England, Canada and the Great War

CHAPTER XXI.

The Situations of 1865 and 1900-14 Compared

Our "Nationalist" opponents of all colonial participation in the Imperial wars, affirm that Canada should have abided with the convention of 1865. Are they not aware that, since that year, a great deal of water has run along the rivers; that the world, although perhaps not wiser, has at least grown half a century older; that so many ancient conditions have radically changed; that nations, like individuals, to be progressive, cannot go on marking time on the same small hardened spot?

Any man sincerely desirous to form for himself an enlightened opinion on the question of Imperial defence, must first admit that two national and general situations, totally different, create widely different duties.

Let us compare for a moment, 1865 and 1900-14 —yesterday and to-day– as the "Nationalist" leader says.

Fifty years ago, the German Empire was non-existent. Nothing pointed to the early birth of this terrible child destined to grow so rapidly to such colossal proportions.

The French Empire was the leading continental Power; Great Britain, then as now, the leading naval Power, both military and mercantile.

Those two nations, without a formal alliance, had been united ever since the days when Lord Palmerston favoured the advent of Napoleon III.

The Union of England and France was doing much to maintain the peace of the world.

The United States were just emerging from the trials of their great Civil War. They had to solve the very difficult problem of their national reconstruction. Their population did not exceed thirty-five millions.

How different was the situation of 1900-14!

The German Empire had become formidable with her population of 68,000,000, her soldiers numbering more than 7,000,000, with 1,000,000 of men permanently under arms, ever ready for an offensive campaign, with her fleet much enlarged yearly at the cost of enormous financial sacrifices; allied to Austria-Hungary, with her population of 50,000,000, to Italy, with her 36,000,000 – then being one of the Triple Alliance – supported by Turkey and Bulgaria, – in all a combined strength of 150,000,000 bodies and souls; with the Germans exalted to the utmost by persistent appeals to their feelings and to their ambitious dreams.

The American Republic grown to the rank of a first class Power, with a population of 100,000,000 and a magnificent military fleet.

Was it even sensible to pretend that such altered worldly conditions did not make the revision of the understanding arrived at in 1865 an imperious necessity.

They are living in an imaginary world those of us who assert that Canada could remain a British Colony under a permanent agreement – never to be amended – by which the Mother Country would be bound to defend her, at all costs and all hazards, whenever and by whomsoever attacked, Canada in the meantime refusing, whatever the perils of England might be, to spend a dollar and to send one man for her defence. There could be but one issue to the consideration of such propositions: the dissolution of the British Empire. I regret to say that Mr. Bourassa has audaciously declared that such has been the objective of his oppositionist campaign to the Canadian participation in Imperial wars.

If Canada, through its constitutional organ, the Ottawa Parliament, had signified to England, in 1914, that she would not take the least part in the war imposed upon her by Germany, nor do anything to help her Allies, France and Belgium, could she, without blushing with shame, have claimed the protection of the British flag, if her territory had been attacked.

Would not England have been fully justified in taking the initiative to break the bond which could henceforth but be disastrous to her, our shameless attitude towards her, at the hour of her peril, being most favourable to her mortal enemy.

Have I not every sound reason to conclude that Canadian participation in the present war was in no way whatever the outcome of an Imperialist attempt to drag her, against her will, in the conflict into which she so nobly hastened to enter with the determination to fight to the last, and to deserve her fair share of the glory which will be but one of the rewards that will accrue to all those who will have united together to save Liberty and Civilization from the German barbarous onslaught.

CHAPTER XXII.

British Imperialism Naturally Pacifist

According to its "Nationalist" opponents, British Imperialism has always been of a conquering nature, like that of the Roman type and those of ancient history.

This opinion is formally contradicted by a long succession of undeniable historical facts. Undoubtedly the splendid structure of the British Empire was not erected without armed support. The creation, without an army organization, of a Sovereign State comprising a fourth of the Globe, which component parts, themselves of colossal proportions, situated in all the continents, separated by the immensity of the seas, would have been more than marvellous.

I will not pretend that always and everywhere the expansion of British Sovereignty has taken place according to the dictates of strict justice. Still I do not hesitate to say that, on the whole, it has developed under conditions which were never the outcome of a mere conquering ambition.

With much reason, English citizens are proud of the fact that their Empire is the result of a NATURAL GROWTH. When the call to arms had to be made, it was oftener for DEFENSIVE WARS.

The British Empire, outside the United Kingdom, comprise, for the most important part, Canada, Australia, the South African Dominion, and India. It is easy to explain, in a few lines, under what general circumstances those immense regions were brought under the British flag. I shall, of course, begin this short historical review by the acquisition of Canada by England.

