the preferential duties on colonial timber was passed. Disraeli, the leader of the Conservative party in Great Britain, come to recognize that this party could no longer cling to its traditional policy of protection, for he said in 1853 that all that remained of it were the "rags and tatters" of that system. The tariff acts of 1853 and 1860, therefore, sponsored by the radical free-traders to whom Disraeli gave his support, finally eliminated the few remaining duties in favor of the colonies.2

1

Full details of the bill submitted to the British parliament for the repeal of the Corn Laws were known in Canada, as early as February, 1846. At once protests which pointed out the serious consequences of the withdrawal of a preferential tariff were drawn up by the Boards of Trade of Montreal and Quebec, followed a month later by the Board of Trade of Toronto, and were transmitted to the Secretary of State for the Colonies. In its protest the Montreal Board of Trade expressed its fear that the growing commercial intercourse of British North America with the United States due to the abandonment by Great Britain of colonial preference would sooner or later lead to a political union. Professing, therefore, their devotion to the institutions of Great Britain and desire to perpetuate the connection, the petitioners laid before Queen Victoria the probable consequences of the Corn Act of 1846. The total cessation of differential duty on grain in favor of the colonies would ruin the St. Lawrence trade, for the produce of Canada West would be attracted to New York, which soon would become the port of import as well as of export. Such a diversion of trade would cement ties of interest between Canada and the United States, and would proportionately

2

1 Hansard Parliamentary Debates, vol. 124, p. 1036.

Political Science Quarterly, vol. xxxiii, 1918, R. L. Schuyler, “The Abolition of British Imperial Preference," pp. 88-91.

weaken the attachment of the colony to the mother land. Even if the contention of the economists in England that the colonies meant a pecuniary loss to Great Britain were true, the Montreal Board of Trade professed its unwillingness to accept their conclusion that the connection, therefore, should be severed; moreover, they professed their opinion that the preservation of Great Britain's political power and influence were cheaply purchased in spite of any pecuniary loss the colonies might occasion her. So far from seeking a return of the old system of protection, they claimed that they had no objection "to the utmost freedom of trade compatible with the safety of the ties subsisting between the colony and the mother country." They proposed the remedial measures, which they believed would be effective:

Ist. The repeal of the navigation laws as they relate to Canada, and the throwing open of the navigation of the St. Lawrence; and

2nd. The enactment of a moderate fixed duty, say not less than five shillings per quarter on foreign wheat, colonial to be admitted free.1

The free-trade policy of Great Britain, with its total disregard of imperial interdependence, an interdependence, moreover, heretofore fostered by the traditional policy of the mother land, caused widespread dissatisfaction. The danger of separation, as a consequence of the substitution of free trade for a preferential tariff, was recognized by John A. Macdonald, then the Solicitor General of the Crown in Canada West, and later first Prime Minister of the Dominion of Canada. He said that he hoped that the commercial class would maturely weigh all the consequences which must result from the substitution of the United States markets for those of the mother country, for he was con

'Cf. the Quebec Gazette, January 8, 1849, petition of Montreal Board of Trade.

vinced that it would be impossible for Canadians to make such a change in their commercial relations without very soon bringing about a change in all their other relations. If their interests ceased to be identified with those of the mother country, he feared their whole mental outlook would change; moreover, their customs and laws, even their institutions, would be assimilated to those of the country with whom they cultivated friendly relations. "There was a time ... when he believed that patriotism had no connection with self interest; but he had lived long enough to change his opinion on that subject; and he did think that loyalty had some relation to pecuniary consideration." 1

2

As a measure of partial relief Lord Elgin urged upon the British Government the repeal of the navigation laws. The operation of these laws, which gave to Great Britain the bulk of the carrying trade of the British North American Provinces without giving the Canadians the compensating advantages of a preference in the British market was regarded as a grievance. A comparison of the rates from Montreal and New York to and from England showed that the Montreal merchant paid higher freight rates on goods than the New York merchant.. Since the continued enforcement of the navigation laws meant excess freight paid by the Canadian to the English ship owner, the Canadian merchant found that he was no longer able to compete on equal terms with the American merchant. A protest which urged upon the British Parliament the repeal was accordingly transmitted by the provincial legislature.

