
* A Project Gutenberg Canada Ebook *

This ebook is made available at no cost and with very few
restrictions. These restrictions apply only if (1) you make
a change in the ebook (other than alteration for different
display devices), or (2) you are making commercial use of
the ebook. If either of these conditions applies, please
check gutenberg.ca/links/licence.html before proceeding.

This work is in the Canadian public domain, but may be
under copyright in some countries. If you live outside Canada,
check your country's copyright laws. IF THE BOOK IS UNDER
COPYRIGHT IN YOUR COUNTRY, DO NOT DOWNLOAD
OR REDISTRIBUTE THIS FILE.

Title: The Federation of Canada 1867-1917.
   Four Lectures delivered in the University of Toronto in
   March, 1917, to Commemorate the Fiftieth Anniversary
   of the Federation.
Author: Wrong, George MacKinnon (1860-1948)
Author: Willison, Sir John Stephen (1856-1927)
Author: Lash, Zebulon Aiton (1846-1920)
Author: Falconer, Sir Robert Alexander (1867-1943)
Date of first publication: 1919
Edition used as base for this ebook:
   Toronto: Published for the University of Toronto
   by the Oxford University Press, 1917
Date first posted: 15 February 2009
Date last updated: 15 February 2009
Project Gutenberg Canada ebook #262

This ebook was produced by: Iona Vaughan, Mark Akrigg
& the Online Distributed Proofreading Team
at http://www.pgdpcanada.net




  The Federation of Canada
  1867-1917

  Four Lectures delivered in the University of Toronto in
  March, 1917, to Commemorate the Fiftieth
  Anniversary of the Federation

  By

  George M. Wrong
  Sir John Willison
  Z. A. Lash
  R. A. Falconer


  Published for the University of Toronto
  by the
  Oxford University Press
  Toronto
  1917




  COPYRIGHT, CANADA, 1917
  BY THE
  UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO


  UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO PRESS




  The Federation of Canada
  1867-1917




PREFATORY NOTE


Even though the thought of Canada is almost wholly occupied with the
great war which is desolating the world, it would have involved the
neglect of a patriotic duty to fail in commemorating so notable an
anniversary as that of the fiftieth year of the federal union of the
Canadian provinces. These four lectures, delivered to large audiences in
the University of Toronto, are printed in the hope that they may help to
emphasise the significance of a momentous political movement.

  TORONTO,
  _May, 1917._




CONTENTS


                                              PAGE

The Creation of the Federal System in
Canada, by GEORGE M. WRONG, M.A.,
Professor of History in the University of
Toronto                                          1

Some Political Leaders in the Canadian
Federation, by SIR JOHN WILLISON, LL.D.         39

The Working of Federal Institutions in
Canada, by Z. A. LASH, K.C., LL.D.,
sometime Deputy-Minister of Justice             77

The Quality of Canadian Life, by R. A.
FALCONER, C.M.G., President of the
University of Toronto                          109

Index                                          139




I

THE CREATION OF THE FEDERAL SYSTEM IN CANADA

By GEORGE M. WRONG


Speaking in Toronto to celebrate the fiftieth year of Confederation I am
reminded of two past scenes in this city. One was in 1849 when a riotous
mob marched through the streets. The occasion was trouble between the
French and the English in the Parliament then in session at Montreal.
The Toronto mob was bitterly angry because Parliament had decided to
compensate certain French Canadians for losses inflicted upon them
during the rebellions in 1837 and 1838. This, the mob considered, was to
reward rebellion. Accordingly the rude effigies of two ministers, Robert
Baldwin and William Hume Blake, after being carried about in derision,
were finally burned amidst jeers and shouts and after the mob had
proclaimed its favourite doctrine of "To Hell with the French." Eighteen
years later there was a different scene. At daybreak of the morning of
July 1st, 1867, a crowd collected at the foot of Church Street to
witness the roasting whole of a great ox in celebration of the
federation of Canada, which went into effect on that day. The practice
of roasting oxen whole was little known in Canada and the operation
lasted through the greater part of the day. When it was complete no
hungry crowd was waiting for food and so the ox was cut up and
distributed among the charitable institutions of the city. Fireworks
followed in the evening and that night Toronto went to bed tired and
happy. This day, said the _Globe_ newspaper, sees the beginning
of a new nation. The history of Canada as a federal state had begun.

The two scenes illustrate two cardinal features in the political history
of Canada. The one is the differences between the English and the
French, the other is the succession of attempts at a working
arrangement, ending at last in the compromise of federation. Most of
what has happened in the constitutional development of Canada is linked
with these questions. It loomed up on the day when the British flag was
first raised over Canada. It is still with us and threatens anew from
time to time to become alarming and menacing.

Conquered New France was a country aristocratic in organisation with a
class of great landowners who delighted to call themselves a _noblesse_.
The eighteenth century laid sharp emphasis upon differences of birth and
rank. The British military class despised traders and when a British
officer ruled at Quebec there was certain to be sharp cleavage between
him and the traders, unless these were properly docile and respectful.
"The genteel people of the Colony", wrote General James Murray, the
first British governor, "despise merchants and of course esteem the
officers who shun them most." In nothing did the English of the last
half of the eighteenth century glory more than in being genteel, and
when at Quebec they looked about them in search of this beautiful
quality they found it not among their own British traders but among the
French seigneurs. A seigneur they could invite to their table, when they
would scorn to meet a merchant, and the result was intercourse on terms
of equality between the English and the French leaders. Both classes
despised the pushing trader and the trader was not slow to strike back.
The British officer of that age was perhaps not a model in conduct. The
traders watched Murray's little court at Quebec with relentless
suspicion. They made bitter complaints against his desecration of the
Sabbath by balls, gaming, and other "Idle Divertions", and his neglect
to go regularly to church. He retorted with "rage and rudeness of
language", as the traders complained, and more and more courted the
society of the French leaders. However different had been the fortunes
of war on the battlefield, in the society of Quebec, after the
conquest, the English trader was depressed and despised and the
conquered French were in the ascendant.

The British found Canada, with its harsh climate, an unattractive
country. Sir Guy Carleton, who succeeded Murray, made a careful survey
of the outlook and he came to the conclusion that Canada would never be
the home of any considerable number of English-speaking people. Why
should the English settle in this northern region when they had open to
them under their own flag the warm and pleasant lands, which stretched
southward to Florida--but were destined soon to become the United States
of America? Canada will always be French, said Carleton, and, this being
the case, why should not the French in Canada have anything which would
help to make them contented and comfortable? They had sworn allegiance
to the British crown. They had no desire to come back under the power of
France, who had been a hard and exacting mother, and, if not disturbed
in their usual mode of life, they would remain docile and useful
dependents of the British crown. Accordingly Carleton favoured the
widest liberality in governing the French, and the system embodied in
the Quebec Act of 1774 goes far in concessions. The French retained
their own laws in respect to property and all other aspects of civil
life; their church received every privilege which it had had under a
Catholic king and to this day has the legal right to collect the tithe
and to levy upon Catholics taxes for the erection of church buildings.
Carleton saw his ideal realised--a French-speaking society under French
civil law, with the church entrenched in such privileges as it had
possessed in France.

Unexpected change is one of the laws of human life and this system had
no sooner been confirmed than a new crisis came in the shape of the
American Revolution. For Canada it meant one supreme fact, that people
of English origin and speech, whether they liked it or not, left their
homes farther south, and sought new homes in the inclement north. The
revolutionists took a malignant pleasure in describing the region to
which these exiles were driven:

    "Of all the vile countries that ever were known,
    In the frigid or torrid or temperate zone,
    From accounts I have heard there is not such another;
    It neither belongs to this world or the other."

Such was Nova Scotia, such was all Canada thought to be. Perhaps as many
as sixty thousand exiles found their way into what is now Canada. For
the time it was a vast migration and it carried seed rich with future
meaning, for it proved that Carleton was mistaken and that great
numbers of English-speaking people would seek homes in Canada.

The next step in political evolution was to divide the country between
the English and the French, and Carleton lived to have a share in this
new plan. In 1791 was passed the Constitutional Act by which Canada was
separated into two provinces, Lower Canada to be French with the French
civil law and full rights to the Roman Catholic Church, Upper Canada to
be English with English laws and traditions. Quebec remained the capital
of the French province while, in time, Toronto became the capital of
Upper Canada and the centre of the traditions and loyalties by which
Canada was linked with Britain. Each province had its own legislature
and in 1792 each set out on its task of learning the art of
self-government through elected representatives of the people.

To the English in Upper Canada this was no unfamiliar experience, but to
the French in the other province it was the beginning of a new life in
the state. Neither in Old France nor in New France had any Frenchman
ever had a vote which carried with it political authority. Now, however,
under British rule, suddenly the vote had come, as, long after, it came
to the conquered Boers in South Africa. The French in Canada had votes,
elections, debates in Parliament, the whole fascinating vista of a real
political life. It was not long before they found a fiery leader, the
redoubtable Louis Joseph Papineau. Easy-going theorists had supposed
that a new era had dawned, and that the French, endowed with the
franchise, would soon be like their English-speaking fellow-Canadians.
All were subjects of the best of kings. The new political divisions of
Lower Canada were named after counties in England, Devon, Kent, York,
Warwick, and so on. Even some French-Canadian leaders held that
French-Canadians should, with English liberties, adopt the English
language.

At first even Papineau was conciliatory. But he soon found that the
government of the day was not willing to concede to the elective chamber
of the legislature full political authority. There was an appointed
second chamber, prevailingly English in character, and there was an
English governor, who exercised real authority. Papineau, foiled of
complete political power, grew ever more angry and remonstrant and Lower
Canada was soon torn by a bitter racial war. "Our language, our
institutions and our laws" was the cry then of the French and it has
continued ever since. Papineau became ever more strident. He denounced
the "reign of terror" of the English. The British in Canada were
described as "subjects of foreign origin" who had no right in the
country. Papineau called men who stood across his path "foul",
"savage", and "brutal". He accused one governor, Lord Dalhousie, of being
little short of a thief and called a letter from another governor, Lord
Gosport, "an impertinence which I repel with contempt and silence."
Behind him Papineau had the French-Canadian peasants. They followed and
trusted him as the Irish peasants followed and trusted Daniel O'Connell.

It was not strange that all this bitterness should sow the seed of
rebellion and in 1837 and 1838 the French-Canadians took up arms. In the
fighting there were bloody scenes. Montreal, on the borderland between
the two peoples and itself half English and half French, was, in an
especial degree, the scene of racial bitterness. After the rising of
1837 and 1838 its jails were crowded with political prisoners. Exile or
execution was the fate of a good many of the rebel leaders, while the
great mass of the French-Canadians remained crushed and helpless, but
sullen and alert.

The division of the two elements under separate legislatures had failed
and now was to be tried a new union, the third attempt to solve the
problem. In 1841 came into being a new Canada under a single parliament
with an equal number of representatives from each of the two provinces.
There was no fixed capital. Parliament met now at Kingston, now at
Montreal, or Quebec, or Toronto, until, after twenty years, it was
finally decided to make Ottawa the capital.

At the outset a mistake was made. Lord Sydenham--his full title, by the
way, was Baron Sydenham and Toronto--the first governor under the union,
made the mistake of ignoring the French and formed a government, really
the first Canadian cabinet, without any French representatives. It was a
fatal error. When Bagot, Sydenham's successor, tried to continue with
Sydenham's cabinet he found himself confronted by an opposition so
powerful that he was forced to yield. He called to office a composite
English and French ministry headed by Baldwin and Lafontaine. The cry
went up in Canada and in England--we have heard it since--that disloyal
rebels were being placed in charge of the affairs of the country. The
anxieties of the situation killed Bagot, and racial strife was more
acute than ever, for French and English now sat together and could
quarrel at close quarters in the same chamber.

Parliament was sitting at Montreal in 1849 when a new violence broke
out. During the troubles of 1837-38 much property had been destroyed.
Some of the French demanded, like the English, compensation from the
government. In Upper Canada a similar type of losses had been paid,
but, in respect to the French claimants, it was urged with vehement
passion that any payment for losses would be a reward for rebellion.
There were bitter debates. It is not uninteresting, here, in the
University of Toronto, to remember that its one-time Professor and later
Chancellor, William Hume Blake, a member of the government of the time,
received no less than three challenges to fight duels as the result of
his part in the debate. When the House learned that Mr. Blake and Mr.
(afterwards Sir) John A. Macdonald were to fight, it ordered the arrest
of both members. They appeared in custody at the bar of the House, gave
solemn pledges to keep the peace, and in the end were liberated.

If such was the temper of the leaders we may imagine the passions of the
mob. The cry went up that the French were resolved to master Canada. The
very people to be paid were, it was repeatedly urged, themselves rebels.
The Montreal _Gazette_ declared the proposal "a personal insult to every
man who bore arms and a possible robbery of every man who was not a
rebel against the Queen." "Rouse yourselves", said the _Gazette_, "meet,
resolve, and hurl your defiance against the French 'Masters' of your
country"; and it went on to urge the need to arm for civil war. A Mr.
Mack, in a passionate speech at a public banquet in Montreal, said:
"Look to the distant shore of Lake Huron--the backwoodsmen are awake and
grasp the ready rifle, the men of Erie are on the move--Toronto hurls
defiance at the rebel-paying traitors, Kingston speaks in words of no
doubtful omen, Cornwall is ready for the march. The wild pibroch thrills
through the forests of Glengarry and the Scottish steel starts from the
scabbard--

    'Their swords are a thousand
    Their hearts are but one'

...We are English yet. English in body and soul."

The mob of Montreal could not be controlled. After Lord Elgin, the
governor, had given his assent to the hated bill, he was assaulted on
leaving the House, and a bad egg struck him squarely in the face.
Something more dangerous than eggs was hurled, for then and later his
carriage was pelted and almost wrecked by huge stones. It was a marvel
that he was not killed or injured. The mob passed wholly out of control,
set fire to and destroyed the Parliament buildings at Montreal, and
wrecked private houses. It was in sympathy with this rioting that the
scene occurred in Toronto of the burning in effigy of Mr. Baldwin and
Mr. Blake. And at the root of it all was the quarrel between the French
and the English.

Eighteen years afterwards came the second scene in Toronto, the
celebration of the birth of the federation, which now, fifty years
later, we are commemorating. During those eighteen years Canada
experienced to the full the bitterness, and with it the futility, of
racial strife. In the Parliament the two divisions of Upper and Lower
Canada had exactly the same number of members. Thus either division, if
it desired to do so, could checkmate and baffle the plans of the other.
Each party had two political leaders, one French, the other English, and
for a time the principle was even conceded that no party could hold
power unless it had a separate majority in each province. If on public
works in one province money was spent, an urgent demand was certain that
an equal sum should be spent in the other. Though the population of
Upper Canada became much larger than that of Lower Canada, the French
province sternly refused the demand that the English should have a
larger number of members in the House. Party spirit steadily hardened
and elections made little change. In the end parties were so evenly
divided that a ministry was held in office by very narrow majorities.
Sometimes the House would be kept in session so that a member, arriving
by a delayed train, might be able to save the ministry from defeat. The
absence of a couple of members from illness would cause a ministry to
tremble for its life. In 1862 when the English-speaking members were
anxious to strengthen the defences of the country, in consequence of the
_Trent_ affair, and the consequent danger of war with the United States,
the French vote drove the ministry from power. The mayor of Montreal, at
a public banquet with the Governor, Lord Monck, present, explained that
he welcomed British soldiers to Canada, the more the better, he liked
the red-coats, but only as long as they did not cost Canada a cent.

The worst of deadlock was that it paralysed all active foresight on the
part of government. On the average, ministries endured for only about
six months. No government could do anything which antagonised even one
or two supporters. The country stood still. Its credit declined, owing
to a succession of bad crops. There began at this time that exodus to
the United States which, in the end, assumed alarming proportions. Only
a few of the emigrants who landed at Quebec were willing to remain in
Canada. The civil war in the United States, which began in the year
1861, was creating a great military nation at the door of Canada and
serious American leaders advised Lincoln, when the conquest of the South
seemed doubtful, to find compensation by taking Canada, which had no
black population and was peopled by a race likely to be quickly
assimilated by the North. Torn by petty strife, the Canadian people
seemed ill fitted to confront a great issue. Party had become faction
and there was a deadly apathy. If one more bridge was built in Upper
Canada than happened to be built in the same year in Lower Canada the
public mind was more disturbed than by any great question of national
destiny.

By this time Canada had passed through the three stages in the evolution
of the race problem. In the first the French influence was, on the
whole, dominant; in the second the two races were isolated in separate
provinces; in the third an attempt at union had led to the paralysis of
representative institutions. The true and, we may hope, the final
solution was to be found neither in isolation nor in complete union, but
rather in both union and separation, union in the great affairs which
touch trade, tariffs, public services like the post office, and the
administration of justice; separation in respect to those things in
which the two races had differing ideals, such as religion and
education.

A federal union which should permit of such a system had long been
talked of in Canada. It was inevitable that the example of the United
States in creating such a system should have been pondered from time to
time in the British provinces. In 1861 federalism had, however, received
a staggering blow by the apparent breakdown of the American union and
the beginning of civil war. This breakdown had so impressed the mind of
Mr. John A. Macdonald, the leader of the Conservative party, that he had
despaired of federalism and had fixed his attention on a unitary system
like that of the United Kingdom. Men of views the most divergent were
destined to unite in the federation of Canada. Macdonald wanted complete
union and the closest ties with Great Britain. Mr. (afterwards Sir) A.
T. Galt, wished to break with Britain, sooner or later, and to make
Canada completely independent. George Brown, the Liberal leader, was for
federal union, but he would have followed closely the example of the
United States, in electing men to the chief administrative offices, in
making the executive independent of the legislative body, and in
electing Parliament for a fixed term which could not be shortened even
in any emergency. Georges Etienne Cartier, the most influential
political leader in Lower Canada, was prepared for federal union but
only on condition that nothing should be done to limit the rights which
the French-Canadian race and the Roman Catholic Church already possessed
by an Imperial statute. It was out of such diverse opinion that came the
unity which created the federation of Canada.

