3. After Canada ceased to be a commercial monopoly of the United Kingdom and before she appeared to be of much fighting value, the United Kingdom was willing to give away all the rest of our territory, and us too. If proof of this is wanted, I refer to Volume I of my Kingdom Papers, pp. 34-43 and 64-7.

A slave worked and fought for his master and was repaid by a one-half reduction of his privileges. After further years of toil, and being of no further service, the master proposed to give him away. The slave objected, and was denounced as an ungrateful dog. Parables are only parables. But there is more verisimilitude about this, than in the dirty-house one offered by the Professor.

THE CAROLINE.-Dealing with the American seizures of our sealing ships in Behring Sea, I said that, in 1886, three vessels were seized, and one turned out of Behring Sea; that, in 1887, six were seized, and one not permitted to enter; that, in 1888, there were no seizures, only threats; that, in 1889, five were seized, and two turned out; that some of our officers were fined and imprisoned; that one man, when trying to escape, died of exposure in the woods; that the crews-some scores of men-were sent to San Francisco, and left to get home as best they could; that fourteen Union Jacks were taken to United States ports, and never even reclaimed; that the ships were Canadian, and guilty of nothing but seal-hunting on the high seas; that, during all that time, only one serious protest was made; that it was not delivered until nearly four years after the first seizure; that there was never any insistance upon explanation or apology; that, to mild requests at long intervals, the first answer came only three years after the first seizure; that it was to the effect that

"a categorical response would have been and still is impracticable, unjust to this government, and misleading to the government of Her Majesty";

that during all that time the Canadian government urged, pressed, appealed and remonstrated in vain; that during all that time the British fleet bobbed quietly at anchor in Esquimault harbor; that in 1891, the United Kingdom "as a friendly act to a friendly power" agreed that our sealers should be stopped; and that British war-ships were sent to co-operate,

and did co-operate with the United States cruisers in arresting Canadian vessels.

As contrast to this method of treating a Canadian question (and for that purpose only) I referred to the Trent affair, showing that, in that case, two American citizens-two rebels -were taken from a British ship; that no member of the crew was molested; that the ship was not seized-hardly delayed; that the Union Jack was not carried away, or even hauled down; that, in England, there was, immediately, tremendous excitement; that instant complaint was made to the United States of "an act of violence which was an affront to the British flag and a violation of international law"; and that surrender of the men was demanded within seven days. In other words the British government demanded delivery of two American rebels, because they were taken from a British ship, but was supremely indifferent to the arrest of scores of Canadians, to the confiscation of fourteen ships (Union Jacks and all), and to the fining and imprisonment of some of the officers.

With all that before him what does Professor Grant say? Not that my history is bad, for he does not challenge a word of it. He says this:

"Yet Mr. Ewart, after telling us of the high tone in which, in 1861, Great Britain demanded the release of Mason and Slidell, assures us that we may be very certain that had they been on board a Canadian ship, the tone of Great Britain would have been lower. This admits of the somewhat easy disproof that in the most similar case, during the period in question, Great Britain asserted the rights of Canada with at least equal vigour."

And then he tells of the McLeod affair. But the historian has forgotten his dates. The McLeod case occurred not "during the period in question," but during the previous ostrich period. I had said that "British Imperialism disappeared when the profit of it disappeared" (as the Professor himself notes); and that from "the advent of free trade"-after the eighteenforties (that is after 1846-9, not "about 1840" as the Professor has it) "there was very little Imperialism because there was very little profit"; and to prove me wrong and without "historical imagination," the Professor makes "easy disproof" by referring to a case in 1840! In that year, McLeod was one of the ostriches!

Moreover, the Professor completely overlooks the fact that what the United Kingdom did in the case of a Canadian, during a period of strained relations (upon other accounts) between the United Kingdom and the United States, is not the slightest evidence of British attitude under normal circumstances. That British action, in the McLeod case, finds its explanation in the feeling of the day, rather than in overaffection for ostriches is sufficiently proved (1) by the fact that the United Kingdom contended, McLeod proved, and a jury decided that McLeod was not one of the cutting-out party; and (2) by observing that, eventually and after much pressure, Lord Ashburton was instructed to admit that the violation of American territory was "a most serious fact," and to express regret that

"some explanation and apology for this occurrence was not immediately made."

