OF S.WIXG THEMSELVES FROM RUIN. It was also urged that the feehng was so generaUy prevalent and so deeply rooted that it would be quite impossible for any government to carry through the legislature the arrangement in question while it contained this bait clause, even if objections on other points were overcome." To a remonstrance from the Assembly couched in similar language, the Governor replied (27 April 1886) : — "That Her Majesty's Government not only on various former occasions, but quite recently, had expressed its inability to sanction any measure PROHIBITING THE SALE OF BAIT TO THE FRENCH, AND THERE WAS NOT THE LEAST PROBABILITY OF THIS DETERMINATION BEING IN ANY WAY MODIFIED. A few months afterwards the same Governor changed his opinion. Writing to the Colonial Secretary (14 January 1887) he said — "Now that I fully comprehend the present position of the colony, it is to me no longer a matter of wonder that the legislature has hitherto faUed to ratify the proposed 'arrangement' -with France; indeed, I can scarcely conceive it possible that this arrangement will ever be accepted so long as the bait clause remains in it, and no security is taken that the export bounties ¦wiU not be main tained in their present footing." British Protection — North Atlantic Fisheries 127 Newfoundland Legislation. — Once more (1886) Newfound land determined to attempt enactment of legislation prohibiting the sale of bait. A statute for that purpose was passed and sent to the Colonial Office, with an address to the Crown, praying that it might be assented to. The accompanying dispatch of the Governor contained the foUowing (25 May 1886)— "The people in Newfoundland, Uke those of Canada, desire to use the right to ¦withhold a supply of bait as a means of inducing the American govern ment to remove the import duties on British fish." The Colonial Secretary hesitated, referred to the policy of Her Majesty's Government "for many years past to resist any attempt on the part of the colonies of New foundJand to interfere -with the sale of bait to the French" ; but thought that ' ' the colonies make out a strong case for the allowance of the bill." Assent to the bill was, however, refused. Whereupon, immediate ly and unanimously, both Houses of the Legislature re-enacted the bill, and sent it to the Colonial Office, not only with a still stronger address but supported by two delegates charged with the duty of pressing for its allowance. The long struggle was soon over. The Colonial Office surrendered, and the bill became law (1887). It was followed by the supplementary, strengthening, statutes of 1888, 1889, 1892, 1893, 1905— statutes which introduced the United States into the bait controversy, and finally led to the Arbitration at the Hague in 1910. The United States and the bait question. — It was not with Newfoundland but with Canada that the United States first came into conflict over the subject of bait. It will be remembered that in 1870, Canada (having been required to open all her bays to the Americans) appeared to have been rendered helpless. She was not completely so, and after the expiry of the treaty of 1871-85 (under which reciprocal fishing privileges had been enjoyed), she determined to cease supplying the American fishermen with bait and other supplies (a) . The President of the United States, choosing to regard this action not only as a breach of the treaty but as un friendly, sent a message to Congress advising that legislation should be passed authorizing him ' ! ' [j ' "to deny vessels, their masters and crews, of the British dominions ofjNorth America, any entrance into the waters, ports, or places of, or within the United States; and also, to deny entry into any port or place of the United States of (o) Stat. 49, Vic. o. 114. 128 British Protection — North Atlantic Fisheries fresh fish or salt fish or any other product of said dominions, or other goods coming from said dominions to the United States." In a vigorous Order-in-Council (27 December 1870), the Canadian Government upheld its right to decline to seh bait and supplies if it did not want to, and declared its "trust that Her Majesty's Government vriU not be influenced in the shghtest degree by the threat of the President. .The recent message of the President of the United States affords, in the opinion of the Committee of the Pri-vy CouncU, conclusive proof that the concihatory pohcy regarding the fisheries which has prevailed since the abrogation of the reciprocity treaty has not been appre ciated by the United States. Had the vigorous pohcy announced in Secretary Sir John Pakington's dispatch of 27th May 1852 — and which, though it caused great irritation, and led to many threats, secured nevertheless the ratification of the reciprocity treaty — been resumed immediately on the abrogation of that treaty, the irritation which -will never cease to exist so long as a single pri-vilege is withheld from the American fishermen, would have been directed against the Government which had abrogated the treaty, and not against that of Canada. In the hope that concihation would lead to important concessions to Canada, a temporizing pohcy has lieen pursued for years, and the result is that, when very moderate restrictions are enforced, the Chief Magistrate of the United States charges Canada with having acted in an unfriendly spirit. The Committee of the Privy Council think it far from improbable that if the regulations which were in existence prior to 1854, for protecting the British fisheries, had been enforced with equal vigor after the abrogation of the reciprocity treaty, that treaty would long ere this have been renewed in a form that would have been acceptable to Canada. The recent message of the President is, in their opinion, far from discouraging. It proves how severely the American fishermen have felt the very moderate restrictions imposed on them last season, and how strong wiU be the pressure which they will bring to bear on their own Government to secure for them in some way the privilege of fishing in British waters. The President no doubt, hopes that he will accomplish that object by threats, but should these prove unavaihng he wiU probably resort to negotiation. The Committee of the Pri^vy Council are persuaded that concessions to the United States ¦will invariably be followed by fresh demands. So soon as Great Britain evinced a disposition to take a hberal view of the headland question, a claim was set up that had never been pre-viously thought of, that fishing vessels should be permitted to trade in Canadian ports, although the practical effect of such a concession would be to faciUtate very greatly the illegal traffic of the American fishermen. But were this further concession made, the trespasses ¦within the three mile hmit would be stimulated, and if all other Canadian fishing rights were abandoned, the next demand would, prob ably, be for considerable cessions of territory." The reply of the Colonial Secretary (16 February 1871) was short, explicit, and disheartening: — "The exclusion of American fishermen from resorting to Canadian ports, 'except for the purpose of shelter and of repairing damages therein, of pui^ chasing wood, and of obtaining water', might be warranted by the letter of the Treaty of 1818, and by the terms of the Imperial Act 59 George III, cap. 38, British Protection — North Atlantic Fisheries 129 but Her Majesty's Government feel bound to state that it seems to them an EXTREME MEASURE, INCONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL POLICY OF THE EmPIRE, AND THEY ARE DISPOSED TO CONCEDE THIS POINT TO THE UNITED StATBS' GOVERN MENT, under such restrictions as may be necessary to prevent smuggling, and to guard against any substantial invasion of the exclusive rights of fishing which may be reserved to British subjects." Thus as in Newfoundland in 1863 and 1886, so also in Canada in 1871, the Colonial Office set itself in flat opposition to the wishes of the two colonies in a matter which was not merely one of colonial interest only, and one of great importance to colonial fishermen, but one about which there could be no reasonable question of inter national right. The three sets of fishermen, French, United States, and Colonial, were competitors in the cod-fish industry; French fishermen had the advantage of bounties; the United States fishermen had the advantage of free access to the principal market (their own) ; and Newfoundland and Canada had the key to the whole situation, in their facilities for procuring bait supplies. Newfoundland and Canada wished to maintain their advantage, believing that by so doing they could obtain removal of their disadvantages — would end the French bounty system, and would obtain access to United States markets. But the British Government (after British fisher men ceased to profit by refusal to sell bait) not only declined to enforce a British statute, but refused to permit 'the colonies ot protect themselves in a matter about which there could be no doubt as to colonial right. The colonies had, unquestionably, precisely the same right to prohibit the export of fish, as the United States had to prohibit its import. Canada believed that keeping control of her own markets, ni which the United States wanted to buy, was just as reasonable and friendly as United States control of her own markets, in which Canada wanted to sell. By the reciprocity treaty of 1854-66, the United States had been permitted to buy fish in Newfoundland, and the colonies had been permitted to sell fish in the United States. The United States cancelled the treaty; colonials were excluded from the United States; and the British Government refused to sanction reciprocal exclusion from the colonies. Were we under colonial control to-day, the United States would frighten the British govern ment into prohibition of our non-export law with reference to saw-logs and pulp-wood. 1871-85. — From 1871 to 1885 (owing to the existence of the treaty) the question remained dormant. 1886, Question revived. — On the expiry of the treaty (It was teiminated by the United States), Canada at once commenced the difficult work of enforcing her rights; and with that view passed 130 British Protection — North Atlantic Fisheries a statute, making more clear than by previous legislation, the illegality of United States fishing-vessels coming into Canadian harbors for the purpose of puchasing bait. To the Colonial Office, therefore, was once more presented the question whether it would persist in its inhibition of legislation of that character. It will be remembered that, in this same year, the Ne'wfoundland statute, passed for the same purpose, was disallowed. Permanent coercion of Canada, however, was felt to be a much more serious matter, and the Colonial Office reluctantly gave way; the statute became law; Newfoundland re-passed her bill, and it, too, became law — ^the Newfoundland Government pointing out the unfairness of making a distinction between the two colonies. Seizures. — The colonies had at last succeeded in overcoming the resistance of the Colonial Office, and were free to prohibit the exportation of bait and supplies if they so desired. They had, however, still to reckon with the United States, and to make good their claims as against American fishermen. The struggle commenced with the seizure, by a Canadian cruizer, of the United States vessel David J. Adams for (amongst other things) purchasing bait ; and by the refusal of permission to other vessels to purchase supplies — ^to the Mascot at the Magdalen Islands; to the Thomas F. Bayard in Newfoundland; and to the Mollie Adams in Nova Scotia. The United States objected, suggesting that Canadian action was a violation of treat j'-rights, but placing its main contention upon the ground of unfriendliness; and, agreement proving to be impossible. Congress passed a statute (1887) authorizing the President to proclaim non-intercourse with the British dominions in North America. No argument could be offered in support of the first of these points (violation of treaty-rights. It was not even advanced at the Hague), and the threat of retaliation was mere empty menace — as the sequel proved. Canada, nevertheless, gave in, and event ually came to terms with the United States. Newfoundland, happily for herself and us, maintained her position with unflinching firmness, yielding to nothing but fair arbitration — arbitration by which her position (and ours) was completely established. Unconfirmed Treaty, 1888. — Negotiations foUowed the passing of the United States statute, and, in 1888, a treaty was agreed to. It provided for restoration of reciprocal arrangements — fo- the removal by the United States of duties upon fish imported by the colonies into the United States, on the one hand, and, on the other, for permission, to United States fishermen to purchase bait, ice, (a) 49 Vic. c. 114. On the very day of the passing of the statute (2 June the United States Ambassador had pointed out to Lord Roseberry the absence of such a statute, and two conflicting decisions had made doubtful the effect of the old statute. British Protection — North Atlantic Fisheries 131 etc.; to tranship their fish across Canada in bond; and to obtain crews in Canadian and Ne'wfoundland ports. The United States Senate declined to ratify the treaty, and it never became operative. Contemporaneously with the making of the treaty (for the purpose of providing a modus vivendi during the period which would elapse before the legislation necessary to give effect to the treaty could be passed) , a subsidiary agreement had been executed, whereby, for a period of two years. United States fishermen were to enjoy the benefits of the treaty upon payment by each of them of an annual license fee of $1.50 per ton. At the end of the two years, the difficulties once more presented themselves for solution. Negot iation was at an end. What 'was now to be done? Canada sub mitted. She voluntarily continued the modus vivendi. Newfound land fought the matter to a better conclusion. The Bond-Blaine Convention. — Having, as has been stated, secured the passage of her first statute, Ne'wfoundland proceeded to enact further and stronger protective laws, and within twelve months of the expiry of the modus, she had the satisfaction of bringing the United States to an agreement (1890) for fair recip rocity — for free admission of Newfoundland fish into United States ports, and free export from Newfoundland. At the last moment, however, Canada intervened with a protest against her exclusion from the treaty. Asserting the impolicy of permitting the United States to deal separately with the two colonies, and prognosticating sundry evil consequences therefrom, Canada prevailed upon the Colonial Office to refuse consummation of the agreement — Canada was to have time to associate herself with Newfoundland in the agreement. But Canada failed, and eventually (1902) Newfound land was permitted to enter into a new treaty (Bond-Hay) with the United States. This time, however, the United States Senate declined rati fication. Newfoundland had, during the interval between the treaties (hoping for friendly adjustment) voluntarily permitted United States fishermen to purchase bait and supplies, and the Senate (taking the concession as evidence of weakness) believed that no sacrifice on the part of the United States was necessary in order to secure a continuation of the privilege. The Senate was mistaken; for immediately upon its action being made known (1904), the Ne-wfoundland Legislature passed (1905) a statute which brought the matter to sharp issue; which led to intervention by the British Government as against Newfoundland; and which afterwards produced the arbitration at the Hague. Newfoundland Legislation. — Previous Newfoundland legis- 132 British Protection — North Atlantic Fisheries lation had prohibited the sale of bait to foreigners, except under license. The Act of 1905 (15 June) removed the exception. It made the prohibition absolute; and, to prevent evasion of it (by employing Newfoundlanders to catch fish at so much a barrel instead of purchasing from them at the same rate), foreigners were for bidden to engage "any person to form part of the crew of the said vessel in any port or on any part of the coasts of this island." One of the purposes of the statute was stated by the Premier (Sir Robert Bond) when introducing the bih, as follows: — "One of the objects of this legislation is to bring the fishing interests of Gloucester and New England to a reahzation of their dependence upon the bait supphes of this colony." Its effect was exactly as contemplated. Hardly had it become law before the United States commenced the correspondence which ended in the Hague arbitration. At the request of the Colonial Office, Xe^n-foundland refrained from enforcement of the statute during the season following its enactment. The progress of the negotiation was, however, slow, and another season being at hand, the Colonial Office advised New foundland (8 August 1906) that a modus vivendi was being arranged with the United States, and asked if there were any suggestions to offer. The Ne'wfoundland government replied with an Order in Council (15 August) strongly deprecating any provisional ar rangement. This reply proving unacceptable to the Colonial Office, the usual pressure was applied (3 September) — "His Majesty's Government .... cannot but feel that your minister have faUed to appreciate the serious difficulty in which their policy has placed both them and His Majesty's Government." |^^ iS"^** S Newfoundland was reminded that, on a previous occasion, colonial refusal to comply with Colonial Office request had been met by introduction of an over-riding bill in the British parliament. She was told that the principle of imperial authority then declared would now be followed; that proposals had been made to the United States; that still further concession might be necessary; and she was asked whether Newfoundland "in the event of negotiations for a modus vivendi breaking down, would be pre pared to indemnify His Majest>'s Governmen against any claims for com- IK'iisalion that might be preferred by the United States tJovemment, and which it might not be possible, consistent \\ith a fair interpre ation of treaay rights, to avoid; also, whether in the event of a reference to arbitration becoming, in the opinion of His Majesty's Govern-ment, necessary or desirable, this govern- British Protection— North Atlantic Fisheries 133 ment would agree to such reference, and undertake to meet the expenses of arbitration and pay the award, if any." Further correspondence ensued, but Ne'wfoundland remained unfrightened by imaginary damages. She continued to say (20 September) that ' ' for reasons which had been fuUy set forth in pre^vious despatches, this govern ment regretted its inabiUty to becoming consenting parties to the modus vivendi with the United States." The modus was, nevertheless, agreed to, and Ne'wfoundland in order to test whether the British government had power, by mere agreement, to set aside colonial legislation, caused the arrest of two men, who had taken service in a United States vessel (May 1907). The arrest was, judicially upheld, and the men were heavily fined. Recogniying the validity of the decision, the British govern ment passed (9 September 1907) an Order-in-Council which pur ported to over-ride the Newfoundland statute.. Authority for this order was said to be a British statute of 1819; but there is, probably very little doubt that that statute, permitting, as it did in general terms, the making of regulations, was quite insufficient authority for the repeal, or suspension, of a subsequent statute. It had, nevertheless, some constraining effect. Stimulated by Newfoundland's attitude, the negotiations for arbitration proceeded, and were finally agreed to between the United Kingdom and the United States (27 January 1909). And, as was anticipated, the United States, at the Hague, made no ATTEMPT TO SUPPORT HER PRETENDED RIGHT TO MAKE CANADIANS AND Newfoundlanders sell bait if they did not want to. As against no country in the world, but the United Kingdom, would the United States have even advanced such an absurd con tention. And no statesman of any country, except a Britisher when dealing with a colony, would ever have declared that the refusal by Canada to permit export of one of its products, to a nation that declined to permit reciprocal benefits, was "an extreme measure." It was "inconsistent with the general pohcy of the Empire", only upon the assumption that that policy was one of abject and unintermittent submission to the United States. Summary. — The contest is typical of many colonial struggles with the British government. Two or six thousand miles away, matters of prime importance appear to be of little consequence. To far-off people, they are not worth arguing about, and if anybody wants them, why in the world should they not have them? The 134 British Protection — North Atlantic Fisheries present incident, however, has this unusual feature, that at earlier time the importance of the exclusive possession of bait was well known and keenly felt in England, and one might have expected to have seen some survival of its appreciation there. That there was little or none — that the whole affair presented the appearance of mere colonial petulance about which there ought to be no foolish fuss, is an unusually striking instance of the indifference of British statesmen to colonial interests. III. FRENCH ASSERTIONS OF EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS. The documents as far as necessary to an understanding of the nature of the French rights in Ne'wfoundland waters and on New foundland shores, appear on previous pages (123,4). Please refer to them and see if you can discover the slightest support for the two contentions; (1) that British fishermen should not fish at all in the specified waters; and (2) that British subjects should make no use of the adjoining shores. 1. The British government always admitted that British fisher men had no right to cast their nets in places at the moment occupied by the French — that they must refrain from "interrupting in any manner" what the French were engaged in; but the British govern ment always declared that that was the limit of the French rights, and that where the French were not, British subjects might go. The language of the treaty admits of no other interpretation. But, otherwise than by diplomatic correspondence, the British government never maintained its position. The French, on the contrary, had no such scruples, and insisted (by their war-ships) not merely that Newfoundlanders should not fish along the French shore, but that they should not remain in the harbors of that coast! From a very temperate statement of the grievances of the islanders published in England by "The People's Delegates" (1890) the following extract is taken — "'While the EngUsh vessels are in the harbours, no question as to "inter ruption" or interference could possibly arise. But it has been the practice for many years past for the French naval officers to enter the harbours in ques tion, and to compel by force, or threats of force, every British vessel in the port, whether intending to fish in the adjoining 'grounds' or not, to take up their anchors and forthwith leave the port! The right of the Newfoundland fishing vessels to occupy those harbours in the manner described is as clear, as undoubted, and as unqualified as those of the French war-ship; they have never even been formally or seriously questioned. The conduct of the French officers in these cases is utterly without the shadow of a pretext of warrant or justification. But, as far as we know, against these acts, "which are of constant and frequent recurrence, there has been no protest or objection on the part of the British British Protection — North Atlantic Fisheries 135 officers who are charged ¦with the 'protection' of the rights of British subjects under these treaties; and redress for these wrongs has been impossible." 2. The French claim that the land along the "French shore" should be kept desolate was equally absurd. It was based upon the clause declaring that the British King would, in order to prevent interruption of the French fishery, "cause the fixed settlements which shall be foimd there to be removed." But that necessarily meant, the fixed or permanent fishing estab lishments, and not places of residence or business (a). The French themselves had no right to resort to the island except during the fishing season, and then only for the purpose of drying their fish. Although all that was perfectly clear, the British government declined to uphold it against the French, and, until 1904, Newfound landers were restrained from developing large and very important parts of their island. British statesmen agreed that the restriction was unwarranted, but British statesmen would not bother very much about it. In 1873, the Colonial Secretary (Lord Kimberley) expressed his "regret that impediments should be thro^wn in the way of the colonisation of a large portion of valuable territory, and that the development of the mineral and other resources of the colony, which are beUeved to be very considerable in the vicinity of the so-caUed 'French shore', should be delayed by the want of a clear understanding -with the French as to free access on the part of the British settlers to the seaboard." A report of the Council of the Royal Colonial Institute of 1875 contained the following: — ¦ "Such is the position of the question at the present time. The temper and patience of the people of Newfoundland have been sorely tried for over one hundred years. But this state of things cannot be expected to last forever. The time has arrived when national pohcy imperatively demands that the ques tion shall be finaUy settled; so that British subjects may no longer be deprived of the right of fishing in their own waters, and colonising and developing the resources of their o-wn territory. The interests of Nevrtfoundland are most seriously affected by its being kept open, and those of the Empire require that its right of sovereignty within its own dominions should be maintained in-violate." Writing in 1883, the Rev. Moses Harvey could truly say: — "England, wMle maintaining that her subjects have a right to fish con currently -with the French in these waters, has always held this right in abey ance, and discouraged the exercise of it; and, until 1881, refused to recognise SETTLERS ON THAT PORTION OP THE COAST AS SUBJECTS ENTITLED TO THE PRO TECTION OP LAW AND REPRESENTATION IN THE LOCAL LEGISLATURE." In the statement of "The People's Delegates" above referred, there appeared the foUowing:^ (a) Proclamation of Gov. Campbell, September 1784; and Gov. Kerr to Col. Sec, 25 September 1853. 136 British Protection — North Atlantic Fisheries ' ' CapitaUsts have been ready to invest in large and bona fide operations in the development of these resources, but French 'treaty rights' have been, in every case, an insuperable difficulty, and the enterprise has been abandoned as hopeless. To such preposterous lengths, in the hindrance of the exercise of the rights of sovereignty and ownership of the soil, have these so-called rights of the French been asserted and enforced against our people and even the Cro-wn itself, that a project for the building of a railway ftcross the colony has actuaUy been forbidden by the Imperial Government, because the terminus at George's Bay on the west coast, was within the French treaty hmits, and French treaty rights might possibly be 'affected'." As has already been said, the United Kingdom made treaty arrangements with France in 1857 and 1885 by which the French agreed to abandon some of these claims in consideration of her confirmation in the others, and of her admission to bait privileges on the coast. That, as Newfoundlanders regarded it, being still more detrimental to them, they declined to submit to. Ne'wfound- landers would not give up the key to the whole situation. And they were right, for in 1904, by the treaty of that year, they got rid of all claim of the French to any part of the land. The French retained their right to fish in the treaty waters; and were permitted to purchase bait upon the adjoining land; but they had to forego all hope of accomodation on the coveted south shore. AA'hat a splendid contrast to the proposed treaties of 1857 and 1885. How was it accomplished? Conditions changed. The fishing operations of the French upon the "French shore" steadily declined (a), and were upon the point of disappearing altogether, when,, in a comprehensive settlement of various outstanding differences between the United Kingdom and France which preceded or formed part of the entente cordiale, the British government at last secured relief for Ne'wfoundland — secured relief for the Foreign Office from a perennial source of timorous worry, is probably the better way of putting it. IV. THE LOBSTER QUESTION. IV. About 1880, Newfoundlanders commenced exporting lobsters. In 1882, Messrs. Forrest and Shearer erected a canning factory at St. Barbe, and, in 18S3, another at Port Saunders. At first, no objection was made by the French to these factories, but in 1887 the trouble began, and three questions emerged — (1) Hy treaty, the French had a right to take "fish" on the French shore. Were lobsters "fish"? (a) Their activities became centred on the "banks", operated either directly from France or from the French islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon. British Protection — North Atlantic Fisheries 137 (2) By treaty, the French had liberty, during "the time nec essary" for that purpose, to dry and cure fish on shore, but — "it shaU not be lawful for the subjects of France. . . to erect any buildings there besides stages made of boards and huts necessary and usual for drying of fish." Had the French a right to erect lobster-canning factories? (3) Did the treaty prevent Newfoundlanders erecting such factories — that is, to occupy the land adjoining the treaty-waters for such purpose? British opinion declared that lobsters were not "fish"; that there was no resemblance between the board-stages upon which fish were exposed to the sun, and factories with their necessary machinery; and that Ne'wfoundlanders (as has already been shown) had a right to occupy the land for canning purposes. A despatch of the Colonial Secretary to the Governor of Newfoundland- (28 March 1890) declared that the view of the British Government was "that the French have no right to fish for lobsters, and consequently that the erection of lobster factories by them is in excess of the privileges granted by those engagements." Nevertheless the British government not only declined to enforce their opinion, but actiially took the side of the French, and compelled the destruction of some of the factories of New foundlanders. The French commanders themselves undertook to destroy the lobster-traps of the islanders (for which no compensation could be obtained), and British officers marked off places in which the trawls were not to be set, for such reasons as that — "I consider it advisable to prevent any cause of complaint.'' In 1887, Messrs. Forrest and Shearer received (24 September) the fohowing notice from the British Commander of the "Bull frog":— "Ha-ving received from Captain Humann, Senior French Naval Officer, Ne-wfoundland, a notification to the effect that the fishing station of Keppel Island and Port Saunders has been allotted next year to one of their ships, and that the factory you work in Port Saunders 'will interfere very much -with their fishing if carried on as at present, I have to inform you that you vriU continue working your factory next season at great risk, for on any reasonable COMPLAINT on THE PART OF THE FrBNCH OF YOUR OPERATIONS INTERFERING WITH THE PULL ENJOYMENT OF THEIR PISHING RIGHTS, YOUR FACTORY WILL BE SUPPRESSED.'' In 1888, Murphy and Andrews were engaged in erecting a factor y at Hauling Point when a French captain came and declared that he would not allow lobsters to be taken in that locality. About the same time, the British war-ship Forward arrived, ordered the factory 138 British Protection — North Atlantic Fisheries to be taken down, and remained until the order was obeyed. The French then erected a factory of their own. In 1889, the legislature forwarded to the Colonial Office a vigorous protest against these practices, one paragraph of which was as follows : ""We are constrained to regard with regretful resentment the fact that injthe case under consideration, the removal of estabhshments erected by British subjects for the purpose of taking and canning lobsters has been enforced by subjects of France, at the instance of the French authorities, a French war-ship assisting, and a British warship interfering to support the unwarranted CONTENTION OF THE FrENCH." The reply was to the effect "that the question whether the establishment of lobster factories on shore is consistent -with the engagements with France is now the subject of discussion between the two countries, and that no further instructions can at present be given on this subject." Modus Vivendi, 1890 — In 1890, the British government agreed to a modus vivendi for the ensuing season by which it was stipulated that "No lobster factories which were not in operation on the 1st July 1889 shall be permitted, unless by joint consent of the commanders of British and French Naval stations. In consideration of each new lobster fishery so permit ted, it shall be open to the fishermen of the other country to estabUsh a new lobster fishery on some spot to be similarly settled b}' joint agreement between the naval commanders." The document reserved "the question of principle and of respective rights"; but nevertheless it seriously damaged the Newfoundland case by sanctioning, even temporarily, the erection of French fac tories, more particularly as no provision for their removal was made. Although, under some pressure, the Newfoundland government had given partial assent to this modus, the legislature made strong protest against it — "Resolved, — That the permission in the modus vivendi given to France, to erect factories, is most objectionable, being indicative of an apparent right which reaUy has no existence, and that it is in direct opposition to the position heretofore taken by Her Ahijesty's Govt^rnment. Resolved, — That the Logislati\-e .Vssnnbh- most emphatically protests against the modus vivendi, as being calculated to seriouslj- prejudice British fishing and territorial rights.'' One of the objections to the modus was put by a St. Johns' nc-\\s]);ipei' as follows: — "All (British) factories placed upon the coast since July 1889, are to be removed, or, if retained, an C(|ual number of French factories are to be erected. British Protection — North Atlantic Fisheries 139 The sting is in the pro-viso. Twenty factories have been erected since the date named. Either these must be removed, or twenty French factories are to be erected." Upon the expiry of the modus, the British government insisted upon its renewal, and the Newfoundland legislature enacted a statute giving it effect, but that was not done until (as a British minister said in the House of Commons, 5 November 1906) — "it had been made clear to the colony that in the absence of colonial legislation, an Imperial act would be passed. Lord Sahsbury's government actually intro duced a biU into parhament, and it was only -withdrawn when the colony under took to legislate." Baird V. Walker. — For insisting upon the destruction of one of these Newfoundland factories, the British Commander (Cap tain Walker) was sued by its owner (Mr. Baird). The defence was based upon the modus vivendi, and the assertion that the destruction complained of had "been approved and confirmed by Her Majesty as such act and matter of state, and as being in accordance -with the instructions of Her Majesty's Government." There was, in the defence, no pretence that French treaty rights required the destruction of Mr. Baird's property. No such assertion could have been made. The only defence was that the British Government had made an agreement with the French Government for the diminution of the rights of British subjects, and that Her Majesty had approved what had been done. The Privy Council had, of course, no difficulty in declaring that neither the King, nor the British Government, had power to authorize the destruction of the property of a British subject (a). Mr. Baird succeeded in his action and was paid his damages. Delegates to England. — Delegates, sent to England (1890) for the purpose of upholding a protest made by the legislature against the modus, issued, while there, an address to the British people. In it, they recited "the record of the wrongs under which Ne-wfoundland has long suffered, and which are today, intolerable''; and they endeavored to awaken a more general interest on the part of the British public "in the conditions of hardship, injustice, and indignity under which the people of Ne-wfoundland are suffering, and which are without parallel in any part of Her Majesty's dominions." The delegates were successful. The modus was dropped; new negotiations were entered into; and in 1904, the treaty already (o) 1892,-A.C., 491. 140 British Protection — North Atlantic Fisheries referred to was signed. Newfoundland was well satisfied. All French claims to occupy any of her territory were ended. SUMMARY. Here then we have the record of the value of British protection on the Atlantic. It does not present some of the startlingly dra matic incidents associated with the Behring Sea seizures — Canadians were not taken by the score to United States ports; nor was anybody fined or imprisoned by foreign courts; nor was the Union Jack insulted; nor were fourteen Jacks carried off to Ounalaska. On the other hand, the present story illustrates the attitude of British diplomacy over a very long period of time; and if any Imperialist feels inclined to excuse Lord Salisbury's obsequious indifference to Canadian interests on the Pacific, upon the ground that he was not a fair sample of Foreign Office Secretaries, the apologist will have to find some other excuse for the long series of Secretaries who displayed the same characteristic in their treatment of the North Atlantic fishery questions. Look at the record: I. THE BAYS. 1. In order to placate the rebellious colonies (1753) and obtain their trade, hugh territories of the loyal colonies were given away, to gether with fishing rights in their waters. 2. Ah those rights were terminated by the war of 1812-4; but some of them were voluntarily re-granted, and the United States renounced all claim to other British waters beyond three miles from the "coasts, bays" etc. 3. Although this language was held to be clear, yet the British government surrendered, to the United States, the chief of the bays, namely, the Bay of Fundy (1845) because of the alleged advantages to both countries — "to the United States as conferring a material benefit on their fishing trade; and to Great Britain and the United States, conjointly and equally, by the removal of a fertile source of disagreement between them.'' 4. The Governor of Nova Scotia, notwitlistanding some local dissent, agreed to that surrender because he supposed that the United Slates had made such an admission of principle as would leave Us the other bays. 5. No attempt was made to secure an understanding as to British Protection — North Atlantic Fisheries 141 this supposed admission, and the other bays were immediately claimed — the "fertile source of disagreement" remaining as it previously was. 6. Thereupon (1845) the British government determined to surrender all the bays, but were persuaded, by vigorous protests, not to do so. 7. After the expiry of the reciprocity treaty in 1866, the British government determined to surrender all bays whose entrances were more than ten miles wide. Canada protested unavailingly, and to escape such a fatal concession, she reluctantly instituted the license system. When Nova Scotia declined to agree to it, she was brought sharply to heel. 8. American fishermen having declined (1870) to renew their licenses, Canada issued orders for strict enforcement of her rights, but was immediately suppressed by the direction of the British government to the effect that not only were all bays to be opened to the Americans (reserving of course the three-mile limit) but that no captures were to be made outside that limit — thus con ceding more than had ever been asked. 9. During the treaty-period of 1871-85 no question could arise; arid after 1885, none did arise for the British government continued the surrender of 1870 down to 1910. 10. By the decision of the Hague Tribunal, we obtained a striking confirmation of our contention, and bays wider even than ten miles at their entrances were held to be part of our national domain — for example the most valuable Bay of Chaleurs is sixteen miles wide and extends seventy miles before narrowing to six miles (three miles from each shore). And our ownership was so clear that the United States arbitrator himself concurred in its declara- ¦•¦ion. Can any story of humiliating surrenders equal that one? II. SUPPLY OF BAIT. 1. Canadians, Newfoundlanders, French and Americans were fishing competitors. The two former had the great advantage of possession of easily accessible bait; the French had the advantage of governmental bounties; and the .\mericans had the advantage of neighboring market. The two last nations, while retaining their own advantages, wanted possession of ours. 2. The British government declined all concession so long as the cod-fishers operated from the British islands. .A-fter that period. 142 British Protection — North Atlantic Fisheries refusal to seh bait to foreigners was "unfriendly" and "incon sistent with the general pohcy of the Empire." 3. For the purpose of inducing them to surrender their ad vantage, the British government brought heavy pressure to bear upon Canada and Newfoundland. Canada finally gave in, but New foundland absolutely refused ; successfully fought the British govern ment over a long succession of years; and finally drove British and United States governments to arbitration. 4. During the arbitration proceedings, the United States did not pretend that she had a right to make us sell bait if we did not want to, and the result was a complete vindication of the position which we had always assumed. Can any story of humiliating surrenders equal that one? III. FRENCH EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS. 1. The French claimed (1) not merely that Ne'n'foundlanders should not "interrupt" their fishing, but that they should not fish at all — even when the French were not there — on the ' ' French shore" ; and (2) not merely that they might put up "stages and huts" on the strand, but that they might erect lobster factories, and that, for such purposes, the whole 700 miles of coast must remain un occupied by its owners. 2. The claims were baseless, and were put forward in order to gain a right to purchase bait on the south shore of the island. 3. The British government again and again assisted the pur poses of the French — negotiating surrender-treaties; declining to ac knowledge British statutes; forbidding enactment of Ne^^'foundland legislation, &c. 4. One of the effects of British action was to prevent the settle ment and development of the whole of the west coast of NeAvfound- land until 1881, and even after that, and until 1904, to interfere most materially with the development of the resources of the island. Can any story of humiliating surrenders equal that one? IV. THE LOBSTER QUESTION. 1. The French had a right to t^kQ fish on the "treaty-coasts". They claimed a right to take lobsters. They had a right to use the shore for the erection of "stages made of boards and huts, necessary and usual for drying of fish"; British Protection — North Atlantic Fisheries 143 they claimed an exclusive right to put up lobster factories — things not only not "usual" but never heard of at the date of their treaty. 2. Notwithstanding the absolute groundlessness of this second claim (Not much was said about the first) the British government upheld it; and not only permitted French factories to be erected, but prohibited Newfoundlanders doing the like in places desired by the French, and destroyed some of the Newfoundlanders' prop erty. 3. It was the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council itself who declared that the British navy, in taking sides against the Newfoundlanders, had acted illegally. Can any story of humiliating surrenders equal that one? This, and the two preceding Papers, have been rendered nec essary by the statements of our political leaders, as to our indebted ness to the United Kingdom (a). Their assertions cannot be per mitted to go uncontradicted at a time when the relations of the two countries are matters of universal discussion, and when a con tribution of $35,000,000 is based, to some extent, upon the assertion that the United Kingdom has spent $400,000,000 in our protection. Refutation of such statements, however, is not agreeable work, and I hasten to add (as I always do) that with the course of British diplomacy in reference to Canada, no one can reasonably find fault. Most undoubtedly it has been to Canada very humiliating and ter ribly disastrous, but we must remember (1) that the United King dom has always had other and larger interests than those of Canada on her hands, and (2) that very small matters closely touching British interests must always appear to British statesmen as being of very much greater importance than other and larger matters 3,000 miles away and of no special value to the British people. I recognize perfectly, therefore, that the best of reasons have existed why we should not have been protected. But what we are asked to pay for is not the existence of those reasons, but for the protection which, because of them, WE DID NOT GET. POST SCRIPTUM. The last two Papers have brought me some criticism of my remarks with reference to British diplomacy and more particularly with reference to Lord Salisbury who is said to have been almost an ideal Foreign Secretary. In reply, T beg to say, that my Papers (o) Ante, p. 43. 144 British Protection — North Atlantic Fisheries were devoted to the relation of historical facts (which no one of my correspondents question); that I made very little comment upon those facts; and that if anybody wishes to get a supply of con demnatory words wherewith to depict British diplomacy he cannot do better than go to Lord Salisbury himself (a). British policy, in later years (6), he says — "has been essentiaUy a poUcy of cowardice" (p. 155) . . ."a policy which, according to the power of its opponent, is either valiant or submissive — which is dashing, exacting, dauntless to the weak, and timid and cringing 'o the strong" (p. 156). Lord Salisbury gives seven cases "iUustrative of the mode in which we deal with the smaUer class of Powers." (1) The case of Don Pacifico — "A British Jew who in 1850 made an exorbitant claim on Greece for losses in a riot. The claim was pressed by Palmerston, and a number of Greek ships were seized to enfore payment" (p. 156). (2) The case of China — "The Arrow, a Chinese vessel flying the British flag, was in 1856 seized by the Chinese for piracy. Bowring, our representative at Hong Kong, faUed to get the redress he asked, and caused Canton to be bombarded" (p. 156). (3) The bombardment of Tringanu — "In the Malay peninsula. It was bombarded in November 1862, to hasten the expulsion thence of a certain ex-sultan Mahomet, accused of turbulence. and hostihty to this country" (p. 156). (4) The burning of Epe — "On the west coast of Africa. It was burnt in February 1863, to punish a local chief, Possoo, for levying duties in British territory" (pp. 156, 7). (5) The di.smantling of the Ionian Islands — "It was part of the arrangements for the cession of the Islands in 1863 that the fortifications should be dismantled. The Ionian poUticians strongly objected" (p. 157). (6) The disputes with Brazil. A British vessel having gone ashore on the Brazihan coast, the neighboring population were charged with murder and i)lunder. "The Consul contrived to build up, out of the materials we have described, a case of faint suspicion that a crime had been committed, and a wretched enough case it was. But he never even suggested a criminal" (p. 160). And tlie matter would probably have blown over had not, after wards, three officers (in plain clothes) of a British ship been arrested in Brazil for disorderly conduct. The Foreign Office (without any (a) Essays by Robert, Marquess of Salisbury. (6) He wrote in 1884. British Protection — North Atlantic Fisheries 145 investigation) made exorbitant demands (p. 168) ; and, these not being complied with, a number of Brazilian trading-ships were seized. Brazil succumbed, offered to pay damages for the ship, and to refer the arrests to the arbitration of King Leopold who condemned the officers and freed Brazil from blame (p. 165). (7) The dispute with Japan — while Japan was weak. A British party having met a Daimio procession, a British subject was killed and some others wounded. Once more, without enquiry, the British Government launched excessive demands — (1) an apology; (2) £100,000 as penalty on Japan; (3) £25,000 for the relations of the deceased; (4) immediate trial and execution of the murderers; in case of refusal, naval operations. Japan wanted delay in order to discover the offenders. No — "The operations were attended -with complete success. . . . The fire, which is still raging, affords reasonable ground for behe^ving that the entire town of Kagosima is now a mass of ruins." ' ' Three months later Colonel Neale was compelled to make the humihating admission that, -with the best intentions, the Prince of Satsuma was in no con dition to find the murderers; and that it was, therefore, idle to insist upon an impossibihty" (p. 181). Lord Salisbury's comment upon all this is — "Japan is the weaker Power, and therefore England is not ashamed to mete out a measure of justice to Japan which she would think it intolerable that any other nation should mete out to her (p. 178). Lord Salibury then contrasts British action in transaction with stronger Powers: (1) A Canadian (Mr. Shaver) "was pounced upon by a United States marshal, carried off, and thrown into a dungeon at Fort Lafayette. He wrote to the British Consul and the British Minister at Washington. No charge was alleged against him — no warrant sho^wn for his committal. The only ray of hope that was offered to him was a proposal that he should be released, on the condition that he, a British subject, should take the oath of allegiance to the United States. The remonstrances of Lord Lyons were ¦without avail. The only reply to them which Mr. Seward would vouchsafe was that Mr. Shaver had been engaged in carrying revolvers to the rebels, and had acted as a spy in their behalf — offences which, at Detroit, many hundred miles from the nearest Confederate outpost, did not constitute, even if it had been just, a very serious imputation. But it rested on no sort of evidence except Mr. Seward's assertion, and it was strenuously denied by the unlucky prisoner himself. No redress, however, could be obtained. Lord Russell was absolutely silent. The polite notes addressed to Mr. Seward by Lord Lyons received only a rough reply. At last, after three months of illegal imprisonment for no offence of which even a vestige of proof was offered, an oath was tendered to him that he would not hold any corres pondence with persons residing in the Confederate States, or enter into any of them, or do anylihing hostile to the United States. Such an oath Mr. Seward 146 British Protection — North Atlantic Fisheries had no sort of right to extort. It, was attempting to control the'acts of a fore igner at a future time when he should be a resident under a foreign jurisdiction. But there was no help for it. His Government had abandoned him, his HEALTH WAS BROKEN BY LONG CONFINEMENT, AND HIS FAMILY "WERE BEING RUINED BY HIS ABSENCE. Under these circumstances he took the oath, and was released. But no compensation has ever been given to him for his ILLEGAL imprisonment NO PUNISHMENT WAS INFLICTED UPON THOSE "WHO ARRESTED HIM — NO REPARATION HAS EVER BEEN EXACTED PROM THE UNITED States for the insult to the sovereignty of Great Britain" (pp. 184, 5). (2) Mr. Rahming was imprisoned in the United States — ' ' because he had, when in the British colony of Nassau, attempted]to hire a ship to run the blockade. Lord RusseU's reply, when the unfortunate man asked him to press for compensation, deserves to be compared ¦with the despatch to Brazil upon the case of the Forte, by aU who value a Minister -with a real EngUsh spirit: "Whatever instructions I might otherwise have been prepared to give your Lordship respecting Mr. Rahming's apphcation to be indemnified for his recent imprisonment, the answer returned by Mr. Seward induces me to defer, at aU events for the present, any directions to renew the discuss on of the sub ject. The President of the United States maintains that he has a right TO arrest, without CAUSE OR REASON ASSIGNED, ANY BRITISH SUBJECT RESID ING IN THE United States; and it would ser-ve no purpose to ask the President to give indemnity in a case in which he maintains that he HAS ACTED LAWPULLy"- (3) British action with reference to the partition of Poland; "A pohcy of bluster" (p. 191) leading to "final humihation" (p. 203) and "continental contempt" (p. 205) because Russia stood firm. (4) British encouragement of Denmark against Prussia: "de luding Denmark" (p. 215) — "empty threats" against Prussia (p. 219) — "dishonoring bluster" (p. 221) — and final abandonment of the prot6g6. ' ' The Danish King was been made to swaUow the cup of humihation to the dregs — to aUenate from himself the affections of his people — to dishonour his own signature — to incur the contempt and increase the audacity of his foes. But England abandons him, not less than she did before, ' to encounter Germany upon his own responsibihty"' (p. 227). The picture drawn liy Lord Salisbury- is far from flattering. The language is such as could be used only by a Britisher. 1 shall be condenuied for even (.|uoting it. I do so only because as against so much foolish nonsense as we now hear about the value of British- proteclion, somebody ought to take the risk of telling the truth. John S. Ewart. Ottawa, .\))ril 1913. THE KINGDOM PAPERS. No. 15 PERMANENT NAVAL POLICY. NOTICES The second edition of volume one of the Kingdom Papers is now ready. Price, in cloth binding, postage paid, sixty cents. Mr. Ewart's earUer book of essays and addresses The Kingdom of Canada is also on sale. Price, postage paid, one dollar. THORBURN & ABBOTT, Publishers, Ottawa. Present and future Papers will be sent free of charge to all applicants. Previous Papers of volume two wiU be sent en receipt of postage — ten cents, JOHN S., EWART, K. C, Ottawa. THE KINGDOM PAPERS. No. 15. PERMANENT NAVAL POLICY. (In order to dra-w attention to the purpose for -which quotations are employed, itahcs, not appearing in the original, are sometimes made use of.) The difference between Liberals and Conservatives with refer ence to the navy question is one of view-point and pre-disposition. Acknowledging the existence of Certain nominal political limitations. Liberals regard Canada as a self-governing nation. To them the question of naval policy, therefore, is limited to two points; Do we need a navy? And, if so. What sort of navy do we need? Canada, as a nation, builds her own railways; and, as a nation, provides and regulates her own land-forces. She may construct a navy if she likes; and apply it as and when she pleases. Permanent policy to Liberals in Canada is exactly what it is to Australians — a choice between cash contributions, and a navy of their own. Many Conservatives, on the other hand, dislike the words nation and autonomy: ' ' This country is sick and tired of the word ' autonomy' ; it has been worked to death" (a). "Autonomy, which was the slogan of the last centmy, has done its work, accomplished its purpose, and belongs to the last century. It does not belong to the Canada of to-day" (6). To these men, Canada is not primarily a nation at all. They are scrupulous about the use of the word; and Mr. Borden seems some times almost to apologize for its employment — blaming it on Sir Wilfrid (c). Naval policy presents itself, to Conservatives, therefore, pri marily as a political, or to use their language, as an imperial question, rather than as one of merely domestic import. It involves, they hold, a reconsideration and a re-adjustment of the relations of Canada to the United Kingdom (d). Our land-forces were provided ex clusively for home-defence. Their existence never raised any (o) Per Mr. Cookshutt, Hans.. 16 Jan. 1913, p. 1625. (W Per Mr. Ames, Hans., 17 Deo. 1913, p. 1298. (c) See, tor example, Hans. 29 March 1909, p. 3615. (d) See Kingdom Paper No. 9: Ante, Vol. 1, p. 243. 150 Permanent Naval Policy question of our relationship to British wars. A navy, on the other hand, necessarily does involve a consideration and a definition of that relationship. Before building ships we must know whether they are to be operated alone or to form part of a larger navy. And we must know how the larger navy is to be controlled. The policy acted upon by the Liberals was such as from their traditional attitude might have been anticipated. They provided (1910) for the construction of ships; for their "exclusive control" by Canada; and they authorized the government of the day to place the vessels at the disposal of the British government in time of war. Mr. Borden, on the other hand, at once translated authority to "place at the disposal" into authority to withhold, and denounced it as "ill-advised and dangerous". Although in 1909, he had spoken and voted in favor of a Canadian navy, he appeared, in 1910, to have realized that a Canadian navy might mean Canadian neu trality, and thenceforth he took the position which I have ascribed to the Conservative party. Coming into office, Mr. Borden declined to proceed with the policy of his predecessors. If, he said, his government made proposals along that Une, they "would not be framing the basis of a naval policy that would stand in aU the years to come. It is for that reason that we thought the late government were ¦wrong in proposing such a poUcy, and that they did not go to the very heart of the matter, and that before we entered into any arrangement of that kind we MUST KNOW 'WHERE ^WE -WERE STANDING ¦WITHIN THIS EmPIRE'' (a). The phrase permanent policy, it will thus be seen, has two very different aspects if not meanings. To the Liberals, it means merely a choice bet's\'een establishment of a Canadian navy, and the transmission of annual cash contributions. Liberals and Con servatives united (29 March 1909) in a declaration that as between those two policies, the former was the only one possible. To Conservatives, formulation of a permanent policj' is a very much more difficult affair, for they hold that knowledge of where Canada stands "within this Empire" is an essential pre-requisite to the consideration of permanent policy. Indeed, they would probably, and very reasonablj-, declare that if the relationship were once clearly defined, naval policy would have settled itseff, or, at I<>nst, have been put in the way of easy and authoritative settlement. . For if we are to ha^¦c a share in the control of foreign pohcy, and if, also, we are to be represented on the Committee of Imperial Defence, our course of procedure will be settled in England and not in Canada at all. Thfisc who have not followed the debates very closely may require some assurance that the Conservative attitude is as I have (o) Hants., 18 March 1912, p 5357 Permanent Naval Policy 151 represented; and for their satisfaction, I have selected, from many of Mr. Borden's utterances, the following: "I think the question of Canada's co-operation upon a permanent basis in Imperial Defence involves very large and -wide considerations" (a). "No thoughtful man can fail to reaUze that very complex and difficult questions confront those who beheve that we must find a basis of permanent co-operation in naval defence, and that any such basis must afford to the Over seas Dominions an adequate voice in the moulding and control of foreign pohcy" (6). Mr. Borden did not mean that the establishment or non-estab- hshment of a navy is, in itself, a matter which involves "complex and difficult questions". The problem to which he referred is the discovery of a basis of co-operation which shall have as its essential condition the concession to Canada of a voice in the con trol of British foreign policy. We must know where we stand "within this Empire". We decline, as Mr. Borden said, to be a mere "adjunct" even of the British Empire. Acting with commendable promptitude and courage, Mr. Borden, last summer, proceeded to England and there presented his essential condition to the British government (a condition for which both he and we are indebted to the Quebec Nationalists) declaring to that government that Canada declined to recognize obligation to take part in British wars unless she had a share in the control of British foreign policy. That principle he had adopted while still in opposition: — ' ' If Canada and any other Dominions of the Empire are to take their part as nations of this Empire in the Defence of the Empire as a whole, shall it be that we, contributing to that defence of the whole Empire, shall have abso lutely, as citizens of this country, no voice whatever in the Councils of the Em pire touching the issues of peace or war throughout the Empire? I do not think that such would be a tolerable condition. I do not think the people of Canada would for one moment submit to such a condition." "It does not seem to me that such a condition would make for the INTEGRITY OF THE EmPIRE; FOR THE CLOSER CO-OPERATION OF THE EMPIRE; REGARD MUST BE HAD TO THESE FAR REACHING CONSIDERATIONS (c). The Situation. — Before noting the answer which the British government gave to Mr. Borden, consider for a moment — try to appreciate clearly (for it is of the very highest importance) the situation in which we have placed ourselves by the adoption of this principle. Observe that it is a declaration of the most significant and momentous character; for it is an assertion that, in the matter of war, we have not only a right to 3peak for ourselves, but a right 'a) Hans. 24 November 1910, p. 227. (6) Hans., 5 December 1912, p. 693. (c) Hans., 24 November 1910, p. 227,18. 152 Permanent Naval Policy to withhold co-operation with the United Kingdom save upon a condition framed by ourselves. It is, indeed, more than that, for the condition is one which, as far as we see, cannot be conceded. When, therefore, Mr. Borden went, last summer, to present his declared principle to the British government, those of us who had followed closely the line of his thought felt that we had reached the very climax of our national development; and that, strangely enough, our assertion of self-government in relation to war, was in the hands not only of a Conservative but of an Imperialist. It would have been an inconceivable situation, had we not known that the st longest of Canadian Imperialists, (when acting rather than speaking) are not very much less Canadian than the rest of us. 'Thoy are like that very ardent Imperialist, Sir Joseph Ward of New Zealand, who, at the last Conference wanted to establish an Imperial Council to deal with all common affairs — specifying none; and who, at a later stage of the same Conference, wanted, for New Zealand, complete control of the pecuharly common subject of commercial shipping. They are like Sir John A. Macdonald, too, who talked as an Imperialist but wanted to elevate Canada to the position of a Kingdom; and who carried the "national policy" against the cry of danger to British connection. "So much the worse for British connection" — was the answer. Shortly prior to Mr. Borden's departm'e, I took the liberty of saying in Kingdom Paper No. 9 (pp. 248, 9) : "Mr. Borden takes vnth him, then, to London, the undoubted assurance of unanimous concurrence in the basis upon which, alone, permanent arrange ments can be made ¦with the United Kingdom. . . It is . . .to the British government that Mr. Borden wUl present his alternative of no obUga tion without representation. And from the British government, and not from the Admirals and Generals, must come the answer." I indicated, in the next succeeding Paper, the impossibility of acquiring a share in the control of foreign policy, and I closed my observations with the following remark (p. 338) : "Declaration op our adoption of the principle of no obligation WITHOUT representation IS, IN -\-IEW OP THE IMPR.\CTICABILITY OF REPRESENTA TION, NOT PAR REMOVED FROJI A DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE." Reply op British Government. — The British government gave to Mr. Borden the only possible rcjily, namely that the responsi bility of the British government for British foreign policy could be shared with nobody. Probably l\lr. Borden was not very much surprised; but he could have wished — it would have suited him very much better — if Mr. Asquith and Mr. Harcourt had been a little less em]ihatic, peremptory and conclusive; for he felt that he Permanent Naval Policy 153 had received an answer which placed him in a position of the most acute embarrassment. He had said to the British Government: ' ' The great Dominions sharing in the defence of the Empire upon the high seas must necessarily be entitled to share also in the responsibihty for and in the control of foreign pohcy" (a). And the British government "exphcitly accepted the principle'' (6). But at the same time declared that "responsibility for foreign pohcy could not be shared by Great Britain -with the Dominions" (c). That was for Mr. Borden an unfortunate if unavoidable reply, and he showed his resentment of it in the opening passages of his speech when moving for leave to bring in his Naval Aid Bill (5 December 1912): "It has been declared in the past, and even during recent years, that re sponsibihty for foreign policy could not be shared by Great Britain vnth the dominions. In my humble opinion, the adherence to such a position could have but one and that a most disastrous result" (d). — a result which (as he said at a subsequent stage of his speech) : "is fraught with even graver significance for the British Islands than for Canada" (e). In the course of the same speech Mr. Borden endeavored to lighten the situation a little by saying: "It is satisfactory to know that to-day, not only His Majesty's ministers, but also the leaders of the opposite political party in Great Britain have ex plicitly accepted this principle, and have affirmed their con-viction that the means by which it can be constitutionally accomphshed must be sought, discovered, and utihzed -without delay" (/). It would be interesting to know which of the Britisli ministers Mr. Borden alluded to. Very clearly it was neither Mr. Asquith nor Mr. Harcourt with whom he was negotiating; for five days after Mr. Borden's speech, Mr. Harcourt sent to Canada (10 December) a despatch in which (as reply to Mr. Borden) he said that, at interviews with Mr. Borden, he and Mr. Asquith "pointed out to him that the Committee of Imperial Defence is a purely ad- ¦visory body, and is not, and cannot under any circumstances, become a body deciding on policy, which is and must remain the sole prerogative of the Cabinet, subject to the support of the House of Commons''. (a) Mr. Borden's speech of 5 December 1912. Hans. p. 677. (6) Ibid. p. 677. (c) Ibid., p. 677. id) Ibid., p. 677. The reference, no doubt, was to Mr. Asquith's statement at the Imperial Conference of 1911. See Proceedings, p. 71. (e) Ibid., p. 693. (/) Ibid, p. 677. 154 Permanent Naval Policy After referring to Imperial Federation as a "pohcy for many years a dead issue'', Mr. Harcourt added the emphatic and unmistakable words: "The foregoing accurately represents the -views and intentions op His Majesty's Go'vernment" (o). Before sending this despatch Mr. Harcourt had seen Mr. Borden's speech (he refers to it) and, very clearly, the above- quoted sentences were intended as a categorical reply to Mr. Borden's statement about the British Ministers. There can bejno other explanation of the fact that the whole despatch (about 900 words) was cabled to the Governor-General with a request that Mr. Borden might be informed that Mr. Harcourt proposed to PUBLISH it in LONDON. Reply to Mr. Borden was the only raison d'Hre of Mr. Harcourt's sentences. i Mr. Borden does not, himself, hold out very much hope that any method of putting his principle in practice will or ever can be discoyered. He says that he believes that "solution is not im possible", but not, in the least, seeing in what way possible, he appealed, in his speech, to others for help— "And so we invite the statesmen of Great Britain to study -with us this, the real problem of Imperial existence" (6). It may be confidently affirmed that Mr. Asquith's government has not accepted that invitation, for Mr. Asquith has said that a proposal for a share in the control of foreign pohcy "would, in our judgment, be absolutely fatal to our present system of responsible government" (c). It would be fatal "to the very fundamental conditions on which our Empire has been buUt up and carried on" (d). Mr. Asquith is not devoting much time to a proposal which would be fatal both to responsible government and to the fundamental conditions of imperial government. Seeing thus clearly the situation in which presentation to the British government of Mr. Borden's principle has placed us, does any one think that I was far ¦wi-ong when I said that — "Declaration of our adoption of the principle op no obligation ¦without representation is, in view of the impracticability op representation, not par removed prom a Declara'hon of Independence." (o) Cd. 6560; Times, 4 January 1913. (6) Ibid, p. 693. (c) Imperial Conference 1911. Proceedings p 71. (d) Ibid. Permanent Naval Policy 155 The Two Methods. — Sir Wilfrid had always in his mind the same principle that Mr. Borden put to the British government, but he never presented it. As early as 1900 (13 March) speaking in the House of Commons Sir Wilfrid had said: " If we were to be compeUed to take part in all the wars of Great Britain, I have no hesitation in saying that I agree with my hon. friend (a) that, sharing THE burden, 'wb SHOULD ALSO SHARE THE RESPONSIBILITY. Under that Con dition of things, which does not exist, we should have the right to say to Great Britain: 'If you want us to help you, call us to tour councils: If you WANT US TO TAKE PART IN WARS, LET US SHARE NOT ONLY THE BURDENS BUT THE RESPONSIBILITIES AND DUTIES AS WELL.' But there is UO joCCasioU tO examine this contingency this day" (6). Sir Wilfrid preferred not to cross the bridge before he came to it. Mr. Borden, on the other hand, thought that expenditure upon a navy necessarily brought him to the bridge — unavoidably raised, for definite settlement, the war-relations between Canada and the United Kingdom. He contended that the question of our "standing within this Empire" should be settled first; that questions as to expenditure should follow; and Mr. Doherty, speaking with reference to Sir Wilfrid's Naval Service Bill (February 1910) — a bill which provided for establishment of a-'navy in advance of ascertainment of ' ' where we were standing within this Empire" — said — "To my mind the pohcy of this biU, if it has a pohcy, can be described as nothing else than a poUcy of drift. It is a pohcy of men who, faced ¦with serious problems, do not choose to decide in the one sense or the other" (c). If I may be allowed, upon this point, the expression of my own thought, I would say that I prefectly agreed with Mr. Doherty. I was anxious that the question of our war-relations to the United Kingdom should be taken up and disposed of during a quiet period (d); for I knew the danger of leaving a settlement until war had arrived, when, swept by the fighting feeling, an arrangement might be made which would be not only injurious to us, but very difficult to get rid of. Mr. Borden took the logical course and I hailed it with satisfaction. Given a period of peace, I was not doubtful ][as to the effect of the presentation to the British government of our principle of no obligation without representation. Rejection of the condition was inevitable. And every one can now see that if it does not at once produce Independence, it has at all events brought us very much closer to it. When we reach it, we shaU be in a posi tion to discuss alliance with the British government — ^which is at (a) Mr. Bourassa. (6) Hans., p. 1846. (c) Hans., p. 4147. (d) See Kingdom Papers, Vol. 1 pp. 18, 138, 151 152: 305, 6. 