Produced by Moti Ben-Ari and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net. (This file was
produced from images generously made available by The
Internet Archive.)





[Chapter numbering is as in the original publication, omitting chapter
numbers XXV and XXVI. (note of etext transcriber.)]




    ENGLAND, CANADA AND THE GREAT WAR

    BY

    Lieutenant-Colonel L.-G. DESJARDINS

    Ex-member of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Quebec
    and of the House of Commons of Canada.

    QUEBEC
    Chronicle Print.

    October 1st, 1918




PREFACE.


Even since the issue, last year, of my book:--"_L'Angleterre, Le Canada
et la Grande Guerre_"--"_England, Canada and the Great War_"--a second
edition of which I had to publish, a few weeks later, to meet the
pressing demand of numerous readers--I have been repeatedly asked by
influential citizens to publish an English edition of my work.

A delegate from Quebec to the National Unity--or
Win-the-War--Convention, in Montreal, I had the pleasure of meeting a
great many of the delegates from Toronto and all over the Dominion. Many
of them insisted upon the publication of an English edition.

Having written that book for the express and patriotic purpose of
proving the justice of the cause of the Allies in the Great War, and
refuting Mr. Bourassa's false and dangerous theories, I realized that
the citizens of Quebec, Montreal, Ottawa and Toronto, who strongly
advised an English edition to be circulated in all the Provinces,
appreciated the good it could make.

I consider it is my imperious duty to dedicate to my English speaking
countrymen this volume containing all the substance matter of my French
book, and the defense a truly loyal French Canadian has made of the
sacred cause of Civilization and Liberty for the triumph of which the
glorious Allied Nations have been so heroically fighting for the last
four eventful years.

As I say, in the Introduction to this work, I first intended to write
only an English resumé of my French book. But once at work writing down,
the questions to consider were so important, and the replies to the
Nationalist leader's inconceivable theories so numerous, that I had to
double and more the pages I had thought would be sufficient for my
purpose. I realized that many points, to be fully explained, required
more comments and argumentation that I had at first supposed necessary.

Moreover, since writing my French book, most important events have taken
place. To have the present English volume up to date, I had to consider
recent history in its very latest developments, and reply to the
Nationalist leader's last errors, which by no means were not the least.
When once a man has run off the path of reason and sound public sense,
he is sure to rush to most dangerous extremes, unless he has the moral
courage to acknowledge that he was sadly mistaken.

I trust that the English speaking readers of this book, will not, for a
single moment, suppose that I am actuated by the least ill-feeling
against Mr. Bourassa personally, in the severe but just denunciation it
was my plain duty to make of his deplorable Nationalist campaign.

For many years past, I have ever been delighted in welcoming promising
young men to the responsibilities of public life. I remember with a
mixed feeling of pleasure and regret the occasion I first heard Mr.
Bourassa, then a youth, addressing a very large public meeting held on
the nomination day of the candidates to a pending bye-election for the
House of Commons of Canada: Pleasure at the recollection of what I
considered a fairly successful beginning of a political career; deep
regret at the failure to justify the hopes of his compatriots and his
friends through an uncontrollable ambition always sure to deter, even
the best gifted, from the safe line of duty, well understood, and
firmly, but modestly, performed.

Passion, aspiring and unbridled, is always a dangerous counsellor. Mr.
Bourassa could have had a useful political life, if he had realized that
public good cannot be well served by constant appeals to race
prejudices, and by persevering efforts to achieve success by stirring up
fanaticism.

The result of the unpatriotic course he has followed, against the advice
of his best friends, has been to sow in our great and happy Dominion the
seed of discord, of hatred, of racial conflicts.

Unfortunately, for the country, for his French Canadian compatriots, and
for himself, he was deluded to the point of believing that the war would
be his grand opportunity.

Instead of using his influence to promote the national unity so
essential under the trying circumstances with which Canada and the whole
British Empire was suddenly confronted, he exerted himself to the utmost
to prevail on his French Canadian countrymen to assume a decisive
hostile stand to the noble cause which Britain had to fight for, in
order to avenge the crime of the violation of Belgium's territory, to
protect France from German cruel invasion, and to prevent Autocratic
power from enslaving Humanity.

Such a misconception of a truly loyal man's part was most detrimental to
the good of Canada's future, to the destinies of the French Canadians,
and to the political standing of the publicist who was its willing
victim.

And to-day he finds himself in this position that he has no other choice
but that of pursuing, at all hazards, his unwholesome campaign against
all things British, or, boldly retracing his steps, to go back on all he
has said and written to support inadmissible views, vain ideas, and
passionate prejudices.

The latter course would certainly be the best to follow in the interest
of his country, of his French Canadian countrymen, and of his usefulness
as a public man. But, however much to be regretted, he seems utterly
unable to overcome the prejudices which have taken such deep root in his
heart and mind.

Prejudice, constantly cultured, soon develops into blind fanaticism,
closing the intellect to the light of sound logic, to the call of duty,
to the clear comprehension of what is best to do to promote the public
good.

However seriously guilty he may be, the public man, so swayed by a
fanatical passion, is sure not to rally to the defense of the superior
interests of his countrymen when they are threatened by a great
misfortune.

I cannot help deploring that after giving good hopes of a life
patriotically devoted to the increasing welfare of Canada, by doing his
share in promoting the best feelings among his countrymen of all races,
classes and creeds, one of my kin, really gifted to play a much better
part, has been so sadly mistaken as to exhaust his activities in forcing
his way to the leadership of a group of malcontents unable to overcome
their racial antipathies and listen to reason, even when their country
and the Empire to which they have sworn allegiance are destructively
menaced.

He has nobody else to blame but himself for the failure of his political
career, due to his misguided efforts in thwarting the happiness and
prosperity which our great Dominion would certainly derive from the
persevering union of all the citizens enjoying the blessings of her free
British institutions, to work out her brilliant destinies by their
intelligent labours, their hearted patriotism in peace times, and with
their undaunted courage and their self-sacrificing devotion in war
days.

After a somewhat prolonged spectacular display in the House of Commons,
as member for the electoral division of Labelle, he felt instinctively
that he had exhausted what he considered his usefulness, and was doomed
to a dismal failure. He retired from the Dominion political arena, to
try his luck in the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Quebec. No
wiser a man by experience, he challenged the Leader of the parliamentary
majority to a truly duellist struggle on the floor of the House. He
thrusted at his opponent with the vigour of a combatant certain to
conquer. All those who witnessed this encounter, must remember how
completely overbearing confidence, proudly asserted, was overcome by
calm and superior argumentative power, sound and clear political sense.
True parliamentary eloquence easily brought to reason pedantic and
bombastic oratory. The first throw--_le début_--went decidedly against
the Nationalist leader. A beaten fighter from this very first day, he
met with as complete a failure in the provincial political arena as he
had done in the federal one. Wisely indeed, he retired from
parliamentary life, after realizing that debating power cannot be
acquired by demagogic speaking.

The Nationalist leader next limited his efforts to the tribune, to the
public platform. All remember the time when he was periodically calling
great popular meetings held in _Le Monument National_, Montreal, where
he preached his Nationalist gospel with vehement talking. This new
experiment could not last. It soon subsided. And the Nationalist leader
is since addicted to pamphleteering of the worst kind as I will show in
this book.

Deeply moved by the dangers of a most mischievous campaign, I considered
it my bounded duty to do my utmost efforts to prove how utterly wrong
were the views which those pursuing it with passionate energy wanted to
prevail, and to show the sad consequences it was sure to produce.

Having first addressed myself to my French Canadian compatriots to
persuade them how much detrimental to their best future the Nationalist
campaign was sure to be, I am to-day laying the case before my English
speaking countrymen, at the urgent request of many of them, in order to
fully acquaint them with the refutation I have made, to the best of my
ability, of Mr. Bourassa's erroneous theories and wild charges against
England and all those who patriotically support our mother country in
the great struggle she has had to wage after doing all she possibly
could to maintain the peace of the world.

I ardently desire that the reading of the following pages, will
contribute to the restoration of harmony and good will, for a while
endangered by the Nationalist campaign, in our wide Dominion, to whose
happiness, prosperity and grandeur we, of both English and French
origins, must devote our best energies and all the resources of our
unwavering patriotism.

    L. G. DESJARDINS.
    Quebec, October 1st, 1918.




CONTENTS


      Chapter                                             Page
                --INTRODUCTION                               1
            I   --WHO ARE THE GUILTY PARTIES?               25
           II   --THE PERSISTENT EFFORTS OF ENGLAND
                      IN FAVOUR OF PEACE                    29
          III   --THE CALL TO DUTY IN CANADA                40
           IV   --RECRUITING BY VOLUNTARY SERVICE           46
            V   --INTERVENTION OF NATIONALISM               49
           VI   --WHAT DO WE OWE ENGLAND?                   51
          VII   --CANADA IS NOT A SOVEREIGN STATE           55
         VIII   --GERMAN ILLUSIONS                          67
           IX   --THE NATIONALIST ERROR                     68
            X   --HAD CANADA THE RIGHT TO HELP ENGLAND?     71
           XI   --THE DUTY OF CANADA                        74
          XII   --THE SOUDANESE AND THE SOUTH AFRICAN
                      WARS                                  77
         XIII   --BRITISH AND GERMAN ASPIRATIONS
                      COMPARED                              87
                SUB-TITLE--CONSTRUCTION AND SUPPLY          93
                    "    --TRANSPORT                        97
                    "    --THE AIR SERVICE                  98
                    "    --THE FINANCIAL EFFORT OF
                               GREAT BRITAIN               100
                    "    --ACHIEVEMENTS OF DOMINION,
                               COLONIAL AND INDIAN
                               TROOPS                      101
          XIV   --THE VERITABLE AIMS OF THE ALLIES         104
                SUB-TITLE--THE ONLY POSSIBLE PEACE
                               CONDITIONS                  111
           XV   --JUST AND UNJUST WARS                     116
                SUB-TITLE--A "NATIONALIST" ILLOGICAL
                               CHARGE AGAINST ENGLAND      125
                    "    --OTHER "NATIONALIST" ERRONEOUS
                               ASSERTIONS                  128
                    "    --INCREDIBLE "NATIONALIST"
                               NOTIONS                     131
                    "    --CANADIAN FINANCIAL OPERATIONS
                               IN THE UNITED STATES        134
          XVI   --"NATIONALIST" VIEWS CONDENSED            139
         XVII   --LOYAL PRINCIPLES PROPOUNDED              143
                SUB-TITLE--UNJUST "NATIONALIST"
                               GRIEVANCES AGAINST ENGLAND  150
        XVIII   --IMPERIALISM                              164
          XIX   --AMERICAN IMPERIALISM                     177
           XX   --BRITISH IMPERIALISM                      189
          XXI   --THE SITUATIONS OF 1865 AND 1900-14
                      COMPARED                             194
         XXII   --BRITISH IMPERIALISM NATURALLY
                      PACIFIST                             198
        XXIII   --BRITISH IMPERIALISM AND POLITICAL
                      LIBERTY                              207
         XXIV   --IMPERIAL FEDERATION AND "BOURASSISM"     216
                SUB-TITLE--CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT
                               OF INDIA                    227
        XXVII   --THE FUTURE CONSTITUTIONAL RELATIONS
                      OF THE EMPIRE                        231
                SUB-TITLE--NO TAXATION WITHOUT
                               REPRESENTATION              235
                    "    --COLONIAL REPRESENTATION         236
                    "    --THE FAR OFF FUTURE              247
                    "    --A MACHIAVELLIAN PROPOSITION     251
                    "    --A TREASONABLE PROPOSAL          259
       XXVIII   --OUTRAGES ARE NO REASONS                  267
         XXIX   --HOW MR. BOURASSA PAID HIS COMPLIMENTS
                      TO THE CANADIAN ARMY                 277
          XXX   --RASH DENUNCIATION OF PUBLIC
                      MEN                                  288
         XXXI   --MR. BOURASSA'S DANGEROUS PACIFISM        302
        XXXII   --A MOST REPREHENSIBLE ABUSE OF
                      SACRED APPEALS TO THE BELLIGERENT
                      NATIONS                             307
       XXXIII   --A CASE FOR TRUE STATESMANSHIP           321
        XXXIV   --AFTER-THE-WAR MILITARY PROBLEM          324
         XXXV   --THE INTERVENTION OF THE UNITED
                      STATES IN THE WAR                   334
        XXXVI   --THE ALLIES--RUSSIA--JAPAN               348
       XXXVII   --THE LAST PEACE PROPOSALS                357
      XXXVIII   --NECESSARY PEACE CONDITIONS              372
        XXXIX   --CONCLUSION                              383
      APPENDIX--A                                         411
      APPENDIX--B                                         421




    England, Canada and the Great War




INTRODUCTION.


Canada, as one of the most important component parts of the British
Empire, is going through the crucial ordeal of the great crisis which
will determine her destinies jointly with those of the whole world.
Instantly put under the strain, four years ago, by the outrageous
challenge of Germany to human civilization with the criminal purpose of
universal domination, she was fully equal to her unbounded duty.
Conscious of her sacred rights, she at once realized that the
constitutional liberties which she enjoyed in the freest Empire of all
times, could not be more patriotically exercised than for the defence of
the sacred cause which united in a gigantic effort England, France and
Russia, soon to receive the support of Italy. By an almost unanimous and
enthusiastic decision she rallied to the flag around which all the
Dependencies of the Empire gathered from the five continents. Never a
more inspiring array of loyal subjects, owing allegiance to a
Sovereignty, was witnessed in the wide world.