The great event of the discovery of the New World, at the end of the fifteenth century, tempted the western European nations to acquire vast colonies in the new continent. Spain, France, Portugal, Holland, were the first in the field. If the craving for large colonies in the new Hemisphere was of Imperialist inspiration, England does not appear to have been one of the first Powers infested with the disease so dreaded by our "Nationalists". She was rather late to catch it. Hollanders settled in New York before the British.

As all ought to know, Spain took hold of the whole of Southern America. France displayed her flag on the larger part of Northern America, commanding the St. Lawrence and Mississippi Rivers, and the Great Lakes. Those immense regions, extending from the cold north to flowery Louisiana, were called New France. Later on, that part of North America bordering on the Atlantic, from Maine to Virginia, became British, and was subdivided into thirteen provinces, or separate colonies. For such a dominating Imperialist, as some pretend she has ever been, it must be admitted that England was rather in a modest frame of mind with regard to her colonial enterprises. The British Government itself was slow in moving towards the Imperialist goal which was stirring up Spain and France to a much greater activity. The first British emigrants were Puritans looking for that religious liberty, under a new shining sun, which was denied to them by their native land in those days when fanaticism was unfortunately too much triumphant in many countries.

As it was inevitable, the European Colonies in America, all satellites of their metropolis, fell victims to the political rivalries of the nations who settled them. Not satisfied with fighting in Europe, those Powers also decided to gratify the New World with a specimen of what they could do on the battlefields. The Seven Years War did not originate in America, as it was the outcome of secular European international difficulties.

If the European nations, in taking possession of America, were making a conquest, it was that of the white race over the yellow one of the New World. Spain and France, in raising their flags over four-fifths of the American continent, were surely strengthening Imperialism. Will our "Nationalists" accuse them of having unduly saved the New World from the secular Indian barbarism?

More especially, Spanish Imperialism in America was most despotic. By a very false political conception, Spain undertook a great settlement work in America with the sole object of bleeding her colonies to her only profit. It failed disastrously as it deserved to. It is because she persevered in her fatal error that, in 1898, she was forced out of Cuba. The last stone of her immense colonial edifice was cast away.

England shared Spain's error, but much less heavily. Like Spain, she reaped what she had sowed. The thirteen British American colonies revolted and conquered their Independence. Alone French Canada remained loyal to England.

If the French Canadians had sided with the British Colonies to the South in the contest for their Independence, the Canada of those days would certainly have been included in the American Republic when England was forced, by the fate of war, to acknowledge the new Sovereign nation. Her offspring then violently broke away from the parental home, but has recently hastened to her defence, at the hour of danger, only remembering the first happy years of her childhood.

Following the loyal advice of their spiritual leaders, and of their most trusted civil chieftains, the French Canadians remained true to England, refusing to desert her, thus maintaining her Sovereign rights over the Northern half of the Continent destined, a century later, to develop into the present Dominion, enjoying the free institutions of the Mother Country.

As previously stated, the American Revolution brought for ever to an end British absolutism in the new continent. Henceforth, liberty and autonomy were to be the two foundation stones of a new colonial Policy which, far from disrupting the Empire as the autocratic one had done, was to cement its union so strongly as to make possible the gigantic military effort she has displayed for more than the last four years.

The Treaty of Paris brought the Seven Years War to a close. Once more the peace of the world was temporarily restored. By the Treaty of Paris, Canada was ceded to England, our "Nationalists" say. If so, how can they pretend that the extension of British Sovereignty over the regions which have become the great autonomous Dominion of Canada was an undue manifestation of British conquering Imperialism?

An intelligent and impartial student of the early settlements of the two continents of America can only draw the conclusion that the New World has not been the theatre of the operations of British Imperialism. Its first real attempt was tried – with much laudable success – in 1867, by the federal union of the Canadian provinces, decreed by the Sovereign legislative power of the Parliament of Great Britain, at our own request and in accordance with our own freely expressed wishes.

Australia is the second autonomous colony of England in extent and importance. It comprises nearly all the territory of the Oceanic continent, so called from the geographical position, in the Pacific Ocean, of the Islands forming it. New Zealand is the second group of these Islands. It is another autonomous British colony, called, since 1907 "The Dominion of New Zealand".

Those two Dominions have a combined territorial area of more than 3,000,000 square miles – almost as large as the whole of Europe – with a population of six millions rapidly increasing. Their two largest cities, Sydney and Melbourne, each having a population of 700,000, are great commercial centres.

If British Imperialism has had anything to do with the bringing of Australia and New Zealand under British Sovereignty, it must be admitted by all fair minded men that it has worked its way in the most pacific manner. Deservedly renowned British explorers – Cook, Vancouver, and others – discovered and took possession of the Oceanic continent in the name of their Sovereign. Welcomed by the aboriginal tribes, they raised the British flag over the fair land of such a promising future in the latter end of the eighteenth century – Cook in 1770. It has ever since been graciously waving, by the sweet breeze of the Pacific, over one of the happiest peoples on earth, enjoying the blessings of interior peace and all the advantages of the political liberties conferred upon these great colonies, more than half a century ago. As a matter of fact, England has organized her Australasian possessions into free autonomous colonies at the very dawn of their political life, dating from the middle of the last century, when they began that splendid progressive advance developing more and more every year.

