THE FUTURE CONSTITUTIONAL RELATIONS OF THE EMPIRE.
Though very difficult to say what they will be, I thought proper, for
the better information of my French Canadian readers, to consider some
of the suggestions which of late years have been repeatedly made.
Mr. Bourassa, in his recent pamphlets, reviewing the situation from his
wrong and prejudiced standpoint, has decidedly come out in favour of
Canadian Independence. The least that can be said is that the time was
very badly chosen to raise the question. To select the moment when the
Motherland was engaged in a fight for life or death, to propose to run
away from the assailed home where we had lived many happy years, was
certainly not an inspiration of loyal devotion and gratitude. I am glad
to say that the wild proposition met with no countenance on the part of
our French Canadian compatriots.
To the point raised in England, some years ago, that it was not to be
supposed that the British Empire was destined to exist forever, one of
the leading British statesmen of the day, then a member of the Cabinet,
answered that, though it was likely to be true that the British
Commonwealth would not be eternal, like many other great political
societies of times gone by, it was surely not the particular duty of a
British minister to do his best to hasten the day of the final downfall
of the country he was sworn to maintain. The rejoinder was no doubt
peremptory. It can very properly be used in answer to Mr. Bourassa's
plea for the independence of Canada.
However, the question having been so unwisely raised, to say the least,
for the obvious purpose of disheartening the French Canadians from their
present situation and raising in their minds extravagant hopes of a
change for the better, I believed it advisable to tell them not to be
carried away by dreams of a too far distant possible realization.
In all frankness, I must say that I have never taken any stock in the
suggestion made from time to time, for the last fifty years, in favour
of Canadian Independence. It always seemed to me that our destinies were
not moving along that way. In my opinion, which nothing has happened to
alter, the steady growth of the consolidation of the Empire was yearly
working against the assumption of the prospective independence of the
Dominion.
But even supposing that the course of events would change and put an end
to British connection, could we pride ourselves with having at last,
though in a very peaceful way, achieved our national independence? I am
more and more strongly impressed by the paramount consideration that,
nominally independent, Canada would be very little so in reality.
Situated as she would be, she could not help being under the
protectorate of the United States. I have always thought so. I think it
more firmly than ever, when I see looming larger every day on the
American political horizon the fact that the neighbouring Republic will
come out of the present war with flying Colours, taking rank as one of
the most powerful nations on earth.
Be that as it may, there is every certainty that the question of
Canadian Independence is not within the range of practical politics. Mr.
Bourassa's proposition is doomed to the failure it deserves.
Consequently, it is much better to try and foresee what the future
political conditions of Canada are more likely to be after the close of
the hostilities. And this must be done with the only purpose of wisely,
and patriotically,--in the larger sense of the word--contributing our
due share to the sound and solid framing of the changes, if any, which
the best interests of the Empire, generally, and of all her component
parts, in particular, may require.
We have not, and I most earnestly hope and pray that we shall not have,
to consider what new political conditions would be as the consequence of
the defeat of the Allies, or even as necessitated by a peace treaty due
to a compromise. We must only look ahead for the encouraging days to
follow the victory won by the united efforts and heroism of the nations
who have rallied to put an end to Prussian militarism.
One certainty is daily becoming more evident. All loyal British subjects
will applaud the triumphant close of the war with the desire to do their
best to maintain and consolidate the Empire they will have saved from
destruction at the cost of so much sacrifices of heroic lives and
resources.
NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION.
The great objection raised by Mr. Bourassa against the participation of
Canada in the wars of the Empire is that the Dominion is not represented
in the Parliament to which the British ministers, advising the Sovereign
on all matters of foreign relations, are responsible. He draws the
conclusion that the Colonies are called upon to pay for the war
expenditures of Great Britain in violation of the constitutional
principle:--NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION. The principle is no
doubt true. But it is altogether wrong to pretend that so far it has
been violated to coerce the Dominion to participate in the wars which
England has been obliged to wage. Our "Nationalists" would be right in
their opposition if the Imperial Parliament had attempted to pass laws
compelling the autonomous Colonies to contribute men and money to a
conflict. Had they claimed the right to raise revenues in Canada by an
Imperial statute, we would certainly have been entitled to affirm that
not being represented in the British House of Commons, we could not be
taxed in any way for any Imperial purpose--war or others.
Nothing of the kind has ever been done, ever been attempted, even ever
been hinted at.
The argument falls entirely to the ground, shattered to pieces, from the
fact that Canada has only participated in the wars of the Empire of her
own free will, in the full enjoyment of her constitutional rights.
Whatever sums of money the Dominion has to pay for the conflicts into
which we have freely and deliberately decided to intervene, are
perceived by the Canadian treasury in virtue of laws passed by our
federal Parliament upon the advice of our responsible Cabinet.
Last year, the people of Canada were called upon to elect new members of
our House of Commons. The citizens of the Dominion had the undoubted
constitutional right to pass condemnation on the ministers and on the
members of Parliament who had voted for the participation in the war
with men and money. They could have elected a new House of Commons to
discontinue such participation and recall our army from Europe. But had
they not the equally undoubted right to do what they have done by such a
solemn expression of a decided and matured opinion:--approve and order
to fight until victory is won?