Through the trying days of four full years of the greatest war which
ever saddened the life of the human race, Canada has nobly, gloriously,
done her duty. Several hundred thousands of her devoted sons have rushed
to the front to fight the battle of Liberty, of Right, of Civilization.
Thousands of them have heroically given their lives for the triumph of
the cause which, if finally triumphant, will brighten with freedom,
prosperity, human happiness and undying glory, the destinies of many
generations.

The struggle is not over. The battle is not yet won. Victory is in sight
but unfortunately still so far distant, that it is still calling forth
the undaunted exertions of all those who have pledged their faith to
rescue the world from the cruel thraldom of German militarism.

Two years ago, at the critical period which culminated in the undecided
military operations which, though rendered illustrious by the glorious
defence of Verdun, made it plain to the Allies that success would only
be the reward of a much more prolonged effort of untold sacrifices, I
undertook to write the book entitled in French: "_L'Angleterre, le
Canada et la Grande Guerre_."

Several of the most influential and widely circulated News-papers of
Montreal, Toronto and Quebec, have kindly published highly appreciative
Reviews of the French Edition of my book, concluding with the request of
the publication of an English Edition, which, they affirmed, would be
conducive to the public good. I have received many letters and verbal
demands to the same purpose.

It is my duty to answer to a call daily becoming more pressing.

I now offer to the English reading public a condensed edition of my
work, with the title "_England, Canada and the Great War_." I concluded
not to issue a complete English Edition of the French volume. Instead of
translating my book, I considered it more advisable to write an English
synopsis of its contents. Undertaking such a work, I realized more than
ever how important it is for the Citizens of Canada to be able to speak
and write the languages of the two great races of the Dominion. Knowing
well my own deficiency in this regard, I hoped, however, to write the
following pages with enough clearness to have my views well understood,
trusting to the kindness of my readers to excuse the inadequacy of my
command of English.

A few words explaining the reasons that prompted me to write the French
book will, I am confident, be kindly appreciated by my readers. A close
observer of the daily impressions which the events developed by the war
were creating in Canada, I felt more and more deeply grieved at the
persistent and unpatriotic efforts of the leaders of the Nationalist
school of the Province of Quebec, and their henchmen, to sway my
French-Canadian countrymen from the clear path of duty. I undertook
earnestly to do my best to stem the threatening wave of disloyal
sentiments and racial conflict they were stirring up throughout the
land. "_England, Canada and the Great War_" was the result of the very
careful study of the numerous questions therein considered and of the
patriotic impulse which led me to publish it.

I dedicated the volume to my French-Canadian countrymen by a letter from
which I translate the following:

"It would surely be vain to conceal how serious was the situation
imposed upon our country by the sudden outbreak, in August, 1914, of the
greatest war of all times. It was dominated by the supreme fact that
Canada was a component part of one of the most powerful Empires whose
destinies were to be determined, for good or ill, for many long years,
by the terrible conflict suddenly opened, but, for a prolonged period,
prepared by those who dreamt of conquering the world."

"Great Britain, our Sovereign Metropolis, had done her utmost to protect
Humanity against the misfortunes which endangered her future, for the
maintenance of peace. She had failed in her noble efforts. At the very
moment when, against all the most critical appearances, she was still
hopeful, she had, all of a sudden, to face the terrible alternative,
either to submit to national dishonour by complying with the violation
of solemn treaties which bound her as much as Germany, or to unite with
France and Russia to avenge Justice outrageously violated, sworn
international Faith, Civilization perilously threatened."

"Could she hesitate for one single moment?"

"Our Mother Country has done that which her most imperious duty
commanded her to do. She accepted the challenge of Germany with the
patriotic determination inspired by the most sacred cause. All the loyal
subjects of the British Crown have applauded her decision to rush to the
defence of invaded Belgium and France, to reclaim their national honour
and her own, and to protect her Empire against the German armies."

"With the most inspiring unanimity and admirable courage, all the
British Colonies have rallied around the flag of their Sovereign
Metropolis to share the glory of the triumph of Right and Justice. At
the very front rank, Canada has nobly done her duty. Her decision was
most spontaneous and decisive. She was not deterred by fallacious
subtilties, deducted from pretended conventions, out of age and
opportunity, to hinder her laudable and patriotic course. Throughout the
length and breadth of her vast territory, all minds shared the same
view, all hearts were united and beating with the same powerful
sentiment."

"The decision of Canada to participate in the present war was taken by
the constitutional government of the country, sanctioned by Parliament,
approved by public opinion, glorified by the hundreds of thousands of
brave volunteers who courageously answered the call of duty."

"Views with which I cannot concur have been expressed and given full
publicity. They challenge discussion. It is my undoubted right to
criticize them."

"Since the beginning of the present war, Mr. Henri Bourassa, in addition
to the daily publicity of his journal "_Le Devoir_", has developed, in
two principal pamphlets, the theories of his "_Nationalism_". They are
respectively entitled: "_Que devons-nous à l'Angleterre?_" "_What do we
owe England?_" and: "_Hier, Aujourd'hui, Demain_" "_Yesterday, To-day,
To-morrow_"."

"In earnestly searching out the real causes of the war, the
responsibilities of the belligerent nations, their respective
aspirations, the duty imposed by the irresistable course of events upon
the British Empire and consequently upon Canada, I was incessantly
called upon to consider the very strange propositions contained in those
pamphlets."

"It was with great surprise that I read, for instance, as the heading of
one of the chapters, the utterly false proposition that: "_The
Autonomous Colonies are Sovereign States._"

"And these most extraordinary affirmations that the _King of England has
not the right to declare the State of war for Canada, without the assent
of the Canadian Cabinet; that Canada could have participated in the
present war as a Nation_."

"It is my bounden duty to affirm that almost all the propositions
contained in the two above mentioned pamphlets are wrong according to
international law and to constitutional law, erroneous in their
historical bearings, contrary to the true teachings of the past."

"Mr. Bourassa persistingly trying to convince his readers that the
precedents of the Soudanese and the South-African wars have forced the
British Colonies to participate in the present one, I considered it my
duty to make, in two separate chapters, a special study of those
military campaigns which, in both cases, were so felicitously terminated
for all parties concerned."

"I cannot close this letter without expressing my profound regret that
Mr. Bourassa has thought proper to use most injurious language adding
outrage to the falsity of his opinions. At page 121 of his pamphlet:
"_Yesterday, To-day, To-morrow_", any one can read, no doubt with
astonishment, that Mr. Bourassa charges our countrymen of the British
races with being _ignorant, assuming, arrogant, dominating and rotten
with mercantilism_."

"Such ridiculous and insulting words to the address of our countrymen of
the three British races are surely not calculated to increase Canadian
harmony."

"This book, written for the express purpose of assisting you to form for
yourselves a sound opinion about the terrible events so rapidly
developing, was inspired by my loyalty to the Empire whose faithful
subject I glory to be, by my devotion to Canada and to my countrymen, by
the affectionate recollection of France I will cherish to my last day.

"During the last fifty years, either as a private or as an officer of
the Canadian Militia--my service as such having lasted more than forty
years--as a member of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of
Quebec, and as a member of the House of Commons of Canada, I have often
taken the oath of allegiance to the Sovereign of Great Britain. From my
early youth, I had learned that under the ægis of the British Crown, the
citizen of the Empire could be true to his oath, and enjoy the precious
liberty of expressing his opinion. But I had also soon realized that
during the lifetime of a Sovereign State, days of peril might occur. I
had easily come to the conclusion that in those trying moments the loyal
duty could be very happily reconciled with the most sincere love of
political liberty.

"In defending with the most sincere conviction the sacred cause of the
Allies, I am doing my duty as a free subject of the British Empire, as a
citizen of Canada and of the Province of Quebec, as a son of France, as
a devoted servant of Justice and Right. I am true to my oath."

I desire to call the special attention of my readers to the complete
sense of the last paragraph just quoted. I most decidedly wish its
meaning to be fully understood by all, as I intended to convey it to my
French Canadian compatriots. I have never concurred in the subtle
distinction so often made between the several notions entertained by
many respecting their duty towards the Empire and Canada separately.
Having witnessed, for the last fifty years, the admirable evolution and
natural growth of the British constitutional system over a fourth of the
globe, developing into the freest Empire that ever existed, my mind was
more and more impressed with the conviction that loyalty to the
Sovereignty presiding over such a magnificent national heritage could
not be of two different kinds. A free British subject, whether living in
the United Kingdom, or in any one of the Dependencies of the Crown,
cannot be at once loyal to the Empire at large and disloyal to any of
its component parts; or, _vice versa_, loyal to the particular section
of the State where he is living and at the same disloyal to the Empire.
Such a false conception of the duties of loyalty, if it could be spread
successfully throughout the Empire, would undoubtedly lead to its rapid
dissolution and complete destruction. Genuine loyalty cannot agree with
exclusive and rampant sectionalism, with local, racial or religious
prejudices and fanaticism.

The few lines of the preceding closing paragraph of my letter dedicating
the French edition of my book as aforesaid, express my own conception of
the true loyalty of a faithful subject of the British Sovereignty, who
has the clear vision of the meaning of his oath of allegiance. In
consequence, first, I affirm my duty as a subject of the British Empire;
second, as a citizen of Canada; third, as a citizen of my own Province
of Quebec. And then, taking a wider range of the duty of any man towards
his ancestors' lineage, I declare that under the cruel circumstances of
the case, I also consider it is my duty to defend France against her
deadly enemy. Further enlarging the vision of duty to its fullest
extent, I say that I am bound to defend the cause of the Allies by
proving that I am a loyal servant of Justice and Right.

Surely I could not emphasize in terms more pregnant my loyalty to the
cause of the British Empire, of France, and their Allies, of Liberty and
Civilization. I confidently hope they will persuade my readers that this
book was written with the most sincere and patriotic desire to help
rallying my French Canadian compatriots to the defence of the British,
French and Canadian flags, which must together emerge triumphant from
the gigantic fight against the most threatening wave of barbarism the
world has ever had to contend with at the cost of so great and heroic
sacrifices.

When the first French edition of this book was issued, in January of
last year, matters respecting the prosecution of the war had not yet
required the serious consideration by Parliament and the country of the
question of conscription to maintain to their proper efficiency the
Canadian divisions on the firing line. Consequently, I was not then
called upon to consider that most important subject. When I had to
decide about publishing a second French edition--the first being
entirely exhausted--I at first thought of adding to my work a few
chapters respecting the most notable events developed by the gigantic
struggle shaking the world to its very basic foundation. Foremost
amongst them were the Russian sudden Revolution, the solemn entrance of
the United States into the great fight, the imperious necessity of the
military effort of the Allies far beyond that which had been foreseen,
in order to achieve the final victory which will be the only adequate
reward of their undaunted determination not to sheathe the sword before
Germany will agree to restore peace upon the only possible conditions
which will efficiently protect humanity from any other attempt at brutal
universal domination. The question of conscription in Canada was the
natural outcome of the progress of the deadly conflict between
Civilization and barbarism, constitutional Freedom and despotism,
democratic institutions and autocracy.

I soon realized that I could not properly do justice to such grave
subjects in a few pages added to my first book. After mature
consideration, I considered it was my duty to undertake to write a
second volume. I have so informed the public in the _Advertisement_
which prefaces the second French edition of the first. This second
volume I will soon issue, also intending to publish an English synopsis
of it, if that of the first volume meets the kind appreciation I hope of
my English speaking countrymen.

However, pending the publication of the second volume, I think it is my
duty to express now my views, in a summary way, on that much discussed
question of obligatory military service. Let me preface by saying that
they are not new, having originated in my mind more than thirty years
ago. The military necessities of the present war have, of course, given
them more precision and clearness.

Deeply conscious of the sacred duty of all truly loyal British subjects
through the present prolonged world crisis for the life or death of
human Liberty, I had to consider conscription from the double
stand-point of a free citizen of Canada and of my military experience
acquired in the course of a service of over forty years.

Most strongly and convincingly opposed to the militarism of the
atrocious German type--the curse of Humanity--I have always
believed--and do still more and more believe--imbued, I hope, with the
true sense and principles of democratic institutions, that the greatest
boon that could be granted the world would be that the admirable
Christian law of peace and good-will amongst men would prevail for all
times, and save the nations from the cruel obligation of keeping
themselves constantly fully armed at the great cost of the best years of
manhood, and of their accumulated treasures. But unfortunately it has
not yet been the good luck of man to reach the goal of this most noble
ambition. Instead of a steady advance in the right direction, he has,
for the last fifty years, experienced a most dangerous set back by the
predominating influence of German militarism, developed and mastered by
the most autocratic power to the point of threatening the liberties of
the whole world.

Need I say that, as a purely philosophical question of principle, I most
sincerely deplore that the political state of the world has been and is
such that national safety cannot be, in too many cases, properly assured
without the law of the land calling upon the manhood of a country to
make the sacrifice of part of the best years of enthusiastic youth, and
requiring from the nation, as a collective body, the expenditure, to an
untold amount, for the purposes of defence, of the accumulated savings
of hard work and intelligent thrift.