156 Permanent Naval Policy least a practicability — instead of wasting time on what I respectfully believe to be an utterly impossible proposal for joint conduct of British foreign policy. WHAT OUGHT TO HAVE FOLLOWED. The condition of his ultimatum having been rejected, Mr. Borden's only logical course was to declare that Canada held her self to be free from all obligation to participate in British wars, and to proceed with the construction of a Canadian navy. But that is precisely what he did not do. It is, indeed, precisely the opposite of what he has done. It may be that such a declaration would have been personally distasteful to Mr. Borden; that his party is probably not ready for it; and that it would have meant disruption of his Cabinet. All that might have been foreseen; and, by drifting a little, Mr. Borden might have escaped the em barrassment in which rejection of his ultimatum has placed him. But I have no reason for either regretting or criticizing his rather peremptory procedure. It was logical and courageous. It brought Canada sharply to clear appreciation of "where we were standing within this Empire". And it enabled everybody to see the truth of my frequently repeated assertion that we are not within it at all. We needed some dramatic sort of proof of that fact, and we have now got it. We had, of course, been well aware that our powers of self-government were fairly complete; but many of us still con tinued to disclaim agreement with Sir Wilfrid's declaration — "We have taken the position in Canada that we do not think that we are bound to take part in every war" (a). Mr. Borden, himself, had found violent fault with that statement on several occasions saying that "So long as Canada remains in the Empire, Canada is at war when the Empire is at war" (6). And now his embarrassment arises from the fact that according to his view we are under no obligation to take part in British wars — because we have no share in control; but nevertheless, we must take part in them — because we are part of the Empire. That does not ap]iear to be the most satlsfacloi^y sort of a permanent policy; and yet, along Mr. Borden's lines, there does not ajjpear to be any escape from it. ? ^ Is it not clear that the assertion of non-obligation to participate in the wars of the British Empire is, in fact, an assertion that we (a) ProcrediiiKfl of Conference of 1911, p. 117. (6) Hans. January 1910, p. 2982. Permanent Naval Policy 157 are not part of that Empire? You say that when the Empire is at war, every part of it is necessarily also at war. Very true: then if Canada is not under obligation to participate in Empiie wars, it must be because she is not part of the Empire. The reply given to Mr. Borden by the British government has left but one course open to us. We are under no obligation to take part in British wars ; the United Kingdom is under no obligation to take part in ours; and we and they must face the situation, and cease to deceive ourselves with foolish flag-flappery. The "dis astrous result" (as Mr. Borden terms it), the birthday of Canadian political emancipation (as I regard it) has almost arrived. WHAT HAS FOLLOWED. If Mr. Borden had succeeded in his mission of last year — if he had been able to arrange some scheme by which Canada would have a share in the control of British foreign policy — then, clearly enough, instead of now debating a proposal for a revocable gift of $35,000,000, we should be discussing the merits of his scheme. But having failed, Mr. Borden had to propose something else. He could not very well proceed along the logical lines above indicated. He had declared for conditional non-participation; the condition had been rejected; and he felt that he could not declare for absolute non-participation. When in opposition, he had resisted the con struction of a Canadian navy; he felt that he could not proceed with its construction; and his Quebec Nationalist supporters would not have agreed to it. It is for these reasons only, as far as I can see, that he proposed his revocable gift. They are, of course, not the reasons assigned, but they supply an adequate and reasonable explanation of a very illogical proceeding; and none of the reasons that are offered for its adoption have the least appearance of sufficiency. Before examining them, let me make good the assertion that the present proposal is the precise opposite of that which, logically, Mr. Borden was bound to take. The proof is simple for he had declared against contribution without representation; he cannot get representation; and yet he proposes contribution. His only answer — that the contribution which he proposes is because bf an emergency — is invalid for three reasons: — First, if we are under no obligation to make a series of con tributions, we are under no obligation to make one; for the same reason — absence of representation — applies as well to the first as to the second contribution. 158 Permanent Naval Policy Secondly, if we are under obligation to contribute because of an emergency, our principle must be reduced to this: "Without representation, Canada is under no obligation to participate in British wars — except in cases of emergency, and except, more par ticularly, in the event of war"! Thirdly, if it be said that the present international situation ia emergent, the reply is that it is also perfectly normal; and if, under those circumstances, we are under obligation to participate in British wars, our principle is the principle of a lot of idiots. Observe that the same objections could not be made — at all events, not with the same conclusive force — agaiast a proposal to hand over a cheque to the British government, more particularly if it were sent on the pretence that, by reason of past protection, we owed far more than the amount of our cheque. For the prin ciple which we have adopted refers to obligation in respect of future wars. But it is precisely for those future wars that we are sending our war-ships; and it is in wars which occur within their life-time that they — and we (as their owners) — are to participate. What fools we are: Canada: "Unless you give us a share in control, we wiU not recognise obhgation to help you in your wars." John Bull: ' ' I ¦wiU not give you a share." Canada: "We send you three Dreadnoughts to help you in your wars, for the next fifteen or twenty years." What do we mean? Are we sincere in our declaration of prin ciple? Or, having got to dislike it, are we, in reality, dodging it? REASONS FOR THE REVOCABLE GIFT. 1. Wishes of the Admiralty. — Mr. Borden tells us that his proposal is "in accordance ¦with the directly expressed ¦wish of the Admiralty''. Of course it is. There could be nothing more pleasing to their Lordships, or any other set of officials, than that others shoidd pay and they control. Their Lordships are human beings, and they belong to the same ruling race that has always said to its colonial possessions "You ought to pay, and we control. You have no experience. You do not understand. You better attend to your agriculture, and leave us the work of superintendence." That is what the British government said to us about our fiscal affairs — ¦ "We fix the tariff, and you pay the taxes". It is what we heard in connection with the post-office — "We arrange the rates, and Permanent Naval Policy 159 you pay them." That is what we struggled against when it was applied to our officials — hordes of them appointed in England, and salaries paid in Canada. Some of the appointees came across and bungled over matters here they knew nothing about; and the rest remained where they were, being permitted, by British regulations, to do the work by deputies, who paid heavily for the privilege, and, by the exaction of unscrupulous fees in Canada, benefitted both. Mr. Chamberlain re-produced the traditional idea when he proposed (6 October 1903) that we should refrain from undertaking any new line of manufacture, saying ' ' leave that to us" (a) you buy, and we make the profit. And once again their Lord ships of the Admiralty throw at us the same old proposal. They will get, I think, the same old answer. 2. The Most Effective Course. — The Admiralty tells us that our most "effective" course of action is to pay, pay, pay, and to let their Lordships control. Rather -than sanction any limitation of their functions, the Admiralty assented, at the Conference of 1907, to the establishment of colonial navies. But they told us, at the same time, that that method was less effective than theirs, for in their opinion — "There is one sea, there is one Empire, and there is one navy." —a statement that always reminds me of the Greek philosopher who said that, as there were but four winds, so there were but four principles — fite, air, earth and water. It recahs, also, the later argument that as there was only one God, so there could be not only one Pope, but one Emperor. If their Lordships mean that contributions would be the most "effective" way of supporting the "insensate folly" (It is Mr. Churchill's phrase) of their shipbuilding rivalry with Germany, we may not care to dispute the ¦ statement. But if they mean "effective" for the defence of colonial coasts, or in the up-building of colonial nationality, their Lordships are indubitably ¦wrong. Look at Mr. Churchill's proposal to place all colonial ships at Gibral tar, from whence, he says, they can reach Australia in twenty-eight days; New Zealand in thirty-two days; and Vancouver in twenty- three days. He omits, of course, to tell us that he was proposing to place them at, or, within four days of all the places for which they were intended; and that he was, in reality, applying them to the re-creation of a Mediterranean fleet (b). What have we to expect (a) Speeches, p. 29. (6) Aa Mr. "White said (8 April, 1913; Hans, unrevised p. 746); "The hon. gentleman kno-ws little of naval strategy if he ' does not kno-w that Gibraltar is the pivotal point where these ships can be used either in the Mediterranean or in the North Sea." If our ships had been at Gibraltar, one of them might no-w have been sharing in the glory of the demon stration against plucky little Montenegro. 160 Permanent Naval Policy from a First Lord who would send New Zealand and Canadian ships (if he had them) to Gibraltar instead of to the Pacific; and who coolly tells us that — "The Dominions -wiU be consulted by the Admiralty on aU movements of this squadron which are not dominated by mihtary considerations" (a). Mr. Borden thought, when in London, that he had made some advance towards participation in British counsels. We seem to have arrived at the stage at which, in military matters, we are to be consulted in all movements "not dominated by military con siderations." Our progi-ess seems to be as remarkable for its speed as it is gratifying and satisfactory in its completness. We now know that if, at any time, we should want "The Imperial Squadron" at a Vancouver picnic, we are to be permitted to send in our applica tion! Mr. Borden has himself adopted the argument of ineffective ness: ""VSTiat will be the purpose of the na-vy which my hon. friends propose to create when it is created? They propose to have one fleet unit on the Atlantic, and one fleet unit on the Pacific. For what purpose vriU they be placed there, and to what extent wiU they be effective? I say that the defence of Canada wiU be by the united naval forces of the whole Empire, and I further maintain that it would be impossible for a single fleet unit on the Atlantic, or a single fieet unit on the Pacific, to defend the shores or coast line of Canada against such an attack as might be expected if an attack were to take place" (b). That was well replied to (in advance) by ilr. George E. Foster (29 March 1909) : "It is said it would be ineffective. Ineffective how? .\3 the last hne of defence, certainly it would" (c). But not as an aid. For the purpose for which it was designed by the Admiralty, namely, defence against raids of detached single cruizers or converted commercial vessels, it would undoubtedly be completely effective. Mr. Borden's argument was replied to (also in advance) by the First Lord of the Admiralty at the Conference of 1907. "In the opinion of the government, while the distribution of the fleet must be determined by strategical requirements of which the .Vdiniralty are to judge, it would be of great assistance if the Colonial Governments would undertake to provide for local service in the imperial squadrons, the smaller vessels that are useful for defence against possible raids or for co-operation with a squadron." "I understand that in .\u8tralia, it is desired to start some naval service of your own. Perhaps, I might suggest that if the provision of the smaUer craft which are necessarily incident to the work of a great fleet of modern battle ships could be made locally, it would he a very great help to the general work of (a) Speech on the estimates, 26 March 1913. (b) Hans., 27 Felnuary llll:!, p. 1269. (c) Hans., p. 3'1!I8. Permanent Naval Policy 161 the navy. You cannot take the smaU craft, such as torpedo boats and submarines, across the ocean; and for warships to arrive in South Africa, or in Austraha, or in New Zealand, or in Canada, and find ready to their hand well trained men in good vessels of this kind, would be an enormous advantage to them. It would be an enormous advantage to find ready to hand, men well trained, ready to take a part in the work of the fleet. There is, I think, the further advantage in these small flotillas, that they -will be an admirable means of coast defence; that you will he able hy the use of them to avoid practicaUy all danger from any sudden raid which might be made hy a cruising squadron" (a). If those replies to Mr. Borden are thought not to be sufficient, listen to what Mr. Borden himself said when arguing in favor of a Canadian navy (29 March 1909) : ' ' 'While I venture to think that a system of torpedo boats and submarines, such as has been adopted by the Commonwealth of Austraha, would be perhaps THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAY IN WHICH WE COULD ASSIST GbEAT BRITAIN IN A STATED POLICY OF NAVAL DEFENCE, yet I agree that the Canadian government ought to take the advice of the British Admiralty and lend itself to such co operation and co-ordination as -wiU be best for the whole empire" (6). 3. Emergency. — I do not believe that Mr. Borden has any more faith in the existence of an emergency than I have. Mr. Bonar Law would believe if he could. But he cannot. He has done his best, and this is what he tells us: "But in spite of all that has been said, does the country — do the House of Commons, do any of us, really beheve tnat there is danger and vital danger? I confess that I have the greatest difficulty in belie-ving it myself." Canadian Conservative speakers in the naval debates found the same great difficulty. Mr. Borden in his opening speech of 5 December 1912 refrained from the use of the word. He spoke of "urgency". In his speech of 21 November 1919 he said: " I do not know, as has been suggested, that the word ' emergency' is per haps a very happy term to express what was in the minds of a great many people in this country at that time, and what is in the minds of a great many people to-day'' (c). Mr. Burrell appears to shy at the word, for according to Hansard he answered the following question in the following way: "Mr. Macdonald: Does my hon. friend seriously assert that there is an emergency? Mr. Burrell: I would say most emphatically that there is ample justi fication for the course the government proposes to pursue" (d). Mr. White avoids emergency, and says that "there is danger to the British fleet — to its supremacy. . Great Britain Ls maintaining a bare sixty per cent, superiority, and I say that is not enough" (e). (a) Proceedings, pp. 130, 1. (6) Hans., p. 3518. (c) Hans., p. 36. (d) Hans., (unrevised) 10 March, 1913, pp. 5843, 4. (e) ^Hans., (unrevised) 8 April 1913, p. 7485. 162 Permanent Naval Policy Mr. Foster preferred the word "need" to emergency. Mr. Stevens spoke of a "prospective emergency". Mr. Middleboro thought that they had been ' ' very unfortunate in the use of the word". And Mr. Northrup said that "there is a something, be it an emergency, a crisis, or a peril, I care not what they caU it" (a). If it be said that the present situation is emergent, I reply that it is, at all events, absolutely normal; and, as far as anybody can see, it is one that is almost certain to continue, for an indefinite period of time, just as emergent and normal as it now is. It is argued that, until recently, the British navy was unchallenged, and that now it is not. Very well; ever since the challenge came (thirteen years ago) we have been trying to get accustomed to the situation which it produced; and we have made up our minds that, for all time to come, the British navy will never again be as lonely on the seas as it once was. As early as 1909, Canada had a touch of the German scare, and Mr. Foster eloquently depicted peril as "standing at the gate". It is there yet, and ever will be — if by that is meant that foreign fleet-construction is going to continue The condition, therefore, is normal; and ff under normal conditions, this year, we ought to vote $35,000,000, what ought we to do in the next and following years? If, however, any one really does suppose that there is an emer gency, let him consider the following: Q. Is the emergency one that can be quashed by cash? A. It is; that is the way Mr. Borden proposes to get rid of it (6). Q. Is the United Kingdom in need of cash? A. No. She has command of unlimited revenues. Part of the income of every civilized man in the world (and of many of the uncivilized) goes, directly or indirectly, everj' year to pay interest upon her investments. Her 7icw foreign investments last year were over $800,000,000. Her present foreign investments are about $18,000,000,000. Her annual increase in wealth is about Sl,200,000,- 000. Besides paying for all her military and naval preparations, her old-age pensions, and everything else, she has repaid, in the last five years, on account of her national debt (due almost entirely to foolish wars) over $270,000,000. Her national debt is about two- thirds that of France; and her national wealth is one-third greater. If beside her peace expenditure, she paid out, half a million of dollars a day for twelve months, in actual war, her wealth, at the (,a)^Hans., 18 Fobruaiy 1913, p. 3490. ib)'' See speech of 7 April 1913, in House of Commons: Hans, (unrevised), p. 7417 Permanent Naval Policy 163 end of the year, would be $1,000,000,000 more than it was when the war commenced. Do not our hearts bleed for such appalling and constraining necessity ? 4. Self-Respect. — The reply sometimes made to the foregoing is that although the United Kingdom has greater wealth than can be utilized, or even squandered, yet Canada ought to pay her share. But that is not a reply. It is another argument. In his second speech upon the bill, Mr. Borden said that a con tribution by the people of Canada was "due to their own self- respect"; and the Canadian correspondent of the London Times (Sir John WiUison) said (Times, 7 March) that they "are anxious to give immediate aid to the Empire, not so much because they feel the Mother Country needs assistance, as that the seff-respect of Canadians demand some such action as Mr. Borden advises." There are several reasons why we cannot admit the validity of this argument, but let me mention only three: (1) It is based upon the idea that the United Kingdom has generously expended immense sums in defending us, and Mr. Borden puts the figure at $400,000,000. But the sufficient reply is that the idea has not the slightest foundation in fact (See Kingdom Papers Nos. 12, 13 and 14). (2) If we do owe anything we ought to pay it, and not com promise at nine cents on the dollar, reserving, even as to that, a right to recall our payment on reasonable notice. (3) Our self-respect would be maintained just as well by ex pending the money on a Canadian navy, as by handing it over upon condition that if, at any time, we want the ships upon which it is to be spent, we shah be entitled to them. When, in 1909, Mr. Borden was arguing for a Canadian navy, he said: "I do not desire to say anything more on this subject. I beheve that the defence of our own shores and the protection of our own commerce is due to the seli^respect which should fiU the heart of every man in this country" (a). On the same cocasion, Mr. Foster said: "To some, and I confess to myself, it is time, for very shame's sake, that we did something and did something adequate" (6). Self-respect may be a good argument in favor of a Canadian navy. It is hardly the word to be used in support of a gift accom panied by some such letter as this: ' ' 'Venerated Mother. Moved by anxious observation of your overwhelming necessities, and by a profound sense both of fiUal obhgation and robust self- respect, the people of Canada beg your acceptance of the enclosed cheque for $35,000,000, where'with you may purchase such articles as wiU effectively reheve (o) Hans., 29 March 1909, p. 3523. (6) Ibid, p. 3491 164 Permanent Naval Policy you from your distressful perils. Inasmuch, however, as we may at some early date (about the time of the next elections, probably) repent the gift, we feel compelled to add that the money is sent on the distinct understanding that you are, after reoei-ving reasonable notice, to hand over to us aU those things which meanwhile you may have purchased" (a). 5. Separation. — The allegation that a Canadian navy is "separatist", Mr. Borden wisely leaves to some of his supporters. If they mean that a Canadian navy has in it any disloyalty to our King, they are, of course, quite wrong. But if they mean, as they probably do, that it is another advance in the evolution of Canadian national life, they are undoubtedly correct — so also was the in auguration of legislative assemblies, of responsible government, of a protective tariff, of treaty-making, etc., etc. These were aU "sep aratist" movements in the sense that we were, thereby, throwing off the control of people no better than ourselves. No previous action however (unless possibly responsible government) can compare, in importance and significance, with Mr. Borden's presentation to the British government of his principle of no obligation to participate in British wars without participation in British foreign policy. All other episodes were mere advances towards separation. This, if ADHERED TO, IS SEPARATION. Personally, Mr. Borden has precluded himself from u.se of the separatist argument as against a Canadian navy, by his s'lseech on the Naval Service bill (12 January 1910) in which he said: "Then, it has been argued that the creation of a so-caUed Canadian navy ¦will have a tendency towards the separation of this great Dominion from the Empire. I do not see that it has such a tendency, more than the organization of a mihtia force — less, I say . " (b). Sum up these reasons for the revocable gift: (1) Wish of the Admiralty that they should control and we should pay. That argument will last for ever. (2) Greater effectiveness. Replied to by the Admiralty, Mr. Foster and Mr. Borden. (3) Emergency. Disbelieved in, and undefined. If quashable by cash, cash not needed. (4) Self-respect. Rephed to by Mr. Borden and Mr. Foster. (5) Separatist character of Canadian navj'. Replied to by Mr. Borden. (a) On 7 April 1913, Mr. Borden said: "It must be apparent to any hon." gentleman in this House, who knows Ihe delays that attend naval construction . . . that before IhpHc ships could be built and put in commission, a general election in this country must take place ; and if llic aspi raj ions and expectations of hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House Mhould be i-calized, then the ships could be made available for building up the organ- zation of a Canadian nav.\' along the line.s proposed. Hans, (unrevised) p. 7418. (b) Hans., p. 171-1. Permanent Naval Policy 165 The Real Reasons. — The foregoing are, I believe, the only reasons that have, or can be urged for a revocable gift, as against the construction of a Canadian navy. Compare them with the real reasons : (1) Difficulties associated with the conversion of Mr. Borden's conditional ultimatum into an unqualified declaration of non- obligation to participate in British wars — into a declaration of independence. (2) Difficulties 'associated with acknowledgment of the fact that the policy of a joint-navy, under jointly controlled foreign policy, has proved to be impracticable. (3) Difficulties associated with recurrence to the policy of ship- construction, and what Mr. Doherty well described as a policy of "drift". (4) Benefits, in the party-political struggle, associated with a temporary policy of neutral quality — something that will not for the present (it is hoped) antagonize anybody. Compare these four very substantial but unmentionable reasons with the five which have been offered to us, and see what you make of them. REASONS AGAINST THE REVOCABLE GIFT. We must compare, too, not merely Mr. Borden's real reasons with those which he puts forward, but with these latter also, the reasons which can be urged against his proposal. They are many: 1. Because $35,000,000 is a huge sum of money — much too large to pay for relief from present political embarrassment. 2. Because although the $35,000,000 is spoken of as temporary and emergent, it is not so either in fact or in tendency. Observe what we should do if we were openly adopting a policy of cash con tributions as a permanent policy. When Australia was sending her cheques (in return for the services of certain ships) she paid about $1,000,000 a year. Well suppose that we were to pay twice or say three times that amount, we should, in order to make up our $35,000,000, send cheques for nearly twelve years; and, as Mr. Hazen has indicated that the $35,000,000 will probably be increased (in order to pay for the three ships (a)), to about $39,000,000, we should be remitting for the next thirteen years. Mr. Borden knows (Australian experience has taught him) that we would not stand that; so he proposes to vote the whole thirteen years in advance, and call it temporary and emergent. We are to have spasmodic, instead of stated, contributions. (a) Hans.'' (nnreviaed) p. 4806 166 Permanent Naval Policy (3) Because, as Mr. George E. Foster has said, when arguing against contributions : ' ' It bears the aspect of hiring somebody else to do what we ourselves ought to do" (a). (4) Because, as Mr. George E. Foster has said: "In Canada itself there -will be no roots struck, there will be no residue left, there will be no preparation of the soil or beginning of the growth of the product (6). (5) Because, as Mr. George E. Foster has said: "It disjoins what has been joined together from the earhest days of the world's existence — commerce and the protection of commerce'' (&). (6) Because, as Mr. George E. Foster has said: "That method ignores the necessities, and the aspirations, and the pros pects of a great people, such as the Canadian people are destined to become" {d). (7) Because, as Mr. George E. Foster has said, however humble the beginnings, we must have something "in which Canada has some of her body, her bones, her blood, her mental power and her national pride" (e). (8) Because the gift is a distinct contradiction of the great principle — promulgated by the Quebec Nationalists, assented to by Mr. Borden, and accepted by everybody, including the British government — that Canada is under no obligation to participate in British wars without having a share in the control of British foreign pohcy. Calling the present contribution a gift, or a revocable-gift, or an emergent-gift, or anything else, cannot alter, in any way, the principle which we have agreed ought to govern our actions. Always anxious that my Papers should be read, I should like to ask that this one should be not only read but carefully considered. John S. Ewart, Ottawa, May 1913. (a) Hans., 29 March 1913, p. 3495. (5) Ibid. (c) Ibid. (d) Ibid. (e) Ibid, p. 3496. THE KINGDOM PAPERS. No. 16 THE CANNING POLICY SOMETIMES CALLED THE MONROE DOCTRINE NOTICES The second edition of volume one of the Kingdom Papers is now ready Price, in cloth binding, postage paid, sixty cents. Mr. Ewart's earlier book of essays and addresses The Kingdom of Canada is also on sale. Price, postage paid, one dollar. THORBURN & ABBOTT, Publishers, Ottawa. Present and future Papers -will be sent free of charge to all appUcants. Previous Papers of volume two will be sent on receipt of postage — ten cents. JOHN S. EWART, K.C, Ottawa. THE KINGDOM PAPERS. No. 16. THE CANNING POLICY SOMETIMES CALLED THE MONROE DOCTRINE(«) (In order to dra-w attention to the purpose for -vrhich quotations are employed, italics not appearing in the original are sometimes made use of) If that which is often spoken of as The Monroe Doctrine were more correctly described as The Monroe Policy, it would escape a great deal of foohsh denunciation. If instead of being called The Monroe Pohcy, it were, with greater accuracy, styled The Canning Policy (&), a number of, nasty references to American bumptiousness and swagger would remain unspoken. And if it were thought of, not as one of the most singular things in the world's international relations, but as an example of one of the most common, people would understand its real character. A doctrine is something which ought to be believed and as sented to; while a policy is a course of action which a man or a nation proposes to pursue. For example, no foreigner would object to the statement that British foreign policy is directed to the main tenance of the balance of power in Europe. But everybody would deny the assertion that the balance of power is a doctrine deserving implicit assent. British policy has not always been pleasing to all European Powers — at the same time; but nobody would speak of it as "an unwarranted assumption of authority". It is^an ex ample of a Canning policy. British, French and Spanish policy have excluded Germans from Morrocco, for reasons partly commercial, partly political, and partly strategic. But nobody, in referring to that exclusion, would speak of it as the Delcasse or the Lansdowne Doctrine. It is (a) Useful reference on this subject may be made to The Court of London, by Rush; The Monroe Doctrine, by Stockton, by Reddaway, and by Tucker; John Q. Adams, by Ford; Life of Monroe, by Oilman; Geo. Canning, by Stapleton; Annual Register, 1823,4; Message of Presi dent Grant, 41 Cong. 2 Sess. Sen. Ex. Doc. No. 112; Venezuela papers, 54 Cong. 1 Sess. Sen. Ex. Doc. No. 31; Fortnightly Rev., 1898, p. 357; 19f^ Century Rev., 1896, p. 849; 1902, p. 533; North Am. Rev., Vol. 176, p. 185; Wharton's Dig. I, p. 271 ; Am. Pol. Sci. Rev., Vol. 6, p. 646; Am. Soc. of Int. Law, 1912, p. 72. (6) Geo. L. Beer in The Origins of the British Colonial System, 1578-1660, supplies somo reason for_calUng it the Peckham Policy (p. 6). 170 . The Canning Policy — The Monroe Doctrine another case of a Canning Pohcy. Scores of other examples could, be given. And so, when, in 1823, the United Kingdom determined upon the limitation of the freedom of continental nations to extend their systems to the Spanish Americas, it 'was a policy that she adopted, it was not a doctrine that she declared. It was a course of action which she beheved to be beneficial to herself; which she knew to be detrimental to others; which she quite understood could not be presented to the world for acceptance as a doctrine of international law; and which, undoubtedly, if not submitted to, would have had to be enforced by war. The assignment of any particular name to that particular bit of British policy was not in accordance with British practice. For that reason it has never been called the Canning Policy. And I now venture to suggest those words as its title only because the constant use of the customary phraseology — the Monroe Doctrine — has made people forget the facts which this Paper will, it is hoped, restore to recollection. Monroe's Message. — The message of President Monroe to Congress of 2 December 1823, contained three distinct declarations of United States policy: 1. "In the wars of the European powers, in matters relating to themselves we have never taken any part, nor does it comport with our pohcy to do so" (a) . That had always been the policy of the United States. Nobody could object to it. If it must have a name call it the Washington Policy (&). 2. "The American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers'' (c). That clause related to the territory on the north Pacific coast, then in dispute between the United Kingdom, the United States and Russia. All differences with reference to it have long since been settled. There will ne\'er be any more "colonization" on the American continents. .Vnd that item of United States pohcy has, therefore, no relation to present conditions. 3. "The poUtical system of the allied powers is essentially different in this respect from that of .America." "'We owe it, therefore, to candor, and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers, to declare that we should con sider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portions of ^his (a) Annual R«gister, 1823, p. 193*. (6) It was recommended to his people in his farewell address. (c) Ibid. p. IBS*. The Canning Policy — The Monroe Doctrine 171 hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety. 'With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power, we have not interfered, and shaU not interfere; but with the governments who have declared their independence, and maintained it, and whose independence we have, on great consideration and on just principles, acknowledged, we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlhng in any other manner their des tiny, by .^ny European power, in any other hght than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition towards the United States." " It is impossible that the Allied Powers should extend their pohtical system to any portion of this continent -without endangering our peace and happi ness" (a). That is what, at the present day, is known as the Monroe Doctrine. I do not know that its meaning has ever been better expressed than by Mr. Richard Olney in his letter of 20 July 1895: "It is that no European Power or combination of European Powers shall forcibly deprive an American state of the right and power of self-government, and of shaping for itself its o-svn poUtical fortunes and destinies" (6). Opposition to it by the European continental nations, against whom it was directed, can be easily understood. Objection by Canadians can be founded only on the misapprehensions which it is the purpose of this Paper to remove, by showing: 1. That George Canning, the British Foreign Secretary, and not President Monroe was its author. 2. That its operation has been extremely beneficial. 3. That besides originating it, the United Kingdom has always concurred in it; and, under certain circumstances, would join the United States to-day, in enforcing it. 4. That it is of value- to Canada, and would be upheld by Canada if violated in her vicinity. The Holy Alliance. — The connection between the Canning Policy and autocratic government in Europe, is not, at first sight, strikingly obvious; but one cannot be explained without reference to the other, and we must sketch a little history if we are to under stand the subject we are on. The American revolution helped to induce the French revolu tion, and the comfortable equanimity of those who posed as di vinely-appointed rulers of the world having, by these two events, been disturbed, two of them issued a proclamation (26 July 1792) declaring that the allied sovereigns were on the march to put an end to anarchy in France; and to restore the French King to his rightful prerogatives; and commanding the City of Paris and all its inhabi tants, without distinction, to submit at once to the King, and to (a) Ibid. pp. 193,4*. ib) 54 Cong. I Sess., Sen. Ex. Doc. No. 31, p. 14. 172 The Canning Policy — The Monroe Doctrine insure to the royal family[thejnviolability and respect which were due to sovereigns by the laws both of nature and of nations (a) . Napoleon, for a time, made sort of general-post of the divinely- appointed, and, when the devil had completed his period, a trust or defensive league was formed (1815) by the Sovereigns of Russia, Austria and Prussia (which they called the Holy Alliance) with (as their convention said) — "no other object than to publish, in the face of the whole world, their fixed resolution, both in the administration of their respective states, and in their political relations with every other governments, to take for their sole guide the precepts of that Holy ReUgion: namely the precepts of justice. Christian character and peace . . . ." (6). These three autocrats (as they said) regarded: "themselves as merely delegated by Pro-vidence to govern three branches of the one family"; and the maintenance of their, and other, dynasties was the one great object of their alliance (c). The Quadruple Alliance. — Two months afterwards was signed the treaty of the Quadruple Alliance, between these three countries and the United Kingdom, having for its purpose the exclusion of Napoleon from power, and the maintenance of the new government in France (d). Louis XVIII and others after wards joined this alliance, and its actions subsequently necessitated the Canning Policy. Spain. — Spain had suffered severely at the hands of Napoleon. Joining him at first, she found that her American colonies were being attacked (1806,7) by the fleet of their common enemy — the United Kingdom; that she was unable to succour them; and that, by their unaided successes, a spirit of self-reliance and desire for self-government had been aroused. Quarrelling with Napoleon, Spain suffered invasion; soon lost her King (1808); had to accept Joseph Bonaparte in his stead; and saw her colonies (now relieved from allegiance) in open assertion of their independence. Defeat of Napoleon ensured the return of Ferdinand to his throne in Spain, but his people having compeUed him to agree to such limitations of his former authority as appeared, to the ma jority of the Alliance, to encroach upon "the precepts of that h (o) Lecky: Hist, of Eng. Vol. VII, pp. 26,7. (6) The convention may be found in the Annual Register, 1816, pp. 381, 2. (c) On his restoraUoo to power in Spain, Ferdinand decreed " In all my dominions in Am erica, a solemn Te Deum shall be celebrated, in gratitude to the Almighty for the blessing ¦which, in His infinite mercy, he has granted to the whole nation, iu preserving me and all my royal family safe and unharmed amidst such great and continual dangers" (Annual Register 1824. p. 174). (d) Annual Register, 1816, p. 367. The Canning Policy — The Monroe Doctrine 173 religion", France was commissioned to release him from his pledges, and to restore the divinely-appointed form of government. France did it, and the autocrats were looking forward to re-establishing God's laws in Spain's colonies, also, — ^that is, to divide them among those persons who had a right to rule over them, when — when something happened. British and American Anxieties. — The United Kingdom and the United States had been watching the development of the Spanish- American drama not only with interest but with anxiety. The former had, not so long before, lost thirteen of her own American colonies, and now she saw her European rivals on the point of estab lishing splendid empires where she had failed. Canning was a devout monarchist, and would have preferred that Spain's colonies should have continued to recognize at least formal allegiance to the Spanish King. Of an empire as weak and unwieldy as that would have been, he was not afraid; and from it, he felt sure of being able to exact the trading pri-vileges from which stronger owners would undoubtedly have excluded his countrymen. But the transfer of those colonies to the more formidable powers, he was determined to oppose. While not interested to the same extent in trade, the United States had greater cause for political anxiety. Mexico independent, or under the suzerainty of Spain, was a much more desirable neighbor, than as a colony of France; and in an ever-lessening degree, in the more southern colonies, the United States felt that her security would be affected by the importation of the fighting nations of Europe. While the autocrats were plotting. Canning was counter plotting. Whether because of the greater interest of his country; or his greater jealousy of his continental rivals; or his greater ex perience in the conduct of international affairs — whatever the rea son, it was Canning and not Monroe who originated the idea of the exclusion from the Spanish-American colonies of the continental nations. As a first and probably, as he thought, a sufficient step, he persistently urged the United States (through Mr. Rush, her ambasasdor in London, and through Mr. Addington, the British ambassador at Washington) to join the United Kingdom in just such a declaration as Mr. Monroe afterwards inserted in his message to Congress. But he could not get it done. Rush himself rather favored the step, and, at one time (although without authority to do so) offered to join in the declaration, if Canning would publicly acknowledge the independence of the revolting colonies. The United States had, itself, in the previous year (1822), re- 174 The Canning Policy — The Monroe Doctrine cognized the independence of Mexico, Columbia, Buenos A5rres, Chile and Peru; but Monroe hesitated to declare a policy which might have involved his country in war, and, not being able to secure joint action. Canning acted alone. On 9 October 1823, he an nounced to Count de Polignac (the French ambassador at London) what I caU the Canning policy. Monroe's message came seven weeks later (on the 2nd December) and only after much uncertainty meanwhile. Let us follow the matter a little more closely. Canning and Rush. — Immediately prior to the French invasion of Spain (7 April 1823) and as an intimation of the line of British policy. Canning, in a letter to the British ambassador at Paris (31 March) disclaimed any intention of appropriating any part of the Spanish colonies, and said that he felt satisfied that France would BE equally abstemious. That was the first official hint of the policy which he afterwards announced. On 16 August in an interview at the Foreign Office, Rush (knowing of this letter) said to Canning that, whatever came of the war in Spain, he (Rush) felt consolation in the thought (as he nar rates) — "that Great Britain would not allow her (France) to go further and stop the progress of emancipation in the colonies. Mr. Canning askeo me WHAT I THOUGHT MY GOVERNMENT WOULD SAT TO GOING HAND IN HAND WITH England in such a policy? He did not think that concert of action would become necessary, fully beUe-ving that the simple fact of our two countries being known to hold the same opinions, would, by its moral effect, put down the in tention on the part of France, if she entertained it." "I replied, that in what manner my Government would look upon such a suggestion, I was unable to say; it was one surrounded by important con siderations, and I would communicate it to my Government in the same informal manner in which he had thrown it before me.'' "In the course of our conversation, I expressed no opinion in favour OF them, yet abstained as carefully from saying anything against them; and on this footing the conversation ended; all which was promptly reported to my Government" (a). On the 20th August, Canning wrote to Rush a letter, portions of which the latter summarized in this way: ' ' He asks if the moment has not arrived when our two Governments might understand each other as to the Spanish- American Colonies; and if so, whether it would not be expedient for ourselves, and beneficial for all the world, that OUR principles in regard to thkm should be clearly settled and avowed" (6). English pohcy was said by Canning (in his letter) to include a proposition not unlike part of Monroe's later message: (a) Rush: The Court of London, pp. 361, 2, 3, 6. (!)) Ibid. p. 376. The Canning Policy — The Monroe Doctrine 175 "That she could not see the transfer of any portion of them to any other power, with indifference." Canning added : "That if the United States acceded to such views, a declaration to that EFFECT ON THEIR PART, CONCURRENTLY WITH ENGLAND, WOULD BE THE MOST EFFECTUAL, AND LEAST OFFENSIVE, MODE OP MAKING KNOWN THEIR JOINT DISAPPROBATION OF CONTRARY PROJECTS" (a). On the 23rd August, Rush sent a note to Canning in which he said that the United States shared the sentiments which he had expressed and (as summarized by Rush) : "We should regard as highly unjust, and fruitful of disastrous consequ ences, any attempt on the part of any European Power, to take possession of them by conquest, by cession, or on any other ground or pretext. But, I added, that in what manner my Government might deem it most expedient to avow these principles, or express its disapprobation of the ex ceptionable projects 'aUuded to, -svere points on which all mt instructions ¦WERE silent, as well as the power I had lately received to enter upon negotia tions with His Majesty's Government" (6). Rush was uncertain what might be thought of his note by Monroe, and in reporting to him what he had done he said: ' ' In framing the answer on my own judgment alone, I feel that I have had to encounter a task of some embarrassment, and shall be happy if it receive the President's approbation." "The whole subject is novel, and open to views on which I have deliberated anxiously. If my answer shaU be thought, on the whole, to bear properly on aU the public considerations which belong most materiaUy to the occasion, it ¦will be a source of great satisfaction to me" (c). On the same day Canning, as an additional motive for expedi tion, advised Rush that he had been informed: "that so soon as (he mihtary objects in Spain are achieved . . . .a pro posal will be made for a (Congress, or some less formal concert and consulta tion, specially upon the affairs of Spanish America" (i). On 7 September Rush received another letter from Canning, part of which Rush summarizes as follows : "He goes on to say, in effect, that but for my want of specific powers to go forward in the proposition he made, he would have taken measures to give it operation on the part of England; but that, through the delaly which must in tervene before I could receive new powers from home, events might get before us; and therefore he could not justify it to his duty to his o-wn Government, and to all the other considerations belonging to the subject, to pledge England to wait for such a contingency — for which he assigns his reasons with frank ness" (e). (a) Ibid. p. 377. (W Ibid. p. 379. (c) Ibid. pp. 380,1. (d) Ford: John Quiicy AdaTns, p. 19. (e) Rush, op. cU. pp. 384.5. 176 The Canning Policy — The Monroe Doctrine When transmitting this letter to Washington, Rush said that if Canning continued to "draw back" from a recognition of inde pendence, "I should decUne acting upon the overtures contained in his first note, not feeling at hberty to accede to them in the name of the United States, but upon the basis of an equivalent; and that, as I -viewed the subject, this equiv alent could be nothing less than the immediate and fuU acknowledgement of those states, or some of them, by Great Britain" (a). On 18 September the two diplomats again went over the same ground in the same way, and Rush thus states the effect of his an swer to Canning: "As to the proposals he had submitted to me, I said, that I was sure he would himself appreciate the deUcacy and novelty of the ground upon which I stood. The United States, it was true, would view any attempt on the part of France, and the continental AUiance, to resubjugate those new States, as a transcendent act of national injustice, and indicative of progressive and alarm ing ambition; yet, to join Great Britain in a declaration to this effect, might lay them open in some respects to consequences, upon the char acter and extent of which it became my duty to reflect -with great caution, before making up my mind to meet the responsibilities of them. The value of my declaration, it was agreed, would depend upon its being formally made knq-wn to europe. would not such a step wear THE APPEARANCE OP THE UNITED StATES IMPLICATING THEMSEL\'ES IN THE POLITICAL CONNECTIONS OF EuROPE? WoULD IT NOT BE ACCEDING, IN THIS INSTANCE, AT LEAST, TO THE POLICT OF ONE OF THE GrEAT EUROPEAN POWERS, IN OPPOSITION TO THE PROJECTS AVO-WED BY OTHERS OP THE FIRST RANK? ThIS, HITHERTO, HAD BEEN NO PART OF THE SYSTEM OF THE UNITED STATES ; THE ¦VERY REVERSE OF IT HAD BEEN ACTED UPOn" (6). In reply Canning said: "that however just such a pohcy might have been formerly, or might continue to be as a general pohcy, he apprehended that powerful and controlling circum stances made it inapphcable upon the present occasion. The question was a new and comphcated one in Inodern affairs. It was also fuU as much American as European, to say no more. It concerned the United States under aspects and interests as immediate and commanding, as it did or could any of the States of Europe. They were the first power estabhshed on that continent, and now confessedly the leading Power. They were connected with Spanish America by their position, as -with Europe by their relations; and they also stood connected with these new States by political relations. Was it possible that they could see vvdth indifference their fate decided upon by Europe? Could Europe expect this indifference? Had not a new epoch arrived in the relative position of the United States towards Europe, which Europe must acknowledge? Were the great political and commercial interests which hung upon the destinies of the new continent, to be canvassed and adjusted in this hemisphere, without the co-operation or even knowledge of the United States? Were they to be can vassed and adjusted, he would even add, without some proper understanding between the United States and Great Britain, as the two chief commercial and (o) Ibid. pp. 386,6. (t) Ibid. p. 390. The Canning Policy — The Monroe Dcotrine 177 maritime States of both worlds. He hoped not, he would -wish to persuade himself not. Such was the tenor of his remark" (o). To much of this Rush assented : ' ' but, I added, that as the question of the United States expressing this voice, and promulgating it under officiab authority to the powers of Europe, was one of entire novelty as well as great magnitude in their history, it was for mt Government, and not for me, to decide upon its propriety" (6). Canning continued to urge his proposal and arguments which as Rush says: "he amplified and enforced with his wonted ability" (c). Rush, in his turn, asked that the United Kingdom should acknowledge the independence of the new states : "He (Canning) said that such a measure was open to objection; but asked if he was to understand that it would make any difference in my powers or conduct? I replied, the greatest difference. I had frankly informed him that I had no powers to consent to his proposals in the shape in which they had first been presented to me in his note, and I would as frankly say, that I had no specific powers to consent to them, coupled -with the fact of this Government acknow ledging the independence of the new States; but that great step being taken, I would stand upon my general powers as Minister Plenipotentiary. Into these, other nations would have no claim to look. I would be the interpreter of them myself. I had no hesitation in saying, that, under this general warrant, I WOULD PUT FORTH, WITH GrEAT BrITAIN, THE DECLARATION TO WHICH HE HAD INVITED ME; THAT I WOULD DO SO IN THE NAME OF MY GOVERN MENT, AND CONSENT TO ITS FORMAL PROMULGATION TO THE WORLD UNDER ALL THE SANCTIONS, AND WITH ALL THE PRESENT VALIDITY, THAT I COULD IMPART TO it" (d). Canning was unable to consent to Rush's proposal and no agree ment was arrived at. The interview, however, shows a marked advance, on Rush's part, toward acceptance of the Canning policy. On 26 September, Canning asked (as Rush says) : "whether I could not give my assent to his proposals on a promise by Eng land of future acknowledgment" (e). Rush declined to agree to the compromise. Canning Acts Alone. — Canning could do nothing more with Rush, and on 9 October, acting independently, he made open declar ation of his policy to Prince de Polignac, the representative of France. The British government he said : (a) Ibid. pp. 391,2. (6) Ibid. p. 393. ' (c) Ibid. p. 395. (d) Ibid. pp. 396,7. (e) Ibid. p. 405. 178 The Canning Policy — The Monroe Doctrine "were of opinion, that any attempt to bring Spanish America again under its ancient submission to Spain must be utterly hopeless." ' ' That the British government would, however, not only abstain from inter posing any obstacle on their part to any attempt at negotiation which Spain might think proper to make, but would aid and countenance such negotiation, provided it were founded upon a basis which appeared to them to be practic able; and that they would, in any case, remain strictly neutral in a war between Spain and the colonies, if war should be unhappUy prolonged. "But THAT THE JUNCTION OP ANY FOREIGN POWER, IN AN ENTERPRISE OF Spain against the colonies, would be viewed by them as constituting AN entirely new QUESTION; AND ONE UPON WHICH THEY MUST TAKE SUCH decision as THE INTERESTS OF GhEAT BRITAIN MIGHT REQUlPffi" (rt). To this the Prince replie^ : "That his government beheved it to be utterly hopeless to reduce Spanish America to the state of its former relation to Spain. "That France disclaimed, on her part, any intention or desire to avail herself of the present state of the colonies, or the present situation of France towards Spain, to appropriate to herseU any part of the Spanish possessions in America, or to obtain for herself any exclusive advantages" (fc). While the significance of Canning's announcement was un- mistakeable (c), the disclaimer of the Prince (it will be observed) was confined to appropriations of territory, and did not extend to intention of giving military assistance to Spain. MoreoT,'er the Prince could not speak for the other members of the Alliance; and Canning, well aware of his danger, proceeded to put his policy into practical operation. On the day after his interview with the Prince, he appointed two commissioners-^ one to proceed to Columbia and one to Mexico, and in the instructions were the follo-ndng paragraphs: "The apparent hopelessness of the recovery by Spain of her dominion over her late South American Provinces; the purpose of France (notorious to all the world) to support with arms everj' attempt of the Spanish Cro-wn, to recover that dominion; and, on the other hand, the pubhc Acts of the Legis lature of the United States of North .America, empowering their President to recognize the independence of whatever Government the Spanish Colonies respectively may have erected, or may erect, for themselves, present additional motives for sending out such a, Commission. "If upon your arrival at (blank) you shaU find that events have induced the Government to direct their thoughts towards an union with Spain, you -wiU bear in mind that there is no desire on the part of Great Britain to interpose obstacles to the restoration of a bona fide understanding between the Colonies and the Mother Country: — But it must be -\\'ith the Mother Country really independent; not in any shape subjected or subservient to any foreign Power, nor employing the intervention of foreign arms to re-establish ITS supremacy in the Colonies" (d). (a) Annual Register, 1824, pp. 99, 100*. (6) Ibid. p. 101*. The ii.eino. of this o^nvertation was produced in parliament on 4 Maich 1S24. Hana. pp. 708-719. (c) He afteiTVaids (14 Apiil 1824) interpreted it ns meaning that the British government "would not tolerate for an instant any « ss-ion wliich Spain might make of colonies over -which she did not exercise a di.ect and posili\'e influence." Canning's Speeches, p. 571. (d) Paxson: Tlie Independence of the South American Republics, pp. 207-9. The Canning Policy — The Monroe Doctrine 179 The instructions after declaring the unselfishness of British policy proceeded : "Neither, on the other hand, would His Majesty consent to see THEM (in the E-VENT OP THEIR FINAL SEPARATION FROM SpAIN) BROUGHT UNDER THE Dominion of any other Power" (o). That Canning was not -wrong in distrusting the assurances of the Prince, became very apparent when, ten weeks afterwards (26 December 1823) Spain (through her ambassador at Paris) proposed a conference at Paris, with a view to : "aid Spain in adjusting the affairs of the revolted countries in America," and said: "His Majesty, confiding in the sentiments of his allies, hopes that thet -WILL ASSIST HIM in accomplishing the worthy object of upholding the principles of order and legitimacy, the subversion of which, once commenced in America, would presently communicate to Europe; and that they -will aid him, at the same time, in re-establishing peace between this division of the globe and its colonies' '(b). Addington and Adams. — While Canning was pressing Rush in London, the British ambassador, Addington, was pressing, for the same purpose, John Quincy Adams, the United States Secretary of State, in Washington. Convinced of the importance and urgency of Canning's proposals, but uncertain what to do, Monroe (17 Oc tober) took the unusual course of sending Rush's despatches to Jefferson and Madison (previous Presidents) and asking their opinion (c). Their advice and the predisposition of the majority of the cab inet, would probably have produced co-operation with the United Kingdom but for suspicion of the honesty of the British overtures. Adams (Secretary of State) in his diary, commented in this way: "The object of Canning appears to have been to obtain some pubhc pledge from the governinent of the United States, ostensibly against the forcible inter ference of the Holy Alhance between Spain and South America, but really or especially against the acquisition to the United States themselves of any part of the Spanish-American possessions. By joining with her, therefore, in her proposed declaration, we give her a substantial and perhaps inconvenient pledge against ourselves, and really obtain nothing in return." From Adams' diary, the following memoranda are taken: November 7. (This date is four weeks subsequent to the Polignac interview, 9 October, and nearly the same length of time before Monroe's message, 2 December). Addington pressed Adams for a reply to Canning's proposal for a joint declaration and was told that the matter was under consideration. (a) Ibid. p. 211. (6) Annual Register, 1824, p. 103.* Hans. Vol. X. p. 714. ic) Monroe to Jefferson, 17 October; Jefferson to Monroe, 24 October; Maidson to Mon- roe, 30 October. Ford: John (Quincy Adams, p. 1 : Fortnightly Rev., Vol. 70, pp. 360-4. 180 The. Canning Policy — The Monroe Doctrine November 13. Monroe is still "altogether unsettled in his own mind" as to the instructions to be sent to Rush, and "alarmed, far beyond anything that I could have conceived possible, -with the fear that the Holy Alliance are about to restore immediately aU South America to Spain." November 15. A cabinet meeting. Calhoun (United States Secretary of War) is "moon-struck" by the success (at Cadiz) of the French in Spain. November 17. Adams told Addington that British recognition of independence was a necessary preliminary to concurrence in declaration of policy. November 19. Another interview with Addington. November 21. Cabinet meeting. Proposed instructions to Rush partially discussed. Monroe's draft message debated (a). November 22. Interview Monroe and Adams. The latter opposed to hostilities against the allies. Summary. — It will probably be thought that the proof of Canning's authorship of what has been erroneously labelled the Monroe Doctrine is now complete. For Canning suggested it; diligently urged it upon the United States, both through Rush in London and Addington in Washington; and being unable to move the United States, announced it independently to France on the 9th of October- — six weeks prior to Monroe's message. On the other hand, the United States was un-willing to take so decisive and momentous a step; the President was timid and distracted; the Secretary for war was "moon-struck"; there was (as we shall see) "long and careful consideration" — ^that was the situation in the United States during the month which succeeded Canning's declaration to France, and preceded, by a few days only, Monroe's message to Congress. Some Authorities. — Although the point is sufficiently proved it may be as well to add authority to proof. Canning did not inform Rush of the Polignac interview of 9 October until 26 November (6), and he gave him a copy of the memorandum of that interview onlj'' en the 13 December (Before either of them had heard of Monro ".s message). In his letter of this latter date. Canning ref ' rred to Rush's lack of authority to join in the proposed declaration and added: (a) The draft deprecated the invasion of Spain and aclcnowledged the independence but contained no "Monroe doctrine." Its subsequent insertion must, probably, be credited to Mr. Adams. Ford; John Quincy Adams, pp. 25,6. (b) Ibid. p. 62. The Canning Policy — The Monroe Doctrine 181 "But time, and the pressure of events did not allow of an indefinite post ponement of a matter, which was Uable, from day to day, to be brought into immediate discussion by other Powers. Our step was therefore taken -WITHIN A FEW -WEEKS AFTER THE LAST INTERCHANGE OP CONFIDENTIAL LETTERS BETWEEN us. ThE RESULT IS BEFORE YOU. YOU -WILL SEE THAT -WE -WERE NOT UNMINDFUL OF YOUR CLAIM TO BE HEARD: BUT I FLATTER MYSELF THAT NEITHER YOU NOR WE SHALL NOW HAVE TO LIFT OUR VOICE AGAINST ANT OP THE DESIGNS WHICH -WERE APPREHENDED A PEW MONTHS AQo" (a). In other words, the effect usually attributed to the Monroe Doctrine had been produced weeks prior to the Monroe Message. In a letter to Sir W. A'Court of 31 December 1823 (imme diately after receiving the message) Mr. Canning said: ' ' While I was yet hesitating (in September) what shape to give to the de claration and portest which ultimatelt was conveyed in mt conference WITH Prince de Polignac, and while I was more doubtful as to the effect of that protest and declaration, I sounded Mr. Rush. as to his powers and disposition, to join in any step which, we might take to prevent a hostile enterprise on the part of the European Powers against Spanish America. He had no powers; but he would have taken upon himself to join -with us if we would have begun by recognizing the Spanish American States. This we could not do, AND so -WE WENT ON WITHOUT. But I havc no doubt that his report to his government of this sounding (which he probably represented as an over ture) had a great share in producing the explicit declarations of the President'' (6). Mr. Stapledon in his Life of Canning said that the language of the message was: "in a very great degree, if not wholly, the result of Mr. Canning's overture to Rush" (c). The Earl of Liverpool (British Prime Minister) in a speech in the House of Lords (15 March 1824) said: "He knew it had been said that the intention of the Powers of Europe respecting the South American states, had been changed in consequence of the speech of the President of the United States of America. What effect that speech might have had, it was not for him to say, but whatever its effect may have been, he felt it but justice to the King's ministers to declare that, weeks BEFORE THAT SPEECH REACHED EuROPE, IT HAD BEEN DISTINCTLY COMMUN ICATED BY THEM TO THE GO-VERNMENT OF FRANCE, THAT WITHOUT INTERFER ING WITH THE RIGHTS OP SPAIN, GrEAT BRITAIN COULD NOT SEE WITH INDIFFER ENCE ANY FOREIGN Pq-WER INTERFERE IN THE STRUGGLE BETWEEN THAT COUN TRY AND THE South American states'' (d). Rush himself agrees that it was Canning's attitude that kept the Alliance out of South America: "That this change in France and her allies was produced by the know- (a) Ibid. p. 65. (6) Stapleton: Life of Canning, Vol. 2, p. 395. (c) ibid. p. 39. See also Canning'^s speeches in Hans. N.S. Vol. X, pp. 90, 708: Annual Rigister, 1824, pp. 17-25. (d) Hans. Vol. X, p. 997. 182 • The Canning Policy — The Monroe Doctrine ledge that England would oppose, at all hazards, hostile plans upon Spanish America, may be inferred vnth httle danger of error. The certainty of it is, indeed, part of European history at that epoch" (o). Mr. Calhoun (the Secretary for War in Monroe's cabinet), observing that the proposals: "came through Mr. Rush — originating not with Mr. Adams but Mr. Can ning, — and were first presented in the form of a proposition from England", said, "The Cabinet met. It dehberated. There was long and careful con sideration; and the result was the declaration" — that is the Monroe message (6). Mr. Richard Olney (United States Secretary of State) in a despatch of 20 July 1895) i elating to the Vene:iuela matter) said that the mcosage of Monroe. "was unquestionably due to the inspiration of Great Britain" (c). Mr. Sumner, a prominent American statesman, has said: "The Monroe Doctrine, as .now f.^.miliarly called, proceeded prom Can.vtng. He was its inventor, promotor, and champion, at least so far AS IT BEARS against EUROPEAN INTERVENTION IN AjIERICAN AFFAIRS. At last, after much discussion in the cabinet at washington, president Monroe, accepting the lead of Mr. Canning, and with the consent OF John Quincy Adams, put forth his famous declaration" {J). Dr. Stockton (until recently of St. John, N. B.) has said: "Mr. Rush's statements fully justify the contention that President Mon roe's message against non-interference, at that time, in Spanish American affairs, was inspired by Canning. And this has been the view op leading American statesmen, some of whom were personally cognizant of the f.\cts'' (e). The last witness shall be Monroe himseff — who, in a letter written to Jefferson a few days after the delivery of the message, said: ' ' When the character of these communications — of that from Mr. Canning and that from the Russian minister, is considered, and the time when made, it leaves little doubt that some project against the new governments is contem plated. In what form is uncertain. It is hoped that the sentiments expressed in the message will give a check to it. We certainly meet in full ex tent, THE PROPOSITION OP Mr. CANNING, AND THE MOPE TO GI-VE IT THE GREATEST EFFECT" (/). Common Misapprehension. — A good example of the very common misapprehension with reference to the Canning policy may be found in the recent naval debate (iiient \)y the Duke of Westminster that "a few Mien havi- resolved to make a special effort for the promotion of practical Imperialism. As ex-cry great political campaign requires an ample amount' of money, tlioy ha\'e created a fund, and they have appealed to the pubhc for support. Their appeal has been successful. In a few weeks a very large sum Kingdom Clubs 191 has been subscribed. This sum is to be the nucleus of a fund which, it is hoped, will eventually reach seven figures. It will in course of time become a great Imperial foundation. It will support every Imperial movement and endeavour worthy of support throughout the Empire. The income derived from it -will be used in assisting the acti-vity of the numerous excellent organizations in every part of the Empire which are truly Imperialist in aim and spirit, which strive to advance the interests of the British Empire and to elevate the British race" (a). "Seven figures" means at least £1,000,000; and the Duke of Westminster and his friends, to many Canadians (I am afraid) mean even stronger arguments than dollars. We have at the pres ent moment, in Canada, what those men would call an "Imperial movement" worthy of their "support"; to the best of their ability, they are supporting it; and, at the next of our general elections, we shall be subjected to influences created by their "great Im perial foundation." Against attack of that sort, we must prepare our defence, and for that purpose — for the furtherance of the great cause of Canadian Nationalism — let our reply to the Duke of West minister be THE FORMATION THRO'UGHOUT CaNADA OF KINGDOM Cl-ubs, having as their splendid object the elevation of our country from the humiliating position of one of a number of the dominions — the possessions of the British people, to the international rank of a Kingdom — a Kingdom, equal in status (if not as yet in wealth and power) to the United Kingdom itself, and owing alle giance to the same King. Whenever, in any place, two or three are ready to make a com mencement, I have to ask that they will be good enough to communicate with me. CONSTITUTION OF KINGDOM CLUBS. The following is suggested as a statement of the object of the Kingdom Clubs: ' ' Recognizing that after a long period of poUtical evolution, Canada has at length attained to the position of a self-governing state; that her legislative and fiscal independence is undisputed; that her right to make arrangements -with foreign countries is undoubted; that exclusive control of her forces, both land and sea, is admitted; and that, therefore, abandoning the title and appear ance of a colony, she ought to assume the status of a nation, this Club has for its object the elevation of our country to the international rank to which her acknowledged maturity most justly entitles her. "Although persistent progress towards political emancipation has been the most interesting and important characteristic of Canadian history, yet there has never (with one ephemeral exception) been any endeavor to end the allegiance of Canada to her Sovereigns. The perpetuation of that allegiance -wiU not in any way be affected by the attainment of the object of this Club. (o) 19th Century, Nov. 1912, p. 877. 