To which Mr. Webster replied:

"Seeing that it is acknowledged that there was a violation of the territory of the United States, and that you are instructed to say that your government consider that as a most serious occurrence; seeing, finally, that it is now admitted that an explanation and apology for this violation was due at the time, the President is content to receive these acknowledgments and assurances in the conciliatory spirit which marks your Lordship's letter, and will make this subject, as a complaint of violation of territory, the topic of no further discussion between the two governments."

OSTRICHES.-Temper or no temper, I adhere to my ostrich parallel-that we were kept within an economic fence, and that we were treated badly.

Indeed I do not understand that the Professor denies the existence of the fence. It would be arrant folly to do so. Nor does he appear to deny that Canada suffered by its existence. That, too, would be foolish, for nobody, from Adam Smith to Adam Shortt would agree with him. All that he can say is that "however imperfectly it worked out in practice" (an almost sufficient admission) the ideal

"was a self-contained Empire in which Mother-Countries and colonies combined for the joint profit of both."

But the verb is in the wrong voice-the colonies were combined; they had no voice in the matter; their interests were subordinated; the United Kingdom was free to get goods from anywhere; Canada was not; her sugar, molasses, etc., for example, must come from certain places; the United Kingdom could import from the place that suited her merchants best. The fence existed. It was put there by the United Kingdom. It was very injurious to us. Does anybody deny that?

Treated badly! I cannot pass in review the whole of our history. I must be content with citation of the opinion of some noted Imperialists: Mr. J. Castell Hopkins has said:

"What were territorial rights, or the future interests of Canadians, or the development of British power on the American continent, in comparison with an undisturbed peace which might facilitate the sale of a few more bales of cotton goods, and promote immunity from increased responsibility, or a little more taxation."1

Professor Leacock has said:

As

"In their infancy the colonies flourished on neglect. they increased they were safeguarded and protected from purely interested motives. The British people who sold 40,000 Africans every year to their own and other plantations could not afford that any other slave-raiding a

should 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 imperialism-the fine creed of union and co-operation from continent to continent-had its origin in the jingling guineas at the bottom of the breeches-pockets of the London merchants. Some of it, perhaps, even to-day is tainted with original sin."

Professor Ashley has said:

"The relation of Great Britain to the Dominions was that of a monopolist to tied traders."+

1The Story of the Dominion, p. 624.

*University Magazine, December 1911, pp. 535-6.

†British Dominions, p. 11.

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.

Sir John A. Macdonald wrote from Washington, with reference to the surrender of 1871, saying that the British negotiators

"had 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."

All that is what I call treating us badly.

Governors.

In the American colonial days, prior to 1776, the United Kingdom interfered but little with the internal affairs of the colonials-Connecticut and Rhode Island elected their own The war of independence induced a change of policy. Self-government, it was thought, led to independence. And to prevent that, we were harassed with the most meticulous supervision of the most trifling of our affairs, often at the hands of men who, without either tact, brains or temper, eventually worried us into rebellion. If any one thinks that that sentence is a mere exhibition of petty acerbity, I refer him to that noted Imperialist, Colonel Geo. T. Denison, who has said:

"Mismanagement and the want of knowledge of Canadian affairs on the part of the Colonial Office brought on the dissatisfaction which culminated in the so-called rebellion of 1837." 4

That is what I call treating us badly.

Hordes of British officials were billetted upon our budget -officials who not only never did a stroke of work, but who (some of them) never came to Canada. They sold their jobs

Upon this subject please read Vol. I, of the Kingdom Papers, pp. 32-48: 64-7.

2Jos. Pope: Life of Sir John A. Macdonald, vol. 2, p. 105.

4Westminster Review, September, 1895, p. 251.