Sir James Graham, one of the most enlightened men of his day (prior to 1861) declared (13th Feb., 1848) that

"We ought to limit instead of extending our colonial empire; that Canada will soon be independent" (a).

In 1862, Sir George Cornewall Lewis (the distinguished writer on the Government of Dependencies) said in the House of Commons:

"I, for one, can only say that I look forward without apprehension, and, I may add, without regret, to the time when Canada might become an independent state" (b).

The Annexationist Manifesto, which was signed by so many prominent Canadians in 1849, very correctly recited as follows:

"That it is the resolve of England to invest us with the attributes, and compel us to assume the burdens of independence, is no longer problematical An overruling conviction then, of its necessity, and a high sense of the duty we owe to our country, a duty we can neither disregard nor postpone, impel us to the idea of separation; and whatever negotiations may eventuate with Great Britain, a grateful liberality on the part of Canada should mark every proceeding" (c).

Lord Elgin, (the Governor-General) was much embarrassed by this British attitude, and asked the Colonial Office (16th Nov. 1849) for an authoritative declaration of intention to maintain the imperial connection, saying:

"When I protest against Canadian projects for dismembering the Empire I am always told 'the most eminent statesmen in England have over and over again told us that whenever we choose we may separate. Why, then, blame us for discussing the subject?" (d).

Not long afterwards Lord John Russell did make a declaration in the House of Commons (8th Feb. 1850). It was not very pleasing to Lord Elgin. It was as follows:

"I anticipate with others that some of the colonies may so grow in population and wealth that they may say 'Our strength is sufficient to enable us to be independent of England. The link is now become onerous to us. The time is come when we think we can, in amity and alliance with England, maintain our independence.' I do not think that that time is yet approaching. But let us make them, as far as possible, fit to govern themselves; let us give them, as far as we can, the capacity of ruling their own affairs; let them increase in wealth and population, and-whatever may happen, we of this great Empire shall have the consolation of saying that we have contributed to the happiness of the world" (e).

(a) Greville's Journal of the Reign of Queen Victoria 1837-1852. Vol. iii., p. 124.

(b) The Broadstone of Empire, vol. 1, p. 95.

(c) Eg rton and Grant. Can. Constl. Level, p. 340

(d) Ibid. p. 347.

(e) Ibid, p. 321,

That this statement was a popular one in England, may be inferred from the reference to it in a letter from Lord Elgin to Lord Grey (23rd March 1850):

"I ought not to use the term 'foreboding,' for really to judge by the comments of the press on this declaration of Lord John's, I should be led to imagine that the prospect of these sucking democracies, after they have drained their old mother's life-blood, leaving her in the lurch and setting up as rivals, just at the time when their increasing strength might render them a support instead of a burden, is one of the most cheering which has of late presented itself to the English imagination” (a).

"You must renounce the habit of telling the colonies that the colonial is a provisional existence. . Of one thing, however, I am confident, there cannot be any peace, contentment, progress or credit in this colony while the idea obtains that the connection with England is a millstone about its neck which should be cast off as soon as it can be conveniently managed” (b).

In Lord Elgin's letters of this period (1849-53) to the Colonial Secretary, are frequent appeals and arguments for continuation of the colonial connection. In one of them (26th March, 1853) he combatted the suggestion that

"by the severance of the connection, British statesmen would be relieved of an onerous responsibility from colonial acts of which they cannot otherwise rid themselves" (c).

In 1851, the general sentiment in England found practical expression in the British House of Commons, when Sir William Molesworth moved the following resolution:

“That it is the opinion of this House that steps should be taken to relieve this country, as speedily as possible, from its present civil and military expenditure on account of the colonies; with the exception of its expenditure on account of military stations or convict settlements.

That it is expedient, at the same time, to give to the inhabitants of the colonies, which are neither military stations nor convict settlements, ample powers for their local self-government, and to free them from that imperial interference with their affairs which is inseparable from their present military occupation" (d).

In 1852 (13th August) Mr. Disraeli (Chancellor of the Exchequer) wrote to Lord Malmsbury (Foreign Secretary) as follows:

(a) Egerton & Grant, Can. Constl. Devel. 322.

(b) Ibid. 323, 324, 325

(c) Ibid. 328.

(d) Annual Register 1851, p. 119.

"The fisheries affair is a bad business.

Pakington's circular is not written with a thorough knowledge of the circumstances. He is out of his depth, more than three marine miles from shore.

These wretched colonies will all be independent too in a few years, and are a millstone round our necks. If I were you, I would push matters with Filmore, who has no interest to pander to the populace like Webster, and make an honourable and speedy settlement" (a).

This letter is of peculiar interest. The "fisheries affair" was the affair of Canada and her sister colonies. The story is as follows.

