CIHM Microfiche Series (IMonographs) ICMH Collection de microfiches (monographies) Canadian Instituto tor Historical Microraproductions / inatltut Canadian de nricroraproductions historiques Technical and Bibliographic Notas/Notas tachniquas at bibliographiquas Tha Institute ha« attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which mey be bibliographieally unique, which mey alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. L'Institut a microfilme le meilleur aKemplaire qu'il lui a ate possible da se procurer Las details de cet exemplaira qui sont peut-4tre uniques du point de vue bibliographique. qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite. ou qui peuvent axiger una modification dans la mAthode normale de fllmage sont indiquAs ci-dessous. D D Coloured covers/ Couvarture da couleur Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagie p~| Coloured pages/ ] — j Covers restored and/or laminated/ I 1 Couverture restaur^ et/ou pelliculAe n D D D D D n Cover title nissing/ La litre de couverture manque Coloured meps/ Cartes gAographiquas en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Reli* avac d'autres documents Tight binding may causa shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La re liure serree peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distorsion la long da ia marge intirieura Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut qua certeines pages blenches ajouttes lors dune restauration apparaissent dans la taxte, mais. lorsque cela Atait possible, ces pages n'ont pas AtA filmAes. D Pages de coul jr Pages damaged/ Pages endommag^as □I Pages restored and/or laminated/ i Pages rastaur^es et/ou pelli':ulAes Pages discoloured, stained or foxeo/ Pages dAcolorees, tachatAes ou piquees □ Pages detached/ Pages detachees ["/] Showthrough/ ly ' Transparence Quality of print varies/ Qualite in^gale de I'impression □ Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du material supplementaire □ Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc . have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalament ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'arrata. une pelure, etc.. cnt m fiirr^es A nouveau de facon a obtanir la meilleure image possible n Additional comments:/ Commentaires supplAmentaires: This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est filmA au taux de rMuction indiqu* ci-dessous. 18X 22X 10X 14X 26X XX 7 12X ItX 20X 24X ax 32X The copy filmed h«r« has bMn r«produc«d thanks to the gonsrosity of: Thomai FislMr Ran Book Library, Univariity of Toronto Library The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the. first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol -^ (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: 1 2 3 1 2 4 5 L'exemplair* film* fut raproduit grlcs * la a*n«rosit* d«: Thomas Fiihcr Rart Book Library, University of Toronto Library Les images suivantaa ont *t* raproduitat avac la plus grand soin, compta tanu da la condition at da la nattat« da I'axamplaira film*, at an conformity avac las conditions du contrat da filmaga. Las axamplairas originaux dont la couvartura an papiar ast imprimia sont filmte an commandant par la pramiar plat at an tarminant soit par la darnlAra paga qui comporta una amprainta d'imprassion ou d'iilustration, soit par la sacond plat, salon la cas. Tous las autras axamplairas originaux sont filmte an commandant par la pramiira paga qui comporta una amprainta d'imprassion ou d'iilustration at •» tarminant par la darniira paga qui comporta una talia amprainta. Un das symboias suivants apparaltra sur la darnlAra imaga da chaqua microficha. salon la cas: la symbols — »> signifia "A SUIVRE", la symbols y signifia "FIN". Las cartas, planchas. tableaux, etc.. peuvent Atre filmte i des taux da rMuction difftrants. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour Atre reproduit en un seul clich«. il est film* A partir de I'angle supirieur gauche, de gauche i droite, et de haut en bas, an prenant le nombre d'images nteessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la mAthoda. 2 3 5 6 MKIOCOrV MSOUJTION TBT CHART (ANSI and ISO TEST CHART No. 2) A /APPLIED IIVHGE 1653 east Main StrMt Rochester. Nn York 14609 US* (716) 482 - 0300 - Phone (716) 288-S»e9-Fo« mid IB • * Some Reasons for the Differences in the Tone of Politics in England, Canada and the United States A paper read by O. Mowat Biggar, B.A., before the Young Men's Liberal Club of Toronto, on January 13th, 1902 Printed for THE YOUNG MEN'S LIBERAL CLUB OF TORONTO BY The Arcadk Printing Company Toronto Some Reasons for the Differences in the Tone of Politics in England, Canada and United States Tliis paper is not a diacuuion of what conaiitutes political tone, nor is it an attempt to show that the tone of poliiica is higher in England or in Canada than •laewhere. I have not the practical experience of politici necessary for either inves- tigation and have therefore contented myself with assuming what most of us believe, -that political morality is better and politics generally on a higher plane in England than hare, and here than the United Stages. Assuming these differences, I have merely tried to aacortain to what conditions, political or social, they may be attri- buted. I have no doubt that I have committed many faulu and among others the academic fault of taking too narrow a view-of assigning results to particular causes instead of to general