England, Canada and the Great War Part 4

I undertook to read Mr. Boura.s.sa's works, and I must say that I was astonished at what I found therein. I felt very strongly that his erroneous views--without questioning their sincerity--were bound to pervert the opinion of my French compatriots, to enflame their prejudices, and to do a great deal of harm in promoting the ever dangerous conflict of race fanaticism. Over forty years of experience of public life had taught me how easy it is to introduce a prejudice in a man's mind, but how difficult it is to destroy it when once it has taken root.

CHAPTER VI.

WHAT DO WE OWE ENGLAND?

To this question raised by Mr. Boura.s.sa, and argued at length by himself in the negative, I answered by a chapter of my book:--"_L'Angleterre, le Canada et la Grand Guerre_"--"_England, Canada and the Great War_."

Great Britain, ever since she came to the conclusion that the days of the old colonial policy were pa.s.sed, and agreed that we should freely govern ourselves, with ministerial responsibility, within the powers set forth in our const.i.tutional charter, has scrupulously respected our political liberty. We have administered our own affairs at our own free will. The Imperial Government never attempted to interfere with the development of our federal politics. They would surely have declined such interference, if it had been asked for.

As long as we form part of the British Empire, it is evident that we owe to England that loyalty which every colony owes to her mother-country.

Granted by the Sovereign Power ruling Canada the freest inst.i.tutions, having the best of reasons to be fully satisfied with our relations with Great Britain, we are in duty bound to be loyal to her flag. We must be true to our allegiance.

We have freely decided to incur the sacrifices we are making for the war. We have so decided because we considered it of the greatest importance, for the future of Humanity, that the German ambition for universal domination be foiled; that the British Empire be maintained; that France should continue a first cla.s.s Power, as expressed by Mr.

Asquith; that before all, and above all, the eternal principles of Right, Justice and Civilization, shall not be trampled upon by the terrific a.s.sault of teutonic barbarism. Moreover, we are also in duty bound to judge with fairness England's part in the great society of nations, and, especially, that she plays in the great events of the present crisis. Beyond doubt, a truly loyal Canadian must refrain from poisoning foreign opinion and that of his fellow British subjects against Great Britain in attributing her course to selfish interests, wilfully taking no account of her broad and admirable foreign policy, ever inspired by the steady desire to maintain peace.

In the first mentioned work, Mr. Boura.s.sa lays great stress on the fact that for nearly a century and a half, previous to the South African War, Canada did not partic.i.p.ate in the wars of the Empire. He extensively quotes from the doc.u.ments and the discussions between Canada's representatives and the Imperial Government, respecting the defence of our country, and that of the Empire herself. He concludes by pretending that the result of all these negotiations and conventions was the agreement that Canada would have only to attend to her own defence, and that Great Britain was always obliged to protect us against all outside attacks. From these pretensions he draws the startling conclusion that all those who do not stand by the conventions he did his best to emphasize are doing revolutionary work.

The answer to such extravagant notions is rather plain and easy. There was not the slightest necessity for the Nationalist leader to multiply lengthy quotations to prove what mere common sense settles at first thought:--

First:--That any country, whether it be independent or a colony, must defend itself when attacked by an enemy.

Second:--That a Sovereign State is bound to defend all the territory under its authority and covered by its flag.

But all this has nothing whatever to do with the very different question of Canada's partic.i.p.ation, outside her own territory, in a war in which Great Britain is engaged, which partic.i.p.ation Canada has freely, deliberately approved and ordered. Such was the case in 1914. The Parliament and the people of Canada at once realized that in the gigantic conflict into which Germany had drawn all the Great Powers of Europe, our future destiny as much as that of England herself was at stake. Without the slightest hesitation, unasked and unsolicited by the Mother Country, we decided that we were in duty bound to do our share to defend the great Empire of which we are a very important component part, and to help saving the world from tyrannical domination.

Much too often giving to words a meaning which they positively cannot convey, Mr. Boura.s.sa argued at length to prove that the agreements, conventions, and understandings arrived at between the Imperial and Canadian Governments, at different dates, were a _solemn treaty_.

How false and untenable such a pretention is, surely needs no lengthy argument. International Law knows no treaties but those made between Sovereign States. It is most absurd to pretend that a Sovereign State can make a treaty between herself and its own colony. Where is the man with the slightest notion of Const.i.tutional Government who would pretend, for instance, that the British North American Act is a treaty between Great Britain and Canada. It is an Act pa.s.sed by the Legislative authority of the Sovereign State to which we belong, enacting the conditions under which Canada would enjoy the rights and privileges of const.i.tutional self-government, partic.i.p.ating in the exercise of Sovereignty within the limits of the powers enumerated in the Act creating the Dominion. It was precisely because we knew we were acting within the limits of those powers, that we decided to join with England and her Allies in the great war.