Is it not evident, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that the settlement of the Australasian colonies by England, so satisfactory and so promising, has not been brought about by the illegitimate ambition of an unmeasured Sovereign aggrandizement by a guilty sort of Imperialism.

The establishment of British Sovereignty in the Indian country, immense in extent, wealth and population, is one of the greatest events of the historical development of the British Empire.

I shall not say that all that took place in the government of India deserves a blind approval. That British authority was much too long left in the control of a company was a misfortune. Under such a regime abuses were sure to develop and increase. They did and were energetically denounced – more especially on that day when Sheridan rose to such an eloquence, in the House of Lords, that a motion of adjournment had to be carried, to allow the peers to recover the free control of their minds before rendering judgment in the case brought before their tribunal, impeaching Warren Hastings.

The rule of the Indian Company was abolished, in 1858, by The Government of India Act.

In 1876, the illustrious Disraëli – Lord Beaconsfield – took the statesmanlike decision of adding a new prestige to the British Crown and to the Sovereign wearing it. He had Parliament to adopt the Royal Titles Act, by which Her Majesty Queen Victoria was proclaimed Empress of India.

Such, in due course, and without any trouble, was accomplished that great political evolution which substituted, for populations numbering more than three hundred millions of human beings, an Imperial system in place of the deplorable government by a company. For the last sixty years, the new regime has given peace, order and prosperity to India.

A French publicist wrote as follows: —

After troubles of nine centuries duration, India has recovered peace under the tutelage of England, the best colonizer of the peoples of Europe. England has rendered an evident service to India. She has freed her from the intestine wars tearing her since her historical origin; she has given her a police and an administrative system.

Nations, like individuals, are not perfect. To judge equitably, impartially, the government by a Metropolis of the regions under her Sovereignty, one must not only be scandalized at her failings, but must take the broader view of her whole history in appreciating its final good and commendable results. So judging the government of India by England, every impartial mind must conclude that, on the whole – and more especially for the last sixty years – it has been beneficient. It promises to be still more so, as a consequence of the admirable share India is taking in the present war.

Egypt and the Soudan have a territorial area of 1,335,000 square miles, with a population of 15,000,000. I pride to be one of those who congratulate Great Britain to have freed the ancient and glorious Egyptian country from Turkish tyranny. A proclamation, dated the 18th of December, 1914, has finally placed Egypt under England's protectorate with the agreement of France.

In the chapters respecting the Soudanese and South African wars, I have shown how satisfactory has been the rule of Great Britain in those African countries.

It being ever true that the earth was Providentially created for men to live in the legitimate enjoyment of the blessings of peace multiplied by the fruits of their labours, the Egyptians and the Soudaneses have every reason to congratulate themselves for their liberation from the Turkish barbarous yoke, and for the protection they receive from one of the most civilizing nations.

I sincerely believe that this short review of the respective situation of five of the principal component parts of the British Empire, is sufficient to form the honest conviction that if England has practised Imperialism, she has done so for the real benefit of the peoples living under the ægis of her Sovereignty, the most favourable to colonial political liberty.

CHAPTER XXIII.

British Imperialism and Political Liberty

British history, for the last century and more, proves that Imperialism is not naturally incompatible with Political Liberty, nor with the respect due the national aspirations of divers ethnical groups. The unity and the consolidation of the Empire made their greatest strides since the close of the war which resulted in the independence of the neighbouring Republic. As previously explained, they were the outcome of the very wise and statesmanlike change of colonial policy then adopted by England. The days were to come when they would be put to the severest test and would prove more than equal to its greatest strain. Those are the days which the British Empire is living through, with brilliancy and heroism, amidst the dazzling lightning and the roaring thunder of an unprecedented military conflict, with every prospect of surviving its sufferings and sacrifices with a still stronger political structure.

The same evolution by which Great Britain was to reach the summit of Political Liberty by the final triumph of the new constitutional principle of ministerial responsibility, was spreading to her far overseas Colonies. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Newfoundland were successively granted constitutional charters based on the same principles as those of the institutions of the United Kingdom.

As I have already said, Imperialism becomes dangerous and deserves the severest condemnation, only where and when it is the instrument of autocratic absolutism. It causes me no alarm whatever when it is developed under free institutions, guaranteed and protected by ministerial responsibility.