The transformation in the trade policy of Great Britain, the substitution of free trade for protection, had forced upon her colonies the necessity of finding new markets.

1 Hansard Parliamentary Debates, 3rd ser., vol. 86, 1846, p. 557. 'H. E. Egerton, Historical Geography of the British Colonies, vol. v, pt. ii, p. 196. (General editor C. P. Lucas.)

The American government had been prompt to recognize its opportunity. An Act of Congress in 1847 allowed Canadian and foreign goods to pass through the United States in bond, duty free. The merchants of Canada West, in consequence of the above-mentioned act, imported and exported by way of New York, instead of Montreal.

There were not wanting liberal-minded statesmen in England,who recognized the justice of the plea of the British North American Provinces for the repeal of the Navigation laws. Upon the adoption of free trade, Great Britain, however, did not recognize that eventually she must surrender all right to control the fiscal policy of the British North American Colonies. Indeed Earl Grey, Colonial Secretary from 1846 to 1852, explicitly stated that "when the system of Free Trade was adopted, no question had ever been raised as to its being right to maintain this authority of Parliament (though on some occasions the wisdom with which it was exercised was disputed) nor was it imagined by any one that it was to be relinquished because the new policy of relieving trade from injurious restriction was to be adopted." All parties, he claimed, assumed as a matter of course that Great Britain would continue to regulate the commercial policy of the empire. Since, however, the colonies no longer received a preference in the British market, they no longer felt that it was incumbent upon them to serve the commercial interests of Great Britain. The necessity for securing new markets was apparent to all. The adoption of free trade in Great Britain practically forced fiscal independence upon the British North American Colonies.

1

Although the need for a repeal of the navigation laws was evident to the British Parliament, the pressure of domestic business threatened to prevent any definite action. 1 Earl Grey, Canadian Pamphlets 21, “The Commercial Policy of the British Colonies and The McKinley Tariff," p. 13.

When word was received to this effect, Lord Elgin wrote a letter, June 15, 1848, to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in which he pointed out the need for immediate action. The Canadian farmer is a suppliant at present to the Imperial Legislature, not for favor, but for justice; strong as is his affection for the mother country and her institutions, he cannot reconcile it to his sense of right that after having been deprived of all protection for his products in her markets, he should be subjected to a hostile discriminatory duty in the guise of a law for the protection of navigation.1

He realized both the need and the obligation imposed upon himself, of safeguarding Canadian interests. Thus he issued a warning of the probable consequences if " provisions [were] suffered to remain on the British statute book which would seem to bring the material interests of the colonists and the promptings of duty and affection into opposition.'

3

Even before the passage of the Corn Act of 1846, the colonies had not lacked champions in the British Parliament. Lord Stanley, Conservative leader in the House of Lords, declared that its passage, in view of previous legislation by the Imperial Parliament, involved a violation of faith with Canada. His protest upon the reading of the bill entered on the journals of the House stated that it would tend to sever the strongest bond of union ", to undermine the whole colonial system, to which the British Empire owed much of its greatness.* Sir Howard Douglas, a former governor of New Brunswick, was likewise apprehensive."

1 Hansard Parliamentary Debates, 3rd ser., 1849, vol. 105, p. 71.

2 Ibid., p. 72.

Cf. Political Science Quarterly, vol. xxxii, 1917, R. L. Schuyler, "Preference and Sir Robert Peel," p. 446.

Hansard Parliamentary Debates, 3rd ser., vol. 87, "Canadian Importation Bills," no. 1, p. 962.

5 Political Science Quarterly, vol. xxxiii, Schuyler, R. L., "The Abolition of British Imperial Preference," p. 86.