In accepting with deep gratitude the noble and patriotic support we,
Canadians, were giving her in the most terrible crisis of her Sovereign
existence, was England in any way violating any of our cherished
constitutional privileges? No sensible, no reasonable, no unprejudiced
man can so pretend. The case being such as it is, there is not the
shadow of common sense in the assertion that Canada is taxed without
representation for Imperial war purposes.
COLONIAL REPRESENTATION.
If the question of Colonial representation is raised at the special
Imperial Conference to be held as soon as possible after the war, Mr.
Bourassa and his friends will not be welcomed to cry if it is settled
very differently from their wishes, after their unwise clamour for an
excursion into the unknown.
The question of the readjustment of the constitutional relations of the
component parts of the Empire, when duly brought up, will very likely
take a wide range, so far at least as consideration goes. What will be
the conclusions arrived at, nobody knows.
Pending that time, any one is allowed to express his own views. I
thought proper to explain mine in my book dedicated to the French
Canadians. I now summarize them as follows:--
Would it be advisable to have the Colonies represented in the present
Imperial Parliament? After full consideration of the question, I must
say that I have finally dismissed it from my mind as utterly
impracticable. Can it be supposed for a moment that the electors of
Great Britain would agree to have the Dominions overseas and India
represented in their House of Commons, to participate in the government
of the United Kingdom for all purposes? With representation in the
present British House of Commons, would the Colonies be also represented
in the British Cabinet, to advise the Crown on all matters respecting
the good government of England?
Would the Colonies be represented according to their population in the
British House of Commons? If they were, India alone would have a number
of representatives five times larger than all the other parts of the
Empire.
Is it within the range of possibility that the people of Great Britain
would consent to colonial representatives interfering, even controlling
the management of their internal affairs, whilst they would have no say
whatever in the internal government of the Colonies?
Would the colonial ministers in the British Cabinet be constitutionally
responsible to the people of the United Kingdom without holding their
mandate from them?
Such a system would be so absurd, so radically impossible, that it is
not necessary to argue to prove that it would not work for one single
year.
In my opinion, Colonial representation would be practicable only with
the creation of a new truly Imperial Parliament, the present British
Parliament to continue to exist but with constitutional powers reduced
to the management of the internal affairs of the United Kingdom. If such
is the scheme of the "Nationalists," then they are converts to that
Imperial Federation which they have vehemently denounced for years, and
to the largest measure possible of that Imperialism which has been
cursed with their worst maledictions.
If ever complete Imperial Federation becomes an accomplished fact, how
will it be organized? Will the new Imperial Parliament consist of one
Sovereign, one House of Lords--or Senate--one House of Commons?
Would the Sovereign be King or Emperor? I, for one, would prefer the
word EMPEROR. He might be titled His Majesty the Emperor of the British
Commonwealth and the King of Great Britain.
With Imperial Federation--a regime of complete Imperial autonomy--the
word "colonies" would no longer apply. Would Canada, Australia, South
Africa, India, New Zealand be called Kingdoms, like Prussia, Bavaria,
Saxony, Wurtemberg, of the German Empire?
Evidently, the constitutional powers of the new Parliament would be
limited to external relations, to strictly Imperial affairs.
The new constitutional organization of the British Empire would combine
Imperial, National and Provincial autonomy, each operating within the
well defined limits of their respective privileges and attributions.
Under such a regime, there would be three sorts of responsible Cabinets:
The Imperial Cabinet responsible to the whole Imperial electorate; the
National Cabinets of the component Kingdoms of the British Empire
responsible to the electorate of each one of those Kingdoms
respectively; the Provincial Cabinets responsible to the electors of
each province respectively.
The Royal--or rather Imperial--Prerogative to declare war and to make
peace would be exercised upon the responsibility of the Imperial
Cabinet.
To the new Imperial Parliament would undoubtedly be given the right and
the duty to provide for Imperial defense. They would have to organize an
Imperial army and an Imperial navy for the protection of the whole
Empire.
The whole of the reorganized Empire would have to pay the whole of the
expenditures required for Imperial purposes, defense and others, on land
and sea, out of revenues raised by laws of the Imperial Parliament.
Under the new Imperial constitutional regime, would the Imperial
Parliament be given the authority to regulate Imperial trade and
commerce, the Imperial postal service, &c.?
Would the new Parliament have the exclusive right to approve commercial
treaties sanctioned by His Majesty the Emperor, upon the advice of his
responsible Imperial Cabinet, without reference whatever to the National
Parliaments of the component Kingdoms?
How easily is it ascertained that numerous questions of paramount
importance are at once brought to one's mind the moment the vast problem
of a new and greater Imperial Commonwealth is considered. Shortsighted
and inexperienced are the politicians and the publicists who imagine
that it could be given a satisfactory solution after hasty and
insufficient deliberations. It is very reassuring to know that the
matter necessarily being suggested for consideration at the Imperial War
Conference, last year, it was immediately decided, by a "Resolution,"
adopted on the proposition of the Canadian Prime Minister, "THAT THE
READJUSTMENT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL RELATIONS OF THE COMPONENT PARTS OF
THE EMPIRE IS TOO IMPORTANT AND INTRICATE A SUBJECT TO BE DEALT WITH
DURING THE WAR."
What would be the real meaning of such a radical change? It is worth
while to enquire at once.
The British Empire would no longer comprise a Metropolis holding
autonomous Colonies and Crown Colonies, but would be organized in a new
Sovereign State with an Imperial Parliament to which all the component
parts--or Kingdoms--would send representatives.