ones, and conversely of restricting within too narrow limits the effect of certain known conditions, but my hope has bee- rather to supply a basis for a discussion of a subject hs well important as interesting than to convey anything of value, or to suggest anything novel. The inquiry is restricted within reasonably narrow limits by the similarity of the three countries in population, in traditions and in forms of government. England and the United States being the farthest apart, and Canada a compromise, sharing with the United States many of the characteristics of its social life, and with England its form of government. Therefore, in considering the differences in the political tone due to differences in the structure of society, Canada has been grouped with the United States, and with England in estimating those due to differences in the form of government. The causes of diffdrence in the tone of politics do not. I believe, lie in the subjects giving rise to differences of political opinion. I have thought otherwise. I have thought that because politics in England were concerned with imperial matters, while Canadian politics were almost purely local, therefore in England questions were more broadly discussed, peesonalities less freely indulged in, accusations of corruption less often made than in Canada, and that similarly the tone of Prov- incial politics was lower, than that of Dominion politics because in the Provinces the issues were of less magnitude. Upon further reflection, however, I have become con- vinced that the subjects of political difference are of minor importance. It seems to me that whether it is a question of the management of the forces on the frontier of India so as best to insure the security of the empire, or a question of the advisability of colonisation roads or of the disposal of timber limits in Ontario, it is possible that discussion of the one should be on as high a plane, as free from trivialities as discus- sion of the others. It is surely not because Provincial interests are narrower than Imperial that while In Ontario a foreign investment by one minister of the Crown apd a domestic investment by another should lately have been two of the strouKest pleas for a change of Rovernment, in England such matters of (personal convenience would not l>e considered proper subjects of public political discussion, even if they were worthy of remi- k. Federal politics in the United States, dealing as they do with questions affecting more than twice as many people as in Eiitrland, ami, as in England, with the relations of the domestic and foreign governments and ofsuliject peoples to the home population, should be as Ijroad and free from the uiies8entiitl as they are in the old country. We know that this is not so: we know tliiit United States federal politics are in some ways as personal, as trivial, as the poIiiicH of one of the smaller States of the TTnion. We are forced to look elsewhere for the causes of difference in tone, or at least for the primary cause, for I foresee that when I suggest that it is to the politicians that the difference must primarily l)e Httril)Uied, I will be met with the answer thut the difference between, e. g., Provincial and Dominion politicians in Canada is itself due to the difference in the magnitude of the questions with which they h ' ' This argument, however, does not apply to the case of England and the • .es, and granting that in Canada our better men are, speaking generally, k o'* rather to the Dominion Parliament than to the Provincial legislatures, the difference between English and United States politics has yet to be explained. England is distinguished from both Canada and the United States by its strongly defined distinctions of class — relics of feudalism to which are due the class sentiment which there exists and is marked in men of high social position, v/ho belong by birth to a pre-eminent social class, by a feeling partly expressed in the words noblesse oblige. Such men have usually a standard of what may be done and must be avoided by members of the class, differing from the standards accepted in the lower social ranks, and in fact maintained by constant comparison with such lower standards. Although brilliant exceptions wilf occur to everyone, it may be truly said that English public men generally, and English political leaders almost invariably, spring from the highest classes of society. The constitution calls for the co-operation of the peers in the making and administration of the law, and the example of the peers is followed by most people of wealth and influence throughout the country, so that a political career is looked upon as an Englishman's highest goal. As the leist e and the means required to pursue an avocation offering no pecuniary rewards are not wanting, the result is that in England the social standing of the politicians is higher, public confidence in them greater and |)olitics generally on a more lofty level than in perhaps any other country in the world. In England the man on the street kno' ^ that the men at the head of affairs are the best men in the community. He is often familiar with the identity of their ancestors, and with the fact those ancestors have in their time been charged with the government of the country : he is confident that the present rulers are too jealous of the family veputation, too regardful of the duties and responsibilities of the class 