It is vain to ask who should be chiefly credited for making the problem
crucial. For five years Galt had been preaching federal doctrine.
Another voice came from a quarter even more remote. In Nova Scotia,
Joseph Howe, the great Liberal leader, had more than once painted
glowing pictures of what a federated British North America would be.
When the time came, Howe was to fight against the realisation of his own
dream, but he had seen the vision. So had Brown. For a long time
Macdonald was wary and aloof, as also was Cartier. But, by 1864, the
necessity created by deadlock had become urgent. It is to Brown's credit
that he took the first decisive step. Between him and Macdonald there
was an antagonism, deep-seated in natures of essentially different
types. Yet, in 1864, Brown let Macdonald know that he was ready to join
him in creating a federal state. We smile a little now at the excessive
caution of the two men in approaching each other. Politics were then,
perhaps they still remain, war in a very real sense. Brown feared that
his reputation would be shattered if it became known that he was in
treaty with Macdonald. When Macdonald announced to the expectant members
that the leaders had come together, we are told, with solemn official
gravity, that he stood in the centre of the floor of the House, neither
on one side nor on the other, that there might be no colour of party.
The truce was only partial. When it was no longer necessary the two men
met without ever again speaking. "The smaller the pit, the fiercer the
rats", said Goldwin Smith with a touch of contempt. Certainly party had
become faction. Perhaps it is faction still.

The Canadian leaders would have found it hard to achieve anything, had
it not been for a new element in the situation. It was a far cry then to
Nova Scotia. No railway connected Canada with the Atlantic colonies and
the two groups knew little of each other. They were, however, united by
the magic of the British name and the British traditions. On the
Atlantic coast were the four colonies of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick,
Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland, each quite separate from the
other, each in its parliament retaining the forms and something of the
state of the parent house at Westminster. They, too, needed union to
solve some of their difficulties and, in the summer of 1864, they were
to hold a conference at Charlottetown, in Prince Edward Island, to
debate what might be done. The Canadians saw their chance. They asked
that they might send a delegation to Charlottetown to discuss a wider
union. Brown, Macdonald, Galt, and others made the long journey. They
delivered tactful speeches. They met Tupper, Tilley and other leaders of
the far east and they achieved their end. The conference at
Charlottetown adjourned because a wider conference had been agreed upon
to be held at Quebec in the month of October, 1864. There men from every
one of the colonies concerned were to meet, to discuss and, as it
proved, to solve the problem of their political future.

The Conference came together at Quebec and began its sessions on October
10th. In all the world there is no richer scene of beauty than that of
Quebec in the autumn with its glorious views of the wonderful St.
Lawrence and the rare loveliness of the forest-clad Laurentian mountains
touched with the varied colouring of autumn. Nature has her message for
man. In such a scene her majesty helps to dispel the clouds that mar his
vision. The Conference was in a hurry. It had only two or three weeks in
which to do its work and much there was to do. In fact its real business
was done in fourteen days and, since it passed seventy-two important
resolutions, it must have rushed them through at an average rate of more
than five a day. Necessarily much was left undefined, much unsettled. It
was only the skeleton of a political system that the Fathers of
Confederation created. They hurried past difficulties without debating
them and in doing so worked more wisely than they knew.

When we think of this Conference at Quebec, preparing the second great
federal system in the English-speaking world, our minds turn naturally
to the other system, that of the United States, created at the
Convention at Philadelphia, in 1787. At Philadelphia Washington was in
the chair, at Quebec Sir E. P. Tach, and the two men, though one is of
world-wide fame and the other little known, were not unlike. Both were
citizen soldiers, both were high-minded and modest, both were sincere
and tactful and guided the deliberations wisely. At Philadelphia were
men of penetrating sagacity. Benjamin Franklin, eighty-one years old,
was there with a shrewd wisdom which led the way through many a crisis.
There also was Alexander Hamilton, the most brilliant intellect of his
epoch, and Madison, small and alert, with a ready gift of utterance
which made him a decisive factor in the creation of the constitution.
With such leaders the Canadians are quite worthy of comparison. Franklin
was not more tactful or sagacious than Macdonald. Galt, if he lacked
Hamilton's gift of utterance, assisted, like Hamilton, in creating a
financial system for the new federation which has worked well; and Brown
was a no less trenchant and effective writer than Madison. Canada, like
the United States, has the right to be proud of the makers of her
federal system.

The founders of the United States had the difficult problem of creating
a constitution wholly new. They had a fine enthusiasm for liberty and
they believed that they were opening a brighter era for mankind. It was
necessary for them to create a system that would work, in order, as was
said at the time, "to vindicate the honour of the human race." Europe,
they thought, had failed. They would break away from "the pernicious
labyrinth of European politics" and rear in the new world a state that
should reveal the noble things of which man is capable. It is all very
fine, if a little nave and idealistic. Should there be one man, they
asked, at the head of the state or a directorate of three or five? If
one he might turn into a tyrant; if three or five they would be certain
to be divided and inefficient. To what extent could an elected
legislature be trusted? These men answered the question in no sense that
would support the British doctrine of the omnipotence of Parliament.
They would see that one authority was able to check another. The
President might carry on the government. Congress might not control him
but he too might not control the legislative and financial power of
Congress, and the Supreme Court would hold the balance if one tried to
encroach on the rights of the other and in this manner equalize the
rival forces. Moreover certain definite restrictions should be laid
down as to what Congress could not do.

Of all this there is in the debates of the Quebec Conference not a
trace. All its members were convinced monarchists. Even a famous
contemporary of Washington had hinted that a democracy is not ideal. "A
monarchy is like a merchantman", said Fisher Ames. "You get on board and
ride the wind and tide in safety and elation but, by and by, you strike
a reef and go down. But democracy is like a raft. You never sink, but,
damn it, your feet are always in the water!" In those glowing autumn
days of 1864 when the Conference met at Quebec it looked as if it was
democracy which was destined to sink. The South was not yet beaten and
to bring it to its knees Sherman was making his desolating march through
the Slave States, carrying with him destruction and ruin. Those terrible
scenes helped to convince the Conference at Quebec of the wisdom of
monarchy. They wished to set up no new system but to create as close a
copy as they could of that of Britain.

In seeking this they were consistent. Since Britain was a kingdom,
Canada too, they said, should be a kingdom, and so they called their new
creation "The Kingdom of Canada." From the outset it would be, in title
at least, equal to the United Kingdom and would be an auxiliary kingdom
which, as years went on, would grow into the fuller measure of its name.
The colonies forming Canada shall be "one kingdom under the Crown" read
the draft of the Act of Federation as it was carried to the Imperial
Parliament. An over-wise and over-sensitive minister in London objected,
however, that the word kingdom might offend the American republic and so
"kingdom" was struck out and instead we have the "Dominion" of Canada, a
nondescript word, apparently derived from Virginia, which used to be
spoken of as the "old Dominion". It was a far-reaching mistake not to
make Canada a kingdom. The word would express its exact relation to the
British Crown and also the equality of status with the mother country
which it is now so desirable to foster. Moreover, "kingdom" has an
historical fitness relative to the word Empire. The tradition of Europe
is that many kingdoms may be included in one Empire. Within the British
Empire there is a dependency like India, so vast that it takes the name
of an Empire by itself; at the other end of the scale there are real
colonies which remain under the control of the colonial office and
should be described as colonies. There are, also, however, great
self-governing states like Australia and Canada and the fitting name for
these is kingdoms, sisters of the United Kingdom. The use of the word
"Dominion" for Canada led to the creation of the terrible phrase "the
overseas Dominions". One may well ask overseas from where? Dominions of
Great Britain? How much simpler it would be to speak of the kingdoms and
other states within the Empire. Perhaps it is not too late and we shall
yet see the Kingdom of Canada, one of various kingdoms under our common
sovereign. More than any other, this title would negative the impression
that Canada is a dependent state.

In setting up a kingdom the builders at Quebec framed the mechanism of a
kingdom. They created a Parliament of two chambers. Since there was no
landed aristocracy in Canada they could not create a House of Lords,
though Simcoe, the first governor of Upper Canada, had dreamed of this
and the Constitutional Act of 1791 provided for it. They called the
second chamber the Senate. In all consistency since they could not have
a House of Lords, they could hardly have a House of Commons where should
sit Commoners, a separate estate from peers. But here they were not
consistent. The term House of Commons had already been in use in Canada
and the name was continued. The members of the House of Commons were to
be elected. For a short period the second chamber in Canada had also
been elective. But these leaders at Quebec were good House of Commons
men and they feared, with justice, that a second elective chamber would
weaken the more popular one. It had done so in the United States and
they wished the House of Commons to be supreme. So the members of the
Senate were to be appointed by the crown and not elected.

The Conference was in a hurry. It had no time to frame a nice separation
of the powers of the central government from those of the provinces. One
thing was, however, clear in Canada as contrasted with the United
States. While in Canada union had been too close, in the United States
separation had been too complete, for, after the Declaration of
Independence, each colony had been an independent state. Thus, in
Canada, the problem was for the Union to get rid of some of its powers
in favour of the provinces, while, in the United States, there was the
opposite problem of getting the separate units to give up something, in
order to create a central government. In Canada the central power
retained all that it did not give up, while, in the United States, it
was the separate units which did this. Thus we have the far-reaching
difference in the basis of the two federations. Canada is a single
state, in which the various units have prescribed powers; the United
States is a union of many states, which have agreed to delegate certain
powers to a central authority.

The men at Quebec had no desire to say to the new Parliament that there
were certain definite things which it might not do. This the framers of
the constitution of the United States had done. They provided that
Congress might not restrict freedom of speech or of the press, or
establish or prohibit the exercise of any religion, or confiscate
private property without just compensation, or quarter soldiers in
private houses, or even require excessive bail. The Parliament of Canada
was to have no such restrictions, but was to be free to do what it liked
within its general powers. It might do what the British Parliament has
done, sentence a man to death without trial. The provinces, too, were
given very wide powers. They can establish and endow any religion they
like and they can confiscate property without compensation. Above all
they can alter their own constitutions by a simple bill without calling
a convention. The "omnipotence of Parliament" has some real part in the
Canadian system.

This is, however, not the place or time for describing the details of
the work done at Quebec. The members of the Conference were content to
work hastily and to leave vague a good many things. This was for the
valid reason that they were not creating a new system but merely
extending an old one. They were all British citizens with ancient
traditions and rights. They remained under the authority of the same
courts to which, in the past, they had appealed. To one great tribunal,
the Privy Council, they had long been accustomed to look for the
settlement of constitutional difficulties. It was thus with an easy mind
that they left some things vague. The creators of a new system, such as
that of the United States, had had no traditions upon which they could
rest. Thus they must themselves provide for every emergency. But with
light hearts the Canadian statesmen left much unsettled. Their faith in
the perfect wisdom of the great tribunal is a tribute to its wonderful
record if it also reveals what we may call a colonial temper. Some
twenty years ago, Australia was not so simple-hearted, and perhaps we
should not be, if we were now framing a new system. None the less was
this pious faith justified. Often since, the Privy Council has saved us
from bitter agitation about the constitution because we have believed
that calm, trained jurists would pronounce on the questions raised with
finer insight than that which would prove telling on the hustings.

Federal government involves two things at least--division of authority
between a central and a local legislature, and compromise as to the
character of this division. Disputes between English and French in the
two Canadian divisions had been the most pregnant factors in making
federation necessary. But, as the movement proceeded, the horizon
widened. In the end Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland stayed out,
the first for only a few years. Nova Scotia came in and so did New
Brunswick. It was in Nova Scotia that the plan met with the most bitter
opposition. Joseph Howe will always remain one of the great names in
Canadian political history. Had he been born in and educated for a wider
sphere, he would have been world-famous. If he had been prime minister
of Nova Scotia when federation came up, there is little doubt that he
would have been the man to carry it through. But it happened that his
rival, Dr. Tupper, was in office and took the lead and, as Howe himself
said, he would not "play second fiddle to that damned Tupper". He called
the plan "the botheration scheme" and ridiculed it in quite too
effective a way. Since the plan provided that the federal government
should pay to the provinces an annual subsidy of eighty cents for each
inhabitant, Howe made great sport of what he called the proposal to sell
Nova Scotians at eighty cents a head, the price of a sheep-skin. In none
of the federated provinces except New Brunswick did the people vote on
the question and in New Brunswick, at first, they voted overwhelmingly
against it. So did Nova Scotia when it secured the chance. But the
chance came too late for, by approval of the several legislatures, the
plan was carried through without reference to the people. A high-handed
proceeding, no doubt, but the few are sometimes wiser than the many.

Farther, much farther, than Nova Scotia reached the federation cry. It
was the stronger Canada, created by federation, which was able to
contemplate the heavy responsibility of taking over the control of the
North-west. This, an empire in itself, was then the great Hudson's Bay
Territory, the property of that powerful corporation. The Company was,
however, eager to lay down its irksome right to rule. It wished to
occupy itself only with trade and, soon after 1867, the bargain was made
and Canada took over the North-west, not without strife and bloodshed as
the two Riel rebellions proved. But there was a farther cry still, that
across the boundless prairie, across the towering peaks of the Selkirks
and the Rockies to British Columbia. To travel direct by land from
Toronto to Victoria across British Columbia then occupied weeks and even
months, for it meant traversing, without the aid of the railway,
hundreds of miles of forest, of prairie and of mountain ranges. The
quickest route was by sea to Panama, by rail across the Isthmus, and
again by sea up the long stretches of the Pacific coast to Vancouver
Island. Yet such was the magic unity in a common British citizenship
that British Columbia was reached by the cry from Canada and in 1872
entered the federation. Then the petty colonies had grown into a great
state, stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific.

Here the story naturally ends. Others will discuss in this place the
persons who carried through the task of federation and governed the new
state, and also the working of the federal system which they created.
One may only offer praise to the magnificence of their achievement. It
seemed as if a great spirit had entered into colonies, torpid and
faction-ridden, and had breathed into them the breath of a new life. Up
to 1867 the history of Canada was chiefly that of a bitter racial
struggle, the story, in Lord Durham's well known words, of "two people
warring in the bosom of a single state." Echoes of this struggle are
still heard, but it was really ended by federation. The Federation Act
made Canada a bi-lingual country in federal affairs. French was placed
on a complete equality with English in the federal parliament. It is
equally with English the language of the federal laws and of the federal
courts. Thus, in a deep sense, the Federation Act gave a fine maturity
to a process of historical justice. It was pioneers of French origin who
first reached the great west, and intermingled with its native races.
In the end the Briton had come and taken over and ruled the country, but
the past made it fitting that the great west should become a part of a
federation in which French and English had an equal status. Nay more.
Beyond the Rockies, in a region to which the pioneers of France had not
gone, the Federation Act gave French a certain recognition, for there
too in federal affairs it stands on an equality with English. But while
the Federation Act expanded, it also limited, the official use of the
French tongue. It makes the Province of Quebec and only the Province of
Quebec bi-lingual. In all the other provinces, as the latest judgment of
the Privy Council shows, the question of the language to be used
officially is within the control of the provincial authorities. All
federation represents compromise. Perhaps indeed all government
represents compromise. Federation means authority divided between a
central and a local legislative body. There is no arbitrary line by
which the division can be fixed. It is different in the United States
from what it is in Germany. It is different in Australia from what it is
in Canada. The compromise in Canada gave the French language a national
status as the sister tongue with English in all federal affairs.

To-day, after fifty years, the mind turns to what has happened since
this compromise was achieved. There are moments when the monotony of
life impresses us, but such a retrospect seems to show not how slow, but
how rapid, are change and growth. The union of Canada in 1867 was only a
phase of a world-wide movement. The consolidation of states was in the
air. The Kingdom of Italy was finally completed in 1870, the German
Empire came into being in 1871. The movement for unity spread to new
continents and at last, thirty years later, after long debate, Australia
became a federal state. Ten years later we have the Union of South
Africa. In these movements, as in so much that comes to our human
success, there was the germ of new troubles. Always there was the danger
that union would foster an arrogant nationalism and to-day we are deep
in a great war because of the ambitions which unity brought to Germany.
Unity in the state in Canada emphasised the need of union among the
churches and of such movements Canada has been the special home. In time
the various Presbyterian organisations united to form one Church; so
also did the various divisions of Methodism. And the taste for union has
grown for now we have under debate the further project of union between
the Methodist and the Presbyterian Churches.

The very vastness of the Canadian union has created one of its chief
difficulties. In Victoria one can rarely secure a newspaper published in
Toronto that is less than a week old. Distance is a great handicap in
the building up of national life. In Britain a political leader can make
a speech in the south of England in the morning and repeat it in the
capital of Scotland on the same day. In Canada it takes about six days
and nights to pass from one end of the country to the other. What London
talks of in the morning, Manchester and Glasgow are discussing in the
afternoon, but of what Montreal or Toronto are discussing Victoria and
Vancouver often hear nothing. It is the penalty of vastness that it is
both difficult to create a common public opinion in Canada and, when the
opinion exists, difficult so to concentrate it as to make it effective
at the national capital. We need not despair, but the problem of
adequate education in national affairs is real and difficult.

In 1867 Canada was a poor country with no very large cities and no
display of wealth. Its art was primitive. "Oh, their pictures!" said
Mrs. Jameson of the art of the leaders of the Family Compact in Toronto
in 1837 and thirty years later the story was not much better. Now the
opening up of the west, the building of great railways, the growth of
manufactures, have all united to create a wealthy class in the chief
Canadian cities. Some of them live in palaces. Few of them, however,
have yet acquired what marks the wealthy class in England, the taste for
country sports, a vital and intelligent interest in the problems of
agriculture, and of the raising of stock. This is certainly coming and
it can not come too soon. We are learning that a country of small
landowners is very likely not to till its land to advantage. The state
of each farm depends on the intelligence of its owner and many an
ignorant owner lets his land lie waste. The farmers need a sympathetic
lead as do the workers in the towns.

In the main the culture of Canada in 1867 was an imported culture. The
judges who sat in the courts had for the most part learned their law in
the old world. Political leaders like Brown and Macdonald had not been
born in Canada. The professors in the universities were from Europe.
Since 1867 we have made the transition from an imported to a native
culture. The change has its drawbacks as the type of speech which one
hears in law courts and lecture rooms too often testifies. But we cannot
doubt that the change is in the interest of a sound national life. We
still import too much and ourselves supply too little of what we require
to nourish our national strength. We study too little and write too
little about our own problems. We have not yet evolved any vital types
of political thought of our own creation. While in England there is a
whole world of literature, in books, in quarterly and monthly and weekly
reviews, discussing with mastery of detail great national problems, we
are still dependent for the most part on what the daily papers furnish
to us. And it is deplorably true that they furnish us with less serious
material for political thought than they did fifty years ago.

