Ought we to be grateful for Lord Alverstone

10. Ought we to be grateful because throughout ail our controversies with the United States, British diplomacy has been dominated (as Sir Charles Tupper has told us) by an "unwillingness... to allow any circumstances whatever even to threaten a "collision with the United States"; — because, as Mr Chamberlain has sa!d, préservation of cordial relations with the United States has been "something more than a désire; it is almost a religion"?

11. Ought we to be grateful because of the voluntary admission of the United States fishermen to the Bay of Fundy, and the refusai to exclude them from ail the other bays which were clearly ours?

12. Ought we to be grateful for the treaty of Washington (1871) against which Sir John A. Macdonald protested so vigorously — grateful for the work of British negotiators who, as Sir John said, had "only one thing in their minds — that is to go home to England " with a treaty in their pockets settling everything, no niatter at what cost to Canada."

13. Ought we to be grateful for the seizure of our sealing schooners by American cruisers?

14. Ought we to be grateful for the earlier days of our civil government — because the Colonial Office, taking warning by American independence, reversed its attitude to colonies, and instead of allowing us to govem ourselves, worried us with close supervision of the most trivial particulars of our local afTairs?

15. Ought we to be grateful for Colonial Office management of our post office, and the exaction of thousands of pounds per annum in extortionate charges?

16. Ought we to be grateful for the swarm of useless officiais who had influence enough to get themselves imposed upou us?

Ought we to be grateful for the System by which many of those people remained at home; performed or neglected their duties by deputy; and pocketcd a share of the income?

Ought we to be grateful for the System by which many of them were permltted to charge exorbitant and indefensible fées?

17. Ought we to be grateful for the methods employed by the governors with respect to our lands — for its lavish distribution, by the township, among those who wanted it merely that they might make the rest of us pay them their price for it? Ought we to be grateful for the Canada Company?

18. Ought we to be grateful for the imposition upon us of a statc-endowed church — which we found so difficult to get rid of?

19. Ought we to be grateful for the endeavors to establish an aristocracy, for the primogeniture laws, for the Lords-Lieutenants of Counties, for the influences which produeed the Family Compact?

20. Ought we to be grateful for the gubernatorial provocations which incited the rebellions of 1837-8? Ought we to be thankful for the Gosfords, the Francis Heads, the Metcalfes and others?

21. Ought we to be grateful for the stupidities which led to the 1812 war?

22. Ought we to be grateful for the commercial systera by which, until th« «ighteen-forties, we were kept hampered and itunted with laws which very largely (1)

prevented us purchasing elsewhere than in the United Kingdom, (2) prevented us selling elsewhere than in the United Kingdom, and (3) prevented foreign ships entering our ports?

23. Ought we to be grateful because, when our trade-relatlons had been thua fîrmly fixed, they were suddenly and without the slightest regard to our interests, and in utter subversion of some of thein, reversed? Ought we to be grateful for tliat which led to the only organized movement that there has ever been in Canada for annexation to the United States?

24. Ought we to be grateful because, when (by the introduction of free trade ideas) our trade had been opened to ail nations and we had, therefore, ceased to be of any commercial value, we were told to "loose the bands and go"?

25. Ought we to be grateful because, now that our commercial value (through our grant of trade préférence) and our military assistance hâve become matters of importance, we are adjured to tighten the bands and stay?

To assert that the motives of the United Kingdom in her dealings with Canada hav* been philanthropie, is foolish. They were not. We may, indeed, be thankful that they were less sordily rapacious than those of some other metropolitan countries; but they were necessarily and unavoidably selfish rather than altruistic. Count up what our connection with the United Kingdom has cost us — in wars and raids as well as in obstruction and retardation of our natural development — and we might almost subscribe to the gênerai ization of Sir Richard Cartwright that we owe her nothing but a great deal of Christian forgiveness.

But we owe her more than that. I believe that it is something to hâve had our parentage in the British isles. The people there are far from perfect, but they hâve an aggregate of qualities that has given them, in many respects, the leadership of the world. We are grateful for such of those qualities as we may hâve retained. We are grateful for the maintenance, in the old land, of such of them as we hâve failed to continue. And we are grateful to our ancestors chiefly for their splendid struggle for gelf-government. Without that example and inspiration those of us who hâve made Canada what it is might still be the "colonials" of those who stayed at home.