Indeed it would be a grand, a magnificent, political edifice. But to
find shelter under it, Canada would have to renounce her right to decide
alone, and freely, to participate, or not, in the wars of the Empire, to
determine alone what her military organization should be, to raise
ourselves, without the intervention of a superior Parliament, the
revenue which we consider proper to apply to Imperial purposes.
I, for one, do not foresee that such an important constitutional change,
if ever it is made, will be suddenly brought about, in the dark, as the
result of the machinations of a most mischievous Imperialism inspiring
our "Nationalists" with shivering terror. It is positively sure that no
one holding a responsible political position, or having a responsible
standing in the British political world, will ever be mad enough to
propose, suggest, or even hint, to build a new Imperial structure
without the solid foundation of the deliberate consent of all the
Colonies, of all the would-be component parts of such a vast
Commonwealth.
How many years of serious discussion, of earnest consideration, did it
not take to bring about the creation of the Canadian, Australian and
South African Dominions. It cannot be reasonably imagined that the
creation of the new and greater Imperial Commonwealth will be a much
easier task to accomplish with the necessary conditions of successful
durability.
I also thought proper in my French book to write a few lines on the
important question respecting the mode of ascertaining the deliberate
consent of the Colonies to any intended readjustment of the
constitutional relations of the component parts of the Empire, specially
if it was proposed to rear a new and larger political fabric. I did so
because of late it has been frequently suggested to use the _plebiscit_
or the _referendum_ as the most opportune way to consult public opinion.
I must say that, without going to the length of denying that a public
consultation may, in a particular case, be advantageously made by way of
a _plebiscit_ or _referendum_, I am not a strong believer in the
efficiency of either proposition, and why? Because I cannot help
considering them as more or less contrary to the solid constitutional
principle of ministerial responsibility which they would gradually
undermine if frequently appealed to.
I feel specially adverse to the _plebiscit_, because History proves
that, by nature, it engenders DESPOTISM, CAESARISM. Contemporary history
offers two striking examples never to be forgotten.
Napoleon the First, whose power was the legitimate result of his
wonderful genius and of his eminent services to France, wanted his
dynasty to rest on the _plebiscitary_ foundation. Millions of
votes--almost the unanimity of French public opinion--answered
enthusiastically to his call. He was not such a man as to refuse the
chance offered him to exercise a supreme power so manifestly tendered
to him. All know that he very soon unbridled his devouring ambition and
ruled France with all the might of an absolutism strengthened by the
glories of military campaigns truly marvellous. To any attempt at
freedom of criticism, he could reply that his Imperial power--mightily
supported by his commanding genius--was strongly entrenched on the
unanimity of opinion of the French nation expressed by the result of the
plebiscit.
Napoleon III, favoured by the immortal prestige of his glorious uncle,
but far behind him in genius, though intellectually well gifted, as he
proved it during his Presidential term of the second French Republic and
during the first years he occupied the Imperial Throne of France, used
the plebiscit to have his famous _coup d'Etat_ of the second day of
December 1851, prepared with consummate skill and carried out with great
energy, ratified by the nation by an overwhelming majority of several
millions of votes. He lost no time in drawing the final result of this
first great success and in reaching the term of his ambition. The tide
of popular enthusiasm was all flowing his way, carrying him to the
Throne elevated for his uncle who had lost it after the hurricane which
exhausted its strength at Waterloo. On the second of December of the
following year--1852--the second French Empire was proclaimed to the
international world. Following the example and the precedent of the
first Bonaparte, Napoleon III also decided to use the plebiscit to
legitimate his Imperial power. He triumphantly carried the day by some
seven millions of votes--almost the unanimous voice of the French
people.
Thus, in less than half a century, after having twice tried the
Republican system of government, and, in both cases, having overdone by
deplorable excesses the experiment of Political Liberty--more specially
during the years of terrorism of the first Republic--France, by a
regular reaction, went back to the other extreme, and reestablished
arbitrary power not, in the two instances, upon the principle of the
Divine Right of the ancient Monarchy, but on that of the Sovereignty of
the people, as expressed by the certain will of the whole nation. But
ABSOLUTISM, whether the outcome of Divine Right or of popular
sovereignty, is always the same and steadily works against the true
principles of Political Liberty.
It is a great mistake to suppose that ABSOLUTISM is possible only under
monarchical institutions. The terrorist republican epoch, in France,
from 1792 to 1795, was ABSOLUTISM of the worst kind, really with a
vengeance. As much can be said of the present political situation in
Russia, which has substituted REVOLUTIONARY ABSOLUTISM to that of the
decayed Imperial regime, suddenly brought to a tragic end by the
pressure of events too strong for its crumbling fabric, shaken to its
foundation by a most unwise reactionary movement which only precipitated
its downfall, instead of averting it, as extravagantly expected by the
Petrograd Court, which betrayed Russia in favour of Germany, and
unconsciously opened the road which led the weak and unfortunate Czar to
his lamentable fate.
In my humble opinion, PLEBISCITARY CAESARISM is not compatible with a
system of ministerial responsibility for all the official acts of the
Sovereign.
The frequent use of the plebiscit would certainly tend to diminish in
the mind of political leaders the true sense of their responsibility. It
would too often offer an easy way out of an awkward position without the
consequence of having to give up power.