Our whole outlook on life has changed since 1867. That was the
mid-Victorian era of _laissez-faire_. The physiocrats of the period of
the French Revolution had taught that nature was all-sufficing, if man
would only give nature a chance. In England this type of doctrine had
matured into the theories of free trade which, by 1867, had had a vogue
of twenty years. Another type of thought was, however, rising. Darwin's
_Origin of Species_ was published in 1859, and in 1867 was being keenly
debated in a startled and alarmed world. The influence of the doctrine
of evolution was to prove far-reaching. It taught that nature, does not
represent a garden of calm delight where all is beautiful but that, "red
in tooth and claw", she is the scene of ceaseless struggle in which
victory is to the strong. Slowly this doctrine has penetrated to the
political world. Society, it shows, does not consist of fixed orders,
each content and moving permanently in its own sphere. On the contrary
society is the scene of endless conflict in which the strong master the
weak. Those who have wish to hold. Those who have not wish to have.

Correspondence to environment is the law of well-being and the principle
meant death to the old colonial idea. Simcoe, first governor of Upper
Canada, had thought English society so beautiful that he wished to have
in Canada an exact copy, with hereditary peers, a state church, a
powerful landed gentry. Simple Canadian villagers were to do reverence
to the squire and the parson in their midst. The truth of Darwin's
teaching has brought a rude awakening. To-day, looking back, we find
that only that has survived which was in vital harmony with the spirit
and conditions of a new society. We have no state church, no peers, no
landed gentry. Our successful men are those who were free to adjust
themselves to what they found in the country and to conquer conditions
by learning to know them.

Far indeed from the doctrines of _laissez-faire_ have we moved. In 1867
there was no general belief that the state should provide for the
education of children. _Laissez-faire_ said that this should come from
the parents in the exercise of their proper responsibility. Not until
1870 did the state in England make a beginning and now there are few
who deny that education should not only be free but that it should also
be compulsory. In 1867 little was thought of a forceful ending of the
liquor traffic and an English archbishop could say that he had rather
have England free than sober. We know now what has happened in our own
midst. In Toronto the Governor-General himself is under such compulsion
that he could not, if he wished, secure a glass of sherry at a club.
Truly times have changed during these fifty years. Then the great step
was towards unity. To-day the problem is organisation and efficiency. We
have found that even liberty must be organised. It was the cynical
Hobbes who said that if men's interests required it they could find
abundant reasons proving that the axioms of Euclid are not really valid.
In politics _laissez-faire_ will not do. The free can be deceived and
come under the corroding influence of falsehood and faction. Evil
organises and fights and so also must the good.

With a glance at the past, it is for us to keep our eyes turned towards
the future. What problems are surging about us at this moment! The women
of Ontario have votes; votes valid not merely in provincial, but in
federal affairs. I, for one, have long hoped and believed that this
would come, but now it has come with a suddenness which almost takes
away one's breath. To-day this peaceful people, who rarely heard the
drum beat, or saw a soldier, have turned themselves into a military
nation with an army greater than that with which Britain shattered the
power of Napoleon. In 1864 there was a war on Canada's borders which
warned her that to be strong and united was to be safe. Now, fifty years
later, we are confronted by another war and the old truth is still valid
that in unity and in unity alone is strength.

Such are the things which we now find to face. If the problems were
difficult in 1867 they are vaster now. Then a few colonies were to unite
to form a greater one. Now we are required to consider how we may unite
with other states of a great Empire in order to make its position secure
and its power effective. Of the solving of this question I can say
nothing now, but upon it we must continue to fix our eyes. Surveying it,
one's last word must be a tribute of admiration to the builders of 1867.
There are perils in framing a new political creation as the ruler of the
United States has learned anew to-day, when a fine system of checks and
balances has threatened to paralyse action and to bring national
dishonour. The framers of the Canadian federation prided themselves in
turning to the traditions of the past. They were citizens under a proud
monarchy with long centuries of history. That monarchy had confronted
many dangers and survived many crises. It had been slowly transformed
from a despotism into a democracy and had shown a capacity, truly
marvellous, to meet new conditions. It was upon this foundation that the
Canadian system was fixed. No wonder those experienced men, steeped in
the traditions of British political history, wished that the fabric
which they reared should be called the Kingdom of Canada. We can do
nothing better than to continue their work in the spirit in which they
conceived it.




II

SOME POLITICAL LEADERS IN THE CANADIAN FEDERATION

By SIR JOHN WILLISON.


A few years ago I published a history of Sir Wilfrid Laurier and the
Liberal party. The book has been the subject of criticism chiefly by
those who have not read it and on account of views which it does not
express. But much of what we call criticism is merely suspicion, as much
of what we call history is merely imagination. As to the relative
proportions of fiction and history in my volumes the authorities are
divided. Even the author has doubts that he did not entertain twelve or
fifteen years ago. There is, however, little that he desires to modify
or withdraw. In the preparation of the history it was necessary to
examine many old leaflets, pamphlets and magazines and many volumes of
old newspapers. There is drudgery that should make unto men for
righteousness. Upon a journalist nothing could have a more chastening
effect. He receives a final revelation of the hazard of political
prophecy, and learns how very dead are the editorials of yesterday. I
recall with what apprehension and dismay I faced a formidable volume of
over one thousand pages, entitled _Debates on Confederation_. But I read
the book with profound and continuous interest. The truth is that the
Canadian Parliament would be held in greater regard if we read Hansard.
But Hansard is read only by those who make the speeches which it
contains and by the printers and proof-readers engaged in its
production. It is the common jest of irreverent paragraphers who have
never looked within its covers. But actually it is a repository of
information and opinion, of fact and argument, which the nation cannot
wisely neglect. None of those who spoke in the confederation debates
survive. Few of us who live have read what was said by the fathers who
brought confederation to birth. In that we are unjust to the fathers and
unjust to ourselves. From the Quebec Conference the press was wisely
excluded. There was, as Dr. Colquhoun reminds us, an organised attempt
to open the doors to the correspondents of Canadian, British and
American newspapers, but the statesmen were obdurate and the
correspondents were restricted to a competition in conjecture and
prophecy which, as we know by many illustrations, stimulates the human
imagination to its highest achievements. One cannot doubt, however, that
all of what was said in the Conference in favour of union was repeated
in the debates in the Legislative Council and Assembly of Canada, and
that all the arguments advanced in Parliament by opponents were
considered in the conference which produced the union. Thus by the
debates the doors were opened and the processes of the conference
revealed.

Mr. Goldwin Smith declared that confederation was the child of political
deadlock. There is truth in the statement but rather as to time than as
to fact. The political federation of the British North American
provinces was inevitable. It was impossible that the union of Upper and
Lower Canada could produce a happy political relationship. There is
little evidence that either province desired to establish a separate and
independent government. They would not live together but they were
reluctant to live apart. At the back of men's minds was the wider
project of confederation. There was an alternative to divorce which
aggravated a natural incompatibility. Domestic divorce would be less
common if expedients were available to strengthen the union without
actual separation. Neither party in united Canada was ready for divorce.
Both struggled to dominate the household. The immediate object of John
A. Macdonald was to retain power as that of George Brown was to secure
office. At the time each was more eager to control the government than
to achieve confederation, as both were more willing to consider
confederation than to dissolve the union between Upper and Lower Canada
and establish separate governments at Toronto and Quebec. Coalitions are
not effected until they become inevitable. New nations are the product
of long preparation for constitutional changes. The seeds lie long in
the ground before the fields are green with the promise of harvest.

Among the early advocates of a union of the Canadian provinces were
Chief Justice Sewell and J. C. Tach of Quebec, William Lyon Mackenzie,
Bishop Strachan and John Beverley Robinson of Upper Canada, Haliburton,
Hamilton and Johnston of Nova Scotia. In Lord Durham's _Report on the
Affairs of British North America_ union was recommended. Howe had the
vision, although, when the project was under actual consideration, there
was denial of the faith from motives which never can command complete
respect. Alexander T. Galt was a pioneer in the movement. So was
Alexander Morris whose _Nova Britannia_ appeared in 1858. There was
fervour and beauty in D'Arcy McGee's utterances. In all the literature
of confederation there is no finer sentence than that in which he
declared that by union with the Maritime Provinces we should "recover
one of our lost senses--the sense that comprehends the sea." There
were, too, a multitude of men, of less distinction but of equal zeal,
active in the advocacy of confederation, from whom the leaders drew
inspiration and courage, but whose shadows do not fall across the pages
of history. In a democracy the masses of the people often determine
events. Suddenly they become articulate and political leaders answer to
the impulse from behind. Public men discover that what they have
proclaimed as an ultimate ideal has become the living faith of
multitudes and that definite, practical action is imperative. George
Brown could make government impossible in the Parliament of united
Canada but it is doubtful if either George Brown or John A. Macdonald
could have successfully resisted the public feeling which had been
created in favour of negotiations for the federal organisation of the
Canadian provinces.

There is agreement among Americans that George Washington was the father
of the republic. We give honour to the soldier more readily than to the
statesman. There is not and probably never can be any agreement among
Canadians as to who was the father of confederation. Sir Wilfrid
Laurier, in an address in Parliament at the death of Sir Charles Tupper,
said, "Undoubtedly to George Brown was due the first initiation of
confederation. He it was who, by his strong and persevering agitation
against the union of Upper and Lower Canada, directed the destinies of
Canada towards the confederation of the older provinces of British North
America. It seems to me to be equally true that it was Sir George
Cartier who first put the idea into shape and set upon it the seal of
his essentially practical mind and brought to it the support of the
province which was material to the idea, if the idea was ever to become
a fact." In this Sir Wilfrid Laurier is generous to Brown and just to
Cartier. There is reason to think that there was close co-operation
between Brown and Cartier in settling essential features of the
constitution. Cartier would have only a federal constitution and in this
he had Brown's support. The Quebec leader was concerned to preserve the
religious institutions and privileges of the French and Catholic
province against future aggression or disturbance, while Brown was
peculiarly interested to establish adequate local control over local
affairs in Upper Canada. In the attitude of both there was a suggestion
of provincialism rooted in the old causes of conflict between the two
provinces and a cautious but perhaps necessary deference to immediate
political exigencies.

There is no doubt that John A. Macdonald was favourable to a legislative
union. He saw clearly the defects in the constitution of the United
States and would have reposed an overruling authority in the central
Parliament. In 1861, while civil war, for which the extreme assertion of
State rights was greatly responsible, was rending the republic, John A.
Macdonald declared in an address to the electors of Kingston--"The
government will not relax its exertions to effect a confederation of the
British North American provinces. We must, however, endeavour to take
warning by the defects in the constitution of the United States, which
are now so painfully made manifest, and to form, if we succeed in a
federation, an efficient central government." He urged that there should
be no "looking to Washington", and one seems to associate the phrase
with even more recent political history. He pleaded for a "Canada united
as one province and under one sovereign." Brown and Cartier were as
loyal to one sovereign as was John A. Macdonald, but they never were in
favour of a Dominion organised as a single province. It is whispered,
but not established by any conclusive evidence, that Cartier suspected
Macdonald of manoeuvring for changes in the British North America Act,
even when the delegates from Canada were in London superintending the
passage of the measure through the Imperial Parliament. There are those
who think that Brown could have secured the allegiance of Cartier and
that together they could have controlled the coalition government and
removed Macdonald from the office of prime minister. But it is hard to
believe that Cartier in alliance with Brown could have held Quebec even
if we forget how unequal Brown was to Macdonald in political strategy.
Half a century ago a legislative union was not practicable. It was
necessary to have a federal union or to delay confederation. Quebec
required an ample legislative authority. Even the educational clauses
for which Galt was peculiarly concerned were designed to safeguard
Protestant rights and privileges in Quebec, although they have been
employed to protect or extend Catholic rights and privileges in other
provinces. Quebec determined the federal character of the constitution
and the degree of authority which the provinces should possess. Cartier
required the support of the Roman Catholic hierarchy of Quebec to hold
his personal position. Without the support of the hierarchy
confederation could not have been accomplished.

Cartier was not impressive in stature. He had no magnetic quality. But
he had optimism, self-confidence and power in debate. He inspired
confidence and his character gave authority to his utterances. At his
death the _Canadian Monthly_ for July, 1873, had a sympathetic estimate
of his quality and his achievements. There is reason to think that the
author was the late Charles Lindsey who knew much of the public men of
Quebec and the dominant social and political forces in the French
province. The writer said: "Cartier was at once the perfect incarnation
of French nationality and a devoted adherent of the British connection;
a Catholic entirely trusted by the dominant priesthood of Quebec and one
of the most loyal subjects of a Protestant crown." Cartier had to
overcome very formidable influences in Quebec. Except Galt no other
public man of the first class in the province supported the union
proposals. Galt was an uneasy and uncertain ally. He drifted to the
point of revolt if he did not actually break with John A. Macdonald over
the clauses designed to guarantee the educational rights of the
Protestant minority. On the other side were Dorion and Holton and Joly
and Dunkin and Huntington. Even Wilfrid Laurier, a young advocate at
Arthabaskaville, writing editorials for a weekly newspaper between
interviews with clients, declared that confederation would be "the tomb
of the French race and the ruin of Lower Canada." If I quote the
sentence it is only to illustrate the temper that prevailed in Quebec.
Only petty malignity would recall the words to discredit a statesman
whose long and ardent devotion to Canada is expressed in brilliant
chapters of its history. Most of us have been as rash in prophecy, but
we have been protected by a fortunate obscurity.

There is no more chivalrous figure in Canadian history than Antoine
Dorion. He had eloquence and courage and integrity. He had all the charm
and courtesy of a scholarly Frenchman, with the gravity, sobriety and
reserve of the cultivated Englishman. He had dignity without pretension,
he was gracious without condescension. Where he was men were cleaner and
finer and discourse was serene and elevated. His loyalty to George Brown
has some of the aspects of a tragedy. In Brown's writing in the _Globe_
and in his public speeches, he was merciless in criticism of Quebec. He
was often extreme and intemperate in denunciation of the race and the
church to which Dorion belonged. The resolutions of the Orange
Association, of which George Brown was often the aggressive spokesman,
were ordinarily more restrained than were his written and spoken
utterances. Generally Brown was not inconsiderate or intemperate, but
unfortunately he gave the rein to prejudice and passion in many of his
attacks upon the French province and upon Roman Catholic ecclesiastics
and institutions. To this Dorion submitted with singular patience and
almost incomprehensible disregard of the personal consequences.
Associated with Brown he could not hope to achieve any considerable
political success in Quebec but the political association was unbroken
until Brown entered the coalition government to carry confederation,
while there is no evidence that their personal relations ever were
disturbed.

Dorion argued against the provisions of the British North America Act
rather than against a union of the provinces. In 1856 he had suggested a
federation of the two Canadas as a substitute for the existing
legislative union. In 1859 he had signed a manifesto, which also bore
the signature of D'Arcy McGee, in favour of a federation with
representation according to population. In 1861 he admitted that the
time might come when it would be desirable and even necessary to have a
federation of all the provinces, but insisted that the time for such
action had not arrived. This position he maintained when the proposals
of the Quebec Conference were before Parliament. He opposed the
financial provisions as excessively generous to the Maritime Provinces.
He shrank from the cost of the Intercolonial Railway. He predicted
conflict between the local and central authorities over the powers of
veto vested in the federal government. He opposed a nominated senate. He
foresaw friction and confusion from the provision which gave to the
federal government the nomination and maintenance of judges while the
legislatures controlled the constitution of the courts and determined
the number of judges to be appointed. History has demonstrated that he
foresaw many of the defects in the constitution, but neither Dorion nor
Dunkin nor any other of the opponents of confederation seems to have had
a full realisation of the immense patronage which the federal government
would exercise. We can better understand the system if we consider that
the President and cabinet at Washington would appoint all members of the
Senate, all State governors, and all federal and State judges if they
had the powers that are reposed in the prime minister and cabinet in
Canada. If that condition prevailed at Washington only the grace of God
could give the American people a free parliament and an honest
government.

The Senate is and has been what Dorion foresaw it would be. In the half
century of confederation only one senator has been appointed who was not
of the party in office. Sir John Macdonald appointed John Macdonald of
Toronto to the Upper Chamber, but the Conservative leader never found
any other Liberal with the necessary qualifications for a senatorship.
For nearly a quarter of a century, from 1878 to 1902, no Liberal was
appointed chairman of a Senate committee. We cannot trace to Liberal
governments even one such error as Sir John Macdonald committed. There
were many vacancies between 1896 and 1911, for even senators have their
day and cease to be, but curiously enough no Conservative was found to
have the exact qualifications for appointment to the Upper Chamber.
Moreover, it is a remarkable phenomenon that since the Conservatives
took office in 1911 Liberals do not seem to develop fitness for places
in the Senate. Since advocacy of Senate reform is the strict and
inalienable prerogative of Oppositions the Senate as now constituted
seems to rest upon a reasonably stable foundation.

In all the debates on confederation there is no more remarkable address
than that of Christopher Dunkin of Brome. He said that the attempt to
overcome deadlock in united Canada by the scheme of confederation
reminded him of the two boys who upset the canoe. Tom said, "Bill, can
you pray?" Bill admitted that he could not think of any prayer that was
suitable to the occasion. Tom's rejoinder, according to Dunkin, was
earnest but not parliamentary. He said, "Well, something has to be done
and that----soon." Dunkin spoke for two days with unfailing courtesy
and reserve. The language is scholarly, the argument sustained and
powerful. Much of what he said has been discredited by events. British
Columbia has been admitted to the confederation and railways have been
constructed across the Rocky Mountains but we are not bankrupt. There
has been racial and sectarian conflict. There have been doubtful local
and provincial expenditures for party objects. Race, religion and
locality have been too slavishly regarded in appointments to the federal
cabinet. But many of these evils obtained in united Canada; active under
the old constitution which Dunkin sought to preserve, if inevitable
under the new constitution which he sought to destroy. If men would make
a nation they must dare the future. He would risk nothing. He closed his
eyes with resolute pessimism to the vision of a Canadian commonwealth.
The speech was purely destructive, cold and uninspiring. But it is a
great contribution to the political literature of Canada. Mr. Joseph
Choate has said that a pessimist is a man who of two evils chooses both.
Dunkin was the supreme pessimist as George Brown and Cartier were the
supreme optimists of the union debates.

