I.i I 1. ""-p- THE CASE FOR CANADA.-No. 2. ADVANTAGES Imperial Federation A LECTURE DELIVERED BY *'■ -v'^ THE REV. PRINCIPAL GRANT O/ ^Hff/i'x College, Kiiioxton, At a Pt!BLic Meeting held in Toronto on January 30TH, 1891, under the %% % AUSIMCKS OF THE f. \ .Ml • X'.M %t ■ - - fc. > t ToR(7NTO Branch of the IMPERIAL ,Ffeni:RATtON LEAGUE TORONTO : ;_^V ;g |i ^ C, ni-ACKl'VlT K()BINi(lN. aaT ~ ic- ir* Bfchuana Land. Z a mbe s i a Briiish East Africa iim Hi r CANADA NATIONAL LIBRARY BIBLIOTHEQUE NATIONALE ' '' H^ f V'^ 'T 1 1 \ r ?^r i % f i } ' ^ 1 ^ " 5 .- - f-l f 1, a M/i" I 1 i V , • t ' Jf c » - * r * if •; •: 1 1 1 4" .* '^ ■; ' .■*.* « . f ^ THE CASE FOR CANADA, No. Si. ADVANTAGES OF IMPERIAL FEDERATION, A I-ECTl'KE DELIVERED BY THE REV. PRINCIPAL GRANT. ()/ Queen's College, Kingston, At a Public Meeting held in Toronto on January 30TH, i8gi, UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THE TORONTO BRANCH OF THE IMPERIAL FEDERATION LEAGUE. TORONTO : PRINTED BY C. BLACKETT ROBINSON, 5 JORDAN STREET. 1891. THE CASE FOR CANADA, No. H. ADVANTAGES OF IMPERIAL FEDERATION ''I^HE caricatures of Imperial Federation are so many that I 1 must begin by telling you in plain language what it really is. These caricatures prove that our opponents are unwilling to get face to face with facts, and prefer to put up men of straw, knock them down and then claim that they have killed the monster. In my definition or explanation I shall stick to facts. The British Empire exists. That will be admitted. Every one will also admit that it is composed of different parts, possessed of unequal shares of privilege and responsibility, but all alike ifejoicing in the common life that is the result of his- toric continuity, in a common head, a common flag, common citizenship, a common Court of Appeal, and in the fact that each part claims the right to be defended against all enemies by the force of the whole Empire. In other words, there is union now in the form of a kind of Federation. It is admittedly imperfect, but I would like to know of a perfect Federation. Even if you could get it, you would find that it would not stay perfect. Every one then who is in favour of preserving the present union is a Federationist. He must be in favour, too, of taking all necessary means to preserve the union, for he who wills the end wills also the means. Another fact is that organisms grow. Amendments are therefore constantly required in healthy political organisms. The organism must be adapted to the ever-changing environ- ment. Some parts of our Empire have grown until they feel that they are entitled to a greater share in the Govern- ment, to fuller privileges and responsibilities, than they now enjoy. It follows that every one who is sensible, as well as loyal, will be in favour of fair, full and harmonious develop- ment. Opponents — if capable of thinking — must be in favour of the break-up of the Empire. No wonder that they oppose, caricature and sneer. * Another fact is that this earth is the scene of never-ending conflict. Good men are hated by bad men. The mightier the organization for good the more it is hated. Now, there is no instrument so potent for the furtherance of liberty, righteous- ness and peace to the remotest ends of the world, as the British Empire. There are therefore millions who would shout for joy if it was broken to pieces. It is only right to give these gentry fair warning that before it is broken there will be wigs on the green. Another fact follows from these. Unionists are of all nationalities, denominations and parties. We include all true Conservatives, for our aim is to conserve the state. We include all true Reformers, for our aim is to reform admitted inequali- ties. We include all the men who founded the Canada First Party, for they see that ours is the only way to have Canada first, or to have a Canada at all. We have with us Protection- ists, National Policy men and Free Traders. We count on our side the leading statesmen of both parties and of the tfcird party as well. What is of more consequence, we have with us all Canadian women. That is natural, for to a true woman duty is sacred, and honour everything. It follows from these facts that Unionists are not in a hurry. Time fights on our side. All that we have to see to is that no fatal mistake be allowed in the meantime. Disunionists clamour for our scheme. We are not schemers. We are willing to go on growing, provided that it be in the right direction. It has taken the Empire a long time to grow to its present grandeur of life. It takes a long time even to discover and destroy the enemies that prey on the life of a great organism. It took Dr. Koch eight years to circumvent that little beast — the bacillus tuberculosis. What wonder if it should take us as long to kill the big beast of Secession ! It takes centuries to create and weave together political, social and moral relationships. It took England and Scotland centuries to accomplish a true union. With all their exceptional advantages, it took the States a cen- tury to make North and South solid, and it sometimes looks as if they were two solids still. So far, we are moving on the whole in the right direction. Every decade some new filament is being woven that makes the present union stronger. We are patient, but to be patient does not mean to be idle. I hope we shall always act