If I understand right the real meaning of the two words: _plebiscit_ and
_referendum_, the first would be used to try and ascertain how public
opinion stands upon any given question of public policy, of proposed
public legislation: the second would be employed for the ratification by
the electorate of a law passed by Parliament. I have less objection to
the second system which, in reality, is an appeal from Parliament to the
Electorate. But to the well practised, the adverse vote of a majority of
the electors should have the same result as a vote of the majority of
the House of Commons rejecting an important public measure upon the
carrying of which the Cabinet has ventured their existence.
Without the immediate resignation of the ministers meeting with a
reverse in a _referendum_, I consider that ministerial responsibility
would soon become a farce destructive of constitutional government. The
defeat of a Cabinet in a _referendum_ would be equivalent to one in
general elections and should bear out the same consequence.
Surely, no one having some clear notions of what MINISTERIAL
RESPONSIBILITY means, will pretend for a moment that a Cabinet who, on
being defeated in the House of Commons, advises the Sovereign--or his
representative in Canada--to dissolve Parliament for an appeal to the
people, could remain in power if the Electorate approved of the hostile
stand taken by the House of Commons.
I can see no difference whatever in the meaning of an hostile referendum
vote and that following a regular constitutional appeal from an adverse
majority of the popular House of representatives. In both cases, the
downfall of the defeated ministers should be the result.
From the above comments, I draw the sound conclusion, I firmly believe,
that any important readjustment of the constitutional relations of the
Colonies with Great Britain, should be first ratified by the actual
Parliaments of the Dominions and subsequently by the electors of those
Dominions. But I am also strongly of opinion that the ratification by
the electorate should be taken upon the ministerial responsibility of
the Cabinet who would have advised the Sovereign and asked Parliament
to approve the proposed readjustment. It would be the safest way to have
the Cabinet to consider the question very seriously before running the
risk of a popular defeat which would have to be followed by their
resignation.
Another most important reason to quiet the fears of our "alarmists" at
an impending wave of flooding Imperialism, is that any radical change in
the constitutional relations of England with her Colonies for the unity
and consolidation of the Empire, should be adopted by the Parliaments
and the Electorates of all the Colonies to be affected by the new
conditions.
Consequently, from every standpoint the Dominions and the Empire herself
are guaranteed against the dangers of rashness in changing the present
status of the great British Commonwealth.
THE FAR OFF FUTURE.
Though it may be of little use, and perhaps perplexing, to look too far
ahead to try and foresee what the distant future has in store for the
generations to come, still a simple call to common sense tells one that
the political destinies of any Commonwealth are, in a long course of
time, largely and necessarily shaped by the increases in population and
wealth, irrespective of the actual more or less harmonious working of
present and immediately prospective constitutional institutions.
Broadly speaking, was it to be supposed, for instance, that the two wide
continents of America would have, when peopled by hundreds of millions,
continued in a condition of vassalage to the European continent, though
owing their discovery and early settlements to European genius and
enterprise? No doubt the growing national families of the New World
would have liked a much longer stay under the roofs where they were
born, had they received better and kinder treatment from their fatherly
States. But at best the hour of separation would only have come later,
postponed as it would have been by the bonds of enduring affection made
more lasting by mutual good relations. Do we not see, almost daily,
desolated homes often the sad result of senseless misunderstandings, or
of guilty outbursts of intemperate passions? Yet, family home life, even
when blessed by the inspiring smile of a lovely wife, the sweet voice of
a devoted mother, the manly and Christian example of a good father, the
affectionate sentiments of well bred children, is far too short under
the most favourable circumstances. And why? Because it has to follow the
Divine decree ordering separation for the building of new homes, to keep
Humanity advancing towards the final conclusion of her earthly
existence.
Had the American colonies been favoured by the constitutional liberties
the Dominion of Canada enjoys, they would not have revolted and British
connection would have endured many years longer. Still, one cannot
conclude that those British provinces, realizing the marvellous
development all can witness, would have for ever agreed to be satisfied
with their colonial status. When they would have grown taller and bigger
than the mother-country, most likely Great Britain herself would have
taken the initiative of a friendly separation followed by a close
alliance which would have perpetuated the familial bond actually so
happily restored.
As prophesied by Sir Erskine May, more than half a century ago, in
speaking of the probable future of the then British colonies, the
American Republic would _have grown out of the dependencies of the
British Empire_.
And to-day, when the United States are doing such a gigantic effort,
conjointly with the whole British Empire, to save Humanity from German
cruel domination, England, to use the very words of the distinguished
writer and historian just cited, "MAY WELL BE PROUDER OF THE VIGOROUS
FREEDOM OF HER PROSPEROUS SON THAN OF A HUNDRED PROVINCES SUBJECT TO THE
IRON RULE OF BRITISH PRO-CONSULS."
The possibilities of the material development of the Dominions of
Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa--without counting India
and the lesser colonies--on account of their immense natural resources,
are such as to justify very great hopes for their future. The time will
come when they will number together a much larger population than the
United Kingdom. Will the British Empire, as foreseen by one of the
greatest political minds Canada has produced, declared by his chief and
worthy opponent the equal to the celebrated William Pitt, then develop
into a grand Commonwealth of nations.
If so, as wrote Sir Erskine May, England "_will reflect, with
exultation, that her dominion ceased, not in oppression and bloodshed
but in the expansive energies of freedom, and the hereditary capacity of
her manly offspring for the privileges of self-government_."