Once committed to confederation, Brown plunged on his way with full
faith, complete confidence and abounding energy. He never doubted that
that to which he set his hand was the thing the gods desired and he was
mighty in zeal and service. It is doubtful if any of the biographers of
George Brown have revealed the man in all his vigour and intensity. The
"Life" by the Hon. Alexander Mackenzie is inadequate and reticent. That
by Mr. John Lewis is sympathetic, scholarly and informed. There are all
the evidences of historical authenticity and a quiet elegance of diction
which few Canadian writers command. But we miss the swing and power of
the man; the lightning of attack and the thunder of defence. The picture
is not intimate enough or bold enough. We have George Brown in repose,
but we want George Brown in action. On the street he was imposing. On
the platform he was tremendous. In council he was tenacious and
convincing. It is not true that he could not be persuaded. It is true
that he had an autocratic temper. He was a natural journalist, and the
journalist is more irresponsible than the political leader. George Brown
would have been a better politician if he had not been a journalist, and
a better journalist if he had not been a politician. The journalist may
be a powerful and effective reformer; he is seldom a sober and prudent
statesman. A wise journalist will not go to parliament. A wise statesman
will keep out of journalism. John Morley was a statesman but he was a
philosophic writer rather than a professional journalist. Horace Greeley
was a rash journalist and was impossible in the field of responsible
statesmanship. George Brown, more successfully than most journalists,
accommodated the obligations of his profession to the exigencies of
political leadership. He had great physical endurance and remarkable
energy. He could speak for hours from the hustings without apparent
fatigue and never seemed to exhaust his store of illustration and
argument. There is reason to believe that he loved public meetings and
the storm and contention of public controversy. For politics is the
greatest game that men play and it is played with men. George Brown was
seldom overcome on the platform or in Parliament. When one reads the
speeches delivered by William Macdougall and W. P. Howland at the
Liberal Convention at Toronto in 1867 one feels that the reasons they
gave for holding their places in the coalition government after George
Brown withdrew were impressive and convincing, but Brown's stormy attack
swept the Convention from its feet and left marks upon Macdougall and
Howland from which perhaps they never wholly recovered.

George Brown was loved by many people who never saw his face nor heard
his voice. Back in the townships where the _Globe_ carried its weekly
message he had the authority of a prophet. He created the Liberal party
of Upper Canada as Sir Wilfrid Laurier has fashioned the Liberal party
of to-day. But in constitution and in character the parties have radical
differences. There was mourning in many Reform households when Brown
joined forces with Macdonald to carry confederation. There was
rejoicing over one that was lost and was found again when Brown came out
from the habitation of the wicked. The feeling of the masses of the
Liberal party is expressed in "Joe" Rymal's reference to Dorion, "when
he was enticed to sin he would not consent--he would not follow the
multitude to do evil. If there was one thing, which, more than anything
else, made coalition distasteful, it was the fact that these men whom we
were forced to respect had been excluded. None of them went in and,
thank God, none of them had to go out." Looking backward forty years I
recall the faith of Liberals in the depravity of John A. Macdonald. They
believed that the man was evil and that continually. One feels that they
would have been unhappy if this conviction of his wickedness had been
disturbed. It was hard to reconcile this state of blessedness with
stories one heard from Liberal fathers about the electoral methods which
George Brown sometimes sanctioned. When one was told that on the eve of
polling in some close constituency, George Brown was able to have enough
money judiciously distributed to defeat the corruptionists it was
difficult to believe that virtue was content to be its own reward, and
when there was jubilation instead of sorrow over such providential
intervention only the consciousness of victory was adequate consolation.
It may be that Sir John Macdonald was the superior of George Brown in
the practice of political wickedness; it is clear that Macdonald was the
inferior of Brown in the profession of political virtue. But this is a
human world and there is a high average of human nature in every
political organisation. As the darkey said when he lost the proceeds of
the church festival in a game of poker: "Pastor, we is all human and de
game am werry exciting". No other man made such sacrifices for
confederation as did George Brown. He must have known that he would be
damaged by his partnership with Sir John Macdonald. Mackenzie and other
influential Liberal leaders gave a reasoned and effective support to the
new constitution but they would not enter the coalition. Brown was the
lesser partisan and the finer patriot. In _The Fathers of Confederation_
Dr. Colquhoun gives praise to Brown in full measure and with true
historical detachment. It is unfortunate that Sir Joseph Pope should
have written in the atmosphere of fifty years ago. One cannot but think
that his devotion to Sir John Macdonald has coloured his estimate of
George Brown. We are so grateful to Sir Joseph Pope for his memoirs of
the Conservative leader and his _Day of Sir John Macdonald_, for his
general moderation and freedom from prejudice, that we look at his
picture of Brown with distress and feel that time should have softened
enmities that flame with fresh fuel in his pages. George Brown cannot be
removed from his great place in Canadian history, and whatever his
faults--and they were neither great nor many--his action at
confederation smells sweet and blossoms in the dust.

Few perhaps will agree, but to my mind there were remarkable
resemblances between George Brown and Sir Charles Tupper. There were no
greater forces in the organisation and evolution of Canada. Both were of
tempestuous temper, bold in design, vigorous in action. Both were
fundamentally arrogant and ambitious. Both made sacrifices of which
smaller and meaner spirits would have been incapable. Not only did Brown
unite with Sir John Macdonald to effect union of the provinces but there
is, in the imperfect Hansard of 1875, a frank admission by Macdonald
that George Brown and William Macdougall led in the agitation for the
incorporation of the North-west Territories into the confederation,
while Sir Charles Tupper, by his signal courage and resource,
conciliated Joseph Howe, reconciled Nova Scotia to the union, drove
through Parliament the contract for the construction of the Canadian
Pacific Railway, and persuaded the Conservative party to support the
great enterprise until its credit was established and its success
assured. As a youth Tupper met Howe on the platform and was not
disgraced. In his encounters with Edward Blake on the hustings and in
Parliament he seldom was unhorsed. He never flinched before Alexander
Mackenzie although no greater debater than Mackenzie ever stood in the
Canadian House of Commons. It is the judgment of Sir Wilfrid Laurier
that when he was "on his legs" Mackenzie had no equal, and I recall a
famous joint meeting between Mackenzie and Tupper over forty years ago
which was not a triumph for "the war horse of Cumberland." If Tupper had
not "the gift of insolence" he had splendid audacity. He could have
convenient lapses of memory and he could be very noisy when there was
something to be concealed. He was bold, confident, dominant. He never
knew the call to retreat. He had courage for any combat and resource for
any emergency. He was the object of savage and continuous attack but,
throughout, his position was that of George McGinnis: "If you're goin'
to treat me like a dog don't forget that I'm a dog of your own size." In
a ruder time Conan Doyle would have found in Sir Charles Tupper a hero
upon whom he could have lavished all his affection. It is said that when
Charlotte Bront first heard Thackeray lecture she whispered to a
companion: "There came up a lion out of Judah." So one thought of
Tupper. There is not much literary flavour in his speeches. They are
diffuse and extravagant. He had the verbosity of Gladstone without his
eloquence. His personal reminiscences are heavy and confused. There is
no liveliness in his writing nor any depth of philosophic reflection. He
challenges posterity very much as he challenged his foes while he lived
and he marched out of time with acquiescence perhaps but not with
submission. There is no greater figure among the Conservative statesmen
of Canada nor any whose sacrifices and services were of greater value to
Canada and the Empire. No man had a clearer title to place in the first
confederation cabinet, but he stood aside in order that Sir John
Macdonald could conciliate uneasy elements in the Maritime Provinces,
and he reduced Joseph Howe to subjection by energetic persuasion, firm
remonstrance, and judicious assertion of considerations and obligations
which the old prophet of union could not neglect or reject unless he
denied his own teaching or was resolved to persist in a hopeless
struggle to exclude Nova Scotia from the confederation. History will
find and point out blemishes in the public career of Sir Charles Tupper.
But he gave the state physical vigour, intellectual power and
constructive energy. As for the rest, "his greatness, not his
littleness, concerns mankind."

If Sir John Macdonald was not peculiarly the Father of Confederation he
was its chief architect. He was the master craftsman of the Quebec
Conference, when his preference for a legislative union was set aside,
and chiefly through his skill, patience, and wisdom the provinces were
reconciled to the new constitution. It was a great task to which he set
himself. It was a great thing that he accomplished. He had to temper
disaffection in the Maritime Provinces, to allay sectarian suspicion in
Ontario, to consider racial feeling in Quebec, to overcome rebellion in
the remote Red River Territory and to bring British Columbia into the
union. The test of the man is that he did all this. National feeling
grew under his hand. British sentiment was nourished and strengthened.
The deeper convictions of his nature were moulded into the spirit and
fabric of the commonwealth. However we may regard the measures and
methods by which he maintained his personal ascendancy, he had
fundamental faiths and convictions. These he never dishonoured nor
betrayed. These he imposed upon the Conservative party, upon Parliament
and upon the people. If we think clearly it will appear that these
faiths and convictions have become the dominant beliefs of Canada, that
his successors in government follow the paths along which he led the
young commonwealth and that the exertions and sacrifices of to-day for
the common Empire are the logical and inevitable result of his teaching
and example. Great majorities he had in political contests while he
lived, but never such a majority as now follows his standard.

More than thirty years ago, when I was a young reporter, I first saw Sir
John Macdonald. He came to London in the exciting electoral campaign of
1883. Only once since that day have I witnessed such a manifestation of
popular enthusiasm. As great perhaps was the demonstration over Sir
Wilfrid Laurier when he came to Toronto during the federal campaign of
1896. At London, men who were ordinarily models of discretion and
dignity removed the horses from the carriage and drew the Conservative
leader through the streets to the cheering of thousands of excited
people upon whom a sudden madness seemed to have descended. So far as
one could see it was all spontaneous. There was no organisation. It was
the instant expression of personal devotion and political fealty to a
statesman who held men's affection and quickened their imagination. As
Mr. W. F. Maclean, M.P., has said, "Sir John had a wonderful influence
over many men. They would go through fire and water to serve him, did
serve him, and got, some of them, little or no reward. But they served
him because they loved him, and because with all his great powers they
saw in him their own frailties, and because he abounded in the right
kind of charity." Mr. Maclean adds, "Sir John's real 'old guard' were
not the men who stood with him at Ottawa, but the greater old guard who
stood and fought for him in every township year after year, and to whom
a call by name or a nod of the head was all the recompense they got and
yet the recompense they most prized."

Sir John Macdonald had, too, the devotion of women in singular degree.
In households all over the land they were the passionate guardians of
his reputation and the jealous champions of his achievements. It is
rarely indeed that a political leader touches the hearts of women and
only those do it who have that strange quality of attraction, which we
call magnetism, and which God gives to so few of his creatures. A French
writer has said that "no power is equal to personal charm." There was
the secret of Sir John Macdonald's influence and ascendancy. There was
no beauty in the face of Sir John Macdonald, but often there was a
gracious radiance in the eyes that was singularly winning. His head was
set finely on his shoulders. He had adequate stature. He walked with
easy jauntiness. He had the springy step of youth until he reached three
score years and ten. He expressed dissent from the argument of an
opponent with a curious jerkiness of head and shoulders. Often by
turning the head sidewise he gave emphasis to a gibe or a pleasantry. It
was said that his jokes were old, but to even an old joke he could give
a flavour of freshness. He could have been a great comedian but he was a
greater politician. At the London meeting he described an attempt by the
Hon. Edward Blake to force him into a doubtful position and I recall the
owl-like turn of the head and the suggestion of alert cunning with which
he quoted:

    "'Will you walk into my parlour?'
    Said the spider to the fly--
    'No Sir, thank you kindly,
    I've no curiosi-ty'".

A poor specimen of humour, you may say. Perhaps. But those of us who saw
and heard Sir John Macdonald quote the verse did not think so. If on the
platform he could approach buffoonery he had adequate dignity for any
company or any occasion. In the phrase of Kipling, he could "walk with
Kings nor lose the common touch." If he was not an orator he was an
effective debater. His defence of the Treaty of Washington and his
appeal to Parliament against an adverse judgment on the Canadian Pacific
Railway charges belong to the great events of Canadian parliamentary
history. But very often he was content to turn his back upon the
Opposition, to excite the cheers and laughter of his followers by a few
bantering, provocative sentences, and to treat the division list and the
verdict of the constituencies as adequate support for his position and
conclusive answer to his opponents. He was as prolific as Lincoln in
anecdote and illustration and perhaps if Henry Ward Beecher had visited
Ottawa and met Sir John Macdonald he could have written as he did from
Washington when he met Lincoln. "Abraham", he said, "told us three
stories. Two I forget and the other will not bear telling." How often
that is the story one remembers. Sir John Macdonald had his frailties
and his weaknesses, as we all have, but we can let these repose with his
ashes at Cataraqui.

A word as to the Hon. Edward Blake and the long struggle between himself
and Sir John Macdonald. As a youth Edward Blake had an amazing maturity
of mind and a prodigious zeal for learning. Herndon said of Lincoln that
"Nature had burnt him in her holy fire and stamped him with the seal of
her greatness." Nature gave Blake much and yet withheld something. For
the hard contests of politics what was withheld affected all that was
bestowed. He was sensitive to the soul and the petty gibes and taunts of
buzzing insects could turn him from the resolute pursuit of the foe to
commiseration over his own wounds and bruises. His wounds were not as
deep as he thought they were but his courage was sapped and his
strength impaired by inward chafing over criticism that was beneath
serious consideration. He was not always frank with himself. He had more
ambition than he revealed or thought he revealed. Now and again he
rejected what he desired or put away that which he was soon eager to
recover. For sheer intellectual power Mr. Blake perhaps has had no equal
in the public life of Canada. If he had a peer it was Sir John Thompson.
But for political leadership Mr. Blake had grave temperamental defects.
He was too laborious in the performance of parliamentary drudgery. He
could not easily devolve duties and responsibilities upon colleagues. He
was "too close to the angels." He was too intolerant of the ambitions of
lesser men and too regardless of the performances of associates. It was
said of a British political leader that he had not even "a feeding
acquaintance" with his supporters in Parliament. In a way this was true
of Mr. Blake, but it was an acute sensitiveness, or shyness, not mere
arrogance or exclusiveness, that so often shut him out from intimate
companionship with his kind. If he had been vitally and resolutely
arrogant he would have troubled himself less with meaner men and he
would have been less mortally wounded by the humours and affections
which breed in every political organisation. Democracy must be
humoured, but Mr. Blake did not know how or was not altogether willing
to humour democracy. He was eager for friendliness but he could not
always be friendly. At least he could not always be intimate and
companionable. I remember that when Mr. Blake was Liberal leader at
Ottawa a difference of opinion developed in No. 6 over the exact meaning
of clauses in a bill to amend the Canada Temperance Act. No. 6 was the
small and shabby room in the Parliament buildings which constituted the
headquarters of the Liberal Opposition. Those were the days in which
prohibitory legislation had to serve the twofold object of conciliating
the prohibitionists and protecting the liquor interest. The group in No.
6 were anxious to have Mr. Blake's interpretation of this particular
measure but no one was willing to approach him in his refuge a few doors
away. Finally either by persuasion or by compulsion Mr. Edward Holton,
son of the Hon. Luther H. Holton, who was for many years the
English-speaking Liberal leader for Quebec, set out unarmed and
unprotected to interview the leader. He found Mr. Blake in his shirt
sleeves, although he made no pretension to shirt-sleeve democracy,
engaged with a mass of clippings and documents. Mr. Blake offered no
word of salutation and for a moment Mr. Holton stood submissively before
the master. Finally he explained that No. 6 desired to have a
particular clause in the Temperance Bill interpreted. Mr. Blake said,
"Read it." Mr. Holton did so. The leader said, "Read it again." Mr.
Holton obeyed. Mr. Blake looked sternly at the petitioner and exclaimed
"That's what it means." And Mr. Holton from two careful readings of the
clause saw its exact meaning and returned to No. 6 with the proud front
of a man who had proved both his courage and his intelligence.

Mr. Blake had great command over public meetings. He was powerful and
effective in Parliament although often his speeches were too long and
cumbered with excessive detail. No man ever undertook more prodigious
labour than he did in the electoral campaign of 1887. He delivered
speeches in all the older provinces. In force, gravity and dignity they
are not equalled by any other series of addresses in the political
history of Canada. It is true that his sentences are long and
complicated but there are moral fervour, which touches the emotions, and
argument and eloquence, heavy and cumbrous at times, but singularly and
continuously impressive and convincing. There is no better statement of
conditions and problems in Canada than is found in the volume of these
speeches which was published in 1887 and no one who reads can doubt that
he is in contact with a patriot and a statesman. But across Blake's
utterances falls the shadow of Louis Riel. We see a party sullen and
divided by the attempt of the leader to have the execution of the
rebellious half-breed condemned by the constituencies. There is no doubt
that Mr. Blake was hopeful of victory over Sir John Macdonald in that
memorable contest and that in the bitterness of defeat, physically
exhausted and broken in health, he rashly resolved to abandon the
struggle. But even in defeat he had the affection and confidence of the
Liberal party in Parliament and in the country. Many of his associates
had for Mr. Blake not only respect which could not be denied but love
which could not be withheld. Never was there a party in deeper distress
than that which met at Ottawa in the winter of 1887 under the shadow of
Mr. Blake's withdrawal from the leadership. One feels that he need not
have gone. It was long before hope of his return was abandoned. But when
the letter to West Durham appeared in 1891 the door was closed forever.

If Mr. Blake had taken the leadership of the Liberal party at
confederation he would have had from Mackenzie more loyalty than he gave
to Mackenzie. If he had had personal devotion to Mackenzie he would have
been less capricious and uncertain in service in the cabinet. In 1873
he joined the cabinet as minister without portfolio. In 1874 he
withdrew from the government. In 1875 he became Minister of Justice. In
1877 he resigned that office and became President of the Council. In
1878 he again withdrew from the cabinet and he was in Europe during the
campaign which resulted in the overwhelming defeat of the Liberal
administration. In association with Mr. Goldwin Smith, the Hon. David
Mills and the Hon. Thomas Moss he gave sympathy if not actual financial
support to the _Liberal_ which was established in Toronto in 1874 as a
rival to the _Globe_ and of which Mr. W. F. Maclean was the Ottawa
correspondent. Goldwin Smith had an acute quarrel with George Brown and
the brief partnership of Blake and Goldwin Smith suggests an organised
movement to affect the policy of the Mackenzie administration. When
Blake re-entered the government, Goldwin Smith declared that he "left
him to the tiger." Blake was a restless follower and an uneasy
colleague. There was much in politics that he disliked and not a little
that he despised. Himself of severe moral integrity, he felt the strain
of political corruption as a personal blemish. He was eager for success
in the constituencies but there were times when success depended upon
conditions to which he could not submit. He failed to become prime
minister of Canada but he chose Sir Oliver Mowat for leader of the
Liberal party in Ontario and Sir Wilfrid Laurier for leader of the
Liberal party in the Dominion. Throughout the long period of Liberal
government in Ontario Mr. Blake was Sir Oliver Mowat's constant and
faithful adviser. In the courts the provincial premier won successive
constitutional victories over Sir John Macdonald. Able lawyer though Sir
Oliver was, he relied greatly upon Mr. Blake's advice. Against any other
man than Sir John Macdonald from whom Quebec and the Irish Catholic
minority could not be detached, Mr. Blake might have succeeded in his
last contest. Even with these elements in general alliance with his
great antagonist, he might have triumphed if he could have imposed his
own rational attitude towards protection upon his associates. He did not
become prime minister, but he was the chosen captain of a great party
and for Edward Blake there was no dishonour in defeat. Who shall say
what is success or failure, or who serves most or least?

