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 partic.i.p.ate, 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 const.i.tutional 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 const.i.tutional 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 const.i.tutional 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 inst.i.tutions. 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 subst.i.tuted 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 pa.s.sed 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 const.i.tutional 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 const.i.tutional 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 const.i.tutional 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 const.i.tutional 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 const.i.tutional inst.i.tutions.

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 va.s.salage 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 pa.s.sions? 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 circ.u.mstances. 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 const.i.tutional 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 pa.s.sed 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 acc.u.mulate, 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 const.i.tutional 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 const.i.tute 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. Boura.s.sa's pamphlet ent.i.tled:--_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. Boura.s.sa 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 partic.i.p.ation 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 const.i.tutional, 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. Boura.s.sa 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. Boura.s.sa'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. Boura.s.sa 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. Boura.s.sa, _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. Boura.s.sa, _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_.