Several generations will certainly rise and disappear before such an
important question, looming far off in the future, is likely to be--if
ever--raised requiring a practical solution. But foreseeing such a
distant possibility, it is still more our bounden duty to be true to our
present and prospective obligations for many years to come, as
foreshadowed by the actual course of events shaping themselves in the
sense of the consolidation of the Empire which may never be really
dissolved even by the separation of her manly _offspring_. Family bonds,
strengthened by deep affection, are not broken because the faithful boy,
grown up a healthy and strong man, leaves to go under his own blessed
roof, taking with him to his last day the cherished recollections of the
happy days he has passed in the equally blessed parental home.
One of our most ardent desires must be that our successive generations
of children be so well trained to the intelligent and patriotic use of
Political Liberty, as to accumulate, in due course of time, an admirable
heritage of sound principles of self-government enriched by the
honourable examples of our faithful loyalty to the Mother land never
grudged to her, but given with overflowing measure, not only as a matter
of duty, but also as a reward from grateful subjects for the regard and
respect always paid to their constitutional rights and privileges.
If such is ever the natural outcome of our political achievements, the
vast Empire reared with such a great success would truly survive
separation, being merely transformed into a splendid galaxy of
independent States still bound together by the strong ties created by
centuries of reciprocal devotedness. It would constitute a real league
of nations working in concert and with grandeur for the peace and the
prosperity of the whole world.
A MACHIAVELLIAN PROPOSITION.
On reading Mr. Bourassa's pamphlet entitled:--_Yesterday, To-day,
To-morrow_, I discovered what I have qualified a _Machiavellian
proposition_. What _Machiavellism_ means is well known. It expresses the
views of that most corrupt and contemptible politician and publicist,
called MACHIAVEL, born at Florence, in 1649.
At page 140 of the above mentioned pamphlet, Mr. Bourassa wrote:--
"I WILL SPEAK MY MIND OPENLY--_JE VOUS LIVRE TOUTE MA PENSEE_--: IF IN
DEFAULT OF INDEPENDENCE, I CLAIM IMPERIAL REPRESENTATION, IT IS BECAUSE
IT WOULD WEAKEN THE MILITARY ORGANIZATION OF ENGLAND,--_l'armature de
guerre de l'Angleterre_--PRECIPITATE THE DISSOLUTION OF HER EMPIRE,
HASTEN THE DAY OF DELIVERANCE, FOR US AND FOR THE WHOLE WORLD."
Such are the loyal sentiments expressed by the "Nationalist" leader. He
clamours for the Imperial representation of the Colonies, for the
solemnly avowed object to use the privilege for the destruction of the
Empire. To achieve this end he declares that the military power of
England must first be weakened.
No wonder then that he started his "Nationalist" campaign by fighting
with all his might the two successive proposals of contribution to the
great military naval fleet of Great Britain.
No wonder that he opposed Canada's intervention in favour of England in
the South African war.
No wonder that from the outbreak of the hostilities, in 1914, until the
day when he was shut up by the Order-in-Council censuring all disloyal
speaking and writing detrimental to the winning of the war, he has tried
to move heaven and earth to prevent Canada's participation in the
conflict.
He tells his countrymen that if he has become a convert to Imperial
representation--in other words, Imperial Federation--it is because he
considers it would be the best way of ruining the Empire and of
delivering, not only Canada, but the whole world from British
domination.
For fear that the French Canadians, whom he especially wished to
influence, would not be very easily caught in the disloyal trap, he
tries hard to prevail upon them by the following reasons:--
"_If we are not sufficiently clear-sighted and energetic to work for
this salutary object by the most constitutional, the most British, means
at our disposal, others, happily, will do it for us._
"_The English-Canadians, the Australians, the New Zealanders persistingly
claim representation in the government of the Empire. When the war is
over, their claims will be reaffirmed with increased ampleness and
energy. The Indians (les Hindous) themselves will do the same. Shall we
remain alone to rot stupidly (croupir beatement) in colonial
abjection._"
Without the slightest doubt, there are many English-Canadians,
Australians, New Zealanders, South Africans, Indians, in favour of
Colonial Imperial representation. The number is increasing and likely to
increase. But Mr. Bourassa is absolutely, I might as well say, absurdly,
mistaken, if he really believes that they do so for his own purpose of
destroying the British Empire. They want the very reverse: their object
is TO CONSOLIDATE THE EMPIRE, not TO DISSOLVE HER. They will not accept
as a very flattering compliment Mr. Bourassa's charge that their desire
to strengthen the British Commonwealth proves that they prefer to
continue _stupidly rotting in colonial abjection_ rather than work for
their deliverance from British domination.
But what in the world has brought the "Nationalist" leader to the
conclusion that the surest way to save Canada from the peril of
Imperialism was to secure Imperial representation for the treasonable
purpose, on entering the fort, to pull down the flag and destroy the
whole Empire? To frighten his French Canadian compatriots with terror at
the slightest move in favour of an increased Imperialism, he waves
before them, with wild gesticulation, any and every extravagant writings
he lays his hand on preaching a ridiculous expansion of Imperialist
aspirations. He is perhaps the only man in Canada who has read a most
absurd work which he pretends to have been written by a General named
Lea, and from which, in horror stricken, he summarized a few
unbelievable views.
Mr. Bourassa said that General Lea, _gifted with an astonishing
foresight, predicted all that was happening in Europe and in the world.
