Here is the passage in question, which we will not
spoil by condensation :-
" By what authority does Mr. Chamberlain pose as interpreter of Canadian sentiment and ambition ? What has he seen of Canada, and what does he know of Canadian feelings, that he should talk about the endangering of Canadian loyalty ? Who told him that Mr. Roosevelt's overtures and the more favourable terms that a less scrupulous suitor could offer might seduce Canada from her loyalty to the British Crown? Does he measure Canadian loyalty by an extra 5 per cent. or 10 per cent. prefer- ence on Canadian wheat, or is he trying to bunco' the British elector into the adoption of Protection with a bogey game of Colonial dismemberment ? A man who visited the United States again and again, but only once, even when Colonial Secretary, deigned to touch Canadian soil, is in no position to estimate either the quality or the strength of Canadian sentiment. Toronto and Montreal are not all there is of Canada, and the life and thought even of these centres, much loss of the Dominion, cannot be appreciated by a half-day's drive and an evening's banquet. It would be as well for Mr. Chamberlain were he to base his Protection propaganda on the needs and interests of the British taxpayer, rather than on the fickleness of Canadian loyalty. Imperialistic tufthunters may submit, but the point will soon be reached when intelligent and self-respecting Canadians will resent the persistent misrepresentation of Canadian sentiment by British politicians. One of our chief humiliations is the lofty tone of men like Mr. Chamberlain, who think that we are bound to the Empire by ties of trade preferences."
We never entertained a doubt that this would be Canada's answer to such sordid pleas; but it is none the less satis- factory to see the denial given so promptly and so clearly.
Previous page
