"We have carried
it to this point, that as far as regards the Administration, I believe
it may be said that the only officer appointed by the Colonial
Secretary is the Governor; and I believe there cannot be a doubt that
if it were the well-ascertained desire of the Colonies to have the
appointment of their own Governor, the Imperial Parliament would at
once make over to them that power."
I may, perhaps without presumption, here add two short speeches of mine
in the House of Commons: one, in reply to Mr. Bright in the discussion
on the Confederation, or British North America Bill, on the 28th
February, 1867; the other, in reply to Mr. Lowe, on the Canada Loan
Bill, on the 28th March, 1867.
Language affecting the relations between the Mother Country and the
Colonies, such as I have quoted, does infinite mischief - more mischief
than those who do not mix with the people can understand. It is as bad
in its consequences as the unfortunate policy of Mr. Gladstone: the
"Majuba Hill" policy.
[Hansard, vol. 185, page 1187, Feb. 28, 1867.]
"Mr. Watkin said he fully concurred in the statement of the right hon.
gentleman (Sir John Pakington), that the House of Representatives and
the Senate of Nova Scotia had approved the scheme of Confederation. The
representative body approved it in 1861 - not 1862, as the right hon.
gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty had stated.
"There was a general election in 1863, and the Prime Minister (Mr.
Tupper) went through the country preaching this Confederation of the
Provinces. It was brought under the notice of the electors at every
polling-booth, and at every hustings the issue was distinctly raised.
Well, after that general election, the plan of the Government was
sustained by an enormous majority in the House of Representatives, and
delegates were sent to the Conference to carry out the plan. If there
was any question on which the British North American Provinces not only
had enjoyed an opportunity of expressing, but had actually expressed,
opinion, it was on this very question of Confederation.
"Mention having been made of the name of Mr. Howe, whose acquaintance
he had the honour of possessing, he might state his own conviction that
a man of purer patriotism, or one who had rendered more able and
distinguished service to the Crown of this country, did not exist. He
remembered the speech delivered by Mr. Howe some years ago at Detroit
on the question of whether the Reciprocity Treaty should be continued
or not; and he believed it was in no small degree owing to that
remarkable speech - one of the most eloquent ever heard - that the
unanimous verdict in favour of continuing the treaty had been arrived
at. It was matter of surprise and regret to him that the valuable and
life-long services of Mr. Howe had not received recognition at the
hands of either the late or the present Government.
"The hon. member for Birmingham seemed dissatisfied with the phrase
used by Lord Monck respecting the establishment of a new nation. Now he
(Mr. Watkin) supported the Confederation, not as the establishment of a
new nation, but as the confirmation of an existing nation. It meant
this, that the people of the confederated colonies were to remain under
the British Crown - or it meant nothing. He joined issue with those who
said, 'Let the Colonies stand by themselves.' He dissented from the
view that they were to separate from the control of the British Crown
the territory of this enormous Confederation. But there was a vast
tract beyond Canada, extending to the Pacific; and the House should
bear in mind that more than half of North America was under British
dominion.
"Did the hon. member (Mr. Bright) think that it was best for
civilization and for public liberty that this half of the Continent
should be annexed to the United States? If that were the opinion of the
hon. gentleman, he did not think it was the opinion of that House.
Every man of common sense knew that these territories could not stand
by themselves; they must either be British or American - under the Crown
or under the Stars and Stripes. The hon. member for Birmingham (Mr.
Bright) might think that we should be the better for losing all
territorial connection with Canada; but he could not agree with that
doctrine. Extent and variety were amongst the elements of Imperial
greatness.
"Descending to the lowest and most material view of the subject, he did
not believe that, as a mere money question, the separation would be for
our interest.
"Take, again, the question of defence. Our North American possessions
had a coast line of 1,000 miles on the east, and 800 on the west, and
possessed some of the finest harbours on that Continent, and a
mercantile marine entitling it to the third rank among maritime
nations. The moment these advantages passed into the hands of the
United States, that country would become the greatest naval power in
the world. In preserving commercial relations with the United States,
the Canadian frontier line of 3,000 miles was likewise extremely
useful.
"As long as British power and enterprise extended along one side of
this boundary line, and as long as the tariff of extremely light duties
was kept up by us, and that imposed only for the purposes of revenue,
it would be impossible for the United States to pursue what might be
called a Japanese policy.
"If England, therefore, desired to maintain her trade, even apart from
other considerations, it was desirable for her to maintain her North
American possessions.