The General_, again affirms Mr. Bourassa, _has proved in a striking way
that if England wishes to maintain her Empire and to continue exercising
her domination over the world she must make the sacrifice of her
political liberties and of those of her Colonies, abolish the
Parliamentary and Representative Governments and resolutely adopt the
ironed regime of the Romans of old, of the Germans of the present day_.
Once so brilliantly inspired, General Lea went on in a splendid manner.
He added, says Mr. Bourassa, _that England must transform her Empire
into a vast armed camp, must keep in her own hands all the powers of
command, must subdue all the non-British races to the supremacy of the
Anglo-Saxons united together by the unique thought of dominating the
world by brutal force_.
These views--so says Mr. Bourassa--are to be found in a book entitled:
"_The Day of the Saxon_." If they have been really expressed with the
full sense given to them by Mr. Bourassa's translation into French, I
cannot say less than that they are most absurd, most extravagant. The
Nationalist leader would have proved himself a much more sensible, a
wiser man, if, laughing at such senseless notions, he had refrained from
quoting those lines for the purpose of telling the French-Canadians that
like all non-British races on earth they were doomed to be
devoured--flesh and bones--by the voracious Anglo-Saxons bent on
swallowing humanity. And to save them from such a cruel fate, he
implores them to clamour for Imperial representation with the criminal
intent of betraying their trust, and to use the honourable privilege
they would be granted to ruin the Empire they would swear to maintain
and defend. So far as the political program of General Lea is
concerned, we have not yet learned that its benevolent author was doing
much in the war to carry it out. If I had the honour to meet the
General, being presented, I presume, by Mr. Bourassa, I would ask him,
first, when and where he has discovered that England was _dominating the
world_.
I know that there exists a great England holding a large situation on
earth. Her Empire extends to almost a fourth of the globe. Her
Sovereignty reigns over nearly four hundred million of human beings; a
truly beneficient Sovereignty, because it rules according to the wishes,
to the opinions of its subjects, managing their own affairs in virtue of
the freest political institutions in the whole world.
I know of no England dominating, or even aspiring to dominate, the
world. Such an England only exists in the heated imagination of that
General Lea and in the minds of all those, like the Nationalist leader,
who are, or feign to be, tortured by the bugbear of military Imperialism
of the old Roman ironed type.
As long as three-fourths of the earth will remain independent of the
British Empire, under numerous sovereignties, England's pretended
domination of the world will ever only be an extravagant dream.
Wishing England _to continue her domination of the world_, General Lea,
no doubt to please Mr. Bourassa, was bound to suggest the means to do
so. Let us analyze them.
1.--England _must make the sacrifice of her political liberties and of
those of her Colonies_.
2.--She _must abolish parliamentary and representative governments_.
It is beyond conception that Mr. Bourassa should have for one minute
seriously considered such absurd notions.
I would enjoy attending large public meetings in Great Britain, where
General Lea would propose to British free men the sacrifice of all their
political liberties, to witness the rather warm reception he would be
favoured with. I am sure he would have to rush out of the halls much
faster than he would have walked in.
Where is the sane man who really believes that, dreaming of a domination
of the world by _brute force_, British free men would consent to do away
with their Parliamentary system _to transform the whole of the Empire
into an armed camp_? Such a proposition was sheer madness, a most
foolish talk, unworthy of the slightest attention from sensible people.
Mr. Bourassa was very wrong in giving it publicity, and very unwise, to
say the least, in using it to frighten his French-Canadian compatriots
by blandishing before their eyes that ridiculous specimen of the phantom
of Imperialism.
Is it to be supposed for one single instant that the British people, so
rightly proud of their political liberties, and of their representative
government, which after centuries of efforts and trials they have
successfully brought to such perfection, basing its future permanency on
the solid rock of ministerial responsibility, would consent to sacrifice
them for the sake of a vain, a ridiculous, an odious and impracticable
scheme _to dominate the world by brute force_?
It is ten times worse than madness to believe that the British people
who have torn away from the British soil the last root of ABSOLUTISM,
would, for any earthly reason, renounce their most legitimate conquests,
to rebuild, on the burning ruins of their most sacred rights, an ironed
political regime of the old Roman or present German type! Is it to be
believed that they would agree to replace, on the glorious Throne which
they protect with all the might of their loyal affection, their present
constitutional Sovereign by a new Nero or another Wilhelm II?
If it is with the purpose of preventing such a dire calamity that the
Nationalist leader became a convert to Imperial Federation, he is
absolutely losing his time and his energy in promoting such a regime.
If ever Imperial Federation becomes a fact, we can all rest perfectly
assured that the new Imperial Parliament will not vote their own
destruction to be replaced by an autocratic and tyrannical government.
I hope that Mr. Bourassa is the only believer, all over Canada, in the
assertion of General Lea that England's aspirations is _to dominate the
world by brute force_. It is a most injurious, I can say, calumnious,
charge. All know, or should know, that England was the first nation to
completely abolish slavery over all her Empire; that has granted, in the
largest possible measure, Political Liberty to all her Colonies; that
guarantees to all races the same rights and privileges, never
interfering in colonial internal management. He is wilfully guilty of a
calumnious charge the man who accuses the British race to aspire to
dominate the world by an _ironed regime_, when he should know that Great
Britain ran the risk of a crushing defeat, in refusing to organize a
standing army of several millions of trained officers and men.