Whatever said to the contrary, by prejudiced and designing writers, imbued with the extravagant notions of a narrow and fanatical "Nationalism", Canada, the most important of the autonomous Colonies of the British Empire, is freer than ever. Like all the other nations, she suffers from disastrous events shaking the whole worldly edifice, but she is none the less the absolute mistress of the initiative of whatever efforts she considers her duty to make under those trying circumstances. England has imposed nothing upon Canada, has asked nothing from Canada, since the beginning of the war. She has, of course, accepted, with much pleasure and gratitude, the help we have freely offered and given her. Let our "Nationalists", in their inspired unfairness, say, if they like, that Canada, like all the Allies defensively fighting, was forced in the conflict by the imperious necessity of the situation created by those who expected to reach the goal of their ambition. But they have no right to charge Great Britain to have coerced the Dominion, against her will, to join in the struggle which the British Government had done their utmost to prevent.

If it was not giving to this work too wide a range, I would like to undertake an historical sketch of all the good the British constitutional system has produced in the United Kingdom and in the Colonies. I shall quote only a few of the most important examples.

In my opinion, the one development in England's history, since the close of the eighteenth century, most interesting to the French Canadians, is certainly that which resulted in the emancipation of the Roman Catholics of the United Kingdom.

To persuade my French Canadian countrymen of the good to be wrought by the patriotic use of the British institutions, I explained to them that at the beginning of the last century, the Roman Catholics of the United Kingdom enjoyed no political rights. They were neither electors, nor eligible to the House of Commons. They asked that justice be done to them. True statesmen, high and fair minded, admitted the justice of their claims and supported them. The ensuing political contest lasted more than twenty years.

To obtain the proposed change in the long standing laws of the realm from an exclusively Protestant electorate, was indeed a great task to accomplish. The public men supporting the Roman Catholics' claims were courageous and eloquent. They carried the day. Have not the true friends of political freedom every reason to congratulate themselves that a great measure of justice granting political rights to Roman Catholics was voted by an Electorate and a Parliament exclusively Protestant.

King George IV, through fear that his Royal prerogative might be impaired by the change, was hostile to it. He was persuaded to agree to the measure by Sir Robert Peel, the life long opponent of Roman Catholic emancipation. Whatever were the religious convictions and feelings of Sir Robert Peel, he was a statesman of a high class. As all the leading public men of England, he had a broad conception of the duties of the chief adviser of the Crown, and of the true spirit of the British constitution. The voice of the nation having spoken in no uncertain sounds, the national will must be followed. He plainly said so to His Majesty who yielded. Then, in a most admirable speech, he – Sir Robert Peel – moved himself the passing of the bill granting justice to the Roman Catholics, carried it through the two Houses of Parliament and had it sanctioned by the King.

A great act of national justice always receives its due reward. The Roman Catholics have been faithful and loyal subjects. George IV and his successors have lived to see many evident proofs of their loyal devotion, more especially since the opening of the present war.

The final success of the free discussion of the question of granting to the Roman Catholics of the United Kingdom all the rights enjoyed by the British subjects of all the other religious denominations, carried in spite of difficulties not easily overcome, is certainly one of the greatest and most honorable triumphs that Political Liberty has ever obtained. I was often deeply moved at reading the historic account of that most interesting debate in Parliament, on the public platform and in the press. More and more, the conviction was firmly impressed on my mind and soul that a great people accomplishing a grand act of justice gives a most salutary example to posterity deserving the admiration and gratitude of all generations to come.

I was only appreciating with justice and fairness the part played by England in Canada, in telling my French Canadian countrymen that they enjoyed the political rights of British subjects many years before the same privileges and justice was granted to the Roman Catholics of the United Kingdom. That much in answer to the charge of our fanatical extremists that England and her Government always wanted to oppress the French Canadians on account of their religious faith.

Without going back to the eventful days of Magna Charta and of the Bill of Rights, both embodying the fundamental constitutional principles which were finally bound to overcome the last pretentions of absolutism of yore, I considered a short review, in broad lines, of the work performed by the British Electorate and the Imperial Parliament, during the last century, would help in destroying in the minds of my French readers the prejudices forced upon them by "Nationalist" writers. That great work is principally illustrated by eight important measures of general interest.

I have just mentioned that most honourable one emancipating the Roman Catholics of Great Britain.

Shortly after, it was followed by that abolishing the Corn Laws after a protracted and very interesting discussion. That important measure was also carried on the proposition of the same Sir Robert Peel, for a long time its determined opponent. The manufacturing population, increasing so rapidly, would soon have been starved by the continuously augmenting cost of bread. Sir Robert Peel foresaw the fearful consequences sure to ensue, if no relief was granted to millions threatened with hunger. He was, as I have already said, too much of a statesman to hesitate in doing his duty. He gave up his own opinion and advised his Sovereign to do away with the Corn Laws, the repeal of which he had Parliament to vote.