<SPAN name="chap11"></SPAN>
<SPAN CLASS="pagenum">{<SPAN name="P179"></SPAN>179}</SPAN>
<h3> CHAPTER XI </h3>
<h3> NAVIES </h3>
<p>This is not the place to discuss the naval side of craft and waterways in
Canada. That requires a book of its own. But no study of Canada's
maritime interests, however short, can close without a passing reference
to her naval history.</p>
<p>When the Kirkes, with their tiny flotilla, took Quebec from Champlain's
tiny garrison in 1629 the great guiding principles of sea-power were as
much at work as when Phips led his American colonists to defeat against
Frontenac in 1690, or as when Saunders and Wolfe led the admirably united
forces of their enormous fleet and little army to victory in 1759. In
the same way the decisive influence of sea-power was triumphantly exerted
by Iberville, the French naval hero of Canada, when, with his single
ship, the <i>Pélican</i>, he defeated his three British opponents in a gallant
fight; and so, for the time being, won the
<SPAN CLASS="pagenum">{<SPAN name="P180"></SPAN>180}</SPAN>
absolute command of
Hudson Bay in 1697. Again, it was naval rather than political and
military forces that made American independence an accomplished fact.
The opposition to the war in England counted for a good deal; and the
French and American armies for still more. But the really decisive
anti-British force consisted of practically all the foreign navies in the
world, some—like the French, Spanish, Dutch, and the Americans'
own—taking an active part in the war, while the others were kept ready
in reserve by the hostile armed neutrality of Russia, Sweden, Denmark,
Prussia, and the smaller sea-coast states of Germany. Once again, in the
War of 1812, it was the two annihilating American naval victories on
Lakes Erie and Champlain that turned the scale far enough back to offset
the preponderant British military victories along the Canadian frontier
and prevent the advance of that frontier beyond Detroit and into the
state of Maine.</p>
<p>There were very few people in 1910 who remembered that the Canadian navy
then begun was the third local force of its kind in Canada, though the
first to be wholly paid and managed locally. From the launch of La
Salle's <i>Griffon</i> in 1679 down to the Cession in 1763 there was
<SPAN CLASS="pagenum">{<SPAN name="P181"></SPAN>181}</SPAN>
always some sort of French naval force built, manned, and managed in New
France, though ultimately paid and directed from royal headquarters in
Paris through the minister of Marine and Colonies. It is significant
that 'marine' and 'colonies' were made a single government department
throughout the French régime. The change of rule did not entail the
abolition of local forces; and from 1755, when a British flotilla of six
little vessels was launched on Lake Ontario, down to and beyond the peace
with the United States sixty years later, there was what soon became a
'Provincial Marine,' which did good service against the Americans in
1776, when it was largely manned from the Royal Navy, and less good
service in 1812, when it was a great deal more local in every way. Two
vestiges of those days linger on to the present time, the first in the
Canadian Militia Act, which provides for a naval as well as a military
militia, permanent forces included, and the second in one of the
governor-general's official titles—'Vice-Admiral' of Canada.</p>
<p>The Canadian privateers are even less known than the Provincial Marine.
Yet they did a good deal of preying on the enemy at different times, and
they amounted altogether to a total
<SPAN CLASS="pagenum">{<SPAN name="P182"></SPAN>182}</SPAN>
which will probably surprise
most students of Canadian history. At Halifax alone eighteen Nova
Scotian privateers took out letters of marque against the French between
1756 and 1760, twelve more against the French between 1800 and 1805, and
no less than forty-four against the Americans during the War of 1812.</p>
<p>The century of peace which followed this war gradually came to be taken
so much as a matter of course that Canadians forgot the lessons of the
past and ignored the portents of the future. The very supremacy of a
navy which protected them for nothing made them forget that without its
guardian ships they could not have reached their Canadian nationality at
all. Occasionally a threatened crisis would bring home to them some more
intimate appreciation of British sea-power. But, for the rest, they took
the Navy like the rising and the setting of the sun.</p>
<p>The twentieth century opened on a rapidly changing naval world. British
supremacy was no longer to go unchallenged, at least so far as
preparation went. The German Emperor followed up his pronouncement, 'Our
future is on the sea,' by vigorous action. For the first time in history
a German navy became a powerful force, fit to lead, rather than to
<SPAN CLASS="pagenum">{<SPAN name="P183"></SPAN>183}</SPAN>
follow, its Austrian and Italian allies. Also for the first time in
history the New World developed a sea-power of first-class importance in
the navy of the United States. And, again for the first time in history,
the immemorial East produced a navy which annihilated the fleet of a
European world-power when Japan beat Russia at Tsu-shima in the
centennial year of Nelson at Trafalgar.</p>
<p>These portentous changes finally roused the oversea dominions of the
British Empire to some sense of the value of that navy which had been
protecting them so efficiently and so long at the mother country's sole
expense. But the dawn of naval truth broke slowly and, following the
sun, went round from east to west. First it reached New Zealand, then
Australia, then South Africa, and then, a long way last, Canada; though
Canada was the oldest, the largest, the most highly favoured in
population and resources, the richest, and the most expensively protected
of them all.</p>
<p>There was a searching of hearts and a gradual comprehension of first
principles. Colonies which had been living the sheltered life for
generations began to see that their immunity from attack was not due to
any warlike virtue of their own, much less to any of their
<SPAN CLASS="pagenum">{<SPAN name="P184"></SPAN>184}</SPAN>
'victories of peace,' but simply to the fact that the British Navy
represented the survival of the fittest in a previous struggle for
existence. More than two centuries of repeated struggle, from the Armada
in 1588 to Trafalgar in 1805, had given the British Empire a century of
armed peace all round the Seven Seas, and its colonies a century's start
ahead of every rival. But in 1905 the possible rivals were beginning to
draw up once more, thanks to the age-long naval peace; and the launch of
her first modern Dreadnought showed that the mother country felt the need
of putting forth her strength again to meet a world of new competitors.</p>
<p>The critical question now was whether or not the oversea dominions would
do their proper share. They had grown, under free naval protection, into
strong commercial nations, with combined populations equal to nearly a
third of that in the mother country, and combined revenues exceeding a
third of hers. They had a free choice. Canada, for instance, might have
declared herself independent, though she could not have made herself more
free, and would certainly not have been able to maintain a position of
complete independence in any serious crisis. Or she could have destroyed
her individual Canadian
<SPAN CLASS="pagenum">{<SPAN name="P185"></SPAN>185}</SPAN>
characteristics by joining the United
States; though in this case she would have been obliged to pay her share
towards keeping up a navy which was far smaller than the British and much
more costly in proportion. As another alternative she could have said
that her postal and customs preferences in favour of the mother country,
taken in conjunction with what she paid for her militia, were enough.