A TREASONABLE PROPOSAL.
The Nationalist leader wants the French-Canadians to support his scheme
in order _to work for the salutary object of demolishing the British
Empire by the so very constitutional means of Imperial Federation_. How
he has failed to realize the infamous kind of suggestion he was making
will always be a wonder to all those reading it.
If, sooner or later, Great Britain and her Colonies are politically
organized as an Imperial Federation, the Province of Quebec will have
several French-Canadian representatives in the new Greater Imperial
Parliament. The Nationalist leader wants those French-Canadian Members
to go to London pledged to destroy the Empire to which they will have
to swear allegiance and fealty before crossing the threshold of the
House of Commons and taking their seats. Does he not understand that any
French-Canadian doing what he wishes and recommends would deliberately
perjure himself? Does he not comprehend that he was paying a rather poor
compliment to his British countrymen from Canada, Australia, New Zealand
and India, when he affirmed, without the shadow of truth, that they
would elect to the Imperial Parliament members holding the mandate from
them to work for the dissolution of the Empire?
I notice, with surprise, that in the enumeration he has drawn of the
future destroyers of the future federated British Empire, he has not
convened his friends, the Boers, to his holy task. Does he not consider
them as _farsighted_ and _energetic_ as the others he has pompously
mentioned with such childish illusion. Or, has he not, unconsciously,
paid them the high compliment to suppose that they would be unable to
accomplish the treasonable act which, with confidence, and even
certainty, he expects from the others. Our countrymen, the Boers of
South Africa, have, by a large majority, become so loyal to the Crown,
to the Empire,--and they have so gloriously proved it since the outbreak
of the war--that it is manifestly evident that they are very well
satisfied with their present position, that they have dispelled from
their minds all bitter recollections of the struggle which, a few years
ago, finally brought them within the Empire they are doing such a noble
effort to maintain and save from the German tyrannical grasp.
The following views, recently expressed, in London, by Mr. Burton,
Minister of Railways and Harbours in the Government of South Africa, a
leading public man of the far away sister Dominion, is refreshing
reading after Mr. Bourassa's outrageous outburst above quoted. He
said:--
"_One of the motives which prompted South African support of the British
cause was the fact, which appealed not only to the English-speaking
population, but moved the Dutch population--the fact that the British
cause had embraced all the progressive peoples of the world. It was not
Britain's wealth, or influence, or power that appealed to them; it was
the priceless privilege of the maintenance of our constitutional
liberties. He could illustrate their attitude by a single incident which
had come within his own experience in connection with a Transvaaler,
born and bred, whom he had questioned as to his future in the military
service in which he was an officer. The officer replied that he had been
through the German South-West African campaign, that he was going
through the German East African campaign, and when that was done he
intended making for Flanders. He added: "I mean that as a man I could
not act otherwise in view of the treatment dealt out to us by Great
Britain. If she had not done what she did for us I should not have
stirred hand or foot._""
No one need be surprised that the South African Dominion is suffering a
little from the "Nationalist" fever, a disease infesting many countries,
in various degrees, and with time cured by the safe remedy of the sound
common sense of the people. We know too much about it ourselves, after
nearly eighty years of free responsible government, to wonder at the
fact that a small minority of the Dutch South Africans--from the Boer
element--is not yet fully reconciled with their lot under the British
Crown. They apparently dream of Republicanism, in sullen recollection of
a recent past which only some of the present generation still regret,
but which the next will strive to cherish only as the stepping stone to
their actual status so full of good promises for their future. The few
South Africans suffering from this virus are almost exclusively
recruited amongst the populations of the late Republics of South Africa.
The people of the provinces of Natal and Cape Colony, with a long
experience of British rule, have no faith in the "republican
nationalism" desired by some, which does not in the least appeal to
their good sense and their sound political foresight. Mr. Burton
believes "_that the instigators of the movement are looking for votes
more than for anything else_."
Mr. Burton, moreover, truly said:--
"_It was part of the history of all countries that what was called
"Nationalism" made a powerful appeal to the finer classes of young men.
It was an admirable sentiment, but what was complained of in South
Africa was that the sentiment was expended upon a wrong conception of
"nationalism" and what nationhood should be. In South Africa it was
restricted, it was sectional, and practically racial. The energy and
activity displayed were being spent upon a mistaken cause._"
Every word of this quotation applies with still greater force to the
"nationalism" of the Province of Quebec.
Mr. Burton goes on saying:--
"_It was the cause of South Africa first--as it should be--but it was
more than that. It was South Africa first, last, and all the time, and
South Africa alone. He and those who were associated with him could not
accept that view. It would mean ruinous chaos in South Africa. They had
obligations to Great Britain. It was not merely that they had received
recognition from the beginning that their Constitutional cause was just.
