The Shadow of Great Britain

Westminster Review, December 1837

Radicals and Canada: Earl of Dalmo and Canadians

Author: John Stuart Mill

I originally intended to take this opportunity to systematize the various factions within the increasingly popular Radical Party, enabling them to recognize each other, understand themselves, and find common ground and collaborative goals by dispelling prejudices. At the same time, this could also demonstrate the true nature of radicalism to those who have yet to understand us, proving that the ”demons” that terrify them are not radicalism itself, but the prejudices imposed by outsiders.

Radicalism is not only compatible with the noble principles cherished by Britain for generations, but this is also the only way for the principles of radicalism to endure in the current world. On the contrary, those self-proclaimed defenders of tradition, the Conservatives, abuse the doctrines of ancient England with vulgar hearts, shaming both its decayed and noble parts together.

Only through the lens of radicalism can these traditions regain their dignity. If Conservatives wish to preserve their precious aspects from being drowned by the tides of time, they must reconcile with radicalism and integrate its spirit into themselves.

Because radicalism will eventually triumph!

This is an inevitable trend birthed by the progress of civilization, regardless of its virtues or vices. The only uncertainty about radicalism in this era lies in which form of radicalism will first become mainstream. This primarily depends on whether the class vigorously educated by society can treat other groups wisely before it is too late.

Initially, I intended to systematically discuss the divisions, goals, and organizational methods within the Radical Party. However, due to the circumstances, I have to stop here, and these contents can only be left for discussion in the next issue.

A new issue has arisen, one that leaves these major principles temporarily unresolved, causing the collective actions of the Radical camp to stagnate and creating division among supporters of democracy. Needless to say, what I refer to is the Canadian problem.

In today’s political disputes, Canadian affairs have already become the touchstone of the Empire’s conscience. If we claim to be a civilized country, ruling by principles of freedom, representative government, and democratic justice, then we should confront a question: once a constitution is granted to the people, it is no longer a mere gift, but an inviolable contract. If this contract is torn apart, depriving the people of their rights, it is a more serious betrayal than a simple administrative error.

Recently, newspapers, parliamentary speeches, and even street talks have been fond of describing the Canadian people with terms like ”rebellion,” ”treason,” and ”ignorant French farmers,” as if the entire Empire is eager to morally and legally convict them without asking more fundamental questions: Who first damaged the constitutional life of the colony? Who hollowed out the autonomy, forcing a nation to express protest in the most painful and desperate manner?

Let us first assume that all allegations against Canadians are true: they are the conquered, they harbor resentment, they refuse to measure their fate solely by British interests.

Even so, their actions are merely those undertaken by a conquered nation.

We never call the Poles resisting the Tsar’s tyranny ”traitors,” nor do we consider the Greeks’ efforts to gain freedom from the Ottomans a crime.

However, why do the same moral standards suddenly change significance within the Empire’s territory?

Is it that freedom loses its value the moment it crosses the Atlantic Ocean, and representative government becomes a right to be casually deprived once it enters the colonies?

The reason Britain faces failures in the Canadian issue is not because the people there are innately belligerent or ungrateful, but precisely because we have never truly respected their autonomy.

Parliament repeatedly vetoed bills establishing responsible government in Canada, colonial officials bypassed elected representatives through administrative power, and tax distribution and public funds were all dominated by external officials. On these premises, it is absurd to blame Canada’s Lower House for inefficiency and obstructing governance.

If a system is artificially emasculated, it will naturally appear weak. If people are deprived of rights, they will naturally appear combative and irate.

Now that rebellion has erupted in Canada, the fault lies not with the oppressed raising the flag of uprising, but with the oppressive systemic design itself.

Therefore, when some overly passionate members of parliament call for hanging and exile to ”teach Canada a lesson,” I must point out that they have forgotten the dividing line between a civilized nation and a despotic state.

We can certainly forcibly suppress through force, but once systemic contradictions are resolved by violence, we must admit that the Empire is not founded on principles of freedom, but on the advantage of power. In this case, the act of suppression instead bestows upon the conquered a kind of moral dignity. Because in history, those who oppose tyranny with force are never ultimately remembered as criminals, but as people seeking freedom.

Many English consider themselves sympathetic to Canada, yet simultaneously deny Canadians’ political capabilities. They are willing to offer charitable donations but unwilling to grant rights. This kind of compassion is just another form of arrogance, a false piety. Because true justice is not forgiveness, but recognizing that people have the right to participate in political affairs through their representatives. If Canadians can manage their private affairs, then they are equally capable of managing public affairs.