on the Donnybrook maxim, " Whiriver ye see a head, hit it." At Winnipeg I answered the objections usually urged against Imperial Federation. As no one has attempted a serious criti- cism of those answers, I shall be happy to send a copy of that speech to any one who may wish to try his hand at a rejoinder. To-night I shall confine myself to showing some of the advan- tages of Imperial Federation. Let me first define the word " Advantage." If it simply means — as lago, honest lago, plain, practical lago would say — more money, I am not greatly interested. To you and me it means a good deal more. It means the development of the best that is in us and in the nation — or national life and progress. What then conduces niost to the life of man ? According to the Greeks men were mortal gods and gods but immortal men. So, Christianity calls men the children of God. True progress, then, must be not so much the acquisition of more wealth or even of more rights as the better performance of duties. That is equally true of the individual and the nation. It is good to tell a man to stand up for his rights. It is better to strengthen him for the discharge of duty, to give him new ideas, loftier aims, and a noble zeal for the Commonwealth. Only men with that spirit are worth anything. Such men make a country great. And as there is a mutual relation between the citizen and the state, a great state makes its citizens great. This, then, is our definition of national advantage — material prosperity in strict subordination to duty and honour, the inde- pendent development of our political life, the safety, unity, dig- nity and well-being of the Commonwealth. These secured, our advantage will be the world's advantage as well as Canada's. I. Only by some form of Imperial Federation will it be pos- sible to ensure a sure and steady development of our trade and commerce with the preservation of our self-respect. On this subject it is but right that experts should be heard at great length. It is necessary to look at the subject from every point of view. In trade it is also necessary to avoid sudden di^urbances and sweeping revolutions. These are most unfair to a trading community. At the sanie time, as '6 ■ the question must be decided by the votes of ordinary people, the general principles ' ttiat determine our commercial policy should be stated plainly. In domg this, I shall try to confine myself to universally acknowledged facts. I certainly have no interest save in the general well-being. The question of our trade, too, is not nearly so complicated as that of British trade, and it can be made plain enough to the average mind, provided only that there be no disturbing element of self- interest or political passion. I will sum up the position under several heads, that any one disagreeing with me may be able to point out where error has been allowed to enter. (a) The two countries with which the mass of our trade has been, and will continue to be, done are the United States and Britain. It is right to do our best to extend trade in every direction, especially to sister-colonies, b.ut all other countries put together would not make up, in bulk or value, for the loss of the trade of either the States or Britain. I think no one will deny this. (6) We have at present to face not a theory but the fact that, in cT)nsequence of the McKinley Bill, our trade with the States will be greatly lessened in bulk and value. For various reasons we have not yet felt the full .force of the blow, but we shall begin to feel it before many months. Hereafter, except in years where there is a good crop in Canada and a bad one in the States, we shall do less trade with our neighbours than formerly, and at a smaller profit, except perhaps in lumber and young Canadians. On the first of these the duty has been less- ened, and on the second no duty is charged as yet, if our young people have taken care not to make contracts in the States before leaving home. (c) We can do nothing with the States to make them change their policy. We got the Treaty of 1854, only through extra- ordinary personal exertions on the part of Lord Elgin. Since its expiry we have tried to make another some ten times. The overtures have always been from us. We have tried too often and too long. The more eager we are, the less eager we find our neighbours, just as we might expect from a people who make bargains from their mother's cradle. Not only have they now raised the wall between us higher than it ever was before, but at the suggestion of that astute politician, Mr. Blaine, they have offered preferential trade with sugar, tea, coffee and hide ^,. ■.•.-.