It is admitted that no greater advocate than Mr. Blake ever appeared in
the courts of Canada. If he had accepted the office of Chief Justice of
the Supreme Court he would have raised that court to great distinction
among the tribunals of the English-speaking world and probably fewer
Canadian cases would have gone to the Imperial Privy Council. Speaking
in this hall one thinks of Mr. Blake's devotion to the University. I met
him at Ottawa on the morning after the fire which destroyed the
beautiful old buildings, and he grieved as over a personal misfortune.
One feels that he valued no other honour or distinction as highly as he
did the chancellorship of the University. Nothing else could have so
become the man save perhaps a great judicial office. Mr. Blake had a
commanding position as an advocate before the Judicial Committee of the
Imperial Privy Council. It is doubtful if he ever greatly impressed
himself upon the Imperial Parliament. Timothy Healy said, "You could not
transplant an oak."

We almost forget that Mr. Blake was once regarded as the rising hope of
Canadian Imperialists. There were those who interpreted his famous
deliverance at Aurora in 1874 as a declaration in favour of federation
of the Empire. He demanded a full citizenship for Canadians but as to
how that should be acquired he was obscure. Indeed he was often obscure
and could himself find a deeper meaning in his utterances than a casual
reading revealed. In the speech at Aurora he argued that "an effort
should be made to reorganise the Empire upon a federal basis." He
declared that we had "a government the freest, perhaps the most
democratic in the world with reference to local and domestic affairs,
in which you rule yourselves as fully as any people in the world, while
in your foreign affairs, your relations with other countries, whether
peaceful or warlike, commercial or financial or otherwise, you may have
no more voice than the people of Japan." "This," he continued, "is a
state of things of which you have no right to complain, because, so long
as you do not choose to undertake the responsibilities and burdens which
attach to some share of control in these affairs, you cannot fully claim
the rights and privileges of freeborn Britons in such matters." "It is
impossible," he said, "to foster a national spirit unless you have
national interests to attend to or among people who do not choose to
undertake the responsibilities and to devote themselves to the duties to
which national attributes belong." He pointed out, and this was more
than forty years ago, that by the policy of Great Britain in which we
had no voice or control, Canada might be plunged into the horrors of
war, and, he added, "for my part I believe that while it was not
unnatural, not unreasonable, pending the process of development which
has been going on in our new and sparsely settled country, that we
should have been quite willing--we so few in numbers, so busied in our
local concerns, so engaged in subduing the earth and settling up the
country--to leave the cares and privileges to which I have referred in
the hands of the parent state, the time will come when that national
spirit which has been spoken of will be truly felt among us, when we
shall realise that we are four millions of Britons who are not free,
when we shall be ready to take up that freedom and to ask what the late
prime minister of England assured us we should not be denied--our share
of national rights."

However we may interpret these utterances, there is at least a clear and
unequivocal appeal for equal citizenship for all subjects of the king in
the common Empire. Mr. Blake did not suggest separation or independence
nor did he persevere in the demand for a proportionate voice in Imperial
councils. At that time he saw no necessary conflict between national and
Imperial interests. Apparently he believed that in order to have true
national feeling it was necessary to assume all the obligations and
responsibilities of citizenship. If, under federation of the Empire, we
can acquire complete citizenship without the sacrifice of
self-government in national affairs federation is inevitable. If not,
nationalism will prevail in the end. An incomplete citizenship such as
we of the Dominion now possess cannot be a final condition for British
peoples. For my part I believe that federation of the Empire is not more
difficult than was federation of Canada or Australia, as I believe that
we cannot be content with less than equal citizenship for ourselves and
an equal partnership for our country in the Empire to which we belong.
In Mr. Blake's subsequent career the vision of Aurora is obscured. Mr.
Goldwin Smith described Blake as the friend of nationality and
commercial autonomy, and declared that the National Policy was his axe
which was stolen by the Conservatives when out of power to cut down the
Mackenzie administration. As Minister of Justice, Mr. Blake reduced the
authority of the Governor-General and enlarged the autonomy of Canada.
But even this is not inconsistent with the Aurora platform. A full
nationalism is the necessary preparation for federation of the Empire.

I trust that I have spoken with discretion and charity and with a decent
regard for historical truth. This year is the fiftieth anniversary of
confederation. We think of what has been done and we know that it is
good. There may be doubtful chapters in the story, but when human
material is moulded by human hands we cannot have a perfect result. We
have organised a free democracy in close alliance with an ancient
monarchy across the sea. We have feared God and honoured the King and
reverenced law and order. We have loved the days and the ways of peace.
We have made no quarrel with any neighbour, nor wasted our strength in
civil brawls and domestic dissension. We have believed with Burke that
"the blood of man should never be shed but to redeem the blood of man.
It is well shed for our family, for our friends, for our God, for our
country, for our kind. The rest is vanity; the rest is crime." No guilt
lies upon us if in this year of jubilee we are oppressed by sorrow and
sacrifice. The old mother of free nations sprang again to the defence of
freedom and we could only say as Jehoshaphat said to the King of Israel:
"I am as thou art and my people as thy people and we will be with thee
in the war." For her as for us the choice was between sacrifice and
dishonour and when these are the conditions, honour and sacrifice are
the immemorial obligation and inheritance of the British people. Who
doubts that if the Fathers of Confederation could know what we do and
suffer in these tremendous days they would rejoice with solemn pride in
the spirit of the young nation around whose cradle they sat with such
faith and hope and solicitude half a century ago. Contemporary judgments
are partial, affected by personal prejudices, perverted by political
controversy. Time softens old asperities and history gropes sometimes
blindly, but often honestly, for the truth. Whatever were the
imperfections and failures of the Fathers of Confederation they laid
the foundations of a national structure in which men may dwell in
freedom, independence and security, and which, if we are as faithful, as
devoted and as patriotic, will endure as a happy habitation for millions
of mankind. As Lord Rosebery said of Mr. Gladstone: "These men form the
pedigree of nations and their achievements are their country's title
deeds of honour. The dark mass of humanity passes to the grave, silent
and unknown. It is these men who stand forth and mark the march of
generations."




III

THE WORKING OF FEDERAL INSTITUTIONS IN CANADA

By Z. A. LASH.


I notice that in the announcement of this lecture I am referred to as
having been for some time the Deputy of the Minister of Justice. That
was a long time ago, but the fact that I once occupied the office
probably equips me to say things about the working of federal
institutions in Canada, which I should not otherwise have been able to
say, and the fact that, just nine years after the British North America
Act (Canada's constitution) came into force, I assumed that office and
remained in it until 1882, enables me to speak of the workings of our
federal system practically from its beginning. It took the first ten
years for the country to find its bearings under the new federation, and
for the Dominion and the Provinces to settle down to an understanding of
their true constitutional relations. It also took that length of time
for the Dominion and the mother country to settle, satisfactorily,
certain debatable questions respecting their relations, and to make
clear that the principles relating to ministerial responsibility in
Canada did not differ from those relating to similar responsibility in
England. It is a pleasant memory that I was appointed Deputy Minister of
Justice upon the recommendation of the Honourable Edward Blake, when he
was Minister, and I am sure that the loyal sons and daughters of the
University of Toronto take pride in the thought that he--who shed such
lustre upon his Alma Mater, first as a graduate and later as Chancellor
of the University--was to a large extent instrumental in settling some
of the most important questions arising under our constitution, not only
when he was Minister of Justice, but also when he, as one of the
greatest lawyers at the Bar, took part in our courts and specially
before the Judicial Committee of the Imperial Privy Council, in the
argument of these questions.

To deal fully with the working of federal institutions in Canada would
occupy more time than is at my disposal. Much detail would have to be
gone into and the subject would become wearisome. There are, however,
some general underlying principles which should be mentioned and borne
in mind.


_Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom_

The first recital in the British North America Act declares that "the
Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have expressed their
desire to be federally united into one Dominion under the Crown of the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a constitution similar
in principle to that of the United Kingdom." These words "similar in
principle to that of the United Kingdom" give the key for the opening of
the meaning and the working out of the Act in many respects, especially
with reference to those matters upon which the Act itself is silent.


_Assent to Bills_

For instance, Section 55 provides as follows:--

    "Where a Bill passed by the Houses of the Parliament is
    presented to the Governor-General for the Queen's assent, he
    shall declare, according to his discretion, but subject to the
    provisions of this Act and to her Majesty's instructions, either
    that he assents thereto, in the Queen's name, or that he
    withholds the Queen's assent, or that he reserves the Bill for
    the signification of the Queen's pleasure."

According to the wording of this section, the discretion of the
Governor-General to assent, or to withhold assent, or to reserve a bill
is absolute, but that would not be in accordance with the principle of
the constitution of the United Kingdom. Under that constitution,
although the discretion of the sovereign is in theory absolute, yet the
assent to a bill passed by the two Houses of Parliament is given or
withheld in accordance with the advice of the Privy Council. There has
not been a case in England since the reign of Queen Anne when assent to
such a bill has been withheld contrary to the advice of the Privy
Council. Therefore, pursuant to this principle, the discretion of the
Governor-General under the British North America Act is exercised in
accordance with the advice of his Privy Council, but it was not until
1877 that the principle was fully established.


_Governor-General_

By Section 9 of the British North America Act the executive government
and authority of and over Canada is declared to be vested in the
sovereign. It is of course impracticable that the King should exercise
this authority in person as he exercises it in the United Kingdom,
therefore as part of the royal prerogative he appoints the
Governor-General to act for him, and in making this appointment the King
can in theory, by the commission or by instructions accompanying it,
impose upon the Governor such limitations respecting his powers, or give
him such instructions respecting the exercise of them, as the King may
think expedient. In doing this he would, of course, act under the advice
of the Imperial Privy Council. Now it is evident that by the terms of
the commission, or by the instructions (which the Governor would have to
obey) the constitutional position of the Governor with respect to his
Ministers might be made very different from the constitutional position
of the King with respect to his ministers, and the constitution of
Canada might, in this way, be made or become not similar in principle to
that of the United Kingdom. This is exactly what happened on the
appointment of Canada's first Governor-General.


_Governors' Commission_

It is probable that the forms of commission and instructions issued to
our Governors-General from 1867 to Lord Dufferin's appointment in 1872
were taken from forms long in use in connection with the appointment of
colonial governors, as they contained matters not suitable to a
federation like Canada, and they dealt with details which, in the light
of our present position, seem to border on the ludicrous.

In the instructions which accompanied Lord Dufferin's commission, he
was, among other things, instructed as follows:

    "You are not to assent in Our name to any Bill of any of the
    classes hereinafter specified, that is to say:--

    1. Any Bill for the divorce of persons joined together in holy
    matrimony.

    2. Any Bill whereby any grant of land or money, or other
    donation or gratuity, may be made to yourself.

    3. Any Bill whereby any paper or other currency may be made a
    legal tender, except the coin of the realm or other gold or
    silver coin.

    4. Any Bill imposing differential duties.

    5. Any Bill, the provisions of which shall appear inconsistent
    with obligations imposed upon Us by treaty.

    6. Any Bill interfering with the discipline or control of Our
    forces in Our said Dominion by land and sea.

    7. Any Bill of an extraordinary nature and importance, whereby
    Our prerogative, or the rights and property of Our subjects not
    residing in Our said Dominion, or the trade and shipping of the
    United Kingdom and its dependencies, may be prejudiced.

    8. Any Bill containing provisions to which Our assent has been
    once refused, or which has been disallowed by Us.

    Unless such Bill shall contain a clause suspending the operation
    of such Bill until the signification in Our said Dominion of Our
    pleasure thereupon, or unless you shall have satisfied yourself
    that an urgent necessity exists, requiring that such Bill be
    brought into immediate operation, in which case you are
    authorized to assent in Our name to such Bill, unless the same
    shall be repugnant to the law of England or inconsistent with
    any obligations imposed on Us by treaty. But you are to transmit
    to Us by the earliest opportunity the Bill so assented to,
    together with your reasons tor assenting thereto."

These instructions (surprising to us now) had accompanied the
commissions issued since 1867. The commission vested in the
Governor-General the exercise of the royal prerogative of pardon. The
instructions contained the following with respect to the pardon of an
offender condemned to death: "in all such cases you are to decide,
either to extend or to withhold a pardon or reprieve, according to your
own deliberate judgment, whether the members of our said Privy Council
concur therein or otherwise."


_Lepine's Case_

One Lepine had been sentenced to death for the part which he took in the
North-west rebellion. In 1875 Lord Dufferin, upon this authority, had
reprieved Lepine, acting on his own judgment. It is true that he had
consulted with his ministers, but the consultation was to assist him in
forming his own judgment. This case brought up very acutely the question
of ministerial responsibility for the Governor's acts, and incidentally
other questions arising under the Governor's commission and
instructions. At the instance of our government Mr. Blake went to
England and discussed the questions with the government there.


_Mr. Blake's Memorandum_

A very important memorandum was submitted by him to the Colonial
Secretary in July 1876, in which he pointed out various objections to
the terms of the commission and instructions, particularly with
reference to assenting or withholding assent to bills, and to the
exercise of the prerogative of pardon where ministerial responsibility
was excluded. I quote this extract from the memorandum:

    "The existing forms in the case of Canada have been felt for
    some time to be capable of amendment, for reasons which require
    that special consideration should be given to her position, and
    which render unsuitable for her the forms which may be eminently
    suited to some of the colonies.

    "Canada is not merely a colony or a province: she is a Dominion
    composed of an aggregate of seven large provinces federally
    united under an imperial charter, which expressly recites that
    her constitution is to be similar in principle to that of the
    United Kingdom. Nay, more, besides the powers with which she is
    invested over a large part of the affairs of the inhabitants of
    the several provinces, she enjoys absolute powers of legislation
    and administration over the people and territories of the
    north-west, out of which she has already created one province,
    and is empowered to create others, with representative
    institutions.

    "These circumstances, together with the vastness of her area,
    the numbers of her free population, the character of the
    representative institutions and of the responsible government
    which as citizens of the various provinces and of Canada her
    people have so long enjoyed, all point to the propriety of
    dealing with the question in hand in a manner very different
    from that which might be fitly adopted with reference to a
    single and comparatively small and young colony.

    "Besides the general spread of the principles of constitutional
    freedom there has been, in reference to the colonies, a
    recognized difference between their circumstances resulting in
    the application to those in a less advanced condition of a
    lesser measure of self-government, while others are said to be
    invested with 'the fullest freedom of political government'; and
    it may be fairly stated that there is no dependency of the
    British Crown which is entitled to so full an application of the
    principles of constitutional freedom as the Dominion of Canada."


_Principle of Ministerial Responsibility_

The result was that the commission and instructions were recast,
the principles contended for by Mr. Blake were admitted and since
then there has been no dispute with reference to ministerial
responsibility in Canada, either with regard to assenting to bills,
the granting of pardons, or anything else. The relations between the
lieutenant-governors of the provinces and their ministers are governed
by similar principles, and it may be said with confidence that, with
regard to the great principle of ministerial responsibility, the working
of federal institutions in Canada has been satisfactory.


_Division of Legislative Authority_

There is an important principle underlying the division of legislative
authority between the Parliament of Canada and the provincial
legislatures which should be explained and which has had much to do with
the successful working of our federation. The explanation will be made
clearer and the reasons for this successful working will be made more
apparent if I refer to the system of the great federation to the south
of us.

In 1775 the thirteen colonies, which in 1776 declared their independence
and threw off their allegiance to Great Britain, sent delegates to a
meeting or congress to decide upon measures for joint action because of
the revolution which was then pending; but there was not created any
central body or authority having any general or legislative jurisdiction
over the colonies or their people. Each colony claimed to be
independent, but each acted with the others as against Great Britain and
sent members to this joint congress. I quote from the Declaration of
Independence:

    "We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of
    America, in general congress assembled, do...solemnly
    publish and declare that these united colonies are, and, of
    right, ought to be free and independent States...and that as
    free and independent States they have full power to levy war,
    conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce and to do
    all other acts and things which independent States may of right
    do."

In 1778 Articles of Confederation were agreed to by a majority of the
thirteen, and subsequently ratified by them all. The purpose of these
articles was the formation of a league of friendship for common defence
and mutual welfare, and so jealous were the States of their rights that
the first article after the one declaring the name of the confederacy
was in these words:

    "Each State retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence,
    and every power, jurisdiction and right which is not by this
    Confederation expressly delegated to the Thirteen States in
    congress assembled."


_Constitution of the U.S.A. Compared_

When the present constitution of the United States was discussed, it was
by men who represented separate States and who were jealous of their
rights and careful to guard them. Some far-seeing minds among them
doubtless had visions of their great future, but in the then condition
of the world's trade, before the wonderful power of harnessed steam had
been discovered and when the commercial uses of electricity were
unknown, when communication between the different parts of the country
was difficult and tedious, when there were no railways or other modern
means of transportation, when the total population of the thirteen
States was only about 3,000,000, and when they occupied only a fringe
(comparatively speaking) along the Atlantic coast, it is not to be
wondered at that in framing their constitution they could not foresee or
provide for or against the conditions of the nineteenth and twentieth
centuries. When, therefore, as representatives of independent States,
they met to discuss a federal union, the natural tendency was to look at
the question from the points of view of the States themselves. The
result was a constitution granting to the union such specified powers
only as then seemed necessary to the scheme of federation and leaving
reserved to the States (subject to some specified limitations) the whole
balance of power which as independent States they then claimed to
possess.