This would have put her far behind New Zealand and Australia, both of
whom were doing much more, in proportion to their wealth and population.</p>
<p>There was a very natural curiosity to see what Canada would do, because
she was much the senior of the other dominions, while in size, wealth,
and population she practically equalled all three of them together. But
whatever the expectations were, they were doomed to disappointment, for,
while she was last in starting, she did not reach any decisive result at
all. Australia, New Zealand—and even South Africa, so lately the scene
of a devastating war—each gave money, while Canada gave none. New
Zealand, with only one-seventh of Canada's population, gave a
Dreadnought, while Canada gave none. Australia had a battle-worthy
squadron of her own—but Canada had nothing but a mere flotilla.</p>
<SPAN CLASS="pagenum">{<SPAN name="P186"></SPAN>186}</SPAN>
<p>The explanation of this strange discrepancy is to be found, partly, in
geographical position. The geographical position of Canada differs
widely from that of any other dominion. She lives beside the United
States, a country with a population ten times greater than her own, a
country, moreover, which holds the Monroe Doctrine as an article of faith
in foreign policy. This famous doctrine simply means that the United
States is determined to be the predominant power in the whole New World
and to prevent any outside power from gaining a foothold there.
Consequently the United States must defend, if necessary, any weaker
nation in America whenever it is attacked by any stronger nation from
outside. Of course the United States would exert its power only on its
own terms, to which any weaker friend would be obliged to submit. But so
long as there was no immediate danger that the public could actually
feel, the Monroe Doctrine provided a very handy argument for all those
who preferred to do nothing. Another peculiarity of Canada's position is
that she is far enough away from the great powers of Europe and from the
black and yellow races of Africa and Asia to prevent her from realizing
so quickly as the mother country the danger from the
<SPAN CLASS="pagenum">{<SPAN name="P187"></SPAN>187}</SPAN>
first, or so
quickly as her sister dominions the danger from the second.</p>
<p>For five successive years, from 1909 to 1913, the naval policy of Canada
was the subject of debate in parliament, press, and public meetings. In
1909 the building programme for the German navy brought on a debate in
the Imperial parliament which found an echo throughout the Empire. The
Canadian parliament then passed a loyal resolution with the consent of
both parties. In 1910 these parties began to differ. The Liberals, who
were then in power, started a distinctively Canadian navy on a very small
scale. In 1911 naval policy was, for the first time, one of the vexed
questions in a general election. In 1912 the new Conservative government
passed through the House of Commons an act authorizing an appropriation
of thirty-five million dollars for three first-class Dreadnought
battleships. This happened to be the exact sum paid by the Imperial
government for the fortification of Quebec in 1832, and considerably less
than one-thirtieth part of what the Imperial government had paid for the
naval and military protection of Canada during the British régime. The
Senate reversed the decision of the Commons in 1913, with the result that
Canada's total naval contribution
<SPAN CLASS="pagenum">{<SPAN name="P188"></SPAN>188}</SPAN>
up to date consisted of five
years' discussion and a little three-year-old navy which had far less
than half the fighting power of New Zealand's single Dreadnought.</p>
<p>The two great parliamentary parties agreed on the general proposition
that Canada ought to do something for her own defence at sea, and that,
within the British Empire, she enjoyed naval advantages which were
unobtainable elsewhere. But they differed radically on the vexed
question of ways and means. The Conservatives said there was a naval
emergency and proposed to give three Dreadnoughts to the Imperial
government on certain conditions. The principal condition was that
Canada could take them back at any time if she wished to use them for a
navy of her own. The Liberals objected that there was no naval
emergency, and that it was wrong to let any force of any kind pass out of
the control of the Canadian government. Nothing, of course, could be
done without the consent of parliament; and the consent of parliament
means the consent of both Houses, the Senate and the Commons of Canada.
There was a Conservative majority in the Commons and a Liberal majority
in the Senate. The voting went by parties, and a complete deadlock
ensued.</p>
<div style="break-after:column;"></div><br />