|^,v,^; producing countries. Cuba, Brazil and other South American countries that now take British manufactures largely are likely to accept that offer ; with the result that they will here- after do their trade almost entirely with the States. Britain and Canada may cry out as loudly as they like, but what good will that do ? All railing at our neighbours is worse than bad form. It is senseless and wicked. It may be said that the people of the United States protested last November against the McKinley Bill and in favour of Free Trade. Let us not he deluded. Neither of their great parties is in favour of Free Trade. The Mill's Bill of the Democrats was an odd-looking Free Trade measure. Both parties are at one on the doctrine that revenue must be raised on Imports from Foreign Coun- tries, though there are undoubtedly uerious differences between the two parties. The Democrats when in power may lower the duties on foreign manufactures, but what good will that do us ? The Farmers' Alliance is too strong a wing of their party to suffer them to lower the duties on farm produce, at any rate till we consent to pay the price of Commercial Union. That price we will never pay. Let me say that compared to it Annexation would be more honourable and more profitable. These are the galient features of the situation as regards the States. (d) Seeing that we can do nothing to fill the gap in our trade on the side of the States, can we do anything with Britain ? We can and must, unless we prefer to wait till we are squeezed into accepting our neighbours' terms. We do not treat Britain fairly now. She admits freely all our products and manufactures. We shut hers out. It is quite true that she admits ours not for any special love to us, but on the same principle on which she admits from all the world. None the less we should try to do as we are done by, as regards favours at any rate, if not insults. There can be no large development of trade on a jug-handled system. The essence of all trade is exchange. Therefore, if Britain is to buy very much more from us, and that is indispensable, we must buy more from her. That can be done only by gradually and steadily lowering our duties on her goods, A sudden great reduction would be wrong. Capital must have time to readjust itself to a new situation, and revenue necessities must be considered, unless a great party hoists the flag of Free Trade with all the world and Direct taxation. That party I would join, with the full -:.- - 8 ■■"'■•"■- '^ : knowledge that it would never get into power. It would be as sensible for a polfticai party to tibist that flag in Canada as to agitate for the monarchy in the States. £ut, a proposal to gradually lower our duties on British goods is a &iir, a prac- tical, and, to my mind, a profitable policy on its own merits, ft would benefit the great mass of our people, and hurt only those few who are in lines of. business unsuited to Canada. Such a policy, too, could be used— after a three or four years' educational campaign in Britain — to secure preferential inter- national trade on specified articles with the whole Empire. If so, that would be just what is wanted. It would create the Imperium that must precede full Imperial Federation. Why should we not try to make a Commercial Treaty with Britain, when we have tried to make one with the States those ten times ? We are told that it would be inconsistent with Free Trade. So was the Cobden Treaty between Britain and France. So are the preferential treaties Britain has allowed New Zealand and the Australias to make between themselves. So is the proposal that our Finance Minister has recently made to the West Indies. The laws of trade are laws neither of morals nor mathematics. All circumstances have to be con- sidered, and in economics one principle may be checked by another and a higher. We are told that there would be irri- tation in the States and retaliation. The people of the States have too much sense. No people understand befter the right of a nation to make its tariff to suit itself. They are not such cravens as to hesitate about legislating to suit themselves, and, if we hesitate from fear, how could they respect us or we respect ourselves ? Besides, they have already armed their President with all the powers of Congress, to make preferential Commer- cial Treaties. Surely the principle of preferential trade under the same flag and within the bounds of the same Empire is reasonable in itself, and a thousand times more reasonable than that of preferential trade with foreign countries. We are told that we would be asking Britain to re-enact the old Corn-laws. Not at all. The Corn-laws had only one object, and that was to make corn dear, and by means ot a sliding scale of duties keep it dear, no matter what the harvest might be, and this in the interest of one class — the landowners. Our proposal is dif- ferent in itself and in its objects, and unless it could be proved to be in the interest of the mechanics as well as of the farmers, 9 it could not possibly be carried. We propose a slight fixed duty that would not amount to as much as the ordinary fluc- tuations in price in the Liverpool market. That would at first add to the price of food an amount equal, for the ysar, to one day's wage, but if it secured the artizan a week's work, which he otherwise would not have, he would vote for it with both hands. Is it not worth while asking him ? See what an effect it would have on Canada. Our farmers would buy their goods for a little less and sell their stuff for a little more ; our mer- chants would do a more thriving business, and consumers generally would be benefitted. Canada would attract the right kind of population. Dakota would be deserted, unless the United States did what they probably would do — offer to deal reasonably with Canada and Britain. There is no other way of getting Free Trade with them with honour. If, however, they preferred to continue in their own course, every year the different parts of the Empire would become bound together in common interest as well as affection. At present, affection