CHAPTER VII.

CANADA IS NOT A SOVEREIGN STATE.

As long as Canada will remain under the flag of Great Britain--and for one I hope it will yet be for many long years,--it is evident that it will not be a "_Sovereign State_" in the full sense of the word.

One can hardly believe that the Nationalist leader, at page 17 of his pamphlet--"_Hier, Aujourd'hui, Demain_"--"_Yesterday, To-day, To-morrow_," opens a chapter with the t.i.tle: "_Les Colonies autonomes sont des Etats Souverains._"--"_The autonomous colonies are Sovereign States._"

Mr. Boura.s.sa was evidently led to the grievous error contained in the preceding t.i.tle by a complete misapprehension of the true meaning of the word "_autonomous_." He took "_autonomy_" for "_Sovereignty_," being under the delusion that the two are synonymous.

Any student of History knows, or ought to know, that after the war which culminated in the independence of the United States, England adopted an entirely new colonial policy. She was the first Sovereign Power, and has ever since remained the only one, to realize that the old system was doomed to failure, that it was worn out. Her leading statesmen, who always ranked amongst the most eminent the world over, were more and more convinced that the only safe colonial policy was that which would grant "_self-government_" to the colonies, trained to its harmonious working, for their interior management. The true meaning of this new policy was that several of the colonies were, by acts of the Imperial Parliament, called to the exercise of a share of the Sovereignty, well defined in their respective const.i.tutional charters. Canada was one of the first British colonies to enjoy the advantages of such a large part of the Sovereign rights.

Such "_autonomous colonies_" as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Newfoundland, have been, and are to the present day, do not transform them into "_Sovereign States_," enjoying full "Sovereign powers." They are not "_Independent States_" in the full sense of the word.

That Canada is not a Sovereign State is proved beyond doubt by the very fact that she could not amend or change her const.i.tutional charter by her own power and without a new Imperial law. If the Nationalist leader's pretention was sound, any member of the House of Commons, or of the Senate, in Ottawa, could propose a bill to repeal the British North America Act, 1867, and to replace it by another const.i.tutional charter.

The very supposition is absurd. Can it be imagined that His Excellency the Governor-General could be advised by his responsible Ministers to sanction, in the name of His Majesty the Sovereign of Great Britain, a bill repealing an Act of the Imperial Parliament? Still it is exactly what Mr. Boura.s.sa's theory amounts to.

Our const.i.tutional charter does not only provide what is called our Federal,--or National--autonomy, but also the Provincial autonomy. The powers of both are well defined in the Imperial Act. The Provinces of the Dominion also exercise that share of the Sovereign rights delegated to them by the Imperial Parliament. Would the Nationalist leader draw the extravagant conclusion that the territory of any one of the Provinces cannot be declared in the "State of War" with a Foreign Power, by His Majesty the King, without the a.s.sent of the Ministers of that Province? Still that absurd proposition would not be more so than that affirming the necessity of the a.s.sent of the Canadian Cabinet, to a declaration of War involving Canada in an Imperial struggle.

The Sovereign right of declaring war to, and of making peace with, another independent State, is vested in the King of Great Britain, acting upon the advice of his responsible Ministers in the United Kingdom. To the Imperial Parliament belongs the const.i.tutional authority to deal with the Imperial Foreign Affairs.

It is plain that when Great Britain is at War with another Sovereign State the whole territory of the British Empire is in the "State of War"

with that Nation.

It is inconceivable that Mr. Boura.s.sa has seriously pretended that Canada was not at war with the German Empire the very moment the British Empire was so in consequence of the violation by Germany of Belgian neutrality. One can hardly believe that he has propounded the fallacious const.i.tutional doctrine that His Majesty "_the King of England hath not the right to declare Canada in the State of War without the a.s.sent of the Canadian Cabinet_."

Where and when has the Nationalist leader discovered that the Canadian Ministers have the right to advise His Majesty upon all the questions pertaining to the Imperial Foreign Affairs? Any one conversant with the const.i.tutional status of Canada knows that the Canadian Ministers have the right to advise the representative of the Sovereign only upon matters as defined by the British North America Act, 1867, and its amendments.

I was indeed very much surprised at the attempt of Mr. Boura.s.sa to use the authority of Sir Erskine May in support of his erroneous pretension that the autonomous colonies of Great Britain were Sovereign States.

