Part 19 (1/2)

What would be the real meaning of such a radical change? It is worth while to enquire at once.

The British Empire would no longer comprise a Metropolis holding autonomous Colonies and Crown Colonies, but would be organized in a new Sovereign State with an Imperial Parliament to which all the component parts--or Kingdoms--would send representatives.

Indeed it would be a grand, a magnificent, political edifice. But to find shelter under it, Canada would have to renounce her right to decide alone, and freely, to partic.i.p.ate, or not, in the wars of the Empire, to determine alone what her military organization should be, to raise ourselves, without the intervention of a superior Parliament, the revenue which we consider proper to apply to Imperial purposes.

I, for one, do not foresee that such an important const.i.tutional change, if ever it is made, will be suddenly brought about, in the dark, as the result of the machinations of a most mischievous Imperialism inspiring our ”Nationalists” with s.h.i.+vering terror. It is positively sure that no one holding a responsible political position, or having a responsible standing in the British political world, will ever be mad enough to propose, suggest, or even hint, to build a new Imperial structure without the solid foundation of the deliberate consent of all the Colonies, of all the would-be component parts of such a vast Commonwealth.

How many years of serious discussion, of earnest consideration, did it not take to bring about the creation of the Canadian, Australian and South African Dominions. It cannot be reasonably imagined that the creation of the new and greater Imperial Commonwealth will be a much easier task to accomplish with the necessary conditions of successful durability.

I also thought proper in my French book to write a few lines on the important question respecting the mode of ascertaining the deliberate consent of the Colonies to any intended readjustment of the const.i.tutional relations of the component parts of the Empire, specially if it was proposed to rear a new and larger political fabric. I did so because of late it has been frequently suggested to use the _plebiscit_ or the _referendum_ as the most opportune way to consult public opinion.

I must say that, without going to the length of denying that a public consultation may, in a particular case, be advantageously made by way of a _plebiscit_ or _referendum_, I am not a strong believer in the efficiency of either proposition, and why? Because I cannot help considering them as more or less contrary to the solid const.i.tutional principle of ministerial responsibility which they would gradually undermine if frequently appealed to.

I feel specially adverse to the _plebiscit_, because History proves that, by nature, it engenders DESPOTISM, CaeSARISM. Contemporary history offers two striking examples never to be forgotten.

Napoleon the First, whose power was the legitimate result of his wonderful genius and of his eminent services to France, wanted his dynasty to rest on the _plebiscitary_ foundation. Millions of votes--almost the unanimity of French public opinion--answered enthusiastically to his call. He was not such a man as to refuse the chance offered him to exercise a supreme power so manifestly tendered to him. All know that he very soon unbridled his devouring ambition and ruled France with all the might of an absolutism strengthened by the glories of military campaigns truly marvellous. To any attempt at freedom of criticism, he could reply that his Imperial power--mightily supported by his commanding genius--was strongly entrenched on the unanimity of opinion of the French nation expressed by the result of the plebiscit.

Napoleon III, favoured by the immortal prestige of his glorious uncle, but far behind him in genius, though intellectually well gifted, as he proved it during his Presidential term of the second French Republic and during the first years he occupied the Imperial Throne of France, used the plebiscit to have his famous _coup d'Etat_ of the second day of December 1851, prepared with consummate skill and carried out with great energy, ratified by the nation by an overwhelming majority of several millions of votes. He lost no time in drawing the final result of this first great success and in reaching the term of his ambition. The tide of popular enthusiasm was all flowing his way, carrying him to the Throne elevated for his uncle who had lost it after the hurricane which exhausted its strength at Waterloo. On the second of December of the following year--1852--the second French Empire was proclaimed to the international world. Following the example and the precedent of the first Bonaparte, Napoleon III also decided to use the plebiscit to legitimate his Imperial power. He triumphantly carried the day by some seven millions of votes--almost the unanimous voice of the French people.

Thus, in less than half a century, after having twice tried the Republican system of government, and, in both cases, having overdone by deplorable excesses the experiment of Political Liberty--more specially during the years of terrorism of the first Republic--France, by a regular reaction, went back to the other extreme, and reestablished arbitrary power not, in the two instances, upon the principle of the Divine Right of the ancient Monarchy, but on that of the Sovereignty of the people, as expressed by the certain will of the whole nation. But ABSOLUTISM, whether the outcome of Divine Right or of popular sovereignty, is always the same and steadily works against the true principles of Political Liberty.

It is a great mistake to suppose that ABSOLUTISM is possible only under monarchical inst.i.tutions. The terrorist republican epoch, in France, from 1792 to 1795, was ABSOLUTISM of the worst kind, really with a vengeance. As much can be said of the present political situation in Russia, which has subst.i.tuted REVOLUTIONARY ABSOLUTISM to that of the decayed Imperial regime, suddenly brought to a tragic end by the pressure of events too strong for its crumbling fabric, shaken to its foundation by a most unwise reactionary movement which only precipitated its downfall, instead of averting it, as extravagantly expected by the Petrograd Court, which betrayed Russia in favour of Germany, and unconsciously opened the road which led the weak and unfortunate Czar to his lamentable fate.