Fortunately, the two continents of America, so abundantly blessed by
Providence, had, until the present war, been able to pursue their
prosperous and dignified course free from the entanglements of European
Militarism.

Even England, in all the majesty of her Imperial power, her flag
gloriously waving over so many millions of free men, protected as she
was by the waves which she ruled with grandeur and grace, had succeeded
in avoiding the curse of continental conscriptionism.

Between permanent conscription, despotically imposed upon a nation under
autocratic rule, and temporary military compulsion freely accepted by a
noble people for the very purpose of saving Humanity from military
absolutism, there is, every one must admit, a wide difference. I have
been, I am, and will be, to my last day, the uncompromising opponent of
autocratic conscription, which I consider as a permanent crime against
Christian Civilization, and the ready instrument of barbarous
domination. To temporary compulsion I can agree, as a matter of
patriotic and national duty, if the circumstances of the case are such
that without its timely use, my country which has the first and
undoubted right to my most patriotic devotion, at the cost of all I may
own and even of my life, for her defence, would fall the prey to
despotism which would bleed her to death to sway the world.

Such is the ordeal through which Canada, the British Empire, in fact
much the greater part of the universe, are passing with torrents of
blood shed to rescue Mankind from the domination of German militarism.

If Germany could have her course free; if she could reach the goal of
her criminal ambition, nearly the whole world would be, for many long
years, in the throes of the most abominable conscriptionism.

If after the enthusiasm of voluntary military service has exhausted
itself from the very successful result of its patriotic effort, is it
not a duty for all loyal citizens to accept temporary compulsion, to
save their country from the horrors of defeat at the hands of the most
cruel enemy which has ever shamed the light of the sun since it shines
over the Human race blessed with Christian principles and moral
teachings.

To the present generation of young men, strong, healthy, brave, let us
say: be worthy of the times you live in, be equal to the great task
imposed upon you, accepting with patriotism the sacrifices you are
called upon to make, never forgetting that temporary compulsion for you
means freedom from permanent conscription for your children and
children's children in years to come.

It is from the very height of such lofty considerations that I have made
up my mind about this much vexed question which will, we must all
earnestly hope, be more and more well understood and eventually settled
to the everlasting good of the country once for all delivered from the
exasperating menace of German despotism.

I must reserve for the second volume of this work, the fuller expression
of my views of what should be the military system to be maintained in
Canada, after the very wide experience we will have derived from the
present great war. All I will add now is that ever since the early
eighties of the last century, after many years of voluntary service in
the Canadian Militia, I had fully realized that it is no more possible
to make a real soldier by a few days yearly training, for three years,
than you can make a competent lawyer of a young man studying law for a
fortnight in the course of three consecutive years.

Since the federal Union of the Provinces we had spent much more than a
hundred million of dollars for the training of our militia, with the
appalling result that when came the day of getting ready for the fray,
we had not two thousand men to send at once to the firing line. The
first thirty thousands of the brave men who enthusiastically volunteered
to go to the front had to be trained, at Valcartier and in England,
several months before being sent to face the enemy whose waves of
permanent divisions of armed men had overrun, like a torrent, Belgium
and northern France. Of course, our boys fought and died like heroes,
but nevertheless we at last learned, at our great cost, that soldiers no
more than lawyers, doctors, merchants, transportation managers, bankers,
business men of all callings, farmers, sailors, etc., can be qualified
in a day.

When the time shall come to consider what will be the requirements of
our military organization, after this terrible struggle is over, I hope
none will forget that war is a great science, an awful and very
difficult art, so that we shall not deceive ourselves any longer by the
illusion that an army can be drawn from the earth in twenty four hours.

Our most efficient military commander cannot entertain the foolish
delusion of Pompey, so crushingly beaten by Cæsar, at Pharsalia, that he
can raise legions by striking the ground with his foot.

If our future national circumstances turn out to be such, after the
restoration of peace, that we will not be called upon to make heavy
sacrifices for defence--let Providence so bless our dear country--it
will then be much more rational to save our money than to squander it on
a military system which cannot produce military efficiency.

The future can be trusted to settle favourably its own difficulties. For
us of the present generation, we have to attend to the imperative and
sacred duty of the hour. Let no one shirk his responsibilities, waver in
the heavy task, falter before the sacrifices to be patriotically and
heroically accepted. To deserve the everlasting gratitude of future
generations, we must secure to them the blessings of permanent peace in
a renovated world freed from the tyranny of autocratic despotism.

Surely, I will be permitted to say that, undertaking to write _England,
Canada and the Great War_, I fully realized my bounden duty to study all
the questions raised by the terrible struggle, unreservedly, absolutely,
outside of all party considerations, of all racial prejudices. A party
man, in the only true and patriotic sense of the word, during the
twenty-five years of my active political life, as a journalist and a
member of the Quebec Legislature and of the Parliament of Canada, it
became my lot in the official position which I was asked to accept and
which I loyally filled, to all intents and purposes, for many years, to
train my mind more and more to judge public questions solely from the
point of view of the public good. I do not mean to say that partyism,
well understood and patriotically practiced, is not productive of good
to a country blessed with free institutions. But certainly in the course
of a progressive, intelligent and eventful national life, ennobled by
Freedom happily enjoyed, times occur when it behooves every one to rise
superior to all other considerations, however important they may be, to
serve the only one worthy of all sacrifices: the salvation of the
country. Never was this principle so true, so imperative, than on the
day when the world was so audaciously challenged by Germany to the
deadly conflict still raging with undiminished fury.

That most important question of military obligatory service, brought up
by the pressure of the imperious necessities of military operations,
lengthening and intensifying to unforeseen proportions, was for many
weeks considered by Parliament. Surely, no one for a single moment
entertained the idea that, however desirable and imperative it was for
the representatives of the people to be of only one mind so far as the
prosecution of Canada's share in the war was concerned, constant
unanimity of opinion was possible respecting the various measures to be
adopted to that end. Parliament sitting in the performance of its
constitutional functions, with all its undoubted privileges, could not
be expected not to exercise its right to debate all the matters
constitutionally proposed for its concurrence and approval. I must
certainly and wisely refrain from any comment whatsoever upon the
lengthy discussion of the Military Service Act in both Houses in Ottawa.
Having received the Royal Assent, the Bill is now the law of the land.
All will patriotically rejoice to see that without waiving their right
to pronounce upon the deeds and the views of those who are responsible
to them, the free citizens of Canada will cheerfully accept the new
sacrifices imposed by the obligation of carrying the war to a successful
issue, praying to God to bless their patriotic efforts, and even with
the true Christian spirit, to forgive guilty Germany if she will only
repent for her crimes, and agree to repair a reasonable part of the
immense damages she has wrought upon trodden and martyred nations.

I hope,--and most ardently wish--that all my readers will agree with me
that next to the necessity of winning the war--and, may I say, even as
of almost equal importance for the future grandeur of our beloved
country--range that of promoting by all lawful means harmony and good
will amongst all our countrymen, whatever may be their racial origin,
their religious faith, their particular aspirations not conflicting with
their devotion to Canada as a whole, nor with their loyalty to the
British Empire, whose greatness and prestige they want to firmly help to
uphold with the inspiring confidence that more and more they will be the
unconquerable bulwark of Freedom, Justice, Civilization and Right.

After having so fully expressed my profound conviction of what I
consider to be my sacred duty as a loyal British subject, I feel sure I
will be allowed to ask my English-speaking countrymen not to judge my
French compatriots by the sayings and deeds of persons, too well gifted
and too prone to injure their future and that of the whole country
itself, but utterly disqualified and impotent to do them any good.

Need I affirm that my French Canadian compatriots are loyal at heart, a
liberty loving and peaceful people, law-abiding citizens, fairly minded,
intelligent, hard working, industrious. They have done, they are doing,
and will do, their fair share for the progress and the future greatness
of our wide and mighty Dominion. To all those who desire to appreciate
their course in all fairness and Christian Justice, I will say: do not
fail to take into account that like all other national groups they are
liable, in overtrying circumstances, to be in a certain measure wrongly
influenced by deficiencies of leadership, but depend that they cannot
be, for any length of time, carried away by unscrupulous players on
their feelings. Some of them were deceived by persistent efforts to
persuade them that England was, as much as Germany, guilty of having
precipitated the great war which has been the curse of almost the whole
world for the last four years. The accumulated remembrance of their
staunch loyalty and patriotism during more than a century and a half
will do much to favour the harmonious relations of all Canadians of good
will who, I have no doubt, comprise millions of well wishers of the
glorious destiny of our country.

May I be allowed to conclude by saying that my most earnest desire is to
do all in my power, in the rank and file of the great army of free men,
to reach the goal which ought to be the most persevering and patriotic
ambition of loyal Canadians of all origins and creeds.

And I repeat, wishing my words to be reechoed throughout the length and
breadth of the land I so heartily cherish:--I have always been, I am and
will ever be, to my last breath, true to my oath of allegiance to my
Sovereign and to my country.




CHAPTER I.

WHO ARE THE GUILTY PARTIES?


Any one sincerely wishing to arrive at a sound opinion on the great war
raging for the last four years, must necessarily make a serious study of
the causes which led to the terrific struggle so horribly straining the
energies of the civilized world to escape tyrannical domination. The
case having been so fully discussed, and the responsibilities of the
assailant belligerents so completely proved, I surely need not show at
length that the German Emperor, his military party, the group of the
German population called JUNKERS, are to the highest degree, the guilty
parties of all the woful wrongs imposed upon Mankind and of the
bloodshed unprecedented in all the ages.

The German Empire had for many years decided that it would not alone
attempt to dominate the world. It wanted a partner to share the
responsibility of the crime it was ready to commit at the first
favourable opportunity, but a docile partner which she could direct at
will, command with imperious orders, and crush without mercy at the
first move of resistance. That plying tool was found in the complicity
of Austria-Hungary, for years under the sway of Berlin diplomacy.

No sane man, if he is sincere, if he is honest, can now, for a single
moment, hesitate to proclaim that between Germany and Austria-Hungary,
and the group of nations henceforth bearing the glorious name of THE
ALLIES, Right and Justice are on the side of England, of France, of the
United States, of Belgium, of Italy, of Canada.

Where is the man with a sound mind, with a strong heart, beating with
the noble impulses of righteousness, with a soul dignified by lofty
aspirations, who ignores to-day that for fifty years previous to the
declaration of war, in August 1914, Germany had been perfecting her
military organization for a grand effort at universal domination?

All my life a close student of History, I was much impressed by the
constant Policy of England to maintain Peace during the last century.
When the World emerged from the great wars of the Napoleonic Era, she
firmly took her stand in favour of peaceful relations between the
nations, trusting more and more for the future prosperity of them all to
the advantages to be derived from the permanency of friendly
intercourse, from the ever increasing development of international
trade, prompted by the freest possible exchanges of the products of all
the countries blessed by Providence with large and varied resources. Her
statesmen, so many of them truly worthy of this name, however divided
they may have been with regard to questions of domestic government and
internal reforms, were most united about the course to be followed
respecting foreign relations. Perhaps more than all others having a say
in the management of the world's affairs at large, they fully realized
that no nation could prosper and successfully work out her destinies by
systematically trying to injure her neighbours. No independent country
can become wealthier, happier, and greater, by spreading ruin and
devastation around her frontiers.

The most convincing evidence that England was constantly favourable to
the maintenance of peace amongst the great Powers of the World, for the
last hundred years, is found in her permanent determination not to be
drawn into the vortex of European continental militarism, so powerfully
developed by Prussianism. She could have organized a standing army of
millions of men. She would not. True, during the few years which
preceded the present hurricane, some of the most eminent of England's
military officers, notably, foremost amongst them, Lord Roberts, seeing,
with their eyes wide open, the aggravated dangers accumulating on the
darkening horizon, warned their countrymen about the threatening waves
which menaced the future of the world. But British public opinion, as a
whole, would not depart from her almost traditional policy of
"_non-intervention_". For nearly a century, Great Britain maintained her
"_splendid isolation_", trusting to the sound sense which should always
govern the world to protect Mankind against the horrors of a general
war. Never was this great national policy better exemplified than during
the long and glorious reign of Her Majesty Queen Victoria. For more than
fifty years, she graced one of the most illustrious Thrones that ever
presided over the destinies of a great Empire, with sovereign dignity,
with womanly virtues, with motherly devotion, with patriotic respect of
the constitutional liberties of her free subjects. When she departed for
a better world, she was succeeded by the great King and Emperor--Edward
VII.--who, during the few years of his memorable reign, proved himself
so much the friendly supporter of harmony and good will amongst the
nations that he deserved to be called "THE KING OF THE PEACE OF THE
WORLD."




CHAPTER II.

THE PERSISTENT EFFORTS OF ENGLAND IN FAVOUR OF PEACE.


In 1891, Lord Salisbury, then Prime Minister of England, witnessing the
constant progress of Prussian militarism on land and sea, and fully
conscious of the misfortunes it was preparing for Humanity, ordered an
official statement to be made of the extravagant cost of the European
military organization, and sent it confidentially to the German Kaiser,
who took no notice of it.

