CHAPTER I
THE ATTAINMENT OF CANADIAN SELF-GOVERNMENT
Where tendencies, not events, are being considered, divisions The . by time must, in the nature of things, be somewhat rough jaùse™ ° and arbitrary. No one can say the exact hour when the al } er
^ * views on
Zeitgeist is found pointing in a particular direction. More- colonial over, it must be confessed that during the time we have been Polic y- considering there was already much of the spirit abroad which we have called laissez-aller. Note the language of Sir F. Rogers 1 in 1854. Speaking of a “Legislative declaration of Independence on the part of the Australian Colonies,” 2 he goes on, “The successive Secretaries of State have been bidding for popularity with them by offering to let them have their own way. . . . What remains to complete colonial independence except command of the land and sea forces I don’t quite see. I shall be interested to see what comes of it. It is a great pity that, give as much as you will, you can’t please the colonists with anything short of absolute independence, so that it is not easy to say how you are to accomplish what we are, I suppose, all looking to, the eventual parting company on good terms.” The view, which regards the granting of complete self-government to the Colonies, as part of a general policy of cutting them adrift, has been already noted. In 1872 Mr Disraeli asserted that “ there had been no effort so continuous, so subtle, supported by so much energy, and carried on with so much ability and acumen, as the attempt of Liberalism to effect the disintegration of the British Empire.” “Those subtle views,” he alleged, “were adopted by the country under the plausible plea of granting self-government.” 3 The attempt has been already made to vindicate the memory of
1 Afterwards Lord Blachford. 2 Letters, p. 175, ed. by G. Marindin.
* speeches, ed. by T. E. Kebbel, Vol. II. p. 530.
361