Page:English Historical Review Volume 35.djvu/154

 146 REVIEWS OF BOOKS January Dr. Morison's genuine admiration of that most successful of British governors. The ground has, however, to a great extent been covered by the extracts published in Walrond's Life and Letters ; and students of colonial history will note with some surprise the statement that there is an aspect of Elgin's work in Canada * in which his claims to distinction have been almost forgotten — his contribution to the working theory of the British empire '. A truer statement would be that this aspect of his work had become the commonplace of every writer on the subject. Having dealt with his facts Dr. Morison proceeds in the final chapters on ' British opinion and Canadian autonomy ' and ' The consequences of Canadian autonomy ', to certain conclusions. The main thesis of the first of these is that the terms * Little Englander ' and * Imperialist ' are the mere outcome of prejudice and misjudgement, all British statesmen except BiJler, Durham, and Wakefield having been, more or less, tarred with the brush of want of faith in the permanence of the empire. But it is one thing to show, sometimes, a despairing lack of faith, and quite another to look forward with exultation to coming separation ; and (pace Dr. Mori- son) the term * Little Englander ' is justly applied to Cobden and Bright and their followers. ' It is too often assumed ', writes Dr. Morison, ' that the imperial creed of Durham and BuUer was shared in by their fellow radicals. That is a grave mistake.' But by whom and where is the mistake made ? In any case Dr. Morison seems to encourage it, when he writes * excluding the entire group of extreme radicals, there was hardly a statesman of the earlier years of Victoria who had not confessed that Canada must soon leave England or be left'. The jmperial radicalism of Durham was by no means congenial to the ordinary radical ; and we know the distrust which Molesworth aroused in Cobden and Bright. Dr. Morison lays himself open to criticism by confining his attention too exclusively to Canadian experience. Thus the confident assertion that ' the most comprehensive description of the Grey regime is that it practised laissez-faire principles in colonial administration as they had never been practised before ' would have met with vigorous dissent from contemporary Australians. The reactionary attitude of Sir J. Pakington on the subject of the clergy reserves had its foundation in ecclesiastical, far more than in political, prejudice ; and in dealing with the Australian colonies he showed himself at least as liberal as his distinguished pre- decessor; Sir E. Bulwer Lytton, moreover, displayed great moderation and wisdom in his treatment of British Columbia when he was colonial secretary. In a final chapter Dr. Morison tells, shortly but very effectively, the familiar story how, when the Canadians had gained by successive steps complete autonomy, they showed no inclination to follow the course so generally expected by observers in England. It seems incredible nowadays that Baldwin, the most fervent of believers in the imperial connexion, should have been regarded by the home authorities in the light of a possible rebel. But while Dr. Morison is righteously scornful in his attitude towards British statesmen, does he not lend himself to the criticism of future generations when he describes the contradiction between imperial ascendancy and colonial autonomy as *a political