INDEPENDENCE OF CANADA INEVITABLE.

Grey River Argus, Volume IX, Issue 617, 30 December 1869, Page 2 (Supplement)

INDEPENDENCE OF CANADA INEVITABLE.

(NEW YORK TRIBUNE, SEPT. 21.) Whatever degree of feeling for annexation exists in the country north of us has certainly become obscured in the general instinct and bent of the BritishAmerican people for independence. There is no further question that such an event is as probable as desirable, and to those of most sanguine faith in the theory that America must be as truly American as Europe is European, independence is a foregone conclusion, and, indeed, a consummation at hand. Nova Scotia enjoys a very considerable and spirited minority of annexationists, in our Legislature, arid the number of her people opposed to con- , federation especially, and at all events to Imperial connection, has no adequate representation. Canada is so far affected with disloyalty to the principle represented in the visit of Prince /Arthur that a meeting- of ,.;umexatioiiists <$m take place in Quebec, and a paper of that city assures that " all Quebec is for annexation." We cannot undervalue ■ these facts, or shut our eyes to the possibility of which they may be only the germ. Bnt one thing is sure, whether annexation be desirable or not, the Canadians have fixed in their minds this idea of independence, and it is destined to make its way. It is not a new speculation. Forty-one years ago, Mr Hnskisson, the English Colonial Minister, thought that Canada had come to years of discretion and should be allowed to seperate from the mother country. The Earl of Ellenborough, in 1854, with much the same view, allied that the chances of war between England and the United States were greatly increased by the imperial connection. About this time, likewise, Lord Ashburtou, Lord St. Vincent, and Lord Brougham favoured the doctrine of indepanden.ee, the latter recommending that, without quarrel or alienation of any kind, but with entire good will, there should in time succeed to the imperial association a connection as between two independent States. Sir George Cornewall Lawis that a parent State deriving no advantage from a dependency which was both able and ready to establish independence, would be wise to relinquish it. Mr Disraeli has avowed that the fnll conviction of England that her provinces may become indepandent is " not a source of mortification, but of pride." Lord Palmerston declared that when the colonies } felt strong enough to stand alone, England would not check their natural growth and desire. Mr John. Bright believed that there could be no objection to Canadian independence whenever Canada might wish it. "In former times," said Mr Gladstone, " the American colonies were entangled in a vicious system of dependence. The Government now wish to engender in them a spirit of independence." Perhaps the original of this opinion was that of Lord Howick, who so far hack as 1828 held that colonial independence was certain to arrive, and that England should prepare for it not by fortifying the Canadas, .but by teaching I them to become independent. These i opinions are more magnanimous in temper than tne dictum of the Times that Canada is a deadweight upon the mother country, and the growl of Mr Roebuck; that his constituents ought njt to be taxed so support it. Liberal and Tory have singularly agreed either that the colonial empire of England is too elephantine a responsibility to be borne at cost td''%e" mother country, or that, insomuch as her babes have grown giants, they are able to take care of themselves. Sit Edward Bulwer Lytton, "when Colonial Secretary, and even one so familiar with royaH3P : as the Duke of Newcastle, appreciated this' rather commonplace truth, the former foreseeing that each group of England's colonial progeny was to make a nation. Canadian or Australian independence has not, therefore, been a matter of surprise or dread to the mother country, but hasr been contemplated as an event inevitable in the course of nature. On her part, Canada has been slow to awaken to the need of her independence, and to apprehended so much concurrence of good will. If it was the duty of England, however, to teach her territorial children to become self-dependent, her dependency will not be held to blame for having at last learned her lesson by heart. Husk'isson, Brbugha.m, Ashburton, Bui-

wer, Bright, Gladstone, Disraeli have not spoken in vain ; neither has the united voice of the British press. The independence movement in Canada is to all intents. one directly under the patronage of the. English Government, as it is, in fact, under the lead of the ablest statesmen of the Dominion. Lord Monck himself declared that " a new nationality" was thesequence of Confederation, and now we have another ennobled Governor-General announcing that Canada may make to herself a new allegiance -whenever -she wills.