SIR CHARLES TUPPER ON IMPERIAL DEFENCE.

In conversation some months ago with Sir Charles Dilke, he assured me that he considered the suggestion made in the columns of Black and White by one of the contributors to the ‘Great War of 1892’—that, in the event of an imbroglio with India, we might carry our troops by the American continent—one that was open to much argument. This criticism of Sir Charles Dilke’s I mentioned to Sir Charles Tupper.

‘Well,’ replied this doughty upholder of Imperial Federation, ‘let us discuss the whole question, and we will come to Sir Charles’s criticism, with which I do not at all agree, later on. I was much impressed by the way in which you fought out your Great War. The case was presented in a very strong light. Should such a contingency ever arise, the Canadian Pacific Railway will furnish a most important service to the Empire in providing a special route to India. As an alternative route to India under the British flag from end to end, and bringing England as it does certainly a fortnight nearer to Yokohama than Suez, it evidently may play a very important part in Imperial policy and defence. As has been stated in your paper, not only does the Canadian Pacific furnish a direct line from Quebec on British territory throughout, but in winter, with the Intercolonial Railway to Quebec, the service is made from ocean to ocean by a complete line. It has already been greatly used by the Admiralty. I do not see any force in Sir Charles Dilke’s argument that mercenaries in the States could be engaged to render the line impassable in time of war. Of course we assume we are at peace with the States themselves. We have not only the fact that the line is as capable of being defended against attack as any line here in England would be which might be threatened by dynamiters; but Canada would furnish protection for the line by large bodies of trained militiamen and mounted police in the North-Western Provinces; and there would be the further co-operation of the States in the same direction, just as they came to our aid in the Fenian raids in Canada, when the States heartily seconded us. England would have the entire force of Canada to help to make the protection of the line as complete as it would be between Liverpool and London. And another point is this: By making a place d’armes of Esquimault or Vancouver you could send forward at a few weeks’ notice any number of soldiers you required to those two points, and hold them there at a point as near to India as they are now here, i.e. within as easy striking distance of India as they are in England going by Suez. And you may always trust to Canadian loyalty in any struggle in which England might be engaged.’

‘I am glad to hear that,’ said I, ‘for when I was in Washington last year I heard much talk of the annexation of Canada by America, and of the pleasure with which the Canadians themselves would receive such a measure.’

Sir Charles shook his head. ‘I have said repeatedly,’ replied he, ‘that there is no annexation party in Canada, and I say so again. I mean that out of the 215 members we send to Parliament not one would be elected if he declared in favour of American annexation. Mr. Goldwin Smith, with all his ability, has laboured for twelve years to convince the people of Canada that it is their inevitable destiny to become part of America. By his pen, with his tongue, and in the press, he has done all he can to bring this to pass; and at his own home, Toronto, a highly respectable and popular man holding Mr. Smith’s views was induced to offer himself as a candidate at a local election for the Legislature of Ontario, and out of 9000 votes at the election he only polled 175! No; we are not within even the remotest distance of an American annexation. How mad it would be! You do not know what our connection with England really means to us. Only a short time ago one of the most prominent members of the United States Government said to me, “The confederation of British North America under one Government and the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway has brought us face to face with a nation.”’

‘Which leads to another point,’ I replied. ‘Is there no chance of Canada becoming a nation on her own account?’

‘My dear sir,’ replied the High Commissioner, ‘Canada has all to lose and nothing to gain by becoming independent of England. From being a very important part of the mightiest Empire in the world, Canada—or Australia either, for the matter of that—would sink at once, by becoming independent, into a position in which they would become the easy prey of those who desired to subjugate them. I would recommend the strengthening by every practicable means of the bonds that now unite the mother country and the outlying portions of the Empire. I have proposed in a recent article in the Nineteenth Century that Australasia and South Africa should be each united under a central Government, as Canada now is, and that these three great British dominions should be represented in London by a leading member of the local Cabinet. You have to take things as they are, not as you might wish them to be. A Parliamentary Federation of the Empire, by forming an Imperial Parliament, in which all these great British possessions should be represented, I regard as utterly impracticable, because it is in antagonism with the constitution of this country, and also with the constitution of all the autonomous Colonies. Therefore I contend that the means of drawing closer the bonds between the Imperial Government and these great possessions must be found in some mode consistent with the constitution of England and the self-government now enjoyed by the Colonies. I come to the conclusion I have suggested, that the representatives of the three great British dependencies, being members of the Local Governments, should be made members of the Imperial Privy Council, and thus be brought into the closest intercourse and communication with Her Majesty’s Government here in England, and thus be in a position to give the most hearty and complete co-operation for the defence of the Empire everywhere. Another mode to which I attach great importance, and which is quite practicable, is the adoption of a fiscal policy that would have the effect of placing the Colonies fiscally in a different position as regards their relations to Great Britain from that occupied by foreign countries. Such a policy would lead to the elevation of the Colonies amongst the countries of the world, to their rapid development, and to a great expansion of trade between the mother country and them.’

‘Ah!’ said I, ‘doesn’t the kernel of the whole question of Imperial Federation lie in this Customs difficulty? If we were entirely a Free Trade empire, there would be little or no difficulty in securing Imperial Federation. The Union of Hearts, it seems to me, must be preceded by a Union of Pockets.’

‘Well,’ replied Sir Charles, ‘there is no reason that I can see why absolute Free Trade should be adopted, and in fact it is impracticable, or any objection taken to the adoption of the same policy pursued by every other country in the world with regard to their Colonies, by which they place their fiscal relations with them on an entirely different basis from that on which their relations with foreign countries stand; thus adding to the strong sentimental tie that binds mother and child, that still stronger tie of mutual self-interest; and the day is not far distant when a very powerful agitation will be promoted by the artisans here in England for the adoption of the policy that will most expand the trade of England, and promote the interests of all who are engaged in the manufactures of this country.’

‘Then,’ I interjected, ‘you thereby make the working-man the ultimate Court of Appeal, and he will decide as to whether Imperial Federation is to become an accomplished fact or not.’

Sir Charles said, ‘Yes; I believe this policy at no distant day will be sustained by the operatives.’

We drifted into other currents of thought, all bearing on the question how best to promote a true and lasting Federation. I alluded to a remark made to me some time since by a distinguished Cabinet Minister on the fatal policy, not to say the gross injustice, of pitchforking any scion of nobility, whether fitted for the post or not, into the vice-regal thrones of the Colonies.

‘Well,’ replied Sir Charles, ‘speaking as a Canadian, I can only say we have been most fortunate. The policy which has been pursued with us of sending out a Viceroy of Cabinet rank is, I think, attended with the greatest possible advantages; first, because it forms a close connection between the Crown and Canada, and after the period of service is over these gentlemen bring their great Colonial experience especially to bear here in England in Parliament, and at the Council, in a manner highly conducive to the interests of Canada. Canada owes much to the high standing and character and the abilities of all her governors since it became a united country.’