192 Kingdom Clubs King George is now King of Canada. Instead of Canada being one of his do minions, she shall be one of his Kingdoms. "When framing our federal constitution in 1867, Sir John A. Macdonald, obser-ving that the period of our colonial subordination was approaching its close, desired that our official title should be The Kingdom of Canada. This Club declares that the fiftieth anniversary of our natal-day would be a fitting and appropriate year in which to realize the -wish of the greatest of our departed Canadian statesmen." The other clauses of the constitution might be modelled upon the form usually adopted by the Canadian Clubs. John S. Ewart. Ottawa, June, 1913. THE KINGDOM PAPERS. No. 17. CANADIAN SOVEREIGNTY. NOTICES. The second edition of volume one of the Kingdom Papers is now ready. Price, in cloth binding, postage paid, sixty cents. Mr. Ewart's earlier book of essays and addresses The Kingdom of Canada is also on sale. Price, postage paid, one dollar. THORBURN & ABBOTT, Publishers, Ottawa. Present and future Papers -will be sent tree of charge to all applicants. Previous Papers of volume two will be sent on receipt of postage — ten cents. JOHN S. EWART, K.C, Ottawa THE KINGDOM PAPERS. NO. 17. CANADIAN SOVEREIGNTY. (The substance of this Paper -waa delivered as an Address in November and December 1913, before The Ladies' Canadian Club, Edmonton; The Canadian Club, Edmonton; the students of Alberta University, Edmonton; The Canadian Club, Calgary; The Canadian Forward Club, Calgary; The Canadian Club, Regina; The Canadian Club, Brandon; The Canadian Club, Winnipeg; and The Canadian Club, Fort V/illiam.) (In order to dra-w attention to the purpose for -which quotations are employed, italics not appearing in the original, are sometimes made use of) My subject is Canadian Sovereignty, and, for the purposes of what I intend to say, i define sovereignty as self-government inter nationally recognized. We have self-government? Ought it to be declared, and consequently, internationally recognized? First is our self-government complete? It is over 70 years since the Colonial Office seriously contemplated interference with our tariff-policy. It is a quarter of a century since a Colonial Secretary ventured to withhold assent to legislation of any kind, and his func tion in that regard may now be said to have forever ceased. If some of our lawsuits Still go to London for final decision, that is only because we have not yet chosen to abrogate, in civil cases, the tra ditionary jurisdiction. By statute, we have stopped it in criminal cases. We can do as we wish, and have therefore self-control. Treaty-Making Power. — "Yes, Mr. Ewart, but these are domestic matters only. What about foreign affairs — the treaty- making power and war ?" 9 Before demonstrating our freedom with reference to treaties, let me quote three competent authorities in order to show what our position would be if we had that freedom. In 1882, in reply to a motion made by Mr. Blake demanding power to enter into direct communication with foreign States for the purpose of negotiating commercial arrangements. Sir John A. Macdonald said: ' ' Disguise it as you will this means separation and independence" (o) . Replying to a somewhat similar motion in 1892, Mr. George E. ^Foster said: (o) Hans., p. 1078. 194 Canadian Sovereignty ' ' Now, sir, there is only one thing left, there is only a single power left, which would show the difference between Canada as she is to-day, and a coMPnETE and ABSOLUTE sovereignty, and that is the power, the imperial and absolute power of making treaties with other countries, subject to no conditions and to no con trol except her own interests as shown through her parhament and through her government. But, sir, when that position is reached, I think you come to the position of an absolute and independent power, and you are face to face ¦with a change of pohtical status, to which honorable gentlemen may shut their eyes, but which, in the logic of events, is as sure to follow as night follows the setting of the sun. Now comes the practical question so far as the debate is concerned, although it is a question that dees not cause the least commotion in this country, but if we are to debate it and to settle it by a vote of the House, the practical question is this: Are we prepared to take that other step with all the consequences which inevitably follow it?" (a). In 1895 (28 June) the Colonial Office declared that — ' ' To give the colonies the power of negotiating treaties for themselves ¦with out reference to Her Majesty's Government would be to give them an intek- NATIONAL STATUS AS SEPARATE AND SO^VEREIGN STATES, AND WOULD BE EQUIVA LENT TO BREAKING UP THE EMPIRE INTO A NuMBER OF INDEPENDENT StATES'' (6). Has this, then, really happened? Have we this treaty-making power? You might as well ask whether we have parliament build ings in Ottawa. In 1909, a special governmental department was formed called the Department of External Affairs, and in intro ducing the necessary legislation. Sir Wilfrid Laurier said: "All governments have found it necessary to have a department whose only business shall be to deal with relations with foreign countries, and in our judgment Canada has reached a period in her history when we should foUow the example of other countries in that respect, as, for example, the Commonwealth of Australia" (c). "I suggest to my honorable friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) that we have now reached a standard as a nation which necessitates the estabhshment of a Departs ment of External Aifairs. It is not unnatural that the hon. gentleman should ask why the machinery of the Department of the Secretary of State is not suf ficient for the purpose. We have given this matter a good deal of consideration and the conclusion ¦we have jyrived at is that the foreign affairs with which Canada has to deal are becoming of such absorbing moment as to neces sitate special machinery" (d). One paragraph of the legislation (8, 9 Ed. c. 13) is as follows: "The Secretary of State . . . shall have the conduct of all oflScial communications between the government of Canada and the government of any other country in connection with the external affairs of Canada, and shaU be charged with such other duties a.s may, from time to time, be assigned to the (a) Hans., 7 April, p. 112.^>. (6) Despatch Marquis of llipon to Governor-General of Canada. (r) Hans., 1909, p. 1980. The Australian precedent was not sufficient; but nobody pointed that out. id) Hans., p. 1980. Ciinada has negotiated directly with Germany, Holland, Belgium I taly and the United States. Canadian Sovereignty 195 department by order of the Governor-in-Council in relation to such external affairs, or to the conduct and management of international or intercolonial negotiations, so far as they may appertain to the government of Canada" But that is not all, in 1910 an arrangement was made with the United States by which all questions of difference between us and them are referred to a joint commission composed of three Canadians (appointed not by the British government, but by ourselves) and three Americans. Article 10 commences in this way: "Any questions or matters of difference arising between the High Contract ing Parties involving the rights, obhgations, or interests of the United States or of the Dominion of Canada, either in relation to each other or to their respec tive inhabitants, may be referred for decision to the International Joint Com mission by the consent of the two Parties, it being understood that on the part of the United States, any such action -will be by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and on the part of His Majesty's government with the consent of the Governor-Gbneral-in-Council.'' "Yes, Mr. Ewart, but surely the British Foreign Office super vises all those activities?" No it does not, except through the news papers, or when the Governor-General chooses to mention some thing about them in his reports to the Colonial Office. We manage those matters ourselves. Formerly all communications with the United States went from a Canadian minister to the Governor- General; then to the Colonial Secretary; then to the Foreign Sec retary; then to the British ambassador at Washington; then to the United States' Secretary of State; then to the appropriate depart- pient; then to the President; and, if not lost meanwhile, back, by the same circuitous route. We have now short-circuited that course, and when Mr. Borden has a question for Uncle Sam, he asks one of our Commissioners to be good enough to come to his office; the Commissioner brings the matter up at the next meeting of the Commission where it is discussed and settled. Am I exaggerating? Not in the slightest. Listen to what Mr. Balfour said, in 1910, with reference to Canada's negotiations with France — ' ' The Dominion of Canada, technically, I suppose, it may be said, carried on their negotiations with the knowledge of His Majesty's representative, but it was a purely technical knowledge. I do not beheve that His Majesty's Govern ment was ever consulted at a single stage of those negotiations. I do not beheve they ever informed themselves, or offered any opinion, as to what was the best pohcy for Canada under the circumstances. I think they were weU advised. But how great is the change and how ine-vitable! It is a matter of common knowledge — and, may I add, not a matter of regret but a matter of pride and rejoicing — that the great Dominions beyond the seas are. becoming great^ nations in themselves" (a). (o) Hans., 21 July 1910. 196 Canadian Sovereignty In 1911, the British government was sharply questioned as to the part played by the British Ambassador at Washington in con nection with our reciprocity negotiations — the complaint being that British interests had not been sufficiently safeguarded. In reply Mr. Asquith said (as telegraphed to the Ottawa Free Press, 6 May, 1912) : "The question of what is most to the advantage of Canada is primarily one for the Canadian government. I must in view of these questions take the opportunity of repudiating emphatically the reflection on Mr. Bryce which is contained in them. Mr. Bryce had nothing to do with the -views or poUcy of the Canadian government. The negotiations were initiated and carried on by Canada, and the British Ambassador in pursuance of his plain duty when he saw Wilham S. Fielding, the then Finance Minister of Canada, from time to time during the conferences at Washington in order to learn anything that might be needful tor him to know. He did not interfere with the conference, but if asked for advice gave it, and all British subjects engaged in legitimate and important business are entitled to receive that from a British ambassador. For Mr. Bryce to have interfered with the negotiations going on at Washington upon matters which were within Canada's own competence would have been naturally resented by Canada. Generally there had been no difference of opinion in the Dominion about that, whatever may be the differences between Canadians themselves regarding reciprocity. The manner in which Mr. Bryce has performed his duties has been of great advantage, inspiring Canada with confidence in the British Ambassador at Washington who wiU always be prepared to support the present Canadian government no less than its predecessors in any negotiations it may be engaged in ¦with the U. S." I think that you are now satisfied as to our treaty-making power. But what about war? Are we self-governing in relation to that subject? Most certainly we are. Let me remind you of the atti tude of our political leaders on several occasions. Sir AVilfrid Lau rier has said, not only in parliament, but at the Conferences, that although, as a matter of international law, Canada is at war when the United Kingdom is at war, yet, that Canada must determine for herself, in every cat e, whether or not she will actively participate in the war. She may, of course, be attacked and be obliged to defend herself, but apart from that contingency (one to which every nation is subject) Canada can do as she pleases. Mr. Borden has an•i^•o(l at the same result, but by a process. He has declared that obligation to participate in British war without having a voice in the control of British foreign pohcy would not be — '*'a tolerable condition. I do not think the people of Canada would, for one moment, submit to such a condition'' (o). Having so declared, Mr. Borden presented his principle to the British government in the summer of 1912, and he has told us that Mr. Asquith (a) Hans., 24 November 1910, p. 227. Canadian Sovereignty 197 "exphcitly accepted, the principle" (5); but at the same time -declared that ' ' responsibihty for foreign pohcy could not be shared by Great Britain -with the Dominions" (c). Mr. Borden clearly indicated what that meant — "It has been declared in the past, and even during recent years, that re sponsibihty for foreign pohcy could not be shared by Great Britain -with the Dominions. In my humble opinion, the adherence to such a position could have but one, and that a most disastrous result" (d). — a result which (as he said at a subsequent stage of his speech) : "is fraught with even graver significance for the British Islands than for Canada" (e). We have not a share in the control of foreign policy; we cannot get it; and Mr. Borden says that under such circumstances Canada would not tolerate having to contribute to imperial defence. No declaration of self-government can be clearer than that. Put into Mr. Doherty's language it amounts to this — "What I desire to point out is that, under our constitution, there is no obligation on the part of Canada, legaUy or constitutionaUy speaking, to con tribute to the naval forces of the Empire, and that position will continue to exist so long as the United Kingdom alone has exclusive control of the foreign affairs of the Empire" (/). It is satisfactory to know that our freedom from obligation is fully admitted by British statesmen. Proof of this fact may be found in the first volume of The Kingdom Papers at pages -180 and 266. British Empire. — If I have satisfied you as to the complete ness of our self-governing authority, the next question is. What is now our true constitutional position? Originally we were entirely, and, until recently, we were partially under the control of the Colonial Office — the Office which has the care and management of colonies. Now we are free from that control. Constitutionally, what does that mean ? Legally, in what manner must we express the relation which now exists between us and the United Kingdom? Formerly our rank was that of a colony; we were a part of the possessions — the domain— the empire of the British people. They had authority over us. Their parliament made laws for us. Their government issued orders to us. Their Foreign Office made treaties for us. We (6) Hans., 5 December 1912, 677. (c) Ibid., p. 677. (d) Ibid., p. 677. (e) Ibid., p. 693. (t/) Hans., 24 February 1910, p. 4139 198 Canadian Sovereignty were part of the British Empire, guided and controlled by imperial authority. What are we now? We are not at all events part of the British Empire. That^ is not only clear, but is, by thinking men, fuhy admitted. An empire is "an aggregate of subject states ruled over by a sovereign state" (a). If we are a "subject" state, we may be part of some empire; and if we are ' ' ruled over" by any sovereign state, we are part of the empire of that state. But we are neither "subject" nor "ruled over"; and we are not, therefore, part of the possessions or empire of any state. ¦ Having complete powers of self-government, we cannot permit our selves to be spoken of as though we were a "subject state ruled over by a sovereign state." Quite naturaUy men, who, in past years, have (correctly) spoken of the British Empire as including Canada, hesitate to accept this idea. They are ready enough to affirm our 'self-government ; but they dislike the change of nomenclature which that self-government necessitates. They glory in the fact, but see separation if not treason in its descriptive language. They approve everything that has happened, and object only to the constitutional phraseology neces sitated by the occurrences. They resent the word colony, but de cline to adopt its necessary substitute. Acceptance of that, too, will perhaps be aided by quotation from various imperialists. A\'hat can be more satisfactory, for example than this from Lord Milner, now the chief of imperialists?: "The word empire has, in some respects, an unfortunate effect. It, no doubt, fairly describes the position as between the United Kingdom and subject countries such as India or our Central African possessions. But for the relations existing between the United Kingdom and the self-governing colonies, it is A MISNOMER, and with the idea of ascendancy, of domination, ine-vdtably asso ciated -with it, A VERY unfortunate misnomer" (6). Some years ago, (before we commenced to manage our own foreign affairs), Sir Frederick Pollock, one of the best of living English jurists, said: "Leave the conventions alone and look at the facts, and we find that the "self-governing colonies" are, in fact, separ.\te kingdoms having the same KjNG AS THE parent GROUP, but clioosing to abrogate that part of their full autonomy which relates to foreign affairs. . . The House of Commons could no more venture to pass a Bill altering the Australian marriage laws, or the Canadian tariff, than the Dominion parliament could legislate on London tramways. The sovereignty is a figment. The States of the Empire stand on an equal footing, except that the Government of one of them represents all (a) Oxford Dictionary. (b) Standard of Empire, 23 May 1908. Canadian Sovereignty 199 the rest of the commuity of nations, and is gracefully permitted, in consequence, to undertake and pay for maritime defence." "Here then, we have the first of our Imperial anomahes. It is difficult to define what the reahn is. We call it an Empire, for convenience; but that imperium, the power of sovereignty, the right residing in some quarter to issue a command which must be obeyed, resides nowhere." The Saturday Review (25 July, 1908) had the following — "As an empire how does the British nation throughout the world now stand? Wolfe would have been amazed indeed could he have foreseen the present position. This 'empire', which he made possible, has no imperial army; there is no mihtary defensive force drawn from every part of the 'empire', and to which every part of the 'empire' must contribute either in men or money. There is no imperial navy in the only true sense of the word, that the whole empire helps to keep it up. There is no imperial citizenship, for the King's subjects born in one part of the empire may be, and are, forbidden entry into other parts of the 'empire', not by decision of any authority representing the whole 'empire' but by a local authority. To be a British subject does not carry with it even elementary rights against an authority that does not profess to represent the British empire. In this 'empire' there is nothing to distinguish the commercial treatment of some parts of the 'empire' by other parts, from their treatment of a foreign country. In other words these parts are to each pther, from a commercial point of view, just foreign nations. Any part of the 'empire' may constitutionally give better treatment to a foreign country than to another part of the empire. This 'empire' has no imperial government. There is no authority which represents the empire as a whole, no authority which has power to enforce its decisions in every part of the empire alike. "Where, then, WoUe might well ask, does the empire come in? If we were honest, we should have to answer that it does not come in at all. The plain TRUTH IS THAT THERE IS NO BRITISH EmPIRE (a). In THE STRICT SENSE, IT OBVIOUSLY IS NOT AN EMPIRE; NEITHER, AS IT SEEMS TO US, IS IT AN EMPIRE IN ANY REAL SENSE AT ALL. And we shall get no further until we recognize this without bUnking. This must be the starting-point for future development. We shall lose nothing by looking facts in the face; by admitting the truth." Mr. Joseph Chamberlain has said (17 May 1905) : "Ours is an Empire, an anomalous Empire. It really is a coUection of states which are not bound together by anything more than mere sentiment." The Standard of Empire whose mission is imperialism said (4 June 1909): "Lea-ving theory and legal figments alone, an oversea state of the British dominions is an autonomous nation. . The King is King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and of the Dominions beyond the sea. That is to say, in Austraha, he is King of Austraha; and in Canada, he is King OP Canada. Mr. Sidney Low (a well-known English publicist) in a re cent article introduced his subject with the words: (a) The writer meant, no doubt, that there was no British Empire so far as the self- governing dominions were concerned. The United Kingdom has still India and other places a." her empire. 200 Canadian Sovereignty "The consideration of the relationship which should exist between the United Kingdom and the self-governing Dominions, now that the latter have become autonomous and practically sovereign states, is a matter which brooks no delay" (a) . The imperialistic Montreal Star speaks of the countries "which we MALADROITLY Call the British Empire." And Mr. Borden speaks of the Empire as in some respects "a mere disorganization" (Jo) — a term that is peculiarly well chosen, for until recently it was an organization, but, by our accession to self-government, it has become disorganized. If then we are not, in fact, part of the British Empire what are we? Well, the reality having become divorced from the word, the only possible answer is a divided one, namely, that, as a matter of pure theory, we are still a colony — still part of the British Empire — still under the control of the British people; but, as a matter of fact and reality, we are a sister-state of the United Kingdom, and as much a Kingdom as is she herself (I shall in a few minutes read to you plenty of authoritative support for that statement) . We are in fact, what Sir John A. Macdonald wished us in name to be — "The Kingdom of Canada" (c). And if for convenience, you want a phrase which will include all the Kingdoms and colonies, do not say "the British Empire", for it is derogatory to us, but "the King's Dominions", which is correct and unobjectionable. Declaration and Recognition. — Our power of self-govern ment then, is complete. We are in reality a Kingdom. And King George by his official title is the King of Canada. In every sort of way, short of national declaration, we have asserted our independ ence. Is there any reason why it should not be put into formal shape ? Let me give you the only two reasons that are urged against the proposal, and then refer to some of those by which it can be supported. Separation. — It is said that I am seeking separation, and sometimes I am spoken of as a "separatist". But the word does not bother me, for if the speaker understands what he is saying, I know that he is joking; and, if he does not understand — well, what he says does not matter very much, ^^'hat do I mean? There have been two bonds of union between the United Kingdom and her colonies — her dominions — her empire: (1) the King, and (2) the Colonial Office, backed by the British parliament. Let me speak (a) Fortnightly, December 1913, p. 13. (6) Hansard, 1910, p. 1747. (c) Ponet Sir John Macdonald, vol. 1, p. 313. Canadian Sovereignty 201 of the second first. I am not a separatist as to that bond, for, by better men than I am, it has, thank heaven, been completely broken. Until recently, Canada was always lopping off lumps of Colonial Office authority. The work is finished. If anything remained to be done — if in any smallest item of government the British people claimed to exercise authority over the people of Canada, I should be asserting our right to self-government. But no such claim is made. Our freedom is acknowledged. In this regard, therefore, I am not a separatist — nor is anybody else. I am not a separatist either with reference to the king-union, and, so far as I know, nobody is. With one ephemeral exception (1849) there has been no period in Canadian history at which any body of men has advocated the termination of our allegiance to our King. And, most certainly, I do not. It may be but a slight and silken link, but I value it. Canada is all the bet ter for association with a country such as the United Kingdom. There is there a culture and a refinement which I would gladly transfer to Canada if I could. I am no separatist with reference to the king-union. I advocate its retention. "But how can Canada be a sovereign state, and yet have the same King as the United Kingdom?" How can there be one sov ereign, and yet several independent sovereignties? Will it surprise you if I say that that, until the accession of Queen Victoria, was in England the normal situation; and that, if the Queen had been a boy, the same situation would probably exist today? Let me give you the facts. From William the Conqueror until 1801, the sov ereigns of England were, in the earlier days, and, in the later, claimed to be sovereigns of France also. In 1603, James VI of Scotland became James I of England; and from that time until the parlia mentary union, in 1707, the two parliaments were as independent of one another as the parliaments of France and Italy. For seven years afterwards Great Britain had a sovereign to herself, but from 1714 until 1837 she shared her Kings with Hanover. And during all that time the complete separateness of the two sovereignties was acknowledged internationally (a). Because of the Salic law, ex cluding females, Victoria was debarred from the throne of Hanover; but now, after no very great interval, a King of the United Kingdom is again King of another land — of our own Canada. There is no novelty in the situation and, if there were, we should either have to accept it and try it, or separate altogether. I for one am no separatist. (a) This subject is fully dealt with ante. Vol. 1, pp. 178-184. 202 Canadian Sovereignty War. — The only other reason urged against my proposal relates to war — Were we a sovereign nation, could we defend our selves against attack? I reply that our position would be very much better than it is now. Nothing could be more absurd and dangerous than the present situation, for nobody knows what is going to happen in case of war. Canada has said, authoritatively, that she will or will not participate in a British war as she may think best — that it would not be tolerable that she should be bound to do so unless she had a share in the control of the policy which produced it. The United Kingdom knows that she can count upon Japan and France under certain circumstances; but she has no arrangement or understanding with Canada. That is ridiculous. And Canada, on the other hand, if she should get into trouble, does not know what the United Kingdom will do. Nothing in her diplo matic history gives us any assurance that she will do anything but cement her friendships with foreign countries — Canada supplying the cement. Now, what would happen if we were a sovereign nation? Mr. Borden supplied the answer when he said that the first thing we should do*would be to try and make some specific war-agi-eement with the United Kingdom. If we succeeded, would not that situa tion be infinitely better than the present? And if we failed, that too would be better, for both parties would know where thej' stood. Reasons in Favor. — These then are the only two grounds upon which opposition is made to my proposal. What reasons can be given in its favor ? 1. A Declaration of Fact. — My first reason is that it -would be a declaration of accomplished fact. I urge no change. I plead for no accession of power. I ask merely that we should say nationally that which every one of us says individually. Let me read to you, for example, what Sir ^\'ilfrid Laurier has said — We are a nation. We feel that we are a nation. We have a population of over seven milhons. We have practical control of our foreign relations. We have command of our own forces. Our country is the finest under the sun. The great poet Whittier, in the time of the Ci\il A\ar wrote: 'We bow the heart, but not the knee, to the Queen of England, God bless her!' We say: 'We bow the heart and the knee to the King of England, God bless him!' We are under the suzerainty of the King of England. We are his loyal subjects. We bow the knee to him; but the King of England has no more rights over us than are allowed him by our own Canadian Parliament. If this is not a nation, what, then, constitutes a nation? And if there is a nation under the sun which can say more than this, where is it to be found"? (o). (a) Globe, 6th January, 1910. Canadian Sovereignty 203 Probably you all agree to that. Well, all I want is that we should say it together and officially. 2. Acceptance by British Statesmen. — The second reason which I offer you is that the fact of our nationhood is not only com pletely but gladly admitted by British statesmen. To us, it is a matter of supremest gratification that we are not now, as were the 13 American Colonies in the seventeen-seventies, asserting by force of arms an independence that by force was denied, but that, on the contrary, our national maturity is more clearly seen and more will ingly admitted in the United Kingdom than by very many of our own people. Let me read you some quotations. Mr. Joseph Chamberlain has said — ' "How are we to bring these separate interests together; these states which have voluntarily accepted one Crown and one Flag, and which, in all else are ABSOLUTELY INDEPENDENT of One another" (26 June 1905). "The time has gone by when we could treat them with indifference, when we could speak of them as though they were subject to our dictation. They are. SELF-GOVERNING NATIONS. They ARE sister-States. They are our equals in everything except population and wealth; and very quickly you -will find that they will equal and surprise-us in these respects" (2 January 1906). Lord Curzon has said — "In the economy of the iftiperial household we were dealing not vfifh chil dren, but with grown men. At our tables were seated, not dependants or me nials, but partners as free as ourselves, and with aspirations not less ample or keen" (11 December 19C7). At the Colonial Conference of 1907, the British Prime Minister (Campbell-Bannerman) addressing the colonial Prime Ministers, said: "We found ourselves, gentlemen, upon freedom and independence — that is the essence of the imperial connection. Freedom of action in their- relations with one another and with the mother country." Do you fully grasp the meaning of that — ^freedom and independ ence as "the essence of the imperial connesction". Think it over. Mr. Alfred Lyttleton (who succeeded Mr. Chamberlain in the Colonial Office) has said: ' ' But action should be organized in the clear appreciation of the fact that, as between the parent country and the Dominions, there is now a practical equality op status." "Mr. Balfour in the House of Commons was understood to say that His Majesty's government were well ad-vised, in the changed conditions, to recognise the legitimacy of the Canadian claim, and cordially expressed his pleasure at the growth of the Dominions to the stature of nationality. For a long time the true pohtical relation of this country to the Dominions was obscured in wise silence; but the period during which that silence could be 204 Canadian Sovereignty maintained has now ceased. The consciousness of the great Dominions has rapidly matured; and the recurring imperial conferences have of necessity brought about a clearer definition of their national aspirations" (a). Mr. Balfour has said (10 June 1909) : ' ' There was a time when the relations between the mother country and the offspring of the mother country were those of parent and child. No pohtician to-day holds that -view. Everybody as far as I know, recognizes that the parental stage is past. We have now arrived at the stage of formal equality and NO one wishes to disturb it." On another occasion, Mr. Balfour said: "The British Empire has reached a point of development now at which this country is simply the first among equals, so far as the great seU-governing parts of the Kingdoms are concerned" {Times, 7 Feb. 1911). And on still another occasion, he said: "I beheve from a legal point of view, the British parliament is supreme over the parUament of Canada or Australasia, or the Cape of South Africa. But IN FACT, they are INDEPENDENT PARLIAMENTS, ABSOLUTELY INDEPENDENT — (cheers) — and it is our business to recognize that and to frame the British Em pire uprn the co-operation of absolutely independent parliaments" (Times, 1 Feb. 1911). Further quotations will show that the leaders of imperialism not only do not object to our complete development as national units, but actually regard it as a step to the larger unity which they desire. Liste.i to Lord Milner — "One thing alone is certain. It is only on these lines, on the lines of the greatest development of the several states, and their coalescence, as fully DEVELOPED UNITS, into a greater union, that the empire can continue to exist at all (6) . The failure of the past attempts at imperial organization is due to our imperfect grasp of the idea of the wider patriotism. In practice, we are sUpping back to the antiquated conception of the mother-country as the centre •OF A political SYSTEM WITH THE YOUNGER STATES REVOLVING ROUND IT AS satellites. AeAINST THAT CONCEPTION THE GROWING PRIDE AND SENSE OF INDEPENDENCE OF THE YOUNGER STATES REVOLTS (c). Dr. Parkin appears to be of the same opinion — ¦ "The proof seems to be conclusive that this growth and organization on a TJATIONAL SCALE ARE NECESSARY STAGES ON THE JOURNEY TOWARDS COMPLETE UNITY . . (d) I have now supplied two reasons in favor of a declaration of our -sovereignty — (1) that it would be a declaration of mere fact, and (2) that that fact is admitted and accepted by British statesmen. But you ask. What are the benefits which may be expected to ensue? (a) Ashley: British Dominions, pp. 16-18. (6) Please recall Campbell-Bannerman's statement — that freedom and indepeHdenoe *re "the essence of the imperial connection." (c) Standard of Empire, 23 May 1908. (d) United Empire, December 1911 Canadian Sovereignty 205 It is always disappointing to be asked what I am going to get out of some act that my self-respect requires of me, but I offer the following answers — (3) Defence. — The advantage with respect to the question of defence is very important. I have already indicated my view upon that point. (4) International Conferences. — Canada's admission to the Hague and other international conferences would follow upon her recognition as an international unit. Questions of the greatest im portance to us were discussed at the two meetings at the Hague — questions upon which we should almost certainly have found our views to be in conflict with those of the United Kingdom; for ex ample on the extremely important question of the immunity of merchant vessels from capture in time of war. We have more right to a voice at these meetings than have Venezuela, Costa Rica or other such states. (5) Education. — Whenever I go to England, I am struck with the fact that not only men but women, and even some of the girls, can discuss political questions with which most of our Canadian men are unfamiliar. A short time ago a gentleman, to whom I was explain ing some of the proceedings of the second Hague conference, asked me why we heard so little about those things; and I replied that it was because, having no international standing, we sent no representa tives there. Had some of our leading men been among the 256 members sent by 44 states, our newspapers would have followed them, and told us what happened. Our international education would have commenced. (6) Clear Thinking. — Definition of our constitutional position would conduce to clear thinking on such extremely important ques tions as that of naval policy. For example an argument often heard is — "Canada is part of the British Empire, and must, therefore, take her share of the responsibility for naval defence" (o) . Men who speak that way have, of course, no idea that as Lord Milner says, the word Empire is a " misnomer" — a ' ' very unfortunate misnomer". In ordinary conversation the use of the word Empire would be un- (o) For example, in the 1913 (26 May) naval debate, a Senator used the following lan guage — "Canada is as much a part of the Empire as Great Britain herself is . .It is to be assumed with the greatest confidence, that the determination cf Canada is to remain within the Empire" (p. 720) ! andfrom this the Senator drew the conclusion that "if the self-governing parts of the Empire are satisfied that their destiny [hes within the Empire, then nothing is more manifest tlian that their duty in this emergency is to participate in a system of common defence" (p. 722) 206 Canadian Sovereignty objectionable but for the fact that it aids the perpetuation of mis understanding, and leads many people to draw deductions from untenable premises. So long as we are in theory part of the Empire and in fact not part of it, we cannot' hope for clear thinking upon subjects associated with our relationship. (7) Removal of Embarrassments. — Another benefit would be the removal of the embarrassments and incongruities which neces sarily attend our present anomalous situation. We legislate against the admission to our country of British subjects — not only Hindus but some Englishmen. Our only justification however is that we are not a part of the Empire; that we are self-governing; and that we have, therefore, a right to forbid entrance to British subjects. Had any of the Roman provinces shut its gates against a Roman citizen, it would soon have learned the meaning of Civis Romanus sum. But if an immigrant pleads to us his British citizenship, our reply is that we are a self-governing community. It is the United Kingdom, and not Canada that, in this respect, specially suffers from the in congruity. India is, at this very moment, protesting against ex clusion of Hindus, and the British government can make but the unsatisfactory reply that Canada and the other places are, in fact, self-governing communities. Indians may be pardoned for not appreciating the difference between British control over us in theory and no control over us in fact, for very many Canadians have the same difficulty. Were our sovereignty proclaimed and acknowl edged, the irresponsibility of the British government for our actions would be apparent to everybody, and the Indians would ha^'e no cause of complaint against the United Kingdom. (8) Self-Respect. — The last benefit which I shall mention is, to me, much the strongest. It is that self-respect forbids our re fusal to assume the duties and responsibilities of nationhood. It is not well for a man — well for his moral nature — that he should be a boy all his life. And it is not well for a nation that it should continue to be a colony. I think that I speak for most Canadians when I say that we resent being called a "colony". It offends our self-respect. That is good. But just as a man's self-respect is faulty if it is satis fied with the declaration that he is not a boy, so Canada cannot be content ^yith the assertion —even the very violent assertion — ^that she is not a colony. The man must assert his manhood, and the nation its nationhood. Let me read to you, in this connection, the language of the t^\¦o of our most prominent imperialists. A good many years ago. Dr. Parkin s:ud — Canadian Sovereignty 207 "If the greater British colonies are permanently content vrith their pre sent poUtical status, they are unworthy of the source from which they sprang." Well, here we are still. Are we content? Have Canadians any self-respect? Or are they really "unworthy of the source from which they sprang". In similar strain, Professor Leacoek has said — "The colonial status is a worn-out, by-gone thing. The sense and feeling of it has become harmful to us. It Umits the ideas, and circumscribes the patriotism of our people. It impairs the mental -vigor and narrows the outlook of those,who are reared and educated in our midst. Gentlemen, if this colonial status is, as we all feel, a worn-out and by-gone thing, shall we not take it off and lay it aside? I have shown you that the old land is ready, perfectly ready for our full enfranchisement. She would gladly celebrate our coming of age, and would, "with pride and rejoicing", as Mr. Balfour has said, -welcome us to political equality with herself; Her statesmen en tourage us in our just and natural aspirations, for they understand better than most of our own people that independence is already ours, and that its acknowledgement would be but the recognition of undoubted, of admitted, and of to us, most creditable fact. Gentlemen, may I be permitted, to commend to your most earnest and careful consideration, the line of thought and action which I have had the honor of laying before you today. John S. Ewart. Ottawa, January 1914. KINGDOM CLUBS. Good commencement has been made in the formation of King dom Clubs. There ought to be one in every town and village in Canada. In the smaller places, any great activity cannot be ex pected; but even in those there might well be a union of persons -with whom communication might be made; who would endeavor to add to their number; and who would aid in the effective distribution of the Kingdom Papers. May I ask sympathisers to send me their names, in order that I may put them in communication with one another. John S. Ewart. THE KINGDOM PAPERS. No. 18. SISTER STATES. IS THERE ANY ALTERNATIVE? NOTICES. The second edition of volume one of the Kingdom Papers is now ready. Price, in cloth binding, postage paid, sixty cents. Mr. Ewart's earUer book of essays and addresses The Kingdom of Canada is also on sale. Price, postage paid, one dollar. THORBURN & ABBOTT, Publishers, Ottawa. Present and future Papers will be sent free of charge to all appUcants. Pre^vious Papers of volume two will be sent on receipt of postage — ten cents. JOHN S. EWART, K.C, Ottawa THE KINGDOM PAPERS. No. 18. SISTER STATES. IS THERE ANY ALTERNATIVE? (This Paper is an adaptation of an address delivered before the Canada FirsfClub, Toronto, and The Round Table Club, Toronto, on 19 and 21 February, 1914, respectively) (In order to draw attention to the purpose for which quotations are employed, italics, not appearing in the original, are sometimes made use of) The last Kingdom Paper may have sufficiently proved, not only that there is no good ground for opposition to Canadian sovereignty, but that many substantial reasons can be given in support of the proposal. The arguments, however (even if accepted) will not have satisfied those in whose minds there is the idea of the existence of some alternative proposal of Imperialistic aspect. Canadian sov ereignty, they say, would be all right if Canada could do no better. But she can — or, at least, we hope that somebody will sometime dis cover something that would be preferable. It is this attitude that I desire to deal with in the present Paper; and I hope to be able to show, somewhat conclusively, that there is no alternative to Cana dian sovereignty save an eternity of Canadian colonialism — of something that we all abominate. I shall deal with the various suggestions that have been offered, but I should like first to make clear with the help of diagrams, the exact nature of the effect of our elevation from colonialism to so vereignty — to a position of sister-state equality with the United Kingdom. Charles Buller, a pupil of Thos. Carlyle and the principal assist ant of Lord Durham when Governor-General of Canada, was accus tomed to refer to the Colonial Under-Secretary as Mr. Mother- Country. Buller was well aware that the Secretaries (the members of ministries) who came and went at the rate of about one in every two years, were really not those referred to when people spoke of the guiding hand of the mother-country; that, mu<;h less, was it the British parliament (for that body seldom heard of the colonies, and knew almost nothing about them) ; and, still less, was it the British people. The permanent Under-Secretary, sitting in his httle room in 210 Sister-States. Is there (iny Alternative? Downing Street, was in Buher's view the Deus ex machina, and so appropriately called Mr. Mother-Country. So far as Canada is concerned, Mr. Mother-Country has retired from business. He still goes to his office in the mornings, takes his tea in the afternoons, and drinks port with his dinner, but he has ceased to consider himself as charged with the guidance and guar dianship of Canada. He is, as we lawyers say, junctus officio. He takes pleasure in saying that Canada is a self-governing community and attends to all her own affairs. Theoretically, however, Mr. Mother-Country still guides and .controls us. And so long as he presents the appearance of exercising his functions, so long shall our status be that of a colony. British statesmen — Mr. Chamberlain, Lord Curzon, Mr. Campbell- Bannerman, Mr. Alfred Lyttleton, Mr. Balfour, Lord Milner and many others, declare that Canada is a "sister-state"; that we have "practical equality of status" with the United Kingdom; that "we .have now arrived at the stage of forinal equality"; that our parlia ment is an "absolutely independent parhament". And -that is all perfectly true, in a general, practical way. But Mr. Mother-Country is StiU going through his forms; still pretending to send men to govern Canada; still signing the old instructions; still ¦nTiting des patches enclosing documents, as he mumbles his gratification that, as a matter of fact, he really has nothing at all to do with the govern ment of Canada. Daily, he thanks Heaven that he has nothing to do with it. He would have plenty of trouble, I think, if he had. Well, gentlemen, my whole proposal is that this old official should be superannuated. There he sits between us and our King, quite ready for his removal. He offers no objection. I suggest that he be retired. The effect of that removal is made obvious by observation of the following diagram: Oo/on/a/Off/ce It wiH be observed that while the United Kingdom is directly associated with the King, the direct association of Canada is with the .Colonial Office; and, only indirectly, and through that Office, are we associated with our King. If the British parliament wishes to Sister-States. Is there any Alternative! 211 address the sovereign, it does so directly. An address from Canada goes to the Governor-General, and from him, not to His Majesty but to the Colonial Office. When occasion .calls for personal activity on the part of the King with reference to British polipy, or administra tion or politics, he acts personally. Under similar "circumstances in Canada, the King does nothing (except in the rarest of rare instances) . It is our .Governor, under instructions from the Coloiiial Office, who exercises the discretion. While, as' a matter of constitutional struc ture, we have a King; while our constitution provides that — "The Executive governinent and authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen"; and while there is not a word in our constitution as to the intervention of anybody between us and our sovereign; yet as a matter of prac tice (traditionally associated with colonialism) Canada has for her King — has, as the one who towards her exercises the offic3 of a King — not George V, but the gentleman who, at the moment,, happens to occupy the position of Secretary of State for the colonies. Against that, as the great Imperialist Lord Milner says, "the gro-wing pride and sense of independence of the younger states revolt" (a). Fortunately, for the existence of good-feeling batwesn the two countries, the Colonial Secretaries follow the good example S3t them by their sovereigns, and refrain, as much as possible, from doing aay- thing at all. In the earlier days. Downing Street was extremaly and exasperatingly active. Now it is extinct. It offers no opposi tion to us. But it does not propose to move out of the way. And to our desire for sovereignty — ^for sister-statehood Mt presents a passive, but, with the active aid of Canadian Imperialists, I am afraid, a somewhat effective resistance. Removal of Mr. Mother-Country would bring Canada into direct association with her King, and place her upon a footing of equality with the United Kingdom as shown- in the following dia gram: — • There would be no interposition of a British official between us and^'our King. We should not be a colony. We should have'ih'e (a) Standardlof Empire, 23 May 1911. , i- ,,r 212 Sister-States. Is there any Alternative? same political status as the United Kingdom. She is a Kingdom— that is she is the dom, or domain of a King. We ought to be the same. The title Kingdom is not of my selecting. It is the word which des cribes the kind of state that Canada would be if Mr. Mother-Country should disappear (a). Indeed, it describes that sort of state which, as a matter of fact rather than of theory, Canada now, in very large measure, already is. It was Mr. Chamberlain who said of the self- governing colonies "They are self-governing nations. They are sister-states. They are our equals in everything except population and wealth; and very quickly you -will find that they wiU equal and surprise us in these respects" (2 January, 1906). " If Mr. Mother-Country were removed, should we have separate ambassadors". Yes, if we were not sensible enough to agree upon the same men. ' ' Might one sister-state be at war and the other not participate ?" CertaiiUy, if we cannot agree to act together. That is the position now. Mr. Mother-Country has no compelling authority over us. Sir Wilfrid Laurier has said that, although, as a matter of inter national law, when the United Kingdom is at war Canada is at war; yet, whether we shall actively participate, is a matter for our o'wn decision — save, of course, in the case of an attack being made upon us. And Mr. Borden has declared that a position of obligation to take part in British wars, without a share in the control of British foreign policy, would be intolerable. "Should we have a Governor-General?" No, not a governor — that office goes with the office of his employer, Mr. Mother-Country. When the King would be elsewhere than in Canada, his representa tive — his Viceroy — ^would be here; and when the King was here, or in India, or elsewhere, his representative would be in London. And the British government would have no more part in the selection of the Canadian Viceroy, than would the Canadian government in the choice of the King's representative in London. We should be sister- states. To all questions of the same kind, I give the one answer. The nations shall not any longer be related as dominant and subordinate. They shall be sister-states, having the same king, and "equal in everything except wealth and population." IS THERE ANY ALTERNATIVE? I believe that I can show quite conclusively that there is no alter native to sister-statehood. For complete separation from the (o) A Kingdom is "an organiied community, having a King aa its head". See Oxford Dictionary. Sister-States. Is there any Alternative? 213 United Kingdom, and for an eternity of colonialism, there are no ad vocates, and I shall proceed to pass in review the other suggestions which have been put forward, first however offering three preliminary observations: (1) All the suggestions involve the termination of colonialism. Imperialists, federationists, nationalists and everybody else agree that that status is a "worn-out, by-gone thing" which can no longer be tolerated. (2) All the suggestions include equality of political statiis as between Canada and the Unitod Kingdom. (3) Please distinguish carefully between (1) political status, and (2) co-operation. The first has reference to the classification of states — to the different kind of states, whether protectorate, self- governing colony, under suzerainty of some sort, federated state, and so on. And the second has reference to the kind of agreements which states — any kind of states — may make. There is a wide differ ence between what you are, and what you may do. Nevertheless, I find great difficulty in keeping the two things separate. Indeed, most frequently, discussion upon status becomes confused, not merely with questions of contractual co-operation, but with the assertion that "We should go in, anyway". Each of thess three subjects is most properly one for thought and discussion. They are, indeed, to some extent interrelated; but when we are asking whether any suggested status is practicable, we must not confuse it with some scheme for contracted co-operation, or with what we should prob ably do in the absence of agreement of any kind. An Advisory Council. It was Mr. Chamberlain who first pro posed a Council. He presented the idea at the Conference of 1897, and was answered by the following resolution of the Premiers — "The Prime Ministers . . . are of the opinion that the present pohtical relations between the United Kingdom and the self-governing colonies are generally satisfactory, under the existing conditions of things'' (a). Mr. Chamberlain renewed his effort at the Conference of 1902. The Premiers took no notice of it. Sir Frederick Pollock, as representative of a group of about fifty people in England, read a paper before the Royal Colonial In stitute (11 April 1905) in which he said "For a while we considered the usual expedient of making a new club or association. But when we tried to formulate principles, it was bome upon us, gradually and firmly, that general formulas were just what we could not at that stage agree upon, and did not want ; that we should do better -without rules, or even a name; and that the only prospect of useful results was in perfectly free and confidential discussion among persons not too many for the purpose." (o) Unanimous but for the dissent of New Zealand and Tasmania. 214 Sister-States. Is there any Alternative? Finally, however, "the tossing of our thoughts at a few meetings . . disclosed a tendency to crystalhze a definite hne, and last October, after about a year's work of this kind, we were able to put forward a first collective statement." The statement put aside all idea of a federal parliament. It discussed representation of the colonies in the Imperial parliament, but repudiated it: ' ' No one, I beUeve, is now found to advocate a direct representation of the colonies in parUament." Another point seemed also to be clear: namely, ' 'that we must distinctly renounce the invention of any new kind of executive or compulsory power.'' What then? "We must therefore be content with a CouncU of Advice (an 'Imperial Council or Committee') which wiU have only — what is called 'persuasive au thority.'" This and a permanent "Secretariat" to act "as a general in telligence department" were the proposals of the Fifty. Conversion of Canada being the knottiest part of the work. Sir Frederick and Mr. Geoffrey Drage proceeded to Ottawa; argued with the politicians there; and at meetings in various places ex plained the project. Their failure was complete. Referring to their last meeting in Canada, Sir Sandford Fleming, a pronounced and eminent Imperialist, said: "Yesterday they addressed a pubhc meeting in the rooms of the Montreal Board of Trade, when Sir Frederick informed those present to the effect that he and his colleagues had discovered that the time was not ripe for the first part of their proposal, viz., the formation of an Imperial Coimcil, but that the strongest reasons exist for immediately instituting an Imperial IntelUgence Department' ' (a) . The spokesman of the Fifty made that point, at least, perfectly clear to the Canadians M-ho heard him. Then Mr. Lyttleton (]\Ir. Chamberlain's successor) tried (in 1905) to make the semblance of a move by proposing that the Colonial Conference should be called a Council. Canada replied with the specific declaration that she would not assent to that which ' ' might eventually come to be regarded as an encroachment upon the full measure of autonomous legislati\e and administrative power now enjoyed by the self- governing colonies." AVhoii the next conference met (1907), not only did all the Pre miers agree with the Canadian vicM-, but the new Colonial Secretary (Lord lOlgin) himself concurred in it. (a) Si.f Can. Sess. Pap., 1906, No. 67. Sister-States. Is there any .Alternative? 215 And finally. Sir Joseph Ward at the 1911 Conference moved — ' ' That the Empire has now reached a stage of imperial development which renders it expedient that there should be an Imperial Council of State, -with' representatives from all the constituent parts of the Empire, whether self-govern ing or not, in theory and in fact ad-visory to the Imperial Government on all questions affecting the interests of His Majesty's Dominions oversea.'' "Advisory to the Imperial Government", rather than to the colonies, was a somewhat novel and useful idea, but even for that Sir Joseph could get no support (o) . Perhaps enough has been said about an Advisory Council. It would be of no service. Parlia ments, and above all governments, do not wish official advice. But whatever you may think of the practicability of an Ad visory Council, please observe that it has no reference whatever TO status; that the proposed Council would give advice merely — both to the United Kingdom and to Canada, no matter what their~ status was. We may, therefore, confidently say that an Advisory 'Council is not an alternative to sister-statehood. Imperial Federation. — Nobody now suggests that Imperial Federation is feasible. Its birth, life and death have been suffi ciently stated in my book The Kingdom oj Canada, pp. 159-168, and in volume I of these Papers, pp. 83-4. When British statesmen find themselves unable to arrange a constitution for their own islands, or even for little Ireland, we must not expect them to frame one for the whole of the King's dominions. - Nevertheless, it riiay be as well to collect the views of some eminent Imperialists: Lord Rosebery, an ex-President of the Imperial Federation League itself, said in 1899: "You may be perfectly certain that, whatever your -views and whatever your exertions. Imperial Federation in any form, is an impossible dream." Lord Milner, the most thoughtful of the Imperialists, has said ' that "Anything like Imperial Federation — the effective union of the self-govern ing states — is not indeed as some think, a dream, but is certainly at present little more than an aspiration " (&). Mr- Chamberlain, the most capable of the Imperialists, has said that Federation " is a matter of such vast magnitude and such great complication, that it cannot be undertaken at the present time" (c). Lord Hythe, of the original Imperial Federation League, has said: "However desirable it may be to bring about Imperial Federation, the time has not yet arrived" (d). (a) Ante, Vol. 1, pp. 104-5 (6) The Nation and The Empire p. 293. (c) Can. Club, London, 25 March 1896. id) United Empire, May 1913, p 409. 216 Sister-States. Is there any Alternative? Sir Frederick Pollock (he of the committee of Fifty above re ferred to) has said that a. federal parliament ' ' assumes the consent of several independent legislatures, and involves a con siderable modification of their existing authority. I am not aware of any reason for thinking that the parhament of the United Kingdom would easily be per suaded to reduce itself by a solemn act to a mere state legislature; or that the colonial governments would be ¦wilhng to surrender any substantial part of their autonomy to some new federal Senate or Council." Sir Gilbert Parker, the British-Canadian Imperialist, has said — ' ' With the greater f acihties of our modem times, and our close touch due to science and svdft transportation, parUamentary federation seems further off than it was then. Old federationists Uke Joseph Howe, and James Service, and Harris Hofmeyer were great dreamers, and they thought they saw, in the con federation of the scattered provinces of Canada, a formula for the constitutional union of provinces still more scattered, with the United Kingdom as a centre. Time and closer analysis of the problem, together with experience, the most valuable of all solvents, have shown that imperial union on the lines of an im perial parhament has difficulties too great, and, in reahty, advantages too few to permit of the fulfillment of the great constitutional dream'' (o). Sidney Low has said^ ' ' For formal federation, however, it is recognized that colonial opinion is not yet prepared. . .' Federation' as we admit, is a vision of the future, a future which is at any rate remote.'' (6) Mr. Howard d'Egville, the Secretary of the Imperial Federation (Defence) League came to Canada in 1910, and in his next report to his League disposed of the federation idea in this way: "There is no doubt a strong feehng exists that the only reaUy satisfactory form of representation will be in a truly imperial parUament, deahng onl)' with imperial affairs, and ha^ving full powers of taxation. But it is recognized that this would involve great constitutional questions in the United Kingdom, with necessary separation of local from imperial pohtics; and that though this is no doubt an ultimate ideal, people in the old country are not prepared for such a constitutional change at present." The League changed its purpose and its name. Federation was abandoned. The name is now The Imperial Co-operation League. Perhaps these extracts are sufficient for my purpose; but, for those who still retain a glimmer of hope, I beg to make three sug gestions : (1) Federationists (if they would but think clearly) ought not to object to the elevation of Canada to a position of political equality with the United Kingdom, for federation necessarily includes THAT VERY THING. (o) Can. Ann. Rev., 1910, p. 83. (6) Ninteenth Cent. Aug. 1913, pp. 426, 434. Sister-States. Is there any Alternative? 217 (2) If federation be possible, it is not at the present time prac ticable; and meanwhile we must, in some way, get out of our col onialism. (3) Canadian sovereignty would be no bar to federation. Fed erations sometimes come into existence by consolidation of pre existing states of equal political status. We can federate, if WE WANT TO, WHEN FEDERATION BECOMES PRACTICABLE. Confederation. — What is the difference between federation and confederation? Giving first the more popular reply, one would say that a federation is an union covering all the purposes of govern ment, and a confederation is an union for certain specified purpose only — usually trade or war (a). The Confederation of the Rhine was a trade-union, a zollverein, while the original Confederation of the United States was a war-union or kriegsverein. More technically, in the federal system both the central govern ment and the state governments have direct relations with the people, that is to say, both the central and the state governments enact laws binding upon the people — subjects of legislation being di vided between the central and the state legislatures. Each individual, therefore, is subject to two parliaments. In the confederate system, the central authority has no legisla tive control over individuals. It has no relations with them of any kind. It formulates directions to the state governments, not laws for the people. It deals wth the states only. And the states exer cise the totality of legislative authority over the individuals. Per haps the following diagrams may help appreciation of the point. Federa-tion. Confederation British People Canadian People^ (o) The definition in the new Oxford dictionary is "a number of States united by league; a body of States united for certain common purposes." 218 Sister-States. Is there any Alternative? The vertical and slanting lines represent political association. It will be observed that while, in the federal system, both the central and the state parliaments have direct relation with the people; in the confederate system, the only association which the central body has is with the states. Canada for example is .a federation. There is a division of legislative authority. Our Dominion parliament legislates for the people with reference to banking, trade, commerce, etc., and our provincial legislatures enact laws upon subjects of more local character. Both bodies make laws. All Canadians are sub ject to two law-making authorities. Austria-Hungary on the other hand is of confederate tjrpe. All laws for Austrians are passed by the Austrian parliament, and all laws for Hungarians by the Hun garian parliament. Delegations from both parliament form the central body, and it has relations, not with the people at all, but with the two parliaments. It prescribes what these parliaments are to do. It, itself, makes no law (a). Having had to abandon all hope of federation. Imperialists ap pear now to fix their hopes upon some sort of confederation — upon some method by which the foreign affairs of Canada and the United Kingdom will be committed to the hands of some central organiza tion in which both peoples will be represented. Probably the sug gestions along this line may be reduced to four alternatives. We shall examine them, but be good enough first to make three notes : (1) A confederation is based upon an agreement. It, in no way, affects the status of the contracting states (Please keep these. two things distinct). It pre-supposes the existence of authority, on the part of both the states, to enter into international compact — it presupposes adequate status. (2) The idea of a confederation bet^-een Canada and the United Kingdom, therefore, so far from being inconsistent with Canadian sovereignty, is actually based upon its existence. (3) A war-union is a question of policy, and our release from colonialism cannot, in any way, be delayed or made dependent upon possibilities or impossibilities of suggested lines of policy. Unity of policy, as weU as action, being that which Imperiahsts desire to accomplish by the central organization, the various sug gestions are as follows: (1) An elected parliament confined to the subject of foreign pohcy. (2) -\n elected parliament not only to deal with policy, but to prescribe schemes of defence and contributions. (a) Faute. de mieux, adoption of the Austria-Hungarian system has been suggested for our adoption. See 19th Cent. Aug. 1913, p. 434. Sister-States. Is there any Alternative? 219 (3) An appointed council confined to the conduct of foreign policy. (4) An appointed council not only to deab with policy but to prescribe schemes of defence and contribution. An agreement to abide by the decisions of the parliament or the council would, of course, be a feature common to all of these suggestions. And they are thus seen to be sche nes of true con federate type — that is to say the central body has direct association with the states only, and none with the individuals composing the states. It controls foreign policy, and sends directions to the state governments prescribing schemes of defence and amounts of ex penditure. But it, itself, enacts no law, and exercises no jurisdiction over individuals. Let us consider each of the suggestions in turn. 1. An elected parliament confined to the subject op foreign policy. — Passing over the criticism that the word parlia ment, is not usually applied to a non-legislating body, it is obvious that a parliament, with its accompanying government and opposi tion would, for the purpose in view, be an altogether inappropriate body. The British parliament sometimes discusses past policies and their results; but it wisely refrains from debating subjects which the Foreign Secretary is, at the moment, dealing with. It refrains for two reasons, first, because it has not and cannot get adequate information (To pubhsh it, would be to hand the subject over to the press and the platform) ; and, secondly, and more particularly, be cause attack upon the Foreign Secretary means encouragement to the nation with whom he is at odds. The British opposition might, indeed, obtain some momentary benefit, but it would be gained at the expense of British interests. The practice has, therefore, been almost entirely discontinued. Once or twice in a year, the Foreign Secretary tells the House what he has done, and declares that his policy is, as usual, to maintain peace with honor. A new imperial parliament would certainly pursue the same course. The scheme, moreover, is plainly absurd. It involves general elections and the coming together of, shall we say, one or two hundred members, for the purpose (as proposed) of considering and settling the most important of all subjects; and yet the very nature of that sub ject precludes, and even makes impossible, all debate upon it! Then the parliament must have an executive. But upon what principle would you make selection of the men? What would ani mate and solidify the opposition? And what would be the issue submitted to the electors ? Approval or condemnation of past policy? To some extent; but it is precisely not past but future policy that the next parliament would be engaged upon, and which ought to be considered. Would each party present a platform? 220 Sister-States. Is there any Alternative? The proposal is self-condemned if it implies that we are to re verse the present British practice, by which foreign policy is almost entirely excluded from party-politics, and to make it the sole sub ject of contention; the only question for press and platform dis cussion and misrepresentation; and the exclusive matter for sub mission to popular vote. Such a proposal surely needs no debate. II. An elected parliament to deal not only with foreign policy but to prescribe schemes of defence and contribution. — This parliament would have more to do. It would divide upon such questions as big vs. little navy; conscription vs. voluntary service; and it would apportion the expense. After say a week or two of debate, parliament would proceed to declare in what pro portion the expense should be distributed between Canada and the United Kingdom — to settle that in a parliament composed of not more than one Canadian to six Britishers! Then at the general elections, what would be the issue? In Canada assuredly, the amount of the assessment; and, everywhere, big vs. little navy, etc. I think I know the answer to a referendum upon such questions. Imperialists would soon regret their parlia ment. The difference, therefore, between our present position and that proposed (apart from the election-referendum) would be that whereas now we participate in British wars or not as we think right, and spend as much or as little upon war-preparation as we please, then we should be bound to engage in every war, wherever and for what ever, and to spend as much as a, substantially, British parliament should choose to levy upon us. That proposal, too, may be passed without discussion. III. An appointed council confined to the conduct of FOREIGN policy. — This scheme avoids the difficulties of popular elections, and the creation of an executive, but is open to all the other objections, and to one more. For in an elected parhament, Canada might, by possibility, obtain support from some of the British rep resentatives; but if all the British members were appointed and maintained in office by the British government, they would in evitably vote together (a) . They would listen to our' objections, with the easy complacency which characterizes the company directors who have in their pockets a majority of the proxies, and they would vote solidly, according to previous instructions. Indeed, Mr. Edgar Crammond (a well-known British publicist) recommends to British readers his proposal for a council by saying (o) See remarks in Nineteenth Cent. Aug. 1913, p. 435. Sister-States. Is there any Alternative? 