T is curious to observe the almost imperceptible process by which a nation is built up. It is very much like those processes by which innumerable islands are formed in the ocean by minute animals which, without even an instinct except that of self-preservation, build up all those great lime deposits, which have such an influence in determining the surface of the earth. In the same way the labourer, intent only on the welfare of himself and family, goes into the woods of a new country, and with sturdy arms soon lays out cultivated fields, blossoming with orchards and harvests. Then comes the merchant, intent merely on making money to supply the agriculturalists with those commodities which he can only obtain from foreign countries. We have, after him, the magistrate and the lawyer to interpret the different laws by which such different classes are governed and held together; and finally come the men of science and the ministers of religion, intent only on their peculiar functions, but all, nevertheless, building up unconsciously those fabrics called nations, which are the safeguards of the welfare, happiness, and liberties of the human race.

In observing the work of these different classes, one is not disposed to give them credit for the result of their united labours, as we see so easily that this result is altogether apart from, and outside of their several provinces, and is, indeed, the last thing which any of the classes enumerated think of. But there is a class whose acknowledged work is to direct the unconscious labours of all the best men to one focus, as the sun-' glass concentrates the rays of the sun towards one object—that object, the forming of the whole into one integrated mass with the view of obtaining the greatest possible amount of happiness for the greatest number. These men are called statesmen. In the mass thus formed by them there are no doubt many evils; but these must be expected. Where the units are intent on individual or class benefit, there must necessarily be a great amount of evil in the

1

whole, and he is the best statesman who can form his compact community or nation with the least amount of evil.

It is supposed by many that the labours of the statesman might be reduced to a minimum, or indeed dispensed with altogether, by the forming of individuals into smaller communities than nations, but all experience, so far, goes to prove that the evils of nations, such as war and a host of others, would only be multiplied by the application to humanity generally of what is known as Communism.

The reader can see at a glance the application of the foregoing remarks to our own country. Canada has passed the stage in the natural process when individual interests have ceased to be paramount; but classes still reign supreme. At present, even when an individual can divest himself of his unselfishness, he can look no further than the interest of his church, his class, or his party. It may be said that this is most natural at the present stage of the national work. To be liberal and broad in thought we must have intelligence and education; but it is useless to talk of a man's educating himself when all his time is taken up providing the means of living. We cannot expect to run before we can walk; and the true lover of his country will be satisfied if the community is advancing and is not stationary, knowing full well that that advance, made slowly and naturally, is more sure to be lasting than any spasmodic action can be. Canada should make no spurts on the road to freedom. The long, steady, measured stride which brings every one of her citizens with her is far more profitable and more conducive to her lasting prosperity and honour.

All this may be granted, but, nevertheless, there is a class in the country which thinks that more progress could be made compatibly with perfect safety to the state. This class is reproached with being young and inexperienced-with entertaining ideas which are nebulous and immature, and generally impracticable. What is the use, it is said, of asserting that the cultivation of a

national spirit is beneficial; every one now sees the necessity of something of the kind, especially in a country of the geographical position of Canada. In the first place, it is necessary to unite the different races, religions, and parties, and, in the second place, to protect it from the United States. "You send your young men to protect your frontier," said an eminent man, years ago, "but what is there to protect your young men ?" Hence, a national sentiment is an absolute necessity to Canada. This statement seems very vague; something more definite must be enunciated, and it is with a view to supply this want that the present paper is written.

SO.

Now the first principle inculcated by Canadian nationalism is patriotism. Patriotism is limited philanthropy; and is really not so much a love for one's country as for one's countrymen. The question then which first arises is: Who are Canadians? This on the face of it seems easily answered; but unfortunately, under our present condition, it is one of the most vague and uncertain of questions. It used to be, in times now passed, that no one could throw off his natural allegiance—that is, a born Briton, German, or Frenchman, must always remain Blackstone gave as a reason for this, that the care bestowed on a man, during his helpless infancy, by the country in which he was born, created such an obligation that he could never throw it off. However this may be, it is certain now that any man can throw off such an obligation who is born in any of the principal countries of Europe, or in the United States. This has been effected by means of treaties between the different nations. For instance, a British or a German subject can throw off his natural allegiance at any time he pleases, and become a citizen of the United States. When he does so, he gets rid of all the obligations, such as military service, which he owes his native country; of course he also gives up the natural right he has to call upon his na tive country for protection, when outside of its borders. This, as has been said, he is enabled to do, because there are naturalization treaties between Germany and the United States. But whether there are treaties between England and Germany, or between England and the United States, has not the slightest effect on Canada, inasmuch as England has not conceded to Canada, as