It was not merely that Great Britain in its relation with South Africa
had been actuated by that beneficent influence which the British system
of liberty effected under the sway of its flag throughout the world, but
it was that the people of the Union realized the true inward
significance of the struggle in which the Empire was engaged. They knew
that the world's freedom was at stake, and with it their own. The people
in South Africa had long ago awakened to this great fact, and they were
realizing it more and more as the war went on. When he had spoken of
putting "South Africa first" as the motto of a party he wished it to be
understood that he and the people of South Africa generally accepted it,
as every nation was bound to accept it. But they also realized that
their future as a nation and their freedom as a nation were at stake,
and that their interests were bound up with those of the British
Empire._
"_It was because they realized that fact that the Government of the
Union had in these troublous times nailed its flag to the mast. It was
the honourable course, the right course, and they had stuck to it
through good report and ill report, and through much trial and
sacrifice. His last message as representative of the Union Government
was: Upon that attitude of the Union Government they might depend to the
very last. They might be forced--he did not see any present prospect of
it--to abandon office, but so long as they were in office they would
adhere absolutely in the letter and in the spirit to the undertaking
they had given and would continue in the path they had followed
hitherto._"
Sensible, truly political and patriotic, noble words, indeed. Are they
not the complete expression of the powerful wave of enthusiasm which
spread throughout the length and breadth of the whole British Dominions
overseas, when, after exhausting to the last drop her efforts to
maintain peace, Great Britain, in honour bound, threw her gallant sword
in the balance in which the destinies of the world were to be weighed
during the frightful years of the most terrific thundering storm ever
witnessed by man?
How weighty those words are is evident. They are still more so by the
fact that they positively and firmly express the views and sentiments of
the two most trusted and illustrious leaders of the Boers, who, both of
them, took a very prominent part in the South African war, as generals
commanding the forces of the South African Republics: General Botha and
General Smuts.
General Botha is, and has been for several years, the Prime Minister of
the South African Dominion. General Smuts is minister of Defence in
General Botha's Cabinet. He is the representative of the Government of
the Union of South Africa in the Imperial War Cabinet. In June, 1917, he
was, moreover, "invited to attend the meetings of the British War
Cabinet during his stay in the British Isles."
Both General Botha and General Smuts have often spoken about the present
relations of their great Dominion with England. The press of the whole
British Empire has published their speeches, most favourably commented
by that of the Allied nations. In every case, they were brilliant with
true and staunch loyalty, worthy of the real statesmen the speakers are,
in every sense fully up to what could be expected from the illustrious
military and political leaders of a valiant race deserving the respect
of all by her heroism of the past and her loyalty of present days.
If ever Mr. Bourassa, as I hope he will, reads the above quoted lines, I
am sure he will find therein every reason to be satisfied with his
decision not to call upon the South Africans to join with him and those
he has summoned, in the unworthy task of bringing on Imperial Federation
for the very treasonable purpose of destroying the British Empire. For
once, his judgment did not fail him.
Nobody knows if representatives from the whole present colonial
Dominions and India will ever sit, in London, as members of a new
Imperial Parliament. It is most unlikely, at all events, that any one,
merely to please Mr. Bourassa, will help building such a political
structure with the criminal and treasonable purpose of throwing it at
once to the ground with a tremendous crash. But we can all safely join
in the affirmation that in the event of such a great historical fact
being accomplished as that of a federated British Commonwealth, the
representatives of the Colonies overseas will meet in the Imperial
Capital to do their duty with loyalty and honour. I have no hesitation
whatever to pledge my word that the French Canadian representatives in
London would be amongst the most loyal to their Sovereign and to the
Empire, the most true to their oath.
I solemnly protest against the injurious imputation the Nationalist
leader has addressed to my French Canadian compatriots in charging them
with the desire _to rot stupidly in colonial abjection_. Let us
repulse the unfounded accusation from an elevated standpoint. I feel the
utmost contempt for all kinds of narrow prejudices, of blind fanaticism.
Nations, like individuals, all pursue Providential destinies in this
human world. There is no more abjection in the colonial status than in
any other. Canada is a British colony by the decree of Providence. Every
nation--like every individual--has duties to perform in any situation
she may occupy in the course of historical events. Abjection is not the
result of the faithful discharge of duty, however trying the
circumstances may be. It would be in its violation with the guilty
intent to betray.
A hundred times better it is to remain a colony as long as the Supreme
Ruler of the world will so order, than to attempt to break through by
the dark plot of an infamous conspiration.
Let our destinies follow their natural development, striving to the best
of our ability and patriotism to have them to achieve the happy
conditions which we enjoy. Any man aspiring to a legitimate influence on
the mind of our compatriots, must encourage them, by words and deeds, to
faithfully accomplish their daily task in showing them the advantages of
their position. Inconveniences are the outgrowth of any political
standing. In the true Christian spirit, trials are everywhere to be met
with. Sacrifice, when necessary, ennobles national as well, and as much,
as individual life.
It is very wrong on the part of any one to trouble the mind of our
compatriots in purposely exhibiting to their view discouraging pictures
of the difficulties of their situation. Their national existence is not,
never will, never can be, exclusively rosy. Be it as it may, who can
pretend, in good faith, that there exists, on the surface of the globe,
a population, all things considered, happier than our own. Our race
freely grows on a fertile and blessed soil which she cultivates with her
vigorous and intelligent daily toils, which she waters from the sweat of
her brow, to which she clings by all the affections of her heart, by the
noblest aspirations of her soul. On week days, proudly working on her
domains; on Sundays, kneeling before the Altars of her Church, fervently
thanking Him for past graces and gifts, she prays to the Supreme Giver
of all earthly goods to continue to favour her with peace, with order,
in the legitimate enjoyment of her liberties, together with the moral,
intellectual and material progress she is striving to deserve.
Guilty is the man who tortures them with chimerical aspirations, who
advises them to conspire against the legitimate authority which she
must, and will, respect in spite of the seductions attempted to have her
to fail in her duty.