221 "It will be observed that under the constitution outlined above, Great Britain would have 119 representatives out of a total of 174, and that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom would be the President of the Council. The PREDOMINANCE OF GrEAT BrITAIN IN THE FEDERAL COUNCIL OP THE EMPIRE WOULD THEREFORE BE FULLY ASSURED'' (a). Everybody else is to have full opportunity to express their views. We may do that now — and stick to them. TV. An appointed council to deal not only with policy BUT to prescribe SCHEMES OF DEFENCE AND CONTRIBUTIONS. — If any of these four proposals could be worse than the other, this is the one. For our men would go to a council whose resolutions were already prepared and practically agreed upon — resolutions covering not only policy, but extent of war-preparation and our share of the cost. Permanence of Confederations. — It has sometimes been suggested that the proposal for sister-states offers no guarantee of permanence. My reply is that it will last (as all other human in stitutions last) as long as it works well, and perhaps a little longer. But what length of life can be expected from a confederation? None ever was permanent. Probably none ever could be. How long will Austria-Hungary continue? (6) Consolidate two nations — reduce them to one (as in the case of England and Scotland) and the united one may. last as long as either of the two separately. But a contract for co-operation in certain lines of activity (a confederation) is not an organic union. It does not weld the tw^o nations into one, any more than a partnership reduces two people to one person. Each is, and remains, a separate and distinct unit; and, on ter mination of the confederation or partnership, each ends its associa tion with the other and resumes its separate personality. Confederations are, therefore, almost necessarily ephemeral. They depend upon the perpetuation of the conditions which pro duce them, and upon the non-occurrence of disrupting disagree ments. How long would a confederation between the United King dom and Canada last? Well, if we can conceive of our being so blind and foolish as to enter into it, I should say until we found out the way it worked. And, if we can imagine that Canada would be content with its working, then until "the predominance of Great Britain" having ceased to "be fully assured", she ascertained its method of operation. Political Relation During Confederation. — Imperialists (a) Nineteenth Cent. A\ig. 1912, p. 246. The larger figures are explained by the alloca tion of representatives to India and all the Crown Colonies. In that Council there would be nine Canadians I (6) Austria-Hungary is a curious combination of a dual-monarchy and a confederation. It is the sort of relation into which advocates of British Impeiial Confederation would bring the United Kingdom and Canada, namely, sister-states united] for purposes ot war and foreign policy. 222 Sister-States. Is there any Alternative? object to sister-statehood. They prefer, they say, that which is properly called a confederation. They think loosely, for if Canada and the United Kingdom formed a confederate union they would necessarily BE SISTER-STATES. They would have the same king. They would have equality of status. Colonialism would be gone. It is clear, therefore, that what these gentlemen object to is, not sister-statehood but the absence of some method by which Canada can be obliged to participate in all British wars, and to contribute to the expense, at a rate not fixed by herself. Bind Canada in these respects, and they are quite content with sister- STATEHOOD. Much as I yearn for it, I should refuse to accept it on those conditions. I deny the right of my opponents to attach any provisoes to our nationality. Fortunately it is not British statesmen who make the humiliating suggestion. They would not do it. No, our difficulty — our sole difficulty is with Canadian Imperialists. They would keep us in colonialism (if they could) until we agreed to a subordination much more objectionable and humiliating — to a posi tion in which war-tribute would, under the form of a common parlia ment or council, be in reality levied upon us -\t the will of the British people or the British government. Summary. — We have now considered all Imperialistic pro posals and we find as follows: (1) No proposal is inconsistent with a declaration of Canadian sovereignty. (2) Upon the contrary every one of them presupposes the elevation of Canada to a status of political equality with the United Kingdom. (3) The establishment of an AdA-isory Council (principallj- to advise the colonies) has been proposed and dropped. (4) Sir Joseph Ward's proposal for a Council ''ad\'isory to the Imperial Government" obtained no seconder. (5) Imperial Federation was ad^'ocated for several years. It has been given up. Lord Rosebery says it is a dream. Lord Milner says it is "httle more than an aspiration". Mr. Chamberlain says "it cannot be undertaken at the present time." (6) Imperial Federation presupposes equality of status with the United Kingdom. (7) Canadian sovereignty will not prevent us entering an Im perial Federation at any time, if we shall desire to do so. (8) Confederation in any of the four suggested methods, is impracticable. (9) Confederation presupposes an equality of status as between Sister-States. Is there any . Alternative? 223 Canada and the United Kingdom. The countries would necessarily be sister-states — self-governing, and recognizing the same sovereign. (10) Confederation is a contractual relationship. It is an agreement, and the. making of an agreement is a matter of policy. Confederation ought not to be confused with political status — the subject now under discussion. (11) Imperialists so far from objecting to sister-statehood, advocate it, if accompanied by some provision by which Canada's present freedom as to participation in British wars shall be sup planted by legal obligation to do as we are told by some, substan tially, British parliament or council. ' Conclusion. — It is most significant that these confederation schemes do not emanate from any of the leaders in Imperialistic thought. Lord Milner may be regarded as the one who has given most attention to the subject, and in the introduction to the recently- published volume of his speeches may be found these words (p. xxix) — "Their utility may not be altogether lessened by the fact that they contain no deUberate or formal propaganda, and that they bear so unmistakably the stamp of their time, a time of transition, of preparation, of groping towards a STILL BUT DIMLY VISIBLE END." And Mr. . Sidney Low ends a thoughtful magazine article (in which he puts forward "some merely tentative proposals") by saying— "The path hes before us, and ¦winds up among the mists and mountain-tops of the future. Perhaps one can do httle beyond casting a few gUmmering rays upon it" (a). These imperialistic schemes, then, are dreams, aspirations, vi sions of a remote future. The end is "still but dimly visible". The path to the end lies "among the mists and mountain-tops of the future" (where lies also, for that matter, "the parliament of man and the federation of the world") . And to aid our gropings in the circling darkness, we have but "a few glimmering rays". Meanwhile and, imperatively, now, the question presses upon us. Shall Canada be content to grovel in her contemptible colonialism until everybody has given up groping? Must her emancipation wait until all the dreams have disappeared, and all the visions vanished? Tell me, is there — is there assuredly — any end accept able to Imperialists? You do not know? Diligently, and through many years, has it been sought by eager, capable men. They have (a) 19th Cent. Aug. 1913, 419. 224 Sister-States. Is there any Alternative? all returned from the quest; none can tell us that ever it will be discovered. And are we still, and still, and always, to dream, and drift, and grope; and carry our mean colonial clothes? If we must dream and grope, may we not at least discard the worn-out rags, and per sist in the nobler dress of well-won manhood? A man once said that he would neither eat nor sleep until he had solved his problem. He died of exhaustion. Have Imperialists. considered the possible result of continuing to thwart Canadian ambition. For my part, I fear that Imperialism may mean the: disruption of my country. I know nothing but the speedy creation, of a strong Canadian sentiment that can hold it together. We can create it in one way only- — and that is not by "groping" through "mists and mountain- tops", aided only by "a few glimmerings rays", "towards a still but dimly visible end". John S. Ewart.. Ottawa, March 1914. THE KINGDOM PAPERS. No. 19. FOUR-FIFTHS OF THE LAST STEP. NOTICES. The second edition of volume one of the Kingdom Papers is now rei^dy. Price, in cloth binding, postage paid, sixty cents. Mr. Ewart's earher book of essays and addresses The Kingdom of Canada is also on sale. Price, postage paid, one dollar. THORBURN & ABBOTT, Publishers, Ottawa. Present and future Papers ¦will be sent free of charge to all applicants. Previous Papers of volume two will be sent on receipt of postage — ten cents. JOHN S. EWART, K.C, Ottawa THE KINGDOM PAPERS. No. 19. FOUR-FIFTHS OF THE LAST STEP. (In order to draw attention to the purpose for which quotations are employed, italicB, not appearing in the original, are sometimes made use of.) I am constantly in receipt of letters indicating that I have not succeeded in making clear to all of my readers either the position I assume, or what it is, precisely, that I am proposing. Probably a large part of the blame for the misunderstanding must be debited to me; but, in extenuation, I plead the anomalous — ^really, the dual condition of our political situation. Very frequently, I point out that theory and reality are in sharp opposition — that, in theory, we; are a mere colony under the direction of the Colonial Office and the jurisdiction of the British parliament, whereas, as a matter of fact, we are a self-governing nation in possession of all sovereign powers except those which we should obtain by a declaration of the fact and the ensuing international recognition. Readers sometimes appear to overlook this duality, and they blame me for an inconsistency which is not mine but a part of our system, and which, far from introducing, I am doing my best to get rid of. Paper No. 17 was intended to be an elaboration of this view, and an argument in favor of a declaration of our sovereignty. I proposed our elevation to a status of equality with the United King dom — that we should be sister-states under allegiance to the same sovereign. But I altogether failed to convey to some of my readers, either my desire or the general line of my argument; and I was dis^ tressed to receive from a valued friend in Montreal a letter in which he said that "The difference in our respective hne of arguments seems to be this: yours is that Canada is a nation ; and therefore the people of Canada should declare it and act accordingly. Mine is, Canada does not exercise the authority of a nation in international matters. To become a nation, she must choose between full- fledged association •with Great Britain, or national independence." My friend's view being exactly the same as my own, I asked for reference to the parts of my Paper from which he derived his idea of the antagonism between us, and in reply, received the following: 226 Four-Fijths oj the Last Step "What I meant by the 'difference in our respective line of arguments', is this. In your address on the Kingdom of Canada, you say: 'I advocate no change save that being a nation — that being a- kingdom — we should officially say so . .' Further you state that in declaring ourselves to be a full- fledged nation or kingdom, 'it would be a declaration of accomplished fact. I urge no change. I plead for no accession of power.' Now I cannot bring my mind to the conviction that we are a nation, nor that a simple assumption of the name would make us a nation." If no distinction is to be made between fact and theory, I abso lutely agree with my friend's comment that we are not a nation. We are, indeed, in the practical enjoyment of all self-governing powers; but, technically and theoretically, we are most certainly not a sovereign nation. And it is precisely because we have not that ¦status, that I am writing these Papers. My friend added that Canada's assertion of her right to abstain from participation in British wars is made "not because Canada is a nation, but because she is not a nation.'' I agree. If in theory, as well as in fact, we were a sovereign-nation, no such assertion would be necessary or appropriate. And on the ¦other hand, it is precisely because our nationality is not only a fact but is recognized by the United Kingdom to be a fact, that we can, with her complete approval, make the assertion. From the latter part of my friend's comment — that our assump tion of the name would not make us a nation, I respectfully dissent. Prior to July 4, 1776, the thirteen American colonies were colonies. On that day, they asserted their nationality. The United Kingdom disputed the assumption of the title; war ratified it; other countries recognized it; and the United States took international rank. Now if my friend means that our declaration of nationality would be ineffective unless internationally recognized, I agree; but I at once add that we have the assurance of British statesmen, many times repeated, that we shall meet with no such obstruction. I therefore submit that although calling a horse's tail a leg will not really give him a fifth, yet that our assertion of nationhood would make us a sovereign nation. FouR-PiFTHS OF THE LAST STEP. — How close, as a matter of fact, are we to that position to-day? Everybody admits that we have complete control over aU our internal affairs — that step by step, we have become absolutely independent in relation to legislation, ad ministration, tariffs, military and naval defence, and every other big and little item of self-government. One more step will bring us to the position of a sovereign-nation, with complete control over our foreign relations. And four-fifths of that step have already been Four-Fijths oj the Last Step 227 taken. The foot has been raised, and it is now not far from returning to the ground. Let us see what distance there still is between the fact and the theory. Let us follow the history of our foreign rela tions with reference to (1) Trade arrangements, (2) Diplomacies, (3) War, and (4) International Congresses, and note our close ap proach to sovereignty. I. Trade Arrangements. — We have risen to our present un fettered control of our trade arrangements by several well-defined stages. Originally Canada was a mere trade-preserve of the United Kingdom. We had no liberty, and it was not thought right that we should have any. That was what I call the ostrich period. We grew feathers for our masters. That was the first stage. In 1846-9, our circumscribing fence was removed, and we were permitted to trade as we pleased; but were we to be permitted to put import taxes upon British manufacturers and so help our own? Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir A. T. Gait fought that question out, and, in 1859, won it. That was the second stage. During it, however, our freedom of trade was limited by such arrangements as the United Kingdom chose to make for us with foreign countries. Trade-treaties by which Canada was bound were constantly being negotiated, and not only was Canada not con sulted about them, but no attention was paid to her interests. For example, when we wished to commence our system of trade-prefer ences, we found that various treaties stood in the way, and it was only after years of fighting (a) that we so far got rid of them as to permit of the system going into operation. The principal trouble was with the Belgian treaty of 1862, and the German treaty of 1865, of which Lord Salisbury said that they "were made by Lord Palmerston's government some thirty years ago. I am sure the matter of the relation of our colonies. could not have been fully con sidered. We have tried to find out from official records what species of reasoning it was that induced the statesmen of that day to sign such very unfortunate pledges; but I do not think that they had any notion that they were signing any pledges at all. I have not been able to discover that they at all reahzed the importance of the engagements upon which they were entering.'' That state of affairs was brought to an end in 1878, when we obtained a promise from the British government that, for the future, we should be bound by no further treaties without our consent. That was the third stage. We could make our own tariffs, and we had a negative voice on trade-arrangements with foreign countries. (a) See Ewart: Kingdom of Can. pp. 258-269. 228 Four-Fijths oj the Last Step The struggle for the right to negotiate trade-treaties for our selves and as we wished, lasted over many years (1879-1907) and encountered two grounds of opposition. First, it was said by the Colonial Office (28 June 1895) that "To give the colonies the power of negotiating treaties for themselves, ¦without reference to Her Majesty's Government, would be to give them an inter national status as separate and sovereign states, and would be equivalent to breaking up the Empire into a number of independent states." And secondly the Colonial Office denied our right to make arrange ments of which it did not approve. After something of a lecture on the evils of preferential tariffs, the Colonial Secretary said: "But the guardianship of the common interests of the Empire rests ¦with them" (the British government) "and they could not in any way be parties to, or assist in, any arrangements detrimental to these interests as a whole. In the performance of this duty, it may sometimes be necessary to require apparent sacrifices on the part of a colony, but Her Majesty's Government are confident that this general pohcy in regard to matters in which colonial interests are in volved is sufficient to satisfy the colonies that they. 'wiU not, without good reason, place difficulties in the way of any arrangements which a colony may regard as hkely to be beneficial to it" (a). That has, now, an archaic sort of a sound, but it was written not twenty years ago. Our complete release from super'vision came in connection with our negotiations with France ia 1907, and with the reciprocity arrangements of 1911. In these cases, our unfettered right to do as we pleased was unreservedly admitted. And if it be said that we stiU cannot act "without reference to Her Majesty's Government", I make two replies — ¦ (1) In all essential points, we do so act. Negotiations have constantly been carried on at Ottawa (notably with Germany and France) without the shghtest reference to the British government; and the British government took no part in the negotiations of 1907 and 1911. (2) It may be admitted that if Canada wished to e.xpress some trade-arrangement in the form of an international treaty, it would be necessary to ask the British Foreign JMinister to put his signature to the document, but this is merely because the theory of our pohtical situation differs from the fact. The theory ought to be corrected. If Canada can make her own bargains, she ought to be able to sign them. Canada is therefore now in the fourth stage. And so far as foreign trade-arrangements are concerned, we may confidently say that four-fifths of the last step towards national sovereignty have been taken, and that the foot has nearly reached the ground. (a) Cd. 7824. Four-Fijths oj the Last Step 229 II. Diplomacies. — Prior to 1871, our diplomacies were com pletely in the hands of the British Foreign Office. In that year, Sir John A. Macdonald was associated with some British negotiators, at Washington, but was powerless to check the determination of his colleagues "to go home to England with a treaty in their pockets setthng everything, no matter at what cost to Canada" (o). In 1874, George Brown was appointed as one of two plenipo tentiaries to negotiate a treaty with the United States, with reference to commerce, navigation and fisheries. On this occasion, Canada had an equal voice in the negotiations, and the terms offered by the United States not being satisfactory, no treaty was made. Mr. Brown was willing to go home without a treaty. In 1876, an arbitration took place between Canada and the United States to settle the amount to be paid by the United States for admission to our fisheries. The matter was left in Canadian hands — the arbitrators being one Canadian, one American and an umpire. That arbitration terminated satisfactorily. In 1887, Sir Charles Tupper broke through all the Foreign Office rules by going personally to Washington, and talking over another fishery trouble with Mr. Bayard. Correspondence be tween the two men ensued, and finally Sir Charles was associated with Mr. Chamberlain in formal negotiation with the United States (1888). That business was properly settled. From 1887 to 1893, the diplomacies connected with the Behring Sea seizures were in the hands of the British Foreign Office. The conduct of them was disgraceful, and the result disastrous. The story has been recently told (6). On the arbitration Board which made regulations to be observed by us on the high seas, there were (among others) one Englishman and one Canadian. The English man, on some very important points, decided against us. In 1903, the Alaska boundary line between Canada and the United States was settled by what was called an arbitration. The preceding diplomacies were handled by the British Foreign Office, and were humiliatingly mismanaged. The Board consisted of three Americans (all pledged beforehand), two Canadians and one Eng lishman — Lord Alverstone. The Englishman played a heartlessly treacherous game, and raade compromise behind our backs with the Americans. In 1910, an arbitration took place between Canada and the United States with reference to the North Atlantic fisheries. The (.a) Pope: Life of Sir John A. Macd., vol. 2, p. 105. (6) Ante pp. 59-112. 230 Four-Fijths oj the Last Step diplomacies and all the proceedings in connection with the arbitra tion (except the participation of the English Attorney General in the final argument) were left in Canadian hands. The result was eminently satisfactory. In 1909, a treaty was arranged with the United States settling various matters relating to boundary waters, and constituting a permanent International Joint Commission (three Canadians and three Americans) with jurisdiction to adjust, not merely questions relating to boundary waters, but "any questions or matters of difference involving the rights, obhga tions, or interests of the United States or of the Dominion of Canada either in relation to each other or to their respective inhabitants". That treaty was negotiated by direct intercourse between our gov ernment and the government of the United States, Mr. Bryce lending most valuable assistance, but acting (as he was always pleased to say) as the ambassador of Canada. The Commission has been established and is permanently at work. It has satisfactorily dis posed of a variety of questions which had they been dealt with in the old Foreign Office way might never have been settled at all, and would in any case have worried everybody for j'ears. Considering, then, that Canada has seldom any diplomatic difficulties with any nation other than the United States; that all her difficulties with the United States are settled by herself; and that they are settled without the necessity for even the signature of the British Foreign Secretary, may we not truthfully say, with reference to our foreign diplomacies that four-fifths of the last step towards national sovereignty have been taken and that the foot has almost reached the ground. III. War. — During the early colonial period, colonies were valuable possessions of their metropolitans. European countries fought one another for them, and, in the peace-treaties, bargained for their future ownership. In those days there was, and could have been, no question of the obhgation of colonies to send troops to foreign coun tries to aid the enterprises of their owners. The only question was to what extent were the owners under obligation to defend their possessions. After the eighteen-forties— after the Ignited Kingdom had adopted free-trade, and, by applying it to her colonies, given up the monopoly she had previously enjoyed, the obligation to defend them became less obvious; all troops were withdrawn; and Canada was required to make substantial provision for herself. She did so, she prospered, she became relatively strong and wealthy, and the United Kingdom, seeing opportunity of war-assistance, forthwith Four-Fijths oj the Last Step 231 commenced to ask for it. It was for that purpose that Lord Salis bury summoned the first Colonial Conference in 1887; and ever since then, claims, upon various grounds, have been urged upon us. But the important point for present consideration is this. In earlier times, when the United Kingdom was at war, we were at war — as we knew to our cost. Our obligation to participate was not disputed. We were deemed to be, and deemed ourselves to be, an integral part of the British Empire. No one would have im agined the possibility of an assertion of a constitutional right to rernain passive. What the situation is now, can best be answered by quotations from our political leaders. Sir Wilfrid Laurier has said as follows: — ' ' Does it follow that because we are exposed to attack we are going to take part in all the wars of the Empire? No. We shall take part if we think proper; ¦we shall certainly take part if our territory is attacked" (a) . ' ' If England is at war we are at war and hable to attack. I do not say that we shall always be attacked, neither do I say that we would take part in all the wars of England. .^ That is a matter that must be determined by circumstances, upon which the Canadian parhament vrill.have to pronounce and will have to decide in its own best judgment" (6). Mr. Borden has said as follows : ' ' If Canada and any other Dominions of the Empire are to take their part as nations of this Empire in the defence of the Empire as a whole, shall it be that we, contributing to that defence of the whole Empire, shall have absolutely, as citizens of this country, no voice whatever in the Councils of the Empire touching' the issues of peace or war throughout the Empire? I do not think that such WOULD BE A TOLERABLE CONDITION. I DO NOT THINK THE PEOPLE OF CANADA WOULD FOR ONE MOMENT SUBMIT TO SUCH A CONDITION." This latter extract may be said not only to embody the unan imous view of all Canadians, but to be a view accepted and agreed to by the British government. Mr. Borden has so informed us (c). And it was because it is a correct view, that at the Sub-Conference on "the naval and military defence of the Empire" in 1909, the main point agreed to was "That each part of the Empire is ¦wilhng to make its preparations on such hues as ¦wiU enable it, should it so desire, to take its share in the general defence of the Empire" {d). (a) This is the doctrine of the Colonial Office, as well aa of Canada. In discussing the suggestion that a Governor-General has a right to over-rule his Ministers upon matters relating: to war, Mr. Keith (of the Colonial Office) in his book ' ' Responsible Government in the Do minions," (p. 198) said that that "would involve the theory that the Imperial Government could insist on colonial forces taking part in a war, a doctrine opposed to the fundamental principles of self-government, which leaves it to a colony to decide how far it will participate in wars due to imperial policy." (6) Hansard, 1909, p. 2965. (c) Speech in House of Com., 5 Deo. 1912. Hans. 677. (d) Cd. 4948, p. 19. See also p. 38. 232 Four-Fijths oj the Last Step In reporting to the House of Commons the result of the sub- conference, Mr. Asquith said: ' ' The result is a plan for so organizing the Jorces of the Cro-wn wherever they are, that while preserving the complete autonomy of each Dominion, should the DoinNiONS DESIRE to assist in the iefence of the Empire in a real emergency, their forces could be rapidly combined into one homogeneous imperial army'' (a). It must be noted, too, that in the war-treaty between the United Kingdom and Japan, there is no engagement binding Canada to participate in hostilities (6). With reference to war, then, as with reference to trade-arrange ments and diplomacies, may we not saj^ that four-fifths of the last step towards national sovereignty have been taken, and that the foot has nearly reached the ground? IV. International Congresses. — The very rapid recurrence of international congresses (many scores of them in the last half century) has directed attention, in new and interesting ways, to the status of self-governing colonies: (1) The United Kingdom having conceded complete self-government to Canada, not only with refer ence to her internal affairs, but, practicaUy, as to external as well, exclusion from international congresses at which matters of general concern are debated and settled has become inappropriate — in deed indefensible. And (2), as between the United Kingdom and other sovereign nations, the United Kingdojn has claimed that, as she is acting for communities other than herself, she ought to be entitled to votes based upon their existence. After a few words upon this second point, attention will be drawn to the present relation of Canada to these congresses. Plural Voting. — It cannot be thought surprising that the great disparity between the interest of one of the first class European Powers and that of (say) one of the Central American Republics should have led to discussions of the relati-\-e value of their proper influence in arriving at decisions, nor that those discussions should have produced some form of plural voting (c). The United King dom had, in the existence of her self-governing and practically in dependent colonies, a well-founded ground for special consideration. Reprcsonting, she said, not one but practically six self-governing states, she ought to have six votes. And the other great Powers, reniemboring that they, too, had colonies asserted the same. At the meeting of the Radiotelegraphic Union in 1906, the ques tion was fully debated but left undecided until the later meeting in (o) Ibid. p. 19. (6) Ante. vol. 1, p. 180 (c) See 4 Am. Jour, of Int. Law, p. 630. Four-Fijths oj the Last Step 233 1912,' when it was agreed that the United Kingdom, Germany, France, the United States and Russia should have six votes each; Belgium two; Spain two; Italy three; Japan two; Holland two; and Portugal three. A few months afterwards (1912) the same question was dis cussed as the Conference on Expositions and a protocol declared as follows : "I. The convention (Article XXX) foresees the adhesion of colonies, pos sessions, dependencies, and protectorates, ¦without regulating the question of right of voting of these territories iu later conferences. The high contracting parties are agreed in deciding that this question ¦will remain pending and that in the case of such an adhesion it must be regulated through the diplomatic channel before the next conference." At the two Hague Peace Conferences (1899 and 1907) aU the states had equal voting power, but it is altogether probable that the plural system will be introduced at the next meeting. The necessity for the change became very apparent in connection with the convention (agreed to at the 1907 meeting) establishing an Inter national. Prize Court for the hearing of appeals from the deci sions of national courts with reference to the validity of captures at sea. Following the single voting principle, each state was to nomi nate one judge. In this way there would be forty-four judges. But of these, only fifteen were to sit upon each case. And of the fifteen, those nominated by the eight more important Powers were always to be summoned; while the other seven were to be sum moned in turn. To the United Kingdom this method of selecting a court (giving seven seats to such places as Haiti, Montenegro, Panama, Uruguay, etc.) was so objectionable that for that (as well as other reasons) the House of Lords declined to pass the legislation necessary to bring the convention into operation. This question of plural voting was one of the reasons for the adoption by the last Hague Conference of a provision for the assembling of a preparatory committee prior to the next meeting, adding that "This committee should further be entrusted vrith the task of proposing a system of organization and procedure for the Conference itself." Canada's Relation to Congresses. — Canada has within the last few years (a) sent delegates to attend the following international conferences : — 1. The International Congress on Higher Technical Teaching. 2. The International Conference on Social Insurance. 3. The International Conference on the Unemployed. (a) In his Recollections of Sixty years (p. 175), Sir Charles Tupper tells us that, in 1883, he attended the International Congress for the protection of submarine cables, and upon an important point "voted against all my British colleagues"- 234 Four-Fijths oj the Last Step 4. The International Conference on Labor Legislation. 5. The International Sanitary Conference. 6. The International Conference of Agriculture. 7. The International Conference on Expositions. 8. The International Institute of Weights and Measures. 9. The International Opium Conference. 10. The International Union for the Protection of Industrial Property. 11. The Universal Postal Bureau. 12. The Radiotelegraphic Union. 13. The International Convention for the Safety of Human Lives at Sea. It win be observed that SDiue of these congresses are rather of an educative and sociological than of a diplomatic character. Even in earlier times, colonials might very well have been attendants at the first six of these meetings, for their result might ha^'e been ex pected to be in the nature of recommendatory resolutions rather than of international agreements. But the appearance cf Canadian representatives at congresses called for the purpose of the Negotia tion of international agreements is a new feature in diplomatic his tory; one which the disciples of John Austin will have difficulty in squaring •\vith their ideas of sovereignty; and one which indicates very clearly Canada's proximity to nationhood. Note the following: In 1910, the United States, communicating directly with Can ada, invited her to send delegates to a conference of The Inter national Union for the Protection of Industrial Property. Canada accepted. Afterwards the Colonial Office communicated to Canada a memorandum of subjects to be considered at the conference and asked to be furnished with our observations. In reply, Canada indicated that as she was sending delegates to the conference, com munication of her views was unnecessary. The delegates attended the conference (1911). Through them, Canada declined to become parties to the union. If they had otherwise determined, they would themselves have e.xei-uted the convention. In 1906, Dr. Coulter, our Deputy P( stmaster-General, attended the meeting of The Universal Postal I'nion, as a Canadian plenipo- tentiai y, carrying with him a ciunmission under the Great Seal of Canadii and the signature of our Secretary of State. Not only did he take such i^irt in the proceedings of the meeting as he wished, luit he cast his vote, on occasions, contrary to that of the British delegate, and he signed the convention embodying the agreement under which international postal interchange takes place. The operative part of the convention commences with the words: Four-Fijths oj the Last Step 235 ' ' The undersigned plenipotentiaries of the governments of the above named countries", etc. In 1912, Mr. G. J. Desbarats attended the meeting of the Radio telegraphic Union, carrying with him a commission under the King's signature, reading (in part) as follows: — ' ' Know Ye therefore that We, reposing special trust and confidence in the ¦wisdom, loyalty, diligence and circumspection of Our trusty and well beloved George Joseph Desbarats, Esquire, Deputy Minister of the Naval Ser^vice of Canada, have named, made, constituted and appointed, as We do by these Presents make, name, constitute, and appoint him Our undoubted Commissioner Procurator and Plenipotentiary on behalf op the Dominion of Canada; Giving to him all manner of power and authority, to treat, adjust, and conclude, ¦with such Minister or Ministers as may be vested ¦with similar power and au thority on the part of any other Po"wbrs or States as aforesaid any Treaty Convention or Agreement that may tend to the attainment of the above mentioned end, and to sign for Us and in Our Name, everything so agreed upon and concluded, and to do and transact all such other matters as may appertain thereto, in as ample manner and form, and with equal force and efficiency as We Ourselves could do if personally present: Engaging and Promising upon Our Royal Word whatever things shall be so transacted and concluded by Our said Commissioner, Procurator, and Plenipotentiary on behalf of Our Dominion of Canada, shall, subject to Our Approval and Ratification, be agreed to, acknow ledged, and accepted by Us in the fullest manner, and that We shall never suffer, either in the whole or in part, any person whatsoever to infringe the same, or act contrary thereto, as far as it lies in Our power." The Conference agreed upon a convention, and Mr. Desbarats signed it on behalf of Canada. The only thing wrong about his commission, from my point of view, is that it is under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom, instead of, as in Dr. Coulter's case, under the Great Seal of Canada. It is a pity that these precedents should have been departed from in connection with the International Convention for the Safety of Human Lives at sea (January, 1914). It was engaged upon work similar to that of the Radiotelegraphic Union and re sulted in a similar sort of agreement; but in this later case our repre sentative (Mr. Alexander Johnston), attended not as a Canadian but as a British delegate; and Canada is not a party to the agree ment, save as included among the colonies of the United Kingdom. There are, indeed, clauses in it providing for our adhesion and with drawal; but, even so, only through the action of the United King dom. Three Grades of Congresses. — Two classes of congresses have been mentioned: (1) those which are expected to result in recommendatory resolutions only, and (2) those to negotiate inter national agreements. This second class must be subdivided into 236 Four-Fijths oj the Last Step (a) those involving social arrangements, and (b) those relating to war. Canada has, as we have seen, been freely admitted to the former of these but, thus far, she has not been invited to the latter. Congresses Relating to War. — The work of the two Hague Peace Conferences (1899 and 1907) was devoted to the consideration of methods for the avoidance of war, and of regulations for the more humane conduct of war. At the later conference, fourteen con ventions were agreed to and signed by some, or all, of the forty-four represented nations. In every one of them, Canada was interested. As to none of them was she even consulted. By all of them she is bound. One of the conventions provided for the creation of an inter national prize court. And, in order to enable the court to do its work satisfactorily, another congress met at London (1909) — for the purpose of formulating the principles upon which the court should proceed. That congress came to an agreement covering the whole field of the relation of belligerents to neutral trade. It was embodied in what has been called the Declaration of London. Can ada was not asked to attend that congress, and was not consulted about it (a). At the Imperial Conference of 1911, Mr. Fisher (Premier of Australia) moved a resolution regretting ' ' that the Dominions were not consulted prior to the acceptance by the British delegates of the terms of the Declaration of London" (6). Sir Edward Grey reminded Mr. Fisher that the declaration arose out of the proceedings at the Hague Conference, and that the real complaint, therefore, was that there had been no consultation prior to the assembling of that body. He added: ' ' I agree, and the government agrees entirely, that the Dominions ought to be consulted, and that they ought to be consulted before the next Hague Con- terence takes place about the programme of that next Conference, and then, of course, they would be consulted automatically with regard to everything that arises out of it" (c). Intimating that the programme would be "drawn up some time in advance". Sir Edward proceeded: ' ' What we do here, ourselves, is to have an inter-departmental conference which considers that programme and considers what instructions should be given to the British delegates who are going to the Hague Conference, as to the Une they should take on tlie different points. I think, obviously, the time for con sultation to begin is wlien the inter-departmental conference . , ¦• takes (a) Owing to the opposition of the British House of Lords to the passage of the necessary cgislation, the DeclaraUon has not l>ecome effective. (6) Proceedings, p. 97. (c> Ibid., p. 114. Four-Fijths oj the Last Step 237 place, and that the Dominions should ... be represented at the inter departmental conference, and so be present, and be a party to drawing up the instructions which are to be given to the delegates at the Hague Conference" (a). The discussion led to the adoption of the following resolution : "That this conference, after hearing the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, cordiaUy welcomes the proposals of the Imperial Government, viz. : (a) That the Dominions shall be afforded an opportunity of consultation when framing the instructions to be given to British delegates at future meetings of the Hague Conference, and that conventions affecting the Dominions provision ally assented to at that Conference shall be circulated among the Dominion Governments for their consideration before any such convention is signed (sic, ratified) ; (6) That a similar procedure, where time and opportunity and the subject matter permit, shaU, as far as possible, be used when preparing instructions for the negotiation of other international agreements affecting the Dominions.'' What Canada Is Entitled To. — Sir Wilfrid Laurier appears to have been the only one of the colonial delegates at this Conference who perceived what becoming "a party to drawing up the instruc tions" to be given to the British delegates implied: and he was far from appreciating the advantage of attending an inter-departmental meeting of officials at the cost of the necessary compromise of in dividuality. He said: "We may give ad^vice if our ad-vice is sought; but if your advice is sought, or if you tender it, I do not think that the United Kingdom can undertake to carry out that ad-vice unless you are prepared to back that ad-vice with aU your strength, and take part in the war, and insist upon having the rules carried out according to the manner in which you think the war should be carried out. We have taken the position in Canada that -we do not think that we are bound to take part in every war, and that our fleet may not be called upon in all cases, and, therefore, for my part, I think it is better under such circumstances to leave the negotiations of these regulations as to the way in which the war is carried on to the chief partner of the family, the one who has to bear the burden in part on some occasions, and the whole burden on, perhaps, other occasions" (6). No, it is not presence among British officials that Canada wants. That would be of little value, first because her representative would have little weight; and, secondly, because as Sir Edward Grey said, not only must "considerable latitude" be left to the delegates, but because ' ' While the Conference is proceeding, points arise which have to be answered by telegraph sometimes, and I think then it would be impossible to have con sultation on every point that arises, because there is no time, owing to the neces sities of the case. As a matter of fact, during the last Hague Conference, theoreti- caUy the whole Cabinet ought to have been consulted here on points as they arose, but there was no time" (c). (a) Ibid., p. 114. ib) Proceedings, p. 117. (c) Ibid., p. 114. 238 Four-Fijths oj the Last Step Canada ought to be representated at the Hague by her own delegates acting under her own instructions. If these delegates can co-operate with the British, so much the better; but we cannot agree that British delegates are to have the appearance of represent ing our views when possibly they are acting counter to them. Take, for example, the action of the British delegates at the last Hague Conference upon the subject of immunity from capture at sea. Canada would certainly have voted in favor of it. The British delegates were the principal opponents of it. Can any good reason be suggested why Canada should be the only civilized nation of nearly eight million inhabitants without representation at the Hague ? Look at the list of countries sending delegates, and their population, and you will find that out of the forty-four there are but thirteen with population greater than ours; that among those are Brazil and Mexico; and that the others have populations as follows (in round figures) : Belgium 7,500,000 Argentina 7,000,000 Siam 6,300,000 Holland 6,000,000 Roumania 6,000,000 Sweden 5,500,000 Portugal 5,400,000 Peru 4,500,000 Bulgaria 4,300,000 Columbia 4,300,000 S-witzerland 3,700,000 Chile - 3,300,000 Servia 2,700,000 Venezuela . 2,700,000 Denmark 2,700,000 Greece 2,600,000 Norway .__ 2,400,000 Bohvia ' 2,300,000 Cuba 2,200,000 Persia 2,000,000 Guatemala 2,000,000 Haiti 2,000,000 Ecudor 1,500,000 Salvador 1 , 100,000 Uruguay 1 , 100,000 Paraguay.' 752,000 St. Domingo 610,000 Nicaragua 600,000 Panama 400,000 Luxemburg 260,000 Montenegro 250,000 Four-Fijths oj the Last Step 239 The Anomalous Position. — Nothing could make clearer the stupidity of the present relation between Canada and the United Kingdom with reference to war, than the attitude towards the Lon don Conference which Sir Wilfrid felt himself compeUed to assume. His government had previously been attacked because it had entered into certain arrangements with the British government, not for co operation in case of war, but merely for making more effective any co-operation which Canada might at any time agree to — for example by attendance at The Imperial Defence Committee; association with The Imperial General Staff; acceptance of confidences etc. (a). Now he was asked to agree to a system by which Canada would, in some ineffective but compromising way, tender advice as to what agreements the United Kingdom should make in connection with her conduct of wars. Sir Wilfrid declined. Logically he 'was absolutely correct, but what a strange situation! If Canada had determined that she would join in all British wars, no matter where they were or for what cause, her proper course of action would be clear. She should perfect her methods of military co-operation; she should send her annual cheques to the British Admiralty; she should supply such advice and suggestions as she thought would be useful. But inasmuch as she agrees with Mr. Borden's assertion that her participation in British wars depends upon her being given a share in the control of British foreign policy, and inasmuch as Mr. Asquith has said that she cannot have that share, then (Sir Wilfrid holds), Canada is not in a position to offer advice as to what the United Kingdom ought to do. If she did she would be under obligation, as he has said: "to back that advice with all our strength and take part in the war". And so we are in a dilemma. If we give advice, we commit our selves in advance to participation in all British wars. And if we do not, the wars which we may be brought into may be more harmful to us than we believe to be necessary (&) . Conclusions as to Congresses. — Considering that Canada has been admitted to the deliberations of a number of international congresses; that her delegates have attended, not only, sometimes, (a) See ante, vol. I, pp. 262-8. C&) The general correctness of Sir Wilfrid's view is obvious, but I am inclined to think that it may be too widely stated. For example, opinion in the United Kingdom is divided as to the advisability of adhering to the practice, during war, of destroying an enemy's commerce. Canada is greatly interested in the immunity of private property at sea — as it now is on land. A resolution of the Canadian parliament would have a beneficial influence upon the British government, might lead to international agreement, and might save our ships from destruction. I do not think that a resolution indicating our desire to escape one of the evils of war would, necessarily, commit us to participation in war. 240 Four-Fijths oj the Last Step as representatives of the United Kingdom, but, sometimes, as representing their own country; that, on one occasion, her delegate carried with him the commission of the King to act as plenipoten tiary on behalf of Canada and to execute, for her, all proper treaties and conventions; that on another occasion, her delegate held similar Commission issued by Canada herself; that the existence of Canada has been made use of by the United Kingdom as support for the assertion of a right to an additional vote at congresses; and that the United Kingdom has admitted that Canada ought to take part in British consultations preliminary to the meeting of the Hague con ferences, indeed that she ought to be a party to the instructions to be given to the delegates who attend those conferences — considering all this, we cannot be wrong in saying that, as to international con gresses, four-fifths of the last step towards sovereignty have been taken and tnat the foot has nearly reached the ground. Canada must, in the future, speak for herself. She shall neither give advice at cost of compromise, nor refrain at cost of aggravated loss. She shall take her proper place at international congresses. She shall there pursue such course as she. thinks best — ^best for her self and best for others. With the delegates for the United King dom, she will always seek to be in harmony. But if, as upon the question of capture at sea, her opinion differs from that of the United Kingdom, it shall be her own opinion that shall regulate her conduct. Summary. — We have now finished our examination of the present position of Canada with reference to ah foreign affairs — trade-arrangements, diplomacies, war and international congresses. How far short of sovereignty do we fall ? WTiat additional power or authority do we need? We negotiate trade-arrangements with foreign countries as we please. We can implement our agreements by legislation. We can frame a treaty. But we cannot sign it. We are in control of our diplomacies with the United States. Our and their commissioners are constantly engaged upon them. The British Foreign Office has ordinarily nothing to do with them. Our other diplomacies are in care of the Foreign Office. With rare exceptions, there are none. We sign our own agreements with the United States. There are none with any other country to sign. When the United Kingdom is at war, Canada, technically, is also at war. Whether (apart from being attacked) she wiU or wiU not participate in any war, is for herself to say. Canada is not "an adjimct of the British Empire". Canada has attended various international congresses. One of Four-Fijths of the Last Step 241 lier delegates has carried the King's commission to act for Canada; and, as such delegate, has signed an international convention on behalf of Canada. Another, in making Canada a party to a con vention, has acted under a purely Canadian commission. We have not, as yet, sent a delegate to the Hague Conference. But we have been offered an opportunity of being a party to the instructions to be given to the British delegates. Am I wrong then in saying that four-fifths of the last step to wards sovereignty have been taken, and that the foot has nearly reached the ground? SHALL IT NOT REST FIRMLY THERE ON THE DAY OF OUR JUBILEE? JOHN S. EWART. Ottawa, May, 1914. THE KINGDOM PAPERS. No. 20. CAPTURE AT SEA. CONTRABAND BLOCKADE. NOTICES. The second edition of volume one of the Kingdom Papers is now ready. Price, in cloth binding, postage paid, sixty cents. Mr. Ewart's earUer book of essays and addresses The Kingdom of Canada is also on sale. Price, postage paid, one dollar. THORBURN & ABBOTT, Pubhshers, Ottawa. Present and future Papers will be sent free of charge to aU appUcants. Pre^vious Papers of volume two wiU be sent on receipt of postage — ^ten o«nts, JOHN 8. EWART, K.C-, Ottawa. THE KINGDOM PAPERS. NO. 20. CAPTURE AT SEA. CONTRABAND . BLOCKADE , (In order to draw attention to the purpose for which quotations are employed, italics, not appearing in the original, are sometimes made use of). From the days of savagery, when the normal accompaniments of war were death of combatants and non-combatants, of old men and young, of women and children; destruction of property, public and private, useful and artistic; with consequent depopulation and general waste of conquered territory, there has been gradual and, in later days, rapid tendency toward the exemption, from the hor rors of war, of the individual and his property, and toward the con finement of the fighting and its consequences to the organized forces of the combating nations. Almost the only remaining exception is private property when at sea. A thousand bushels of grain at Sydney is protected by international agreement, but the same grain on a ship may be taken or destroyed. The reason for this will be explained in the following pages, but first let us understand how far from savagery we already are, and what, precisely, are the existing rules with reference to war on land. The Declaration of Paris, 1856.^-Three of the articles of this convention are as follows: — "1. Privateering is, and remains, aboUshed. 2. The neutral flag covers enemy's goods, ¦with the exception of contraband of war. 3. Neutral goods, with the exception of contraband of war, are not hable to capture under the enemy's flag" (a). Privateers are privately-owned ships, authorized by govern ment to harry the commerce of the enemy; and the effect of the convention, therefore, was the confinement of commerce-destruction to state-owned vessels. The United States and some other coun tries declined to be parties to the agreement, urging that commerce ought to be free from all attack; and that the abolition of privateers, alone, was merely giving to the stronger Powers a greater advantage. than they already had, Subsequent events, too, have made clew (o) Am, Jojjr, of Int, J-a^yr, vol. I, »upp, 89. 244 Capture at Sea — Contraband — Blockade the difficulty of distinguishing between privately-owned, and state- owned ships. For both Germany in 1870, and Russia in 1878 as serted their right to encourage the creation of "volunteer navies". (a); most of the great Powers have arrangements with the steam ship companies by which their vessels are so to be constructed as to be useful for war-purposes; and all the nations reserve the right of converting commercial into war ships, the only debated point being as to whether the conversion may be made on the high seas. As long as commercial ships are liable to attack by an enemy govern ment, the enemy government will find methods of attacking. Prior to agreement upon the second and third articles of the Declaration, enemy's goods might have been captured not only upon an enemy ship, but upon a neutral ship. Now the neutral flag covers the enemy's goods. Formerly, too, neutral goods upon an enemy ship were liable to seizure. Now they are not. What we still want is agreement that enemy ships and goods are to be free. The Geneva Convention, 1864. — The title of this convention indicates that its purpose was "the amelioration of the sick and .vounded of armies in the field". Its bene^cence was extended by a further convention in 1868 (b). And now, one of the Hague con ventions makes further provisions for the adaptation to maritime war of the principles of the Geneva convention. The Declaration of St. Petersburg, 1868. — The purpose of this convention was the abolition of explosive bullets. Its recitals are noteworthy — "Considering that the progress of ci-vihzation should ha\e the effect of alle'viating, as much as possible, the calamities of war; that the only legitimate object which states should endeavcjr to accomphsh during war is to weaken the mihtary force of the enemy; that for this purpose it is sufficient to disable the greatest possible number of men; that the object would be exceeded by the em ployment of arms which uselessly aggravate the sufferings of disabled men, or render their death ine-vitable; that the employment of such arms would, there fore, be contrary to the laws of humanity" (c). Private Property on Land. — Let us now understand the posi tion of private persons and property on land during war. One of the Hague conventions opens with certain recitals — "Animated by the desire to scr\o, even in this extreme case, the interests of humanity and the e\'er progress! \c needs of civiUzation; "Thinking it important, with tliis object, to revise the general laws and customs of war, either with a view to defining them with greater precision or to confining them within such hmits as would mitigate their severity as far as possible ; (o) F. E. Smith : Int. Law, 4th ed., p. 125. (6) Am. Jour, of Int. Law, vol. I, supp., pp. 90, 91. (c) Am. Jour, of Int. Law, vol. I, supp. p. 95. Capture at Sea — Contraband — Blockade 245 "Ha-ving deemed it necessary to complete and explain, in certain particu lars, the work of the First Peace Conference, which, following on the Brussels Conference of 1874, and inspired by the ideas dictated by a wise and generous forethought, adopted pro^visions intended to define and govern the usages of war on land. ' ' According to the ¦views of the High Contracting Parties, these pro^visions, the wording of which has been inspired by the desire to diminish the evils of war as far as mihtary requirements permit, are intended to serve as a general rule of conduct for the belhgerents in their mutual relations and in their relation*. with the inhabitants." Among the provisions of this convention are the following: ' ' Prisoners of war are in the power of the hostile Government, but not of th«- individuals or corps who capture them. They must be humanely treated. All their personal belongings, except larms, horses, and mihtary papers,. remain their property." ' ' Prisoners of war may be interned in a town, fortress, camp or other place,. and bound not to go beyond certain fixed Umits; but they cannot be confinedi except as an indispensable measure of safety, and only while the circumstances which necessitate the measure continue to exist." "The State may utihze the labor of prisoners of war according to their rank and aptitude, officers excepted. The tasks shaU not be excessive and shall have no connection ¦with the operations of the war. Prisoners may be authorized to work for the pubhc service, for private persons, or on their o'hti account. Work done for the State is paid at the rates in force for work of a similar kind done by soldiers of the national army, or, if there are. none in force, at a rate according to the work executed. When the work is for other branches of the pubhc ser^vice or for private persons the conditions are settled in agreement ¦with the mihtary authorities. The wages of the prisoners shall go towards impro^ving their position, and the balance shaU be paid them on their release, after deducting the cost of their maintenance.'" ' ' The Government into whose hands prisouers oi war have faUen is charged' with their maintenance. In the absence of a special agreemert between the beUigerents, prisoners of war shall be treated as regards board, lodging, and clothing on the same footing. as the troops of the Government who captured them." "After the conclusion of peace, the repatriation of prisoners of war shaU be carried out as quickly as possible." "The right of belhgerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not un limited." "In addition to the prohibitions pro^vided by special Conventions, it i»- especially forbidden — To destroy or seize the enemy's property, unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war." "Territory is considered occupied when it is actuaUy placed under the- authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised." 246 Capture at Sea — Contraband — Blockade "The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shaU take aU the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, pubhc order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country." "Family honor and rights, the hves of persons, and private property, as WeU as reMgloug con^victions and practice, must be respected. Private property cannot be confiscated." "PiUage is formaUy forbidden.'' "If, in the territory occupied, the occupant coUects the taxes, dues, and toUs imposed for the benefit of the State, he shaU do so, as far as is possible, in accordance with the rules of assessment and incidence in force, and shaU in con sequence be bound to defray the expenses of the administration of the occupied territory to the same extent as the legitimate Government was so bound." "If, in addition to the taxes mentioned in the above article, the occupant le^vies other money contributions in the occupied territory, this shaU only be for the needs of the army or of the administration of the territory in question." ' ' Requisitions in kind and services shaU not be demanded from municipah- ties or inhabitants except for the needs of the army of occupation. They shall be in proportion to the resources of the country, and of such a nature as not to involve the inhabitants in the obhgation of taking part in mihtary operations against their own country. Such requisitions and services shall only be demanded on the authority of the commander in the locaUty occupied. Contributions in kind shaU as far as possible be paid for in cash; if not, a receipt shaU be given and the payment of the amount due shall be made as soon as possible." "An army of occupation can only take possession of cash, funds, and reaUz- able securities which are strictly the property of the State, depots of arms, means of transport, stores and supphes, and, generaUy, all movable property belonging to the State which may be used for mihtary operations." "The occupying State shaU be regarded only as administrator and usu fructuary of pubhc buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates be longing to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied country. It must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance ^vith the rules of usufruct.'' Another of the Hague conventions contains the foUowing: "The bombardment by naval forces of undefended ports, towns, \-iUages, dwellings, or buildings is forbidden." "After due notice has been given, the bombardment of undefended ports, towns, villages, dweUings, or buildings may be commenced, if the local authorities, after a formal summons has been made to them, decUne to comply -with requisi tions for pro'visions or supphes necessary for the immediate use of the naval force before the place in question. These requisitions shaU be in proportion to the resources of the place. They shaU only be demanded in the name of the commander of the said naval force, and they shaU, as far as possible, be paid for in cash; if not, they shall be evidenced by receipts." "Undefended ports, towns, viUages, dweUings, or buildings may not be bombarded on account of failure to pay money contributions." Another of the Hague conventions provides as follows: Capture at Sea — Contraband — Blockade 247 "The postal correspondence of neutrals or belhgerents, whatever its official or private character may be, found on the high seas on board a neutral or enemy ship, is inviolable. If the ship is detained, the correspondence is forwarded by the captor ¦with the least possible delay. The pro^visions of the preceding paragraph do not apply, in case of -violation of blockade, to correspondence destined for, or proceeding from, a block aded port." "Vessels used exclusively for fishing along the coast or smaU boats em ployed in local trade are exempt from capture, as weU as their apphances, rig ging, tackle, and cargo. They cease to be exempt as soon as they take any part whatever in hos tihties." Vessels charged -with rehgious, scientific, or philanthropic missions are hkewise exempt from capture." When an enemy merchant vessel is captured "The captain, officers, and members of the crew, when nationals of the enemy State, are not made prisoners of war, on condition that they make a formal promise in writing, not to undertake, while hostihties last, any ser^vice connected vnth the operations of the war." And still another of the Hague conventions provides as follows : ' ' When a merchant-ship belonging to one of the beUigerent Powers is at the commencement of hostihties in. an enemy port, it is desirable that it should be aUowed to depart freely, either immediately, or after a reasonable number of days of grace, and to proceed, after being furnished -with a pass, direct to its port of destination or any other port indicated." "A merchant-ship unable, o-wing to circumstances of force majeure, to leave the enemy port -within the period contemplated in the above article, or which was not aUowed to leave, cannot be confiscated. The beUigerent may only detain it, ¦without payment of compensation, but subject to the obUgation of restoring it after the war, or requisition it on payment of compensation." CONTRABAND OF WAR. Understanding now, as far as necessary for the purposes in hand , the rules relating to war on land, we still require some knowledge of international practice with reference to Contraband and Blockade, before the subject of Capture at Sea can be intelligently treated. Contraband may be defined as goods belonging to the subject of a neutral state which, during sea-transportation to one belligerent state, may, by the rules of international law, be seized by the other belligerent state. The government of the neutral state is under no obligation to prevent the shipment from its territory of such goods — - even if they be guns and rifles. Capture during transportation is the only penalty. Sometimes the ship, as weU as the goods, is liable to condemnation. What goods are contraband ? is a question upon which the nations have always held widely different views, and in deed no nation holds a perfectly consistent record of opinion. 248 Capture at Sea — Cofitraband — Blockade At the Hague Conference of 1907, the United Kingdom pro posed to abolish ah distinction between goods, and to declare that no neutral property should be liable to capture. The proposal waa supported by twenty-six states, but, being opposed by Germany, France, Russia, the United States and Turkey, had to be dropped. Germany had, too recently, been exasperated by the transmission to France, during the Franco-German war, of immense supphes of British war-material; and the counter-proposal of the United States — to agree to the freedom of aU goods, provided that neutral. states should be bound to prevent the shipment from their territory of war-material to fighting nations — was thought to be a more satis factory solution of the question. Pointing to the fact that inter national law required a neutral state to use all reasonable efforts to prevent the construction or equipment within its boundaries of war-vessels for the use of a beUigerent (a), and forbade the enlist ment of soldiery for service in a foreign army, the argument waa that there ought to be the same obligation with reference to the export of war-material — if the export of ships and soldiers was properly prohibited so also ought the export of war-material (&). This view not being generally acceptable, no agreement could be arrived at. At the London Conference of 1909, the United Kingdom pro posed that contraband property should be that "which (1) is by nature capable of being used to assist in, and (2) is on its way to assist in, the naval or military operations of the enemy;" and eventually a tentative agreement was arrived at which divides property into three classes, (1) Absolute contraband, that is goods which are exclusively used for war, such as rifles, guns, etc.; (2) Conditional contraband, that is goods which may or may not be contraband, depending upon their destination and purpose, for ex ample, food, clothing, barbed wire, etc.; and (3) Articles useless in war, for example plows, sewing-machines, etc., which would be un conditionally free from capture. The agreement did not become effective, owing to the refusal of the British House of Lords to pass the necessary legislation; and, to-day, therefore the word contra band remains undefined and subject to such interpretation as beUigerent nations may choose to put upon it. (a) So established by Tfie Alabama case. (5) Some nations have, on occasion, voluntarily prohibited the export of war-material to fighting nations: Westlake: International Law, Part II, p. 258. Capture at Sea — Contraband — Blockade 249 BLOCKADE. The question of contraband involves the right of a belligerent state to seize, at sea, certain kinds of goods belonging to the citizens of a neutral state; and the question of blockade involves the right of a belligerent state to prohibit the entrance into blockaded ports of all neutral ships and cargoes of every character — contraband or not. International law acknowledges the existence of that right, and neutral states must submit to the consequent damage to their trade. What is a blockaded port, however, is as yet an unsettled point. The Declaration of Paris of 1856, indeed, provided that — "Blockades, in order to be binding must be effective, that is to say, main tained by a force sufficient reaUy to prevent access to the coast of the enemy;' ' and that is of some value; but attempts to define the word effective have failed, and the Declaration of London declares that "The question whether a blockade is effective is a question of fact." The penalty incurred by a neutral ship for attempting to run a block ade was formulated by the Declaration of London (not in force) as follows : "A vessel found guilty of breach of blockade is liable to condemnation. The cargo is also condemned, unless it is proved that at the time of the shipment of the goods, the shipper neither knew, nor could have known, of the intention to break the blockade." British Interest. — Upon this subject the United Kingdom has a divided interest. When neutral, her trade suffers by block ades. As she desires freedom from seizure at sea of all neutral goods (whether contraband or not), so also she would wish that all neutral goods should be allowed to proceed unimpeded to their destinations. But when the United Kingdom is a belligerent, her interest as the strongest naval power changes, and one of her weapons is blockade of her enemy's ports and exclusion from them of com merce of every kind. This second interest has, thus far, outweighed the first, and the instructions to the British delegates to the last Hague Conference declared that the United Kingdom's "absolute dependence on the possession of sea power for security makes it im perative for her to maintain intact the weapon of offence which the possibihty of effectuaUy blockading an enemy's coasts places in the hands of a nation having command of the sea" (a). In that opinion Lord Loreburn (recently Lord Chancellor of England) does not concur. If by blockade of its ports an enemy could be reduced to submission, retention of the blockade rules might be justifiable. But there is no reason for thinking that any country, (a) Loreburn: Capture at Sea, p. 95. 