pulls one way and interest pulls or seems to pull in another. That is a dangerous state of things, and Statesmen should not allow it to last. Trade is life and men must live. The more we trade with others the better friends we become. Therefore, while we should trade as freely as possible with all the world, it is doubly incumbent on us to trade freely with our fellow-subjects. The States would never have become a Union but for that principle. A century ago, some of them were unwilling to give up their autonomy, but the denial of free trade with the general body to all who remained out brought them in. The Anti-Unionists saw that they were going to get something by joining the Union, as well as to give up something to the central power. In the same way, if our people are to "contribute for common defence, or surrender anything to the central power, they must see that the Empire means some practical advantage to them. The flag should represent not only sentiment but the actual facts of daily life. In asking the British people to consent to a departure from a principle of trade, which some of them value more than the national life or the Christian religion, we are ask- ing nnich. But all Britons are not blind to the tendencies and forces at work to shut thftm out of old markets, and many are prepared to fill the gaps thus made by building up the Empire and securing an increased trade within its bounds that cannot be 10 overturned by rivals or enemies. Remember that it was on the ground of those tendencies that Lord Salisbury recently vindi- cated the extension of the Empire in Africa. The cry will be raised that we are in favour of " the small loaf" for the British artizan. The British artizan is not a pauper. He does not live on a loaf of bread, though we sometimes talk as if he did. A good many articles go to make up " the bare subsistence " he gets ; and it will be all one to him to pay a cent more for his loaf, beef or cheese, if the cent is taken oflF his house or his tea, coffee, beer or other articles he uses. And besides, he is coming to see that it may be easier to pay twelve cents for the loaf than eleven cents, if that is the way to secure steadier work and wage. Bread may be dearer at twelve cents than at eleven cents. Canadians understood that when they voted again and again for taxes on their blankets, coal and sugar, all of them just as much necessaries of life as bread. Every one ought to contribute his share to the revenue of the country of which he is a citizen, and it comes to the same thing whether he pays it on one necessary or on another. It is evident that the proposal could not be carried without the consent of the British workingman. Try him, I say. Put the case fairly before him ; and theorists will find that they did not understand his views nor appreciate his national spirit. I fear the short- sighted selfishness of some Canadian manufacturers more than the opposition of the British workman. But why should I hint that (Canadians are unable to decide 'upon a far-reaching policy involving temporary sacrifices on the part of some manufacturers, after reading the address given yesterday in this city by the President of the Board of Trade ? He proposes that Canada should say to Britain : " We will, for differential duties in favour of certain of our products, admit your manufactures at a much lower tariff than at present, and also engage that any change we make as regards you will be in the direction of lowering still further." That address was received enthusiastically by the Board of Trade, and a motion was unanimously agreed to that a special general meeting should be called to discuss the question of closer trade relations with the Mother Country and the Colonies. Two or three months ago, after I had hinted at such a policy. Grip had a cartoon in which the bloated Canadian manufacturer loftily and serenely smiled the proposal away. Now that a body of about a thousand 11 leading merchants and manufacturers declare this to be the policy for Canada, I think that we should have another cartoon. All honour to the Toronto Board of Trade! Gentlemen, fight it out on that hne and fight for all you are worth. Canada must take the initiative and make a fair proposal to Britain. And what body has the same right to take it up and press it home as the Board of Trade, which not long ago Dr. Goldwin Smith declared to consist of men who knew the actual commer- cial necessities of the country better than the House of Commons ? 2. But I now go on to mention another and greater advan- tage of Imperial Federation than the one which we have just been considering ; an advantage too that is so connected with that of improved trade that the two must be considered together. In fact, in my opinion, the first is not likely to be obtained with- out the second. We cannot expect Britain to concede prefer- ential trade to us, on the ground that we are part of the Empire, unless we are willing to share the responsibilities of the Empire. I say then, secondly, that only by some form of Imperial Federa- tion can the Independence of Canada be preserved, with due regard to self respect. If this is true, if Imperial Federation can do this, and if it can be done in no other way, then the necessity for Imperial Federa- tion is proved, for National Independence is an advantage so great that no price can