8 to which they belong, to admit of a doubt of their absolute honesty ; and he reata aeeure in the knowledge that their personal interest is an almoatnegligeable quantity. Thinns are very different on this side of the water where class distinctions are almost non-existent. We have no peerage destined by birth to share in the government. We have no land-owning class who are at liberty to devote their time to public affairs and to whom the pnblic service is a family tradition if not a duty. A parliamentary life is looked forward to as a goal by very few of the young men of the country. Our parliamentarians become such sometimes by chance, sometimes to gain influence, sometimes by pressure of friends, sometimes to make a living, possibly sometimes from corrupt motives— for almost any reason except that a political career i8 a high ambition worthy of a life's devotion for its own sake, a motive which, I t)elieve, sends into politics more French-speaking than English-speaking Canadians, though of either very few. Our public men are generally either men who must make politics yield them a living, or old men who having spent most of their lives at other busi- nesses, turn to politics at last as a recreation. To be a representative of the wealthy and cultured class, is at least in the United States, rather against a public man than in his favour. Indeed, so slight a recommendation is it that the prejudice has there given birth to the political sneer "Tlie dude in politics." However tiiis may be here, it is evident that, patrician or plebeian, every politician, both in Canada and in the United States, stands for himself. He represents no class. Who his family are or who his forebears were is a matter of indifference to the public. His ability to govern, his disinterestedness, his probity even, he must prove by his own acts. Nothing is taken for granted, and in making proof, he is often hampered by the public knowledge or suspicion of his narrow means and by accusations of corruption, stupidity, self-interest (whether well or ill-founded) on the part of his opponents, for it is good politics for opponents to render the proof of capacity and honesty as difRcult as possible. In En^'and to suggest that a minister of tlie Crown or even a prominent public man is been guilty of misapplication of pnblic funds, the sale of public ofHce, or personal advancement by illicit means, is a matter of moment, to be undertaken with caution, after due scrutiny ■ f evidence, in all temperance and sobriety, and with :it least apparent regret. To do the like for any public man in Canada or the United States is part of the political game, to be done on every possible occasion, on the merest whisper of mmour, with exulting and triumphant cries and appeals to the electors to turn the spoilers out of office f and it mislit be added , let others in J— all of which may be ascer- tained by the perusal of almost any issue of some morninj; dailies not a hundred miles from Toronto. This is bad, but it is inevitable. Everywhere politics, as distinguished from statesmanship, consists in getiiiij; into power, and when there, staying there. The question is only, what is the most expedient way of attaining the desired result. English public men are, broadly speaking, above personal suspicion in the public mind, and to make a personal attack upon one of them is almo.jt always inexpedient. Canadian and .\merican politicians are generally not above suspicion. In the nature of things they cannot be so until they individually prove it and a personal attack is usually a safe weapon, though in Canada there are times when, the proof of upright- ness and fair-dealing have been made, personalities are for the time abandoned as use- I«M. Such atimaiiinsomoiiinRni irniiurein Dominion politic* ih« preaent— a atatAof •flaira du« in pnrt to the Prim* MiniMt«r, but in part also to tho leador of th« oppoai- tion— and otiier occatiionH will occur to overyono when not only Dominion but Provincial party politicH have b«en temporarily lifted out of the mire by the unaaaail- «ble character of the |iolitical leadem. This cannot, however, be aaid ot ilie United States iKjIiticd. AcroHs the line a public man Ih occaaionally deified, but vever until after death, when he becomeit a " stateimaii " an the word wan detined by an American who, even before the aBaaasl- iiation of President McKinley, said that a statesman was a politician who was dead. As a (tooBral rule, politics in the States are marked by constant vituperation, con- stant accusation, constant whispers— almost shouts — of corruption— much more constant, and made with vastly greater definitness and verisimilitude than in Canada. Personalities are to be expected in view of the composition of thu |)olitieal class, but why should the general tone of politics be lower than in Canada? It is so, I think, because of the difference in the form of party government, which results in the absence in the TJiiiced .States of party leaders as we know them. The Democratic and the RepubMcan parties are abstractioiiK— terms used to differentiate the iilesM supposed to be shared continuously by the great contending factions, ii>to the constiiution of which no personal element need necessarily enter. A change of policy involves no change of personal opinion on the part of any responsible leader, nor any change of allegiance from one leader to another on the part of rank and file. If a