The present constitution, signed in 1787, did not make express provision
on this head. Express provision was unnecessary; but to remove any
possible doubt the constitution was amended in 1789 in these words:

    "The powers not delegated to the United States by the
    Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to
    the States respectively or to the people."


_Conditions in the United States_

Since 1787 the fringe along the Atlantic coast has been extended from
the Atlantic to the Pacific, and from the Gulf of Mexico and Mexico as
it now is to Canada. The population has increased from 3,000,000 to
100,000,000. Railways and telegraphs and telephones connect the west
with the east, and the south with the north. Transportation and
communication are now easier and more rapid between New York and San
Francisco than they were in 1787 between New York and Philadelphia; and,
so far as trade is concerned, the whole country from north to south and
from east to west is practically one.


_Conditions in Canada_

Contrast the position of the thirteen States in 1787 with that of the
three colonies which in 1867 became federated as the Dominion of Canada,
viz.: the Province of Canada--then Upper and Lower Canada, but one under
a legislative union--the Province of New Brunswick, and the Province of
Nova Scotia. In the first place, they had not thrown off their
allegiance to Great Britain, and they did not feel, as did the thirteen
colonies, that having thrown off one power they would not set up another
over them, even of their own making. They met to form a union, which, on
its very face, made provision for including the northern half of this
continent. They had before them the example of the United States of
America as a guide and as a warning. They knew something about the
weaknesses of that constitution, and they knew the strong points of the
constitution of Great Britain. They knew the effect upon trade of
railways and telegraphs and modern means of transportation and
communication. They did not come to discuss a union as independent
states anxious to retain all their sovereign powers and to give to the
new Dominion such powers only as seemed necessary to the scheme,
reserving to themselves all residue of power, but they met to form a
union which would in the near future possess and govern Canada from
coast to coast, and which would have to deal with the problems of empire
and solve the same type of difficulties confronted by the United States.
Like the United States they decided upon a federal union. They created a
central legislative and executive power, and Provinces which would
control their local affairs, but, unlike the United States, they
conferred upon the Dominion general powers to make laws for the "peace,
order and good government of Canada," and carved out of this general
power certain specified powers which they conferred upon the Provinces.
A new type of federation thus came into being.


_Difference in Principle between U.S.A. Federation and B.N.A. Act_

The great difference in principle between the United States and the
Canadian federation is that in the United States the federal authority
has only specified powers, the whole balance being possessed by the
States, whereas in Canada the Provinces have the specified powers and
the whole balance is possessed by the Dominion.

The reasons for the formation of the Dominion, and the confidence in its
great future extension and development, guided the framers of our
constitution to entrust to the federal parliament a full measure of
authority over those things which seemed most to affect the people as a
whole, and to confer upon the Provinces a full measure of authority over
those which seemed most to affect the people of a Province as a
Province. I have time only to say with respect to the provincial powers
that they have proved sufficient for all practical local purposes, but I
will, I am sure, be pardoned if I contrast the working of some of our
federal powers with the working of the federal powers of the United
States over the same subjects. I do so simply to illustrate our
constitution and not to belittle that of our neighbours. I shall
illustrate by four subjects which are of general interest, viz: trade,
transportation, the criminal law, marriage and divorce. There are
others, but time will not admit of illustrations from them.


_Illustrations_

In the United States the specified jurisdiction over trade is conferred
upon the federal body in these words: "To regulate commerce with foreign
nations and among the several States and with the Indian tribes." In
Canada it belongs to the Dominion under the general grant, because it
has not been conferred upon the Provinces; but for greater certainty,
and not so as to limit the general grant, the Act specifically declares
that the legislative authority of Canada includes "the regulation of
trade and commerce."

In the United States the general criminal law comes under the
jurisdiction of the States because it has not been specially granted to
the central authority; so also do "Marriage and Divorce"; whereas in
Canada these subjects belong to the Dominion because they have not been
specifically granted to the Provinces, and, "for greater certainty,"
they are named as part of the Dominion jurisdiction.


_Trade and Transportation_

Take the subject of trade, and transportation, which is so intimately
connected with it. It does not require much consideration to see that
to regulate efficiently the trade of a country the size of Canada or the
United States, where the question of transportation and freight rates is
of such vital importance, where discrimination may enrich one industry
or section and ruin another, and where huge combinations may practically
monopolize the necessaries of life, both in foods and manufactures,
there should be one general legislative power capable of dealing with
all the important questions which are involved. In Canada we have such
power in the Dominion Parliament. In the United States the power which
Congress possesses is confined to that species of commerce carried on
with foreign countries, among the several States, and with the Indian
tribes. This power is far short of what is required to cope successfully
with the evils connected with trade and transportation which have grown
up in the States. Attempts to cope with them have been made by Congress,
but as yet they have been only partially successful, owing, I believe,
mainly to the difficulty, if not the impossibility, of framing effective
laws because of the defective jurisdiction which is vested in Congress.
Each State has power to regulate trade and transportation within its own
borders. It is, in fact, only by implication that Congress has any
jurisdiction over State railways, and this implied jurisdiction extends
only in so far as it can be said to be in regulation of commerce among
the several States or with foreign nations.

With respect to trade which begins and ends within a State, Congress is
practically powerless. It is true that our Provinces, like the various
States, have power to incorporate railways to operate in the Province,
and to regulate their tariffs and their business, and to establish
commissions for this purpose, but this power is contained in the grant
of legislative authority over "local works and undertakings" and "the
incorporation of companies with provincial objects." To complete the
jurisdiction of the Dominion over such local works and undertakings,
express power is vested in the Parliament of Canada to declare a local
work or undertaking to be for the general advantage of Canada or of any
two or more of the Provinces, and, upon such declaration being made,
Parliament has jurisdiction over the undertaking. No such power is
vested in Congress with respect to works within a State. Bear in mind,
too, that in Canada the power to regulate trade and commerce is vested
in the Dominion Parliament and not in the Provinces.

With respect, therefore, to the two great subjects of trade and
transportation, the Parliament of Canada has ample power to pass
efficient laws. This power has been exercised already in important
instances such as the act creating an all powerful Railway Commission
and the Act relating to the investigation of injurious trade
combinations. Clear power exists to make such amendments and additions
to these Acts as the public interests may from time to time require.


_Criminal Law_

Turn now to criminal law. In Canada, complete jurisdiction over it and
over the procedure in criminal matters is vested in the Dominion
Parliament, whereas in the United States each State possesses this
power, with the result that the criminal laws and procedures of the
States differ, and differ widely in some instances, not only as to what
constitutes a crime but as to the trial of the offender and his
punishment.

We have not in Canada the delays and perversions of justice which are
constantly in evidence in the United States in connection with criminal
trials, particularly where the rights or jurisdiction of different
States are involved. Our criminal procedure is prompt and sure, and
there is but one procedure for the whole of Canada. Crime does not go
unpunished for want of jurisdiction, or because of conflicting
jurisdictions, and no lynchings take place because the power of the law
fails. No one can say of Canada, as President Taft felt constrained to
say publicly of the United States, "I grieve for my country to say that
the administration of criminal law in all the States of this union
(there may be one or two exceptions) is a disgrace to our civilization."

I firmly believe that, if the constitution of the United States had
granted to the central authority exclusive power over criminal law and
procedure, Congress would have enacted such laws, applying to the whole
country, as would have gone far to obviate the delays and perversions of
justice and the lynchings, and to make it impossible for any President
of that great nation to utter the lament I have quoted.


_Marriage and Divorce_

Take the subject of "Marriage and Divorce." In the United States each
State has full jurisdiction over it. In Canada the jurisdiction is
vested in the Dominion Parliament. The Provinces have authority over
"the solemnization of marriage in the Province" only. As with the
administration of criminal justice, we have not in Canada the scandals
and disgrace which prevail in many of the States in relation to marriage
and divorce, especially divorce. The conditions which there prevail and
which are a humiliation to their right-thinking people are not possible
in Canada. Polygamy could never be recognized or encouraged by Canadian
law. The sacredness of the marriage tie could never be treated with such
levity as is the case in some of the States. Can there be any doubt that
over a subject so vital to the continued well-being of a people, the
central authority, which represents all the people and not merely a
State or Province, should have the jurisdiction? As in the case of
criminal law and procedure, I firmly believe that if the constitution of
the United States had granted to the central authority exclusive power
over marriage and divorce, Congress would have enacted such laws,
applicable to the whole country, as would have prevented that special
blot which now blackens the most sacred side of their social life.


_Banking_

I could illustrate with other subjects; for instance, I should like to
explain the differences between the constitution of the United States
and ours in relation to banking, but to do so would occupy too much
time. I can only assert my belief that if Congress had possessed from
the beginning the same complete legislative authority over this subject,
extending over the whole of the country, that is possessed by the
Dominion Parliament, extending over the whole of Canada, it would have
been better equipped to deal efficiently with the banking system, and
to remedy or even prevent the evils which have been associated with it.
Congress could have created one uniform system for the whole country. As
it is, each State has power to create banks and pass laws respecting
their business, so that one uniform system is now practically
impossible. In Canada, the Dominion Parliament has complete and
exclusive authority over "banking, the incorporation of banks, and the
issue of paper money." I am convinced that, had there been in Canada a
divided jurisdiction over this subject, it would not have been possible
to create and continue and improve from time to time the Canadian
banking system, which has done and is doing so much for the welfare and
development of our country.

It is not necessary to make any criticism respecting the wisdom or
unwisdom of the exercise, by federal or provincial jurisdictions, of the
powers conferred upon them. Very few measures meet with unanimous
approval. The successful working of federal institutions must, in the
last analysis, depend upon the powers conferred. If the power exists,
the fact that it is made use of unwisely may for a time be detrimental
to the true interests of the people, but the same power which enacts can
amend and repeal. The constitution of Canada confers upon the Dominion
and the Provinces full powers of self-government with respect to all
matters, in so far as such powers can be exercised by a people not yet
having the status of a sovereign state. With respect to the division of
those powers between the Dominion and the Provinces there have been no
expressions of dissatisfaction worth mentioning and in this respect our
people are contented with the Canadian constitution and with the way it
has worked.


_Disallowance_

Section 56 of the British North America Act provides that if the Queen
in Council, within two years after the receipt by the Secretary of State
of a bill assented to by the Governor-General, thinks fit to disallow
the Act, such disallowance, being signified by proclamation, shall annul
the Act from and after the day of such signification. This section is
made applicable to Acts of the provincial legislature, and for these the
power of disallowance is vested in the Governor-General within one year
after the receipt of the Act from the Lieutenant-Governor of the
Province. This is another illustration that, according to the wording of
the section, the discretion of the Governor-General to disallow an Act
of a provincial legislature is absolute, but, as already explained, the
principle of ministerial responsibility applies and the
Governor-General must act upon the advice of his ministers.

Since the changes were made in the commission and instructions to the
Governor-General which I have already explained, the principles under
which the power of disallowance of Dominion statutes vested in the King
in Council should be exercised have practically limited it to cases in
which Imperial interests are involved. As the British government and the
Canadian government have for a number of years kept in close touch with
respect to Imperial interests, our government is careful to see that no
Act is passed by Parliament which would be so objectionable to the
Imperial authorities as to call for the exercise of the power of
disallowance. The relations between the two governments are likely to be
even closer in the future, and it is not likely that fault will be found
by the people of Canada with respect to the working of our constitution
in connection with this power. An explanation of the views upon the
power of disallowance of provincial statutes which prevailed in the
early years, and of the changes which were made in later years, will be
interesting.


_Earlier and Later Views as to Disallowance_

For a number of years after Confederation, it was considered by the
Dominion government that this power of disallowance should be exercised
if the provincial Act were unjust or oppressive--for example, if it took
away vested rights without compensation, or impaired obligations under
contract, or if, in the opinion of the Dominion government, it went
beyond the powers of the legislature, or infringed upon Dominion or
Imperial interests. These principles were acted upon and, in accordance
with them, provincial Acts were disallowed. Protests from the Provinces
arose, and they gradually became so emphatic that the Dominion
government was compelled to take notice of them. They were based upon
the ground that the autonomy of the Provinces was being interfered with,
respecting matters over which the Provinces claimed exclusive
jurisdiction. It is not necessary to explain the process through which
the subject passed between 1868 and 1908. In 1908, a report to the
Governor-General in Council made by the Minister of Justice (Sir Allen
Aylesworth) and approved by the Governor-General contained these words:

    "It is not intended by the British North America Act that the
    power of disallowance shall be exercised for the purpose of
    annulling provincial legislation, even though your Excellency's
    ministers consider the legislation unjust or oppressive or in
    conflict with recognized legal principles, so long as such
    legislation is within the power of the provincial legislature to
    enact it."

During the last nine years no provincial Act has been disallowed, for
reasons contrary to this conclusion, but in 1912, while declining to
recommend the disallowance of a certain provincial Act, the present
Minister of Justice, Mr. Doherty, made a report to the Governor-General
in Council, which was approved by the Governor, and in which he said:

    "The undersigned entertains no doubt, however, that the power is
    constitutionally capable of exercise and may on occasion be
    properly invoked for the purpose of preventing, not
    inconsistently with the public interest, irreparable injustice
    or undue interference with private rights or property through
    the operation of local statutes _intra vires_ of the
    legislatures."

Referring to the disallowance of a provincial Act on the ground that it
was _ultra vires_, or beyond the powers of the legislature, the same
Minister of Justice (Sir Allen Aylesworth) who in 1908 expressed the
view above quoted reported in 1911 as follows:

    "It is the duty of your Excellency's government, when persuaded
    by authority, or upon due consideration that a provincial
    enactment is _ultra vires_ of the legislature, to see that the
    public interest does not suffer by an attempt to sanction
    locally laws which can derive their authority only from the
    Parliament...Great confusion and hardship may result from a
    statutory corporation carrying on a trust or investment business
    in excess of its corporate powers."

The government being of opinion that the Act reported upon was _ultra
vires_, it was disallowed.

The freedom of the Dominion government to disallow an act which would
adversely affect Dominion or Imperial interests has not been given up.
Differences of opinion might arise as to whether or not an Act did
adversely affect those interests, and the responsibility of deciding
and the right to decide would fall to the Dominion.

This explanation of the power of disallowance and of the principles upon
which it has been exercised shows how, in this respect, our constitution
has worked. Whether the working be for good or for evil, and whether or
not the general credit and good name of the Provinces or of Canada have
been prejudiced by certain Acts of provincial legislatures, which have
not been disallowed, is a question upon which sharp differences of
opinion have arisen.


_Working together of Dominion and Provincial Jurisdictions_

With respect to the specified subjects over which the Parliament of
Canada and the provincial legislatures respectively are given
legislative authority, the power conferred in each case is declared to
be "exclusive"--that is to say that neither can legislate upon matters
exclusively assigned to the other. This is an important principle and,
on the surface, it would look as if the legislative powers of the
Dominion and the Provinces were separated by cast-iron fences, through
which neither could break, and it was so contended in some of the
earlier cases which came before the courts. However, the good sense and
breadth of view of the courts, and especially of the Judicial Committee
of the Imperial Privy Council (our final court of appeal), have
established certain principles which have done much to promote the
smooth working of our federal institutions. For example, among the
matters assigned exclusively to the Provinces is "The administration of
justice in the Province including the constitution, maintenance and
organization of provincial courts both of civil and criminal
jurisdiction and including procedure in civil matters in those courts",
and among the matters assigned exclusively to the Dominion is "the
establishment of courts for the better administration of the laws of
Canada." It was contended that Parliament could not confer upon a
provincial court jurisdiction to try questions relating to Dominion
matters (for example, the Dominion elections) and could not prescribe
the procedure in respect of such matters (for example controverted
election cases), the argument being that to do so would be to legislate
upon the constitution of, and the procedure in, a court the exclusive
legislative authority over which is vested in the Province. The courts,
however, have decided in numerous cases that a Dominion statute upon a
matter coming within the legislative authority of Parliament may
properly make use of provincial courts and judges and other provincial
machinery to carry out and enforce its provisions. The far-reaching
principle involved in these decisions has proved to be of the highest
importance in the smooth and successful working of our constitution. It
has in various instances enabled the Dominion to make use of the
existing provincial machinery in aid of a Dominion enactment. Had the
contrary principle been established, great inconvenience and much
unnecessary expense would have resulted; for instance, for the trial in
court of Dominion controverted election cases it would have been
necessary either to establish a Dominion court with all the necessary
machinery, including judges, sheriffs and other officers or to enlarge
the jurisdiction and machinery of the Exchequer Court of Canada or the
other existing Dominion court.

"Bankruptcy and Insolvency" are among the matters exclusively assigned
to the Dominion, and Parliament has passed laws respecting bankruptcy
and insolvency of persons and corporations and has provided for the
winding-up of companies; the machinery of existing provincial courts has
been freely made use of by such laws, and jurisdiction has been
conferred upon them and procedure provided for. Many other instances
involving this convenient principle could be cited; they are constantly
arising and afford evidence of the practical wisdom upon which the
principle was established.

The Act respecting the election of members of the House of Commons
involves the same principle. It makes use of provincial voters' lists
and declares that "for the purposes of any Dominion election held within
a Province the voters' lists shall, except as herein otherwise
provided...be those prepared under the laws of that Province for the
purposes of provincial elections". It is made the duty of the custodian
of the lists (a provincial officer) to certify a copy and transmit it to
the proper Dominion officer. The polling places used at provincial
elections are made the polling places for Dominion elections. The judge
of the county court is made use of for re-counting ballots and, should
he neglect or refuse to perform the duties cast upon him, the Act
provides that any party aggrieved may apply to a superior court or judge
for an order compelling the county judge to proceed, and the procedure
upon this application is provided for.

In other ways the provincial machinery, including judges, courts and
officers, is made use of and enormous expenditure is obviated. After the
Ontario Act giving votes to women has been finally passed, as the
Dominion election law now stands, women, whose names are on the Ontario
voters' lists, would be entitled to vote at Dominion elections. This
affords a remarkable illustration of the interlocking of Dominion and
provincial jurisdictions and machinery, all working together smoothly
and in accordance with the spirit of the constitution. For a few years
the Dominion Parliament provided a machinery of its own for the
preparation of voters' lists for Dominion elections, but it was found so
cumbrous and expensive that the law was repealed and the use of the
provincial machinery was again resorted to. The trial thus made affords
cogent evidence that in this case the public interest is best served by
the working together of the Dominion and provincial machinery.