be named that is too great to give in payment. It is the same with a country as with a man. Inde- pendent he must be or he ceases to be a man. Burns advises his young friend to " gather gear " in every honourable way, and what for ? Not for to hoard it in a dyke. Nor for a train attendant ; But for the glorious privilege Of being independent. And that which is the supreme dignity of manhood is even more essential in the case of a nation. It is not independent, if it is obhged because of sheer weakness to submit to an insult, such as St. Domingo had — not very long ago — to submit to from the United States, or if it is obliged to submit to being robbed of as much of its territory as it suits another country to take, as Mex JO was robbed by the United States when " a little unplea- santness " took place between them. In alluding to these historical facts I have no intention of exciting prejudice agamst 12 our neighbours. Never in my life have I spoken a sentence with that intention or object. May my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth if I do so ! It might be alleged plausibly enough that the United States in those cases did only what Britain has done in similar cases, as, e.g., in its recent treatment of Portugal. But that is not the point. I do not envy the posi- tion of Portugal any more than that of Mexico or St. Domingo. The point is that no country is independent that is not strong enough to assert its independence, in its own strength, or in virtue of some alliance or of such a peculiar international position as guarantees the independence of Holland, Belgium, Switzerland, Roumania and Bulgaria. How long would either of the two that I have named last be independent if it had no neighbour but Holy Russia ? How can any man able to see straight, and willing to look facts in the face, think for a moment that we could be independent if separated from Britain ! Very recent history is enough to reveal our posi- tion. Remember what took place two or three years ago on our Atlantic Coast and what is now taking place on the Pacific. In the first case our rights had been acknowledged by our neighbours for nearly three-quarters of a century. For the last dozen of those years they had acknowledged them in the most practical way possible by paying a handsome rent for usage of them. Yet when they themselves ended the Treaty of Washington their fishermen expected precisely the same privi- leges as before. They proceeded to take them, too, offering to " paint red " any town or village where they were refused ; and they would have taken them, had there been no Britain in the background. I know the facts of the case, and I tell you that our Government acted with the greatest moderation. Yet the indignation was so extreme in the United States that, according to the highest authority, we were within " measurable distance of war." From whom came the talk and threats of war ? Not from us ; we were, after having given fair warning, only doing humble police duty, guarding ports and three miles of sea as indisputably ours as this City of Toronto. It may be said that I should never mention the word " war." The mention did not come from me or any Canadian. I hate the thing too much to speak the word lightly. But there is something I hate infinitely more, — insolent aggression on the part of the strong, national unrighteousness of every kind, and the cowardly truckling of 13 slavish-hearted, money-purchased or party-besotted men. I may be told that the spirit of the Christian religion is, when smitten on the one cheek to turn the other. Well, I always try to do that, and to do it in the least aggravating way possible. My self-respect would perhaps enable me to go that far, unless the temptation was very sudden or the old Adam at the tisae very strong. But my seif^espect would irot allow me to go farther ; would not allow me, for example, to stand by and see a woman or a child struck, or to be indifferent should the honour of the country be struck down. An old proverb says: " If you wish peace, prepare for war." That means in our day, if you would prevent war, think of it in time, and let tht country be in such a position that it shall not tempt, too strongly, another country to make a sudden attack on it. Doubtless what I have just said will be perverted. Good people will be told that I am always thinking of war with our neighbours. Of course, two thousand people will know that this is a lie ; but none the less, writers and papers will tell it, with the hope that their twenty thousand readers will believe them. All that I say is that a country that is not independent is not a country for free men, and that Canada separated from Britain could not be independent. The New York Herald explained that the other day, with its usual frankness of tone. Very distinctly it explained with what scant courtesy we would be treated if we were in the position of Mexico. We may be told that there are noble men in the States. So there are ; none better anywhere ; our own kith and kin, too. But the noblest men are not always sent to Congress or invited to the Executive; and it is in the power of the men who happen to be there to force a war at any time they might consider convenient for their party, on such valid reasons as the wolf gave for eating up the aggressive lamb. Did not Mr. Secretary Seward — a man esteemed