temporary change of view is sufficiently wide-spread, the party de- signation may be applied to those holding the new views and then again used to denote the old, as witness the case of the Democratic party, for a while divided into the Demo- crats and the Gold Democrats ; now into the Democrats and Bryanites, the word Demo- crat in each case signifying a different set of opinions. The adoption of the silver plank involved no treachery to Senator Hill ; the return to gold was not a betrayal of Mr. Bryan, since faithfulues to either was no part of the luty of any man who called himself n Democrat. In Canada, such a change wcjld be impossible. Here the party policy must he reasonably consistent owing to the consistency required of the personal opinions of the leader around whom the party revolves and upon whom its success largely depends. That the Liberals are in power at Ottiwii is chiefly because they are the living Laurier and his followers, while the Conservatives are only the followers of the dead .Sir John. In brief, a party in the United States is composed of individuals; in Canada, the leaders and their followers compose the party. Across ilie line, the allegiance of the casual elector is claimed every four years on behalf of the party's presidentinl candidate— a man probably till then almost altogether unknown but to whom are now attributed not only all the private virtues but also the national party platform chosen for the occasion. If he is defeated, his public career ends in a short six months. His defeat has disqualified him from future political prominence, since it will be uecL . i'r> at the next election to run on a new platform a man not committed to the discarded planks of the old. Even if our candidate is elected, his political career is not greatly prolonged. He enters the White House to become a bureau- crat for four years or eight years, at the end ot which he, like his ..ef.ated opponent, will b* automatioftlly r«tir«d into prIraU life. Having r«Mlved from hla party th* hlKhent office in itaglft, thtre la no reaaon for hia continuiug longer in public life. Daring hi* larm of office, l>ii lieutenanU will not h« naceaMrily, nor are th«y uHnally, public men. The managvnieut of a local induatry, or the practice of lav aufficientty qualififa a roan for the control of the moat imporrant de|>artmeiit of koxernment for afawyeara, after thelapae of which he will, aa muat all Americana who attain to high public office, return to private life without the hope or exjtactation of furilifr political perfeiment. Compare ihia with our Kyatem. Hi-re a roan before he can hope to ahare in tlie government of the country niuat have undergone a long courke of parliamentary training ; if hia party l>e in power he may, by virtue of hii proved <|ualitie)< or liecauae of the weiglit liiti name CHrries in the country, be choeen to HII a Mubordinate poaition in the government : if liia party be not in power, he may become kno'vii aa a prom- inent lieutenant of the party leader; and after a further courxe of training in the maniiKcment of hia department, or in the criticism of the policy and adniiniHiration of the Kovernment, he may by reaaon of the reputation for ability and honeaty which he haa thereby acquired in the Houae, or in the country at large, »>« choKeii as the leader of the party and will become Prime Minister if he Hucceeda, or Ibaler of H. M. Loyal Uppoaition if hefailn. In obtaining thesuffragea of the elector- ate. One or other of theae positiona he may then and probably will hold until old age or death overtake him. The conaeqiience ia not only that we liRve more experienced adminiatratora, but alao that our political leaders muat be tlie men of the higheat standing in their respective partiea. It ia to the leaders that the public looks for the pre -^r conduct of the public buaineas. The chances of the party's return to power depend upon the opinion the public has formed of their ability and uprightncsa during their previoua public life. Each party is to some extent identified with its leaders. Their acts can- not be disowned, and they mu^t therefore be men to whom the party can safely entruat iU political future, aa well as the immediate present. Everything tends to compel each party to place at its head the very best material at its command, and these leadera thus chosen are not merely titular heads ; they lead in fact as well as in name. They sot the political tone, which in the United States, instead of being set by the best men is set by no one higher than the rank and file— by the consensus of opinion in the party— and it ia consequently lower than it would be were our system carried out by the same individuals. Due also to the absence of permanent recognized leaders is the undue prom- inence In the United States of the machine. Here the party organization centres in the recognized responsible party heads. To them are responsible the men in charge of the machine, who are merely the hired servants of the party, and whose very namea are unknown to the general public. There on the other hand the men in charge of the machine are well known as the possessors of political j^ower. As the nominal party loaders are only temporarily so and as these r- te politicians devote their lives to the consolidation of their political authority, ...