In 1896, Lord Salisbury lays before the Czar of Russia all the
information he has obtained on the question of militarism in Europe. On
the 28th of August, 1898, the Emperor of Russia addressed to the world
his celebrated Manifesto in favour of peace. It urged, first, the
necessity of a truly permanent peace; second, the limitation of military
preparation which, in its ever increasing development, was causing the
economic ruin of the nations.

The conferences of The Hague in favour of an international agreement for
the maintenance of peace were the direct result of the initiative of the
British Prime Minister, who foresaw the frightful consequences for
Humanity of the enormous development of militarism by the German
Empire.

All the great Powers of Europe and America, together with the secondary
states, at once heartily concurred with the proposition of the Czar of
Russia. Unfortunately, there were two sad exceptions to the consent to
consider the salutary purpose so anxiously desired by those who valued
as they should all the benefits the world would have derived from an
international system assuring permanent peace. Germany and Austria, the
latter already for years dominated by the former, opposed the patriotic
move of the Emperor of Russia, suggested to him by Great Britain. They
agreed to be represented at the Conferences for the only object of
thwarting the efforts in favour of a satisfactory enactment of new rules
of International Law to henceforth protect the world against a general
conflagration, and to free the nations from the crushing burdens of a
militarism daily developing more extravagant.

Ministerial changes in Great Britain in no way altered this part of the
foreign policy of the Mother Country. In 1905, Mr. Campbell-Bannerman
became Prime Minister of England. He was well known to be an ardent
pacifist. Deprecating the mad increase of unchecked militarism, he said,
in his ministerial program:--

"_A policy of huge armaments keeps alive and stimulates and feeds the
belief that force is the best, if not the only, solution of
international differences._"

On the 8th of March, 1906, Lord Haldane, then Minister of War, declared
in the British House of Commons:--

"_I wish we were near the time when the nations would consider together
the reduction of armaments.... Only by united action can we get rid of
the burden which is pressing so heavily on all civilized nations._"

The second Conference of The Hague which took place in July and October,
1907, was then being organized. Russia was again its official promoter.
Well aware of the uncompromising stand of Germany on the question of
reduced armaments, she had not included that matter in the program she
had decided to lay before the Conference. The British Government did all
they could to have it placed on the orders to be taken into
consideration. A member of the Labor Party, Mr. Vivian, moved in the
House of Commons, that the Conference of The Hague be called upon to
discuss that most important subject. His motion was unanimously and
enthusiastically carried.

Informing the House that the Cabinet heartily approved the Resolution,
Sir Edward Grey, Secretary for Foreign Affairs, said:--

"_I do not believe that at any time has the conscious public opinion in
the various countries of Europe set more strongly in the direction of
peace than at the present time, and yet the burden of military and naval
expenditure goes on increasing. No greater service could it (the Hague
Conference) do, than to make the conditions of peace less expensive
than they are at the present time.... It is said we are waiting upon
foreign nations in order to reduce our expenditure. As a matter of fact,
we are all waiting on each other. Some day or other somebody must take
the first step.... I do, on behalf of the Government, not only accept,
but welcome such a resolution as this as a wholesome and beneficial
expression of opinion._"

In July, 1906, a most important meeting of the Inter-Parliamentary Union
took place in London. Twenty-three countries, enjoying the privileges,
in various proportions, of free institutions, were represented at this
memorable Congress of Nations. In the course of his remarkable opening
speech of the first sitting, Mr. Campbell-Bannerman, Prime Minister,
said:--

"_Urge your Governments, in the name of humanity, to go into The Hague
Conference as we ourselves hope to go, pledged to diminished charges in
respect of armaments._"

A motion embodying the views so earnestly pressed by the British
Government was unanimously carried.

On the fifth of March, 1907, only four months before the opening of the
Second Hague Conference, Mr. Campbell-Bannerman, affirming the bounden
duty of England to propose the restriction of armaments, said, in the
British House of Commons:--

"_Holding the opinion that there is a great movement of feeling among
thinking people in all the nations of the world, in favor of some
restraint on the enormous expenditure involved in the present system so
long as it exists.... We have desired and still desire to place
ourselves in the very front rank of those who think that the warlike
attitude of powers, as displayed by the excessive growth of armaments is
a curse to Europe, and the sooner it is checked, in however moderate a
degree, the better._"

Unfortunately, German hostility to reduced armaments prevented any good
result from the second Hague Conference in the way of checking
extravagant and ruinous military organization. There was sad
disappointment in all the reasonable world and specially in England at
this deplorable outcome. Mr. Campbell-Bannerman expressed it as
follows:--

"_We had hoped that some great advance might be made towards a common
consent to arrest the wasteful and growing competition in naval and
military armaments. We were disappointed._"

Unshaken in her determination to do her utmost to protect Civilization
against the threatening and ever increasing dangers of German
militarism, England persisted with the most laudable perseverance in her
noble efforts to that much desired end. But all her pleadings, however
convincing, were vain. Germany was obdurate. Finally, on the 30th of
March, 1911, speaking in the Reichstag, the German Imperial Chancellor
threw off the mask, and positively declared that the question of
reduced armaments admitted of no possible solution "_as long as men were
men and States were States_."

A more brutal declaration could hardly have been made. It was a cynical
challenge to the World. Times were maturing and Germany was anxiously
waiting for the opportunity to strike the blow which would stagger
Humanity.

Through all the great crisis of July and August, 1914, directly
consequent upon the odious crime of Sarajevo, England exhausted all her
efforts to maintain peace, but unfortunately without avail.

Knowing very well how much England sincerely wished the maintenance of
peace, the German Government was to the last moment under the delusion
that it could succeed in having Great Britain to remain neutral in a
general European war. They were not ashamed to presume they could bribe
England. Without blushing they made to the British Government the
infamous proposition contained in the following despatch from Sir E.
Goschen, the British Ambassador at Berlin, to Sir Edward Grey, the
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs:--

    Sir E. Goschen to Sir Edward Grey (Received July 29).
    Berlin, July 29, 1914.
    (Telegraphic.)

    I was asked to call upon the Chancellor to-night. His Excellency
    had just returned from Potsdam.

    He said that should Austria be attacked by Russia a European
    conflagration might, he feared, become inevitable, owing to
    Germany's obligation as Austria's ally, in spite of his
    continued efforts to maintain peace. He then proceeded to make
    the following strong bid for British neutrality. He said that it
    was clear, so far as he was able to judge the main principle
    which governed British policy, that Great Britain would never
    stand by and allow France to be crushed in any conflict there
    might be. That, however, was not the object at which Germany
    aimed. Provided that neutrality of Great Britain was certain,
    every assurance would be given to the British Government that
    the Imperial Government aimed at no territorial acquisitions at
    the expense of France should they prove victorious in any war
    that might ensue.

    I questioned his Excellency about the French colonies, and he
    said he was unable to give a similar undertaking in that
    respect. As regards Holland, however, his Excellency said that,
    so long as Germany's adversaries respected the integrity and
    neutrality of the Netherlands, Germany was ready to give His
    Majesty's Government an assurance that she would do likewise. It
    depended upon the action of France what operations Germany might
    be forced to enter upon in Belgium, but when the war was over,
    Belgian integrity would be respected if she had not sided
    against Germany.

    His Excellency ended by saying that ever since he had been
    Chancellor the object of his policy had been, as you were aware,
    to bring about an understanding with England; he trusted that
    these assurances might form the basis of that understanding
    which he so much desired. He had in mind a general neutrality
    agreement between England and Germany, though it was of course
    at the present moment too early to discuss details, and an
    assurance of British neutrality in the conflict which present
    crisis might possibly produce, would enable him to look forward
    to realisation of his desire.

    In reply to his Excellency's inquiry how I thought his request
    would appeal to you, I said that I did not think it probable
    that at this stage of events you would care to bind yourself to
    any course of action and that I was of opinion that you would
    desire to retain full liberty.

    Our conversation upon this subject having come to an end, I
    communicated the contents of your telegram of to-day to his
    Excellency, who expressed his best thanks to you.

To the foregoing outrageous proposition, the Government of Great Britain
gave the proud and noble reply which follows, for all times to be
recorded in diplomatic annals to the eternal honour and glory of the
Ministers who incurred the responsibility of, and of the distinguished
diplomat who drafted, that memorable document:--

    Sir Edward Grey to Sir E. Goschen.
    (Telegraphic.)
    Foreign Office, July 30, 1914.
    Your telegram of 29th July.

    His Majesty's Government cannot for a moment entertain the
    Chancellor's proposal that they should bind themselves to
    neutrality on such terms.

    What he asks us in effect is to engage to stand by while French
    colonies are taken and France is beaten so long as Germany does
    not take French territory as distinct from the colonies.

    From the material point of view such a proposal is unacceptable,
    for France, without further territory in Europe being taken from
    her, could be so crushed as to lose her position as a Great
    Power, and become subordinate to German policy.

    Altogether, apart from that, it would be a disgrace for us to
    make this bargain with Germany at the expense of France, a
    disgrace from which the good name of this country would never
    recover.

    The Chancellor also in effect asks us to bargain away whatever
    obligation or interest we have as regards the neutrality of
    Belgium. We could not entertain that bargain either.

    Having said so much, it is unnecessary to examine whether the
    prospect of a future general neutrality agreement between
    England and Germany offered positive advantages sufficient to
    compensate us for tying our hands now. We must preserve our full
    freedom to act as circumstances may seem to us to require in any
    such unfavourable and regrettable development of the present
    crisis as the Chancellor contemplates.

    You should speak to the Chancellor in the above sense, and add
    most earnestly that the only way of maintaining the good
    relations between England and Germany is that they should
    continue to work together to preserve the peace of Europe; if we
    succeed in this object, the mutual relations of Germany and
    England will, I believe, be =ipso facto= improved and
    strengthened. For that object His Majesty's Government will work
    in that way with all sincerity and good-will.

    And I will say this: if the peace of Europe can be preserved,
    and the present crisis safely passed, my own endeavour will be
    to promote some arrangement to which Germany will be a party, by
    which she could be assured that no aggressive or hostile policy
    would be pursued against her or her allies by France, Russia,
    and ourselves, jointly or separately. I have desired this and
    worked for it, as far as I could, through the last Balkan
    crisis, and, Germany having a corresponding object, our
    relations sensibly improved. The idea has hitherto been too
    Utopian to form the subject of definite proposals, but if this
    present crisis, so much more acute than any that Europe has gone
    through for generations, be safely passed, I am hopeful that the
    relief and reaction which will follow may make possible some
    more definite rapprochement between the Powers than has been
    possible hitherto.

The British Government could not take a more dignified stand and express
their indignation at the infamous proposal in stronger and more noble
terms.

Let us now read the indignant protest of Mr. Asquith, the British Prime
Minister, against the outrageous German proposition, addressed to the
House of Commons, where it raised a storm of applause, proclaiming to
the World the dogged determination of England to wage war rather than
agree to the dishonourable German proposal:--

    What does that amount to? Let me just ask the House. I do so,
    not with the object of inflaming passion, certainly not with the
    object of exciting feeling against Germany, but I do so to
    vindicate and make clear the position of the British Government
    in this matter. What did that proposal amount to? In the first
    place, it meant this: That behind the back of France--they were
    not made a party to these communications--we should have given,
    if we had assented to that, a free license to Germany to annex,
    in the event of a successful war, the whole of the extra
    European dominions and possessions of France. What did it mean
    as regards Belgium? When she addressed, as she has addressed in
    the last few days, her moving appeal to us to fulfil our solemn
    guarantee of her neutrality, what reply should we have given?
    What reply should we have given to that Belgian appeal? We
    should have been obliged to say that without her knowledge we
    had bartered away to the Power threatening her our obligation to
    keep our plighted word. The House has read, and the country has
    read, of course, in the last few hours, the most pathetic appeal
    addressed by the King of Belgium, and I do not envy the man who
    can read that appeal with an unmoved heart. Belgians are
    fighting and losing their lives. What would have been the
    position of Great Britain to-day in the face of that spectacle
    if we had assented to this infamous proposal? Yes, and what are
    we to get in return for the betrayal of our friends and the
    dishonour of our obligations? What are we to get in return? A
    promise--nothing more; a promise as to what Germany would do in
    certain eventualities; a promise, be it observed--I am sorry to
    say it, but it must be put upon record--given by a Power which
    was at that very moment announcing its intention to violate its
    own treaty, and inviting us to do the same. I can only say, if
    we had dallied or temporized, we, as a Government, should have
    covered ourselves with dishonour, and we should have betrayed
    the interests of this country, of which we are trustees.