good and great — calmly propose in writing to Mr. Lincoln, shortly after his first inauguration, that they should heal the trouble between North and South by getting up a foreign war ? Besides, blood may be shed by the zeal of a petty officer, and once blood is shed, reason — even in the noblest men and women — is apt to retire into the background. What do we mean when we speak of the independence of the counry? We mean something beyond price, something that is the indispensable condition of true manhood in any 14 country, something without which a country is poor in the present and a butt for the world's scorn in the future. There are men, or things that look like men, who say that as long as we put money in our purse, nothing else counts. How that class of men must have laughed some centuries ago at a fool called William Wallace ! How clearly they could point out that it was much better to be part of the richer country to the south. When they heard of the fate of the patriot, did they not serenely say, " We told you so " ? Did they not in their hearts envy the false Menteath the price he got for betraying the man who acted as true sentiment bade ? But, give it time, and the judgment of the world is just. Even the blind can now see whether the patriot or the so-called " practical man " did most for Scotland's advantage. Now, At Wallace' name, what Scottish blood But boils up in a springtime flood ! Oft have our fearless fathers strode By Wallace side, Still pressing onward, red-wat shod. Or glorious died. What has his memory been worth to Scotland ! Would you estimate it in millions ? Superior persons will tell me that Wallace is an anachronism. In form, yes; in spirit, never. It ijnay be said that in the end Scotland did unite with England. Yes, but first, what a curse the Union would have been if unaccompanied, as in the case of Ireland, with national self- respect ! And, secondly, Canada is ready for union with the States any day on the same terms as those which Scotland got : (i) That the States accept our Queen or King as their head. (2) That we keep our own civil and criminal law and parlia- mentary constitution, as Scotland did. (3) That the whole Empire be included in the arrangement, as the whole of Scotland was in the union. Surelv the men who are never tired of citing the case of Scotland and England as parallel to ours must admit that this is fair. But, here comes a question that must be faced. Is it worth while preserving the independence, the unity and dignity of Canada ? There are men who, for one reason or another, doubt whether it is. They have lost faith in the country, or rather they never had any faith to lose. It is this absence of faith that is at the bottom of all their arguments and all their unrest. Now, I do not wonder that there should be men who do not I 15 share our faith. Men who were brought up in England, and who have seen and tasted the best of it ; who are proud of that " dear, dear land," as Shakespeare called it, proud of its history, its roll of saints, statesmen, heroes ; of its cathedrals, colleges, castles ; of its present might as well as its ancient renown ; and who have then come to live in Canada, — well, they naturally look with amused contempt at our rav/, rough ways, our home- spun legislators and log colleges, combined with lofty ambitions expressed sometimes — it must be admitted — in bunkum. I do not wonder, either, that men who have been citizens of the United States, who exult in its vast population, its vast wealth, its boundless energy and measureless spread-eagleism, should think it madness on our part that we are not knocking untiringly at its door for admission, and that the only explanation of our attitude that they can give is that we are " swelled heads," or " the rank and file of Jingoism." From those men I have no right to expect help. If indeed they had generous feeling, then — even if " conscientiously " they could not help — they would hardly hinder. They would hold their tongues and let us do our best. For, after all, they must know that this question is not to be settled by them. It must be settled by genuine Canadians. We, like Cartier, are Canadians avant tout. Most of us have been born in the land, have buried our fathers and mothers, and some of us our children too, in the natal soil, and above the sacred dust we have pledged ourselves to be true to their memories and to the country they loved, and to those principles of honour that are eternal ! God helping, we will do so, whether strangers help or hinder ! We do not think so meanly of our country that we are willing to sell it for a mess of pottage. I know Canada well, from ocean to ocean ; from the rich sea pastures on the Atlantic all the way across to Vancouver and Victoria. Every province and every territory of it, I know well. I know the people, too, a people thoroughly democratic and honest to the core. I would now plainly warn those who think that there is no such thing as Canadian sentiment that they are completely mistaken. They had better not reckon without their host. The silent vote is that which tells, and though it will not talk, it will vote solid all the time for those who represent national sentiment when the national life is threatened. I am not a party man. In my day, I have voted about evenly on both sides, for when 16 I do vote, it if- after consideration