250 Capture at Sea — Contraband — Blockade except the United Kingdom itself, could, by that means, be com pelled to surrender. European nations would, indeed, be put to inconvenience and financial loss, for their foreign commerce would have to pass through the ports of neighboring nations. But that would be a comparatively insignificant consideration, and their food-supplies would not be seriously affected. Lord Loreburn says: "Blockade must always be aUowable to sustain a siege by land or to prevent the supply by sea of stores or provisions to an army on shore, or ¦with some pur pose directly associated ¦with the fighting forces, such as shutting up a fleet or closing an arsenal. But commercial blockade, which aims at impoverishing the civil population and arresting its industry, should be abohshed. Our mercantile community, and that of aU foreign nations, vpiU surely desire its aboUtion. And the common interest of aU nations points in the same direction. I have given reasons for behe^ving that it could not bring any great nation to its knees, except our o^wn country, and then only in circumstances so extremely improbable as not to be worth estimating by any imaginary enemy" (a). As a normally neutral nation, Canada would naturaUy concur in the opinion of Lord Loreburn. CAPTURE AT SEA. It will have been observed that the rules of Contraband and Blockade relate to rights as between a belligerent state and the citi zens of a neutral state.. Neutral goods of aU kinds (and sometimes the ships) are liable to capture at sea for breach of blockade; and, apart from blockade, aU neutral contraband goods, whether in neu tral or enemy ships, are so liable. We have now to deal with the right of belligerent nations to capture enemy merchant-ships and their cargoes. The Proposal. — ^At the Hague Conference of 1907, the United States submitted the foUowing proposal — "The private property of aU citizens or subjects of the signatory Powers, ¦with the exception of contraband of war, shaU be exempt from capture or seizure on the sea by the armed vessels or by the mihtary forces of any of the said signa tory Powers. But nothing herein contained shaU extend exemption from seizure to vessels and their cargoes which may attempt to enter a port blockaded by the naval forces of any of the said Powers" (6). Twenty-one countries voted in favor of the resolution, namely. United States, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Italy, Denmark, Nor way, Sweden, Greece, Belgium, Holland, Switzerland, Bulgaria, Roumania, China, Persia, Siam, Turkey, BrazU, Cuba, Ecudor and Haiti. Eleven countries voted against it, namely. The United Kingdom, France, Russia, Japan, Spain, Portugal, Montenegro, Mexico, Columbia, Panama and Salvador. (a) Capture at Sea, pp. 98, 9. ib) Scott; Am. Addresses, at the Second Hague Conference, p. 2. Capture at Sea — Contraband — Blockade 251 The figures, however, do not exhibit the full strength of the opinion in favor of the proposal, for almost every country would have voted in favor of it with some more or less important qualifica tion (a) , and the United. Kingdom is in large measure alone respon sible for its non-acceptance. Lord Loreburn has said: "Great Britain has been continuously the principal supporter of the right of enemy capture, and, indeed, but for her persistence it would probably have been aboUshed long ago" (b). and Mr. F. E. Smith, K. C, (a leading member of the British Union ist party) has said that "the opposition of Great Britain is undoubtedly the great obstacle to a change" (c). Reason for Objection. — Objection to the proposal is some times made upon the ground that the uncertainties associated with contraband and blockade ought to be got rid of at the same time. But the real reason has been the British feeling of war-advantage by perpetuation of the practice. Mr. F. E. Smith formulates the argument in this way "That it is by her na^vy alone that Great Britain can bring pressure to bear upon a continental enemy; that it is only by capturing or dri-ving from the sea aU enemy merchant vessels that such pressure can be made effective, and that by gi-ving up this right, Great Britain, in the words of Lord Palmerston would be infficting a fatal blow upon her naval power and would be guilty of an act of pohtical suicide" (d). And Mr. McKenna, when first Lord of the Admiralty, said in the House of Commons: "It cannot be disputed that it is a great engine of power in the hands of Great Britain, so long as her navy is supreme, that she can interfere -with foreign trade" (e). British interests, unfortunately, have, heretofore, been popularly looked at through Admiralty glasses. As Lord Loreburn has said : "So far as the attitude of successive British governments is concerned, it has always been largely influenced by naval opinion. We do not sufficiently discriminate between questions of strategy, in which naval officers speak with conclusive authority, and questions of pohcy, upon which they cannot claim to be experts. Mercantile men have been far too silent hitherto, though the opinion of that .community is beheved to be strongly in favor of a change" (/). The attitude of the Admiralty is quite natural. Sea-officers may be expected to take the same view as Lord Palmerston, who at the time, declared (a) France, for example, expressed her readiness to agree to the proposal if the others would consent. Loreburn, Capture at Sea, p. 68. (&) Capture at Sea, p. 20. (c) Int. Law, 4th ed., p. 165. (d) Int. Law, 4th ed.,- p. 166. (e) Hansard, 21 April 1909, p. 1624. (f) Capture at sea, pp. 153, 4. 252 Capture at Sea — Contraband — Blockade "that if we adopted these principles we should almost reduce war to an exchange of diplomatic notes" (a.) To which, other, less sanguinary, people may reply as did Sir John Lubbock (now Lord Averbury) : "WeU that would be a result which we could contemplate, not only with equanimity but vrith satisfaction". It has even been urged that "if aU adopted these principles", a duel between the United Kingdom and Germany would be almost impossible, for neither would attempt to land military forces upon the territory of the other, and the German navy would keep out of harm's way. That too might be contemplated with equanimity. Change op Opinion. — Signs are not wanting that, in the United Kingdom, the interest of tiie merchant is commencing to outweigh, if not to change, the opinion of the Admiralty. Lord Loreburn's book itself is some evidence of the awakening. Mr. F. E. Smith has expressed himself as favorable to adoption of the proposal (b) . The National Liberal Federation in England has, upon two occasions, declared unanimously in favor of it — the last being in December 1913 when the resolution was in the following form — "Further, the Council is of opinion that the right of capture of private property at sea in time of war should be abohshed, and also that floating mines should be prohibited, and that the government be urged to support both these proposals at the next Hague conference." SimUar resolutions have been passed by the London .ind Man chester Chambers of Commerce. Possibly by others, but of that I cannot say. The reason for the change of opinion is the change in the relative national strength of sea-power. Until recently, the British navy dominated every sea. To-day, it is concentrated in the North and Mediterranean Seas. To-day, British commerce is larger than ever before. To-day, foreign merchant ships, easily convertible into commerce-destroyers, are in every part of the world. To-day, as Mr. Winston ChurchiU has said "commerce is invited to protect itseU" as against these marauders, for the navy M'ill be otherwise engaged (c). The Interest of Canada.— In case of Canada's participation in British wars (either voluntarily or because attacked) her only apprehension (so far as her own interests are concerned) would be the liability of her commerce to capture or destruction. There (a) Quoted in Scott: American Addresses at the Second Hague Conjee, p. 17 (o) Speech in the House of Commons, 21 April 1909. (c) Speech in House of Commons, 17 July 1913: Hans. p. 153'\, Capture at Sea — Contraba.nd — Blockade 253 would be no possibility of invasion of our territory (all enemy land forces would be needed elsewhere). And there would be no bom bardment of our coast cities- first, because ah undefended towns are (as we have seen) immune, and secondly, because enemy naval forces, too, would be needed elsewhere. Our commerce would be easy prey for enemy ships. "But would not the British navy attend to that? Have we not always had, and have we not now, absolute protection in that respect? Have we not, throughout our whole history, accepted that protection, and meanly declined to pay a dollar towards the cost?" There is a great deal of misapprehension upon these points. For war-purposes there are two classes of ships, (1) fighting ships, and (2) commerce destroyers. The fighting ships keep together in fleet aggregates, and they seek to engage, or to escape engaging, the fleets of the enemy. Commerce destroyers, on the other hand, operate singly. They are lightly armed, but, for their purpose, are as effective as Dreadnoughts. And it is from them that danger to our commerce arises. All .the great Powers have arrangements with Steamship Companies providing tor the construction of their ships in such way that guns (always carried in the holds) can be quickly placed upon the decks. The outbreak of war would find these vessels spread over the world, and commerce-destroyers would ap pear everywhere. "But would not the British navy soon put an end to their ravages?" No; for purpose of that sort, the navy would have to disperse itself, and that is precisely what the fighting ships must not do. Their functions forbid it. They must remain witn their fleet, first for their own safety, and secondly in order that their fleet may defeat its opponents. If war broke out to-morrow with Germany, no British war-ship would chase a German commerce-destroyer. On the contrary, the concentration around the British shores would be drawn closer, and the inost rigid fleet formation would last untU the opposing fleets had been destroyed. After that, if the war stUl continued, the commerce-destroyers would be in difficulty. This fact appears to be overlooked in Canada, and the contrary idea is so generaUy entertained that, very probably, some of my readers have been mentaUy protesting against what I have been saying. For proof of its accuracy, I quote from Mr. Winston Church ill's speeches: "Hostile cruisers, wherever they are found, -wiU be covered and met by British ships of war, but the proper reply to an armed merchantman is another merchantman armed in her own defence" (a). (o) Hans., 26 March 1913, p. 1777. 254 Capture at Sea — Contraband — Blockade ' ' 'We defend commerce absolutely from the attacks of foreign men-of-war, but commerce is in-vited to protect itself against the attacks of foreign merchant vessels converted into marauding cruisers on the high seas" (a). ' ' And has the United Kingdom, then, no security for the safe arrival of her food-ships?" Recently, owing to the modern practice of converting fast merchantmen into commerce-destroyers with which the navy cannot deal, the United Kingdom has made some provision for security of her food-ships in a way described by Mr. ChurchUl. "Forty ships have been armed, so far, with two 4.7 guns apiece; and by the end of 1914-5, seventy ships wih have been so armed. They are armed solely for defensive purposes. The guns are mounted in the stem and can only fire on a pursuer. Vessels so armed have nothing in common -with merchant vessels taken over by the Admiralty and converted into commissioned auxiUaiy cruisers, nor are these vessels privateers or commerce-destroyers in any sense. They are exclusively ships which carry food to this country. They are not aUowed to fight with any ships of war. Enemies' ships of war -wiU be dealt -with by the navy, and the instructions, to these armed merchant vessels, -wiU direct them to surrender if overtaken by ships of war. They are, however, thoroughly capable of self-defence against an enemy's armed merchantman. The fact of their being so armed -wiU probably prove an effective deterrent alone on the depredations of armed merchantmen, and an effective protection for these ships and for the -vital supphes that they carry" (6). British Change of Policy. — Since the above was put in type, a debate upon the subject has taken place in the British House of Commons and a most interesting, significant and acceptable speech has been delivered by Sir Edward Grey (c) . In his most lucid style Sir Edward referred to some of the difficulties with which the subject is surrounded and added: "When you come to the question of interference with merchant ships and private property on the high seas I agree -with my hon. friend to this extent that I do not think that it is to our interest that we should pose as being the champion obstacle. (Cheers.) I can only speak for my o-wn personal opinion, as it is a very large subject which the Government -wiU have to consider much more care fully than it has as yet had time to give before its final instructions for the Hague Conference, but there is no reason why we should appear to be the chief obstacle (hear, hear) and why we should not devote our efforts and consideration in the interval before the Conference, not to supplying our delegates -with arguments for opposing the resolution, which imdoubtedly wiU be brought fonvard by the United States or some other Power, but for examining the conditions on which we can instruct them to accept the resolution". (a) Hans., 17 July 1913, p. 1530. lb) The Times, 18 March 1913. (c) The Times, 7 May 1914. Capture at Sea — Contraband — Blockade 255 Sir Edward declared that the United Kingdom could not agree to the discontinuance of the right of blockade, and that she might require some quid pro quo — making special reference in that respect to the subject of floating mines. If British conversion has not come too late — if Germany does not think that the advantage to be gained in war by destruction of enemy's commerce is now on her side, we may expect the next Hague Conference to put an end to the practice. OUGHT CANADA TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE BRITISH NAVY? There are three principal purposes for which the British people desire a strong navy: 1. Protection of commerce; 2. Defence of over-sea possessions; and 3. Support of diplomacy. It is in connection with these purposes that we must consider the interest which Canada has in her relation to the British navy. And, separating them in this way, there is not much difficulty in deter mining whether (with a view to the future and altogether apart from any suggestion of the existence of a debt of gratitude on our part (a)) we ought to send 137,000,000, to the Admiralty. 1. As to the first of these purposes, the protection of our com merce during war, the position is this: (a) The war would not be of our making, and almost certainly not one in which any of our interests would be affected. (b) The war would arise out of a diplomacy, in the conduct of which we had no share. (c) Our commerce would be liable to capture and destruction, only because the United Kingdom avows that she cannot protect it and has so far declined to agree that it shall be free from attack. Instead, therefore, of paying a bonus to the Admiralty for pro tection of our commerce, we are compromised and damaged because (1) of our engulfment in war, (2) of the absence of protection, and (3) of the refusal to agree to immunity. If, as seems probable, commerce shall become exempt from seizure during war, commerce-protection, as a reason for naval power will disappear. 2. The second purpose — defence of over-sea possessions — has no application to Canada; for (other than the United States) there is no country in the world which possesses the two qualifications necessary for an attack upon us : (1) tremendous military resources, (a) That subject has already been dealt -with in these Papers: See ante, i^ 8. 256 Capture at Sea — Contraband — Blockade and (2) security at home. Germany and Japan have sufficient occu pation for the next fifty years, at their doors. One of them has to consider France and Russia ; and the other Russia and China. Can ada is in no danger of invasion from any quarter. 3. There remains the third purpose for the British navy — support for British diplomacy, and the question which we have to answer is. Ought Canada to send $37,000,000 to the Admiralty to support a diplomacy in the formation and conduct of which she has no share; a diplomacy which she may not approve; a diplomacy which wiU almost certainly be based upon considerations not relating to her interests ? PersonaUy, I venture, most heartUy, to disapprove of the recent course of British foreign policy. It is the unhappy result of the fatal British-Japanese treaty of 1902 — Japan reduced Russia to temporary impotency; Germany, relieved from fear of Russia, threatened France; in the absence of Russia, the United Kingdom supported France, and made an enemy of Germany. That is the story. Now Russia is strong; German apprehension of her has revived; France and Russia together balance the other three Powers; the European situation has returned to that which preceded the Russo-Japanese war; and the United Kingdom might well resume her former position — the only obstacle being the enmity which has been produced by her decade of interference between France and Germany. That is my own view. It is not without very great support in the United Kingdom. Whether it be right or wrong is not the ques tion. What we have to answer is, Are we to subscribe to the sup port of a diplomacy in the conduct of which we have no share? Policy and Preparation. — It is a fatal error for the British people (it would be foolish for Canadians) to declare that British policy may require ever-increasing mihtary and naval power, and to act upon that basis. British pohcy may outrun its support; disaster may ensue; and safety, upon that footing could be secured only by creating and maintaining such overwhelming forces as would always suffice to uphold and sustain any policy that any British government might, at any time, happen to adopt. Add to that, this, that the greater the strength of the national forces, the more meddlesome would, probably, be the foreign policy, and one sees that the assertion just challenged means that pr<^,paration would always be pursuing policy, and always — demonstrably always — ridiculously in arrear. Read, in contrary vein, the following extract from a speech by Sir Edward Grey: Capture at Sea — Contraband — Blockade 257 "Your standard, ob-viously, must be a standard which -will be equal to any probable combination which you are Ukely to have to meet. That is the first observation I would make. The second is that it foUows from that, that it is not true to state as an absolute unquaUfied truth that your naval strength is dependent on your foreign pohcy. Ob-viously, it is the other way ; Youe foebiqn POLICY MUST nEPBND UPON YOUE NAVAL STEENGTH. If you have an absolute superiority to all other European navies, your foreign pohcy is comparatively simple. Suppose you find yourself at any given moment in such an unfortunate position that the whole of Europe is combined against you at once, you are stiU going to be able to maintain yourself. If you are not going to have that kind of standard, your Sbceetaey tor Fokeign Affaies must so shape his foreign POLICY THAT YOU ARE NOT AT ANT GIVEN MOMENT GOING TO HA-VB COMBINED AGAINST YOU SOMETHING WHICH YOUR NA-VT CANNOT DEAL WITH. I Only make these remarks because I have so often heard it said that armaments depend upon pohcy that I think one must now and then assert, what is at least as true on the other side, that policy must have some relation to armaments" (o). That is well said. The British people, more than any other possibly, need to be reminded of it. For they possess a governing, regulating and elevating faculty, of which, too frequently and some times quite inopportunely, they insist upon giving other nations the benefit. And the great lesson which Sir Edward Grey would teach them is that preparation ought to be proportioned to probable neces sity and not to possible policy. Having provided reasonable pro tection against probable contingencies, make your policy fit your power. Refrain from enterprises beyond your capacity. "So shape . . . foreign pohcy that you are not at any given moment going to have combined against you something which your navy cannot deal with".That is hard doctrine for a people who have come to think that their sea-supremacy ought always to be permitted to be beyond challenge. They do not like it — very many of them, and they call upon Canada for help. They do not wish to fit their policy to the amount which they want to spend. They want the prestige, the power, the umpirage which overwhelming strength would give them; but they wish Canada to pay part of the cost. Sir Edward Grey points them to a better way, if one less flattering to their ambition — Make your policy fit your power. Keep out of entanglements which may face you with "something which your navy cannot deal with". Every other country in the world has to govern itself in that way. And it is well that it should be so. Conclusion. — ^The questions then for Canadian consideration are as follows: 1. Is the United Kingdom able, without distress, to protect (a) The Times, 19 March 1913. 258 Capture at Sea — Contraband — Blockade herself and her interests from foreign aggression? Obviously, yes. 2. Is the United Kingdom able, without distress, to uphold any foreign policy which she may adopt? She is prodigiously rich. Every year her wealth increases enormously. If she spent a million dollars a day on war, she would still be accumulating money. Con ceivably her policy might be wild enough to exhaust her surplus revenue, but only conceivably. 3. Ought Canada to subscribe to the British navy? No. Her only fear of war, is derived from her political association with the United Kingdom. From such a war Canada need not apprehend either invasion, or bombardment of her coasts. Her apprehension is for her commerce, and as to that, while the British navy cannot defend it, the British government has hitherto dechned to agree that it shall be free from attack. 4. To these, my answers, let me add the answer of Canada as formulated by Mr. Borden and agreed to by everybody, namely, that obligation to participate in British wars, ¦without a share in the control of British foreign policy would not be — "a tolerable condition. I do not think the people of Canada would, for one mo ment, submit to such a condition'' (a). That answer is sufficient — ^whatever may be thought of the other three replies. MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL. Mr. Churchill is enabling colonials of the present day to form some idea of the exasperation which their ancestors experienced at the hands of lecturing Colonial Secretaries and their Governors. It was and is all meant for our good. We are ignorant and ought to be taught. When the United Ivingdom tariff policy is protective, we are childish if we suggest free trade. When the United Kingdom adopts free trade we make ourseh-es ridiculous by regretting our approach to national bankruptcy because of a too sudden change. When we decline to subscribe to the British navy, Mr. Chamberlain tells the Dominions (Conference of 1902) that it is "inconsistent -with their dignity as nations that they should leave the mother country to bear the whole, or almost the whole of the expense" When the United Kingdom becomes tired of the conditions attached to Australasian subscriptions, the colonies are adA-ised (Conference 1907) to buUd for themselves; an agreement is made (1909) with reference to the number and character of the ships to be constructed; the Admiralty is to station a fleet unit in the India station and another in the China station; the New Zealand ship is to be the (o) 7/ons. 24 Nov. 1910, p. 227. Capture at Sea — Contraband — Blockade 259 iBiag-ship of the latter unit, etc. When Mr. Churchill becomes First Lord, these arrangements are all disapproved; neither of the Ad miralty fleet units is provided; the New Zealand ship (much to the - an erroneous impression upon the point, but the solid fact will remain unshaken. For example. Sir Robert Borden, referring to the authority of the British Prime Minister, is reported to have said : "The recent exercise of that great authority has brought about an advance which may contain the germ and define the method of consti tutional development in the immediate future." lie alluded to the deliberations of what he called the "Imperial War Cabinet," and added: "It is not for me to prophesy as to the future significance of these pregnant events ; but those who have given thought and energy to every (a) Toronto Mail and Empire, 3 May 1917. The Republic of Canada 269 effort for full constitutional development of the oversea nations may be pardoned for believing that they discern therein the birth of a new and greater Imperial Commonwealth" (a). On another occasion. Sir Robert said: "The profound influence of the war upon our Empire is already apparent. The very force of circumstances has brought about an im portant advance in constitutional relations. We sit in the Imperial War Cabinet to consider matters of common concern, while a British War Cabinet, meeting at other times, consider those appertaining more especially to the United Kingdom" (6). Pernicious Nonsense. — That, of course, is nonsense. There are not two war cabinets. There is not even a "British War Cabinet." There is a British parliamentary cabinet, and only one. It , devotes itself principally to the conduct of the war, and if you wish to mislead yourself, you may call it a "British War Cabinet" ; but it is not. When Sir Robert and the other colonial representatives meet with the British cabinet, you may sp^ak of the aggregation as an "Imperial War Cabi net" ; but it is not. And when representatives of all the Allies meet in Paris, you may (as one of them did) apostrophise the conference as an "ally parliament" ; but it is not. The British Cabinet is "a committee of the party that has a majority in the House of Com mons'' (c). It is "a parliamentary executive, for it is in truth chosen by a very indirect process, and may be dismissed by the House of Commons, and its members are invariably selected from among the members of one or other House of Parliament" (d). There will never be an "Imperial Cabinet" until there is an Imperial parhament. Sir Robert is no more a member of the British cabinet because he attended some of its sittings than is Mr. Balfour a member of the Canadian cabinet because he was present at some of its deliberations. In his speech in the House of Commons on May 18, 1917, Sir Robert shpped into the unexaggerated fact when he said: "It was a remarkable body that was gathered together. First there were the members of the Cabinet of the United Kingdom, the five men (o) The Times (London), 3 April 1917. (fc) The Times (London), 12 April 1914. (c) Lowell: The Government of England, Vol. 1, p. 54. (d) Dicey: Law of the Constitution, p. 483. 270 Imperial Projects who constitute that Cabinet, but who call into counsel with them other members of the British Government whenever necessary'' (o). When "other members of the British Government" meet for counsel with the cabinet, they do not thereby become members of the cabinet. Nor do members of the Canadian government when they attend meetings of the cabinet. Invention of the phrase "Imperial War Cabinet," as descrip tive of the London consultations, is a dishonest exploitation of war enthusiasm for imperialistic purposes, and cannot be too strongly censured. It will mislead many people. It was originated for that purpose, and Sir Robert ought to have re fused to participate in its propagation. That he is well aware of the deception is indisputable, not merely because he is an excellent constitutional lawyer, but because, when telling how innocuous (from the point of view of Canadian self govern ment) the future meetings of the cabinet would be, he said: "The ministers from overseas go there as the heads of their govern ments. They are responsible to their own parliaments ; as the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom goes there responsible to his parliament. They go there as the representatives of independent gov ernments, each responsible to independent Parliaments" (6). In other words, instead of meeting as one cabinet, the delegates meet as representatives of several cabinets. One cabinet would mean collective responsibility. There is none. WoRSEOLD. — One of the most studious of the imperialists, Mr. Worsfold (a), states the simple truth when he says: "The War Conference does not represent any new departure from a constitutional point of view Constitutionally the War Con ference does not represent an advance towards the administrative unity of the Empire. We are consulting the Dominions in precisely the same way as we have consulted foreign (and Allied) nations at the Paris Economic Conference and the recent Rome Conference. To consult the Dominions by the method of the Conference and negotiation between governments is all that can be done, until a common Imperial authority has been constituted" (rf). (a) Hansard, p. 1599. (£>) Ibid, p. 1600. (c) The author of The Emt'irc on the Anvil. (d) The Emt'irc: The Nineteenth Century, March, 1917. The Republic of Canada 271 OBJECT OF THE IMPERIALISTS. Control of Canada. — The single object of the imperiahsts is to provide for the eventuality of Canada not being willing to participate in some future British war. They wish to arrange, in advance, that, for all time and under all circumstances^ — wherever the war is, and for whatever cause, Canadians, how ever unwilling, shall be obliged to arm and fight. That is the imperialistic purpose, and not infrequently it has been frankly avowed. Imperialistic Stages. — Observe the three stages in imperi alism as applied to Canada: (1) Until the introduction of free trade (in the 1840's), Canada was a British possession of considerable commercial value, and, for that reason, imperi alists insisted, with statutes and soldiery, upon keeping control over her. The colonies were (to appropriate Lord Milner's rather mixed metaphor) regarded as "so many satelhtes circling round the United Kingdom as a centre, and being compelled to dance to a tune of some Piper of Westminster" — the Piper being the Colonial Secretary. (2) Free Trade hav ing dissolved British monopoly, Canada's value disappeared, and "these wretched colonies" (referring principally to Canada) were spoken of as "a millstone round our [the British] neck." Canadians were told that they ought to "break the bonds and go," and they were allowed to govern themselves as they pleased (a). (3) Canada having become populous and rich, her value as a source of military supply was discovered ; and imperialism set itself to regain the lost control. Disraeli, in an often-quoted speech, regretted that it had ever been sur rendered, and Mr. W. E. Forster founded (1884) the Imperial Federation League. Tupper. — Sir Charles Tupper was a member of the League, and was one of the committee which framed its valedictory. He understood its purpose, and has left us the fohowing: "Knowing as I do, that the most active members of the committee were mainly intent on levying a large contribution on the revenues of ihe colonies for the support of the army and navy of Great Britain, I atn delighted to have been able, almost single-handed, to obtain such a report from such a committtee." (a) New evidence that the Canadian federation in 1867 was hailed by British people as a step towards their release from association with us has recently been supplied by publication of the letters of Joseph Howe to W. S. Stairs in the Records of the Royal Society of Canada (1917). 272 Imperial Projects Freeman. — The object of the League is well expressed in the language of the historian Freeman: "The greatest and freest of colonies may at any moment find itself plunged into a war which may suit the interests or the fancies of the people of Great Britain, but which may, in no way, suit the interests or the fancies of the people of the colony. It is to meet this difficulty that schemes have been of late largely proposed for bringing about a nearer union between the mother-country and the colonies, and that in some shape other than that of dependence" (a). Chamberlain. — Shortly after his return from the battle fields of South Africa, Mr. Chamberlain commenced his memor able imperialistic campaign. Impressed with the value of the military assistance supplied by Canada, and the necessity for controlling it, he urged upon his electors (15 May, 1903) the need for the creation of "a new government for the British Empire" ; and overlooking the effect in Canada, he pointed to the advantage of "association with the growing colonies, without whose strong right hands and loyal hearts you cannot keep your Empire Think what it means to your power and influence as a country" (6). Canada was to be regimented so that the power and influence of the British people might be sufficient for the maintenance of their Empire. Phillips. — That later-day imperialists are actuated by the same purpose as the earlier can be proved partly by easily demonstrated argument, and, perhaps more satisfactorily, by the actual language of some of its less discreet apostles. At the Royal Colonial Institute (20 June, 1916) for example. Sir Lionel Phillips, speaking of the present war, said that it "has demonstrated that in a moment of great emergency, and in a case where the justice of the cause appealed with irresistible force to every part of the Empire, a Commonwealth parliament, having legislative rights over the whole, could hardly have produced more effective cohesion and co-operation." That being true, one would think that Sir Lionel would have been satisfied to leave matters as they were. He proceeded : "But although this enthusiasm and spontaneity have been awakened on the present occasion, it does not follow that the same result might ensue upon other occa.'tions in the future when the British Empire may be drawn into war. The time, therefore, seems ripe for the creation of (a) Greece and Britain, p. 46. Quoted by Ewart: Kingdom Papers, Vol. I, p. 48 ib) Quoted, Ewart: Kingdom Papers, Vol. I, p. 47. The Republic of Canada 273 Imperial machinery for assuring hereafter better organization and greater certainty of combined action" (a). DuvEEN. — Compelhng machinery is what the imperiahsts want. Mr. Duveen, for example, has given us the following: "May I, in passing, note that within a few years Canada, supposing her present progress continues, would be in a position to withhold her support from any war we might be engaged in, on the ground that her interests are not involved in the struggle. / want to make such a con tingency impossible" (b). That was not intended for Canadian eyes, but here it is. WORSEOLD. — Mr. Worsfold, an old-time imperialist, in his recent work, Tne Empire on the Anvil remarks that the dis- inchnation of the colonies to join in an imperial parliament is "the gravest defect in the existing system of Imperial administration. The resources of the Empire as a whole in men, money, and materials remain unorganized, and are, therefore, only in part available for the Imperial Government" (c). Lash. — Mr. Lash, too, is perfectly frank. Replying to an attack upon his recent monograph, he said that his critic wanted Canada to be "free from obligations to the mother country or the Empire, free at all times to assume or decline any such obligations, free to take part or to decline to take part in imperial defence, free to remain neutral when the Empire is at war'' (d). Suppression. — Disliking freedom of that sort, imperialists set themselves to evolve schemes for its suppression. And, however diverse the output, all embody the single purpose — namely, that no statesman (as Mr. Curtis tells us) "will consider a system which wil! not enable them to frame a budget, submit it to parliament, and obtain the cash, if necessary by a process of execution against the taxpayers legally liable for supplying it" {e). These gentlemen are to be commended for their courage and their fankness. When Canada is wilhng to participate in a war, she will send her men and money, not only without compulsion, but without request. But when she is unwiUing (as in some Crimean or in some Chinese-opium war), imperial ists insist that she must be compeUed to participate, and that the "cash" may be obtained by "a process of execution against the taxpayers." Can anything be more fascinating? (a) United Empire, August, 1916, p. 519. (6) Lecture and Pamphlet, May 1910. (c) P. 13. id) The Globe (Toronto), 22 January 1917. (e) The Proble/n of the Commonitealth, p. 160. 274 Imperial Projects CONSENT OR CONTROL. Greater Still. — The honor roU of the imperiahsts is headed "Empire-builders." As their name implies, (a) they are always seeking for additions to their territory and striving for something more to govern. It may be Egypt, or the Trans vaal, or Morocco, or Tripoh, or Persia, or the Balkans, domina tion of which has to be acquired by force. Or it may be Siam or China — Port Arthur, Wei-hai-wei, Kiao-Chou, or an area opposite Hong Kong; and, against pacifist peoples, the posses sion of force is sufficient. Or it may be Canada and Australia and New Zealand and South Africa; with consent of the inhabitants as the unique and unpleasing necessity. Prussian Precedent. — The British are supreme over nearly four hundred miUions of people. No one of them ever voted for his subjection. Under pressure of war conditions, imperial ists appear to imagine that Canada will willingly perform her hara-kiri. They are impressed, as is all the world, with the un expected exhibition of colonial fighting power, and they acknow ledge the ungrudging spontaneity of colonial contributions, but the very vastness of colonial fighting-value has whetted their imperialistic instinct to bring it under control. If, they say, the United Kingdom can be put into a position to issue orders to these places for men, money, and supplies as we need them, what a splendid thing for the United Kingdom ! Germany has her Danes, Poles, Alsatians, Lorrainers, etc. ; Austria- Hungary has her Czechs, Slovenes, Serbo-Croats, Galicians, Roumanians, etc. Why should not the L^nited Kingdom have her Canadians, and Australians, and South Africans and New Zealanders ? Pkussianism Failed. — One good reason might occur even to imperialists (greedy for government and confident of its efficiency), namely, that control in Europe has failed, while consent in the British Colonies has produced unprecedented and almost incredible success. Why? Because men are men, and the good ones hate subordination. Is there an imperialist any where who imagines that orders from London would have (a) In his Rectorial Address at Glasgow University, 1900, Lord Rosebery accurately defined imperialism as "the predominance of race": Quoted in Silburn The Governance of Empire, p. 82. The Republic of Canada 275 enlisted 300,000 to 500,000 men in Canada? Of course not (a). But nevertheless all the imperiahsts wish to obtain power to issue orders in the future. They would nag Canada into ill- temper with enforced war-preparation ; provoke disobedience to displeasing orders ; and send the sheriif with his writs of execution. American Experience. — That is precisely what the imperial ists did in the case of the American colonies in the 1770's. Those places had not escaped from the control of the imperial parliament ; the taxing power was intact ; and, in its exercise, parliament required the colonies to contribute toward their defence ; imposed taxes for that purpose ; met with refusals ; sent the collectors; sent regiments; and in 1778 — two years too late — renounced the right to tax. NoosE EOR Canada. — Canada inherited the benefit of the renunciation. The imperial parliament has not now the right to levy taxes upon her. And imperialists blandly propose that she should surrender her sovereignty; vest it in a parliament or council in which she would have a trifling representation; and comply with whatever requisitions that body might send to her. Being free, we are asked to put our heads into a noose, and confide the strings to the British electorate. How fascin ating ! MR. CURTIS'S SCHEME. Mr. Curtis. — Mr. Lionel Curtis is now the principal apostle of imperial federation. If energy, ability, and abundant financial resources can make it palatable, Mr. Curtis wiU suc ceed. His organization is remarkable, as well in extent as in character. A Round Table magazine, very ably conducted, and widely circulated ; Round Table study groups, everywhere ; books on The Project of a Commonwealth and The Problem, of the Commonwealth ; speeches and other propagandist activi ties, have undoubtedly made deep impression upon a great many people. (a) In the course of his recent speech in the House of Commons (18 May 1917), Sir Robert Borden said: *'I venture to think that the Dominions have done more for the common cause that we all have at heart in this war than could have been accomplished by any Imperial Parliament possessing the powers to which I have alluded" (Hansard, p. 1603). 276 Imperial Projects Mr. Chamberlain. — With courageous confidence, Mr. Cur tis undertakes an enterprise to which Mr. Chamberlain referred as follows: "To create a new government for the British Empire — a new govern ment with large powers of taxation and legislation over countries separ ated by thousands of miles of sea, in conditions as various as those which prevail in our several dependencies and colonies — that, indeed, would be a duty from which the boldest statesman might shrink appalled" (o). Federation. — Mr. Curtis proposes the usual form of federa tion — a federal parhament, with legislative jurisdiction over everybody — British, Canadian, Australasian, Malayan, Hindu, etc.; and a local state (b) parhament for each member of the federation — namely, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. Of such a proposal, Sir Frederick Pollock, a very enthusiastic imperialist, has said : "I am not aware of any reason for thinking that the Parliament of the United Kingdom would easily be persuaded to reduce itself by a solemn act to a mere state legislature, or that the colonial governments would be willing to surrender any substantial part of their autonomy to some federal state or council." Federal Jurisdiction. — Recognizing that the present parlia ments would be loathe to surrender their powers, i\Ir. Curtis proceeds to indicate the minimum amount of jurisdiction that must be given up to the federal parliament, namely: (1) for eign affairs, (2) the army, (3) the navy, (4) India, (5) the dependencies, and (6) finance sufficient for those purposes. The federal parliament is to consist of a single chamber ; to have authority to regulate its expenditure as it pleases ; to distribute liability among the states as it thinks right (upon the basis of tax-bearing capacity) ; and to enforce payment in case of re calcitrance. There is to be a parliament; an opposition, as its usual accompaniment; and the customary elections for member ship. The Tariee. — While Mr. Curtis proposes a federation, he omits from the powers given to the federal parliament that which has always been thought to be essential to the proper functioning of a federation, namely, control of the tarifl?. That he leaves to the individual states, each of which may legislate (a) .^ddress to Canadian Club, London (Eng.) 2S March 1896. (b) Mr. Curtis prefers the term Dominion, but the word is not only inaccurate but confusing. The Republic of Canada 277 as it pleases — give preferences, make concessions, treat equally, or make tariff-war. Canada may enact continental free trade, and recoup herself by heavier taxes on British manufactures. Australia may enter into separate arrangements with Germany, and send all her wool to Hamburg. Does anybody imagine that the United States would have hved for twenty years with state-control of the tariff? (a). Do you know what keeps Austria and Hungary together? A War Union. — Looked at more closely, Mr. Curtis's scheme is not so much a federation as a war-union — a war- union of unique type. Heretofore arrangements for war-co operation have taken the form of treaties, or at most of con federations — mere unions of states (not of peoples) without any central or federal parliament. Mr. Curtis proposes a union for the purpose of war only, but a union in which there is to be a war-parliament. That is something for which there is no precedent. Let us examine it. A Wa,^-Parliament. — Parhament of the British type per forms two functions. It legislates, and it makes and unmakes executives, called cabinets. What would Mr. Curtis's war- parhament do? He assigns to it six subjects of jurisdiction. 1. Foreign Policy. — Constructive foreign policy, the Bri tish parliament never debates. In bygone days, the opposition were wont to heckle and worry ministers in connection with pending negotiations. But experience conclusively proved that while that procedure might be beneficial to the opposition, it was certainly injurious to the nation. And the practice was dropped. Foreign policy is now left completely in the hands of the cabinet, and Mr. Curtis probably would not suggest that his imperial parliament should adopt the abandoned system. 2 and 3. The Army and Navy. — Usually very httle time is spent upon questions concerning the army and navy. Big or little navy sometimes comes under discussion, but, that settled, all details are left to the executive. 4 and 5. India and Dependencies. — Once a year the Secre taries for India and the Colonies make their annual statements. Some unusual action (such as Lord Morley's civil reforms) may raise debate, but generally two or three speeches are all that are heard. (ii) Cf. Curtis, op. cit., p. 55. 278 hnperial Projects 6. Finance. — Mr. Curtis proposes that settlement of ratios of state-contributions should be fixed by a Board of Assessors. If that be done, and the action of the Board is to be final, debate on the budget can involve one principal subject only — namely, big or little army and navy. If the action of the Board is not to be final, debate may last indefinitely ; and the longer it lasts, the madder will wax the members. Nothing to Do. — Parliament then is to be summoned from the four quarters of the globe to debate one subject — the size of the army and navy; possibly a second — the ratios of contri butions ; and to listen to reports upon India and the Dependen cies. There being only one or two subjects of dispute, it will be upon it or them that the cabinet will frame a policy, and upon it or them that the opposition will take issue — the cabinet (we may say) proposing (1) "reasonable" or "adequate" pre paration, and their opponents insisting upon something much more "reasonable" or "adequate" ; and (2) a certain schedule of ratios, to which nearly everybody will make objection. The elections, too, will turn upon this one or these two subjects — big or little preparation and the ratio schedule. Could anything be more ridiculously absurd? Parliament Inappropri.vte. — Very plainly, the most obvi ous objection to Air. Curtis's scheme is the inappropriateness of the machinery to the work that is to be done. A parliament is to be got together at enormous expenditure of time, money, and effort. It is to contain (perhaps) the best men in the con- .stituences. And it is to do almost nothing. Turn over the pages of the British statute book, and you will not find, on the aver age, one enactment in a year upon the subjects which Mr. Curtis proposes to hand over to his imperial parliament. The work of his parliament is almost entirely the work of an executive. British Control. — Mr. Curtis would protest that, although there is little for the parliament to do, yet that that little is of the very greatest importance and cannot be done in any other way — namely, that the resources of the whole Umpire havc been made available by a paramoitnt parliament. That is true, but it ought to be amended to read : Ti-ii; RES0URCE.=i OE The whole Empire ii.wi: hken at.ade available To the United Kingdom The Republic of Canada 279 BY THE simple method OE CASTING THE MAJORITY VOTE. For, as Mr. Curtis explains, "It is true that for some time the United Kingdom would retain a preponderance of votes in the Imperial Parhament" (a). In Other words, the United Kingdom is to have the dominating position which gives to Prussia her authority in Germany. Whatever the United Kingdom requires, the colonies must do. Is not that a situation (Mr. Curtis may think) which amply justifies the elections, and the travel, and the time, and the money — the resources of the whole Empire available to THE British people? Unicameral. — Although, as competent authority tells us, "No one attempt at introducing the unicameral system in large coun tries has succeeded" (6), Mr. Curtis proposes that very system for the parliament of much the greatest aggregation that ever existed. And the sug gestion, as Mr. A. Berriedale Keith points out, "has at least the merit of not being flatly absurd as would be the sugges tion that there should be an upper house with equal representation of the Dominions and the United Kingdom in order to preserve the true federal principle, a view which would never be accepted by the people of the United Kingdom as long as the discrepancy between the popula tion of that Kingdom and of the Dominions is so marked" (c). Mr. Curtis's reasons for proposing a single-chambered parliament are very obvious : 1. If he were to suggest that admission to a second chamber should be limited to titled gentlemen, what would the demo cracies say? 2. If he were to open the doors to everybody, what would the British aristocracy say? And what would become of the aristocrats? Could then retain, in their state parliament, privileges which were unrecognized in the federal? 3. Would he apply to his federation "the true federal principle" of equality in state representation — the same number of members for each state; and thus abandon British control? 4. Would not the farce of two chambers, summoned from the ends of the earth, with little to do but look at one another. be much too broad to propose in a cloth-covered book? (o) Op. cit., p. 217. ib) Creasy, in The English Constitution, p. 179. (c) The Ideal of an Imperial Constitution: Canadian Law Times, 1916, p. 842. 280 Imperial Projects No Middle Way. — With the authority supplied by ability, prolsnged study, elaborated consultations, familiarity with the teaching of history, and the friendly assistance of eminent statesmen, Mr. Curtis tells us that, in order to obtain a share in the control of our foreign affairs, we must comply with certain conditions. One of them — that we must participate in the control of India and the Dependencies — will be dealt with on a later page. As a second condition, Mr. Curtis declares that the Dominions must surrender "the exclusive right of taxa tion" — " ... they must either forego this exclusive right, or else fore go their status as citizens of the greatest Commonwealth that the world has seen. There is no middle way, and it is idle as well as dangerous to mask the alternatives before us" (o). No Other Possibilities. — Mr. Curtis is undoubtedly right. The principal difficulty with which the writer of the Kingdom Papers has had to cope was the absence of some such clear and authoritative statement as that just quoted (&). The usual reply to similar assertions in the Papers was that which Profes sor Falconer applies to the Curtis and Lash schemes, namely, that "these do not exhaust the possibilities" (c). Mr. Curtis's book has now given to that sort of reply an appearance of mere desperation, and it has placed heavily upon those who assert the existence of other possibilities the onus of produc ing one of them. The Founder of the Iftiperial Federation League (1884), Mr. W. E. Forster, foresaw the mischief which would happen should any of his apostles formulate a scheme of federation. He said that: "he thought that those were the foes of union, or at any rate sceptics and unbelievers in it, who would ask them to define, then, what shape federation should assume." Messrs. Curtis and Lash have disregarded the warning. They have published their proposals, and they have enabled every body with little effort to arrive at confident decision between colonialism, imperiaUsm, and nationalism. Without their books, there would always have remained a suspicion of the possi bility of other possibilities. That feehng cannot long survive the failure to suggest some other proposal. (a) Op. cit., p. 215. (b) Kingdom Papers, Vol. I, pp. 166,8. (c) Toronto Globe, 2 May 1917. The Republic of Canada 281 MR. LASH'S SCHEME. A Novel Contrivance. — Mr. Lash agrees with Mr. Curtis in desiring the creation of a "central authority" with both legislative and executive power, but while Mr. Curtis adopts and misapplies the well-known federal principle, Mr. Lash con structs something of which the only merit is its originality. He objects to reduction of the present British parliament to the position of a state parliament, and he objects, therefore, to a new imperial parliament. What he wants is an "Imperial Council" with "plenary executive and legislative powers and authority" over subjects which may be summarized under the heads, foreign policy, army, navy, finance, censorship, pensions, eminent domain, courts "for the better administration of the laws in relation to any matter coming within any of the classes of subjects enumerated in this clause, and the appointment and payment of the Judges of such Courts" (a). Control of India and the colonies is left with the British parliament. The Council is to consist of "the Crown and la small number of elected representatives from the United Kingdom and the Dominions, and representatives from India (not necessarily elected)" (6). "The members should ordinarily reside in Eng land and be prepared to devote their whole time to the business and requirements of the Council" (c). That is necessary because: "Foreign affairs, as a rule, by their very nature do not admit of public discussion while they are being conducted ; they do require con tinuous discussion and attention by the ablest men of the nation. They sometimes require quick action, both executive and legislative'' (d). A Camarilla. — Of Mr. Curtis's scheme, Mr. Lash truly says that it ¦'would appear revoluntionary and would certainly be fraught with danger." Mr. Lash being an old friend of mine, I refrain from telling him what Mr. Curtis must think of his plan. For if Mr. Curtis proposes inappropriate machinery for the conduct of foreign aft'airs, it is at all events machinery that we are familiar with, (o) Defence and Foreign Affairs (1917), pp. 79, 80. (fe) Ibid, p. 44. (c) Ibid, p. 46. id) Ibid, p. 43. 282 Imperial Projects and (when properly constituted) can be trusted; whereas Mr. Lash proposes a mere camarilla — something which nobody would trust or even try to respect. He may say that foreign affairs are now conducted by the Foreign Office, which I may, if I wish, call a camarilla; but the difference is that the Foreign Office is responsible to a parliament; that the Foreign Secretary may at any time be asked to tell parliament what he is doing; and that parliament may at any time put an end, to him. Mr. Lash's Council is to be the Foreign Office. Its meetings and discussions will, for the most part, be secret (a). Nobody can question it. No body is to have control of it. It tells what it pleases, and does as it likes, until the next election. Do not tell me, that just as there is now a Foreign Secre tary responsible to parliament, so there will be a Foreign Sec retary responsible to the Council. That is not the scheme. The Council is to be the executive, and, for that purpose, is to sit continuously. Its Foreign Secretary will take his daily orders from the Council and through his staff will put them into operation. The Council — the executive — will be respon sible to nobody, except at the elections, to people who can be told, in part only, what has been done. Issuing Orders. — Incredible as it may appear, Mr. Lash actually proposes that this little junta ("The membership should be kept -down as low as possible" (&)), sitting cozily in Lon don, with comfortable salary ("They should be well paid" (c) ) is to issue its unappealable war-orders to all the six state parliaments. But that proposal, extraordinary as it may seem, is only imperialism raised to a war-crazed degree. For it is merely the most effective method ever yet suggested of placing Canadian resources unreservedly under imperial control. Mr. Curtis would let us have something of the appearance of a popular parliament, with open discussions, and declared pohcies, and appeals to electors as between opposing views. But Mr. Lash sees danger in all that. Why ought not a few men con trol aU the parliaments, and tell them what they ought to do? (o) Foreign affairs, Mr. Lash says, "do not admit of public discussion while they are being conducted"; treaties should be published, and sometimes the sub stance of negotiations; estimates of expenditure, and the reports and accounts "should be presented and explained in public" (Pp. 43, 44). (6) Op. cit., p. 45. ic) Ibid, p. 46. The Republic of Canada 283 If Imperialism is right, why not have it in e.vcelsis? To which, perhaps a sufficient answer is, that, some hun dreds of years ago, the British people escaped from camarilla control of their foreign affairs; that they have not quite for gotten what it meant; and that, rightly or wrongly, they are somewhat firmly convinced that they will never return to it. Professor Milner. — There are probably very few people in Canada who will not agree with Professor Milner, another imperiahst (I should think), when he says that "Mr. Lash was perhaps too absorbed in the intellectual interest of its solution", and that adoption of his scheme would mean "so violent a break with the past as to dismay our cautious, practical people." ' President FALCONER.^Probably President Falconer would agree both with what Mr. Lash says about Mr. Curtis and with what Professor Milner says about Mr. Lash, for, in a letter to The Globe (o), he said: "You seem to complain that the Round Table has not committed itself to the schemes set forth by Mr. Curtis or by Mr. Lash. The reason is that many of the members of the Round Table have not been satisfied with either proposal; but these do not exhau.st the possibilities." The President would wish that we should become "full part ners in a commonwealth of nations," but what that may mean, he does not say. FRYING PAN AND FIRE. Present Position Intolerable. — For their schemes, im perialists offer the clever and insidious, but hollow and sophi stical plea that the present relationship is unfair to the colonies; that colonies have been plunged into the present war without having had a voice in the diplomacies which preceded it; and that, for the future, their rightful demand for consultation ought to be conceded. Long prior to the war, and to the dis cussion in connection with naval preparations for war, the present writer pointed to the rank unfairness" of the situation, and urged that Canada, like other nations, should go to war, not as an adjunct of another nation and merely because she (a) 2 May 1917. 284 Imperial Projects was an adjunct, but when, in the exercise of her own judgment, she so decided. Something Worse. — Navy debates, and now war itself, have made it clear to everybody that the relationship is, as Sir Robert Borden has expressed it, intolerable; and admitting that some change must be made, imperialists propose that, out of the frying pan, Canada should voluntarily flop over into the fire; that we should give up the measure of freedom which we now have; and that we should bind ourselves by an irrevocable constitution to obey orders from London. Present Liberty. — At present, if the United Kingdom were to engage in a war which we did not approve, and did not desire to join in, we could take one of two courses: 1. We could declare our neutrality, and as Mr. Curtis says, "the enemy in the present war would most gladly have recognized it" (a). The same remark would apply to war with every country except the United States. 2. Or we could announce that we intended to confine our operations to the defence of our own territory, and by that announcement practically secure (save in the case of war with the United States) that no attack would be made upon us. Liberties to be Obliterated. — It is for the express pur pose of obliterating these liberties that the imperialists propose to entangle us in some sort of war-union. Pretending to admit that the position of an adjunct is unsatisfactory, they expand the status of a doubtfully attached appurtenance into that of a constitutionally established bond-slave, and tell us that we ought to be delighted with their concurrence in our views. Observing that when the United Kingdom is at war, the colon ies also are at war, but (except at the will of the colonies) in theory only, imperialists propose to change our position, not only by striking out the volition, but by giving to the United Kingdom conscriptive authority over men, money, and resources. That is, Mr. Curtis asserts, the only way in which "a British subject in the Dominions can acquire self-government in the same degree as one domiciled in the British Isles" (&). Present Influence. — Left with her present hberties, Can ada may rest assured that, in the future, some care wiU be (o) p. 3. ib) Curtis, op. cit, p. vi. The Republic of Canada 285 taken by British Foreign Secretaries that their policies and proceedings are not quite out of harmony with Canadian feel ing, and that some regard will be paid to Canadian opinion. Establishment of a central authority, on the other hand, would effectually relieve the Secretaries from all unpleasant embar rassment of that kind. The representatives of Canada would be patronized into concurrence in imperialistic views. Her titled and title-hunting hostages would outrun request and anxiously anticipate all demands. And should the impossible occur, — should social pressure fail, should tawdry ribands and gentlemen's garters lose their persuading power — the dominat ing vote would suppress all ill-mannered dissent. At present Canada has some little influence upon the foreign policy which binds her. She would have none under either of the proposed schemes and Professor Keith (x) is safe in suggesting that — "It may therefore be regarded as in the highest degree doubtful whether these Dominions would be willing to consent to the establishment of a central power to deal with foreign policy, since the degree of control which their representatives would de jure exercise would be negligible, and, by reason of that creation of a central power, the amount of control de facto now exercised over the foreign policy of the United Kingdom would at once disappear" (o). Prussian Precedent. — If anybody were to say that a Ger man living in Stuttgart has influence in war affairs "in the same degree as one domiciled" in Berlin, Mr. Curtis would not fail to point to the fact that, owing to her prepondering popula tion, Prussia is practically omnipotent, and that one share in omnipotence is much more substantial than a hundred shares in impotence. The case of the colonies, in the proposed imperial Parliament or Imperial Council, would be still worse. For if Prussia is praxtically dominant in Germany, the United King dom, in the London central authority, would be absolutely and unqualifiedly omnipotent. Prussia cannot outvote all the other states, but it is precisely that power that the United Kingdom is to possesss. British Control. — War-unions will never appeal to any body in the British Isles, except upon the one condition, that complete control shall remain in the hands of the British peo ple. If, by conceding the appearance of a share in that control, imperialists can bring the giant colonies to British assistance, (jr) University of Edinburgh. (o) Can. Law Times, 1916, p. 839. 286 Imperial Projects the appearance may be conceded — provided that it is an appear ance only, and not in the least like a reality. If anyone should be inchned to dispute this, let him picture to himself what luck the imperialists would have were they to say to the British people : "Our proposal is, that the complete control of all matters relating to foreign policy and war, including the British navy and army, shall be handed over to a central authority in which representatives from the British Isles and four or five other countries shall determine what is to be done." That, of course, would not do, and the imperiahsts must add: "The constitution of the central authority will be such that British control will practically remain the same as before.'' And so Mr. Curtis assures his British readers, that "for sometime the United Kingdom would retain a preponderance of votes", and adds, for his Canadian readers: "though the lapse of a few generations is likely to transfer that position to Canada" (a). What fantasy! The British Isles taking their foreign policy from a parliament dominated by Canadians, and depending for their defence upon the views of the Canadian electorate! Australia and South Africa get no comforting words of any kind. A change of domination, from the United Kingdom to Canada (no doubt a great improvement) is the best they can expect. INDIA. Mr. Curtis's Scheme^ — Contending that India is not suffi ciently advanced for self-government (a), Mr. Curtis declines to admit her as a member of his federation, and he transfers control over her from the British to his federation parliament. Any other disposition, he contends, would be Impracticable. "In plain words, Britain could govern neither India nor Egypt unless it maintained in both these countries a British army strong enough to enforce its authority. The body which creates and controls these forces" (the federal parliament) "is the body which must also be responsible for the policy of the government whose authority it may be called upon to uphold." "As this war has shown, the native armies of India, of Egypt, and of the Protectorates, as well as the armies of occupation, are integral factors in the whole scheme of Imperial defence. They must be con- (o) P. 217. The Republic of Canada 287 trolled by the Imperial Government. But, that one authority should con trol the Indian and Egyptian armies, while another and wholly separate authority controls their civil administration, is unthinkable." "A British citizen in the Dominions cannot be made responsible for the foreign affairs of the Commonwealth, without also becoming respon sible for the government of its subject peoples and sharing in the long and difficult task of training those peoples to govern themselves. The two things are by nature inseparable." "No proposal to entrust the conduct of foreign affairs to a parlia ment responsible to all the self-governing Dominions, while leaving the Dependencies to the Dominion parliament of the British Isles, is feasible in practice The immediate point therefore to keep in view is this : the people of the Dominions cannot share in the control of their foreign affairs with those of the British Isles unless they are ready to share also in the task of governing the great Dependencies. Let those who decline to face this prospect accept the alternative. Let them recognize at once that the people of the Dominions must each conduct their own foreign affairs for themselves through their own Dominion governments: let them realize that in order to do so the Dominions must assume their independence; that their people must renounce for ever their status as British citizens; that this project of a Commonwealth must be abandoned, and that all the consequences for abandoning it must be faced. In the last analysis there is no middle way" (a). Mr. Lash's Scheme. — Mr. Lash, on the contrary, would divide the control of Indian affairs between his Council and the present British parliament; foreign affairs would go to the Council; while for domestic affairs with a foreign aspect very special provisions are suggested. Mr. Lash argues strongly against the alleged necessity for vesting in a central authority lordship over all Indian affairs, but he fails to appreciate the full strength of Mr. Curtis's position. Pie knows, however, that acceptance by Canada of Mr. Curtis's proposal would be impossible, and to Mr. Curtis's assertion that Canada must accept it or face the alternative, namely, independence, he re sponds by saying: "The alternative quoted is presented as from the United Kingdom to the Dominions. It is earnestly hoped that the alternative may never have to be presented by the Dominions to the United Kingdom" (&). India's View (c). — While these gentlemen are making ar rangements on the assumption that India must be treated as unfit (a) op cit., pp. 204, 205, 208, 209, 210. (fc) Op. cit., p. 37. (c) During a visit to India by Mr. Curtis last autumn, he wrote a letter to the London Secretary of the Round Table. If anyone wants to understand the detestation with which Indian opinion has repudiated Mr. Curtis's scheme, he must read the newspaper comments on that letter. See Canada and India, April 1917, p. 16. 288 Imperial Projects to occupy in any new scheme a position of equality with Canada, Indian representatives have succeeded in making clear to every body the impossibility of assigning to their country an inferior position. She has been accorded an equal place with Canada in the London conferences; has practically secured her admis sion as an equal to the Imperial Conferences; and has been specially welcomed to her advancement by the King. To place among her over-lords, as Mr. Curtis proposes, men from coun tries which have shut their doors against the Hindu, would rightly result in revolt. The Alternatives. — The alternatives, then, appear to be as foUows : 1. Admit India as a state, or states, in the federation — with its capital in Delhi, and with Canada open to floods of poly gamous Hindus. 2. Place India under control of the federal parliament — and vigorously stam.p down Indian revolt. 