After quoting and eulogizing the telegraphic despatch of Sir Edward Grey
to Sir E. Goschen, dated July 30, 1914, Mr. Asquith proceeded as
follows:--

    That document, in my opinion, states clearly, in temperate and
    convincing language, the attitude of this Government. Can any
    one who reads it fail to appreciate the tone of obvious
    sincerity and earnestness which underlies it; can any one
    honestly doubt that the Government of this country in spite of
    great provocation--and I regard the proposals made to us as
    proposals which we might have thrown aside without consideration
    and almost without answer--can any one doubt that in spite of
    great provocation the right hon. gentleman, who had already
    earned the title--and no one ever more deserved it--of Peace
    Maker of Europe, persisted to the very last moment of the last
    hour in that beneficent but unhappily frustrated purpose. I am
    entitled to say, and I do so on behalf of this country--I speak
    not for a party, I speak for the country as a whole--that we
    made every effort any Government could possibly make for peace.
    But this war has been forced upon us. What is it we are
    fighting for? Every one knows, and no one knows better than the
    Government the terrible incalculable suffering, economic,
    social, personal and political, which war, and especially a war
    between the Great Powers of the world must entail. There is no
    man amongst us sitting upon this bench in these trying
    days--more trying perhaps than any body of statesmen for a
    hundred years have had to pass through, there is not a man
    amongst us who has not, during the whole of that time, had
    clearly before his vision the almost unequalled suffering which
    war, even in just cause, must bring about, not only to the
    peoples who are for the moment living in this country and in the
    other countries of the world, but to posterity and to the whole
    prospects of European civilization. Every step we took with that
    vision before our eyes, and with a sense of responsibility which
    it is impossible to describe. Unhappily, if in spite of all our
    efforts to keep the peace, and with that full and overpowering
    consciousness of the result, if the issue be decided in favour
    of war, we have, nevertheless, thought it to be the duty as well
    as the interest of this country to go to war, the House may be
    well assured it was because we believe, and I am certain the
    Country will believe, we are unsheathing our sword in a just
    cause.

    If I am asked what we are fighting for I reply in two sentences.
    In the first place to fulfil a solemn international obligation,
    an obligation which, if it had been entered into between private
    persons in the ordinary concerns of life, would have been
    regarded as an obligation not only of law but of honour, which
    no self-respecting man could possibly have repudiated. I say,
    secondly, we are fighting to vindicate the principle which, in
    these days when force, material force, sometimes seems to be the
    dominant influence and factor in the development of mankind, we
    are fighting to vindicate the principle that small nationalities
    are not to be crushed, in defiance of international good faith,
    by the military will of a strong and overmastering Power. I do
    not believe any nation ever entered into a great
    controversy--and this is one of the greatest history will ever
    know--with a clearer conscience and stronger conviction that it
    is fighting, not for aggression, not for the maintenance even of
    its own selfish interest, but that it is fighting in defence of
    principles, the maintenance of which is vital to the
    civilisation of the world. With a full conviction, not only of
    the wisdom and justice, but of the obligations which lay upon us
    to challenge this great issue, we are entering into the
    struggle.

The German Government refusing to order their army to retire from the
Belgian territory it had violated, at midnight, 4th to 5th August, 1914,
the whole British Empire was at war with the whole German Empire.

Surely, there is not the slightest necessity to argue any more that in
the terrific war raging for the last four years, Justice and Right are
on the side of England and her Allies. No war was ever more just, waged
with equal honour for the triumph of Liberty and Civilization, for the
protection of Humanity against the onslaught of barbarism developed to
the cruelty of the darkest ages of History.




CHAPTER III.

THE CALL TO DUTY IN CANADA.


Every one knows how the news of the State of War between the British and
German Empires were received in our great Canadian Dominion, after the
days of anxious waiting which culminated in the rallying of England to
the defence of the cause of Freedom and Civilization. When the call for
duty was sounded in the Capital of the British Empire, it rolled over
the mighty Atlantic, spreading over the length and breadth of Canada,
being re-echoed with force in our Province of Quebec.

At once called to prepare for the emergency, the Canadian Parliament met
and unanimously decided that the Dominion would, of her own free will
and patriotic decision, participate in the Great War. The course of
events in Canada, for the last four years, is well known by all. It is
recent history.

My special object in condensing in this book the defence which I
considered it my duty to make of the just and sacred cause of the
British Empire, and her Allies, in the great war still raging with
undiminished fury, being to show how I did, to the best of my ability,
try to persuade my French Canadian Countrymen where was the true path
of duty, and how false and disloyal were the unscrupulous theories of
"Nationalism", I must first review the successive movements of public
opinion in the Province of Quebec.

In the preceding sentence, I have intently affirmed that the cause of
the Allies was that of the whole British Empire. Surely, it should not
be necessary to say so, as no truly loyal British subject would for a
moment hesitate to come to that patriotic conclusion. Still, however
incredible it is, the duty of the British colonies to rally to the flag
to defend the Empire and participate in the deadly struggle between
Civilization and barbarism, was challenged by the leaders of the
"Nationalist school" in the Province of Quebec. Of course, that school
never represented more than a small minority of thought and numbers.
But, sad to admit, a fanatical minority, in days of trying sacrifices,
can do a great deal of injury to a people by inflaming national and
religious prejudices. We, French Canadians, have had much to suffer from
the unpatriotic efforts of a few to bring our countrymen to take an
erroneous view of the situation.

At the opening of the war, the general opinion in the Province of Quebec
was without doubt strongly in favor of Canada's participation in the
struggle. Any student of the working of our constitutional system knows
how the strength of public opinion is ascertained, outside of a general
election, in all cases, and more specially with regard to measures of
paramount importance when the country has to deal with a national
emergency.

The Parliament of Canada is the authorized representative of the
Country. Called in a special session, at the very outbreak of the
hostilities, they voted unanimously that it was our duty to participate
in the war. All the representatives of the Province of Quebec heartily
joined with those of all the other Provinces to vote this unanimous
decision.

In the light of events ever since, who can now reasonably pretend that
the patriotic decision of the Parliament of Canada was not entirely,
even enthusiastically, approved by the Canadian people? The press, even
in the Province of Quebec, with only one exception of any consequence,
was unanimous in its approval of the action of Parliament.

The heads of our Church, the Archbishops and Bishops of the
Ecclesiastical Provinces of Quebec, Montreal and Ottawa, in their very
important Pastoral Letter on the duties of the Catholics in the present
war, positively said:--

"_We must acknowledge it--(nous ne saurions nous le dissimuler--): that
conflict, one of the most terrific the world has yet seen, cannot but
have its repercussion in our country. England is engaged into it, and
who does not see that the fate of all the component parts of the Empire
is bound with the fate of her arms. She relies upon our support, and
that support, we are happy to say, has been generously offered to her
both in men and money._"

No representative of public opinion, of any weight, outside of
Parliament, professional men, leaders of finance, commerce and industry,
in the Province of Quebec, raised a word of disapproval at the
Parliamentary call to arms.

Not one meeting was called, not one resolution was moved, to oppose the
decision of the Canadian Parliament.

Not one petition was addressed to the two Houses in Ottawa against
Canada's participation in the war.

Every one in the Province of Quebec knew that participating in the war
would entail heavy financial sacrifices, and that the taxation of the
country would have to be largely increased to meet the new obligations
we had freely decided to incur for the salvation of the Empire and of
Civilization.

The Government of the day proposed the financial measures they
considered necessary to raise the public revenue which the circumstances
required. Those measures were unanimously approved by Parliament. The
taxpayers of the country, those of the Province of Quebec like all the
others, willingly and patriotically accepted and paid without complaint
the new taxes into the public treasury. During more than the three first
years of the war, I visited a good part of the Province of Quebec, and
addressed several large public meetings. Everywhere my attention was
forcibly struck by the prompt willingness of my French Canadian
countrymen to bear their share of the financial sacrifices Canada was
called upon to make for the triumph of the cause of the Allies.




CHAPTER IV.

RECRUITING BY VOLUNTARY SERVICE.


No stronger evidence could be given of the determination of the country
as a whole, and over all its component parts, to support Great Britain
and her Allies to final success, than the truly wonderful record of the
voluntary enlistment of more than four hundred thousand men, of all
walks in life, to rush to the front.

Recruiting in the Province of Quebec indeed started very well. Several
thousands of French Canadian youth rallied to the colors. I hope and
trust that, sooner or later, it will be possible to make a more
satisfactory statistical record of the number of French Canadians who
enlisted. I am fully convinced that the total is somewhat much larger
than the figures usually quoted. It would surely be conducive to a
better understanding of the case, if such statistical information was
carefully prepared and made public. It is easily conceivable that the
pressure of the work of maintaining the splendid Canadian army renders
it perhaps difficult to attend actually to the details of that
compilation. So we can afford to wait for the redress of figures which
may constitute a wrong to the race second in numbers but equal to any in
patriotism in Canada.

Pending my remarks upon certain causes which have contributed to check
recruiting amongst the French element in the Province of Quebec, I
consider it important to mention those which were easy to ascertain and
comprehend.

It is a well known fact that early marriages are a rule in the Province
of Quebec much more than in the other Provinces of the Dominion. As a
natural consequence, the available number of young unmarried men for
recruiting purposes was proportionately less. I myself have known
parishes in our Province where half a dozen of unmarried young men from
twenty years of age and upwards could not be found.

It was easily to foresee that a comparison would be made between the
number of Canadian-born volunteers in the English-speaking Provinces and
that from the Province of Quebec. The degree of enthusiasm for
enlistment in the other Provinces between the foreign born and the
Canadian born has also been noticed. It has generally been admitted that
most naturally the young men recently arrived in Canada were more
strongly appealed to by all the sacred ties still binding them to their
mother land. When generations have, for more than a century, enjoyed all
the blessings of peace and lived far away from the turmoil of warlike
preparations and military conflicts, is it to be much wondered at that
the entire population is not at once permeated with the feeling of the
dangers ahead, and do not rise rapidly to the full sense of the duty she
is suddenly called upon to perform.

My daily personal intercourse with hundreds of my French Canadian
compatriots allowed me to realize that many of them, even amongst the
leading classes, were over-confident that the Allies representing at the
beginning the united effort of England, France and Russia, soon to be
reinforced by Italy, breaking away from the Central Powers, would
certainly be equal to the task of being victorious over German
militarism. Repeatedly, before public meetings and in very numerous
private conversations, I urgently implored my hearers not to be so
deluded, doing my best to convince them that it would be a fatal error
to shut our eyes from the truth, that the military power of Central
Europe, comprising the two great Empires of Germany and Austria,
Bulgaria, with the help of Asiatic Turkey, and the undisguised support
of baneful teutonic influences and intrigues at the courts of Petrograd
and Athens, was gigantic, and that the terrible conflict would surely
develop into a struggle for life and death between human freedom and
barbarism.

This feeling of over-confidence was passing away, when it became evident
that to triumph over the modern huns and their associates was no easy
task; that the goal of freeing humanity from the threatening universal
domination would require the most determined effort of the nations who
had heroically undertaken to reach it.




CHAPTER V.

INTERVENTION OF NATIONALISM.


The great struggle being waged with increased intensity, it was daily
becoming more and more evident that the Allied nations were bound to
muster all their courage, perseverance and resources to successfully
fight their determined foe. It was just at the thick of this critical
situation, calling forth the devotion and patriotism of all, that the
"Nationalist" campaign of false theories and principles was launched
with renewed activity in the Province of Quebec.

Mr. Henri Bourassa, ex-member of Labelle in the House of Commons, was,
and still is, the recognized leader of the "Nationalist School" in our
Province, and wherever it finds adherents. His personal organ, "_Le
Devoir_," is daily expounding the doctrines of that School.

In October, 1915, Mr. Bourassa issued a pamphlet of over four hundred
pages entitled:--"_What do we owe England?_"--in French:--"_Que
devons-nous à l'Angleterre?_"

In the long overdrawn and farfetched argumentation of this volume, the
author's effort is to try and prove that Canada owes nothing to England,
that all those who favour the Canadian participation in the war are
"revolutionists," that we are unduly paying a large tribute to the
Empire.

In 1916, Mr. Bourassa supplemented his first book with a second
pamphlet, entitled:--"_Yesterday, To-day, To-morrow_," in
French:--"_Hier, Aujourd'hui, Demain_," in which he amplified the views
expressed in the preceding volume.

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




CHAPTER VI.

WHAT DO WE OWE ENGLAND?


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

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

As long as we form part of the British Empire, it is evident that we owe
to England that loyalty which every colony owes to her mother-country.
Granted by the Sovereign Power ruling Canada the freest institutions,
having the best of reasons to be fully satisfied with our relations with
Great Britain, we are in duty bound to be loyal to her flag. We must be
true to our allegiance.

We have freely decided to incur the sacrifices we are making for the
war. We have so decided because we considered it of the greatest
importance, for the future of Humanity, that the German ambition for
universal domination be foiled; that the British Empire be maintained;
that France should continue a first class Power, as expressed by Mr.
Asquith; that before all, and above all, the eternal principles of
Right, Justice and Civilization, shall not be trampled upon by the
terrific assault of teutonic barbarism. Moreover, we are also in duty
bound to judge with fairness England's part in the great society of
nations, and, especially, that she plays in the great events of the
present crisis. Beyond doubt, a truly loyal Canadian must refrain from
poisoning foreign opinion and that of his fellow British subjects
against Great Britain in attributing her course to selfish interests,
wilfully taking no account of her broad and admirable foreign policy,
ever inspired by the steady desire to maintain peace.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




CHAPTER VII.

CANADA IS NOT A SOVEREIGN STATE.