yet, the right to make a British subject. Canada can only enable a German, or any other foreigner, to vote in Canada; it cannot give him British protection. Hence the German who has lived all his life in Canada, and has during that time paid taxes and performed volunteer duty, has only to make a visit to Germany to be impressed into the army there, if the authorities should see fit to do so; or if he should go to Buffalo or Detroit on a visit, and get thrown into jail, or otherwise oppressed unlawfully, any application he might make to the British Consul could not be listened to; while if he applied to the German Consul, the reply might be : "You have chosen to live in Canada during your life, and you must put up with the fact that she is nothing but a colony and unable to obtain redress for you. At all events you have no right to look to me for protection, seeing that you left Germany and threw off your natural allegiance, so far as you could, many years ago."

From this it would seem that none but British subjects are Canadians; and it is almost certain that the children of foreigners, born in Canada, are not British subjects, and consequently are not Canadians, and indeed have no country whatever. Now, so long as this state of things exists, it is hopeless to expect immigration; it is impossible for Canada to progress, or to become a nation. Therefore, the first practical principle of Canadian nationalism is to obtain for Canada the right to make a British subject, or to be able to give foreigners an independent status as Canadian citizens.

This is necessary for the purpose indicated, but it is also necessary for the purpose of keeping Canadians in their own country. It is said there are five hundred thousand Canadians in the United States; and it is also said that nothing Canada could offer would induce any number worth mentioning to return. Indeed, it is said that the first feeling a young Canadian experiences, after being absorbed into the national life of the United States, is contempt for his own country. Now, why is this? It is said to be because the Americans have larger cities, and offer better positions and employment to young men, but the real cause will be found to be the fact that Americans offer citizenship and suffrage; and, wanting these things at home, the young Canadian will go where he can find and obtain them. Besides, if it be con

sidered that the United States offer far stronger material inducements than Canada, plus citizenship and suffrage, it will be seen how necessary it is for Canada to give to her own sons what they can obtain from strangers, which, added to their natural love of country, would be likely to keep them at home. It will be said that they have British citizenship, but one must be blind not to see that it is too remote and impalpable, except to Canadians born in the old country; and even if Canadians have this, they have not the fruits of citizenship. They see that they are liable to the hardest duties-volunteer service for instance--without the privileges, and hence that feeling of dissatisfaction with their native land which induces so many Canadians to become and remain American

citizens.

It may be said that it is not safe to give the franchise to young men without property; but it is too late to urge this. The principle of property qualification has been given up in Ontario. The sons of farmers and young men earning four hundred dollars a year are now entitled to vote, and it is but a very short step in advance to grant manhood suffrage. It may seem yet unjust, however, to our rulers to give the franchise to intelligent young Canadians who have passed through our Common Schools and Churches, risked their lives for their country, and are fulfilling all the duties of citizenship, granting it at the same time to such men as were influenced in the back townships a few years ago by the statement that one of the ministers had taken money out of the box in which the money of the country was kept, and similar stories of the politicians.

Manhood suffrage should therefore be a principle of nationalism, subject, however, to the limitation that British subjects, as well as people from other countries than Britain, should have to reside in the country from two to four years before being entitled to

that Canada is the last country in the world where such a system as Hare's, or any other similar one, should be introduced. The efforts of every lover of his country are now required to try and unite the numerous classes of which our population is made up; but these efforts would be useless, if we had a system which is almost universally admitted to be specially adapted to perpetuate classes and keep up distinctions, under the specious pretence of doing justice to minorities.