3. Leave India under control of the British state parliament — and, as Mr. Curtis tells us, make the federation unworkable. Teeter-tauter. — Mr. Lash, in consideration of India's re cent "loyalty and patriotism," and "sacrifices" (a), and "evidence of capacity," while leaving her domestic and internal affairs under British ihrection and control, would give her a place in his Imperial Council. Canadians have been reared in the belief that domestic affaits are much less complex than foreign, and that capacity to manage them can be much more easily acquired. India, it appears, is to be told the contrary. And with this astonishing result that while, as to one set of affairs, the United Kingdom is to continue to dominate India; with respect to the other set — the much more important set — India is to form part of a Council which is to dominate the United Kingdom. The British parliament is to regulate India's domestic affairs, and India is to assist in the regula tion of the United Kingdom's foreign affairs. Worse than that, for inasmuch as these two sets of affairs intermingle and overlap, the Council is to be given (1) some control over the doubtfuls, and (2) power to put anything it (a) That India, by her conduct during the war, has earned a title to gratitude, is, tor diplomatic reasons, being officially acclaimed. It has not a vestige of founda tion in fact. It is one of several pernicious notions that pendency of the war makes current, and that it will be difficult afterwards to dissipate. The Republic of Canada 289 pleases in the foreign class. So while the British parliament may think that it dominates India in such matters as trade, treaties, shipping, etc. (a), India may vote that such domination is to cease. The British parliament is to maintain troops in India, in order to support its authority there; and in the event of war, India is to have a voice in the method of employment of those and all other troops. Inhere is no end to the absurdities at tendant upon the teeter-tauter which Mr. Lash proposes. FOREIGN AFFAIRS. Definition Needed — Both the schemes under review con template the relegation of foreign affairs to a central authority. But what are foreign affairs? And how can you disentangle them from domestic affairs? That has never yet been done, and there need be little hesitation in affirming that it cannot be done. Immigration. — Is im'migration from foreign countries, for example, a foreign or a domestic affair? If Canada is to retain control of it, are the difficulties with, say, Japan to be discussed in London? Is Canada to have power to exclude Hindus as "undesirables," and, at the same time, to form part of the central authority which must flatter their national capa city and ambition? Tariff. — Is the tariff a foreign or domestic affair? Canada, in control of her own custom-houses, had a tariff-war with Germany leading to reprisals, and fought it to a satisfactory finish. If our tariff arrangements are to be tied to imperial policy (as is proposed), is the central authority to tell us what we are to do? Shipping. — Canada is to retain control of her merchant ships, and may regulate their actions as she pleases. But the quarrels which will ensue are to be dealt with in London. Australia and New Zealand have good reason to anticipate sharp divergencies of opinion in that respect. (o) See pp. 31,2. 290 Imperial Projects Experience. — London indifference to quarrels thousands of miles away is natural and enevitable, and, therefore, although in its effect upon Canada unsatisfactory and unpleasant, need neither be wondered at nor complained about. But, with the experience which we have had, we should be absurdly foolish to agree to an aggravation of the present situation. Some little circumstance, such as a Russian fleet firing by mistake upon Dogger Bank fishermen, may appear in London as an insult to British honor, and may precipitate war; but the inexcusable seizure, by the United States, of Canadian sealing ships, year after year, in the Pacific, would appear (as it in fact did) to be a series of merely unfortunate incidents for which we ought to enter law-suits for damages against the United States in United States Courts (a). Mr. Lash's Propo.sal. — Mr. Lash understands perfectly that there are many "affairs which, though regarded as domestic, yet sometimes partake of a foreign nature" (&). And in this category of doubtfuls, Mr. Lash places "the subjects of Naturalization and Aliens, Immigration, Navigation and Shipping, Trade with the other Dominions and with Foreign countries. Imports and Exports, Customs and other duties. Questions relating to boundaries and International streams and waters. Conventions and arrangements with Foreign Governments upon Domestic Matters, as dis tinguished from Foreign Affairs proper" (c). Very clearly, if a subject of jurisdiction have two aspects, and if, from one point of view, it be within the jurisdiction of Mr. Lash's Council, and, from another point of view, it be within state jurisdiction, some arrangements of very special character will be necessary. Two Suggestions. — Mr. Lash makes two suggestions: 1. "It might be thought advisable, or even necessary, to entrust, to the Central Authority, some control, within specified limits, over some of the subjects in this class'' (d). 2. The term "foreign affairs" shall be so interpreted that it "shall include such other matters as the Central Authority may, from time to time, declare to be Foreign Affairs, and such declaration may be unlimited or limited as to time or purpose, and may be, from time to time, repealed or altered by extension, limitation, addition, or omission" (e). (a) See Kingdom Papers, vol. 2, pp. 59-112. ib) Op. cit., p. 29. (c) Ibid. (d) Ibid. («) Ibid, pp. 31, 32. The Republic of Canada 291 Probably these two suggestions are the best that can be offered, and their obvious effect is fatal to Canadian control of all those matters which Mr. Lash places in the doubtful category. There is hardly any subject which, in some way or other, may not take on a foreign aspect. Junta Jurisdiction. — And thus we see that the London Council, in the name of foreign policy, is to have power: 1. To over-ride our naturalization laws — to arrange by treaty, and enforce by statute, the naturalization of anybody in Canada. 2. To declare the rights, and duties, and powfirs of aliens in Canada. To open Canadian doors to yellows, browns, and blacks. 3. To regulate Canadian shipping — its character, its meth ods, its rules, and its routes. 4. To enforce its will upon questions affecting our trade, our imports and exports, our customs and excise duties. 5. To take out of our hands (in which only recently we got it placed) the settlement of all questions relating to boundaries and to international streams and waters. 6. And, even with respect to purely domestic affairs, to make conventions for us with foreign governments. Could anything be more fascinating? Will Canada Consent. — No one will dispute, that for the effective conduct of foreign affairs, the power which Mr. Lash desires is essential. The experience of the United States has sufficiently taught that to everybody- But the question is, whether Canada will make the necessary surrender. Will Can ada, for the sake of a war-union (in which she would have less interest than any other state) descend to a level of political subordination lower, in some respects, than that now occupied by her Provinces? In order that there may be a central authority in London with power to compel us to spend in preparation for war, and to engage .in war as it pleases, are we willing to abandon self-government in respect of the matters described as doubtfuls? 292 Imperial Projects FINANCE. The American Revolution. — The imperiahsts who caused the American revolution urged, as complete justification for imposition of taxes upon the colonies, that the then recent French war had proved the inadequricy, for defence, of the requisition system. Franklin begged them to continue it, promising aU kinds of reasonable compliances. The imperial ists refused, and insisted upon exercising their power to en force payment of contributions. They failed, and the lesson ought to have taught them the utter impracticability of subject ing peoples like Americans and Canadians to distasteful taxation. PrEdacity Unimpaired. — But the predacity of imperiahsts is unimpaired. If one excuse for wider power fail, another — perhaps the opposite of the old one — is offered. Or, without any excuse, they sing: "Wider still and wider, may thy power be set. God, who made thee mighty, maka thee mightier yet." In the 1760's the voluntary system failed, therefore (they said) the imperial government must assume control, apportion ex penditure, and enforce payment. In the present war, the voluntary system has been a splendid success, and, therefore (they say) in order to make repetition of co-operation certain, voluntarism must be replaced by imperialism. Fundamental Principle. — For the coercion of the Ameri can colonies, there may at least be said that it did not violate that fundamental rule of governmental finance which prescribes that the authority which disburses the money must take the responsibility of providing the method by which it is to be obtained. To assign to a government the prerogative of spend ing as it pleases, unhampered by the unpleasing necessity of finding the money, would be disastrous in two ways — (1) it would produce in the spending authority a habit of reckless and irresponsible extrav:igance, and (2) it would induce objec tion, and resentment, and opposition on the part of the con tributors. Principle Flouted. — But that is precisely the system which Messrs. Curtis and Lash propose. They are weU aware of the The .Reptiblic of. Canada 293 weakness, in this respect, of their schemes (a), but their curi ous contrivances for a mere war-union leave them no alterna tive. They agree that the central authority cannot be per mitted to dictate the methods by which tax-payers .shall be re quired to subscribe. They say : "An Imperial Government, however representative, which settled tar iffs throughout the Commonwealth, would be going beyond the sphere of foreign affairs and trenching upon that of national and domestic governments" (6). "The people of Great Britain and the Dominions would object strongly to giving to any authority but their own Parliament the power to tax them directly" (c). And so, despite all fundamentalities, the central authority is to spend the money, and fix the rate of expenditure, and appor tion the burden ; while the state governments are to face the tax payers with no better explanation than that the central authority has issued its mandate, and (qiiite frequently, or even usually) with the self -exonerating plea that the strongest protests have unfortunately proved to be unavailing. Could anything be more fascinating ? A WAR-UNION. Why a War-Union. — As has already been said, both of the imperialistic schemes under review arc war-unions, and war- unions, heretofore, have been provided for either by treaties or by confederations. Why do Messrs, Curtis and Lash dis card precedent and endeavor to construct something entirely new — an amalgam of constitutional union and war-union? The answer is simple enough. Under treaties and in con federations, the states are equal ; tbey have co-extensive rights ; no state dominates the other states : and such conditions are precisely those which British imperialists insist upon avoiding. Were they dealing with any countries other than those over which the United Kingdom has some coercive authority, they would not think of presenting the terms which they propose to us. We may feel certain that when Lord Ivansdowne was negotiating a war-alhance with Japan in 1902, he did not sug gest that the foreign policy and the fighting power of both countries should be placed, during both peace and war, in the hands of some central authority in which British representa- (a) Mr. Lash says that finance is "the crux of the whole problem" (p. 59). ib) Curtis, op. cit., p. 162. And see pp, 47-57. (c) Lash, op. cit., p. 60. 294 Imperial Projects tion would predominate. That would have been not only a silly but an insulting proposal. Has it any other character when made to Canada? Present Situation- — While our political status remains as it is, there are two courses open to us: 1. We shall either hand ourselves — men, money, resources, and credit — over to the British electorate; or 2. We shall retain the liberty which we have, namely, (1), a right to declare neutrality, and (2), a right to confine our participation in war to defence of our own territory. Liberty of that kind, however, is bui a clogged and hampered freedom, and one very difficult of exercise. For a declaration of neutrality would be tantamount to a declaration of inde pendence, and Canada would properly feel that the outbreak of war was not a fitting time at which to make separation. Re striction of our operations to defence of our own territory, too, would have in it such an appearance of selfishness as would make adoption of that course extremely difficult. And therefore, although we have these liberties, and although we should never abandon them, their existence cannot be regarded as sufficient for us. LONDON ATMOSPHERE. Social Fever. — In both the proposed central authorities, Canada would have but a trifling numerical representation, and that representation would be subject to London influence. What that means is well understood. Environment affects every body — usually by reduction to conformity, and occasionally by exciting to resentment. London is tory in politics, and, soci ally, of aristocratic temper. Liberalism and dissent are indica tions of inferiority, while duke-worship and state-church attend ance are passports to desiderated drawing-rooms. Against the pressure of social influence, the average man (the average man is married) may strugglo, but he struggles in vain. Liberal Statesmen. — Liberals take seats in the House of Lords, and simultaneously commence acquisition of the aristo cratic spirit. The principles and feelings of thirty or forty years of the House of Commons, with its elections and popular The Republic of Canada 295 appeals, yield easily when exposed to the perfume of the straw berry patch (a). Chatham. — Pitt in parliament was the people's Pitt and the great Commoner, but in the presence of the King he cringed and grovelled. "When Pitt went to the King to give up the seals of his office, George spoke graciously to him. Always intoxicated by a peep into the royal closet, Pitt burst into tears and replied in words of absurd self- abasement" ('&). Chamberlain. — Joseph Chamberlain, the indomitable radical, let slip, as he left the Liberal party, his contempt for those "who toil not, neither do they spin" ; and, mixing with the no bility, learned to say, with exaggerated adulation (3 June 1905) : "I have the highest respect for dukes and for all the aristocracy.'' Canadian Liberals. — Canadian Liberal ministers (sup posed to hold Iheir principles somewhiit more stiffly than other people) went to the Imperial Confer mce from time to time, and from time to time succumbed. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, whose poise and self-control are remarkable, left Canada, on one oc casion, a tweed-trousered "democrat of the democrats" ; re turned, a silk-breeched, star-spangled Knight of the Grand Cross of St. Michael and St. George; and told us that we ought not even to mention the transformation. That was a bit of feeble foolishness for which Canada has not yet paid the full penalty. Sir Robert Borden. — During his recent London excursion. Sir Robert completely lost track of himself and talked imperial nonsense (c). Return to Canada has partially restored to him his power of orientation, but, down to the moment of writing, he still imagines that he has been, or is (that is not quite clear), a member of an Imperial Cabinet — a cabinet (hke the dream- built Spanish Castle) in the air, for no imperial parhament (its necessary foundation) has as yet been constructed. (o) Unlike the maple leaf in Canada, the strawberry leaf in England is the monopoly of the higher orders in the nobility. (6) The Political History of England, 1760-1801, p. 32. Thackeray in The Four Georges said "In the days when there were fine gentlemen, Mr. Secretary Pitt's tmder-secretaries did not dare to sit down before him; but Mr. Pitt, in his turn, went down on his gouty knees to George II.; and when George III. spoke a few kind words to him, Lord Chatham burst into tears of reverential joy and gratitude; so awful was the idea of the monarch, and so great the distinctions of rank." (c) Ante, pp. 268, 9. 3 296 Imperial Projects The Bagging Business. — Lord Grey, while in Canada, turned the heads of scores of men, not by argument but by little doles of patronizing courtesies. Upon the despicable ser vility and snobbishness of men, the Governor well knew how to practice. What a contempt he must have had for the flabby fools whom he twisted with nothing but a smile and an invita tion to luncheon I London is not England, and it is not in the least like Scotland. It is full of Lord Greys, and if you are worth bag ging, they will bag you. Even if you do not want to be bagged, you will find it is not good form to refuse. Dissent will only disclose the presence of unfortunate defects in your birth and education, while enthusiasm for the bag will prove that you are a refined and well-bred gentleman. London Pressure. — When warring nations desire to negoti ate a peace, they insist that conferences shall be held in some place where the very atmosphere is neutral; for the negoti ators are men, and amenable to atmospheric pressures. And Canadian delegations to the Central Authority would find resistance to the London pressure impossible. Every man they spoke to, every newspaper they read, every magazine and book would act as water dropping on stone ; every high-society com pliment would cut as a chisel. Inevitably Canadianism would wear down, and imperialism would take its place. Escape Improbable. — Mr. Curtis's parhamentarians are to be in London only a few weeks in the year. But they will have little to do other than accept social invitations and deliver pleasing speeches. Some few of them may possibly escape the bag. But for Mr. Lash's Councillors, and for those of the parliamentarians who are appointed to the cabinet there can be no hope. They are to reside in England. The ordinary parhamentarian would return (or would he?) to Canada be tween sessions, and might recuperate a little. But the Coun cillors and the Ministers would not have a possibility of living their own lives. For not only are they never to get a breath of fresh air, but they are to be but few in number, and there fore quite certain to go speedily to the bag in a bunch. Democratic Canada. — Canada has been, and is upon the whole, a democratic country. But the imperiahsts are strong; The Republic of Canada 297 they all have an aristocratic bent; human nature is gullible and weak; and union with a country whose social system is one of grades and castes would add tremendously to the forces which are even now dragging us into the meanest of all competitions — the petty rivalries for social promotion. As between tolera tion in Canada of the Hindus, and the cultivation of the aristocratic taint, the former is infinitely preferable. For honest toil is noble and praiseworthy, in man as in horse or dog, while all that is distinctively aristocratic is deleterious and debasing — injurious to the aristocrats, and productive amongst the others of envy, servility and resentment. If Canada is to cease to be a white democracy, let her people be yellow, brown, or black, rather than aristocratic. IMPERIAL FEDER.\TION CONDEMNED. Sir Robert Borden. — It was Sir Charles Tupper who (as has been noted (a) ) chiefly contributed to the termination of the federation scheme of 1884-93, and probably the later effort of Mr. Curtis will not long survive the recent language of Sir Robert Borden and Sir Edward Carson. "There have been proposals put forward for an Imperial Parliament which should have taxing powers for certain purposes over all the Domin ions as well as over the United Kingdom. As far as I am concerned, and I think the other members of the Conference thoroughly concurred in this view, I regard that proposal neither feasible nor wise" (b). "People talk wildly of an Imperial Federation. It was a kind of dream. Many people talk of it as a splendid thing, not knowing in the least what it means, and I venture to give this one word of warning, that there cannot be, and there will not be, an Imperial Federation if you mean by that that any Act of Parliament is going to bind together the vari ous units that make up the British Empire" (c). Mr. H.azen. — If imperial federation is to survive these declarations, it can only be by its advocates reverting to the unmeaning language which Mr. Curtis's clear-cut definition and exposition temporarily terminated. Indeed, the day upon which Sir Robert spoke did not close before the first recurring step had been taken by Mr. Hazen, who said: "Something has been said to-night about Imperial federation. I never knew exactly what was meant by Imperial federation, except this. There (a) Ante, p. 271. ib) Sir R. Borden, 18 May 1917: Hans. p. 1603. ic) Sir E. Carson: The Times (Eng.) 25 May 1917. 298 Imperial Projects never was any hard or fast scheme to which any great body of people in this country committed themselves, and my understanding of the phrase Imperial federation did not necessarily imply an Imperial Parliament; it did not necessarily imply sacrifice of a single iota of our autonomy or independence or liberty If it did no man in this country would support such an idea for a single moment. What I have always understood by Imperial federation was that there should be a closer drawing together in the bonds of union, friendship, sympathy and common support, and< the maintenance of a common Empire of Great Britain and its Overseas Dominions and India and all the countries generally that make up the British Empire'' (a). Clothed in obscure, confused, and unintelligible language, imperial federation may for a time continue to perplex people. Substitution for political reality of idealizing metaphor, adroitly associated with such meaningless phrases as "bonds of union" and "the maintenance of a common Empire," may continue to mislead the unwary. SUMMARY. The arguments against the acceptance of any proposals of a constitutional character are overwhelming. Those which have been referred to in the foregoing pages may be summarized as follows : 1. Mr. Curtis proposes a war-union in the form of a federation. He provides a parliament, and gives it almost nothing to do. He dowers it with authority to spend as it pleases, unembarrassed by the responsibility of finding the money. He contemplates party divisions and party elections upon the single issue of big or little army and navy, or, at the most, upon the ratio of state-contributions. He proposes that a single-chambered parliament shall, upon the most important questions of national life, dominate the two-chambered parlia ments of all the states. 2. Mr. Lash condemns Mr. Curtis's scheme as revolution ary and dangerous. He proposes that a few representatives from each state shall act as an Imperial Council ; that it shall control foreign policy, the army, the navy, etc. ; that it shall have power also over domestic matters with foreign aspects, and power to bring within its functions any subject which it may choose to declare to be a foreign affair ; that it shall have authority to borrow on the credit of all the states, and spend (a) Ibid, p. 1633. The Republic of Canada 299 money as it pleases without troubling itself with ways and means. Of that scheme Professor Milner rightly says that it would mean "so violent a break with the past as to dismay our cautious, practical people" (o). And of both the schemes. Professor Falconer says that "many of the members of the Round Table groups have not been satis fied with either propcsal" (b). 3. Mr. Curtis refuses to give India a place in his federa tion; relegates its government to the federal parliament; and declares that dissolution of the Empire and colonial inde pendence is the only alternative. From this assertion, Mr. Lash dissents, but, as between the alternatives, appears to prefer independence. India, meanwhile, has made clear that hpr rebel lion would be the result of Mr. Curtis's federation scheme. 4. The avowed reason for all such schemes is that, at present, "the resources of the Empire as a whole in men, money and materials . . . are only in part available for the imperial government" (c). Canada was born into subjection, and was held there as long as she was of commercial value. When she became com mercially free, she was told to "break the bonds and go." Now that she has developed into mihtary strength, her independence is regretted, and termination of it is attempted. 5. Although theoretically at war when the United King dom is at war, Canada has, under present arrangements, a certain measure of freedom: (1) she may declare her neutra lity; or (2) she may limit her participation to defence of her own territory. 6. Entrance into a constitutional war-union would deprive Canada of even that measure of freedom. 7. It would place her men, money and resources at the unqualified disposal of the United Kingdom, to be used for such purposes, on such occasions, and at such places as the United Kingdom pleased. 8. At present, Canada makes such war-preparations as she chooses. Imperialistic proposals would compel her to maintain such a peace establi-shment as the United Kingdom thought proper. 9. Canadian representation in the central authority would be too small to be of any value. (o) Ante, p. 283. (6) Ante, p. 283. (c) Ante, p. 273. 300 Imperial Projects 10. London influence upon the representatives would dis sipate their individuality. 11. Constitutional association with a country of aristo cratic caste would be detrimental and eventuaUy disastrous. THE MILNER METHOD. Present Danger. — While we need have little apprehen sion of the adoption of either the Curtis or the Lash scheme, danger from the operation of the Milner method (a) is not only imminent but present; and it is a method so subtly crafty and insidious that it gives to the proposals of Messrs. Curtis and Lash the appearance of the crude and clumsy work of youthful neophytes. The Milner Method. — Persuaded by Mr. Chamberlain's failures (at the Imperial Conferences of 1897 and 1902) to induce the Dominions to agree to the establishment of either a parliament or the seedling of a parliament (6), Lord Milner deprecated (or appeared to deprecate) any attempt in that direction, saying (15 October, 1908) : "Men are waiting for a sign, for some great scheme of an Imperial constitution, which, as it occurs to me, can only result from, and not pre cede, the practice of co-operation in the numerous matters in which it might be practiced now without new institutions'' (c). (a) There is no better embodiment anywhere (Prussia included) of autocratic imperialism than Lord Milner. To him, African Boers and the British protelariat are alike people who must be governed and controlled — the Boers by the British people, the British people by the British aristocrats, and the British aristocrats by those among them who agree with Lord Milner. With the aid, principally, of Joseph Chamberlain and Cecil Rhodes, he brought the Boers into subjection; and there (or, more probably, in a resumption of their fight for freedom) they would be to-day had the subsequent counsels of Lord Milner prevailed. Against British democratic endeavor for release from the deadening of the aristocracy. Lord Milner wages constant and vigorous war. When the House of Lords was warned of the consequences of the assumption of a right to modify the budget of 1909, it was he who urged the House to its downfall with the expression, 'Damn the consequences.' And now, with Lord Milner in the British government, we are getting what those who know him expected, namely, a highly accelerated pace in imperialism — imperial stagings, imperial phraseologies, imperial speeches, imperial sugar (proposed by Premier Hughes), imperial conferences, imperial co-operative practices; impression able people, very much Impressed — as Lord Milner expected. ib) In reply to the Colonial Secretary's (Mr. Lyttleton's) suggestion (1905) that the Imperial Conference should be called the Imperial Council, Canada replied with the specific declaration that she would not assent to that which "might eventually come to be regarded as an encroachment upon the full measure of autonomous legis lative and administrative power now enjoyed by the self-governing colonies." (c) The Nation and the Empire (1913), p. 319. The Republic of Canada 301 This is (for want of better term) what I choose to call the Milner method. It is cleverly conceived : Get the colonists to act as though they had been constitutionally subjugated. Slowly and very gently accustom them to restrictions and re straints. Courteously and very tenderly (for they are a sensi tive people) train them into an increasing docility and a fitting amenability to superior direction. Above all, refrain from frightening them with constitutional schemes. Ask them to sign nothing. They would refuse. Softly and affectionately filch from them the freedom which, foolishly, they have been permitted to acquire. Ever and ever tighter — a little tighter, "draw the bonds of Empire." Eventually the colonists will know that bonds are things intended to bind; but meanwhile coo to them gently of honor, and justice, and the peace of the world, and the glories of the British Empire. That is the Milner method. What is Happening. — "But surely, Mr. Ewart, you do not mean to say that anything of that kind is happening?" I most emphatically do. We have been cooed into a good deal of military regulation, and the same process that was successful there is being applied to our trade, our immigration, even to our territorial resources. We are on the road that brought Egypt under British control. Three Processes. — The Milner method, as applied to at tacks upon Canada's autonomy, exhibits diplomatic artifices and dexterities of three kinds. They may be referred to as pro cesses, for they function slowly and produce their results pro gressively. They are: 1. Phraseological inexactitudes. 2. Advice and its price. 3. London influence. We must familiarize ourselves with the first two of these pro cesses before referring to the current events in which they wiU be found to be very actively operating. The third — London influence — has already been discussed. Its recent effect upon Sir Robert Borden is an excellent illustration of what has been said. It will be further noted as we proceed. 302 Imperial Projects 1. PHRASEOLOGICAL INEXACTITUDES. "Empire." — An empire being "an aggregation of subject territories ruled over by a sovereign state,'' Canada is a part of the British Empire only because, and as far as, she is ruled over by the United Kingdom (a). That situation being (as one might think) a constant source of irrita tion to Canadians, Lord Milner regarded the word empire with with dislike, and said: "The word 'Empire' has in some respects an unfortunate effect. It no doubt fairly describes the position as between the United Kingdom and subject countries such as India or our Central Africa possessions. But for the relations existing between the United Kingdom and the self-gov erning colonies it is a misnomer, and with the idea of ascendancy, of domination inevitably associated with it, a very unfortunate mis nomer" (b). In similar strain, Sir Edward Carson, a few days ago, warned his audience that they should "not talk too much of imperialism," for it idealized domination, and meant exploitation of some men by others. Canadian Imperialists. — Milner and Carson need have had no timidities so far as Canada is concerned. Disraeli played upon the uneducated millions in India by calling the place an empire; and although the word proclaims for Canada a subjection which had almost disappeared, plenty of her peo ple grasped as greedily at the high-sounding designation as they would have clutched at some "decoration" for the left breast of their coats. Now the word is used grandiloquently by many Canadians who, priding themselves upon being part of the British Empire, forget that it is the subordinate part to which they belong. Were I British, I might use some of their language, for I should be a member of the dominating part. Being Canadian, I avoid, as much as possible, language which impUes a political subordination that I heartily hate, and that I am extremely anxious to terminate. (o) Mr. Chamberlain used the word correctly when he said: "If we had no empire" (Proceedings of the Col. Conference, 1897, p. 7). The phrase "our colonial empire" is frequently and correctly used. ib) Ewart: Kingdom Papers, Vol. I, pp. 12, 13. The Republic of Canada 303 Some New Applications. — If the use of the word "Empire" in common speech is to be attributed to the pleasure of self- laudation, its employment in such phrases as "Empire as a whole" ; "the unity of the Empire" ; "Empire resources" ; is tinged with dishonesty. When imperialists ask the Dominions to make concessions for the benefit of "the Empire as a whole," they really mean "for the benefit of the United Kingdom," but would not care to say so. When they speak of "Empire unity," they mean (if they mean anything) the subordination of the Dominions. And when they contemplate the undevel oped wealth of "Empire resources" (meaning Dominion re sources), all that is specially characteristic of imperialists glows with acquisitive envy. "The Empire as a Whole." — The Empire is not a whole — ^geographical, political, commercial, financial, or any other sort of whole. You may think of the world as a whole; but to refer to six widely-separated parts of it, with separate govern ments, separate excluding tariffs, separate laws, and separate trade affiliations, as a whole, is to talk nonsense. When Can ada made a commercial agreement with France, nobody was foolish enough to speak of the benefit of the two countries "as a whole." If Canada should make a tariff arrangement with the United Kingdom, we should say that it was a benefit for both — not for the two "as a whole." And if the United Kingdom and the five principal colonies should agree upon pre ferential tariffs, we still ought to say (if we want to talk in- teUigibly) that the arrangement was for the benefit of each of the six — not for the six "as a whole." To declare that it was beneficial for "the Empire as a whole" would be still more ridiculous, for the six do not constitute the Empire. Why then is the phrase used? Very frequently, no doubt, for the same reason that much other inaccurate phraseology is employed, namely, loose and inaccurate thought; but some times, I beheve, because of a desire to lend an appearance of validity to an invalid proposition or conclusion. For example, some of the imperialistic proposals that are being made to us are recommended on the ground that they would be beneficial to "the Empire as a whole," whereas what ought to be said is that, although they would be prejudicial to Canada, they would be beneficial to the United Kingdom. On my putting that view, on one occasion, to a disputant, his answer was, "WeU, 304 Imperial Projects what is good for a part is good for the whole." To which I ventured, with similar sophistry, to reply, "What is bad for a part is bad for the whole." "Unity of the Empire." — The fact that, apart from the existence of one sovereign (who is constitutionally impotent), there is no "unity of the Empire," ought to be sufficient to prevent sensible people from making use of the phrase. On the plea of ignorance, some users might be excused ; but defence against a charge of dishonesty is difficult for men whose in teUigence has qualified them for seats upon imperial commis sions. For example, Lord Balfour of Burleigh's committee, in recommending the adoption of the principle of trade pre ferences, said: "We think it may be necessary, for the sake of the unity of the Empire, a serious attempt should now be made", etc. And in the final report of the Dominions Royal Commission may be seen the statement that "The instinct not only of nationhood but of Imperial unity has gradually asserted itself" (o). In speaking of "Imperial unity," the Commissioners may have had in mind some such conception as that which they express concerning India and the Crown colonies, namely, that they are "vitally linked with the self-governing Dominions; the destinies of all are interwoven" (ft). But even that is arrant nonsense; and the word "Imperial" is in such connection inappropriate. As against "Imperial unity," I place Sir Robert Borden's sentence: "The British Empire, in some respects, is a mere disorganization" (c). "Empire Resources." — If the meaning of the phrase "Em pire resources" could always be confined to "resources within the geographical limits of the Empire," it would seldom neces sitate challenge. But when it is employed (as often happens) to express the Empire's possessions, Canada must (or rather, ought to, for she does not) make very emphatic protest. The Empire has no possessions. Each Dominion and Colony has resources, but there is no such thing as "resources of the Empire as a whole." .\lthough one might be inclined to (o) Final Report, para. 714. ib) Final Report, para. 714. ic) Hansard, 1910, p. 1747. The Republic of Canada 305 think that that statement was indisputable, we shall have occasion, as we proceed, to observe the tendency on the part of imperialists to treat Dominion resources as "Empire re sources" ; to exploit them as such ; and even to apply the pro ceeds of them to the liquidation of the British war-debt. When people become impecunious, they are apt to lose respect for the distinction between mine and thine. At present, Canada's re sources belong to Canada. For the future, I do not know. II. ADVICE AND ITS PRICE. Payment. — Turning to the second of the imperializing pro cesses to which we are being subjected, let us observe that advice is an opinion recommended or offered as worthy to be followed (a) ; that Canada is being deluged with British advice ; that that advice is being accepted ; and that it is tending, to become authoritative. If you take advice from a lawyer or a doctor, you pay his fee. If you take it from a book, you pay for the book. If you take it from a friend, you pay by acknowledg ment of superiority and obligation. (That is why you don't like it.) The more frequently you depend upon him, the more you debase yourself. And to install him as permanent adviser is an acknowledgment of relative imbecility (b). Developmental Stages. — All that is just as true of rela tions between nations as between individuals; and bestowment of advice is, in diplomacy, a well-recognized instrument for the extension of the power of the adviser and the subjugation of the people advised. The progressive stages are somewhat as follows : 1. Very deferential proffer of kindly suggestion. 2. Repetition of it, with diminishing deference. 3. Very respectful regret that advice was, on some occa sion, not asked. 4. Provision of more simple method of tendering advice — a resident adviser. 5. Development of a right to give advice. 6. Development of a co-relative duty to accept advice and to act upon it. (o) Century Dictionary. ib) The word advice includes "the accessory idea of superiority either of age, station, knowledge, or talent": Crabb's English Synonyms, tit., Advice. 306 Imperial Projects Advice, naturally and inevitably (unless killed) develops into recommendation, persuasion, admonition, joint enquiry, co-operation, guidance, expostulation, threat, and control. Egypt. — Observe the process by which Egypt, from being Turkish in 1875, became British in 1914. In the former year, Mr. Rivers Wilson went to Cairo as "financial adviser" to the Khedive. In 1878, a joint "High Committee of Inquiry" was appointed — six Europeans and one Egyptian (a). "Yet England had no intention at first of dictating in public affairs, preferring rather the part of a friendly adviser" (b). In 1882, the United. Kingdom suppressed the nationalist movement under Arabi Pasha, but solely (so she said) to "re store the power of the Khedive." Afterwards, in 1883 (3 January), Lord Granville, in a circular to the Powers, said — "Although for the present a British force remains in Egypt for the preservation of public tranquility. Her Majesty's Government are desirous of withdrawing it as soon as the state of the country and the organization of proper means for the maintenance of the Khedive's authority will admit of it. In the meanwhile, the position in which Her Majesty's Govern ment are placed towards His Highness imposes upon them the duty of giving advice with the object of securing that the order of things to be established shall be of a satisfactory character, and possess the ele ments of stability and progress" (c). And so Lord Dufferin, afterwards, "provided European advisers in every branch of the administration, but left all the public positions to be filled by Egyptians" (rf). The duty of these advisers was to furnish "sympathetic advice and assistance." Cromer became British Resident in 1883, and thus refers to his arrival at Cairo: "He came not as a conqueror, but in the familiar garb of a saviour of society. The mere assumption of this part, whether by a nation or by an individual, is calculated to arouse some degree of suspicion. The world is apt to think that the saviour is not improbably looking more to his own interests than to the salvation of society, and experience has proved that the suspicion is not unfrequently well founded" (e). What was to happen if the advice was not acted upon? Cromer said — (o) On the Dominions Royal Commission, which took stock of Canadian re sources, there were six British and one Canadian. ib) Norman Dwight Harris: Intervention and Colonisation in Africa, p. 313. ic) Cromer: Modern Egypt, Vol. 1, p. 340. id) Harris, op. cit., p. 322. ie) Cromer, op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 123. The Republic of Canada 307 "No special system exists to enforce the acceptance of their advice. All that can be said is that, in the event of their advice being systematic ally rejected, the British Government will be displeased, and that they will probably find some adequate means for making their displeasure felt" (o). By this time, advice had pas.sed through all the gradations down to expostulation and such an unveiled threat as: "Will your Highness be good enough lo reconsider your refusal, for I should be extremely sorry if tomorrow it should be my duty to advise your Royal Highness to go on board a British man- of-war at Alexandria?" {b). And so, after some further pro gress had been made a writer on international law could say (1911)- "The international position of Egypt is curious. Nominally under the suzerainty of the Porte, it has in fact become a part of the British Empire; and the permanence of the British occupation has now been placed beyond doubt" (c). The suzerainty terminated in 1914. All which seems well to illustrate the remark that "the title deeds of all political author ity are elastic" (rf) — quite capable, indeed, of being stretched* from advice to command. Let Canada take warning. She has plenty of reasons for apprehension for she is being provided with plenty of advice — as we shall see. Advice and Mr. Joseph Chamberlain. — That clever, but far from shrewd, imperialist, Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, was the first to make use of the advice-method of attack on Canadian autonomy. At the Imperial Conference of 1897, he asked, whether it might not be "feasible to create a great Council of the Empire to which the colonies would send representative plenipotentiaries .... persons who . . . . would be able to give really effective and valuable advice" (e). But at the same time he frightened the colonial Premiers, and insured their disapproval, by adding: "If such a Council were to be created .... it is perfectly evi dent that it might develop into something still greater" (/). Undiscouraged, Mr. Chamberlain repeated his proposal at the Conference of 1902, saying that (o) Ibid, p. 284. ib) A paraphrased incident. (c) F. E. Smith's International Law (4th ed., revised and enlarged by J. Wylie), p. 29. (rf) In Oliver's Alexander Hamilton, I think. ie) Ewart: Kingdom of Canada, etc., p. 217. (/) Ibid. 308 Imperial Projects "the Council might in the first instance be merely an advising Council. .... But although that would be the preliminary step, it is clear that the object would not be completely secured until there had been con ferred upon such a Council executive functions, and perhaps also legis lative powers'' (a). Having on a previous occasion (b) indicated that the desider ated powers would be those of "taxation and legislation" (c), the Premiers once more declined to commence their debacle by acceptance of the proffered advice. Advice and Sir Frederick Pollock. — Then a committee of fifty, with Sir Frederick Pollock at their head, acknowledging the difficulties of an imperial praliament, and "that we must distinctly renounce the invention of any new kind of executive or compulsory power", arrived at the conclusion that "We must therefore be content with a Council of Advice (an 'Im perial Council or Committee') which will have only — what is called 'per suasive authority' (d) — in other words, and according to the usual course of develop ment, advice, raised, through the recommendation stage, into persuasion. Sir Frederick toured Canada trying to induce us to submit to "persuasive authority," and, in making his exit, declared (somewhat ambiguously) — "that the strongest reasons exist for immediately instituting an Imperial Intelligence Department" (?). Advice and Str Wilfrid Laurier.^ — We need not go to Egypt for an excellent example of the operation of the advice- process (/). We have, unfortunately, a very notable case of it in Canada. At Imperial Conferences, Sir Wilfrid maintained himself splendidly, and Canada has not yet sufficiently recog nized the great merit of his defence against Chamberlain im perialism. But he slipped a little — or rather, he permitted his Minister of Militia to slip ; ct c'est le premier pas qui coute. (o) Ibid, p. 218. (6) Canadian Club, London, England, 25 March, 1896. ic) Ewart: Kingdom of Canada, p. 148. id) Ibid, pp. 219, 220. ie) Can. Sess. Pap., 1906, No. 67. if) The effectiveness of the advice-and-its-price process is well known to Japan, and is being applied by her to the subjugation of China. Among the demands upon China of two years ago, was the following: "The Central Government of China shall employ influential Japanese subjects as advisers for conducting administrative, financial, and military affairs." — New York Times, 19 February 1915. The Republic of Canada 309 Mr. Chamberlain (at Newport) expressed as his purpose the complete annexation of Canada to the United Kingdom — "Aye, as Yorkshire and Lancashire are bound to Middlesex and Surrey, so let Australia and Canada be bound to South Africa, to the United Kingdom" (o) ; and, from frontal assaults. Sir Wilfrid never receded an inch. Against Milner-method attacks, however, he was not sufficiently rigid; and to three proposals of restrictive tendency he unfortu nately assented, namely, (1) the formation of the Imperial Defence Committee; (2) the formation of the Imperial General Staff; and (3) the acceptance of confidences respecting foreign affairs. Tenderly. — The tender deference to our feelings with which those proposals were accompanied furnish a specially valuable example of the working of the advice process of the Milner-method and of its dangers. We know, now, what the Imperial General Staff is, and can judge what its functions will probably be; but in 1907, it was recommended to us as a most innocent device for the simple purpose of furnishing us with any information and advice which we might choose to ask for. Imperial General Staff — Step No. 1. — Let us glance at the history of the thing. Mr. Haldane at the Conference, said : "I will define what I mean. It is not that we wish in the slightest degree even to suggest that you should bow your heads to any dictation from home in military matters, but the General Staff officer would have as his function this : Trained in a great common school, recruited, it may be, from the most varying parts of the Empire, but educated in military science according to common principles, he would be at the dis position of the local government or of the local Commander-in-chief whether he were Canadan, British, or Australian, or New Zealander, or South African, for giving advice and furnishing information based upon the highest military study of the times" (6). It is a purely advisory organization of which command is not a function" (c). Sir Frederick Borden was properly suspicious, and said: "Canada has already established a General Staff in embryo and we hope to develop it. We recognize the absolute necessity for such a body, but it really seems to me we should have our own General Staff responsible to the Canadian Government — and in the same way all the other Domin ions — which might, as you suggested, I think, exchange officers with (o) Ewart: The Kingdom of Canada, etc., p. 147. ib) Proceedings, Col. Conference, 1907, p. 96. (c) Ibid, p. 97. 310 Imperial Projects your staff ; but / scarcely think it would do to have officers in the different Dominions who were responsible in the first place to the Secretary of State for War here. Mr. Hai,dane.— "The Imperial General Staff for this purpose is a purely advisory board." Sir Frederick Borden. — "So long as that is understood, I would concur in that view . . . . " (o). Sir Frederick feU, and the Conference agreed to the following resolution : "That this Conference welcomes and cordially approves the exposi tion of general principles embodied in the statement of the Secretary of State for War, and, without wishing to commit any of the Governments represented, recognizes and affirms the need of the developing, for the service of the Empire, a General Staff, selected from the forces of the Em pire as a whole, which shall study military science in all its branches, shall collect and disseminate to the various governments military informa tion and intelligence; shall undertake the preparation of schemes of defence on a common principle, and, without in the least interfering in questions connected with command and administration, shall, at the re quest of the respective governments, advise as to the training, educa tion, and war organization of the military forces of the Crown in every part of the Empire" (&). Step No. 2. — The next proposal was the establishment in the Dominions of local sections of the Imperial General Staff. That also was agreed to (10 February, 1909), with further verbal reservation of autonomy: "After general acceptance of principles as laid down in the War Office letter and memorandum enclosed of ISth January, satisfaction is expressed that principle of local control by responsible ministers concerned over officers of local section has been fully safeguarded" (c). Since then we have had a set of British officers in Canada, and have found the safeguarding to be a matter of ever increasing difficulty. Step No. 3. — The next step was the acceptance (with still further verbal reservation) of a proposal for co-operation in military preparation (Conference of 1909). The Milner- method was never practised more carefully, nor elaborated with greater skiU, than on that occasion. Asquith and Hal dane vied with each other in repudiation of any semblance of interference with the completeness of local ccjntrol. In making the proposal, Mr. Haldane said that he was ia) Ibid, p. 100. (ft) Ibid, pp. V, vi. ic) Cd. 4475, p. 16. 7'he Republic of Canada 311 "well aware that the representatives of the overseas Dominions cannot at the Conference pledge their Governments, or undertake in any way to bind the officers and men composing oversea Dominion forces to en gagements beyond the shore and boundaries of their own countries.'' "It is not suggested that any one of the Dominions should be asked to undertake a definite obligation. Whatever is done must be done spon taneously and with due regard to the circumstances in which each of them is situated" (a). With these assurances, the Conference agreed "that each part of the Empire is willing to make its preparation on such lines as will enable it, should it so desire, to take its share in the general defence of the Empire" (6). Afterwards in the House of Commons (26 August, 1909), Mr. Asquith said: "The result is a plan for so organizing the forces of the Crown wher ever they are, that while preserving the complete autonomy of each Domin ion, should the Dominions desire to assist in the defence of the Empire in a real emergency, their forces could be rapidly combined into one homo geneous imperial army" (c). Step No. 4. — A clause in the Canadian constitution is as foUows : "The Commander-in-Chief of the Land and Naval Militia, and of all Naval and Military Forces, of and in Canada, is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen." Although the meaning is indisputable, namely, that although the authority is vested in the Sovereign, its exercise must al ways be based upon the advice of Canadian ministers, some of our Governors have made assertion of independent authority, and have, from time to time, stood in need of cor rection in that respect. Now, however, we have entered into an agreement by which needed advice is to be supplied by the Imperial General Staff, and have provided for the residence of a local section of the staff in Canada. So a new situation has been created — an imperial oflicial, endowed with the authority, has been supplied with imperial military officers for the express purpose of furnishing the advice; and perhaps, therefore, we must not be over-surprised that the late Governor General should have assumed to communicate directly with the advisers ; that he should have given orders without the sanction of the Minister of Militia ; and that, by protesting, the Minister should have become obnoxious to the Governor. (o) Ibid, p. 35. And see p. 38. (b) Ibid, p. 29. ic) Ibid, p. 32. 4 312 Imperial Projects Step No. 5. — If, as is proposed, the Imperial War Cabinet continues its operations, our military autonomy will consist in making parliamentary and departmental registration of policies and regulations annually agreed to in I/ondon. C'est le premier pas qui coute. Showers of Advice. — Not only does acceptance of advice tend to develop into submission to direction, but the practice permitted in any one department is very apt to spread into others. That is what has happened in Canada. She is being deluged with advice (as we shall see), and resistance has almost disappeared. Advice, moreover, has passed, in some respects, into guidance, and in some departments is already verging on control. British introduction into Egypt commenced with a "financial adviser." Afterwards Lord Dufferin "provided European advisers in every branch of the administration." Afterwards came British control. Canada's case is different. She com menced with mihtary advisers. III. LONDON ATMOSPHERE. India. — The effect of London atmosphere upon Sir Robert Borden's attitude towards the extremely important question of Indian immigration into Canada, is both noteworthy and regret table. I do not now debate the necessity for Indian exclusion, nor shall I discuss whether in the past we have done right. That, for present purposes, is irrelevant. What I wish to point out is, that, before going to London, Sir Robert had, and had acted upon, a certain policy ; that, succumbing to London atmo sphere, he has changed that policy ; and that, in doing so, he has committed his government and his party, and, as far as he can, Canada to a different policy. He has agreed that the following bits of advice should be sent to us from the London Conference : "First — As regards Indians already permanently settled in the Domin ions, they should be allowed to bring in their wives (subject to the rule of monogamy) and minor children, and in other respects should not be less privileged than Japanese settled immigrants. Second — Future admission of Indians for labor or settlement should, if possible, be regulated on lines similar to, and not less favourable than, those governing the admission of any other Asiatic races. The Republic of Canada 313 Third — If this be impossible, there might be reciprocal treatment in India and in each dominion of immigration for purposes of labor or permanent settlement. If a dominion is determined to exclude these two classes of immigration from India, India should be free to do the same as regards that dominion. It would be clearly recognized that exclusion in either case was not due to motives of race prejudice. Fourth — Along with such exclusion, reciprocal arrangements should be made for granting full facilities for admission of tourists, students and the like, and for business visits entailing temporary residence, so long as this residence was not for labor purposes or for permanent settle ment" (a). That Sir Robert should have consented to formulation of the policy contained in these recommendations, and particularly that he should have joined in sending to us a perfectly empty threat of retaliation, must be attributed solely to the influ ence of his London environment. He had been induced to rtiove the admission of India to the Imperial Conferences on a footing of equality with Canada, and he had, perhaps diplo matically, but nevertheless foolishly, joined in "generous expressions of appreciation on all sides of assistance given by India in the prosecution of the war" (b). Given that situation, _and he would almost necessarily succumb to the influences depicted by the King in reply to an address read to him by Sir Robert at Windsor Castle on 4 May, 1917: "It has afforded me the utmost satisfaction that representatives of India have been members of your Conference with equal rights to take part in the deliberations. This meeting round a common board and the consequent personal intercourse will result in the increasing growth of a spirit of larger sympathy and of mutual understanding between India and the Overseas Dominions'' (c). The operation of the Milner method could not be better stated than in the King's speech, or be more notably illustrated than by the recommendation of lines of conduct which, it is said, we ought to adopt. By "the larger sympathy" the King meant less regard for that which we have heretofore deemed to be essential to our social welfare, and more attention to "the interests of the Empire as a whole." For the anxiety of Bri tish statesmen about Indian migration does not in the least arise from a desire to see Canadian doors open to Indians. On the contrary, even Mr. Chamberlain recognized that "An immigration of that kind must ... in the interests of the colonies be prevented at all hazards" {d). (a) Cabled from London, 24 May 1917. ib) The Times, 4 May 1917. ic) The Times, 5 May 1917. id) Imperial Conference, 1897. 314 Imperial Projects What troubles British statesmen is that among Indian griev ances is exclusion from parts of the British dominions, and that the British government gets the blame. Would it not be better that we should get the Indians? A PERMANENT IMPERIAL WAR CABINET. A War-peace. — The disorganizing influence of the super heated war atmosphere in London upon normal rationality is very notably exemplified in the conception of the future of "the Empire" as an Empire permanently organized upon a war basis. Although we are authoritatively assured that the pre sent war will not end until security against its recurrence has been obtained, we are nevertheless also told that, for the future, our principal .purpose in life is to be ready for resumption of the fight. And not merely are Canada's military and naval forces to be maintained at fighting strength, but the economics of her peaceful life are to be rearranged with a view to the anticipated supervention of war. Indeed, the proposals are even wider than that, for they include such economic sacrifices on our part as will contribute to the war-strength of all the other parts of the King's do minions. In some very real sense, the resources of the parts are to become the resources of the whole, and are to be admini stered for the benefit of "the Empire as a whole." StiU wider has this delirium extended. What? Yes, Can ada's economics are to be tied to those of all the allies except the United States, with which, in consequence, we are almost certainly to be at variance. We are pledged to "a common economic policy" as one of several "permanent measures of mutual assistance and collaboration among the allies." Durable Peace. — Are these men deceiving themselves, or are they only attempting to deceive us? When Germany's peace proposals (or rather suggestions) were made, we refused to negotiate, because the peace would be merely a truce ; because "we would have to do it all over again" ; because we were de termined to put "an end to militarism" and to "the nightmare of crushing war preparation." Were the "Imperial War Cabinet" to be polled, every member would declare that that is still our purpose and our determination. The psychology of the war presents no more extraordinary phenomenon than the The Republic of Canada 315 mentality which, from a basis of permanent peace, argues the necessity of a permanent "Imperial War Cabinet." Peace and Preparation. — On various occasions, Mr. As quith has said: "We shall never sheathe the sword which we have not lightly drawn until Belgium recovers in full measure all and more than that she has sacrificed, until France is adequately secured against the menace of aggression, until the rights of the smaller nationalities of Europe are placed upon an unassailable foundation, and until the military domina tion of Prussia is wholly and finally destroyed" (o). That all being accomplished, the sword was to be replaced in its scabbard, and normal life was to be restored. Adressing the Foreign Press Association (23 October, 1916) Viscount Grey said: "1 take it on the word of the Prime Minister that we shall fight until we have established the supremacy and right of free development under equal conditions, each in accordance with its genius, of all States. great and small, as a family of civilised mankind when we are asked how long the struggle is to continue, we can only reply that it must continue until these things are secured" (6). In replying to President Wilson's note of 18 December, 1916, the allies said that "a discussion of future arrangements for assuring a durable peace pre supposes a satisfactory settlement of the present conflict." They insisted upon the necessity for "a stable settlement" ; the right of all nations to "the enjoyment of full security and free economic development" ; and the insurance of "peace upon the principles of liberty and justice.'' The reply was accompanied by a note to the President from Mr. Balfour, in which he said that the British people "do not believe peace can be durable if it be not based upon the suc cess of the allied cause" — "on the success of the allies depend the prospects of peaceful civilisation." It is war for the end of war. Fighting, that fighting may cease. Why do the cannons roar? For the thousand years of peace. We are to fight in order that we may secure a durable peace; but it is a peace, evidently, which we are to have no opportunity to enjoy, for, in their address to the King, the members of the recent Imperial Conference said: "We further considered steps that may be required to insure that victory may not be lost by unpreparedness in times of peace, and so to (a) Quoted in the Round Table of December 1916. (6) Cosmos: The Basis of Durable Peace, p. 7. 316 Imperial Projects develop the resources of the Empire that it may not be possible here after for an unscrupulous enemy to repeat his outrages on liberty and civilization" (a). Permanent War Cabinet. — The attendance of some colo nial statesmen at meetings of the British cabinet has already been referred to, as has also the absurd designation given to such meetings. They are to be held annually. Even after the establishment of peace, the Imperial War Cabinet is to hold its sessions. Indeed, the avowed design is that it is to become a part of some constitution. Read Sir Robert Borden's letter (30 April, 1917) to Mr. Lloyd George— "The step which you have taken in summoning the Imperial War Cabinet is a notable advance in the development of constitutional rela tions, and I am confident that the usage thus initiated will gradually but surely develop into a recognised convention" (6). Mr. Lloyd George replied (2 May) : "I believe that this new experiment will prove, as you suggest, a per manent convention of our constitution" (c). Sir Robert has declared that an Imperial parliament is "neither feasible nor wise"; nevertheless he favors an Imperial Cabinet. He knows that a cabinet cannot exist without a parliament. Is he, in Milner-method style, endeavoring to re concile us to its estabhshment? Sir Robert is honest, but his imperialism is strong. War Cabinet Resolutions. — Among the resolutions of the "Imperial War Cabinet" and the Imperial War Conference were the following (The marginal headings are now supplied) : Navy Scheme.— "Tliat the Admiralty be requested to work out im mediately after the conclusion of the war what they consider the most effective scheme of naval defence for the Empire for the consideration of the several Governments summoned to this Conference, with such recommendations as the Admiralty consider necessary in that respect for the Empire's future security. MiuTARY Supplies.— "That this Conference, in view of the ex perience of the present war, calls attention to the importance of devel oping an adequate capacity of production of naval and military ma terial, munitions, and supplies in all important parts of the Empire (including the countries bordering on the Pacific and Indian Oceans>. («) The Times (Eng.), 4 May, 1917. ib) Hansard (C;mada), 1917, p. 1601 (c) Ibid. The Republic of Canada 317 where such facilities do not presently exist, and affirms the importance of close co-operation between India, the Dominion.s, and the United Kingdom with this object in view. Standardization. — "That this Conference recognizing the import ance of assimilating as far as possible the military stores and equip ment of the Imperial Forces throughout the Empire, recommends that an expert Committee, representative of the military authorities of the United Kingdom, the Dominions, and India, be appointed as early as possible to consider the various patterns in use with a view to select ing standard patterns for general adoption, as far as the special cir cumstances of each country admit. Similar Training. — "This Conference is of opinion that it is desirable that the ordnance personnel of the military organizations of the Empire should, as far as possible, be trained on the same methods and according to the same principles, and that to secure this end selected officers of the ordnance service from all parts of the Empire should be attached for adequate periods to the Imperial Ordnance Department. Imperial Resources. — "The time has arrived when all possible en couragement should be given to the development of Imperial resources, and especially to making the Empire independent of other countries in respect of food supplies, raw materials, and essential industries. With these objects in view, this Conference expresses itself in favour of : Preferential Treatment. — "(1) The principle that each part of the Empire, having due regard to the interests of our Allies, shall give specially favourable treatment and facilities to the produce and manu factures of other parts of the Empire. Emigrants. — -"(2) Arrangements by which intending emigrants from the United Kingdom may be induced to settle in countries under the British Flag. Concerted Action. — "Having regard to the experience obtained in the present war, this Conference records its opinion that the safety of the Empire and the necessary development of its component parts re quire prompt and attentive consideration, as well as concerted action, with regard to the following matters: Food Supply. — "(1) The production of an adequate food supply and arrangements for its transportation when and where required, under any conditions that may reasonably be anticipated. Control of Resources. — "(2) The control of natural resources available within the Empire, especially those that are of an essential character for necessary national purposes, whether in peace or in war. Manufacture in Empire. — "(3) The economic utilization of such natural resources through processes of manufacture carried on within the Empire. The Conference commends to the consideration of the Governments summoned thereto the enactment of such legislation as may assist this purpose. Imperial Mineral Bureau. — "That it is desirable to establish in London an Imperial Mineral Resources Bureau upon which should be represented Great Britain, the Dominions, India, and other parts of the Empire." 318 Imperial Projects Political Readjustment. — "The Imperial War Conference is of opinion that the readjustment of the constitutional relations of the component parts of the Empire is too important and intricate a subject to be dealt with during the war, and that it should form the subject of a special Imperial Conference to be summoned as soon as possible after the cessation of hostilities. It deems it its duty, however, to place on record its view that any such readjustment, while thoroughly preserving all existing powers of self-government and complete control of domestic affairs, should be based upon a full recognition of the Dominions as autonomous nations of an Imperial Commonwealth, and of India as an important portion of the same, should recognize the right of the Dominions and India to an adequate voice in foreign policy and in foreign relations, and should provide effective arrangements for continuous consultation in all important matters of common Imperial concern, and for such necessary concerted action, founded on consultation, as the several (Governments may determine" (a). Notable Points. — Among the more notable points in these resolutions are the foUovifing: 1. Notwithstanding the coming of "the thousand years of peace," our activities are to be primarily directed to prepara tion for war, and in this respect "the Empire" is to be a unit 2. The purpose of preferential trade arrangements is to make "the Empire independent of other countries in respect of food supplies, raw materials and essential industries." 3. Canada's resources are included in the phrase "Imperial resources," and are to be withdrawn from her autonomous control. 4. Control is to be a matter for concerted action. 5. The "economic utihzation" of these resources, "through processes of manufacture carried on within the Empire," is to be a matter for concerted action. 6. There is to be an Imperial Mineral Resources Bureau — to look after (as we shall see), among other things, Canadian nickel and asbestos ; for these are now regarded as "Imperial assets." 