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

One can hardly believe that the Nationalist leader, at page 17 of his
pamphlet--"_Hier, Aujourd'hui, Demain_"--"_Yesterday, To-day,
To-morrow_," opens a chapter with the title: "_Les Colonies autonomes
sont des Etats Souverains._"--"_The autonomous colonies are Sovereign
States._"

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

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

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

That Canada is not a Sovereign State is proved beyond doubt by the very
fact that she could not amend or change her constitutional charter by
her own power and without a new Imperial law. If the Nationalist
leader's pretention was sound, any member of the House of Commons, or of
the Senate, in Ottawa, could propose a bill to repeal the British North
America Act, 1867, and to replace it by another constitutional charter.
The very supposition is absurd. Can it be imagined that His Excellency
the Governor-General could be advised by his responsible Ministers to
sanction, in the name of His Majesty the Sovereign of Great Britain, a
bill repealing an Act of the Imperial Parliament? Still it is exactly
what Mr. Bourassa's theory amounts to.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here follows the paragraph of May's Constitutional History quoted by Mr.
Bourassa in support of his own views:--

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

I must say that I am absolutely unable to detect one single word in the
above quotation to authorize Mr. Bourassa to affirm that Sir Erskine May
was of opinion that "_the autonomous colonies were Sovereign States_."
The true meaning of the above extract is surely very plain. What does it
say? It declares, what was a fact, that the British _Parliament has
recently pronounced it to be just that the Colonies which enjoy
self-government should undertake the responsibility and cost of their
own military defence_.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Any one somewhat conversant with the political events that led to the
Federal Union of the Provinces knows that in applying to the British
Parliament for the new Constitutional Charter, the Legislature of United
Canada had a twofold object:--first, the settlement of the
constitutional difficulties then pending between Upper and Lower Canada;
secondly, a broader development of Canada and also of the British
Empire. Such was the purpose of the coalition government formed in 1864.
All the members of that Cabinet were strongly in favour of the
maintenance of Canada's union with Great Britain. I have heard them
expounding their views on what the future of Canada ought to be. I am
positive that neither Sir John A. Macdonald, Sir Georges Cartier, the
honorable Georges Brown, nor any of their colleagues, of both political
parties, ever said a word which could be construed as expressing the
opinion that the proposed Federal Union would make of Canada an
independent Sovereign State. It is incredible that Mr. Bourassa should
have so erroneously understood their real views so as to pretend that
they favoured Confederation for that very purpose.

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

"_With us the Sovereign, or, in this country the representative of the
Sovereign, can act only on the advice of His Ministers, those Ministers
being responsible to the people through Parliament._"

Mr. Bourassa used the foregoing sentence in support of his contention
that the King of England could not declare war without the assent of the
Canadian Cabinet. It is impossible to understand how such a notion can
be seriously held and expressed. His Majesty cannot ask nor accept such
an advice, if it was tendered, for the very reason that the Canadian
Cabinet has not the constitutional right to advise the King respecting
the international relations of the Empire. And why? Precisely because
the Canadian Ministers would not be responsible for their advice to the
Imperial Parliament and to the electorate of the United Kingdom.

The true meaning of the above quoted sentence of Sir John A. Macdonald
is very plain. Ministerial responsibility was the fundamental principle
of the old Constitution, as it is of the Federal Charter. Sir John A.
Macdonald was perfectly right in affirming that "_in Canada, as in
England, the Sovereign could act only on the advice of His Ministers,"
that is to say on the advice of His responsible Ministers within the
constitutional powers of our Parliament on all matters respecting which
they had the constitutional right to advise His Majesty_.

Sir John A. Macdonald never said--he could not possibly say--that as
Prime Minister of Canada, under the new Constitution, he would have the
right to advise the Sovereign on all matters within the exclusive
constitutional jurisdiction of the Imperial Parliament, for instance
respecting the exercise of the Royal prerogative of declaring war
against, or of making peace with, a foreign independent State. He has
never propounded such an utterly false constitutional doctrine.

Mr. Bourassa went still further. He quoted the following sentence from
Sir John A. Macdonald:--"_We stand with regard to the people of Canada
precisely in the same position as the House of Commons in England stands
with regard to the people of England_."

I was indeed most astonished to read Mr. Bourassa's inference from those
words that Sir John A. Macdonald _had affirmed the absolute equality of
powers of the Imperial and the Canadian Parliaments_.

If the opinion expressed by Sir John A. Macdonald could be so
interpreted, he would have affirmed--what was radically wrong--that
under the new Constitution, the Canadian Parliament would have,
_concurrently with the Imperial Parliament_, absolutely the same powers.
What did that mean? It meant that the Canadian Parliament, just as the
Imperial Parliament, would have the right to edict laws establishing
Home Rule in Ireland, regulating the government of India and the Crown
Colonies, granting constitutional charters for the good government of
the Australian and South African Dominions, &c., &c.

Surely it is not necessary to argue at any length to prove that Sir John
A. Macdonald never for a moment entertained such an opinion. What he
really said, in the above quoted words, was that within their
constitutional jurisdiction, within the limits of their respective
powers, the two Parliaments stood in the same position, _respectively_,
with regard to the people of England and to the people of Canada. It was
equivalent to saying--what was positively true--that the British
Ministers and the British Parliament were responsible to the people of
England, and that the Canadian Ministers and the Canadian Parliament
were responsible to the people of Canada,--both of them within the
limits of their respective constitutional powers.

If the Canadian Legislature had enjoyed all the constitutional powers of
the British Parliament, she would not have been obliged to pass
addresses asking the latter to enact a new charter creating the Federal
Union of the Provinces. She could have repealed her then existing
constitution and enacted the new one by her own authority. But that she
could not do. She could not repeal the old, nor enact the new charter.

But the most extraordinary is that Mr. Bourassa went so far as to
declare that Canada should have participated in the present war only as
a "_Nation_," meaning, of course, as an independent Sovereign State.

On reading such a preposterous proposition, at once it strikes one's
mind most forcibly that if Canada had really had the power to intervene
in the world's struggle as a "Nation," she would have had the equal
right to the choice of three alternatives.

First:--Declare war against Germany and in favor of the Allies.

Second:--Remain neutral.

Third:--Declare war against Great Britain and fight for Germany.

For it is obvious that all the Sovereign States--and Canada like them
all if she had been one of them--had the Sovereign Right to fight for or
against Great Britain, or to remain neutral. Of course, I am merely
explaining in its entirety the Right of a Sovereign State. I surely do
not mean to say that Canada, had she really been such a State, would in
any way have been justifiable in joining with Germany in her dastardly
attempt to crush Civilization in the barbarous throes of her domination.

What would His Excellency the Governor-General have answered his Prime
Minister advising him to declare war against England, he who represents
His Majesty at Ottawa? Would he not have told him at once that the
Canadian Prime Minister had no right whatever to give him such an
advice; that Canada, being a British Colony, could not declare war
against her Sovereign State; that for the Canadian people to take up
arms against England would be treasonable revolt?

It is absolutely incredible that a public man, aspiring to the
leadership of his countrymen, can have been so completely lost to the
sense of the Canadian constitutional situation as to boldly attempt to
pervert their mind with such fallacious notions. He might as well
pretend that the State of New York, for instance, has the Sovereign
Right to declare war against the Government of the United States.

I, for one, cannot help wondering that any one can seriously think that
a colony, always pretending to remain loyally so, can wage war against
her Sovereign State. I feel sure that all sensible men do share my views
on that point.




CHAPTER VIII.

GERMAN ILLUSIONS.


When Germany threw the gauntlet to the Powers of the "Entente," she
labored under the delusion that the war would most surely break down the
British Empire. She was determined to do her utmost to that end. But she
utterly failed in her criminal efforts.

Strongly bound by ties of affection and constitutional freedom, the
great autonomous Dominions and Colonies at once rallied with courage and
patriotism to the defence of the Empire, of Justice, of Right and
Civilization. India,--that great Indian Empire--to the utter
disappointment of Germany, has stood admirably by Great Britain ever
since the outbreak of the War, by her noble contributions of man-power
and her munificent generosity of very large sums of money, in one
instance amounting to $500,000,000.

The Crown Colonies have also done their share of duty with great
devotion.

The admirable result which for the last four years has been shining
bright and glorious all over the world, is that, contrary to teutonic
expectations, the war, far from breaking asunder the British Empire, has
wonderfully solidified her mighty edifice, by an intensity of loyalty to
her free institutions, to her glorious flag, which the enjoyment of the
blessings of peace would not have proved so easily possible.




CHAPTER IX.

THE NATIONALIST ERROR.


The leaders of our Nationalist School have for years strenuously
laboured to pervert the mind of our French-Canadian compatriots by the
false pretensions that we were, in some mysterious way, coerced to
participate in the European War. Even previous to the days of the South
African conflict, they boldly took the stand that Canada should, on no
account, and under no circumstances whatever, participate in what they
called the Wars of the Empire--_les guerres de l'Empire_. Canada, they
affirmed, had only to defend her own territory if attacked.

Fully appreciating how insidious and dangerous such theories were, I
endeavoured to show, as forcibly as I could, that there had been no
attempt by England at coercion of this Dominion to help her in the
struggle against Germany. Of course, as previously explained, Great
Britain being at war with the German Empire, the whole British Empire
was at war. But no one in England ever intended to propose to force the
colonies to engage actively into the fight. The Imperial Parliament
would certainly not have taken into consideration any such proposition.

But is it not plain and beyond discussion that we, _ourselves_, had the
undoubted right to intervene in the war to the extent that we would
consider it our bounden duty to do so?

Evidently we could not remain neutral in the great conflict. At the very
moment that Great Britain was at war with Germany, Canada, a British
Colony, was part and parcel of the belligerent Sovereign State, the
British Empire. By an incredible misconception, the Nationalist leaders
confounded _neutrality_ with _non-participation_ in the war, if we had
so decided.

To be, or not to be, neutral, was not within our constitutional rights.
If Germany, either by land or by sea, had attacked our territory, as she
had the undoubted belligerent right to do, would it have availed us an
iota to implore her mercy by affirming that we were neutral? Could we
have pretended that she was violating neutral territory?

No one with the least notion of International Law would for a moment
hesitate to give the true answers to those questions.

But the very different question to participate, or not, in the war, was
for us alone to decide according to our constitutional charter. We have
freely, deliberately, decided to do our share in the great war. We
continue and persevere in our noble task, freely and deliberately.

It is admitted by all that under the actual constitutional organization
of the Empire, the Imperial Parliament could not require the autonomous
colonies to participate in the war. But no one can assuredly deny to
that Parliament the right, in the case of an imminent peril, to
formulate the desire that the autonomous colonies would help Great
Britain to conjure the threatened calamity.

But, in the present case, the Imperial Parliament has not even been
under the necessity of expressing such a legitimate wish, for the
obvious reason that the colonies at once took their patriotic stand in
favor of the cause of England and her Allies. If the colonies had not so
decided, of their own free will, it is most likely that the Imperial
Parliament would not have expressed the wish for the assistance of the
Dominions overseas.

The hearty support granted by the colonies to Great Britain, to develop
its full value, had to be spontaneous, enthusiastic. Such it was, such
it is, and such it will be to the last day of the conflict which
victorious conclusion we are so strongly determined to achieve.




CHAPTER X.

HAD CANADA THE RIGHT TO HELP ENGLAND?


Not satisfied to do the best it could to persuade our French-Canadian
countrymen that they had been coerced into the war by England, our
"Nationalist School" extensively used the argument that Canada had not
the right to intervene into the European struggle. I refuted this
erroneous pretension by the following propositions, the very essence of
our constitutional rights and liberties:--

1.--The Canadian Cabinet had the undoubted constitutional right to
advise His Excellency the Governor-General to approve the measures to be
taken to give effect to their decision to participate in the war,
decision and measures for which they were responsible to the Canadian
Parliament and to the Canadian Electorate.

2.--The Canadian Parliament had the undoubted constitutional right to
approve or disapprove the decision and the measures of the Cabinet.
Parliament approved that decision and those measures, acting within
their constitutional right.

3.--Even at the time I was writing, it could evidently be affirmed that
the Canadian Electorate had approved the stand taken by both the
Canadian Cabinet and the Canadian Parliament according to well known and
defined constitutional usages.

Was it not proved beyond reasonable controversy, that the Canadian
people heartily approved the decision of their Parliament to help in the
great war?

Let me summarize the evidence as follows:--

1.--The war policy of the Cabinet, at the special session called in
August, 1914, for that very purpose, was unanimously approved by
Parliament, no Senator and no Member of the House of Commons moving to
censure the responsible ministers for their decision to have Canada to
participate in the war. The two great political parties have solemnly
sanctioned that decision.

2.--Public opinion was also very strongly proved by the almost unanimity
of the public press patriotically supporting the stand taken by
Parliament. The exceptions were so few, that, as usual, they contributed
to emphasize the soundness of the general rule.

3.--During the three years following the decision of the Canadian
Parliament, a great number of large public meetings were held throughout
Canada, and addressed by many leading and influential citizens all
approving the action of Parliament. The meetings enthusiastically
concurred in the powerful indorsation of the war policy of the speakers.

In a few public gatherings some disapproval was expressed, but not one
meeting would go to the length of passing "Resolutions" censuring the
Cabinet and the Parliament of Canada, or declaring that our Dominion
should not have interfered into the war.

4.--Not one petition against the Canadian intervention into the war was
addressed to Parliament.

5.--Leading Clergymen, of all denominations; leaders of political
associations almost of all shades of opinion; financial, industrial,
commercial leaders, all of them approved the patriotic interference of
Canada into the war.

6.--The evident general approval of the unanimous decision, taken in
1916, to extend the Parliamentary term.

