Part 22 (2/2)
Considering the outrageous language he thrusted at the Canadians of the three British races and at our heroic volunteers, it is not to be supposed that he was so tender-hearted as to spare the public men, not only of Canada, but of all the Allied Nations.
When he affirmed that the real and only cause of the war had been, and was still, the voracious greed of capitalist speculators, especially of the two leading belligerents, Great Britain and Germany, united together to profit to the tune of hundreds of millions out of the production of wars.h.i.+p building and materials of all sorts, was he not charging all the statesmen and leading politicians of all the peoples at war, of having bowed either consciously to the dictates of traitors to their countries, or of having been stupidly blind to the guilty manipulations of financial banditti?
It would take many pages only to make a summary of the injurious words he has addressed to the Canadian public men of all shades of opinion--with the only exception of the Nationalist--on account of the support they have given, in one way or another, to the Dominion's partic.i.p.ation in the war. He qualified as a _Revolution_ the policy by which we willingly decided to take part in the wars of the Empire whenever we came to the conclusion that England was fighting for a just cause.
On the 23rd of April, 1917, he wrote as follows:--
”_Very often we have shown the evident revolutionary character of the Canadian intervention in the European conflict._”
After repeating his absolutely absurd pretention, according to the sound principles of Const.i.tutional Law, that Canada could have intervened in the war as a ”_nation_” he found fault with all and every one because ”_we are fighting to defend the Empire_.” He went on and said with his natural sweetness of language:--
”_The politicians of the two parties and the whole servile and mercenary press have applied themselves to this revolutionary work.... For a long time past the party leaders are the tools of British Imperialism and of_ BRITISH HIGH FINANCE.”
And not satisfied with having thus slashed all the party leaders, all the chiefs of the State, he turns round, in an access of pa.s.sionate indignation, and charges not only all the leading social cla.s.ses, but even the Bishops, the worthy leaders of the Church, as the accomplices of the Imperialist revolution. He thrusts the terrible blow as follows:--
”_But what the war has produced of entirely new and most disconcerting, is the moral support and complicity which the_ ”IMPERIALIST REVOLUTION”
_has found in all the leading social cla.s.ses_. BISHOPS, _financiers, publicists and professionals went into the movement with a unity, an ardour, a zeal which reveal the effective strength of the laborious propaganda of which Lord Grey has been the most powerful worker prior to the war_.”
So that there should be no mistake about its true meaning, he favoured his readers with a very clear explanation indeed of what, in his opinion, has transformed our meritorious and loyal intervention in the war into a guilty revolutionary movement. He wrote as follows:--
”_But what the Imperialists wanted, and what they have succeeded in obtaining, was to bind Canada to the fate of England, in the name of the principle of Imperial solidarity and--as we shall see in a moment--to the cause of_ 'UNIVERSAL DEMOCRACY'.”
Thus, in the Nationalist leader's opinion, it is a great crime to help England and her Allies to win a war the loss of which would most likely have destroyed the British Empire, involving our own ruin in the downfall of the mighty political edifice to be replaced, in the glorious shelter it gives to human freedom, by the triumphant German autocratic rule and its universal domination. It is, to say the least, an extravagant notion to pretend that the war has afforded the Imperialists the opportunity--eagerly seized--”_to tie Canada_” hand and foot, ”_to the fate of England_.”
If I am not mistaken--and I am positively sure I am right in so saying--Canada was bound to the fate of England the very day when--by Providential decree, in that instance as well as with regard to everything earthly--she pa.s.sed under British Sovereignty. The worthy leaders of our Church so considered--and have since unanimously considered--at once taking the sound Christian stand that the French Canadians were, in duty bound, to accept their new political status in good faith, and to loyally support their new mother country whenever circ.u.mstances would require their devoted help, whilst revering the old as every child must do, if he is blessed with a good heart, when separated by unforeseen events from the home of his happy youth.
I must acknowledge that with some of our French Canadians of the first cla.s.s and standing, the word ”Democracy” savours with soreness. Well read in all that pertains to the great epoch of the first French tremendous Revolution, they abhor, with much reason, the extravagant and false principles of the BOLSHEVIKISM of those days, which culminated in the frightful period of the ”terrorism” which, for three long years and more, kept its strong knee on France's throat, her fair soil flooded with the innocent blood of her children. They are apt to be laid to the confusion that democratic government is in almost every case, if not always, synonymous of revolutionary inst.i.tutions, in as much as it cannot, they believe and say, be otherwise than destructive of the principle of ”Authority,” certainly as essential as that of ”Liberty,”
both as the necessary fundamental basis of all good governments.
Knowing this, the Nationalist leader, who has evidently abjured his liberalism of former days, which he was wont to parade in such resounding sentences, multiplies his efforts to capture the support of the few members of our most venerable Clergy whom he supposes labouring under the aforesaid delusion. He would not lose the chance of trading on their feelings and sincere conviction, in boldly declaring that his good friends, the cursed Imperialists, had managed to drag the Dominion through the mire of the European war by blandis.h.i.+ng before the eyes of the Canadian people, so enamoured of their const.i.tutional liberties, the supposed dangerous spectre of ”_universal democracy_.”
If, in reality, democratic government could not help being either the ”French revolutionary terrorism,” of 1792-95,--which even frightened such a staunch friend of Political Liberty as Burke--or the Russian criminal bolshevikism of our own trying days, we would be forced, in dire sadness, to despair of the world's future, as Humanity would be forever doomed to ebb and flow between the sanguinary ”absolutism”
either of ”autocratic” or ”terrorist” tyrants.
Happily, we can, in all sincerity, affirm that such is not the case. Is it not sufficient, as a most rea.s.suring proof, to point at the wonderful achievements of free inst.i.tutions, first, under the monarchical democratic system of Great Britain and her autonomous Dominions; second, under the republican regime of the United States.
After many long years of earnest study and serious thinking, I cannot draw the very depressing conclusion that the two basic principles of sound government--Authority and Liberty--cannot be brought to work harmoniously together for the happiness and prosperity of nations, as far as they can be achieved in this world of sufferings and sacrifices.
Such a conclusion would also be contrary to true Christian teachings, the Almighty having created man a free being with a responsible and immortal soul.
Nations who, forgetful of the obligations of moral laws, indulge in guilty abuse of their liberties, are, sooner or later, as individuals doing alike, sure to meet with the due Providential punishment they have deserved. But, also like individuals, they can redeem themselves in repenting for their past errors, due to uncontrolled pa.s.sions, and by resolutely and ”FREELY” returning to the path of their sacred duty.
The Nationalist leader also deplores, as one of their guilty achievements, the fact that the ”_war had ended all equivocals and consummated the complete alliance of the two parties_,” to favour, as he a.s.serts, of course, the enterprises of the dreaded Imperialism.
True to the kind appreciation he has pledged himself to make of the inspiring dark motives actuating the conduct of public men, he sweetly added:--
<script>