7. There is and can be no such thing as "autonomous nations of an Imperial Commonwealth" ; for autonomy means self-government (not merely self-government in domestic af fairs) and an "Imperial Commonwealth" means a body politic of which its members are parts. In other words, if Canada (fl) The Times (London), 4 May 1917. The RepubUc of Canada 319 is to be an autonomous or self-governing nation, she cannot be subject to control by any government other than her own. The Conference ought to have been more honest. Its inten tion was to declare for perpetuation of the present despicable subordination, and it desired to give the appearance of conces sion to Canadian autonomy. By "an adequate voice in foreign policy," moreover, the Conference did not mean adequate to Canada's effective dissent from policy which she might regard as wrong and ruinous. It meant merely that Canada should be at liberty to suggest and to advise, and should be bound to do as ordered. That is the antithesis of autonomy. The Old Colonial System. — According to conception of many years ago, colonies were places of profit to their owners, their functions being to produce raw material for the metro politan; to consume her manufactures; and to afford habitation for surplus population. That conception is the foundation of the above resolution, for, observe that in them are embodied the following: 1. Imperial resources (meaning the resources of the Do minions) are to be developed, so that the Empire (meaning the United Kingdom) shall be independent of other countries in respect of food supplies and raw materials. 2. Specially favorable treatment is to be given by the Dominions to the manufactures of the United Kingdom. 3. British emigrants are to be guided to the Dominions; but they are rather to be women of whom the United King dom has a surplus than able-bodied men who may be needed at home. Poor-law children. Industrial-school children and Reformatory-school children are also to be encouraged to mi grate (a). 4. The British over-riding authority of past times having lapsed, "concerted action" is to regulate "the production of an adequate food supply," and "the control of natural resources." I am not considering whether the old colonial system was, or whether the new system wiU be, good or bad. I am merely calling attention to the fact that the old is making substantial re-appearance in the new. London Policy. — In one of his recent speeches, Sir Robert Borden referred to what was taking place in England as con stituting "revolutionary changes in the government of the Empire" (&). (a) Final Report, paras. 465-508. 320 Imperial Projects He was right. Before he went to London, Canada could boast her advances toward autonomy, for, although Sir George Foster had agreed to surrender a good deal of it, the assent of Can ada, as represented by her Prime Minister, had not been ob tained. Now it has ; and perhaps the most "revolutionary" part of the whole proceeding is that, upon some of the most important subjects, the policy of Canada's Prime Minister has been formed in London, in consultation with men who not only do not reside in Canada, but who represent interests very differ ent from ours. To give "specially favorable treatment" to South Africa and Australia, as against the produce of the United States ; and to introduce "concerted action" into the management and regulation of our food production and natural resources, appear to me to be matters of such tremendous import that they ought to be discussed and settled, not in London, but in Ottawa; not amidst the imperiahstic and aristo cratic influences of England, but in the free air of Canada; not in a committee in which Canadians are a small minority, but in a parliament in which none but Canadians sit. THE DOMINIONS ROYAL COMMISSION. The inquiries and reports of the Dominions Royal Com mission furnish an excellent example of the Milner method of attack upon Canada's autonomy, principally by the "advice- and-its-price" process. In considering it, let us recall the in quiry and report of 1763 (the stock-taking of the then newly acquired colonial resources) and compare it with the stock taking of 1912-7; let us ascertain why the commission was issued; observe its diversion into an investigation of what are called "Imperial resources" but are really resources of the Dominions; and note particularly its recommendation of co operation in the development of the "Imperial resources." Advice has reached the "joint-inquiry" stage. It is already being advanced into "co-operation" and "guidance," between which and "control" the interval is short. 1763 Inquiry. — Shortly after the cession of Canada and other places by France to the United Kingdom, Lord Egre- mont, the Secretary of State in charge of colonial affairs, re- The Republic of Canada 321 quested the Lords of Trade (5 May, 1763) to consider and report : "By what Regulations, the most extensive Commercial Advantages may be derived from these Cessions, and How those Advantages may be rendered most permanent and secure to His Majesty's Trading Subjects" (a). In reply, the Lords recounted the advantages, and made recommendation of exploitation methods : — "The most obvious Advantages arising from the Cessions made by the Definitive Treaty are The exclusive Fishery of the River St. Lawrence on all the Coasts in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and all the Islands in that Gulf." "The next obvious Benefit acquired by the Cessions made to your Majesty is the Fur and Skin Trade of all the Indians in North America.'' "Another obvious Advantage of the Cession, will be the supplying of all the Indian Tribes upon the Continent of North America with European Commodities immediately through the Hands of English Traders." "Another Advantage attending the late Treaty is the secure settling of the whole Coast of North America." "We have already mentioned the great Scope and Room which there is for beneficial Settlements in the Article of Fishery in Nova Scotia, another great Advantage, however, of the late Treaty, pr deducing Strength to Your Kingdom and Riches to Your Subjects, is the future Supply which the new Acquisitions will afford of Naval Stores, more particularly' that of masting for the Royal Navy, and of that Species of Timber and Wood commonly called Lumber." "A capital Advantage highly deserving Your Majesty's Attention is the Increase of the Trade of Sugar, Coffee, Cotton and other Indian Products by the speedy Settlement and Culture of the new acquired Islands." "The last advantageous Consequence arising from the Cessions which we shall now lay before Your Majesty is that of securing the whole Gum Trade on the Coast of Africa from a Monoply in the Hands of the French by means of the River Senegal as well as the Acquisi tion of a considerable Share of the Slave Trade formerly in their hands, with a Variety of other Articles which there is great reason to believe may be obtained by the prosecution of further Discoveries on that River" (6). The western boundary of Canada (then Quebec) was fixed at a line drawn from "Lake Nipissin'' to the St. Lawrence. Why? "The Advantage resulting from the restriction of the Colony of Canada will be that of preventing by proper and natural Boundaries, as well the Ancient French Inhabitants as others from removing and settling in remote Places, where they neither could be so conveniently made ameanable to the Jurisdiction of any Colony nor made sub- (a) Shortt and Doug.hty: Canada, Constitutional Documents, Vo. 1, p. 94. (6) Ibid, pp. 98-101. 322 Imperial Projects servient to the Interest of the Trade and Commerce of this Kingdom by an easy Communication with and Vicinity to the great River St. Lawrence" (o). Stock-taking of 1912-7. — Canada had, of course, no re presentation on the inquiry of 1763. She was a mere asset — one of a large number of colonies which continental countries were quarrelling about. According to the ideas of the time, her new owners were taking stock of what they had got, and speculating as to the best methods by which "those Advantages may be rendered most permanent and secure to His Majesty's Trading Subjects." But by 1912, Canada had ceased to be an asset. For very many years she had boasted her autonomy. Her resources were her own. No government other than hers had title to, or interest in them. Repetition of the 1763 inquiry would have been impossible — ^not merely an anachronism, but resented by Canada as a menace and an insult. No British government would have attempted it. So, one might have thought. The Commission. — The Dominions Royal Commission proves the contrary. It was composed of five men from the United Kingdom, one from New Zealand, one from South Africa, one from Newfoundland, and one from Canada (6). It made a much more thorough investigation of Canadian re sources than did the inquiriers of 1763. It made many recom mendations as to the use and development of Canadian re sources. It referred to these resources as "Empire resources." It urged, "Empire development and organization." It depre cated the colonial habit of taking "a private and particular view" of the local hiterests. In advocated "a more statesman like survey of the whole position." It proposed the creation of an "Imperial Development Board" with a view to "co-ordinating Empire effort for the development of these resources,'' namely, "Empire resources," and with a view also to assumption of "the duty of advising and guiding on these matters." There is the Milner method in fullest operation, and Can ada is making no defence. (a) Ibid, p. 103. (6) The Australian resigned in May, 1915, before Canada was inspected. The Republic of Canada 323 Conception of Commission. — At the Imperial Conferences, Sir Wilfrid had to contend not only against the heavy direct attacks of Mr. Chamberlain, but against the mistaken conces sions and proposals of some of the other colonial representa tives. The history of the Dominions Royal Commission com mences with one of those proposals, and with Sir Wilfrid's adoption of the time-honored method of avoiding uncomfort able situations, namely, by reference of them to a Royal Com mission. In 1911, Mr. Fisher of Australia moved the adoption of the following resolutions: "That this Conference , recognizing the importance of promoting fuller development of commercial intercourse within the Empire, strongly urges that every effort should be made to bring about co operation in commercial relations and matters of mutual interest. That it is advisable, in the interests both of the United King dom and of the British Dominions beyond the seas, that efforts in favour of British manufactured goods and British shipping should be supported as far as practicable" (o). Under close surveillance of the Canadian Manufacturers Association, Sir Wilfrid could not subscribe to the second of these resolutions ; under obligations of courtsey, he could not very well oppose it; and with parliamentary tact, he moved the substitution of the following: "That His Majestj' should be approached with a view to the ap pointment of a Royal Commission representing the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and Newfoundland, with a view of investigating and reporting upon the natural resources of each part of the Empire represented at this Conference, the devel opment attained and attainable, and the facilities for the production, manufacture, and distribution; the trade of each part with the others and with the outside world, the food and raw material requirement of each, and the sources thereof available. To what extent, if any, the trade between each of the different parts has been affected by existing legislation in each, either beneficially or otherwise" (6). Laurier's Reasons. — Sir Wilfrid gave two reasons for his motion : (1) The United Kingdom had not responded to the pre ferences given by Canada to British manufacturers. '"We have been trying to get mutual preferential treatment, but we have not been able to do so, and I strongly hope that such a Commission as I have indicated would find it possible to come to the end which we have not been able to reach up to the present time. (a) Minutes of Proceedings (Cd. 5745), p. 339. ib) Ibid, p. 340. 324 Imperial Projects (2) "On the other hand, in Canada we have to complain, and have complained bitterly, of some legislation of the United Kingdom which peculiarly affects a very important Canadian trade — the cattle trade. Our cattle have been subjected for many years past — for over 20 years, if my memory fails me not — to an embargo which was based upon the statement then made that there was disease in the cattle of Canada, which we denied at the time without being able to make an impression. We have protested again and again that our cattle were not diseased. We have asked that that embargo should be removed, but we have failed every time. Our protests are as old as the legisla tion itself, but though presented year after year, they have not met with any response. We believe that if the true condition of things were known, and if it were found out that the basis upon which the prohibitive legislation was adopted was false, the result would be dif ferent from what it is, and we should have some good reason to hope that this impediment to a very important trade would be removed" (o). The Colonial Secretary agreed to the motion but, with Sir Wilfrid's assent, deleted the first of the reasons for it by the addition of the words: "and by what methods consistent with the existing fiscal policy of each part, the trade of each part with the others may be improved and ex tended." Sir Wilfrid's second reason was deleted by the neglect of the Commissioners. Sir Wilfrid, probably, did not expect any thing else. 1912-7 Resembles 1763. — The purposes of the 1763 inquiry were, as we have seen, (1) to take stock of colonial resources, and (2) to ascertain "How those Advantages may be rendered most permanent and secure to His Majesty's Trading Subjects" (6). Sir Wilfrid's reasons for moving for an inquiry, in 1911, having been to obtain advantages for Canadians, (1) by the establish ment in the United Kingdom of preferential duties in their favor, and (2) by repeal of the British embargo on Canadian cattle, we might have expected that the modern report would bear little resemblance to that of 1763. But we should have been mistaken. For in the later report (or rather reports) there is not a word about these Canadian advantages, while, on the other hand, cur splendid resources are catalogued in elaborate detail, and the methods by which those resources' may be secured to "the Empire as a whole"^ — (meaning the United Kingdom) are formulated, and recommended for action. It is the same old imperialistic story, with one unfortunate ia) Ibid. (/)) Ante, p. 121. llie Republic of Canada 325 (from the British point of view) difference: In 1911, the title to Canadian resources had become vested in Canada, and her assent to the exploitation must, therefore, in some way be obtained. That, as we shall see, is being accomplished. Mr. Mills' Estimate. — The proceedings of the Commission are very long ; not many people will read them ; my testimony will (by some, perhaps) be regarded with suspicion; so, for an estimate of the character of the reports — their conception and their tendency — let me offer a few extracts from a com petent imperiahst — Mr. J. Saxon MiUs (a). "It will be noticed that the Empire is treated throughout this survey as a unit." "One of the great results of the labours of the Commissioners will be a more precise estimate of Imperial assets and, as a result, a policy of economic conservation and development." "Here, then, is a method of promoting Empire solidarity which provokes no retaliation like a war tariff, nor excites controversy or suspicion like the proposals for a more organic constitutional union. This closer rapprochement among the States of the Empire, if not the direct object, would certainly be a;}, incidental effect of all the Com missioner's proposals." '"The proposed Board would also serve as a liaison between the Governments of the United Kingdom and Dominions, and thus obviate those interminable negotiations which precede and delay any joint action. The Board would be purely advisory to begin with, though administrative duties might in time be entrusted to it by the Imperial Conference or the joint Governments." The Empire a unit. Imperial assets. Closer rapproche ment. Indirect advance to organic constitutional union. Mean while, no controversy. No suspicion. Advisory "to begin with." Power afterwards. That is the very perfection of the Milner method. Let us see whether Mr. Mills' estimate of the work of the Commission is correct. Freedom vs. Control. — To the Commissioners, as to Dis raeli, the individualism of the Dominions is a terrible mistake. Its continuation would be an inexcusable blunder. The free dom of self-government must be brought under direction. Ad vice must be furnished; advice only — in the initial stages. Gradually order, and uniformity, and conformity wiU be evolved. If the Commissioners have any knowledge of the pohtical history of Canada, they have no sympathy with it. We believe (o) The Fortnightly Review, May 1917, pp. 878-886. 326 Imperial Projects that our political, industrial, and economic progress has been possible only because, at as early stages as possible, we took into our own hands the control of our own destinies. The Com missioners, on the other hand, tell us that they have been "strongly impressed by . . . the disconnected character of its [the Empire's] governing and directing machinery. The British Empire has grown in obedience to no matured plan of development. Each section outside the United Kingdom which has received the grant of self-government has shaped its own course, pur sued its own ends and has directed its activities chiefly from the stand point of its local interests .... (o). Laborious Inspirations. — To the Commissioners, all that is very deplorable, but, being the result of temporary conditions, it is, they think, not incurable. Indeed, they can see that it is already in process of amehoration. "Yet, as growth has proceeded and as the strength and power of the Empire have increased, as means of communication and intercourse have multiplied, there has developed a deepening sense of common aims and ideals and recognition of common interests and purpose. The in stinct, not only of nationhood, but of Imperial unity has gradually asserted itself The scattered stones of early colonial days have been built into noble national structures. Already the stately outlines of the Empire of the future can be discerned against the far horizon" (&). From this excursion into the empyrean, the Commissioners return to tell us why we are so very individualistic: "In the self-governing parts of the Empire the burden ot legis lators and administrators is heavy and exacting. Local interests are pressing, and, when these are served, there is little time or energy left for considering broader and wider interests. Whilst now and then an inspiration to common action is laboriously realised, most ideas languish under the lack of needed mechanism, and are ultimately buried amongst the neglected opportunities of the world" (c). Those Commissioners were evidently unaware that, while there is one parliament for the government of forty-five million people in the British Isles and for the oversight of hundreds of miUions elsewhere, there are in Canada nine parliaments for seven and a half milhons. Of the one hundred and fifty possible reasons for our narrow provincialism, the Commis sioners, through the purest bad luck, hit upon the least probable. (a) Final Report, para. 714. (6) Ibid. ic) Ibid. The Republic of Canada 327 Private and Particular Views. — As further evidence of the absence of even "laboriously realized" inspirations in our cramped colonialism, the Commissioners declare that : "Even where local Governments enter into negotiations with one another or with some other country, they naturally incline to take a private and particular view and seek to obtain the best terms for the interests they represent, without regard to a broader and more states manlike survey of the whole position" (a). To that charge, especiaUy in dealing with the United States, I am afraid that Canadiwis must plead guilty; but guilty in common with the United Kingdom — save only when she is deahng with the United States about Canadian interests. She is generous enough then. "Empire as a Whole." — From all these pinched bigotries we are to be relieved by ceasing to think of our own interests, and by acquiring the habit of considering the interests of the United Kingdom, which, as a sufficient veil to that "private and particular view," are always to be spoken of as "the inter ests of the Empire as a whole." The Commissioners think that that aspect has, hitherto, been rather neglected : "No official attempt, however, has. yet been made, except partially by the Dominions Royal Commission, to consider questions affecting Im perial trade and development, from the point of view of the interests of the whole Empire" (6). Not one of the Commissioners really believes that there is such a point of view. You may consider questions from the point of view of Canada, or of any other place. Or you may consider them from the points of view of all the places. But there is no one point of view from which you can regard effects upon widely separated and widely interest-differentiated places. And the easy explanation of the language is that the phrase "interests of the Empire as a whole" must almost always be understood as "the interests of the United Kingdom." Empire Organization. — Travelling far outside the scope of their instructions, and eager to assist in filling in "the stately outhnes of the Empire of the future," the Commis sioners devoted their principal chapter to the subject, (a) Ibid., para. 717. (6) Ibid., para. 715. 328 Imperial Project^ empire development and organization, which means development of Dominion resources ; under the organizing care of an Imperial Development Board (the crea tion of which is recommended) ; for the benefit of the United Kingdom. 7\nd so, instead of telling us what would be best for each of the six countries, the interests of all of them are pooled and confused in "the Empire as a whole." We get references to "Empire production and Empire requirements" (a), and investigations along these lines; but the effect upon relations to other countries of applying Empire products wholly, or even primarily, to Empire reciuirements, is forgotten in enthusiasm for "the Empire as whole." Apotheosis of Imperialism. — Indeed the Commissioners soar not only beyond recognition of anything but "the Empire as a whole," but beyond the commonplace counsels (to use their language) "of advocates of some particluar fiscal or other theory, which they have pressed, in season and out of season, as a universal remedy. In our judgment these counsels, however important they may be, cover only a part of the problem. An Imperial policy, in the broadest sense, must include much that is not fiscal" (&). Who could have imagined that Sir Wilfrid's desire for (1) reciprocal preferences, and (2) the removal of the cattle embargo would end with the apotheosis of Imperialism — "an Imperial policy?" DOMINIONS ROYAL COMMISSION'S -\DVICE. Bits of Advice. — Subjection of Canada by the advice-and- its-price process has been very appreciably advanced by the re ports of the Dominions Royal Commission. The Fifth Interim Report makes the foUowing recommendations : 1. Some of our methods of obtaining immigration need mending — "We think that the Dominion and Provincial Governments might be well advised to consider, in conference, the whole question of the selection of immigrants and their allocation over the Dominion, so that while each part and Province should receive its fair share of the (o) Ibid., para. 329. ib) Ibid., para. 78. '' The Republic of Canada 329 newcomers, the work might be carried out in the most economical manner" (a). In some respects, "the present system needs stringent revision and control" (6). 2. ". • • arrangements should be made whereby intending mi grants to Canada may, before breaking up their homes, secure them selves, by means of prior medical inspection in the United Kingdom, against rejection on their arrival in the Dominion" (c). 3. "The truth is, we think, that in the past too much attention has been devoted to attracting immigrants and too little to the task of fit ting and equipping them for a new life" (d). 4. Canada hitherto has offered free lands to immigrants, and endeavored to induce farmers from other lands to settle on them. The Commission recommends that we should supply not only "adequate training facilities" for both husbands and wives, free of cost, but also "financial aid, to estabUsh themselves successfully on the land" (e). 5. Canada's shortage in "female domestic help" can be modified by "giving greater facilities in Canada for training in domestic science, and in particular, by starting training establishments in the Dominion for immigrant girls and women other than those who have been domestic servants in the Mother Country" (/). and the Commission urges us strongly to adopt these courses. 6. The policy of emigration societies to "bring out to Canada far more boys than girls" (g) is wrong, and ought to be changed. 7. Canadian governments ought not to "assist private emigration societies in recovering advances for passages, etc., made by them to emigrants from the United Kingdom" (h). g_ ". . . it is clearly urgent that plans for a permanent increase of the depth of the St. Lawrence ship channel should be framed and carried out as speedily as possible" (0. 9_ ". . . further efforts should be made to impress upon the underwriters the conditions which justify lower rates for cargoes and hulls to and from Canadian Eastern ports . . (a) Pp. 11, 12. ib) P. 10. (c) Pp. 10, 11. (d) P. 12. ie) Pp. 17, 18. (/) P. 18. ig) p. 19. (fe) P. 19. ii) P. 23. 330 Imperial Projects "If, however, these efforts fail we think that the Dominion Gov ernment would be well advised seriously to consider the question of itself undertaking liability for the extra insurance charges now im posed" (a). 10. "¦ . • the evidence which we received satisfied us that the development of the export trade from the western coast is of even greater importance than the stimulation of the import trade'' (6). 11. "Better distribution of the traffic" would probably be secured by shipping grain to Europe from the western rather than from the eastern coast (c). 12. ". . . it might be of great advantage to the social and pro ductive interests of Canada if, during the coming years, in the absence of new construction work north of the 54th parallel, closer settlement and added cultivation could be secured for the areas now well pro vided with railway facilities'' (d). 13. "• • • we are somewhat surprised to find that no definite policy as yet seems to have been laid down by the Canadian Govern ment as to the conditions on which cables may be landed on Canadian territory."The Commission recommends that a licensing "system should be introduced at the earliest possible date" (e). 14. After criticizing "the system by which Press news both from within and from outside Canada is disseminated throughout the Dominion'' (/). the Commission advises "that representatives of all the principal newspapers of Canada, of the Dominion Government, and of the Telegraph Companies now operating should meet to discuss the position," with a view to securing "a leased wire for 24 hours per diem between Ottawa and Winnipeg, and probably one from end to end of the Dominion" (g). 15. The Commission favors "a much more active policy of development of the live stock industries. In particular, we have found both in the Prairie Provinces and in Quebec complaints that live stock for breeding, and particularly heifers, were allowed without restriction to be exported to the United States. "We call the attention of the Dominion Government to the matter, since, while the Department of Agriculture at Ottawa is preparing a comprehensive programme for the extension of co-operation and the (o) P. 23. ib) P. 24. ( The whole story may be seen in Pope, op. cit, vol. II., pp. 85-140. The Republic of Canada 357 solely on Imperial considerations, I might be held as neglecting my especial duty towards this my country, Canada. It was a difficult posi tion, as the House will believe, a position that pressed upon me with great weight and severity at the time, and it has not been diminished in any way since I have returned, except by the cordial support of my colleagues, and I believe also of my friends in this House" (a). In a letter from Washington to Mr. Tupper (29 March), Sir John said: "My long telegram of the 22nd will have informed you of the state of fishery matters up to that time. You may imagine that my position was exceedingly embarrassing. In our separate caucusses my colleagues were continually pressing me to yield — in fact, I had no backer, and I was obliged to stand out, and, I am afraid, to make my self extremely disagreeable to them" (&). Relating an interview with his colleagues. Sir John told Mr. Tupper of Lord de Grey's threat of breaking up the conference unless he. Sir John, gave way, and he added: "He was followed by the other Commissioners seriatim, who all made speeches at me" (c). "A confidential cable was sent by Lord de Grey, stating the terms, and at the same time stating that I did not concur in the settlement, on the ground that the compensation was inadequate, and that I doubted whether the Canadian Parliament would ratify the arrangement, al though the rest thought the settlement reasonable" (d). In a later letter (1 April), Sir John said: "I must say that 1 am greatly disappointed at the course taken by the British Commissioners. They seem to have only one thing in their minds — that is, to go home to England with a treaty in their pockets, settling everything, no matter at what cost to Canada" (e). In a still later letter (6 May) , he said : "In addition to the letter which I shall send to Lord Grenville, and which will be such as can be published, I shall prepare a letter to him marked 'secret ' pointing out the sacrifices which Canada has been called upon to make. I shall do this because, if the manner in which Canada has been treated by England were fully known to the Canadian people, I am afraid it would raise an annexation storm that could not easily be allayed" (/). Sir John did his best but was overborne. He said to Lord de Grey "that Canada was called upon against her will to enter into an arrange ment, which she considers in the highest degree unsatisfactory to her (fl) Macpherson, op. cit., vol. II., p. 127. (6) Pope, op. cit., vol. II., p. 94. ic) Ibid, p. 99. id) Ibid, p. 102. (c) Ibid, p. 105. if) Ibid, pp. 137, 138. 358 Imperial Projects people, in order to secure the settlement of other matters in which England is more immediately interested That, as there was an anti-colonial party in England, so there was an annexa tion party in Canada; and if we were told that England was afraid or unwilling to protect us in the enjoyment of our undoubted rights, not from fear of the American Government or the American people, but from fear of the Gloucester fishermen, that party would gain great strength in Canada and perhaps imperil the connection with the mother countrj'. That in case such connection was severed, the consequence, in my opinion, would be annexation to the United States'' (o). An Object Lesson. — Canada will never, in a conference of five or six British to one Canadian, have an abler or more patriotic representative than Sir John. He was unsuccessful, not because of any ill-will on the part of his coUeagues, but be cause while he was a Canadian they had in view "the interests of the Empire as a whole" — meaning the separate interests of the United Kingdom. All that they wanted was a treaty, a settlement, a renewal of friendship with the United States, "no matter at what cost to Canada." Sir John in Canada. — So objectionable was the treaty that only with the greatest difficulty could Sir John induce his own col leagues to support it. Writing to Sir John Rose (17 April, 1872), he said: "Thanks for your several letters about the treaty. Your telegram of Saturday was satisfactory. I have little doubt now that there will be a pacific solution of the difficulty. Meanwhile, after many months ef labour and anxiety, I have screwed my colleagues to the stickiug-point. We have finally agreed to go to Parliament this session, for an act to bring the fisheries articles into force'' (fo). And in a later letter (18 June), he said: "Thanks for your various letters about this important treaty. Never was there such a bungled matter from beginning to end. You may tell Lord Granville from me, confidentially, that if he wants his business done at Washington correctly at any time he must send me alone. But seriously, the whole thing was badly managed, first at Washington, and still worse in England. I suppose that the treaty will come to something in the end, but instead of removing heart-burnings, it has laid the foundation of new suspicions, and all without the slightest necessity' (c). (o) Ibid, pp. 116, 117. ib) Ibid, p. 149. (c) Ibid. The RepubUc of Canada 359 Parliament. — "But, Mr. Ewart, if in a conference which has no legally binding effect, five do vote down one, what harm is done — action will follow only if parliament so desires, and our parliament is free?" Free, in one sense, yes; but, never theless, compromised and fettered. Listen to Sir John pleading in parliament for ratification of what he struggled against in conference — surrender of the St. Lawrence, the canals, the fisheries, the Fenian claims — "This was the line taken by Her Majesty's Government, and which they had a right to take ; and when some one writes my biography — if I am ever thought worthy of having such an interesting document pre pared — and when, as a matter of history, the questions connected with this treaty are upheld, it will be found that upon this, as well as upon every other point, / did all I could to protect the rights and claims of the Dominion" (a). "I believe the second sober thought of this country accords with the sober second thought of the Government and we come down here and ask the people of Canada, through their representatives, to accept this treaty, to accept it with all its imperfections, to accept it for the sake of peace, and for the sake of the great Empire of which we form a part" (6). What did parliament do? It voted for Sir John A. Mac donald by a party vote of 121 to 55. His supporters repeated his phrase "for the sake of the great Empire of which we form a part," but not a man of them would have voted as he did had Sir John declined to support the treaty which he had been induced to sign. Parliament was free, and so was Sir John, but the action of the Canadian legislature had in reality been foreordained in Washington. The New Imperial Institutions. — The new imperial bodies — the Cabinet, the Board, and the Bureau will sit in London. Canada will have one representative out of twelve. Policies are to be discussed — war policies, trade policies, finan cial contributions, immigration, development and disposition of local resources, etc., etc. Nobody is to take "a private and particular view" (c) of anything: everybody is to consider the "broader and wider interests" (rf) ; aU proposals are to be based upon "imperial unity" (e) ; aU suggestions are to be (fl) Macpherson, op. cit., vol. II., pp. 150, 151. (b) Ibid, p. 175. ic) Ante, p. 327. id) Ante, p. 327. (e) Ante, p. 326. 7 360 Imperial Projects regarded "from the point of view of the interests of the whole" (o) ; all resolutions must have for their purpose "the increase of the power of the Empire as a whole" (b). In an atmosphere of that kind, and in such environment, what would become of the lone Canadian representative? Sir John Macdonald would make valiant struggle. Even he would be beaten. Lesser men would merely collapse — and receive "additional evidence of His Majesty's favor." The London policy would go out to Canada, and would be duly registered there "for the sake of the great Empire of which we form a part." WHO OWNS CANADA? "Empire Resources." — The larger part of Canada is pub lic domain — is owned by the people. But what people? The people of Canada? or the people of the British Empire? Are our undisposed-of lands (Canadian resources, or "Empire re sources?'' Are our mineral properties Canadian assets, or "Imperial assets." Until a few months ago, a confident answer could have been returned. To-day we stand compromised. Our ownership, and, with it, our autonomy in that respect, are in jeopardy. We are on the way back to early colonial con ceptions. Governor Aylmer.— The legal title to the public lands since 1763 has been vested in the sovereign. In our earlier days, Colonial Secretaries and Governors insisted upon that fact as justification for their applying the moneys derived from the lands to such purposes as they saw fit. Governor Aylmer (1831-5), for example, declared that such resources "are enjoyed by the Crown, by virtue of the Royal Prerogative, and are neither more nor less than the proceeds of landed property, which legally and constitutionally belongs to the Sovereign on the throne'' (c). Lord Durham. — Taking the same view. Lord Durham, in his report (1839), said: "Unbounded materials of agricultural, commercial and manufacturing industry are there : it depends upon the present decision of the Imperial (o) Ante, p. 327. (ft) Final Report, p. 83. ic) In message of February, 1831, to Quebec House of Assembly: quoted in Lord Durham's Report (edited by Sir C. P. Lucas), vol. I., p. 185. The Republic of Canada 361 Legislature to determine for whose benefit they are to be rendered available. The country which has founded and maintained these Colonies at a vast expense of blood and treasure, may justly expect its compensation in turning their unappropriated resources to the ac count of its own redundant population ; they are the rightful patrimony of the English people, the ample appanage which God and Nature have set aside in the New World for those whose lot has assigned them but insufficient proportions in the Old" (a). "The waste lands of the colonies are the property, not merely of the colony, hut of the Empire, and ought to be administered for iniperial, not merely colonial purposes . . ." Combatting the idea that "the subject is one which appertains of right to the colonies'' (fo). Durham declared (c) that "There can surely be nothing in the fact, that the Crown has granted to one person, or to any number of persons, a certain portion of land in any colony which can give to those persons any right to dispose of the land which has not been granted to them : but rather the first grantees, having had their share of the land, are less entitled to any voice in the disposal of the remainder than the other citizens of the empire. The only rights which they can possess are of precisely the same character and extent as those possessed by any other subjects of the Crown : a right to demand that these lands shall be administered in such a manner as to promote the prosperity of the colony, and to advance the interests of the empire. These objects, properly regarded, are identical, though experience has amply shown that the one may be pursued at the expense of the other. It is for the Imperial Parliament to reconcile these different interests, and by providing for the greaitest development of the resources of the colonies, to enable them to offer a market for the mantrfactures, and a home for the surplus population of the United Kingdom'' (rf). In default of imperial action, "the North American Provinces must be nearly valueless to the empire" (e). In accordance with these views, Durham recommended the creation of "a central commission," with its chief offices in London, to which should be "entrusted the whole execution of the plan" (/). Origin of These Views. — Such views were a part of the general conception which underlay "the colonial system," (o) Ibid, vol. II., p. 13. (ft) Ibid, p. 37. (c) In the appendix to the report written by Charles Buller. (d) Ibid, p. 38. (e) Ibid, p. 39. if) Ibid, p. 128. 362 Imperial Projects namely, that the colonies were sources of wealth for the metro politan — (1) to produce the needed raw material; (2) to con sume manufactures; and (3) to provide homes for surplus, and usually undesirable, population, who would add to the production and increase the consumption. And so Lord Dur ham argued that "The experiment of keeping colonies and governing them well, ought at least to have a trial, ere we abandon for ever the vast dominion, which might supply the wants of our surplus population, and raise up millions of fresh consumers of our manufactures, and producers of a supply for our wants" (o). Relaxation. — Adoption, by the British, of free trade prin ciples brought relief from the pressure of claims of that sort, and for many years no suggestion of British title to Canadian resources was heard. Now, however, Canada seems to be on the point of admitting that her resources are "Imperial assets," to be administered for the benefit of "the Empire as a whole," under the advice of, and in conjunction with, representatives of the British government. Lord Durham's proposed "central commission" is commencing as an "Imperial Development Board," and an "Imperial Mining Resources Bureau." Benjamin Franklin. — While the British official attitude towards Canada changed with the adoption of free trade, the Englishman's private view of his ownership of the colonies has never disappeared. Writing in 1767 (b), Frankhn said that "Every man in England seems to consider himself as a piece of a sovereign over America; seems to jostle himself into the throne with the King, and talks of our subjects in the colonies." President Falconer. — Lapse of one hundred years effected no change, for, as President Falconer said in the University of Toronto (1 March, 1907), "To the Briton we continued long after confederation to be colonists in whom he thought he had vague proprietary rights" (c). John S. Ewart. — When I was in England in 1901, an Eng lish judge, on being told that I lived in Manitoba, said to me: "Ah, how interesting ! Manitoba ! Let me see. We are colonizing that place now, are we not?" (fl) Ibid, vol. I., p. 180. (ft) 11 April, to Lord Kames; Works, vol. 7, pp. 528, 529. ic) The Federation of Canada, p. 109. The Republic of Canada 363 Of course, I said "Yes." "And how long is it, Mr. Ewart, since you went out?" Mr. Barker. — Those "vague proprietary rights" are rapidly assuming concrete and very definite form, both in the writings of the publicists and in the language of statesmen and royal commissioners. Take, for example, the following from the pen of Mr. J. Ellis Barker, one of the ablest of British magazine writers — "Wealth is power. The British Empire should endeavour to be the leading Anglo-Saxon nation, not only in territory but in white popula tion and wealth as well. Hitherto the development of the Empire has been restricted by a small-minded parochial policy of the component parts, by lack of imperial organization and co-operation. The great imperial domain can be adequately protected and exploited only by the Empire as a whole, by a truly Imperial Government, by Empire-wide co-operation. Immigration and emigration, transportation by land and water, the planful opening and settlement of the vast empty spaces of the Empire, and the question of inter-Imperial trade must be settled imperially, not parochically. If that is done there is every reason to believe that in a few decades the British Empire will be far ahead of the United States both in white population and in wealth.'' "An Imperial Government in the full sense of the term should in vestigate and take stock of the Imperial resources, for they are un known. It is nobody's business to study and describe the resources of the Empire. No official survey has ever been made of England's coal beds. The resources of the Empire are exploited, or wasted, at will by private individuals . . . An Imperial stock-taking is neces sary. The Empire belongs to the race, not to a few capitalists." "The War has been waged not only for the present generation but for future generations as well. It seems therefore only fair that part of the cost should be borne by future generations. It might be thrown in part on the latent and undeveloped resources of the Empire which might he pooled for the purpose of repaying the war' debt" (a). Mr. Hurd. — Mr. Archibald Hurd (a still more prolific writer), with the same view of British ownership of the colonies, writing in the Fortnightly Review for May, 1917, com plained of "the haphazard manner in which the past British governments have failed to cultivate and develop the wonderful resources of the oversea Dominions, Crown Colonies, and Dependencies"; and roundly asserted that "the inhabitants of the British Isles . . . enjoy the advantage of having a preferential claim on the immense resources of the oversea portions of the British Empire" (fo). (fl) Britain's Coming Industrial Supremacy: The Nineteenth Century, October, 1916, pp. 697-9. _ (h\ The Shadow of Famine on the Continent, p. 776. 364 Imperial Projects In other current pubhcations may frequently be seen such sentences from British pens as : "The area of our Empire woodlands is almost incalculable" (o). "We are not yet able to form an idea of the vast possibilities of our Imperial inheritance" (6). British statesmen use the expression "our Dominions." The Round Table. — If I am told that I am unduly anxi ous, and that none of these men could have really meant what they said, I point to the December number of The Round Table, that very ably conducted organ of imperialism, and ask, "What do you think of that?" "There is a steadily, strengthening realization that there must be a change in the status and powers and responsibilities of the nations of the Empire, and that there must be a more conscious development of the resources of the Empire for the benefit of all who dwell within it" {c).What I think of that is that it is in perfect harmony with imperiahstic principles and practices. Officially. — It is the hardening of this belief in British proprietary rights that constitutes our danger. Were it con fined to private individuals, it might be disregarded. But it has invaded the official mind. It is to be met with (as we have seen) in the reports of officiaUy appointed British commissions. And (almost incredible) it is being assented to by members of the Canadian government — Sir Robert Borden and Sir George Foster. Sir Edward Carson. — The First Lord of the Admiralty recently said : "But there is one result from the war that nothing but our own actions and' our own energies can keep from us, and nothing but our own inaction and our own carelessness can deprive us of, and that is the utilisation and the organisation of the vast resources of the Empire in the manner most advantageous to the interests of every part of the great Empire to which we belong. The war has demonstrated three or four fundamental material facts. It has taught us in the first place what our resources arc, as I do not believe we ever knew them in the slightest degree until war broke out" (rf). (a) The Fortnightly Review, May, 1917: J. Saxon Mills, in article already quoted. (ft) The Nineteenth Century, May, 1917: Lord Sydenham, in article already quoted. ic) P. 14. id) Speech before the British Empire Producers' Organization: The Times (England), 25 May, 1917. The Republic of Canada 365 Canadian Assent. — Proof of Canadian complaisance has sufficiently appeared in what has already been said, namely, that Sir Robert Borden agreed to the resolutions of the recent London conferences, and that Sir George Foster signed the re ports of the Dominions Royal Commission. To these, I add that Sir Robert Borden, speaking at Manchester (21 April, 1917), after reference to the "powerful state organization" of German resources by the German government, said : "The natural resources of the British Empire will enable us to meet the situation, provided our efforts are characterised by thorough ness, skill, system and a strong, united purpose, manifested in effective co-operation between the mother country and the Dominions. I must submit that our natural resources ought to be conserved for the general national benefit, and controlled within the Empire, for essential national purposes, and that their utilization through manufacture should be car ried on to the greatest possible extent within the Empire, and not abroad" (o). Who Owns? — Although, therefore, a few years ago, no one would have doubted the absolute ownership by Canada of her public lands, British claim to them has now to be reckoned with. Not, indeed, that as yet any British statesman intends to propose the passing of over-riding appropriation legislation. Not, indeed, that anybody will deny that Canada, by her crown- grants, can give valid title to these lands. But the conception of Canada as a trustee of them, for the benefit of the United Kingdom, has been very clearly asserted and quite complac ently agreed to. Imperial PhiWiSEology. — Our danger is due, almost ex clusively, to the currency of imperial phraseology. Use the word Empire, in its application to Canada, as a mouth-filling, chest-swelling, self -adulatory expression, instead of as a re minder of our degraded colonialism; employ the phrase "unity of the Empire," as expressive of singleness and indivisibihty in political association; discard such language as "Canadian resources" and "Canadian assets," in favor of "Imperial re sources" and "Imperial assets," and you wiU soon find yourself possessed of the conceptions which are implicit in your lan guage; for, as Bacon has truly said: "Words still manifestly force the understanding, throw everything into confusion, and lead mankind into vain and innumerable controversies and fallacies." (fl) The Globe (Toronto), 23 April, 1917. 366 Imperial Projects Imperial Association. — Erroneous imperial phraseology has already induced compromising imperial association in con nection with our resources. Already we have agreed to the establishment of "The Imperial Development Board," and "The Imperial Mineral Resources Bureau" — ^both based upon the correctness of the conception of "Empire resources." If we are content to discharge our alleged imperial trusteeship of those resources in such ways as shall be imperially required of us, we may continufe indefinitely, although foolishly, to boast our ownership of them. If we refuse — as some day is almost cer tain—we shall find, as the Egyptians found, that "the British government will be displeased, and that they will probably find some adequate means for making their displeasure felt" (o). SIR JOHN AND SIR ROBERT. Two Premiers. — In February, 1867, delegations from Can ada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick under the chairmanship of Sir John A. Macdonald (b) were engaged in London (Eng land) upon the construction of our present constitution. Fifty years afterwards (February, 1917) a Canadian delegation under Sir Robert Borden's leadership went to London to attend a meeting of the Imperial Conference. Sir John was an intense Canadian (c). Sir Robert is a conscientious Imperiahst. Sir John made a splendid struggle for Canadian autonomy. Sir Robert worked well for imperialism. Had Sir John achieved all that he anxiously desired, or if his successors had had his abihties, ambitions and advantages (d), Canada would long ago have been completely autonomous. Unless the policy (fl) Ante, p. .507. (ft) At the federation period, Sir John was Mr. Macdonald. His better known designation is here employed. (c) Sir John Thompson, in his eulogy of his former chief said: "Sir John's love of Canada and his desire to serve her must be put far in front of all his characteristics. His daily thought might be expressed in Webster's words: 'Let our object be our country, our whole country, and nothing but our coun try.' 'Nothing but our country' in the sense that Canada was to be first of all in every consideration of public policy or personal action. His true and deep Canadianism was the 'pillar of cloud by day, and the pillar of fire by night," to the hundreds of thousands whom he led as no man could have led by a mere party banner": Pope, op. cit., p. 344. Sir Joseph Pope applied the metaphor to the expression of a very different idea: "Sir John Macdonald, the guiding principle of whose long and eventful life was British connection, and for whom the visible symbol of that intimate union stood as a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night" (d) Sir Wilfrid Laurier's fine Canadianism is handicapped by his French birth. The Republic of Canada 367 adopted by Sir Robert is repudiated, Canada will descend to the status of a British sphere of influence (a). Sir John's Purpose. — Sir John saw in the proposal for the federation of Canada an opportunity, as his biographer tells us (fc), for "founding a Kingdom." To him, it was clear that Canadians would not always be colonials. He believed that the union of the provinces would produce a strength and im portance sufficient to elevate them to higher rank. And the nature of the status which he had in view is very clear to any one who will carefully read the speeches and documents relat ing to the federation proceedings. It may be thus defined — 1. The title of the federation was to be "The Kingdom of Canada." 2. Its rank was to be that of Kingdom. 3. The reign of the Colonial Secretary was to cease. 4. The head of the Executive was to the King in person or his representative. 5. The over-riding but nominal authority of the Imperial parliament was to remain. Canada would be a self-governing nation, with an executive of her own, but under British suze rainty. 6. And to that extent Canada was to remain "in connec tion with the British Empire" — a phrase which must be sharply differentiated from "a part of the British Empire" (c). Sir John's Diplomacy. — WeU aware of the danger of arousing imperialistic opposition to his purpose, and proceed ing with masterly astuteness. Sir John, throughout all the dis cussions in Canada, deprecated debate upon the two principal items of the contemplated reconstruction, namely, the rank to be assigned to the new organization, and its title. He knew perfectly well that all the little loyalisms would burst into wild est clamor were anyone to propose that Canada should be a kingdom, and that her parliament should have the same rela tions with the king as had the British parliament. "That would be independence," they would have shouted, and the proposal would have appeared to be sufficiently condemned by the word. As it was, some people protested and wanted clearer specifica tion. For example, Mr. Dunkin in parliament said: (o) "Today as used in China and elsewhere, the term applies rather to a region pre-empted for further exploitation, and possibly for political control" (Ency. Brit.). ib) Pope, op. cit., vol. I., p. 312. ic) A mere king-union would satisfy the former phrase. 368 Imperial Projects "As to the state that is to be created, its style and rank are left in most delightful ambiguity. We may be honored with the dignity of a kingdom, or of a vice-royalty, or of we know not what. All we are assured of is, that it is to be a something better, higher and more grand than we now have" (a). No Reverberation. — Advising that decision as to the rani and title should be left to the discretion of the Queen, Sir John prevented submission of any resolution upon those points in Canada. But at the same time, by his example and enthusiasm, he gave to the debates such an elevation in character and tone as would have justified the decision which he intended to get. For Sir John had not the least idea in the world of leaving those two very important matters to the Queen. He knew that Her Majesty would do as she was advised, and that his work would be with the British government. So far as Canada was concerned, his plan was as is indicated in a letter written just before leaving for England (8 October, 1866) : "Again, it appears to us to be important that the Bill should not be finally settled until just before the meeting of the British parliament. The measure must be carried per saltum, and no echo of it must re verberate through the British provinces until it becomes law. If the delegation had been complete in England, and they had prepared the measure in August last, it would have been impossible to keep its pro visions secret until next January. There will be few important clauses in the measure that will not offend some interest or individual, and its publication would excite a new and fierce agitation on this side of the Atlantic. Even Canada, which has hitherto been nearly a unit on the subject of Confederation, would be stirred to its depths if any material alterations were made. The Act once passed and beyond remedy, the people would soon learn to be reconciled to it" (6). Sir John's Confidants. — I have no doubt that Mr. George E. Cartier shared Sir John's views from the first (His speeches reveal that), but I am not sure who else received his con fidence. The great majority of the members of the Cana dian parhament had httle conception of the splendid idea of the great statesman. Their speeches were devoted, at first, to the merits of the different features of the proposal, and, after wards (to some extent), to the demerits of one another. Public Opinion. — Remembering that the first federating conference was held at Charlottetown, P.E.I. (September, (fl) Confederation Debates, p. 488. (6) Pope, op. cit., vol. I., p. 308. The Republic of Canada 369 1864) ; that the second was held at Quebec (October, 1864) ; that between the conferences and after them, some of the dele gates visited various cities and made speeches there ; that length ened debate took place in the Canadian parliament (3 Febru ary — 13 March, 1865) ; and that afterwards delegates from the three provinces (Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick) met in London to complete their work, let us follow the pro ceedings; watch the play of Sir John's thought; and see what support for his ideas can be found in the speeches and debates of the period. Banquet Speeches. — Records of the speeches made in the various cities have been given us by the Honorable Mr. Whe- lan, one of the Prince Edward Island delegates in "The Union of the Provinces," and by the Honorable J. H. Gray, a Nova Scotia delegate, in "The Confederation of Canada." From these volumes the following extracts are taken : Sir John said — "He had, however, every reason to believe that the result of the Convention which held its sittings in Charlottetown for the past week, would lead to the formation and establishment of such a Federation of all the British North American Provinces as would tend very ma terially to enhance their individual and collective prosperity, politically, commercially, and socially; and also give them, in their united man hood, that national prowess and .'strength which would make them at least the fourth nation on the face of the globe" (Whelan, p. 8). "If we can only obtain that object — a vigorous general government —we shall not be New Brunswickers, nor Nova Scotians, nor Canadians, but British Americans, under the sway of the British Sovereign" (Whelan, p. 44). "In the conference we have had, we have been united as one man ^there was no difference of feeling — no sectional prejudices or selfish ness exhibited by any one; — we all approached the subject feeling its importance; feeling that in our hands were the destinies of a nation; and great would be our sin and shame if any different motives had intervened to prevent us carrying out the noble object of founding a great British Monarchy, in connection with the British Empire, and under the British Queen" (Whelan, pp. 44, S. Gray at p. 45 reports the same language). "We will become a great nation, and God forbid that it should be one separate from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" (Whelan, p. 46). "I shall feel that I have not served in public hfe without reward if, before I enter into private life, / am a subject, of a great British American nation, under the government of Her Majesty, and in con nection with the Empire of Great Britain and Ireland" (Gray, p. 46. Whelan at p. 47 reports substantially the same language). 370 Imperial Projects The Hon. George E. Cartier said-— "They (the delegates) met to enquire whether it were possible for the Provinces, from their present fragmentary and isolated materials, to form a Nation or Kingdom; Canada, of herself, though she was a large country, with a vast and extensive interior, could not make a nation ; neither could the Maritime Provinces of themselves become a kingdom. It was, therefore, essentially necessary that those national fragments and resources of all the Provinces should be concentrated and combined, in order that they, in their trade, intelligence, and na tional power and prosperity, might be rated as at least the fourth nation of the world" (Whelan pp. 9, 10). "When we consider that Canada has a population of 3,(XK),000, Nova Scotia 350,000, New Brunswick nearly 300,000, Prince Edward Island very nearly 100,000, or a total pojpulation of over three million and a half, we see there is a sufficient personal element in these Provinces to make a nation. When we come to the territory occupied by these Provinces, we see again another great element requisite for the founda tion of a great State" (Whelan, p. 24). "Knowing as we do in Canada, that we possess so large a personal element — that we have cleared so much of our territory as would secure to us as respectable a position as many of the European powers, we want to be something greater yet; but that cannot be unless you unite with us" (Whelan, p. 25). "We know very well that, as soon as confederation is obtained, the Confederacy will have to be erected into a Vice-Royalty, and we may expect that a member of the Royal Family will be sent here as the head" (Whelan, pp. 26-7). "He said it had been urged against Confederation that such a change in our constitution would make us republican, and gradually lead to a final separation from the mother country. But he believed it would have the contrary effect — that it would bind us more closely to that country, and probably secure to us the vice-royalty of a prince of the reigning family'' (Whelan, p. 51). The Hon. Adams G. Archibald (N.S.) said— "They want, as the Hon. Mr. Cartier very properly observed, to bind the Colonies together, and make of them one nation" (Whelan, p. 11). "It would be the proudest day in the history of British America, when they would unite hand in hand, and form a nation, which, in all the elements that constitute real greatness, might be ranked as the third or fourth on the face of the globe" (Whelan, pp. 11, 12). "A united nation, we shall become a great country and the time is not far distant when a colossal power, growing up on the continent, shall stand with one foot on the Pacific and the other on the Atlantic, and shall present to the world, even on this side of the Atlantic, the proof that monarchial institutions are not inconsistent with civil and religious liberty, and the fullest measure of material advancement" (Whelan, p. 97). The RepubUc of Canada 371 The Hon. T. H. Haviland (P.E.I.) said— "He believed, from all that he could learn, that the Provinces would, ere long, be one great country or nation, from the Pacific to the Atlantic" (Whelan, p. 16). "But the peculiarity of this meeting was that it was held in a time of peace, with the approbation, and he believed, with the sanction of Her Majesty, that the colonies might throiu aside their swaddling clothes, to put on themselves the garb of manhood, and hand down to posterity the glorious privileges for which their ancestors contended from .ige to age in the old country, and which had been brought into these new countries under the protecting shadow of the flag that had braved a thousand years the battle and the breeze" (Whelan, pp. 114, 5). The Hon. F. B. T. Carter (Newfoundland) said— "He had occasion to visit Quebec several years ago, on matters of jiublic business, which brought forcibly before his mind the benefits which would be derived from a union of the Provinces ; he had then expressed the wish that we might one day be all united in one com mon country under a scion of the Royal family; and it was his belief now that the wished-for union was not far distant" (Whelan, p. 74). The Hon. J. H. Gray (N.B.) said— "But apart from this question of a commercial union, would they permit him to express the opinion that they wanted something more — they wanted a National Union, one that would enable them to take an honorable place among the nations of the earth" (Whelan, p. 102). The Hon. Charles Fisher (N.B.) said— "When this Confederation became a fact, if they examined the statistics published from time to time, they would find that in point of maritime influence and importance it would be the fourth power in the world. (Cheers). In these respects England, France, and the United States would alone he superior to it" (Whelan, p. 173) . The Hon. A. T. GaU (Canada) said— "He was glad we had a policy, glad that we were growing out of the littleness of colonial politics, and that we were preparing for the responsibilities which would fall upon us, whether welcome dr not — the responsibilities of a national existence" (Whelan, p. 205), Comment. — Sir John's language was accurately appropri ate to his idea. He wanted to found a monarchy; not to con tinue Canada as a colony of an existing monarchy. It was to be "in connection with the British Empire," and, therefore, not a part of it. He saw nothing inconsistent between the desire that he should continue to be "a subject of a great Bri tish American nation," and his statement, of many years after wards, that he was born a British subject and would die a British subject; for he never dreamed of ending his allegiance 372 Imperial Projects to the British sovereign. His wish was that Canada should be a kingdom; and that she should have, as King, the sovereign who occupied the throne of the United Kingdom. The Quebec Conference. — Of the proceedings of this con ference we have short records made by the Secretary, Col. Bernard, extending from the 10th to the 25th October; but those of the subsequent days are incomplete. We have also Col. Bernard's short minutes of the debates between the 11th and the 25th October. And Mr. Gray has left us extracts from some of the speeches. Among others, he reports Sir John as having said that the new constitution — "was intended to be, as far as circumstances would permit, similar to that of the Imperial government, and recognising the Sovereign of Great Britain as its sole and only head" (p. 55). For the purpose in hand, the foUowing are the more im portant of the proceedings of the Conference. No Colonialism. — The following resolution was moved — "That the constitution of the General and Local Governments shall be framed upon the British model so far as is consistent with our colonial condition, and with a view to the perpetutation of our connec tion with the Mother Country" (a). In amendment the following was moved — "That while it is the avowed desire of this Conference to perpetu ate the connection with the parent state by every means in our power, it is not judicious to fetter our actions by the passage of a resolution of a simple declaratory character, and which may embarrass our action in the selection of the best means of providing for the general and local government of the country'' (fo). In further amendment the following was moved. (It be came No. 3 of the series of resolutions agreed to by the Con ference) — No. 3. "That in framing a Constitution for the General Govern ment, the Conference, with a view to the perpetuation of our connec tion with the Mother Country, and to the promotion of the best inter ests of the people of these Provinces, desire to folloiv the model of the British Constitution, so far as our circumstances ivill permit" ic). This last amendment was carried. Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island dissenting, but on the ground, only, that they (o) Pope; Confed. Docts., p. 9. (6) Ibid, p. 9. (c) Pnpc: Confed. Docts., p. 9. The Republic of Canada 373 favored the first amendment {a). On reflection, nobody liked the words "consistent with our colonial condition." The Executive. — Sir John moved — "That the Executive authority or Government shall be vested in the Sovereign of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and be administered according to the zvell understood principles of the British Constitution by the Sovereign personally or by representative duly authorised. "Mr. Tupper. Is it meant 'to leave it to the Queen or to make any suggestion as to the appointment of a Viceroy? "Mr. John A. Macdonald. / think it advisable not to make any suggestion. At least it should not be a constitutional suggestion. Here after the Parliament of the Federation may represent a desire for one of the Royal Family as Viceroy. "Mr. Macdonald's motion carried." This resolution became No. 4 of the series adopted by the Conference. From it alone could anyone suspect Sir John's design, and its significance appears to have escaped the obser vation of those who would have been opposed to its necessary implication. Formerly the Executive of Canada had been a Governor-General acting under the instructions of the Colonial Secretary, and that fact stamped her status as a colony. The resolution declared for personal government by the Queen ¦'according to the well-understood principles of the British constitution.'' and necessarily involved the elimination of the Colonial Secre tary. Formerly the Canadian government had no access to the king — the Governor-General wrote to the Colonial Secre tary, and the Colonial Secretary told the Governor what to do. Humiliation of that sort was to cease. But if, besides making that explanation. Sir John had proposed the rank of kingdom, and as title "The Kingdom of Canada," he would at once have heard the reverberations "through the British provinces" which he dreaded. English Sovereignty. — A resolution (afterwards No. 29 of the series) containing a schedule of subjects of legislation assigned to the federal parhament (something like our present sec. 91) commenced as follows: "That it shall be competent for the General Legislature to make laws for the peace, welfare and good government of the Federated Provinces (saving the sovereignty of England), and especially . . . ." ib). (o) Ibid, p. 74. And see p. 21. (ft) Pope: Confederation Documents, p. 24. 374 Imperial Projects The words in parenthesis were unnecessary, and were omitted from the constitution as passed. Sir John did not contemplate termination of the existing sovereignty. It was little more than nominal, and its appearance of reality would have been reduced by the adoption of his design. Rank and Name. — The only other resolution material for present purposes was the following (It became No. 71 of the series) : "That Her Majesty the Queen be solicited to determine the rank and name of the Federated Provinces'' (a). Comment. — The foregoing speeches and resolutions proved very conclusively: 1. That federation meant to the delegates something more than a mere union of colonies. 2. That it meant elevation from colonial rank. 3. That connection with the British Empire was to be maintained. 4. That that connection was not to include the continuation of the interposition of the Colonial Secretary between Canada and her sovereign. 