For many years the United Kingdom and the United States had differed as to the right of fishing in the larger bays upon the colonial shores. The former claimed that, by the treaty of 1818, American fishermen were excluded from all the bays, while the United States, on the other hand, asserted that the exclusion extended only to three miles from the shore. The United Kingdom had, however, never strictly enforced its view. On the contrary the Bay of Fundy had been voluntarily surrendered, and a disposition had been evinced to surrender all the others. From time to time the colonies had protested, but could get nothing done (b); and emboldened by the absence of opposition, the Americans had become accustomed to fish even within the three mile limit. In 1844, Newfoundland passed a statute authorizing colonial officials to seize poachers. The act was not put into operation at the time, but in 1852 (12th February) the Governor advised the Colonial Office that attempts might soon be made to seize American vessels, and urged that the British Government should itself undertake the work of protection. Early in the same year both Canada and Nova Scotia commissioned small protective forces.

Thus urged, the Colonial Secretary (Sir John Pakington) addressed a circular letter (28th May, 1852) to the Colonial Governors, in which he said:

"Her Majesty's Ministers are desirous of removing all grounds of complaint on the part of the colonies in consequence of the encroachments of the fishing vessels of the United States upon their waters from which they are excluded by the terms of the convention of 1818; and they, therefore, intend to despatch as soon as possible, a small naval force of steamers and other small vessels to enforce the observance of the convention" (c).

(a) Memoirs of an ex-Minister (Earl of Malmsbury) I. 344.

(b) Colonial Policy, by Lord Grey, I, 286-7.

(c) North Atlantic Fisheries Arbitration, U.S.C.C.A. app. 217.

The circular caused a good deal of excitement in the United States and the near approach of a presidential election gave it unexpected importance.

Such was the situation when Mr. Disraeli's letter above quoted was written. It was of Canada and her sister colonies he spoke as wretched colonies" which

"will all be independent too in a few years, and are a millstone round our necks."

And the course of action which he suggested was the old one-settle the difficulty. We probably owe British assent to the reciprocity treaty with the United States of 1854 to the fact that it was the means of quieting down the "bad business" of the fishery affair, as well as to the fact that our connection with the United Kingdom had come to be regarded as a "slight and temporary thing."

Passing from Disraeli to Gladstone, James A. Froude (the historian) in a letter to John Skelton (12th April, 1870) said:

"Gladstone & Company deliberately intend to shake off the colonies. They are privately using their command of the situation to make the separation inevitable" (a).

Lord Morley, in his Life of Gladstone, denies the justice of such charges (b); but himself states Mr. Gladstone's principles with reference to the colonies as

"local independence, an end of rule from Downing Street, the relief of the mother country from the whole expense of the local government of the colonies, save for defence from aggression by a foreign power" (c).

A Colonial Secretary who acted upon those principles would most probably have been thought, in 1870, to have well earned Froude's description. And Mr. Goldwin Smith tells us of a letter written to him by Mr. Gladstone with reference to the Civil War in the United States:

"With a view, probably, to the satisfaction of mortified friends of the North in England, he (Mr. Gladstone) wrote to me suggesting that, if the North thought fit to let the South go, it might, in time, be indemnified by the Union of Canada with the Northern States" (d).

(a) The Table Talk of Shirley by John Skelton, p. 142.

(b) Vol. 1, p. 364.

(c) Ibid. p 362.

(d) My Memory of Gladstone, pp. 43, 44.

Writing in 1856, Arthur Mills (who took an active part in parliamentary discussion relating to the colonies) in his book (Colonial Constitutions) said:

"To ripen those communities to the earliest possible maturity-social, political, and commercial-to qualify them, by all the appliances within the reach of a parent State, for present self-government, and eventual independence is now the universally admitted object and aim of our colonial policy" (a).

The British attitude to the colonies in 1864 was referred to by Sir John A. Macdonald in a speech at the Conference held at Quebec to consider federation:

"Our present isolated and defenceless position is, no doubt, a source of embarrassment to England. If it were not for the weakness of Canada, Great Britain might have joined France in acknowledging the Southern Confederacy. We must, therefore, become important, not only to England, but in the eyes of foreign states (b).

Shortly afterwards Mr. George Brown went to England to ascertain the attitude of the British Government to the federation proposals. Reporting to Sir John (22nd December, 1864) Mr. Brown found that everybody was delighted with the prospect; but he found also something else:

"I am much concerned to observe, however, and I write it to you as a thing that must seriously be considered by all men taking a lead hereafter in Canadian public matters-that there is a manifest desire in almost every quarter that, ere long, the British American colonies should shift for themselves, and, in some quarters, evident regret that we did not declare at once for independence very sorry to observe this, but it arises, I hope, from the fear of invasion of Canada by the United States, and will soon pass away with the cause that excites it" (c).

I am

The time was one of peril to Canada. Civil war was raging in the United States. The Republic had been stirred to deep resentment by British sympathy for the Southern Confederacy, and by the construction of confederate cruisers in British dock-yards. The United Kingdom was afraid that American revenge might take the form of an attack upon Canada (d), and Mr. Brown found that for that reason, there was regret that Canada had not declared for independence. That was, and still is "a thing that must seriously be considered" by all Canadians.