_No Customs Duties between Provinces_

All articles of growth, produce or manufacture of any one of the
provinces are, by Section 121 of the British North America Act, admitted
free into each of the other provinces.


_Admission of other Provinces_

Provisions are made for the admission into confederation of
Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, British Columbia, Rupert's Land and
the North Western Territory; under these provisions all but Newfoundland
have been admitted. Doubts respecting the power of the Parliament of
Canada to create out of Rupert's Land and the North Western Territory
separate Provinces were removed by Imperial legislation and the great
Provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta were created by that
Parliament. The Yukon District has been organized, with a government,
legislative council, courts and other machinery suitable for its
purposes and its transition into a full-fledged Province can take place
without difficulty when the time is ripe for it. The remaining parts of
Rupert's Land and the North Western Territory are being looked after and
administered under the authority of the Parliament and government of
Canada.


_Object of Confederation Attained_

The object of the British North America Act has been attained. Out of
scattered provinces and territories, separated, in some cases, by many
hundreds of miles of unsettled country, there has been created the great
Dominion of Canada, embracing the north half of this continent,
organized, prosperous and law-abiding, successfully governing herself in
all things affecting her welfare, except those matters which relate to
Imperial foreign affairs. Able to take, and now taking, her full share
in the present war in defence of the Empire and in defence of humanity,
Canada has established her right and proved her ability to take part in
the Empire's foreign affairs and in "the great policies and questions
which concern and govern the issues of peace and war."




IV

THE QUALITY OF CANADIAN LIFE

By R. A. FALCONER.


The preceding lectures of this course have dealt with the creation of
the political fabric of confederation, its architects and
master-builders, and the working of the machinery. That it has been a
successful achievement is admitted in this fiftieth year since its
founding. We are grateful to those who provided us with so original,
well articulated and adjustable a constitution, in the working of which
we have had satisfaction at home and have won respect abroad. To the
Briton we continued long after confederation to be colonists in whom he
thought he had vague proprietary rights; to the American we were an
unintelligible outpost of half emancipated kinsfolk of his own, who
would not recognise their manifest destiny of full freedom. For fifteen
or twenty years we have, at first timidly but with more confidence of
late, been ranking ourselves as a nation. Quite recently also outside
opinion has changed rapidly with respect to us, and national rank is now
offered us by Britain, while the American has discovered that we are an
interesting and creditable political creation.

When we claim that Canada is a nation we use a term the meaning of which
we have never made quite clear to ourselves, but for which we must soon
get some definition, not merely on our own account but because the
implication and recognition of nationality will be much discussed as
this war draws to an end.

Is Canada a nation though its population consists of two great sections
so fundamentally and permanently different in race? If the British North
America Act were all that we had by which to decide the question, our
status would be doubtful, but it is not by formal enactments and
constitutions alone that nations come into being, though political and
judicial institutions are a part of their framework. The nation is the
living organism, body and life together. The body works well when a
healthy life pulsates through it and a clear mind directs its action for
worthy purposes. In Canada we have the organism, though how far we have
a healthy life and a clear purpose has been engaging for some time the
serious concern of thoughtful persons. We shall continue to call
ourselves a nation, for we are all Canadians whether we speak French or
English. Even the Nova Scotian has abandoned his reluctance so to style
himself. You may meet the man from Quebec in the New England States or
on the battlefields of France, but you will never confound him with a
Frenchman from Normandy. He is more Canadian than French. His
English-speaking fellow-citizen is nearer to his home-folk and is easily
assimilated to his neighbour on the south, but even thirty years ago it
was rarely that a Canadian was taken for an American. French or English
we have these elements of a common nationality, a distinctive name,
common political institutions, common commercial interests and a common
loyalty to the British crown.

If, however, we have a right to call Canada a nation the reason must be
sought for in the history of the generations that preceded the year
1867. Great as the event of confederation was, it produced no radical
change in the life of the older parts of the country. Ever since, the
transformation has been gradual. The character of the Maritime Provinces
is but slightly modified; the French habitant or artisan is still swayed
by his former loyalties; Ontario has changed most, partly by reason of
the reaction upon her of the new west, partly because of the large
immigration into her cities and towns, partly as having grown rapidly in
wealth. But in the west a new Canada has been called into being, at once
the pride and the stimulus of the easterner who has done so much to make
it what it is, and a magnificent background against which each of the
older provinces stands out in an ampler Canadian destiny.

Surveying the history of fifty years of confederation and
dispassionately testing the worth of what has been effected, we realise
that, throughout this period, the problem in the east has not
fundamentally changed, and that we are still asking, can the two races
compose a real nation? Has Quebec any kindlier feelings to Ontario than
Lower Canada had to Upper Canada when they were so uncomfortably yoked
together? One may at least hope so. It would be a counsel of despair to
abandon faith in the possibility of a unified Canadian nation.
Notwithstanding our present vexations and potencies of trouble, these
fifty years of common parliamentary experience, increasing economic and
commercial relations and more frequent intercourse have made it evident
that in the future we must keep together for our common weal. Whatever
that future may be it must always have room for two types of people,
that moulded by Quebec and the English-speaking Canadian.

On this continent there is no more unique and arresting character than
the habitant. To Quebec and to Quebec alone he belongs. Even when he
goes to New England, he does not become absorbed in the United States.
For Quebec he keeps his heart. The people of that province are so
deeply rooted and have flourished into such a wide-spreading tree that
men have ceased to consider whence the seedling came. They do not call
themselves French: they are old Canadian with a right to the name
because they created it. How this Canadian came to be what he is may be
read not in his distant origin alone, but in the country which is now
his home and in the fortunes of his career. The France which his
ancestors from Normandy and Brittany left has long since passed away.
Nor while she could did she do anything to hold his affections. His king
neglected him, his rulers forced him into wars for which he had no
liking. He was abandoned in a hard climate to fight for himself in
untoward conditions facing aboriginal tribes that were sullen and
wayward. By degrees he became subdued to his harsh environment and in
the process of the generations grew away from those whom he had left.

In the new world he was soon bounded on the south by a neighbour who,
because he had little desire to dispute the habitant's occupancy of the
inhospitable northland, did not deem him a rival. This Anglo-Saxon of
Puritan origin repelled the Canadian and outdistanced him in trade so
greatly that a gulf was fixed between Quebec and New England which has
never been bridged. The two types remain clearly defined.

A third memorable fact is that the conquered people found in Britain a
victor who treated them with such justice that they had no cause to
regret the days of French rule. In return Quebec stood steadfastly by
Britain during the American Revolution as well as in the war of 1812,
and until the present has been content to remain under the British
Crown. The habitant has no thought of changing his allegiance.

I have said that the France which the ancestors of the habitant left was
not the France of to-day. Since then have come the Revolution and the
political and intellectual changes of the nineteenth century. To
appreciate how far apart France and Quebec are it is only necessary to
compare their literatures. Modern France is of all countries of the
world the most hospitable to universal ideas. Compared with France, even
England is said to possess an "insular mind". France claims to be
receptive of whatever is human, and, testing the worth in the suffering
of her own spirit, to transmit the purified idea to the world. But
Quebec retains an unbroken conservatism in thought and manners and gives
unswerving allegiance to the Roman Catholic Church; the descendants of
the seigneur and the habitant live in the "New World", but in reality
nowhere does the intellectual past of Europe prevail with less change
and with more romantic charm than in the countryside of Quebec. The
people are no longer French; they are Canadian.

Possessing unique privileges within the Province of Quebec as regards
language, the Church, education and to some extent the administration of
justice, this race, estranged from its overseas kindred and repelled by
its southern neighbour, has too often seemed to be a nation within a
nation. In fact the Quebec nationalist aims at producing this result and
he instigates the common people to fret against their barriers and to
claim rights beyond those given them by the constitution. The situation
is full of difficulty and demands careful handling. To our great
misfortune there is danger that it will be rendered more serious in
consequence of the attitude of the two races to the present war. It was
a time of great opportunity for attempting to bind Quebec more closely
to the other provinces in common sympathy and effort for an ideal aim
which transcends our racial differences. History teaches that nations
are created anew by common suffering in a worthy cause, and that on the
perpetual traditions thus formed their life is nourished for centuries.
Such an opportunity has been lost. Party interest has killed the chance
of a united appeal, and politicians have stood idle, forgetful of the
interests of a united Canada which are immeasurably more important than
the transient advantage of either political party. Our leaders should
have seen an issue incarnated in this war of such political significance
that it might, if set before us with due emphasis, have unified us into
a nation. It would have been bad policy to single out Quebec as though
to win over a sinner who was not beyond repentance, but, if both parties
had joined in a common appeal to Canada as a whole, Quebec would almost
certainly have made a greater response than she has, for by instinct she
is not insensible to things of the spirit. England was not calling us,
nor was France, but the civilisation of which they are the common
guarantors. Responding to this spiritual challenge she would have found
an answering sympathy in the rest of Canada and, in these days of deep
searching of the heart, a new appreciation of common national purpose
would have welded us into one as nothing else in our time can ever do.

I shall take for granted that the fifty years of federation have
produced a Canadian nation, though within it Quebec is the home of a
race which has not blended with those who came later on the scene. Is
there, however, apart from Quebec, a definitely recognisable Canadian
type? Of course by Canadian is meant those who were born in Canada, or
who came to this country so early in their life that they have been
moulded by its influence. Relatively to these the number not of
Canadian birth has increased of late, especially in the cities, but the
old type is not blurred. Travel from Halifax, through Toronto and
Winnipeg to Vancouver, and you discover few fundamental differences of
life. Outwardly Halifax and St. John have little in common with Montreal
and are as unlike Toronto as possible. Winnipeg, though not without an
Ontario touch, resembles Minneapolis more than Toronto does Buffalo. New
cities are built by modern architects who are influenced by neighbouring
fashions. But houses and shops do not constitute what is vital in a
city. In reality the people from Halifax to Vancouver are, under
superficial differences, singularly alike.

The cause of this substantial Canadian unity in which federation has
resulted is not far to seek. Federation brought together
English-speaking people of common origin. The building of the
Intercolonial Railway connected the Maritime Provinces with Quebec and
Ontario, and the buoyant spirit of the young Dominion linked Old Ontario
to the prairies and British Columbia by means of the Canadian Pacific
Railway. Along a continuous line of steel life flowed east and west
carrying knowledge of one part to the other; mutual trade sprang from
this freer intercourse and the widely sundered communities discovered
that they were fundamentally akin. Fortunately for the cultivation of
the spirit of unity the Act of Federation assigned to the Dominion
Parliament the residue of the powers that were not distinctly indicated
as provincial, with the result that the Dominion House, the centre of
unity, is constantly increasing in influence as compared with the
provincial legislatures.

English-speaking Canada already has an interesting history. We are an
old stock in a new land and we have experienced many vicissitudes. Two
strata form the body of the people in the far east and in Ontario--the
loyalists from the United States, and the later immigration chiefly from
the British Isles. We are what we are in part because those loyalists
believed strongly in and were willing to suffer for certain principles.
By them sacrifice was well understood. Belonging to all classes of
society, the refined and educated, as well as average folk, with a
certain quantity of mere drift on the tide, and treated with injustice
and contumely for the faith that was in them, they sought a new home in
order to live under British institutions. It was natural that these
communities should be out of sympathy with their southern neighbours,
especially when the war of 1812 showed no change for the better in the
attitude of these neighbours, and to the loyalists is due much of the
strong attachment that the Canadian still has for the motherland. It is
no surface emotion rising and falling under some sudden squall that soon
dies away.

Motives and hopes mixed and varied brought the second great class of our
people to these shores in the last decade of the eighteenth and the
first half of the nineteenth centuries. Immigration companies, forceful
personalities, or the pressure of economic distress sent them forth from
Britain, hardship accompanied them during their voyage, disappointment
too often awaited them on their tardy arrival. But those old
sailing-ships carried a rich freight of British stock, farmers,
artisans, soldiers, and some half-pay officers who hoped to perpetuate
their families with better advantages in this new land. To this day many
a township bears evident marks in its general aspect of the quality of
those who first settled it. In the Maritime Provinces and in Ontario the
story of the newcomers is much the same. They were a hardy folk; only
the vigorous made the venture; only the persistent, the diligent, the
hopeful, won success. Through her history Canada has been the scene of
much experimenting in immigration, but those who came in the early years
set the type of character for the country. For two generations they had
restricted intercourse with the outside world and their children, living
to themselves in scattered settlements, continued with slight change
the manners and principles of their fathers. But they possessed good
intelligence, they had strong views and their political leaders set
before them clear-cut aims. Not the least cause for our thankfulness to
those who went before us--loyalists or British settlers--was the
struggle which they carried through successfully for responsible
government. In the hamlets and on the farms of these provinces, men were
being educated politically by the discussion of the great questions on
the true solution of which not only the federation of Canada but the
unity of the Empire was based.

The Dominion of Canada therefore soon attracted attention as a
successful experiment because in origins, history and political effort
the provinces which formed it had so much in common.

The creation of Western Canada is the most splendid achievement of our
life since 1867. Manitoba became a province in 1870, British Columbia in
the following year and Saskatchewan and Alberta fulfilled in 1905 the
dream of the Fathers of Confederation. Had it not been for the
mysterious potency of the west, awaiting the day when it should be
incorporated in the union, it is doubtful whether any Dominion would
have been called into being. The hope of that great lone land has been
realised beyond expectation, though that was too small a measure of its
capacity because its resources had been of set purpose disparaged. It
was the Eastern Canadian who in a true sense discovered it, for Hudson's
Bay or North-west Company traders kept its wealth guarded, and when the
intruder from the east disturbed those silent spaces the traders, as
well as the half-breeds and the Indians, felt aggrieved. Fears and
jealousies were the source of much trouble, and as a matter of history
the rising of 1885 is of importance because it finally relieved the
prairies of the unrest which was bound to smoulder until once and for
all it was decided that not the Indian or the half-breed but the
Canadian white-man was to be master. Other sources of discontent between
different races and religions are not yet completely removed, but the
West has boldly faced its problems, and it seems to be on the way to
solve them with justice and with as much compromise as is compatible
with the determination that the English language and Canadian
institutions are to prevail.

In the prairie provinces the history of the east repeats itself. There
are the familiar stages of widening liberty; self-government was
granted, with hesitation, to those who went in first, by the timid
friends whom they had left behind and who were slow to believe that they
were capable of exercising it. Of all the immigration in the earlier
years that from Eastern Canada was the most abundant and forceful.
Whole counties of Ontario seem to have been emptied into that new land.
By heredity the people knew how to live in stern conditions and to face
the unknown with courage. It is a fact of primary importance that the
English-speaking Canadian first put the west in order, laid it out,
stamped it with his own institutions and then invited in others; nor is
it surprising that the vigorous spirit of himself and his children is
still in control, even though of late a large and a very effective body
of Americans has entered from the western States. They have not disputed
his supremacy, and he may well be proud of his accomplishments. These
are a fine proof of his quality. He required imagination, courage,
patience, the virtues on which the west is reared, and, had he not shown
them and had the American farmer gone in first, the future of this
Dominion would have been different from that to which we look forward.

The stimulation of the climate may lead the Westerner to overmuch action
and to make large drafts upon his future with confidence, but what he
has done is so wonderful that he has reason in venturing upon wide
horizons. The Winnipeg of 1917, solid, with a reserve of power, the home
of well-educated and comfortable people, so surpasses the loosely
developed Winnipeg of twenty years ago that one may well hesitate to
set bounds to its future. No city of the west is likely to rival it, but
Regina, Saskatoon, Moosejaw, Calgary, Edmonton, all speak of Canadian
pluck and energy. West of the mountains lies another section of the
Dominion. British Columbia has a history of its own, but in Vancouver
far east and far west meet, for not a little of the energy of that city
of wonderful outlook comes from those who have left the Maritime
provinces or Ontario to make their home on the Pacific slope.

In the conduct of the Canadian west nothing is finer than the treatment
of the Indian. The men sent out by the Dominion Government were not
border adventurers, but high-minded and educated gentlemen who carried
rigid scrupulousness into their dealings with the natives and made
honourable treaties which have been honourably observed.

Our west never went through a riotous youth, it has few memories to be
forgotten. From the first, life has been held sacred and respect has
been paid to law as rigidly as in the east, some of the credit being
undoubtedly due to the mounted police force which the Dominion called
into existence and has kept in high efficiency.

By its well ordered society and its political, educational and religious
institutions, the west is shown to possess firmly fixed principles which
have simply been transferred to their new home by the first settlers
from Eastern Canada. But every thinking Canadian asks himself the
question, how long will this similarity between west and east continue?
Though we are convinced that Canadian unity will be maintained, it is
already evident that the west will soon possess a marked individuality
and that the older influences will become fainter. Already the western
man is impatient of his eastern brother and the incoming of the American
will probably increase the criticism. It is therefore prudent to
strengthen by every means in our power the bond between east and west,
which is in danger of being stretched too thin at the Great Lakes if the
two sections of the Dominion should pull apart in interest. Now is the
time of our opportunity for the war has quickened our mutual sympathies
and given us a new chance to coalesce.

So far I have spoken of the influence of the east upon the west, but
already the west has begun to influence the policy of the east. Things
have been done there which of ourselves we might have pronounced
premature, if not impossible. In prohibition and woman suffrage they
have led the way, and it is not improbable that they will be fertile in
political, social and religious experiment and will compel the reluctant
east to follow in their steps. Nor need we be alarmed at the prospect.
They are still, in the majority, our kith and kin, they are as
clear-headed as we and morally as sound, and one fact which we have
learned of late is that policies which were deemed impossible may be
quite practicable when men of resolute purpose determine to put them
into action. If imitation is the sincerest flattery, the west may be not
altogether insensible to the compliment we pay them when we follow their
example.

It remains for us to consider some of the characteristics of our
Canadian life which give it whatever individuality it possesses.

If the average Briton were asked what impresses him most in the
Canadians who have been engaged in the war he would doubtless say their
vigour, their resourcefulness and their restraint. We are a people of
good physical strength, a large proportion being country-bred, or
spending much of their life in the open, such city slums as, to our
shame, exist, being occupied for the most part by recent immigrants. The
summer and clear winter, the expanses of lake, river and forest call our
people to out-of-door recreation; life on the farm, and open-air holiday
have taught country and city boy to meet emergencies. Dr. Lash has
referred in his lecture to our freedom from crime, and it may be added
further that our newspapers are much less sensational than many of
those of the United States, and that our people, though too easily
stirred by racial and religious appeals, are less given to change and
less subject to waves of emotion than our neighbours to the south.

