ABSTRACT
It was not of course in Parliament or in Great Britain only that Peel's free trade measures were canvassed; and their effect upon Imperial relations attracted perhaps more attention in the colonies than in the Mother Country. The North American Colonies were not only the first to receive news but, at any rate for the moment, the most directly interested; and in them-as Protectionists did not fail to point out in the later stages of the Parliamentary debatesthe measures undoubtedly excited strong opposition. The United States had just made another move in the perpetual game of chess which was and still is played for the trade of the West. Congress had passed a Bill granting drawbacks on imported goods destined for Western Canada. In addition, restrictions had been imposed upon Canadian vessels on the Great Lakes. Now the Canadians were being asked to acquiesce in the loss of their chief advantages in the markets of the United Kingdom and thereby surrender the principal point which could be urged for the St. Lawrence route. It was on the faith of this preference on wheat and flour, said the Executive Council in a memorandum in January, that the improvements on the St. Lawrence had been undertaken. Its discontinuance would mean that the tolls would fail, the means of payment of the guaranteed debt would diminish, the British shipping trade with Canada would suffer, the consumption of British manufactures would fall off. They asked that the preference be retained.2 In a weighty reply Gladstone, who had now become Colonial Secretary, declined to reverse the settled policy of the Imperial Government. The interests of Canada had had their due place in the deliberations, but they could not be allowed to prevail over the vital considerations connected with the supply of food to the people of Great Britain and with their employment. Her Majesty's Government desired
that Canada in return should enjoy as free a trade as its inhabitants might wish and the exigencies of the public revenue might permit. Nor did he agree that the changes would place Canada at a disadvantage in comparison with the United States. At any rate she had .received assistance from British credit; her taxation was light; her tariff low; her trade connexions with the Mother Country were well established; her distance from the Mother Country was less than that of her most formidable rivals, the most westerly states of the Union. The price of corn was unlikely to fall much. As for timber, a considerable and permanent extension of demand seemed likely, and Baltic timber did not really compete in the same line with Canadian yellow pine. I
The Canadians however remained un convinced ; and though there were men, like George Brown of the Toronto Globe, who were ready to acquiesce in the measure if supplemented by a removal of the remaining restrictions on Canadian trade and the grant of full responsible government, the note of protest was more often heard. The 'Boards of Trade' of Quebec, Montreal, and Toronto concurred in asking for a repeal of the Imperial duties imposed by the Possessions Act-a reasonable enough request.2 The 'loyalist' majority in the Canadian Assembly, however, wanted more. They asked that the duties on grain or, at a later stage, on all Canadian produce on its importation into England be remitted; 3 they did their best to encourage the through traffic from the West by remitting the three shilling duty on foreign wheat and maize imported for exportation or to be ground in bond for exportation; 4 finally, they made one last desperate effort to preserve their preference by predicting the most direful consequences from its withdrawal. Not only agriculture but immigration also would be discouraged. 'Lastly, it is much to be feared, that, should the inhabitants of Canada ... find that they cannot successfully compete with their
Fortunately this attempt to hold a pistol at the head of the British Government was met not by a retort in the same temper but by a dignified and eloquent statement of the position of the Imperialist Free Trader. The Imperial Government, said Gladstone, did not agree that the protective principle could justly be described as the basis of the Imperial connexion. In the flourishing Australian Colonies, for instance, it had never been an important factor; yet they were the most distant and therefore might be supposed by many to be the most in need of commercial preference.
