CANADA.
[THE LETTER REFERRED TO IN OUR POLITICAL SUMMARY.]
London, 234 May 1849. I will answer your questions as fully as heavy engagements and the short time may allow. You express agreement with the view of the Rebellion-Losses measure taken by the Spectator of 31st March in the article reprinted in some of your papers under the quaint title of "The Canada Question Made Easy." Understand, however, that the distinction there drawn between the policy of the measure, and the policy of introducing it under the cir- cumstances, is not and never will be seen by the public in England. Such distinctions can only be appreciated by those who have a knowledge of the whole subject, including of course the state of Canadian politics as that has grown out of rebellion, civil war, the union of the Provinces against their inclination, the adoption of "responsible government," and, above all, the old story of French and English antagonism; matters which, as a whole, it is impossible that people in this country not personally ac- quainted with Canada should duly comprehend, or even conceive among the elements of judgment. Here, certain broad features of the case are perceived and will be kept in view; nothing else. These are, that it is just and therefore politic to indemnify people who suffered in a rebellion; that sufferers in Upper Canada have been indemnified, and therefore suf- ferers in Lower Canada ought to be; that as the compensation-money is to come out of colonial pockets, the colonists alone ought to determine whether or not they will pay it, and that the time and manner of paying it should also be left to their sole decision; and finally, that since Canada is now governed, as it ought to be, like England, by a Parliament with responsible Ministers, the pleasure of the majority must be taken as the will of Canada, and ought to be realized accordingly. To all this, as matter of doctrine, you and I must cordially assent; and I doubt not you will rejoice with me at the adoption by public opinion here of that theory of responsible government for colonies which we remember the creed of an exceedingly small minority at home. But you must likewise see that opinion at home can never be in a state to form a sound judgment as to the application of the theory in special cases. At such a distance, special circumstances can never be understood. So our newspapers and our statesmen try the particular question by the general theory alone. They leave altogether out of the account the real causes of the disturb- ance of Canada by this Rebellion-Losses measure. They see no differ- ence between the introduction of such a measure by a Government composed of the old Loyal party and a Government composed of the old Rebel party. Although, knowing this country, they would have acknowledged the vast difference between a proposal to repeal our Corn-laws made by a Cobden Ministry, and the same proposal made by a Peel Ministsy, still, as they know little about Canada, it seems all one to them whether the proposal of a measure which will have the effect of giving compensation to Canadian rebels, should come from a Lafontaine- Baldwin or from a Daly-Draper Ministry. The facts that compensation- money in Upper Canada went almost wholly into the pockets of Loyalists, and that in Lower Canada it will be mainly received by people who be- longed to the Rebel party, are ignored in this country. No account is made of the fierce passions which belong to civil war esul conflicts of race- still less of the inevitable tendency of the Rebellion-Losses measure, proposed as it was by a Government of the once Rebel party, to revive and aggravate those terrible passions. Least of all is the British public conscious that the English or Anti-French of Canada, though perhaps a minority in num- bers, are the same as a great majority in real power, by reason of their superior wealth, energy, and martial qualities. Nothing is seen from this point of view but a question between the majority and minority of votes: the sheep and the wolves are counted by the head as equals in strength. "What ignorance!" you may exclaim. But was Lord Elgin himself any wiser? You account for his not having written a despatch about this measure till after the storm was high, by supposing that he never antici- pated any such storm—that it took him wholly by surprise. You say that his Ministers, if they had contemplated so violent a storm, would not have raised it. When, along with the Spectator of the 31st March, you attribute all the mischief to blundering by the Colonial Government, you cannot be surprised that public opinion here should have fallen into the same blander of judgment for which you blame Lafontaine and Baldwin. As the Government of Canada put aside every consideration save only the actual state of parties in the Assembly, so in this country, you may rely on it, that will be deemed right which a majority of the Assembly requires or upholds. The votes of a duly constituted representative body can be understood at any distance: little else of what happens in Canada is com- prehensible in England.
The above exposition of- the common state of mind here on Canadian affairs will enable me to Answer your first question very briefly.