of the actual issues involved at the time. Both sides therefore rightly consider me unreli- able, but, perhaps, both will listen when I point out that the independent vote is increasing and that it is the only vote worth cultivating. The true Grit or Tory will vote with his party, right or wrong. No time, therefore, need be given to him. Let the wise candidate win the men who believe that the country is higher than party, and there is, I think, only one thing that these men will not forgive — lack of faith in the country. They have no doubt that it is worth while to preserve the unity, diejnity, and independence of Canada. We are quite sure of this. Are we as sure that it is our duty to pay the price ? The United States are paying three or four times our whole revenue in pensions to those who fought to keep the country united. They do not grudge this enormous price. They have besides a respectable army and a fleet that will soon be formidable. What means do we find it necessary to use ? In any trouble we simply call on the Mother Country. How much more dignified is this than the attitude- of Newfound- land, a Colony that has never thought it necessary to act in the smallest matter according to Imperial policy, yet waxes furious because the Empire will not go to war for it with a mighty power like France without wasting time on negotiations ! Or, than the attitude of the Montreal gentleman, connected with the cattle trade, who declared the other day that if Mr. PlimsoU did not agree with him he would annex to the United States either himself or Canada — he did not make quite clear which ! Is it any wonder that people outside of Canada smile at our protestations of loyalty ? The present system is cheap. No ! it is dear and nasty, and cannot last. What should we do ? First, let us remember what Britain has dared for us within the last two or three years. Britain would fight the rest of the world rather than the United States; — not because the Republic could hurt her seriously, not because her trade with it is five times as much as with us, but because she is proud of her own eldest child and knows that a war between mother and daughter would be a blow struck at the world's heart. Yet, for us she spoke the decisive' word from which there was no drawing back. For us, once and again, because we were in the right, she dared a risk which she hated with her whole soul. 17 Let us show that we appreciate her attitude. Let us, at any rate, do what Australia has done — enter into a treaty, according to which we shall pay so much a year for a certain number of ships, to be on our own coasts in peace, and in war at the dis- posal of the Empire. That would be tantamount to saying : " You have shared our risks, we will share yours ; we will pay part of the insurance that is necessary to guarantee peace ; we are educating officers for the army, and we are willing to give a much needed addition to the fleet." That would be a first step towards the attainment of fuU citizenship. What would be the next ? We could ask that our voice should be heard in some constitutional way before any war was decided on. And we would have the right standing-ground from which to urge a wise system of preferential trade in the common interest. These three things are, in my opinion, connected, and I have ventured to indicate the order in which they should be taken. Would it pay ? The experience of the world proves that nothing pays in the long run but duty-doing. How can a country grow great men if it is content to be in leading strings, and to give plausible excuses to show that that state of things is quite satisfactory ? * 3. Only by some form of Imperial Federation can the unity of the Empire be preserved. The previous advantages to which I referred concerned Canada directly. This one may appear to some persons far away from us, but it is not. In another speech I may enlarge on this advantage, but suffice it to say now, that we cannot isolate ourselves from humanity. Canada ought to be dearer to us than any other part of the Empire, but none the less we must admit that the Empire is more important to the world than any of its parts, and every true man is a citizen of the world. I will not speak to-night of what the Empire has done for us in the past, of the rich inheritance into which we have entered, and of the shame that falls on children who value lightly the honour of their family and race. Consider only the present position of affairs. The European nations are busy watching each other. Britain is detaching herself from them, understand- ing that she is an oceanic, colonizing, and world-power, much more than a European state. The United States and Britain are the two Powers, one in essence, cradled in freedom, that 18 have a great future before them. According to the last census, the first has a population of some fifty-four millions of whites. The census of next April will* show that the other has nearly forty millions in the home islands and ten millions in the self- governing Colonies. The two powers have thus about the same population of white men, and the two are likely to grow at the same rate. In Britain the rate of increase will be less, but in the Colonies it will be greater than in the States during the next half century. The States will keep united. They have stamped out disunion. We have to prove that we