To all the students of the Const.i.tutional History of England, Sir Erskine May is a very well known and appreciated writer. I have read his works several times over for many years. I was certain that he had never written anything to justify the Nationalist leader in quoting him as he did.

Here follows the paragraph of May's Const.i.tutional History quoted by Mr.

Boura.s.sa in support of his own views:--

Parliament has recently p.r.o.nounced it to be just that the Colonies which enjoy self-government, should undertake the responsibility and cost of their own military defence. To carry this policy into effect must be the work of time. But whenever it may be effected, the last material bond of connection with the Colonies will have been severed, and colonial states, acknowledging the honorary sovereignty of England, and fully armed for self-defence, as well against herself as others, will have grown out of the dependencies of the British Empire.

I must say that I am absolutely unable to detect one single word in the above quotation to authorize Mr. Boura.s.sa to affirm that Sir Erskine May was of opinion that "_the autonomous colonies were Sovereign States_."

The true meaning of the above extract is surely very plain. What does it say? It declares, what was a fact, that the British _Parliament has recently p.r.o.nounced it to be just that the Colonies which enjoy self-government should undertake the responsibility and cost of their own military defence_.

Would the British Parliament have deemed it necessary to express such an opinion, if the Colonies had, then, been Sovereign States, consequently obliged, in duty bound, to defend themselves _alone_ against any possible enemy. Surely not, for the obvious reason that Great Britain would have had no more responsibility for the defence of territories no longer covered by her flag and under her Sovereignty.

The very fact that the British Parliament thought proper, _under the then circ.u.mstances_, to say that the Colonies enjoying self-government should undertake to defend themselves, is the convincing proof that they were not Sovereign States.

The following sentence of May's quotation says:--_To carry this policy into effect must be the work of time_.

It is clear that the _policy_ requiring the work of time to be carried into effect was not actually existent at the time Sir Erskine May was writing.

The extract quoted by Mr. Boura.s.sa concludes by declaring that when such a policy _has_ been finally adopted, the Colonies will have developed into Colonial States having _grown out of the dependencies of the British Empire_.

Evidently, when the Dominions of Canada, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, will have grown out of the dependencies of the British Empire, they will no longer be Colonies of Great Britain. But when will that very important event take place? Surely, Sir Erskine May could not foresee. Even to-day Mr. Boura.s.sa cannot say more than any one else.

Pending that unforeseen outcome, the Dominions will remain parts of the British Empire under her Sovereignty.

The above quotation was taken by Mr. Boura.s.sa from the edition of Sir Erskine May's "Const.i.tutional History" published in 1912. But they were first edited by the author in 1863. When has the Imperial Parliament adopted the above mentioned "_Resolution_"? It was voted in 1862--the 4th of March--more than fifty-six years ago. Quoted as it has been by Mr. Boura.s.sa, it appears to have been only very recently adopted. The fact that it is more than half a century old, and was carried before the Federal Union of the Provinces, is a convincing proof that it has no bearing whatever upon the conditions of Canada's present colonial status. By the aforesaid "_Resolution_," the British House of Commons was only expressing the opinion that the time had come for the Colonies to undertake the responsibility and the cost of their defence. The "Resolution" does not say that Great Britain would no longer be called, in the exercise of the rights and duties of her Sovereignty, to defend her Colonial Empire.

By what reasoning can a mere expression of opinion by the English House of Commons be interpreted as at once transforming the Colonies into independent Sovereign States?

Any one somewhat conversant with the political events that led to the Federal Union of the Provinces knows that in applying to the British Parliament for the new Const.i.tutional Charter, the Legislature of United Canada had a twofold object:--first, the settlement of the const.i.tutional difficulties then pending between Upper and Lower Canada; secondly, a broader development of Canada and also of the British Empire. Such was the purpose of the coalition government formed in 1864.

All the members of that Cabinet were strongly in favour of the maintenance of Canada's union with Great Britain. I have heard them expounding their views on what the future of Canada ought to be. I am positive that neither Sir John A. Macdonald, Sir Georges Cartier, the honorable Georges Brown, nor any of their colleagues, of both political parties, ever said a word which could be construed as expressing the opinion that the proposed Federal Union would make of Canada an independent Sovereign State. It is incredible that Mr. Boura.s.sa should have so erroneously understood their real views so as to pretend that they favoured Confederation for that very purpose.

As a proof of his pretension, he quoted the following words of Sir John A. Macdonald, in the Legislative a.s.sembly of old United Canada:--