"Will Lord Elgin be supported at home?"—Yes, certainly. As the subordinate Monarch of Canada, he has reigned constitutionally. Like the Queen at home, he lets the parties fight out their questions amongst themselves. He reigns without attempting to govern. For this he deserves not blame, but very high praise; and such is the prevalent opinion at home. You and I may admit that he ought in prudence to have checked his Ministers in this particular case; that he was entitled to do so in this case, because a measure relating to treason and rebellion against the Imperial power is one of the few questions which the theory of responsible govern- ment does not hand over altogether to the colonists; that he has misunder- stood the theory, and misapplied it by letting his Ministers take their own way in this particular case-' that he will perhaps prove the destroyer of responsible government for Canada—of the very thing which he is praised, and deserves to be praised, for having realized and upheld generally: we may admit all this, and yet, since none of it will be perceived by the British public, so surely Lord Elgin will have the support of opinion at home. Even the very few who perceive his mistake cannot help pitying him, and wishing that his policy may succeed. The " persecution ' of himself, as he calls it in his despatch, has excited indignation. There is a general feeling of sympathy with him; and I see no prospect of a change in the public sentiment. The more he is abused and attacked in Canada, the more will our public and Parliament be disposed to give him their support. In the end, no doubt, if his policy should utterly fail—if Canada should become completely unmanageable by him—he will be blamed and abandoned, as politicians always are when Fortune totally deserts them: but you may be quite sure that, for some time to come, 'under all circum- stances, public opinion here will encourage Lord Elgin to stand by his pre- sent Ministry in whatever they may do with the approval of a majority in the representative body of Canada. It is scarcely necessary to answer your question about Lord Grey and the Government. You will know before receiving this that they thoroughly support Lord Elgin. What else could they have done?, They were as ig- norant as the public here of all the special circumstances which in our opi- nion make the Rebellion-Losses measure an impolitic move, and one that the Colonial organ of the Imperial power ought to have interfered to pre- vent. It is clear from what Hawes said in the House of Commons when first questioned on the subject, that the Government at home was not even aware that this bone of contention had been thrown to the parties and antagonist races in Canada, until after Lord Elgin had given it the sanc- tion of the Crown by allowing it to be brought into the Assembly as a Go- vernment measure. By that original proceeding, he committed himself and the Government at home beyond recall. When this step VMS taken, it was impossible for the Government at home to disapprove of it without con- demning and displacing Lord Elgin. But they saw no reason, and could see none, for thus sacrificing him. They were as ignorant as the public at large in this conntr yof the special circumstances to which I have adverted, and which you urge as reasons for condemning Lord Elgin's course. To them it must have appeared that he had done quite right, and that they were bound in policy as well as honour to sustain him by all the means in their power. If he had consulted them on the whole matter before taking the irretrievable step by allowing his Ministers to introduce the bill, the case would have been widely different. As it was, they had no choice bat to suppose him thoroughly. Having done so by every sort of declaration, they are now as much committed as he was by his own first step; and they could not now desert him without acknowledging that they were led into error by a total want of information,—which you may be very sure that they will never do. Besides, even if they now repented—if, alarmed by the fierce conflict of parties and races to which this measure has given occasion, they could now resolve to disallow it in the Queen's name and recall Lord Elgin as a blunderer—what good would that do? By so upsetting responsible government in Canada according to Lord Elgin's and their own view of it, and by giving a triumph to English over French, they would indeed lay the present storm, but raise another no less formidable. Like Lord Elgin himself, they can neither retreat nor even stop. Whatever they might do, great mischief would be unavoidable. The original mistake was irretrievable; and the best course now for all who were concerned in making it, is to stand by it, come what may, and deal as well as they can with its consequences. This you may be very certain is the deliberate in- tention of the Government at home; and I have hardly a doubt that in adhering to it they will be sustained by Parliament.