intend to keep the Entire united ; but that can be done only by giving the ten millions a gradually increasing share in common privileges and responsibilities. Surely such a work is not beyond the resources of statesman- ship. For a long time decentralization was needed. Now, all the signs of the times indicate the necessity to centralize. The days of small powers are over, and modern inventions make communication easy between east and west as well as between north and south. If this is not done, what will certainly happen? Separation, first of one p|irt and then of another ; weakness of each part and weakness all round. Think ot the impetus that this would give to every force that makes for chaos among the three hundred millions over whom God in His providence has placed us. The work that the British Empire has in hand is far grander than the comparatively parochial duties with which the States are content to deal. Its problems are wider and more inspiring ; yet, at the same time, the white race that alone, so far, has proved itself fit for self-government, lives by itself, instead of being commingled with a coloured race to wnich only nominal freedom is allowed. Any one who has lived either in South Africa or in the Southern States will understand what a free hand and what an unspeakable leverage this gives us. We need no Force Bill to ensure a free ballot in Britain, Canada, Australia or New Zealand. Already our sons are taking their part in introducing civilization into Africa, under the aegis of the flag, and in preserving the Pax Brittanica among the teem- ing millions of India and South-Eastern Asia, those peoples kindred to ourselves who for centuries before had been the prey of successive spoilers. Think of the horizon that this opens up and remember that in building a state we must think not of the present but of the future. 19 In a generation, all the best land on this continent will have been taken up. But, thanks to the far-reaching wisdom of our fathers, the greater part of the world will be open to the trade^ to the colonizing and to the enterprise of our children. We shall not be confined to a frozen north or to a single conti- nent. We shall take part in work that is of world-wide signifi- cance, and shall act out our belief that God loves not North America only, but the whole world. Only on condition of the British Empire standing, can this be done. This is the ideal that we should set before us, and remember that no people has ever been a great or permanent factor in the world that was without high ideals. I know that this advantage to which I am referring is not one that can be calculated in dollars, any more than the work of a Wallace or the poems of a Shakespeare, the life of Sydney or the death of Gordon, but it is an advantage none the less for which many of us are content to struggle and, if need be, to suffer. What are we in this world for ? Surely for some- thing higher than to still the daily craving of appetite. Surely for something higher than to accumulate money, though it should be to the extent of adding million to million. The poor million- aire ! How I pity him ! No one works so hard. No one has such a ceaseless strain of anxiety. No one gets so little unselfish love. And yet he cannot eat as much as an ordinary working man, or wear any better clothes than the poorest man in this house. Surely we are in the world for something better ! Yes, we are here to think great thoughts, to do great things, to promote great ideals. This can be done only through faithfulness to the best spirit of our fathers. Society is an organism, and must preserve its continuity. It must work, too, through instru- ments ; and the most potent, keenest, best tried instrument on earth for preserving peace, order, liberty and righteousness, is the Empire of which we are citizens. Shall we throw away that citizenship, or shall we maintain and strengthen that Empire ? ■■'; i \ IS-, # d.4 f -5^^ \ m S ^' lMi»i^M[aL FEtiEMMii^fv »^=c President ; THE RIGHT-HON. THE EARL OF ROSEBERRY. Vice-President : THE RIGHT-HON. EDWARD STANHOPE, M.P. Hon. Treasurers: LORD BRASSEY, K.C.B., THE HON. HAROLD FINCH-HATTON. , Secretary : ARTHUR H. TORINO. IMPERIAL FEDERATION LEAGUE IN CANADA ' .'' t' 4^^ President : ^x:^ iSIR S. L. TILLEY, C.B., K.C.M.G. Vice-Presidents : • n.,/^.,;« v 4 i ' ■ f D'Alton McCarthy, Q.C, M.P. Outarto ...,^p^,^.^ ^^^^^ McNeill, M.P. Qiubec . . .iXt-^.'iZL-lX-''' ^^R Donald A. Smith, K.C.M.G. ., „ I ( R. C. Weldon, M.P. >r , • t New Brunswick H i^ tt t n i^ ^ ■ ■! v •7- IThe Hon. John Boyd, Senator. ■ ^ I > ^. ('The Ho.^. M. B. Daly, Lieut. -Governor.^, , Nova Scotia .|.$ .4 i*? ^^' • ■ 1 ^'^ Grace Archbishop O'Brien. k • ; - r- . ., . *. r,.?.' ■ • (s,R Adams Archibald, K.C.M.G. ft. I **■ ' * rf, .'.'*■ A- 'BHttsli Coliimhia The Hon. Hugh Nelson, Lieut, -Governor. Prince Edward Island The Hon. J. S. Carvel, Lieut. -Governor, Manitoba The Hon. John .Schultz, Lieut.-Governor. Hon. Secretary : Hon. Treasurer. R. Casimir Dickson. H. H. Lyman. ORGANIZING COMMITTEE OF the LEAGUE IN CANADA ' Chairman : Hon. Secretary : LiEUT.-CoL. Geo. T. Denison. J. Castell Hopkins. TORONTO BRANCH President : J. Herbert Mason. . Vice-Presidents : Georue R. R. Cockhurn, M.P., J. M. Clark, LiEUT.-CoL Geo. T. Denison, Dr. Larratt Smith, Charles J. Cvmpuell. Hon. Secretary-Treasurer : Commander Fked'k C. Law, R.N.