In my humble opinion, PLEBISCITARY CaeSARISM is not compatible with a system of ministerial responsibility for all the official acts of the Sovereign.

The frequent use of the plebiscit would certainly tend to diminish in the mind of political leaders the true sense of their responsibility. It would too often offer an easy way out of an awkward position without the consequence of having to give up power.

If I understand right the real meaning of the two words: _plebiscit_ and _referendum_, the first would be used to try and ascertain how public opinion stands upon any given question of public policy, of proposed public legislation: the second would be employed for the ratification by the electorate of a law pa.s.sed by Parliament. I have less objection to the second system which, in reality, is an appeal from Parliament to the Electorate. But to the well practised, the adverse vote of a majority of the electors should have the same result as a vote of the majority of the House of Commons rejecting an important public measure upon the carrying of which the Cabinet has ventured their existence.

Without the immediate resignation of the ministers meeting with a reverse in a _referendum_, I consider that ministerial responsibility would soon become a farce destructive of const.i.tutional government. The defeat of a Cabinet in a _referendum_ would be equivalent to one in general elections and should bear out the same consequence.

Surely, no one having some clear notions of what MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY means, will pretend for a moment that a Cabinet who, on being defeated in the House of Commons, advises the Sovereign--or his representative in Canada--to dissolve Parliament for an appeal to the people, could remain in power if the Electorate approved of the hostile stand taken by the House of Commons.

I can see no difference whatever in the meaning of an hostile referendum vote and that following a regular const.i.tutional appeal from an adverse majority of the popular House of representatives. In both cases, the downfall of the defeated ministers should be the result.

From the above comments, I draw the sound conclusion, I firmly believe, that any important readjustment of the const.i.tutional relations of the Colonies with Great Britain, should be first ratified by the actual Parliaments of the Dominions and subsequently by the electors of those Dominions. But I am also strongly of opinion that the ratification by the electorate should be taken upon the ministerial responsibility of the Cabinet who would have advised the Sovereign and asked Parliament to approve the proposed readjustment. It would be the safest way to have the Cabinet to consider the question very seriously before running the risk of a popular defeat which would have to be followed by their resignation.

Another most important reason to quiet the fears of our ”alarmists” at an impending wave of flooding Imperialism, is that any radical change in the const.i.tutional relations of England with her Colonies for the unity and consolidation of the Empire, should be adopted by the Parliaments and the Electorates of all the Colonies to be affected by the new conditions.

Consequently, from every standpoint the Dominions and the Empire herself are guaranteed against the dangers of rashness in changing the present status of the great British Commonwealth.

THE FAR OFF FUTURE.

Though it may be of little use, and perhaps perplexing, to look too far ahead to try and foresee what the distant future has in store for the generations to come, still a simple call to common sense tells one that the political destinies of any Commonwealth are, in a long course of time, largely and necessarily shaped by the increases in population and wealth, irrespective of the actual more or less harmonious working of present and immediately prospective const.i.tutional inst.i.tutions.

Broadly speaking, was it to be supposed, for instance, that the two wide continents of America would have, when peopled by hundreds of millions, continued in a condition of va.s.salage to the European continent, though owing their discovery and early settlements to European genius and enterprise? No doubt the growing national families of the New World would have liked a much longer stay under the roofs where they were born, had they received better and kinder treatment from their fatherly States. But at best the hour of separation would only have come later, postponed as it would have been by the bonds of enduring affection made more lasting by mutual good relations. Do we not see, almost daily, desolated homes often the sad result of senseless misunderstandings, or of guilty outbursts of intemperate pa.s.sions? Yet, family home life, even when blessed by the inspiring smile of a lovely wife, the sweet voice of a devoted mother, the manly and Christian example of a good father, the affectionate sentiments of well bred children, is far too short under the most favourable circ.u.mstances. And why? Because it has to follow the Divine decree ordering separation for the building of new homes, to keep Humanity advancing towards the final conclusion of her earthly existence.

Had the American colonies been favoured by the const.i.tutional liberties the Dominion of Canada enjoys, they would not have revolted and British connection would have endured many years longer. Still, one cannot conclude that those British provinces, realizing the marvellous development all can witness, would have for ever agreed to be satisfied with their colonial status. When they would have grown taller and bigger than the mother-country, most likely Great Britain herself would have taken the initiative of a friendly separation followed by a close alliance which would have perpetuated the familial bond actually so happily restored.

As prophesied by Sir Erskine May, more than half a century ago, in speaking of the probable future of the then British colonies, the American Republic would _have grown out of the dependencies of the British Empire_.