New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1869-09-21
INDEPENDENCE INETITABLE.

| 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 British American people for indie
| pendence There is no further question that
such an event is as probable as desirable, ana
to those of most saDguine faith In the theory
| that America must be rs truly American
as Europe is European, independence IL a
| foregone conclusion, and, indeed, a con-
summation at hand. Nova Scotia enjoys a
very considerable and spirited minority OF an
nexatonists in her legislature, and the number
of her people opposed to confederation espe-
| cially, and at all eyeuts'tO imperial connection,
| has no adequate representation. Canada Is so
| far affected with dsloyalty to the principle
represented in the visit of Prince Arthur that
q meeting of annexatiOnists can take place IN
Quebec, and paper of that city assures us
that % all Quebec is for annexation" We can
not undervalue these facts, or shut our eyes to
the possibility of which they may be only the
germ. But one thing is sure. whether aDnexa-
ton be desirable or not the Canadians have
fixed in their minds this idea of independence,
and it is destined to make its way.
1t is not a new speculation. Forty one years
ago. Mr.. HuskssOn, the English Colonial Min
ister thought that Canada had come to years
of discretion and should be allowed to separate
from the mother country The Earl of Ellen
borough, in 1854, with much the same view.
argued that the chances of war between En-
gland and the United States were greatly in
creased by tie imperial connection. About this
time. likewise, Lord AshburtOn, Lord 81. Vim
cent, and Lord Brougham favored the doctrine
of independence, the latter recommending that,
without quarrel or alienation OF any
kind, but with entire good Will, there
should in time succeed To the lmperEil
association a connection ~ between TWO lnde-
pendent States. Sir George Conewall Lewis
held that parent State deriving no advantage
from dependency which was both able and
ready to establish independence, would he wise
to relinquish it. Dir. Disraeli has avowed that
the full conviction of England that her prov
| inces may become independent is not a
source of modification, 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 he
| no objection to Canadian independence when
ever Canada might wish it. In former times,
| said Mr.. Gladstone, "the American colonies
"were entangled III a vicious system OF depend
"cnce. The Government now wish To engender
sin them spirit of independence" Perhaps
| the original of this opinion was that Of Lord
| Howick who so far back rs 1923 held that
colonial independence was certain to arrive,
and that England should prepare for it not by
| fortifying the Canadas but by teaching them
to become independent. These opinions
arc more magnanimous in temper than
the dctum of The Times that Canada is
a lightweight upon the mother country,
and the growl of Mr.. Roebuck that
his constituents ought not to be taxed to sup
port it. Liberal and Tory have singuarly
| agreed either that the colonial empire of En-
| gland is too elephantne responsibility to be
borne at cost to the mother country, or that,
nsOmuch as her babes have grown giants,
they are able to take care of themselves
| Sir Edward Bulwer Lytton, when Colo
NAL Secretary, and even one SO ia
mliar with royalty as the Duke of Newcastle
appreciated this rather common-p place truth, the
| former toreseeing that each group of England's
| colonial progeny was to make nation. Cana
dian or Australian Independence has not there
| fore, been matter of surprise on dread to the
mother country, but has 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 appre-
| bend so much concurrence of good will. IL il
was the duty of England, however, to teach
| her territorial children to become self-depcnd
emf, her dependency will not be held to blam,
for having at last learned her lesson by heart
Huskisson, Brougham, Ashburton. Bulwer
Bright, Gladstone, Disrael have not spoken in
vain; neither has the united voice of the Brit
ish press. The independence movement il
Canada is to all intents one directly under the
patronage of the English Government, as it 4,
in fact, under the lead of the ablcst statesmen
of the Dominion Lord Monck himself lie
cared that "a new nationality" was the Sc
quence of Confederation, and now we have
another ennobled Governor General announcing
that Canada may make to herself new
allegiance whenever she wills. Are We
the true friends Of the mother country to
insist on connection which is only q
weakness to her'' asked the Hon. John
Young II letter written last May. zone
thing seems to me certain he concluded,
"that England can never be party to the
annexation of Canada to the United States
but England can, not only without humilIa-
ton, but with honor, be party in carrying
"Out policy for which she has been gradu-
"ally preparing us, and that is an Independ-
cent National Position" Only less significant
1 than fhia utfaranoa NJ nno 90 ~ ~. ., i