7.--The wonderful success of the public loans raised for war purposes.

8.--The enlightened and generous patriotism with which the country has
accepted and paid war taxation.

9.--But, above all, the voluntary recruiting of four hundred thousand
men of all social conditions who have rallied to the flag of the Empire
for the defence of her existence and for the triumph of Civilization and
Justice.

I, therefore, drew the undeniable conclusion that, contrary to the
"Nationalist" pretension, Canada was participating in the war in the
most regular constitutional way, without even the shadow of a breach of
our Canadian autonomy, of our constitutional rights and liberties.




CHAPTER XI.

THE DUTY OF CANADA.


Having affirmed that Canada had no right to interfere in the war, the
"Nationalist" leaders at once concluded that she was not in duty bound
to do so. That most discreditable inference was, of course, the natural
sequence of the wrong principle aforesaid. They further drew the
conclusion that it was no part of the duty of Canadians to join the
Colors to help winning the war.

It was in flat contradiction of those erroneous notions that I
positively declared, in my letter dedicating my book to my French
Canadian compatriots, that "_in defending with the most sincere
conviction the sacred cause of the Allies, I am doing my duty as a free
subject of the British Empire, as a citizen of Canada and of the
Province of Quebec, as a son of France, as a devoted servant of Justice
and Right_."

Very narrow minded indeed is the man who has no higher conception of his
duty than the one limiting him to the observance of positive and
negative laws enacted by the legitimate authority to protect society and
every one of its members.

When England, together with the other leading nations, was brutally
challenged by Germany, and threatened in her very national existence,
it is beyond comprehension that Canada, and all the British colonial
possessions overseas, could so mistake their bounden duty as to refuse
rushing to help the Mother Country in such a trying occurrence.
Moreover, have we not, merely as men, duties to perform to protect
Civilization against the deadly attack of barbarism, to have Justice and
Right triumphant in international relations?

It is a matter of deep wonder to me that any one could have been so
blind as not to perceive that in joining with Great Britain to defend
the cause of the Allies, we were surely defending our own territory, our
own soil, our own homes. How incredible was the "Nationalist" contention
that we should have waited for the actual German attack of our land
before mustering our resources of resistance. Who could not see, at a
glance, that if Germany had, as it fully expected, easily triumphed over
the combined forces of France, England and Russia, it would have been
sheer madness to attempt resisting the victorious onslaught of a few
hundred thousands of her veteran soldiers, whose valour would have been
doubled by the enthusiasm of their European conquest.

After mature consideration of the possible results of the disastrous
defeat of the combined efforts of the Allies, both on land and sea, the
conclusion was forced upon my mind that Germany, ferociously elated by
such a wonderful success, would no doubt have exacted from England the
cession of Canada to her Empire. So that without even firing a gun
against our territory, our wide Dominion would have been instantly
transferred from the British to the German Sovereignty. I shuddered at
such a vision, and still more deeply realized how much we, Canadians,
were all in duty bound to help the Allies in crushing Prussian
militarism.




CHAPTER XII.

THE SOUDANESE AND SOUTH AFRICAN WARS.


In the two previously mentioned pamphlets, Mr. Bourassa argued at length
to prove that Canada had been led to intervene in the great European war
as a consequence of her intervention in the South African War. It is
well known throughout the Dominion that the South African conflict was
the occasion chosen by the "Nationalist" leader to proclaim his doctrine
that the autonomous colonies should have nothing to do with the wars of
the Empire--LES GUERRES DE L'EMPIRE. He then strongly opposed Canadian
support of Great Britain in her struggle in South Africa.

In one of his pamphlets, Mr. Bourassa affirmed that the Government of
Sir John A. Macdonald had, in 1884, refused the request of the Imperial
Government to interfere in its favour in the Soudanese war. Well aware
of the events of this struggle, I positively knew that the "Nationalist"
leader's assertion was not borne out by the facts, and was historically
false. I considered it my duty, in a special chapter, to explain fully
the circumstances of the case to my French Canadian countrymen.

It should be well remembered that England was brought into the Soudanese
conflict on account of her relations with Egypt, which she had delivered
from the Turkish yoke.

Mr. Bourassa prefaced his above mentioned affirmation by recalling the
fact that it was in consideration of the Soudanese difficulties that
"_for the first time in the history of the Colonial Empire of Great
Britain, offers of armed support were made by the autonomous colonies_."

Is it not evident that if--as was true--such offers were made
spontaneously by the Colonies, it cannot be pretended that the proffered
armed support was asked by England. If England did not solicit such
support, it is plain that Sir John A. Macdonald and his Cabinet could
not refuse what was never applied for.

What are the true historical facts?

In November 1884, General Laurie, who has represented one of the
electoral divisions of Nova Scotia at Ottawa, who has also held a seat
in the British House of Commons, took the initiative to propose to raise
a Canadian regiment for the campaign in the Soudan. In the regular
official way, General Laurie's offer was addressed to the Secretary of
State for the Colonies, Lord Derby. The Imperial Government declined the
offer.

On the 7th of February, 1885, on hearing the news of the disaster of
Khartoum, which caused great excitement in England, and naturally
created a strong public feeling to avenge the outrage, General Laurie,
always enthusiastic, tendered anew his services. He was not the only
Canadian officer wishing to go and fight the cruel Soudaneses. A member
of the Canadian Parliament, Colonel Williams, commanding the 46th
volunteer battalion of Durham-East, also desired to take part in the
African campaign with his regiment. On the 9th of February, 1885, he
tendered his proposition to Sir Charles Tupper, then High Commissioner
in London, who sent it to the Colonial Office.

On the 10th of February, His Excellency the Governor General, Lord
Lansdowne, cabled to the Colonial Secretary that the offers of military
service were very numerous. This spontaneous movement, so rapidly
spreading, was the forerunner of those of 1899 and 1914. Thirty years
ago, and long before, there were brave men in Canada. There always have
been and ever will be.

These news were no doubt very encouraging for the Imperial authorities.

Lord Derby, thanking Lord Lansdowne, begged him to say "_Whether they_
(the offers of service) _are sanctioned and recommended by the Dominion
Government_."

On the 12th of February, Lord Lansdowne answered Lord Derby that the
Dominion Government was ready to approve recruiting in Canada for
service in Egypt or elsewhere, provided that the men would be enlisted
under the authority of the Imperial Army Discipline Act, and the expense
paid by the Imperial Treasury.

It consequently follows from the above despatches that the Soudanese
campaign offered to many officers of our volunteer Militia the long
wished for opportunity to freely tender their services to the Imperial
Government; that the British authorities never applied to the Canadian
Government, then presided by Sir John A. Macdonald, for armed support in
Soudanese Africa; that, on being officially informed of the offers of
service received by His Excellency the Governor General, the Colonial
Secretary, before accepting or declining them, enquired if the Canadian
Government sanctioned and recommended them; that the Governor General
answered him in the affirmative, the recruiting to be made according to
the Imperial Military Act at the expense of the Imperial exchequer.

On the 16th of February, the War Minister, then the Marquis of
Hartington, informed the Colonial Secretary that he had come to the
conclusion to decline with thanks the offers of service from Canada, for
the reason that it would have taken too long a time to recruit and
organize the regiments offered by General Laurie and Colonel Williams.

Was I not right, when I refuted Mr. Bourassa's assertion, in saying that
if a _refusal_ was _then_ given, it was by the British Government who
had received the freely tendered services, and not by the Canadian
Government, to whom no demand of armed support had been made by Great
Britain?

If it is indeed very astonishing that Mr. Bourassa should have taken the
responsibility to affirm that the Government of Sir John A. Macdonald
had refused to help Great Britain in the Soudanese campaign, it is easy
to understand his object in so doing. His purpose was to convince his
French Canadian readers that the political leaders at the head of the
Government, in 1899 and 1914, together with the Canadian Parliament,
had, in a revolutionary way, reversed the traditional policy of Canada
of non-intervention in the "wars of the Empire"--_les guerres de
l'empire_. And to achieve his end, so detrimental to the best interests
of the Dominion, he did not hesitate to draw an absolutely erroneous
conclusion from undeniable historical facts.

The "Nationalist" leader was very anxious to charge the chieftains of
the two great political parties with an equal responsibility for what he
terms a "Revolution" in our relations with the Mother Country. With this
object constantly in view, he pretended that the intervention of Canada
in the South African War created the precedent which brought about the
Dominion participation in the European war, in 1914. In order to stir up
to the utmost the prejudices of the French Canadians, he boldly
qualified the South African conflict as an _infamous crime_ on the part
of England.

Unfortunately, the true history of the difficulties which culminated in
the Boer War of 1899, was at the time little known throughout Canada,
and even less particularly in the Province of Quebec. At the outbreak of
the struggle, wishing to form a sound opinion of the causes of which it
was the direct outcome, I made an exhaustive study of the South African
question, beginning at the very inception of the Dutch settlement dating
as far back as 1652, the year during which the Dutch East India Company
occupied Table Bay. Six years later, in 1658, French Huguenots reached
South Africa, joining with the Dutch Reformists, who rather
energetically did all they could to assimilate them. Still later on,
besides some few German immigrants, a third group of Europeans settled
on the African coast. They were Englishmen.

All the Europeans, on landing in South Africa, few in numbers, had at
once to contend with the black race numbering many millions. The history
of the long struggle between European civilization, represented by the
English and Dutch immigrants, and African barbarity, is indeed very
interesting. Carefully read and studied in all its bearings, it strongly
impressed upon my mind the conviction that had it not been for the
timely armed protection they often solicited and received from England,
the Dutch Boers would certainly have been annihilated by the tribes of
the black race. They could not hope to successfully resist the
onslaughts to which they were repeatedly submitted. They were saved from
utter destruction by the strong arm of Great Britain, occupying an
important strategical position by her Cape Colony. The British
Government had favoured the settlement of the sons of England in South
Africa, for the purpose of assuring, by a powerful naval station, the
freedom of communication with the great regions soon to develop into her
vast Indian Empire.

How, and under what circumstances, was British Sovereignty established
in South Africa? I considered this question the most important to
ascertain, in order to judge fairly the history of the last century in
those regions. It was settled by the Peace Congress of Vienna, in 1815.
All the European nations represented at that congress, have sanctioned
British Sovereignty in South Africa upon the condition of the payment by
England to the Kingdom of the Netherlands, of which Holland was then a
part, of the sum of $30,000,000. Consequently the Sovereign Rights of
Great Britain in South Africa were henceforth undeniable.

In my French book, I somewhat extensively summarized the development of
the British and Dutch groups of settlers in South Africa. It is well
known that the Boers are of Dutch origin. That a rivalry did develop
between the two national elements, is not to be wondered at by any one
having some knowledge of the history of the world.

I do not consider it necessary to go at any length in relating the
vicissitudes of the conflict between the aspirations of the Boer element
and the undoubted rights of British suzerainty. As a rule they are
sufficiently well known by my English readers.

But I wish to emphasize the two undeniable facts: first, that throughout
this protracted contest, England did perseveringly try to favour South
Africa with the largest possible measure of political liberty. Second,
that the crisis was finally brought about by the persistent
determination of the Government of Pretoria to refuse justice to the
Uitlanders and to the British capitalists who, at the urgent request of
President Kruger, had invested many millions in the development of the
very valuable mines recently discovered in the Transvaal territory.

Though England had agreed to the establishment of the two Republics of
the Transvaal and Orange, she had maintained her suzerainty on those
territories, which suzerainty the Government of Pretoria had again
recognized by the Convention of 1884.

The most convincing proof that England did not intend any unfair design
against the South African Republics, is the fact that she did not
prepare to resist the armed attack of the Government of Pretoria which
could be easily foreseen by the intense organization they were evidently
making to impose Boer supremacy in South Africa.

In his very unjust appreciation of the policy of Great Britain in South
Africa, Mr. Bourassa kept no account whatever of the very important
fact that war was declared against England by the South African
Republic. How could Great Britain have been guilty of a hideous crime in
not bowing to the dictate of President Kruger and his Government, as the
"Nationalist" leader said, is beyond comprehension.

England was absolutely within her right in accepting the challenge of
the Government of Pretoria, and fighting to maintain her flag and her
Sovereignty in South Africa.

Fortunately, the South African War, characterized by deeds of heroism on
both sides, has had the most satisfactory conclusion. It is to be hoped
that for many long years the future of that great country is settled
with all the blessings that political liberty and free institutions will
surely confer on that important part of the British Empire. The Boers
themselves have fully recognized that their own national development
cannot be better guaranteed and safeguarded than by the powerful
Sovereignty pledged to their protection, on the only condition of their
loyal allegiance to the flag waving on the fair land where they can
multiply in peace, prosperity and happiness. The enthusiasm and the
admirable courage with which they have rallied to the support of Great
Britain and her Allies in the present war, is the best evidence how much
they appreciate the advantages of their new conditions in the great
South African Dominion destined to such a grand future.

I most sincerely deplore the persistent efforts of the "Nationalist"
leader to pervert more and more the mind of my French Canadian
countrymen by his so very unfair appreciation of the nature of the South
African conflict. It was with the hope of counteracting them that I
introduced a special chapter in my French edition explaining, as fully
as I could, though in a condensed form, the South African question.

