Page images

possible. When necessary, force may be employed with discretion; but it must always be used with a firm and just hand through the recognized government. The people should be made to feel that it is the Prince of the Faithful who compels his subjects to accept the inevitable, and not the foreigner. In ten or fifteen years time, with patience, tact and forbearance, the French will be ruling a new and reorganized Morocco; but it will be under a veiled suzerainty, as she is now managing Tunis, or as Great Britain controls Egypt. And the Moorish proverb: "He who stands long enough at the door is sure to enter at last," will once more have been fulfilled.




I suppose there is a stage in the development of the creature at which opinion may very well vary as to whether it is a tadpole or a full-fledged, or rather a four-footed, frog. Canada, constitutionally, is in a somewhat uncertain case; for, if you say that she is a colony, you will be confronted with some well-developed legs, and if you say that she is an independent state, you will be asked to explain away the remains of the tail. What sort of compromising language a biologist would apply to his dubiosity, I do not know; but, with reference to Canada, I am prepared to make a distinction, to say that she is nominally a colony, and really an independent state. A veritable bit of the actual tail is still visible; there may not, indeed, be enough for performance of its former function of control, but quite enough to betray the origin of the animal; while the legs can very clearly kick, if not speak, for themselves. Nominally, I say, Canada is a colony; the forms, the nomenclature, the legal appearance still exist. But in reality Canada is independent and governs herself. A short summary of Canadian political history will establish that point.

Resemblance to British History. A sketch of the constitutional development of the United Kingdom itself will, with a few explanations, suffice for the main features of the development of the Canadian constitution. Observe the following parallelisms:

1. The principal agency in British evolution was the Common's control of taxation. So also in Canada.

2. In earlier years this control was not completely effective because of the existence of the hereditary revenues of the crown, and the King's frequent recourse to aids, benevolences, prizes, etc. So also, as to the revenues, in Canada-for example, all the moneys derived from the sale and leasing of lands (the lands all belonged to the King, we were told); all fines; all fees of office (most of the officials received fees); and

all customs duties levied by Imperial statute. These revenues were large, and some of the governors looked forward with joy to the time when they would be sufficient to defray all expenditure and thus end forever the absurdity of bothering with legislative assemblies.

3. In earlier times the kings had large legislative authority, and the Stuarts claimed divine right to do as they liked. Defeated in many constitutional contests and finally in civil war, all such claims were withdrawn and ended. So also in Canada, where the same sort of contests, resulting in civil, although unsuccessful, war, preceded the concession of responsible government (1847).

4. In earlier times, the King was the chief executive officer, and took advice when and how he liked. So also his deputy in Canada.

5. Imperceptibly, executive functions became attached to various departments presided over by members of the administration of the day. So also in Canada.

6. Gradually the King ceased to attend council meetings of the administration, and finally withdrew altogether. So also in Canada.

7. The most marked advance in this last respect occurred on the accession of George I. Not only could he not speak English and his councillors not speak Dutch, but, apart from his desire for the use of British soldiers and sailors to help him in his seizure of Swedish territory, he did not care very much what his ministers did. So also in Canada. After British adoption of free trade and free navigation (1846-9), there were few matters in which the governors were specially interested. They guarded British interests only, even as George I watched over those of Hanover.

8. In earlier days, treaties were one of the peculiar prerogatives of the Crown. Nominally, they are so still, but, in reality, control has passed to the cabinet. So in Canada. Nominally, Canada has no foreign relations, but in reality she regulates them, very largely, as she wishes.

9. Even the influences which in England made so dilatory and sluggish the progress of political evolution were duplicated in Canada. There were the same placemen and place-seekers; the same sycophants and parasites; the same society-climbers and flatterers; the same strivers for titles and favors; the same grovellers, weaklings and imbeciles. But

besides all these, there were always very many estimable men, splendid men, who fought against reform because they did not like it; because they believed it low, vulgar and democratic; because they believed that government by the people would mean spoliation and anarchy; because of their assurance that the classes ought to govern and the masses to do as they were told.

The parallelism is close. Substitute the Colonial Secretary in Canadian history for the Sovereign in British, and it is fairly complete. Present Position. Explanation of the present position will be assisted by dividing into two categories the authority which, in the course of time, has passed from the Imperial and become vested in the Canadian Parliament, namely, (1) that relating to local and purely internal affairs, and (2) that relating to matters having an external aspect.

Internal Affairs. Tight check upon even trifling details of our government was maintained until the union of the two Canadas in 1840. We had legislative assemblies, but the governors had the greater power. Our rebellions (1837-8) produced Lord Durham's report (1839). Lord Durham's report led to the introduction of responsible government, to which Lord Elgin afterwards (1847) gave practical operation. And British adoption of the principles of free trade (1846) by removing the only reason for interference in our domestic affairs, relieved us from a good deal of the parentalism which we had theretofore experienced and resented. After that, little tiffs from time to time with our governors were necessary. Every one of these men had to suffer a little clipping of the wings; one wanted to control the pardoning power in criminal cases; another wanted to exercise a sort of veto over provincial legislation; another imagined that he ought to control our militia, and so on. None of them got what he wanted, and in later years, although still apt to chafe and fret a little,1 they have almost completely settled down into recognition of their limitations. Indeed, we may say that, with reference to all purely domestic matters, our independence of control is not only absolute, but is unreservedly admitted and acknowledged by the Imperial authorities.

External Aspects. Interference in our domestic affairs ceased, not

1 The above has no reference, and, as far as I know, no application to His Royal Highness the Duke of Connaught.

out of deference to colonial sentiment and aspirations, but because, as Mr. Gladstone once said when the British Government really came to consider the matter, they found that they had no interest in such matters.

In other respects, in relation to subjects with regard to which certain sections of the British people continued to consider themselves entitled to privileges in their colonies, there were the same old objections to our freedom of action, the same old Downing Street pressure and interventions. We have not quite finished with some of them yet. What has been done and what remains to be done may be seen from the following review under the headings (1) Judicial Appeals; (2) Tariffs; (3) Copyright; (4) Naturalization; (5) Merchant shipping; (6) Treaties; (7) War. The first two are settled. The third is practically settled. The fourth and fifth are under discussion. The sixth is settled. The seventh-we shall see.

Judicial Appeals. Our final court of appeal is the Judicial Committee of the British Privy Council. Originally, colonies had no option in the matter, their charters so stipulated. Now the system continues in partial operation because Canada has not chosen wholly to abolish it. Nominally we have no control. Nominally the King may bring all judicial matters to "the foot of the throne," and do with them there as he thinks right. Really the King does nothing of the kind. Really our legislatures pass statutes, from time to time, assuming to limit the sovereign's authority. Really we do as we like, and the sovereign assents to any legislation we choose to pass.

Tariffs. The advent of free-trade in the United Kingdom ended the prohibitions theretofore imposed upon us, and we commenced (1859) the regulation of our own tariffs. Naturally enough, the British manufacturer did not like our methods, and the Colonial Office intervened and threatened to disallow our statute. The threat brought a plucky reply from the Canadian Government:

Self-government would be utterly annihilated if the views of the Imperial Government were to be preferred to those of the people of Canada. It is, therefore, the duty of the present government distinctly to affirm the right of the Canadian legislature to adjust the taxation of the people in the way they deem best, even if it should unfortunately happen to

« PreviousContinue »