5. That, on the contrary, the executive authority was to be administered "by the sovereign personally or by the repre sentative of the sovereign duly authorized." 6. That the over-riding authority of the Imperial parlia ment was to continue. In this connection note that the con stitution was to be a British statute and, therefore, necessarily under the control, as to amendment or otherwise, of that parliament. Alteration of provincial constitutions was to be committed to the local legislatures (b). In Parliament. — In the Legislative Assembly of the Parliament of Canada, Sir John moved (6 February, 1865) an address to Her Majesty praying the submission to the Imperial parUament of a federation biU, based upon the resolu tions of the conference, and in doing so, said — "And it seems to me, as to them, and I think it will so appear to the people of this country, that, if we wish to be a great people; if we wish to form — using the expression which was sneered at the other evening — a great nationality, commanding the respect of the world, (a) Ibid, p. 52. (ft) Ibid, p. 105. The RepubUc of Canada 375 able to hold our own against all opponents, and to defend those institu tions we prise . . . this can only be obtained by a union of some kind between the scattered and weak boundaries composing the British American Provinces" (a). "In the first place, by a resolution which meets with the universal approval of the people of this country, we have provided that for all time to come, so far as we can legislate for the future, we shall have as the head of the executive power the Sovereign of Great Britain. (Hear, hear). No one can look into futurity and say what will be the destiny of this country. Changes come over nations and peoples in the course of ages. But, so far as we can legislate, we provide that, for all time to come, the Sovereign of Great Britain shall be the Sove reign of British North America" (fo). "We have given the General Legislature all the great subjects of legislation. We have conferred on them, not only specifically and in detail, all the powers which are incident to sovereignty, but we have ex pressly declared that all subjects of general interest not distinctly and exclusively conferred upon the local governments and local legislatures, shall be conferred upon the General Government and Legislature'' (c). "If, therefore, at the Conference, we had arrived at the conclusion, that it was for the interest of these provinces that a severance should take place, I am sure that Her Majesty and the Imperial Parliament would Have sanctioned that severance. We accordingly felt that there was a propriety in giving a distinct declaration of opinion on that point, and that, in framing the Constitution, its first sentences should declare, that 'The Executive authority or government shall be vested in the Sovereign of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and be administered according to the well understood principles of the British Constitution, by the Sovereign personally, or by the Representa tive of the Sovereign duly authorized.' That resolution met with the unanimous assent of the Conference. The desire to remain connected with Great Britain and to retain our allegiance to Her Majesty was unanimous'' (rf). "We provide that 'the Executive authority shall be administered by the Sovereign personally, or by the Representative of the Sovereign duly authorized' (e). It is too much to expect that the Queen should vouchsafe us her personal governance or presence, except to pay us, as the heir apparent of the Throne, our future Sovereign, has already paid us, the graceful compliment of a visit. The Executive authority must therefore be administered by Her Majesty's Representative. We place no restriction on Her Majesty's prerogative in the selection of her re presentative. As it is now, so it will be if this Constitution is adopted. The Sovereign has unrestricted freedom of choice. Whether in mak ing her selection she may send us one of her own family, a Royal Prince, as a Viceroy to rule over us, or one of the great statesmen of (o) Debates, op. 27-8. (ft) Ibid, pp. 32-3. ic) Debates, p. 33. id) Ibid, p. 34. ie) When on a visit the Queen would have exercised her constitutional func tions on the advice of her Canadian Ministers, not of the Colonial Secretary. 8 376 Imperial Projects England to represent her, we know not. We leave that to Her Majesty in all confidence" (a). "The last resolution of any importance is one which although not affecting the substance of the Constitution, is of interest to us all. It is that 'Her Majesty the Queen be soUcited to determine the rank and name of the federated provinces.' T do not know whether there will be any expression of opinion in this House on this subject — whether we are to be a vice-royalty, or whether we are still to retain our name and rank as a province. But I have no doubt Her Majesty will give the matter Her gracious consideration, that She will give us a name satisfactory to us all, and that the rank She will confer upon us will be a rank worthy of our position, of our resources, and of our future" (fo). "One argument, but not a strong one, has been used against this Confederation, that it is an advance towards independence. Some are apprehensive that the very fact of our forming this union will hasten the time when we shall be severed from the mother country. I have no apprehension of that kind. I believe it will have the contrary effect. I believe that, as we grow stronger, that, as it is felt in England we have become a people, able from our union, our strength, our popula tion, and the development of our resources, to take our position among the nations of the world, she will be less willing to part with us than she would be now, when we are broken up into a number of fnsignifi- cant colonies subject to attack piece-meal without any concerted action or common organization of defence. I am strongly of opinion that year by year, as we grow in population and strength, England will more see the advantages of maintaining the alliance between British North America and herself. Does any one imagine that, when our population instead of three and a half, will be seven millions, as it will be ere many years pass, we would be one whit more willing than now to sever the connection with England? Would not those seven millions he just as anxious to maintain their allegiance to the Queen and their connection with the Mother Country, as we are now?" (c). "When this union takes place, we will be at the outset no incon siderable people. We find ourselves with a population approaching four millions of souls. Such a population in Europe would make a second, or at least, a third rate power" (rf). "And when, by means of this rapid increase, we become a nation of eight or nine millions of inhabitants, our alliance will be worthy of being sought by the great nations of the earth. (Hear, hear.) I am proud to believe that bur desire for a permanent alliance will be re ciprocated in England. I know that there is a party in England — but it is inconsiderable in numbers, though strong in intellect and power ' — which speaks of the desirabilily of getting rid of the colonies : but I believe such is not the feeling of the statesmen and the people of England. I believe it will never be the deliberately expressed deter mination of the Governinent of Great Britain. (Hear, hear.) The (o) Ibid, p. 34. (ft) Ibid, p. 43. ie) Debates, p. 43. (d) Ibid, p. 43. The Republic of Canada 377 colonies are now in a transition state. Gradually a different colonial system is being developed— and it will become, year by year, less a case of dependence on our part, and of overruling protection on the part of the Mother Country, and more a case of a healthy and cordial alliance. Instead of looking upon us as a merely dependent colony, England will have in us a friendly nation — a subordinate but still a powerful people — to stand by her in North America in peace or in war' (a). "If we do not take advantage of the time, if we show ourselves unequal to the occasion, it may never return, and we shall hereafter bitterely and unavailingly regret having failed to embrace the happy opportunity now offered of founding a great, nation under the fostering care of Great Britain, and our Sovereign Lady, Queen Victoria" (b). Mr. George E. Cartier said — "Whether we were made a kingdom or a vice-royalty— whatever name or grade was assigned to us- — we would undoubtedly have addi tional prestige" (c). Mr. McGee made use of a sentence not altogether pertinent here, but which I should like to reproduce — "When I can hear our young men say as proudly, 'our Federation,' or 'our Country,' or 'our Kingdom' as the young men of other countries do, speaking of their own, then I shall have less apprehension for the result of whatever trials the future may have in store for us'' (rf). Hon. Mr. Langevin said — "Besides, we shall have acquired a standing which we have not hitherto attained in our relations with other countries with which we have dealings. It is of no small ' ii,nportance for the inhabitants of a country to have a standing in foreign countries, and not to be treated as men of inferior position. When Canadians go to London or else where out of their own country, they have no recognized position, be cause we are only a simple colony. But under the Confederation we shall be protected by England, and besides we shall have a position in, foreign lands, the position which every man enjoys who belongs to a great nation" (e). , Hon. Mr. Rose said — "Now I do not deny that the effect of the present movement may be to change the character of the actual relations which subsist between this province and the Mother Couittry. . HON.. MR. HOLTON. Hear! hear! HON. MR. ROSE. I do not deny that the result may be to change the character of these relations. But I maintain, and I hope I shall be able to satisfy the House of the soundness of the position I take; that the change will be of that character, that, instead of loosening or (fl) Ibid, pp. 43-4. (ft) Ibid, p. 45. (c) Debates, p. 62. (d) Ibid, p. 145. ie) Ibid, p. 36'). 378 Imperial Projects weakening or diminishing the connection with the Mother Country, it will tend to put it on a footing which will make it stronger and more enduring. (Hear, hear.) Though I believe these relations will be somewhat changed, and we may have to consider what new aspect they will present, I believe this measure is forced upon us by the necessities of our position. The irresistible force of passing events will not allow us to stand still. But, whether by this inevitable change the country shall gradually lose its dependent or protected character and assume more of the Federal relation, constituting this a territorial division of the Empire, I believe it will result in placing those relations on a surer and more steadfast footing, and that we will still acknow ledge the same Sovereign, owe the same fealty, and maintain the same veneration for the English Constitution and name" (a). "We must, from the necessities of our geographical position — so long as the United States continue to be as powerful as they are; and even if they are divided into two or three portions — we must always find in them a source of danger which must force upon us a dependence on England. We find, I repeat, in our position towards the United States, and in the great preponderating power they possess, a guarantee that we need not apprehend that there will be anything like practical independence of England asserted by the colonies of North America; because, from the very necessities of our position, we shall always have to look up to her for protection and aid" (fo). "But, sir, though I have said I was disposed to look upon this question — the danger of Federation rendering us independent of Eng land, quite apart from the considerations that spring out of sentiments of loyalty, yet I believe that those attachments will be increased ten fold by this proposed union. We will have a sentiment of nationality among ourselves; and I consider it to be one of the first duties of a statesman to inculcate that national feeling that gives the people a strong interest in their country's welfare" (c). Mr. Dunkin said — "The Governor General or other head of this magnificent future vice-royalty, or what not, will hold his court and parliament at Ottawa; but a handsome sop is thrown to Quebec and Toronto, also. They, too, are each to have a provinical court and legislature and governmental departments. Everything for everybody! As to the state that is to be created, its style and rank are left in most delightful ambiguity. We may be honored with the dignity of a kingdom, or of a vice-royalty, or of we know not what. All we are assured of is, that it is to be a something better, higher and more grand than we now have" (rf). "Great Britain has not yet, in any true sense of the term, feder ated herself with any of her colonies. She just retains a nominal supremacy over them. MR. SCOBLE. It is a real supremacy. (fl) Debates, p. 395. (ft) Ibid, p. 396. (c) Ibid, p. 396. id) Ibid, p. 488. The Republic of Canada 379 . MR. DUNKIN. No ; it is only nominal as regards its exercise. It is not real in the sense of amounting to a substantial, practical ex ercise of power over the colonies. For these nearly five and twenty years past, I call to mind no legislative act of ours disallowed by the Home Government. AN HON. MEMBER. Yes, there was one— Mr. Hincks' Currency Act MR. DUNKIN. Well, I believe that was. But in that case we got our own way in effect directly afterwards" (a). "As I said just now, the Federal Government of the United States was to take place in the great family of the nations of the earth; but what place in that family are we to occupy? Simply none. The Im perial Government will be the head of the Empire as much as ever, and will alone have to attend to all foreign relations and national matters ; while we shall be nothing more than we are now. Half- a- dosen colonies federated are but a federated colony after all" (b). "Sir, I was saying that in this scheme there is no such conserva tive tendency as this — nothing indicative of a set purpose to develop, strengthen and perpetuate our connection with the Empire. That end we might indeed better gain without than with this' extra machinery of local federation; for disguise it how you may, the idea that under lies this plan is this, and nothing else — that we are to create here a something — kingdom, vice-royalty, or principality — something that will soon stand in the same position towards the British Crown that Scot land and Ireland stood in before they were legislatively united with England; a something having no other tie to the Empire than the one tie of fealty to the British Crown— a. tie which in the cases, first, of Scotland, and then of Ireland, was found, when the, pinch came, to be no tie at all ; which did not restrain either Scotland or Ireland from courses so inconsistent with that of England as to have made it neces sary that their relations should be radically changed, and a legislative union formed in place of a merely nominal union" (c). Mr. Cartwright said — "And yet, sir, in less than thirty years I have lived to see Canada expand into a state equal in numbers, in resources and power of self- government to many an independent European kingdom — lacking only the will to step at once from the position of a dependency to that of an ally — a favored ally of the great country to which we belong, and to take that rank among the commonwealth of nations which is granted to those people, and to those only, who have proved that they possess the power as well as the wish to defend their liberties. This, sir, is what I think Canada can do; this is what I think Canada ought to do; and if, as I believe, this project of Confederation would contribute most powerfully to enable us to do so, there are few sacrifices which I would refuse to make for such an object— much more, forgive my honorable friends yonder for having in time past spoken somewhat over harshly and hastily of each other" (rf). (o) Ibid, p. 500. (6) Debates, p. 525. ic) Ibid, pp. 527-8. id) Ibid, p. 825. 380 Imperial Projects Mr. Scoble said that he had written to the Duke of New castle, in 1859, with reference to Canada's future as follows — "Consolidated ultimately under one government, after the model of the Mother Country, with such modifications as the circumstances of the case might require, an empire might be formed over which, here after, some one branch of the Royal Family might reign a constitu tional monarch, over a free and united people' (a). Mr. Scoble added that he had not changed his views. Mr. Rankin said — "Sir, the time must come, sooner or later, when this country must cease to be a colony dependent on Great Britain; and whatever we do, whatever arrangements for the future we may make, we ought always to keep the fact plainly before our eyes, that passing events are call ing upon us, either to commence the establishment of a nationality for ourselves, or make up our minds to be absorbed in the republic lying along our southern borders'' (fo). The Hon. J. H. Cameron said — "And if we obtain, as I hope, through the resolutions that have been passed, when the proper time comes, we will obtain — if we get the name and status of a nation, we should not be afraid also to take the responsibilities of a nation" (c). "And when that united government is formed, when that union does take place, we shall then stand in a position which, according to the facts and figures that have been used from time to time in this debate, will establish us as a power on this continent, and enable us to assist in working out the three problems presented by the three gov ernments — ^the despotic government of Mexico, the republican govern ment of the United States, and the constitutional government of these colonies" (rf). "Our opponents say we are hardly ripe, hardly of age fit to enter upon a new nationality. Why, sir, there are none of the lesser powers of Europe, except Belgium and Bavaria, that have a population of four millions. If we cannot establish a nation when we have four millions of people, what shall we say of Greece with its population of only one million? If we are ever to form ourselves into a nationality — and few will deny that it is our destiny to he united at some time — what better time will ever be likely to present itself for handing down to posterity the boon of a united and free nation — the greatest boon that govern ment and people can transmit — than the opportunity which the present favorable state of affairs presents to us?" (e). "We have, in my own humble opinion, but two future states of existence to choose for ourselves. We have, on the one side, the op portunity to make ourselves a nation, able and willing to protect our selves, with the aid of the Mother Country, and to grow wealthy and (o) Debates, p. 910. (ft) Ibid, p. 916. (c) Ibid, p. 964. (d) Ibid, p. 965. (e) Ibid, p. 968. The Republic of Canada 381 prosperous under that form of existence. On the ether hand, we have the certain prospect of absorption, at no distant period, into the United States. There is no alternative. (Hear, hear, ironically)" (a). The Colonial Status. — Throughout the debates appear indications of the opposition which would have been evoked by frank proposal of a kingdom free from the control of the Colonial Secretary. For example, one member (Mr. Walsh) said: "I believe there is nothing more ardently to be desired — no greater glory attainable than for these colonies remaining for all time to come, as we are now, dependencies of Great Britain'' (fo). The most noteworthy reference of that kind occurred in the course of the speech of the Hon. Mr. Moore, when, after he had said, "I believe honorable gentlemen will agree with me, that after this scheme is fully carried into operation, we shall still be colonies," Sir E. P. Tache interjected the words, "Of course" (c). Tache was then Prime Minister. Whether the form of relationship outlined by the Quebec resolutions could fairly be called "colonial," is one upon which opinions might differ. Al though Sir Etienne was Prime Minister in name, Macdonald and Cartier were the dominating personalities in the cabinet. Sir Etienne died on the 30th of July of the same year. Delegates in London. — The next scene opened in London, where delegates from the three Provinces assembled "for the purpose of arranging the terms of union" (d). After discus sions lasting from the 4th to the 24th December, 1866, the delegates agreed upon a series of sixty-nine resolutions. Three of these are the same as the three above quoted from the re solutions of the Quebec Conference (e). Delegates' First Draft. — The Conference then proceeded to draft a bill. Its noticeable features (for present purposes) (o) Debates, p. 969. (ft) Ibid, p. 810. ic) Ibid, p. 228. (d) Pope Documents, p. 305. (e) Ibid, pp. 98-110. The five resolutions are now numbered 3, 4, 28, 29, and 71. In the resolutions of the Quebec Conference the phrases "federal union," "federation," and "federated Provinces" were used. Mr. Charles Tupper seems to have been partly responsible for the introduction of the inappropriate term "confederation" (Ibid, pp. 114, 115). It was carried into the first draft on the constitutional (Ibid, pp. 123, 124), but, fortunately, was objected to by somebody and eliminated. 382 Imperial Projects are those of the clauses above quoted. No. 3 (as to following "the model of the British constitution") was omitted; No. 4 was repeated; the words "saving the sovereignty of England" were omitted in No. 29; and No. 71 (as to rank and name) was provided for by leaving blanks to be filled in afterwards (a). Law Officers' Draft. — Meanwhile the Imperial law offi cers were also engaged in drafting a bill. Its language will give some idea of what Sir John and the other delegates had to struggle with. It recited: "WHEkEAS the Union of the British North American Colonies for Purposes of Government and Legislation would be attended with great Benefits to the Colonies and be conducive to the Interests of the United Kingdom" (fo). and it proceeded to declare that "the said Three Colonies shall thenceforth form and be One Colony." "The United Colony shall be composed," etc. "There shall be one Governor-General for the United Colony," etc. "For each Province there shall be an Officer, styled the Superintendant," etc. Delegates' Second Draft. — The delegates produced a second draft (c). It is dated 2 February, 1867. The law officers' draft had provided that "the said Three Colonies shall thenceforth form and be One Colony." Instead of that, the delegates' draft provided that "the said Provinces . . . shall form and be one united dominion under the name of the Kingdom of Canada, and thenceforth the said Provinces shall constitute and be One Kingdom under the name afore said ..." (d). That was the suggestion of the delegates as to Canada's "rank and name"; and we may assume that all the delegates had agreed to it. Further, the draft of the law officers had provided that "There shall be for the United Colony Two Houses of Parliament styled the Legislative Council and the House of Commons" (e). whereas the delegates' draft provided that "From and after the Union, there shall be within and for the Kingdom of Canada, one General Parliament, which shall be composed ia) Pope: Confederation Documents, pp. 123-140. (ft) Ibid, p. 141. (c) I refer only to the drafts of which Sir Joseph Pope has furnished us with copies. (d) Ibid, p. 159. («) Ibid, p. 142. The RepubUc pf Canada 383 of the Queen, an Upper Chamber, to be called the Senate, and a House of Commons" (o). The law officers had provided for the constitution of an Executive Council. The draft of the delegates added the words : "which shall be called the Privy Council of Canada" (fo). Delegates' Third Draft. — Between the 2nd and 9th February, the delegates prepared their third draft bill. In it they made further use cf the phrase "Kingdom of Canada." For example: "The word 'Parliament' shall mean the Legislature or Parliament of the Kingdom of Canada'' (c). The following clauses were new: "The word 'Kingdom' shall mean and comprehend the United Pro vinces of Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick. The words 'Privy Council' shall mean such persons as may from time to time be appointed by the Governor-General, and sworn to aid and advise in the Government of the Kingdom. The word 'Canada' (when not applied to the Province of Canada) shall mean the Kingdom of Canada hereby constituted" (rf). Joint Draft. — The next draft (9th February) is the joint product of the delegates and the English law officers {e). Prior to its preparation. Sir John had made his last fight for elevation of his country out of colonialism, and had fallen back beaten. The words "shall form and be one united dominion under the name of the King dom of Canada, and thenceforth the said Provinces shall constitute and be one Kingdom under the name aforesaid" were supplanted by the language which now appears in the constitution : "shall form and be One Dominion under the name of Canada; and on and after that Day those three Provinces shall form and be One Do minion under that Name accordingly" (/). Corresponding substitution was made throughout the draft. The recital was made to declare that which was untrue — (o) Ibid, p. 160. (6) Ibid, pp. 142, 160. ic) Ibid, p. 177. id) Ibid, p. 178. And see also sees. 12, 15, 48, 49. (e) Pope, Sir John Macdonald, vol. I., p. 311, note. if) Pope: Confed. Docts., p. 213. 384 Imperial Projects "WHEREAS the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have expressed their Desire to be federally united into One Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom'' (o). Sir John's Biographer. — Sir Joseph Pope has said — "At Westminster, as elsewhere, the guiding hand throughout the whole of these negotiations was that of Sir John Macdonald, who, amid much discouragement, devoted all the energies of his mind to the work of building up a new nationality on this continent. When I speak of discouragements, I do not refer to the difficulties inseparable from the task of reconciling the different and sometimes conflicting in terests of the several provinces, but rather to the want of appreciation shown by the Imperial authorities of the great work in hand. They were, as I have said, interested in the negotiations, and freely lent their assistance to the carrying out of the scheme, but their idea of what was to be attained fell far short of the lofty conception of . Mr. Macdonald. He was intent upon founding a kingdom, they upon efiect- ing an arrangement which would result in the simpler administration of the Colonial Office. With his mind full of the Imperial idea, he seized upon the occasion as affording an opportunity for consolidating and strengthening British rule upon this continent, while they do not seem to have been animated by any higher notion than that it would be a good deal more convenient to deal with one colony than with half a dozen. Sir John himself has illustrated very clearly what I have attempted to say." "The title 'Kingdom of Canada' appears for the first time in the interpretation clause of the sixth draft of the Bill (6). It was sub stituted for the words 'United Provinces,' which appear in the preced ing draft. Mr. Macdonald, impressed with the importance of the monarchial term, made every effort to retain it; but, for the reason which he relates, the Imperial authorities would not consent to its use" (c). Sir John's Testimony. — ^Twenty-two years after the pas sing of our constitutional Act, Sir John was still resentful at the failure of Colonial Office sympathy with the great project of founding a Kingdom, and writing to Lord Knutsford (18 July, 1889) (rf) he said— "A great opportunity was lost in 1867, when the Dominion was formed out of the several provinces. This remarkable event in the (fl) Ibid, p. 212. (6) This is a mistake. The title appeared in what the author would call the fifth draft bill; for although the term "United Provinces" is used in the inter pretation clause of that draft, the title "Kingdom of Canada" appears in several other clauses (sees. 4, 9, 10, 11, etc.). ic) Ibid, pp. 311-313. (d) Pope, Sir lohn Macdonald, vol. I., p. 311-13; and Sir Joseph's letters to the Ottawa Cititen of 26 July, 1917. The RepubUc of Canada 385 history of the British Empire passed almost without notice. The new Confederation had, at the time of the union, about the same popula tion as the thirteen colonies when they rebelled and formed a nation imbued with the bitterest feelings of hostility towards England — feel ings which, by the way, exist in as offensive a form now as they did on the day of the 'declaration of independence.' "The declaration of all the B.N.A. provinces, that they desired as one Dominion to remain a portion of the Empire, showed what wise government and generous treatment would do, and should have been marked as an epoch in the history of England. This would protably have been the case had Lord Carnarvon, who as Colonial Minister had 'sat at the cradle' of the new Dominion, remained in office. His ill- omened resignation was followed by the appointment of the late Duke of Buckingham, who had as his adviser the then Governor-General, iLord Monck — both good men, certainly, but quite unable, from the constitution of their minds, to rise to the occasion. The Union was treated by them as if the B.N.A. Act were a private Bill uniting two or three English parishes. Had a different course been pursued — for instance, had united Canada been declared to be an auxiliary Kingdom, as it was in the Canadian draft of the Bill — / feel sure (almost) that the Australian Colonies would, ere this, have been applying to be placed in the same rank as 'The Kingdom of Canada.' "Pray pardon this long discursive letter, which I have been tempted to bore you with by the pleasant and cool breezes of the Lower St. Lawrence, where I am spending some weeks of escape from the heat of Ottawa, and by the hope that, by the time this reaches you, you will have been able to get away for a time from official cares. "Should I be able to visit England this year, I shall not refrain from pressing my views on Her Majesty's Government at even greater length than I now venture to trouble your lordship with. "Meanwhile beheve me, dear Lord Knutsford, "Faithfully yours, "John A. Macdonald." "P.S. — On reading the above over, I see that it will convey the impression that the change of title from Kingdom to Dominion was caused by the Duke of Buckingham. This is not so. It was made at the instance of Lord Derby, then Foreign Minister, who feared the first name would wound the sensibilities of the Yankees. I mentioned this to Lord Beaconsfield at Hughendep in 1878, who replied : 'I was not aware of the circumstance, but it is so like Derby, a very good fellow but one who lives in a region of perpetual funk.'— J.A.M.D." Sir John and Sir Robert. — If the purpose of this narration had been to present an account of the genesis of federation, it would be fairly open to the criticism that it says little of the work of Browp,: Tupper, Tilley, and the other "fathers of federation." But as the intention was to depict the attitude of one of these men only, that pf the other;s is largely irrelevant. And if it be said that the narrative leaves the impression 386 Imperial Projects of an original conception held by Sir John alone; confided gradually to a few; concealed from the unthinking crowds; and finally, and only when absolutely necessary, revealed to his colleague-delegates in London, my reply is that I make no pretence to certainty on these points. I present them hypotheti- cally. Whether true or not is immaterial for present pur poses; for all that is desired is to place in contrast Sir John's Canadianism and Sir Robert's imperialism. Sir John was the great leader. He struggled splendidly for Canada. Sir Frederick Rogers, the Permanent Under Secre tary of the Colonies, has given us a view of his ability: "Lord Carnarvon was in the chair, and I was rather disappointed in his power of presidency. Macdonald was the ruling genius and spokesman, and I was very greatly struck by his power of manage ment and adroitness. The French delegates were keenly on the watch for anything which weakened their securities; on the contrary, the Nova §cotia and New Brunswick delegates were very jealous of con cession to the arriere province; while one main stipulation in favor of the French was open to constitutional objections on the part of the Home government . . He stated and argued the case with cool, ready fluency, while at the same time you saw that every word was measured, and that while he was making for a point ahead, he was never for a moment unconscious of any of the rocks among which he had to steer'' (a). Sir John passed. Sir Wilfrid was handicapped. And now we have Sir Robert and imperialism. With Sir John, vanished also (as we now see) all hope of The Kingdom of Can ada. My feeble efforts to revive the "lofty conception" of our eminent statesman were gratefully received (I am thank ful to know) by not a few of my fellow-countrymen, and may have supplied information concerning our political history which may yet be of service in the coming struggle with im periaUsm. But Canada will never occupy the position designed for her by Sir John Macdonald. ImperiaUsm will either re duce her powers of self-government or provoke their climax. THE REPUBLIC OF CANADA. Kingdom of Canada. — Discontented with the political sub ordination of Canada; anxious that she should cease to be "an adjunct even of the British Empire" (ft) ; longing for her ele- (o) Lord Blatchford's Letters, pp. 301, 302. (ft) Sir Robert Borden's phrase. The RepubUc of Canada 387 vation to respectability, I have for some years, through the Kingdom Papers, urged our assumption of the status of an in ternationally recognized state, but with the retention of the present King of Canada. England and Scotland in the reigns of the Stuarts had the same king, and so also had Great Bri tain and Hanover during the Hanoverian regime. The king of the United Kingdom is now the King of Canada. Why might not that which we objected to (subordination to the British peoples) be terminated, and that to which we have never objected (nominal subordination to the British King) be continued ? Autonomy Diminishing. — But for the war, the violent access of imperialism which it has precipitated, and the syn chronization of an imperialistic Canadian Government, I still think that Sir John A. Macdonald's desire for a "Kingdom of Canada" as "a great nationality commanding the respect of the world" could have been realized. Now it cannot. We have sunk back into colonialism. We are being treated as children, and we are submitting to the treatment. The Reason. — The situation owes its existence to our al legiance to the British King. As long as king-union continues, we shall be regarded as part of the British Empire, from which will be deduced that, as the Empire is a unit, so its resources must belong to the Empire and be applicable, under Imperial direction, to the needs of the Empire as a whole. Conception and language of that sort are fatal to Canada. I had not imagined that any possible concatenation of circum stances could not only make them current, but could apply them successfully to the political downfall of Canada. The unexpected has happened, and we are now driven to assert that if the foundation of allegiance to the same king is the base which alone supports the scaffold upon which we are to be sacrified, then, regret it as we may, the foundation must be destroyed. Declension. — We have been at the climax of our political ascent. As a colony we scaled to a higher plane than could have been thought possible — to the control of our tariff, even to the shaping of other of our foreign relations. But just prior to reaching the loftiest pinnacle, our strength failed us; 388 Imperial Projects we suffered the first declension in our history; we agreed to accept British military advice and British military advisers. The fatal precedent is being rapidly followed and expanded. Advice in various departments has advanced through recom mendation and persuasion, into joint inquiry, co-operation and guidance. Control will come, partly by purchase of properties and partly by the usual developments through expostulation, and threat. The road to engulfment is being rapidly traver sed. It is all down-hill. And we have no brakes. Compromised. — As a colony, we are compromised and embarrassed beyond recovery. Our Minister of Trade and Commerce has signed a document which contains the ad mission that our nickel and asbestos are "of vital import tance to the Empire as a whole" ; which treats our minerals as "Imperial assets" ; and which regards them as "Empire re sources" available for "Empire requirements." Our Prime Minister has supplemented these statements by joining in re commending the creation of "The Imperial Mineral Resources Bureau," for the very purpose of advising how our minerals can best be applied to the "Empire requirements"; and the Bureau is at work. What was Canada's has become the Empire's; and the functions of our parliament are, in very appreciable measure, to be discharged by British Boards and Bureaus. Wrecked. — As a self-governing colony, we are wrecked beyond repair. Imperialistic Canadians will rejoice. To them, the Empire is everything, and Canada a mere source of supply. They glory in Canada's being a part of the Empire, and are indifferent to her role. They would willingly sur render a large measure of her legislative power to a federation or a council in which she would have negligible influence. And, from complete cession' of autonomy down to the taking of advice, they would agree to anything which would curb Canada and place her — her men, money, and resources, for anv and every purpose, at the disposal of the British government. Canadian Imperialism. — That is the true spirit of im perialism. And if you ask whether Canadian imperialists can covet their own effacement, I answer that, they regard them selves not as Canadians, but as British, and that, as British The Republic of Canada 389 imperialists, they desire British control over Canada. They have always desired it. From the earliest page in our history down to the present day, they have struggled against Canadian autonomy. They hate the word. They hate our song. They hate our flag. Sir George Foster opposed our negotiation of trade treaties on the ground that it was the prerogative of "an absolute and independent power" {a). Mr. Cockshutt, M.P., said: "This country is sick and tired of the word 'autonomy'; it has been worked to death" (b). Mr. Ames, M.P., said: "Autonomy, which was the slogan of the last century, has done its work, accomplished its purpose," and belongs to the last century. It does not belong to the Canada of to-day" (c). The Question. — If not quite right in 1913, Mr. Ames is right now. And the question for those of us who are not imperial-Canadians, who hate subordination to anybody, and who detest subjection to any authority but their own, is whe ther Canada is to return to the bondage of colonialism, or is safely to emerge from her present entanglements as a self-gov erning and self-respecting nation. Past Hopes. — While the scope of her self-control was ex panding, Canada tolerated her colonialism. In each victory over her imperialists, she saw hope pf final triumph. Her nationhood might be deferred, but it appeared to be secure. Federationists she easily defeated. Chamberlain went down before Laurier. The dawn of the new era was lighting the eastern hills. Complete self-government ; equal status with the other sister-states; union through the same King, seemed to be most certainly assured. A Republic. — The prospect has passed. Not along that line may Canada rise to nationhood. And if her colonialism must cease; if all schemes of political union upon any other basis are impracticable and impossible; and if even a crown- union would be a constant source of peril, there remains but one course open to us, and that is to proclaim THE RE- PUBLIC OF CANADA. (o) Hansard (Canada); 1892, p, (ft) Ibid (17 Dec, 1913), p. 1625. (e) Ibid (17 Dec, 1913), p. 1298. 390 Imperial Projects Present Discussion. — It is tragically unfortunate that while Canadians are fighting Prussian imperialism in Europe, they should be called upon to repel the attacks of British im perialism in Canada. Utterly unable, during peace, to make any advance with their federation and other projects, im perialists are now taking advantage of war necessities and en gagements in order that, at the end of the war, they may carry into the conference for the readjustment of political relations a partially accomplished fact. They can find no justification in the pendency of the war for "the advances" in imperialism which they have made and of which they boast. The allies are working together strongly and harmoniously, and, in their co-operations, no trace of the sinister working of ulterior political motives can be detected. The one purpose is, as it ought to be, to win the war. Professing concurrence in the necessity, under present cir cumstances, for unity, imperialists have not hesitated to pre cipitate a most skillfully planned attack upon Canada's powers of self-government — an attack which they well knew would arouse resentment in Canada. They have done it; and now, while we are fighting for the liberation of Belgium, Serbia, and Rumania, we find that there has been forced upon us a struggle for the freedom of our own land. Canada's voice must be heard before the re-adjusting conference meets, and, unfortunately, that means during the war. By cessation of the Kingdom Papers, I did what little I could to postpone constitutional discussion until after the war. Unofficial imperialists made my persistence in silence difficult. The proceedings of our ministers in London have made it im possible. Sir Robert Borden has been engaged, as he says, in "revolutionary proceedings ... in the government of the Empire." which have "brought about an important advance in constitutional relations," leading to "a new and greater Imperial Commonwealth" ; and he and Sir George Foster have been tak ing the necessary preliminary steps toward the transfer to the intended Commonwealth of the resources of Canada. Further silence would, for me, be a crime against Canada. I recognize that thus far the schemes of the imperialists have been successful; that they have made abundantly clear that our status as a Sister-Kingdom has become an impracticability; and that now our only alternative is between deeper subordination and complete separation. Under, such circumstances, we can not hesitate to reply that we elect for self-respecting national Hfe as THE REPUBLIC OF CANADA. The Republic of Canada 391 FIFTY YEARS AGO AND NOW. Miss Machar. — Fifty years ago, Canada's assumed emer gence from colonialism was hailed by a lady who lived in Sir John.'s city: "Through the young giant's mighty limbs, that stretch from sea to sea. There runs a throb of conscious life — of waking energy. From Nova Scotia's misty coast to far Columbia's shore, She wakes — a land of scattered homes, and colonies no more. But a young nation, with her life full beating in her breast, A noble future in her eyes — the Britain of the West." Miss Machar (o) was mistaken. Sir John and those closely associated with him felt the "throb of conscious life." To Mr. W. A. Foster of Toronto and a few others, there came a desire for something more respectable than colonialism. But Canada was unmoved. For nationalism she cared nothing. The "lofty conception" of Sir John fell in Canada on ground as stoney as it met in England. Australia. — And now our leaders are plunging us back wards. Thoughtful Australians (even without knowledge of the schemes and practices above referred to) are becoming alarmed. They are realizing. that their country is "less mistress of its own fortunes than it had supposed" {b). "Now, with constitutional government by Parliament in the main super seded by executive government under the War Precautions Act, as one restriction after another is imposed 'at the request of the Imperial Government,' or 'in consequence of information received' from the War Office or the Admiralty, Australians in general are beginning to feel that their self-government is somehow less than it was. This feeling inevitably leads to a consideration of future political relations. The simpler reaction is found in murmurs of 'too much Imperial Parlia ment'; a recrudescence of the old sensitiveness as to 'Downing Street'; and suspicions of further attacks on our autonomy by schemes threaten ing 'Imperial Federation' or 'organic union'" (c). "Deep, even passionate, resentment is excited or expressed at the sug gestion that Australia demands or will demand any . share in Imperial government, and it is even insisted that the Federal Government should intervene to set Britain right in regard to the 'misrepresentations' which suggest the possibility of such a demand" (rf). (o) Jtiss Machar used the pseudonym Fidelis. (6) The Round Table, June 1917, p. 611. (e) Ibid, pp. 611, 612. (d) Ibid, p. 612. 9 392 Imperial Projects "The Convention of the powerful Australian Workers' Union has car ried a resolution, 'That in view of the possibility of Australia being dragged into a scheme of Imperial Federation which would abrogate our rights and privileges under responsible government, and seriously under mine the palladium of our liberties — the Commonwealth Constitution — this Convention of the Australian Workers' Union places on record its stoutest opposition to this Dominion of the Empire being governed by the plutocrats, of England, which the proposed scheme would involve.' There has been a lively discussion in the Sydney Worker; and other Labour organs have, with varying degree of vehemence, expressed views similar to those of the Australian Workers' Union" (o). Mr. Harris. — Even from England do we hear strong pro test against the proposed imperialistic exploitations. In The Contemporary Review for July (arrived after all the above was in type) may be seen the following references to The Em pire Resources Development Committee" {b). "British Colonial policy from its inception has been based upon service to, and not exploitation of, the Dependencies. A powerful Committee, including several Ministers of the Crown, and backed by large financial interests, has come into existence with the avowed object of reversing that policy, and, by so doing, to exploit the Dependencies in order that they and their people may render to the Mother Country the service of paying for us our war-debt charges. This Committee is operating under the title of the Empire Resources Development Committee. The Chairman is Sir Starr Jameson, the President of the Chartered Com pany, while the Honorary Secretary, together with certain other mem bers of the Committee, are either Directors or otherwise closely con nected with the Company, the driving force and the declared policy are also of the Chartered group. Though it is true that the main interests connected with the Committee, its policy, and its driving force are, in all essentials, those of the Rhodesian Chartered Company, there has been added to the membership a group of representative men whose names are well known in quite different connections — men who have little knowledge of Rhodesia, and those who have in no sense grasped the paths along which Sir Starr Jameson and Mr. Wilson Fox propose leading them." The writer adds that "it is the duty of every right thinking Britisher to take up the chal lenge and defeat an attempt which, if it succeeds, may lead to the disruption of the British Empire. The struggle will be short, but furi ous, and, God helping Britain, it shall be won" (c). Canada. — All the help that Canada needs is that she may be wakened and made to understand. For the moment we have (a) Ibid, p. £10. (ft) See Ante, p. ic) Empire Resources Development and Britain's War Debt, pp. 65, 66. The Republic of Canada 393 lost the road to nationalism. Probably we have lost nothing but the wrong road. If so, we must be content to grope and struggle a little before the true course becomes clear to our people. This, at all events, — the first of our lessons — is certain. Imperialism is the enemy — the enemy in Europe and the enemy in Canada. Imperialism was the cause of the present war. Imperialism was the cause of the American revolution. Im perialism was the cause of the Canadian rebellions. Imperial ism is the curse and the scourge of the world. And this 1 say to the imperialists who are pressing their crown of thorns upon the brow of the Canadian people. Crush it down. Restrict our political liberty. Restrain our legisla tive freedom. Take possession of our property and resources. Apply our assets to the payment of the British war debt. Add us to your fighting strength. Reduce us to a source of supply — men, materials, and money. Throw us into your interna tional bargain scales. Count us as Egyptian fellaheen and Indian ryots. Crush it down, I say, until it enters the bone. Repeat for us the tragedy of your Transvaal imperialism. Lord Milner is once more a dominating figure. He is the same masterful aristocrat now that he was then. He drove the Boers into a war for freedom. He is reducing Canada to shameful sub jugation. He has dissipated aU hope of THE KINGDOM OF CANADA. He will find, I tell him, that he has but turned us to a better, for a more secure and enduring, destiny. He, prin cipally, is the founder of THE REPUBLIC OF CANADA. Ottawa, August, 1917. JOHN S. EWART. Warwick Bro's & Rutter, Limited, Printers and Bookbinders, Toronto, Canada. INDEX AUAMS, JOHN (QUINCY, Connection with Monroe doctrine, 179, 180. ADVICE AND ITS PEICE, An imperialiying process, 30.5 The progressive stages, 305. Example of Egypt, 306-7. Process employed by Chamberlain, 307-S Process employed by Sir Frederick Pollock, 308. Sir Wilfrid Laurier's mistakes, 308-12. Imperial General Staff, 309-12. Process employed by Dominions Eoyal Commis sion, 328-33. Danger of accepting advice, 354-60. Sir Eobert Borden's view, 354. Objections to accepting advice, 354-60. Sir John A. Macdonald's embarrassments in 1871, 356-8. Parliamentary action pledged, 359. ADVISOEY COUNCIL, See Council of Empire. AMES, ME., Autonomy a past slogan, 389. "AN ENGLISHMAN'S HOME," 29. AEISTOGEATIC INFLUENCE, Effect of in Canada, 294-7. See London Atmonpherc. AEMIES, See Preparedness. ASBESTOS, Imperial exploitation of Canadian, 336-8. AUSTEALIA, Contributions to British navy, 23-4. Eeaction against imperialism, 391-2. BAIED V. WALKEE, 139. See North Atlantic Fisheries. BAIT FOE FISHEEIES, 122-34, 141-2. See North AUavtic Fisheries. BALFOUR, AETHUE, Attitude towards Canada's negotiations with France, 195. BALFOUE'S (Lord) COMMITTEE ON COMMEECIAL AND INDUSTEIAL POLICY, 339-47. Imperial preference proposed and discussed, 339-41. Wider range of customs duties, 339. Why abandon free trade'?, 340. Eeasons given displaced, 341. Subsidies to colonial production, 341. British vs. German and American methods, 342-6. BALKAN WAE, Possibility of engagement in, 26-7. BAEKEE, J. ELLIS, Imperial ownership of Dominion resources, 363. BAY OF FUNDY, Surrender of fisheries, 115-6. BAYS, Fisheries in, 114-22, 140-1. See North Atlantic Fisheries. BEHEING SEA SEIZUEE8, 59-112. Arbitration with United States, ill2-9. Agreement with United States, im. BLOCKADE, Discussion of sub.jcct, 249-50. BOND-BLAINE CONVENTION, 131. See North Atlantic F'lsherics. BOEDBN, SIE EOBEET, "British Empire" and disorganization, .)7. Opposition to Canadian navy, 150. London Conference, 1912, 151-3. Proposal for cash contributions, 157-66. The Imperial War Cabinet, 268-70. Head lost in London, 295. Opposed to federation, 297. Attitude as to advice and its price, 354. Canadian assets treated as imperial, 365. Contrast to Sir John A. Macdonald, 366-86. See Political Eelations — War. BEITISH DIPLOMACY, Salisbury's description, 144-6. Eespeeting Japan, 145. See Behring Sea Seizures; North Atlaiitir Fi-'ilicrie-^ : British Protection ; Treaties. BEITISH ELECTIONS, 1910, 32. BRITISH EMPIEE, Is Canada a part of?, 198. Definition of Empire, 198. Misleading effect of the term, 57, 20.5-6, 302. Lord Milner's ob.iection, 1^^. Sir Frederick Pollock's objection, 199. The Saturday Eeview's objection, 199. Mr. Cihamberlain 's objection, 199. Sir Eobert Borden's opinion, 57, 200. See Political Fclations. BEITISH INVESTMENTS IN CANADA. 12-:l. BEITISH MANUFACTUEEES, Compared with (ierman and A'nerican, :U2-4. BRITISH PEOTECTION OF CANADA, Does British navy prolo.-t?, 10-2. Sir Eobert Borden 's estimate of British expenditure, 43. Sir Wilfrid liaurier's view. 43. During purely colonial period, 44 ii. DurinET perioil of (isoal fveedmn, 4(i- 56. British troops in Canada, 46-5(i. Canada gets no sympathy, 55. Si'c Behring Sea Seizures: .\cirllt .Uliintir Fish.rus; H'miilmitoii Treat II. BEITISH TAXATION, 13-4. BRITISH TEADE COEPOEATION, Establishment of, 346-7. Danger to Canada, 347. ERTTISII TROOPS IN CANADA, 46-56. British duty to protect, 5.'l-(i. Canadian obligation, 5-1. BRITISH WEALTH, 13-22. BUREELL, HON. MAETTN, View as to referendum, 2, 3. CABINET, See Imperial War Cabinet. CANADA, Obligations to United Kigdom, 8, 41. Safety and the Monroe doctrine, 10. Imperial control of, 271-3, 284, 336, 360-6. CANADIAN FISHEEIES, Imperial exploitation, 349-50. See Behring Sea Seisures; North Atlantic Fisheries. CANADIAN LANDS, Imperial exploitation, 347. CANADIAN EESOUECES, Pledged to the Allied cause, 351 Who owns them?, 360-6. Governor Aylmer 's view, 360. Lord Durham's view, 360-1. Origin of these views, 361-2. Eelaxation of imperial ownership, 362. Eesurreotion of the views, 363-6. Treated as imperial by Sir Eobert Borden, 364-5. By Sir George Foster, 364-5. By Sir Edward Carson, 364. Iniperial exploitation, 271-3, 284, 363. Minerals, 336-8. Lands, 347. Fisheries, 349-50. Objection by Mr. Harris, 393. Imperial exploitation by Dominions Royal (Commission, 320-33. Imperial Development Board, 333-6. Imperial Mineral Eesources Bureau, 336-8. Lord Balfour's Committee, 338-47. British Trade Corporation, 346-7. Empire Eesources Development Committee, 347-8. Imperial Maritime Council, 348. Earl of Dunraven, 349. Ally entanglements, 350-4. See Dominions Eoyal Commission; Imperial Development Board; Empire Eesources; Empire as a fVhole ; Imperial 'Mineral Eesources Bureau; Empire Eesources De velopment Committee; Eound Table. CANADIAN SOVEREIGNTY, Paper discussing the subject, 193-207. Definition of, 193. Tlie Standard of Empire's opinion, 199. Mr. Sidney Low's opinion, 199, 200. Is separation involved?, 200. Canada's present position, 202, 226-41, 284. Possibility of two states, with one sovereign, 201. Possibility followed by British alliance, 202. Eeasons for declaration of sovereignty, 202-7. A declaration of fact, 202. Acceptance by British statesmen, 203-4. Defence, 205. International conferences, 205. Education, 205. Clear thinking, 205. Eemoval of embarrassments, 206. Self-respect, 206. CANADIAN SOVEEEIGXTY— C'oiitJHMed. Opinions of various statesmen, 202-4. See Foreign Arrangements; International Conferences; Tariff Arrangements; War; Treaty-Making Tower; British Empire. CANNING POLICY, See Monroe doctrine. OAPTUEE AT SEA OF PEIVATE PEOPEETY, Discussion of subject, 11, 12, 243, 250-5. CAESON, SIE EDWAED, Opposed to federation, 297. CATTLE E.MBAEGO, Laurier's protest at imperial conference, 323-4, 344. Borden's protest, 344-5. Dishonest plea for exclusion, 323, 344-5. CHAMBERLAIN, HON. JOSEPH, Value of colonies: European powers grasp ing landlords, S. Reference to "the weary Titan," 13. Help wanted from colonies, 272. Conversion to aristocracy, 295. Employment of advice - and - its - price methods, 307-8. CHUECHILL, MR. WINSTON, Proposal to place colonial ships at Gibraltar, 159. Disturbance of naval arrangements, 258-9. Interference in Canadian discussion, 258-62. COCKSHUTT, MR., Objects to Canadian autonomy, 389. COLONIAL CONFERENCE, Proposal to call it a Council, 214. COLONIAL SECEETAEY, Ought to be superseded, 209. 210, 367, 373, 374, 382. COLONIAL SYSTEM, Ee-establishment of, 319. COLONIES, European contest for, 8. Eegarded as valuable assets, 8, 9, 44. Advantages, 46, 56. Progress delayed under imperial management, 40. See Colonial System. COMMISSION,»See Dominions Eoyal Commission. CONFEDEEATION, Distinguished from federation, 217-8. Proposals for British confederation, 218, 223. Permanence of confederations, 221. Involves equality, 221-2. See Federation. CONFEEENCES, See International Conferences. CONNAUGHT, DUKE OF, Interference in militia matters, 311. CONSTITUTIONAL, Meaning of the word, 1, 2. CONTEABAND OF WAE, Discussion of the subject, 247-8. CONTEIBUTIONS TO BEITISH NAVY, See Navy. CO-OPERATION, Distinguished from political status, 213. See Milner Method. COUNCIL OP EMPIRE, Mr. Chamberlain's proposal, 213. Sir Frederick Pollock's proposal, 213-4. Sir Joseph Ward's proposal, 215. Mr. Lash's proposal, 281-300. CURTIS, MR. LIONEL, British collection of Colonial taxes, 273. His scheme of federation examined, 275-300. CONTROL OP CANADA, See Canada. DEBTS OF FOREIGN COUNTRIES, 18. DECLARATION OF LONDON, Agreed to without colonial assent, 236. Attitudes of Mr. Fisher and Sir Wilfrid Laurier, 236-7, 239. DECLARATION OF PARIS, 243-4. DECLARATION OF ST. PETEESBUEG, 1868, 244. DENMARK, British diplomacy respecting Schleswig-Holstein, 146. DERBY, LOED, Objection to The Kingdom of Canada, 385. DOHEETY, HON. C. .T., Argued for referendum of naval bill, 2, See War. DOMINIONS EOYAL COMMISSION, Genesis of Commission, 323, Sir Wilfrid Laurier's proposal, 323. Composition of Commission, 322, Imperial stock-taking, 1763, 320-2. Similarity of stock-taking by com mission, 322-5, Character of report, 322, 325-6, Opinion of Mr, J, Saxon Mills, 325, Colonial freedom deplored, 325-6. Imperial unity desiderated, 326, Imperial inspirations laboriously re alized, 326. Private and particular views con demned, 327. Empire as a whole envisaged, 327. Empire development and organization proposed, 327-8, 333-8. An imperial policy in the broadest sense, 328. Bits of advice, 328-33. Imperial Development Board recom mended, 334. To advise and guide, 334. Advisory in initial stages, 335. Constitution of the Board, 335. DOWNING, See Colonial Secretary. DEAMA, See An Englishman's Home. DUMPING, Paris resolution respecting, 351-2. DUNRAVEN, EAEL OF, Exploitation of Canadian fisheries, 349. DUVEEN, ME., Control of colonies wanted, 273. EGYPT, British imperialistic process, 306-7. ELECTIONS, Ee-adjustment of Canadian representation, 1, 2. Necessity for, when constitutional changes proposed, 6. when existing representation inadequate, 5. 6. in connection with proposal for naval contribution, 1-7, ' British in 1910, 32, EMERGENCY, Existence of it in 1912, 26-39, As reason for naval contribution, 157, 158, 161-3, EMPIEE, See British Empire. EMPIEE AS A WHOLE, Dishonest use of the phrase, 303. Empire is not a whole, 303, Phrase useful to Dominions Eoyal Commission, 327-36, EMPIEE OEGANIZATION, See Dominions Eoyal Commission. EMPIEE EESOURCES, Meaning of the phrase, 304-5, ¦ Utilization by Maritime Council, 348-9, Earl of Dunraven, 349. See Dominions Eoyal Commission ; Imperial Develop ment Board; Imperial Mineral Eesources Bureau; Empire Eesources Development Committee ; Bound Table; Canadian Eesources. EMPIRE RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, Pooling proposals, 347-8. Liquidation of British ¦war debt, 347, EXEMPTION FROM CAPTURE BY PRIVATE PROPERTY AT SEA, See Capture at Sea. FALCONER, PRESIDENT, British ownership of colonials, 362, FEDEEATION OF CANADA, Genesis of, 367-86, Sir John A, Macdonald's efforts, 367-8, Opinions of prominent men, 369-81, Various drafts of federation bill, 381-4. FISHEEIES, See Behring Sea Seizures; Canadian Fisheries; North Atlantic Fisheries. FOEEIGN AFFAIES, How divided by federationists, 289-91. FOEEIGN AEEANGEMENTS, Canada's accretions of authority, 229-32. FOEEIGN POLICY, Eelation to military preparation, 256-7. Not debated in British parliament, 277. Colonial voice in, 318. FOSTER, SIE GEOEGE, Opinions as to navy, 162-64, 166. Objection to Canada making treaties, 193-4. Curious economic ideas, 353. Pledged Canada to Paris resolutions, 354. FEANCE, Claims to Newfoundland fisheries, 134-40, 142-3. See North Atlantic Fislierics. FRANKLIN, BENJAMIN, British ownership of colonials, 362. FREEDOM FROM CAPTURE AT SEA, See Capture ot .<:, a. FUNDY, See Bay of Fundy. GENEVA CONVENTION, 1864, 244. GERMAN DESIRE FOR WAR, 36-7. Navy, why wanted, 28-39. See Scare of 1909. GREY, SIR EDWARD, Eelation of policy to preparation, 256-7. GEEY LOED, Conversions by courtesies, 296. HAGUE CONFEEENCES, Provisions respecting war, 244-7. See International Congresses. HALIFAX, naval station for British troops, 50-6. HAXOVEE, KING OF, See Canadian Sovereignty. HARRIS, JOHN H., Objection to imperial exploitation, 392. HAZEX, ME., Definition of "imperial federation", 297-8. HOLY ALLIANCE, Eelation to Monroe Doctrine, 171-2. HUED, AECHIBALD, British ownership of Dominion resources, 363-4. IMPEEIAL CONFEEENCE, See Colonial Conference. IMPEEIAL COUNCIL, See Council of Empire. IMPEEIAL DEVELOPMENT BOAED, Establishment of proposed, 333-4. Scope and duties, 334-5. Constitution, 335. IMPEEIAL FEDEEATION, Deemed impracticable by advocates, 215-6. Involves political equality, 216. Canadian sovereignty no bar to federation, 217. Object of advocates, 271-73. Scheme of Mr. Curtis, 275-300. Scheme of Mr. Lash, 280-300. Mr. Chamberlain 's view of impracticability, 276. Sir Frederick Pollock 's view of impracticability, 276. United Kingdom's objection, 285-6. Distinction between foreign and domestic affairs, 289. The financial difSculty, 292-3. Effect of London atmosphere, 294-7. Condemned by Sir Charles Tupper, Sir Eobert Borden, and Sir Edward Carson, 297. Mr. Hazen 's unintelligible definition, 297-8. IMPERIAL FEDERATION LEAGUE, Name changed to Imperial Federation (Defence) League, and afterwards to Imperial Co-operation League, 216. Visit of Secretary to Canada, 216. Sir Charles Tupper, 271. Object of League, 272. IMPEEIAL GENEEAL STAFF, Establishment and Development, 309-12. IMPEEIAL MAEITIME COUNCIL, Proposal for, 348-9. Exploitation of Dominion resources, 248-9. Precursor of political union, 349. IMPEEIAL MINEEAL RESOURCES BUREAU, Establishment recommended, 317, 336-8. Scope and duties, 336-8. Canada 's nickel and asbestos, 336-7. Schemes for control of Cana da, 337. Imperial bargaining-benefit of control, 337. IMPERIAL PHRASEOLOGY, See Phraseological Inexactitudes. IMPERIAL POLICY, 328. IMPERIAL PREFERENCE, Eecomraended by Lord Balfour's Committee, 339. Proposal discussed, 339-47. Effect on relation to U. S., 346. IMPEEIAL WAE CABINET, Constitution and criticism, 268-70, 314-6, 319-20. Eesolutions adopted, 316-9. To be made permanent, 316. IMPEEIALISM, Sometimes mere "jingling guineas", 9. Propaganda, LS9-91, 267-8. Danger of to Canadian nationality, 224, Stages of in Canada, 271, Lord Eoseberry's definition, 274, Control of Canada, 271-3, 284, Consent and control of colonies contrasted, 274, 325-6, Canadian policy settled iu London, 319-20. Australia's objection, 391-2, British attack on Canada, 390, The enemy in Canada and in Europe, 393, Lord Milner the chief figure, 393, Exploitations of Canada: See Canadian Eesources. INDIA, No contribution to navy, 23. British v. Canadian interests, 206. Proposal of Mr. Curtis, 286-8. Proposal of Mr. Lash, 287-9. India's own proposal, 287-8. Sir Eobert Borden's change of policy, 312-4. British pressure on Sir Eobert Borden, 312-4. INTEENATIONAL CONFERENCES, Canada's admission to, 205, 232-7. See Declaration of London; Declaration of Paris; Declaration of St. Peters burg; Geneva Convention. JAMESON, SIR STARR, See Empire Eesources Development Committee. JAPAN, Canada's war obligations to, 3. British diplomacy, 145. KEITH, MR. J. B., Opinion as to Canadian troops under British officers, 4, 5. KINGDOM CLrBS, Establishment advocated, 189-92, 207. KINGDOM OP CANADA, Canada really a kingdom, 200. King George is King of Canada, 2U0. Proposed by Sir John A. Macdonald, :!ii7-S5. KINGDOM PAPERS, Interruption of, 267. LANDS, See Canadian Lands. LASH, MR. Z. A., British control of Canada, 273. His scheme examined, 281-300. LAURIER, SIR WILFRID, Attitude on relations with IJ. K., 3. View of Canadian obligation to U. K., 111. " (^all us to your Councils", 15.5. I'^roni democrat to knight, 295. Mistakes at Iniperiiil conferences, 308-12. Proposal for Dominions Eoyal Commission, 323-4. Sie Treaty-Malinn Power; JVar: Canadian Sover eignty. LEACOCK, PEOFESSOE, Colonies protected because valuable, 8, 9. Imperialism and "jingling guineas", 9. LOBSTEES, Disputes with France as to fisheries, 136-40. See North Atlantic Fisheries. LONDON ATMOSPHEEE, Character and effect of, 294-7. Eff'ect upon Sir Eobert Borden, 312-4. MACDONALD, SIE JOHN A., Experience at Washington, 1871, 356-8. Eulogized by Sir John Thompson, 366. Canada given precedence, 366. Struggle for autonomy, 366-86. Desired Canada to be a Kingdom, 366-86. Contrast to Sir Eobert Borden, 368-86. MACHAE, MISS, On Canadian federation, 391. MALAY STATES, Contribution to British navy, 25. MILNER, LORD, Objection to word Empire, 198. Objection to colonial idea, 204. Present dominating figure, 393. Principal founder of The Eepublic of Canada, 393, MILNEE METHOD, What it is, 300-1, Its three processes, 301. See Phraseological Inexactitudes ; Advice and Its Price; London Atmosphere. MILLS, ME. J. SAXON, View of Report of Dominions Eoyal Commission, 325. MONK, ME., J. B., Resignation from ministry, 1-7. MONEOE DOCTEINE, Canadian dependence upon, 10, 187-8. Paper discussing, 169-88. Parallel action by U. K., 185-6. Misapprehension as to, 182-4. Beneficial effects of, 184-5. MOTHER-COUNTRY, MR., BuUer 's expression, 209. NATIONAL LIABILITIES, 18. NAVAL POLICY, CANADIAN, Paper on permanent, 149-66. Mr. Churchill's interference, 258-62. Admiralty requested to prepare scheme, 316. See Navy. NAVY, BRITISH, Colonial contributions to, 1-42, 255-8. Examination of arguments, 8-22. Australia, 23-4. India, 23. New Zealand, 24-5. South African Union, 25, Borden's proposal, 157-66, Expenditures of various countries, 17, 18. See Preparedness ; Capture at Sea; Naval Policy. NAVY, CANADIAN, Exclusively under Canadian control, 4. See Naval Policy. NEWFOUNDLAND FISHEEIES, See North Atlantic Fisheries. NEW ZEALAND, Imperial arrangements as to navy, 24-5. NICKEL, Imperial exploitation of Canadian, 336-8. NOETH ATLANTIC FISHEEIES, International difficulties, British protection, 113-46. Bavs, dispute with U. S., 114-22, 140-1. Bait question, 122-34, 141-2. Lobster question, 136-40. OSTEICHES, Protection of, 41. PARIS EESOLUTIONS, 1910, 350-4. Objections to, 'ri5'.',-4. PARKIN, DE., Nationality precedes unity, 204. PEACE AEEANGEMENTS, Paris resolutious lietweeu Allies, 350-4. PHILLIPS, SIE LIONEL, Control of colonies wanted, 272. PHEASEOLOGICAI; INEXACTITUDES, Misleading effect of, 205-6. Dangers of, 365-6. Empire, 302. Si'i Empire as a Whole ; Tlie Unity of the Empire; Empire Ee sources. PITT, WILLIAM, His sycophancy, 295. POLITICAL EELATIONS, CANADIAN. Involved in naval policy, 149. Borden's London conference, 1912, 151-3. Claim for voice in Councils, 151. Eeplv of British government, J52-3. Borden 's resentment, 153. Borden 's speech in Commons, 153-4. Harcourt 's replv to Borden, 153-4. Discussion of, 197-200. Sir Frederick Pollock 's opinion. 198. Canada's refusal to give advice. 2:i7-9. Consideration of, after war, :n^. POOLOCK, SIE FREDERICK, \'iew as to Imperial Federation, 276. Proposal for Council of .\ilvico, 30S. See Political Uilnlions. PEEFEEENTIAL TEADE, ,S",'e Balfour's (Lard) Committee. PEEPAEEDNESS, Expenditure of various countries. 17-S. U. K. prepared for sea — not for continental land-struggles, Eelation to policy, 256-7. Necessity for in future, 315-6. Production of war supplies, 316-7. Standardization, 317. Empire resources, 317. Empire food siijiply, 317. C^UEBEC CONFERENCE, See Federation of Canada. EECIPROCITY NEGOTIATIONS, See Treoiy-Makmg Power. REFER EK.Di:.M, .Mr. Dohertv and Mr. Burrell argue for reference of naval bill, 2, "3. Constitutional necessity for, 1, 2. Rl'^l'UBLIC OF CANADA, Proposal for, 386-93. Eeasons for, 387, 393. EOBEETS, LORD, Right on one basis, wrong on another, 27. German resentment at speeches, 27. EOSEBERRV, LOED, Definition of imperialism, 274. BOUND TABLE, Proposal as to impeiial resources, 348. Exploitation of Dominion resources, 348. Imperial ownership of Dominion resources, 364. RUSH, EICHAED, Connection with Monroe doctrine, 174-88. SALISBUEY, LOED, Diplomacy of Behring Sea seizures, 59-112. Description of British diplomac.y, 144-6. SCAEE OF 1909, Eeason for, 29-39. Party politics, 28-39. SCHLESWIG-HOLSTEIN, British diplomacy, 146. SEAL FISHEEIES, See Belirin;/ Sea Fisheries. SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES, See Colonial Seevelary. SEPARATION, Sec Canadian Sovereignty. SHIPPING, Sec Imperial Maritime Council. SISTER-STATES, Opinions of various statesmen, 202-4, 210. Paper dealing with subject, 209-24. Implication of the relation, 212. No other alternative, 212-24. Proposal for a (ilouncil, 213-5. Proposal for federation, 215-20. Proposals for confederation, 221-2. Vagueness of proposals, 223. SOCIAL l.XFLUENCE, See London Atmosphere. SOUTH APEICAN UNION, Contributions to British navy, 25. SOVEREKiXTY, Sec Canadian Sovereignty. SPAIN, Eelation to Monroe doctrine, 172-85. TAEIFF AEEANGEMENTS, Canada's accretions of authority, 227-s. Canada's resources applied to imperial bargain ing, 337. Early British monopoly, 338. Colonial freedom acquired, 338. Chamberlain's proposals for eontiol, 33s. Lord Balfour's committee, 339-47. See Balfour's (Lord) Committee. Common economic policy of the Allies, 350-4. Enemy outlawry, 351. See Imperial Preference ; British Trade for poralion. TEEATIES, Canning's denunciation of U. S. treaty, 1983, 114. Effect of war upon, 1 1 4. Of 1783 and 1818— See North Atlantic Fisher'us. See Tariff Arrangements; Macdonald, Sir John. TEEATY-^IAKING POWEE, Canadian, .Mr. Balfour's attitude, 195. Canada's position, 193-6. Sir .lohn Macdonald's opposition, 193. Sir George Foster's opposition, 193-4. Colonial Office opposition, 194. Department of External Affairs, 194. Sir Wilfrid Laurier's attitude, 194, .loint board of Canadians and Ameri cans, 195. Eeoiprocity negotiations, 196, Arrangements with U, S., 1909, 230. TEENT AFFAIE, 61-2, 83-4. TUPPEE, SIE CHAELES, Colonies ' progress delayed under imperial manage ment, 40. Eelation to Imperial Federation League, 40. Opposed to Canadian contribution to navy, 40, 42. Letter to Sir Eobert Borden, 1909, 40-2. Federation a prelude to independence, 41. Dominions are "sister nations", 42. Connection with Behring Sea seizures, 229. Correspondence with Mr. Bayard, 229. TUPPER, SIE HIBBEET, Connection with Behring Sea seizures, 72, 92-5, 98, Denunciation of U, S, action with respect to seal fisheries. 111, UNITED STATES, Treaty of 1783 denounced by Canning, 114, See Behring Sea Seizures; War of ISIS — Washington Treaty. UNITY OF THE EMPIRE, A phraseological inexactitude, 303-4. WAR, Canada's obligation to Japan, 3, Canada's constitutional position, 4, 196, 202, 230-1, 2S4. Sir Wilfrid Laurier's view, 3, 196, 231. Mr. Keith's view, 4, 5, 231. Sir Eobert Borden's view, 196-7, 231. Mr, Doherty's view, 197, Imperialistic schemes, Effect of, 284-5. Preparation for future, 315-6. British war debt paid out of (.'anadian resources, 349, :i5(i.