England, Canada and the Great War

Behold just now how safely and wisely this Indian evolution is proceeding under the experienced direction of British statesmanship. It is "to be achieved by successive stages", declares the Secretary of State for India, speaking in the name of the whole British responsible Cabinet. Such have been accomplished all the constitutional developments which have wrought so much perfection for British free institutions.

True progress, in every form, is never revolutionary. And why? For the very reason that instead of fighting for destruction by brute force, it aims at perfecting by regular advances in the right direction, by successive improvements which experience justifies, which reason, intelligence and wisdom approve, which political sense recommends, which sound moral principles authorize and sanction.

A country favoured with the free British constitutional regime is not the land where bolshevikism of any grade or stamp, can flourish and bear fruits of desolation and shame.

The wonderful Indian country, for so many centuries tortured by intestine troubles, at last rescued by England from that barbarous situation, given a reorganized administration able to maintain interior peace, favoured by British business experience and capital with material progress in many ways, specially in transportation facilities, may soon see – let us hope – the dawn of the glorious days of a large measure of political freedom and responsible government.

Far away indeed from the perilous Imperialism abhorred by our much depressed "Nationalists" is India safely moving.

CHAPTER XXVII.

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, cæsarism. 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 cæsarism 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.