The fruit of our vigour is seen in well tilled fields, pleasant towns
and widespread material comfort. Even depleted districts tell of a
generation which turned to the west for wider scope. The life may be
commonplace and lack the picturesque, but it is at least marked by
industry, it has given birth to confident men and has sustained great
enterprises of world repute. Both the Cunard Line of steamships and the
Canadian Pacific Railway are to our credit. Samuel Cunard, who was born
in Halifax, had done well in sailing vessels, and, at the suggestion of
the Hon. Joseph Howe, tendered and received the contract for the first
conveyance of mails by steamship across the Atlantic. The _Britannia_
inaugurated the new service, leaving Liverpool on July 4th, 1840. During
the days of wooden ships the people of the Maritime Provinces drove a
large trade on all the seven seas. Canadians also have developed a great
system of interior waterways, and the Dominion is to-day, thrice spanned
by lines of railway. The banking system, which has extended steadily
since confederation under careful financial direction, has proved to be
both secure and flexible, and has adjusted itself to meet the needs of
the country. By the establishment of branch banks, the central houses
can facilitate the ready distribution of goods throughout the Dominion
and the moving of harvests in their seasons. During the wonderful
material expansion in the first fourteen years of this century it stood
a severe test successfully. Its paper currency, and its extensive credit
through deposit or cheque, made it possible to transmit funds when they
were wanted, and the careful granting of loans on the security of
business and property stimulated commerce and often repressed doubtful
schemes. We may congratulate ourselves that in financial matters we have
stood the strain of the war so well. Threatened at the outset with the
prospect of a collapse of credit, and facing problems for the solution
of which there was no experience to guide them, those in charge of our
finances have displayed good judgment, and we are surer than ever of the
commercial stability of the Dominion. After the war also we shall have
manufacturers and skilled workmen who will have learned confidence by
what they have carried through and will be readier to meet the
competition of the outside world.

In the west, as might be expected, there is no lack of initiative though
it often leads the people without regard to precedent to attempt new
solutions for their emergent difficulties. Doubtless they will have to
pay the cost of mistakes, but resolution carries men far in a country
that has abundant natural resources, and a strong community spirit may
bring new elements and ensure success for enterprises which in the more
individualistic east would fail. The past is often a good teacher, but
we are living in a present that is full of surprises. The West, at
least, has few misgivings about the future.

The accomplishments of our people, which have given us our position in
the world, are due to our healthful vigour of mind and body. We have
done what a clean, energetic people, of good antecedents, might be
expected to do in a rich country with a good climate which, however, has
refused to yield a living without considerable effort. The effort
required was great enough to stimulate energy, but it was not so intense
nor did it yield such niggardly results as to dull the edge of ambition.
We have no peasant population of lack-lustre eye and without
imagination, transmitting a hopeless existence from father to son. The
Canadian has courage tempered with common sense, and, if he retains a
measure of modesty, he should win the respect of the world, to which
until this war he was little known. Opportunity is thrust upon him; if
he seizes it, and is shrewd enough to learn, he will soon be a factor
in the universal economic movements that are now astir.

A mere increase of our previous success, however, is a commonplace
prospect. As far as material development goes we should always be
surpassed by the people to the south, whose experience may serve to warn
us as well as to encourage. It would be a disaster were we to aim only
at high practical efficiency and to win wealth for the mere enjoyment of
complacent comfort, both fatal goals for the striving of a well endowed
people. And yet here our temptation lurks, for it is precisely in our
practical business capacity that we have hitherto won our chief success.

We have, it is true, made other attainments which in measure redress the
balance. We are not solely energetic, shrewd, commercial, practical. We
have good schools and universities, flourishing churches, something to
show in literature and art, though we have done more in opening up a new
country than in conquering the realm of the spirit.

The educational systems throughout English-speaking Canada present
similar features due to common origins, the common school deriving much
of its character from the New England States and the universities having
been moulded by those of Britain. The closely articulated school system
under government control, differing only in detail in Ontario and the
Maritime Provinces, won such popular favour that it was naturally
carried to the west by the earliest settlers, and has been modified to
suit new conditions, though the formal differences count for little in
view of the fact that hitherto the majority of teachers of the higher
grades have been drawn from the east, as will probably continue to be
the case for some years to come.

This grade of education has been stereotyped and standardised into what
may almost be called the Canadian type. What system can do, it has done.
It has produced the average, fairly uniform men and women who make up
the democracy of Canada, and who are in the main a sound class. The
teacher of to-day is very much better than his predecessor of two
generations ago, when the youth were exposed frequently to the
undisciplined methods of one who had failed at other tasks and turned as
a last resort to the instruction of the young. As long as the average
teacher is of inferior grade a rigid system of inspection is on the
whole an advantage, but progress lies in improving the quality of the
teacher and in modifying the system proportionately to allow scope to
individuality. A rise in standards may be expected to proceed as the
country grows in wealth and population, and as greater social and
monetary rewards await those who throw their life's energies into this
profession. Some are concerned at the fact that women teachers
predominate overwhelmingly, but it is impossible to foresee what effect
they will produce upon the mental and moral attitude of men, and
therefore it is unnecessary to be alarmed at the unknown. Hitherto our
people have been virile.

The great fault of our rigid system of education is that it does not
quicken keen intellectual interest in the best; as a people we have
still to understand that it is supremely worth while to search for the
few who possess special gifts of intellect and character and to bestow
upon them extraordinary attention. They should not be held back by
regulations that may suit the average pupil. As early as possible the
aptitude of the pupil should be developed and instruction should be so
differentiated as to bring out the best that is in him. How to find
scope in a regular system for the play of individuality in pupil and
teacher is our coming educational problem, and on its solution will
depend our success in training those who are to direct the democracy.
Leaders react upon and set new standards for the average man. Such is
the course of progress.

Our universities are the product of our life; indeed most of the older
institutions bear traces of political history in their present form; and
their government and interior arrangements are the result of struggle
and compromise. Their first professors brought with them the methods and
standards of the universities of Britain which were our models, and, in
many respects, especially in the retention of the honours system, we
have not departed far from our originals. We have been influenced by the
United States through those of our students who have learned the methods
of the graduate school at Johns Hopkins, Harvard, Columbia or Chicago,
and we have adopted their policy of including in the University itself a
large number of departments and faculties such as Agriculture,
Veterinary Science, Dentistry and Household Science. But unlike our
neighbours we have also grouped the theological colleges near and in
sympathetic relation with the Arts colleges, the universities thereby
becoming representative of all the educational interests of the people.
A very real unity pervades the universities of the Dominion, which finds
expression not only in easy transfers of students in professional
faculties but also in the common interests that come under discussion in
the annual conference of the Universities.

What is to be said of the Canadian undergraduate? He is by common
admission receptive, hardworking, clean. He comes to the university with
a definite purpose and probably is better as a student than the average
student in Britain, and surpasses his American neighbour in the
earnestness of his thought and the accuracy of his knowledge. But in
forming his intellectual standards, he yields too readily to authority;
he is not sufficiently curious or critical; he does not think enough for
himself. The best British students are more original than our highest
average. From their number come the scientists, the political and
philosophical thinkers and the men of letters, the equals of whom we
have not yet produced.

What is true of the university holds also of the intellectual life of
the country. Though we have had a few outstanding writers and some good
poets there is too little distinction in our literature. Our standards
are not sufficiently severe. Nor is this the fault of the individual.
The artist, the man of letters or the political thinker cannot as a rule
reach his best results in a provincial atmosphere. He needs a company of
like-minded people to serve as enlightened critics, to give due and
proper acknowledgment to his work and to interpret it to a wider public.
At the opening of his career he must be made to measure himself by those
who have attained worthy standards, and this stimulus should not be
removed even when he has been given rank. Our cities are not yet
cosmopolitan in their sympathies and we are still off the highroad of
the world's intellectual commerce, but appreciation for the arts is
improving; in music a taste for the best things has already been created
in the larger cities, and we have painters whose work is known far
beyond Canada.

We need not be discouraged. Growth of the finer fruit of the spirit of
man is slow, and the matter of real concern is to protect it in its
earlier stages so that it may not be set back by the chilling atmosphere
of material progress. It will be a great misfortune if, in the coming
generation, the strongest minds and characters should turn their ability
exclusively to industry, commerce or finance, though there is an
opportunity for great wealth to help to create favourable conditions by
endowing universities, libraries, museums, art galleries, or colleges of
music. We may deem ourselves happy if those who are developing the
material wealth of the Dominion realise that the best justification for
large fortunes is to spend them wisely in raising the standards of
culture of a young nation.

Not the least widespread and penetrating influence in the life of the
Dominion comes from the Churches. Of Quebec I have already spoken.
Probably there is no country in the world where the Roman Catholic
Church exercises a more unquestioned control, but in the other provinces
also her authority over her own people, of whatever racial origin, is
unchallenged by political or social movements. "Modernism" is little
known in Canada. It may be said with equal confidence that the
Protestant Churches have an unusual hold upon their people, who compose
a relatively large proportion of the population. Quite recently the
correspondent of a great London newspaper, an American fresh from
Europe, remarked with astonishment upon the position of the churches in
Canada, adding that, when once the world-spirit penetrates this remote
region, paralysis will infect their activities. Whether this cocksure
visitant is right or wrong, I have heard churchmen say the same thing,
but in this respect I am an optimist; at any rate during this war the
churches have proved themselves to be strong national institutions that
deserve well of the country, because they have interpreted a moral issue
to their people so clearly that their finest youth have volunteered for
service.

Two factors have helped to prevent an alienation between the churches
and the people. There has been no established church. No section of the
community is forced to give precedence to any other, and therefore
privilege does not breed revolt. Every church, thrown on its own
resources, has summoned forth all its latent strength, and with the
good-will of others maintains its hold upon its own people by satisfying
their religious needs. Also, the country has enjoyed material
prosperity, though, until recent years, men secured no large returns
for their hard work. We had no great cities, no great wealth, no marked
social grades, no accumulated grievances. Only now are we beginning to
realise the presence of evils which in Europe have rightly or wrongly
brought much criticism upon the churches; and if some among us are
asking whether they are not responsible for present-day social
conditions, it may be that, more often than not, the question has been
imported with the questioner, instead of being the perplexed or
rebellious utterance of a Canadian, embittered against the social system
and the churches of his native land.

The churches have moulded the society of the countryside to a prevailing
puritan type which easily may run into conventionalism in conduct. But
if the range is narrow it compares favourably in real worth with that of
the same grades of society elsewhere. Our people are law-abiding,
reliable and self-controlled, of which the most recent and encouraging
evidence comes from the fields of war. Thrown into strange and testing
situations in the period of waiting, in the trenches and in the
hospitals, the cream of our youth have, on the whole, so conducted
themselves that no one need be ashamed to profess in Britain or France
that he is a Canadian. In so far as they come from puritan homes, it is
safe to say that their training has stood them in good stead.

Much was heard before the war of the danger that Canada would be injured
by her prosperity, and, in our pensive moods, we may have dallied with
the thought that an ordeal of sacrifice was needed to create in our
people a mind devoted to lofty issues, and to fuse our loosely compacted
parts into a nation with a permanent character of its own. The reality
of the sacrifice demanded of us has surpassed all our imaginings. Our
people have endured as never before, but by the pains of these three
years the Dominion which was born politically at confederation is we
hope being born again in spirit after long travail. Disappointments
there are; we seem likely not to realise the best on which we had set
our desire, but we know beyond peradventure the quality of our average
home-born and home-bred Canadian. In answer to the challenge, so clear
to his sense of justice and sympathy, so vital for all that concerned
our civilisation, he became a soldier without compulsion. And we shall
never cease to be thankful that he left Canada to fight in a strange
land, not even to defend his own country on distant battlefields, but
that the world itself might be made more habitable. When the call came
to serve the Empire, and through it humanity, one consentient voice from
son, mother, father answered Yea, and still the sacrifice controls the
tremor of our daily grief, for, to use the words of a fallen graduate
when writing of the death of his friend also from this university,
"underneath all is a gladness unconquerable, and a strong assurance."
How hardly do we repress our outcry against the recurrent ravage, beyond
the power of earthly restitution, the loss of gallant boys, lovely and
pleasant in their lives, whose image is reflected each one in some
brimming heart, but our soul may be replenished if thereby a nationhood
has been secured for Canada which will be dedicated to those principles
of righteousness and freedom for which our sons have been willing to
die.




INDEX


Alberta 107, 120

Ames, Fisher 21

Aurora 71, 74

Australia 22, 26, 30, 31, 74

Aylesworth, Sir Allen 100, 101


Bagot, Sir Charles 9

Baldwin, Robert 1, 9, 11

Blake, Edward 58, 63-74, 78, 83, 84

Blake, William Hume 1, 10, 11

_Britannia_, ship 126

British Columbia 28, 29, 51, 60, 120, 123

Brown, George 15, 16, 17, 19, 33, 41-48, 52-57, 69

Buffalo 117

Burke, Edmund 75


Calgary 123

"Canada, Kingdom of" 21, 22, 23, 38

_Canadian Monthly_ 46

Canadian Pacific Railway 57, 63, 117, 126

Carleton, Sir Guy 4-5

Cartier, Georges Etienne 15, 44-46, 52

Cataraqui 64

Charlottetown 17, 18

Choate, Joseph 52

Chicago, University of 132

Colquhoun, A. H. U. 40, 56

Columbia University 132

Cornwall 11

Cumberland 58

Cunard, Samuel 126


Dalhousie, Earl of 7

Darwin, Charles 33-34

Doherty, C. J. 101

Dorion, Sir A. A. 47, 50, 55

Dufferin, Earl of 81-83

Dunkin, Christopher 47, 50-52

Durham, Earl of 29, 42


Edmonton 123

Elgin, Earl of 11


Franklin, Benjamin 19


Galt, Sir A. T. 15, 16, 17, 19, 42, 46, 47

_Gazette_, newspaper, Montreal 10

Gladstone, W. E. 59, 76

Glasgow 32

Glengarry 11

_Globe_, newspaper, Toronto 2, 48, 54, 69

Gosport, Earl of 8

Greeley, Horace 53


Haliburton, T. C. 42

Halifax 117

Hamilton, Alexander 19

Hamilton, P. S. 42

Harvard University 132

Healy, Timothy 71

Hobbes, Thomas 36

Holton, Edward 66

Holton, L. H. 47, 66

Howe, Joseph 16, 27, 57-59, 126

Howland, Sir W. P. 54

Hudson's Bay Co. 28, 120


Kingston 9, 11


Lafontaine, Sir H. 9

Lash, Z. A. 125

Laurier, Sir Wilfrid 39, 43, 44, 47, 54, 58, 70

Lepine, Ambrose 83

Lewis, John 53

_Liberal_, newspaper 69

Lincoln, Abraham 13, 64

Lindsay, Charles 47

Liverpool 126

London, Ontario 61-63


Macdonald, John 50

Macdonald, Sir John A. 10, 15, 16, 17, 19, 33, 41-47, 50, 54-57, 59,
60-64, 68, 70

Macdougall, William 54, 57

McGee, D'Arcy 42, 49

Mack, Mr. 10

MacKenzie, Alexander 52, 56, 58, 68, 69

MacKenzie, William Lyon 42

Maclean, W. F. 61, 62, 69

Madison, James 19

Manchester 32

Manitoba 107, 120

Mills, David 69

Minneapolis 117

Monck, Lord 13

Montreal 1, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 32

Moosejaw 123

Morley, John 53

Morris, Alexander 42

Moss, Thomas 69

Mowat, Sir Oliver 70

Murray, James, General 3, 4


New Brunswick 79, 88

Newfoundland 17, 27, 106

North-West Co. 120

Nova Scotia 5, 16, 17, 27, 28, 59, 78, 88


O'Connell, Daniel 8

Ontario 36, 112, 118, 119, 122, 123

Orange Association 48

Ottawa 9, 62, 66, 68, 69


Panama 28

Papineau, Louis Joseph 7, 8

Philadelphia 19, 88

Pope, Sir Joseph 56

Prince Edward Island 17, 27, 106


Quebec Act 4, 13

Quebec, City of 3, 6, 9, 42

Quebec Conference 18, 19, 21, 23, 25, 40, 49, 60

Quebec, Province of 30, 46-49, 70, 110, 112, 113-117, 134


Red River Territory 60

Regina 123

Riel, Louis 28, 68

Robinson, John Beverley 42

Rosebery, Earl of 76

Rupert's Land 106, 107

Rymal, Joseph 55


St. John 117

San Francisco 88

Saskatchewan 107, 120

Saskatoon 123

Sewell, Chief Justice 42

Simcoe, John Graves 35

Smith, Goldwin 41, 69, 74

South Africa 31

Strachan, John, Bishop 42

Sydenham, Lord 9


Tach, Sir E. P. 19

Tach, J. C. 42

Taft, President 94

Thompson, Sir John 65

Tilley, Sir Leonard 17

Toronto 1, 2, 6, 9, 11, 12, 28, 32, 36, 42, 61, 117

Toronto, University of 10, 71, 78

_Trent_ affair 13

Tupper, Sir Charles 17, 27, 43, 57-59


Vancouver 32, 117, 123

Vancouver Island 28

Victoria, B.C. 28


Washington 45, 50

Washington, George 21, 43

Washington, Treaty of 63

West Durham 68

Winnipeg 117, 122




Transcriber's Notes:


Pg. 32, "made" replaced with "make". (make a speech in the south)

Pg. 43, "goverment" replaced with "government". (Brown could make
government)

Pg. 77, added period after name "Z. A. LASH" for consistency with
style elsewhere in the book.

Pg. 83, added missing period between sentences. (his own judgment. This
case brought up)

Pg. 105, "aggreived" changed to "aggrieved". (party aggrieved may apply
to a superior court)

Pg. 109, added period after name "R. A. FALCONER" for consistency with
style elsewhere in the book.

Pg. 124, "askes" replaced with "asks". (every thinking Canadian asks)

Pg. 127, "text" replaced with "test". (it stood a severe test
successfully)

Index, entry for "Carleton, Sir Guy". Referenced page 45 appears
incorrect as there is no mention of Carleton there. Changed to 4-5,
where Carleton is mentioned.

Index, entry "Philadelphhia" replaced with "Philadelphia".

Index, entry "Sydenhan" changed to "Sydenham".




[End of _The Federation of Canada_ by George M. Wrong,
Sir John Willison, Z. A. Lash, and R. A. Falconer]