Another very important measure, although little spoken of, is very necessary, in the present unsettled state of Europe, for the Dominion. The Confederation Act provides for a Deputy-Governor for the Dominion. Why should not a permanent Deputy-Governor be appointed? We see every year the inconvenience of the present system. Every year our present Governor has been away from the seat of government for three and six months at a time. It is unfair to add the duties of Governor to the other duties of the Chief-Justice of the Supreme Court. Besides, that functionary should not be mixed up in ordinary politics; for, in the first place, collisions with active politicians are apt to lessen the respect which should be entertained for such a high officer; and, in the next place, such a position must necessarily have a tendency to prejudice the minds of the people respecting his judg ments in questions between the Crown and the people. For these reasons, and others which could be mentioned, the offices of Chief-Justice and Deputy-Governor should never be joined in the same man. The officer most fitted to discharge the duties of Governor is the Speaker of the House of Commons. At present he receives a large salary, and is Governor of the House when it is not sitting, and the judge of all questions of procedure when it is. The duties of the Governor then, in the absence of the Governor-General, or in case of his sudden death, could be more properly referred to that officer than to any other. It may be said that in that case the Deputy-Governor would be indirectly elected by the people of the Dominion. It is not supposed that this would be a serious objection to Canadians-more especially remembering that being Vice-President of the United States does not prevent that officer from performing the duties of Speaker or Chairman of the United States Senate.

In support of this measure it is not necessary to go into the old arguments in favour of vice officers. The self-governing powers of the people of this Dominion could not in the least be affected by the death of any one officer, nor could the slightest confusion arise-not to speak of anarchy-in the ordinary transaction of affairs; but it is well to remember, that the relations of England to the different powers of Europe are very complicated at present; that an universal European war is imminent; that we are in front of our watchful and unscrupulous neighbours; and that therefore we should not run the danger of being for one moment without a legal head of the state here in Canada. It is, therefore, submitted that the permanent appointment of the Speaker of the House of Commons to be Deputy-Governor of Canada, in accordance with the British North America Act, should be one of the practical principles of Canadian Nationalism.

The present tariffs in force in Canada and the United States are a subject which ought to be interesting to Nationalists. It is true, that the Canadian side of the question having been taken up by one of the present parties, has the effect of making people out of politics cease to speak of it. But it must be remembered, that incidental protection, or reciprocal tariffs with the people of the United States, is peculiarly a national question. It was seen at once by that greatest of all Canadian Nationalists, Sir Alexander T. Galt, shortly after Confederation, that to apply the doctrines of Smith and Mill to a country situated as Canada is, would be simply to commit national suicide. He therefore, so long ago as the year 1871, advocated and supported a national policy in this respect. By the ridicule, misrepresentation, and tyranny of the Globe newspaper, this policy was not allowed to live long, for the chief reason that it had the effect of shutting out English goods. It was soon seen, however, by the Conservatives, that a low tariff did not give the Canadian market to Englishmen but to Americans. Common sense should have told them that in the beginning. The climate and geographical circumstances of a large part of the United States are the same as they are in Canada; hence American manufactures are better adapted to our country. If to this fact be added the other facts, that the States produce the raw material, have just as cheap

labour as England, and not one twentieth of the freights to pay on goods, it can be easily seen how a low tariff in Canada completely gives our country commercially to the United States. This seems very plain; and the issue is at once raised, shall we try to manufacture our own goods or be a dependency of the United States? Shall we pay twelve, or for that matter, twenty millions annually to the Americans for manufactures, or shall we pay it to our own people? Shall we Canadians be nothing but farmers and drovers, hewers of wood and drawers of water, or shall we be also merchants and manufacturers? Shall we drive our artizans and manufacturing capital out of the country, or shall we build up a nation? Shall we every year keep risking our eggs in one basket, by depending on the agricultural interest alone in an unstable climate like ours, and so liable to the disastrous years which bring periodical misery to so many Canadian homes when crops fail, or shall we have something else to depend on?

Political economists and Reform Tories tell us that whatever happens we must stick to free trade; that it is treason to England and injurious to Canada to abandon it. If political economy means anything, it means making the most of a country's resources. Now in old Canada we have not much land left for agriculture; all that is valuable or profitable is taken up. Again, owing to our climate, the greater portion of our people, especially agriculturalists, must remain in forced idleness for at least four months in the year, if they have no indoor occupations. Now, all wealth is superfluous labour. It is submitted, then, that it is a question that can legitimately be put to the political economist on his own grounds, how much does Canada lose every year by the enforced idleness of her people through want of manufactures to give indoor employment?

The argument is almost as strong in favour of natural productions; but as the ground has been gone over so often it is not necessary to go over it again. One simple illustration will explain the whole thing.

There is a large distillery in Canada opposite Detroit. The owner is an American. All his grain is imported from the United States. All his workmen come from Detroit. The whiskey is sold in Canada in immense quantities; and the profits are taken across