Your last question is less easy to answer: "Will England strenuously op- pose the annexation of Canada to the United States? "—Upon the whole, I incline to think that she would not. The most intelligent—that is the really influential—part of the British public is disgusted with Colonial troubles and turmoils. It is getting to have the same view with respect to the possession of colonial dependencies as it would have with regard to the possession of Ireland if Ireland were not so close to us as to render the possession of it indispensable to our own security. Canada with its present troubles, and the West Indies with their beggary and discontent, are re- garded as burdensome appendages, which England would be all the lighter and stronger for casting off. This, I think, is the most prevalent opinion, and the one most likely to have effect in practice. Doubtless, a colonial system might be devised, under which our principal colonies in all parts of the world would be annexed to England, each of them enjoying an absolute independent sovereignty within its own bounds, and being connected with England for the single purpose of having its own independence upheld by her against foreign powers and of siding with her in case of war. Such a rela- tion would resemble that of the New-England Colonies to England long ago: it would spare England the whole expense and trouble of managing her Colo- nies, and would wholly relieve the Colonies from the evils of being mismanaged by a Colonial Office in the name of England. It is an arrangement which, I think, would prove very agreeable to public opinion here. But, on the other hand, neither our public nor our statesmen have time to spare for framing such a colonial system, or the requisite will for carrying it into effect. I repeat, disgust at the Colonies is the prevailing sentiment. If I am right in this view, we may believe that England would not incur much cost and trouble to prevent Canada from joining the United States. Still, there is no saying how John Bull's pride might jump when it came to the point. A more confident opinion may be expressed with regard to the view which our present Government takes of this question. Our Examiner and Economist newspapers are, from their notorious connexion with two sub- ordinate departments of the Government, nearly as official as the French Moniteur. The Examiner of the 19th instant says—" What advantages, then, do we derive from the possession of these remote and cumbrous colonies? We believe none whatever, except such as they would yield, and-to a far greater extent, were they independent of us tomorrow. * * * * We hesitate not to say, then, that if we and the North American Colonies can part in peace and friendship, the separation would undoubtedly be again to both par- ties, but more especially to ourselves. When Lord St. Vincent was informed of the peace concluded with the Americans in 1815, his only remark was, 'I hope we have make them a present of the Canadas.' Meanwhile, it is our bounden duty to prepare the Canadas for a separation should it be in- evitable; and the exercise of responsible government is the proper training for this purpose. Lord Elgin is acting on this principle, honestly, ably, manfully, and temperately ; and it becomes every man of liberal senti- ments in this country to support him against the senseless roaring of the Colonial party egregiously miscalled British." The Economist, also of the 19th instant, says—" Nor can we be blind to the manner in which an- nexation to the United States is discussed, as a means of remedying the evils under which Canada now suffers. These are questions deserving of calm and serious attention." Our leading journal, the Times, which, though perfectly independent of the Government, has a present disposi- tion to serve Lord Grey by promulgating and sustaining his views, winds up an elaborate article on Canada with a passage which I shall copy below. Had I time, it would not be difficult to supply you with other evidence, which shows that in case the government of Ca- nada should utterly break down in the hands of Lord Elgin and Lord Grey, the latter will probably declare the government of Canada by England to be an impossibility, and seek escape from the mortification of failure by openly adopting the colonial policy of the Manchester school, so far, at least, as respects your anarchical dependency, At any rate, our most official journals seem to be deliberately engaged in preparing the public mind to view this consummation as anything but a catastrophe. It is hardly possible that accident should have produced such close agreement among the official organs; as you will perceive by comparing the above quotations from the Examiner and the Economist with the following pas- sage from the Times- " Canada too, in common with other colonies—in common with England and with all Europe—is suffering great commercial depression. It is no longer al- lowed to tax the industry of the mother-country through the operation of pro- tective duties; and, while exposed to free trade on this side, it is rebuffed with prohibitive duties by the neighbouring Union. There has been a depreciation in all Canadian property, somewhat similar to what we experience in railway shares and other speculative investments. Annexation is an idea of growing familiarity. At Montreal a 'British League' has been formed, which, under the pretence of an extravagant loyalty, composes a political capital out o f all the Tory grievances, commercial depression, free trade, the domination of an alien race, and every other imaginable ill. It shows stronger sympathies with the Republican Statesanan than with the loyal Frenchman, and is evidently disposed to leava Victoria for General Taylor, if the latter will give a better price for Canadian produce. But enough for the day is the evil thereof. While it is permitted, we will leave the question of annexation. It existed before the present quarrel, and is wholly in- dependent of it. When it comes in earnest, we trust this country will be pre- pared to decide it with humanity, firmness, and discretion."
Previous page
