CANADA AND MR. CHAMBERLAIN'S SCHEME. Uro THE EDITOR OF THE
"SPEOTATOR."J read in the Spectator of September 12th a com- munication headed " Canada and Mr. Chamberlain's Scheme." Is it any wonder that Canadians might have a certain amount of contempt for the Mother-country when communica- tions are published in papers such as yours, on the ground that they give a fair idea of the feeling of Canada ? A more unfair, exaggerated idea of the feeling of Canada was never published.
The writer's first piece of folly is contained in the statement that there are practically no leaders of public thought. Take William Lyon Mackenzie, the late Hon. Joseph Howe, Sir John A. McDonald, George Brown, and Alexander Mackenzie; are not these men who have moulded public thought in Canada ? Take also our leading statesmen to-day ; are they not moulding thought? With regard to the Press, our newspapers carry the news of the world, and it is all done without wearying a man's brains.
Canada for the Canadians ? why, certainly,—not Canada for the United States. We gave Great Britain a preference because we wished to. What was there to prevent our turning to the United States and giving them a preference which would have benefited us, and at the same time have wiped Great Britain's trade off the slate ? Why is Canada manufacturing so many articles as she is ? Because Great Britain paid not the slightest attention to our wants. The American and the German, how very differently they treated us ! Being independent, we started our own factories; and now that they are started, why should we ruin ourselves to give Great Britain a preference that would wipe our industries off the face of the earth ? You have now a third above any other country in the world.
There has been no demand from Canada for a preference. To be sure, when you had your ls. per quarter on corn our Ministers did request that this should be struck off in favour of Canada, and when your Government in its wisdom saw fit to discontinue it altogether, no question has ever been raised as to your right to do it. Canada does not want a market at the expense of the poor and needy of Great Britain. If we cannot give a fair return for what we receive, we do not want it.
Your correspondent's remarks on the subject of the bright-eyed Canadian boys bringing the war to a successful termination show how incapable he is of judging Canadian sentiment. Naturally we were very proud of the work our men did in South Africa, and Paardeberg, Harts River, and other engagements will always be a source of pride for us. One reason for this was that one of Great Britain's celebrated officers deliberately stated, when our offer was made to send men, that it 'would be absurd to send a contingent of Colonials as a separate body, that they would have to be broken up and tailed on to different British regiments. Thank goodness, we have proved differently.
It is no fault of the Canadians that we do not see more British literature; but if you see anything in a British paper about Canada, it will be that there is a drought in the Ottawa Valley, or that there has been a fire or a railway accident, or some scare- head business. Our Government has done the fair thing to try to assist this want, and gives to a Press Association £3,000 a year, and makes the postage on newspapers to Great Britain the same as internal rates. It costs more to send • a paper from Britain across the ocean than the price of the paper. What does the British Government do?
When your correspondent speaks of the lower classes he shows how superficial is his knowledge of Canada. We have no lower classes. The labourer's son and the rich man's son go to the same school and sit side by side, and no contempt is shown by one for the other; but mutual respect is gained, and in the way of general leirning the Canadian boy would compare very well with nine out of every ten men of your classes here. Indeed, have we not seen an ex-Premier of Great Britain speaking of "the drought in the Ottawa Valley being very apt to injure the crops of the Territories "? An ex-
Chancellor of the Exchequer states that we have no winter ports, and fears what the Yankees will do if Great Britain gives a preference, when we are shipping our grain. The son of the late Premier also speaks of growing wheat in the Arctic regions. These people want sending to school. Then, again, the average British person believes that the Niagara Falls constitute the main feature of the Dominion, that there is a perennial presence of snow, and that Montreal is a place where people chiefly live in ice palaces. The tie which will more closely bind Great Britain and Canada, as well as other Colonies, is a mutual feeling of advantage one to the other. Sentiment is all very well, but the Colonies may in time get tired of the sentimental. Remember that to-day. Canada is more attached to the British Empire than ever, and that there is notbi g that hurts the Canadian more than to be called an American (taken in its acceptation of the word). Canada has as much right to the name " America " as the United States people have, owning as we do the larger portion of the continent. Your correspondent further states that Canada already gives-a preference, but that this is all that she is prepared to offer. Look at the reports of the meeting of the Colonial Ministers, and you will find that Canada is prepared to go further. But why should she? Our kindly attempts were treated by the average Britisher with contempt. Instead of giving money to the Army and Navy, over which we would not have had an atom of control, Canada in her wisdom has bonused the British manufacturer since •the preferential Tariff has become law with about five millions sterling.
Do not let Britons have an idea that Canada is not loyal or has not the greatest affection for the Mother-country. It is no sneering idea she has of her, but we hate to feel that a word from an American politician is taken before the word of men who have done their utmost in every way to keep the Mother-country and her daughters together.
Perhaps I may be a little bitter in my arraignment of the general feeling in Great Britain towards the Colonies, but nothing hurts worse than good-natured contempt combined with ignorance, with which the average Britisher is apt to consider the Colonies so called. You cannot treat a young man of twenty-one in the same way as you do a boy of four. Great Britain has great cause for thinking.
[Though our correspondent will probably be surprised by our statement, we feel in strong sympathy with a very great portion of his letter. If he read the Spectator as care- fully as he apparently reads a portion of the Protectionist Press, be would realise that the Free-trade Imperialists agree with him in placing freedom above even Free-trade. They want free nations within a free Empire, and not " tied- house" Imperialism. They want to see Canada manage her own fiscal affairs. They want Canada also to manage her own defensive forces, and not to pay a tribute to the Mother- country in order to hire defence, naval or military. They rejoice to see Canadian troops acting in defence of the Empire as Canadians, and not as mere reinforcements to British regi- ments. They glory in the sane and whole-hearted democracy of Canada, which, without any strain of nonsensical Jacobinism, is vigorous, determined, and self-respecting. They realise also, as does our correspondent, that Canada has made no demand for preference. Again, if our correspondent had done us the honour to read the Spectator, he would have noted that again and again we have raised our voice as strongly as he does for a reasonable system of postage under which our newspapers and magazines could enter Canada as cheaply as American publications. We can assure him it is not Free-trade news- papers, but Protectionist Ministers, who deny this boon. We do not think Canada to be a vast patch of snow round Niagara, but the most glorious land of woods, waters, and sunlit prairies on the face of God's earth. When our correspondent has time to make himself conversant with Free-trade views as to the Empire, and does not cloud h s mind with the conventional rhetoric used by Protectionists of Mr. Chamberlain's kind in regard to Free-traders, he will, we venture to say, find that the Free-trade Imperialism of the Spectator and those who agree with it is in reality much more congenial to him than the " tied-house " Imperialism which is now being preached throughout the land.—ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