«,y acquire an overwhelming weight in the councils of the party— so much so that the technical American name of " boss" haa become universally familiar. The party bosses construct the party plat- femi; thay m«k« and iinniAk* preaidinU; tli«v iliotaU to the rMpoiuibI* •sacutir* tha moda in which iha party patronage it to ba di«trlluit*d ; thay avan nama iha individuals who are to Jjarewnrded. Self-appointed, they are raaponaible lo no one —neither to a leader nor to t)ie parly at larR* ; and they are not in polities for their health. Thay cannot make an honest livinR out of politics and as they 're upon their political earninKi their influence tends strongly to low . the >olitical tone. Since the road to the highest political preferment leads thruugl- isir favour, not through public life, every man who dcsirea to attain success by means of politics allies himself with the machine. Tliis the beh. men will not do, and we And there- fore that not only are the best men not chosen to lead (for any peg will do to hang » temporary policy upon) but they are actually excluded from political life, the result being that Hiate of public indifference which good Americans are so constantly deploring. There the machii.a runs the party. Here and in England the party no doubt runs the necessary machine, but it it kept in the backisround and he who mentions it r.bove a whisper does so at his peril. The men who in this country are admittedly in politics for a living are men of no political consideration. Our parly syKtem also provides in the party discipline at the same time a nfe- guardagainsttheindulgencaof personal spite and a strong check upon individual corruption. In the United States there is little or no party discipline. Each mem'n^r of a party is within wide limits, free to blase out his own path. No one in in com- mand. Every result must be attained by individual effort, and this -cwjarily involves "log-rolling"— another term of American 'gin used to express «cuher tha complete absence of self-interest nor the disappearance of the individual in the organisation. The party in the United States (I cannot repeat it too often) is of too little importance ; the individual of too much. The Pauncefote Treaty was rejected bec-iuse Senator Davis and Secretary Hay, both Republicans, could not get along together. The former was jealous because the latter had been chosen to negotiate the treaty, which as Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations he had |>ower to kill. With the assistance of .Senator Foraker, another Republican, lie exercised his power. Was the President or was the Republican party to blame because Senator Davis could not pull will Secretary Hay? Surely neither. It was a mere matter of personal feeling, and if the country suffered in its expression, its hurt must be attributed only to the immediate parties, and to the system which permitted them to injure the country in settling their private accounts. In the United States, the individual alone suffers if he is bought and detected as having been bought. He may be personally corrupt, but no stigma attaches to the party of which he calls himself a member. If an electorate is debauched, no one beyond the local managers are to blame, and even if they are visited with merited censure, the reputation of the party at large is not affected. The corrupt persons are always supposed to be influenced solely by self-interest. Each is considered to be fighting his own hand first. In Canada, on the other hand, the first motive imputec is always a party motive. Every politician is a member of an organized party and subject to its discipline. He bears allegiance to one leader or another. If he is corrupted, or corrupts others, the party is called upon to answer for his act. A party rises or falls in the public estimation, and thereby increases or decreases the chances of its return to power, by tlie success or failure of its efforts to keep its members on the straigiit and narrow path, and to conceal any momentary lapses from it. The organization is responsible ; the leaders are responsible, and as their reputations are as important to them as a woman's, they must see to it that no spot is so remarkable as to attract notice. West Elgin was a severe blow to Mr. Ross, counteracted it is true by South Ontario, though the effect of the latter was weakened by the leaderless condition of the Conservative party. There was no one to take the blame. The warding off of dire punishment for the double shuffle was attributable, as the manoeuvre itself was attributed, to the cleverness of Sir John Macdonakl, which his successors aia not expected to be able to imitate, but the Pacific Scandal very seriously injured the party, although, under Sir John's able management, itrecovered much more (juickly than it would otherwise li-xve done. These are merely instancea of occurrences common enough in the United States, but against which, or, at all events, against the exposure of which— ultimately the same thing— the strong influence of party organization with responsible leaders is constantly working in Canada. Had we the social system of England, the tone of our politics would be a» high as it is in the Old Country. Were we to exchange our form of government for that of the States, politics would be as dirty a game^here as it is there. We should, I think, thank Ood that, though we cannot imitate England, even if we would, we can at least avoid, and seem for the present at all events to have escaped, sinking ourselves into the Great American Republic.