The assertion that the participation of Canada in the present European
war was the sequence of the precedent of our intervention in the South
African struggle, is also most injustifiable and untenable. Had Canada
taken no part whatever in the South African War, it would not have made
the least difference with regard to the decision of the Canadian people
to support Great Britain and the Allies in their gigantic effort to put
an end to Prussian terrorism. The assertion which I most emphatically
contradict could have no other object but to prejudice the public mind
against Canadian intervention in any of the wars of the Empire--_les
guerres de l'empire_.




CHAPTER XIII.

BRITISH AND GERMAN ASPIRATIONS COMPARED.


In the attempt to justify his opposition to the Canadian armed support
of the Allies' cause, Mr. Bourassa repeatedly asserted that Great
Britain was as much as Germany aspiring to rule the whole world. He
pretends that there is no difference between Anglo-Saxonism and
Germanism.

How unjust and dangerous is such a doctrine is evident to any fair
minded man. It was no doubt calculated to prejudice the French Canadians
against Great Britain, by telling them that the sacrifices they were
called upon to make were imposed upon them only to favour the British
determination to reach the goal of her ambition:--universal domination.

I strongly repudiated such assertions and vindicated England's course
and policy.

To accuse Great Britain to aspire to universal domination is a most
unwarranted charge, contradicted by the whole history of the last
century during which she was the most determined supporter of peace.

Though one of the great Powers of the world, England never undertook to
organize a large standing army. How could she aspire to the world's
domination without a complete military organization comprising many
millions of men, is what I am unable to understand.

Mr. Bourassa's argument to prove his assertion is based on the efforts
of England to maintain and develop her naval forces so as to guarantee
her supremacy on the high seas of the world. How he failed to realize
that Great Britain, on account of her insular position, close to the
European continent, is by nature itself bound, of sheer necessity, to
protect herself by the strength of her military naval power, is beyond
comprehension. Supremacy on the seas is for the Mother Country a mere
question of national existence,--to be or not to be. But supremacy on
the seas cannot, and will never, permit England to attain anything like
universal domination. And why? For the obvious reason that Great Britain
is not, and never can become, a continental Power, in the exact sense of
the word.

I explained, conclusively, I believe, that the case would be very
different if Germany succeeded in her efforts to supplant England's
supremacy on the seas. When the Berlin Government undertook to build a
huge military fleet, Germany was the greatest continental military
Power. What were her expectations when she adopted that threatening
naval policy? The Berlin authorities were very confident that when they
would decide to bring on the great war for which they had been
strenuously preparing for half a century, they would in a few months
have continental Europe at their feet and under their sway. Triumphant
over Europe they would have at once dominated Asia and a great part of
Africa. The next surest way for the German Empire to reach universal
domination was to break England's power on the seas. What is impossible
for England to accomplish, on account of her insular position, Germany,
being a continental Empire, could achieve if she became mistress of the
seas.

The present war is the proof evident that the mighty power of England on
the seas has been the salvation of her national existence and, almost
equally, that of France and Italy. It kept the oceans open for the trade
of all the Allied and neutral nations. He is willingly blind,
intellectually, the man who does not see that deprived of the matchless
protection of her naval forces, Great Britain could be starved and
subdued in a few months by an enemy ruling the waves against her.

Is it possible to suppose that any man aspiring to help moulding the
public opinion of his countrymen, ignores that with the relatively small
extent of the territory it can devote to agricultural production, Great
Britain can never feed her actual population of over forty-five
millions, most likely to reach sixty millions in the not very distant
future. Consequently how unjust, how extravagant, is it to accuse
England of any aspiration to dominate the world by means of the
sacrifices she is absolutely bound to make for the only sake of her
self-defence, her self-protection.

If he does not know, I will no doubt cordially oblige the "Nationalist"
leader by informing him that Great Britain, usually importing food
products to the amount of seven to eight hundred millions of dollars,
for many years past, required as much as a billion dollars worth of them
in the war year of 1915. It is so easy to foresee that the continual
increase of the population of the United Kingdom, by the new large
developments which will surely follow the war in all industrial,
commercial and financial pursuits, will cause a relative increase in the
importations of food products likely to reach, and even exceed before
long, an average total annual value of a billion and a quarter dollars.

None of the European continental Powers has the same imperious reasons
as England to take the proper means to guarantee her control of the
seas. How is it then that Germany is the only Power to object to
England's policy, if it is not for the ultimate object to attain
universal domination by the overthrow of Great Britain's ascendency on
the wide oceans, which would permit her to realize her long cherished
aim by the combined powerful effort of her gigantic military forces both
on land and sea.

With regard to England's naval supremacy, the "Nationalist" leader is
also committed to other opinions which I strongly contradicted. He
entirely forgets that beyond the sea coast limits, well defined by
International Law, no Sovereign rights can be claimed on the high seas.
The navigation of the ocean is free to all nations by nature itself. Has
any Government ever entertained the foolish idea that the broad Atlantic
could, for instance, be divided into so many parts as the European,
Asiatic, or American continents, over which several States could
exercise Sovereign powers? No Chinese Wall can be built on the seas.

My own view of the case, which I believe to be the correct one, is that
England's naval supremacy means nothing more nor less than the police of
the seas, and the protection of the flags of all the Nations navigating
them, besides being, of course and necessarily, the guarantee of her
National existence.

Blind also, intellectually, is the British subject not sufficiently
inspired by the true sense of the duties of Loyalty, who does not
understand that once Great Britain's maritime power would be crushed and
the United Kingdom either conquered or obliged to an humiliating peace
which would ruin all her future prospects, the Colonial Empire would
equally be at the mercy of the victorious enemy of the Mother Country.

With the most earnest conviction, I have tried, to the best of my
ability, to persuade my French-Canadian compatriots of the inevitable
dangers ahead if the false views which were so persistingly impressed
upon their minds were ever to prevail, and the aim they undoubtedly
favour to be realized.

Another argument widely used by our "Nationalist" School to influence
the opinion of the French Canadians against Canada's participation in
the war, was that Great Britain herself was not doing what she ought to
win the victory. I have personally heard this false objection repeated
by many--unconsciously of course--who were influenced in so saying by
the "Nationalist" press.

No more unfair charge could have been made against England. I could not
help being indignant at reading it, knowing as I did, by daily acquired
information what an immense effort the United Kingdom had been making,
from the very beginning of the hostilities, to play its powerful part in
the great war into which it had nobly decided to enter to avenge its
honour, to defend the Empire and the whole world against German
barbarous militarism.

I have already commented on the immense service guaranteed to the Allied
nations by the British fleet. To illustrate the wonderful and admirable
military effort of Great Britain, I will quote some very important
figures from the most interesting Report of the British War Cabinet, for
the year 1917, presented to Parliament by Command of His Majesty.

Under the title "_Construction and Supply_" the Report says:--

    During the past year the Naval Service has undergone continual
    expansion in order to enable it to meet every demand made upon
    it, not only in the seas surrounding these islands, but in the
    Mediterranean, the Persian Gulf, the Red Sea, the Arctic Ocean,
    the Pacific, and the Atlantic, where it has co-operated with the
    Naval forces of the Allies. The displacement tonnage of the
    Royal Navy in 1914 was 2,400,000 tons. To-day it has increased
    by 75 per cent.--=(making a total of 4,200,000 tons--)=. The
    ships and vessels of all kinds employed in the Naval Service in
    September, 1914, after the whole of the mobilisation had been
    completed, had a tonnage of just over 4 million; now the figure
    is well over 6 million. Transports, fleet attendants and
    overseas oilers and similar auxiliary vessels at the outbreak of
    war numbered 23; the Admiralty to-day control nearly 700 such
    craft. The strength of the personnel, which was 145,000, has
    been increased to 420,000.

    From these brief particulars regarding the ships and their
    manning, an estimate can be formed of the expansions that have
    been made in the auxiliary services, such as guns, torpedoes,
    munitions, and stores of all kinds, anti-submarine apparatus,
    mines, &c., and some idea is gained of the demands that have
    been made upon the great army of workers on shore, the men in
    the Royal dockyards and arsenals, in the shipyards, the engine
    shops, and the factories, without whose help the Fleet could not
    be maintained as a fighting force.

    As regards warship and auxiliary ship construction, the output
    during the last 12 months has been between three and four times
    the average annual output for the few years preceding the war.

    The Admiralty now control all the dry docks in the
    country,...--250 merchant ships are being repaired each week,
    either in dry dock or afloat.

    Since the beginning of the war, 31,470 British war vessels have
    been placed in dock or on the slips =(--as many as 225 being
    repaired in one week--)=.... These figures do not include repair
    work carried out to the vessels of our Allies....

The Transport Service is of the highest importance in carrying on the
war. What has been the achievement of England on that score? Under the
title:--"_Transportation_" the War Cabinet Report proves its immensity
as follows:--

    The record of what has been done by the transport services for
    the Armies of the Allies shows a stupendous amount of work
    accomplished, which constitutes one of the brilliant
    achievements of the war. There had been transported overseas up
    till the end of August, 1917, the last date for which complete
    statistics are available--some:--13 million human
    beings--combatants, wounded, medical personnel, refugees,
    prisoners, &c.; 2 million horses and mules; ½ million vehicles;
    25 million tons of explosive and supplies for the armies; ... 51
    million tons of coal and oil fuel for the use of our Fleets, our
    Armies, and to meet the needs of our Allies.

    The operations of the seas are on such a large scale that it is
    difficult to realize all that is involved in sea transportation;
    for example, over 7,000 personnel are transported, and more than
    30,000 tons of stores and supplies have to be imported daily
    into France for the maintenance of our own army. About 567
    steamers, of approximately 1¾ million tons, are continually
    employed in the service of carrying troops and stores to the
    Armies in France and to the forces in various theatres of war in
    the East.

We all know that the Berlin Government expected that the submarine
campaign would result in an early final victory for the Central Empires.
Herr von Bethmann Hollweg, then the Imperial Chancellor, said:--"_The
Blockade must succeed within a limited number of weeks, within which
America cannot effectively participate in the operations_."

How he was mistaken, and extravagant were his expectations, events have
proved. This sentence is also proof evident that he realized how
effective the United States effort would become, if the submarine
campaign did not succeed within a few weeks.

The iniquitous submarine campaign, re-opened early in the year 1917,
"_added materially to the responsibilities of the Navy. To meet this new
and serious menace drastic steps had to be taken to supplement those
adopted in the previous December and January_."

The Report adds:--

    A large number of new destroyers have been built and at the same
    time auxiliary patrol services have been expanded enormously so
    as to deal with the nefarious submarine and minelaying methods
    of the enemy. Before the outbreak of the war there were under 20
    vessels employed as minesweepers and on auxiliary patrol duties.
    To-day the number of craft used for these purposes at home and
    abroad is about 3,400, and is constantly increasing.

       *       *       *       *       *

    A new feature of the means adopted for the protection of trade
    against submarines has been a return to the convoy system as
    practised in bygone wars. It has been markedly effective in
    reducing the losses. During the last few months over 90 per
    cent. of all vessels sailing in all the Atlantic trades were
    convoyed....

    The Royal Naval Air Service at the outbreak of war possessed a
    personnel of under 800; at the present moment the numbers
    approach 46,000 and are continually increasing.... Mention must
    also be made of the great value of the air services in combating
    the submarine menace round our coasts.... Illustrating their
    extent it may be stated that in one week the aircraft patrol
    round the British coasts alone flies 30,000 miles.

    The general result of the German attack, therefore, though
    serious enough, is far from unprecedented. In the two years
    after Trafalgar, when our command of the sea was unquestioned,
    we still lost 1,045 merchant ships by capture, and in the whole
    period from 1794 to 1875 we lost over 10,000 merchant ships.

    Nor should we lose sight of the very heavy losses sustained by
    the enemy in the present war. At the commencement of
    hostilities, Germany had 915 merchant ships abroad, of which
    only 158 got home safely; the remainder within a few days were
    cleared from the oceans, either captured or driven to shelter in
    neutral ports. In the aggregate the German Mercantile Marine
    consisted of over 5 million tons of shipping; at the present
    time nearly half of this has been sunk or captured by ourselves
    or our Allies, while the bulk of the rest is lying useless in
    harbour.

Let me now refer to the military effort of Great Britain. Under the
title:--"_Strength of the Army," &c._, the War Cabinet Report gives the
following most inspiring figures.

    The effort which the British nations have made under the one
    item of "Provision of Men for the Armed Forces of the Crown"
    amounts to not less than 7,500,000 men, and of these 60.4 per
    cent. have been contributed by England, 8.3 per cent. by
    Scotland, 3.7 per cent. by Wales, 2.3 per cent. by Ireland, 1.2
    per cent. by the Dominions and the Colonies, while the
    remainder, 13.3 per cent., composed of native fighting troops,
    labour corps, carriers, &c., represent the splendid contribution
    made by India and our various African and other Dependencies.

       *       *       *       *       *

    =Royal Artillery.=--The personnel of the Royal Artillery
    increased 17.6 per cent., between August, 1916, and August,
    1917.

    In the first nine months of 1917 the supply of modern
    anti-aircraft guns in the field increased 44 per cent., that of
    field guns 17 per cent., of field-howitzers 26 per cent., of
    heavy guns 40 per cent., of medium howitzers 104 per cent., of
    heavy howitzers 16 per cent., and of heavy-guns on railway
    mountings 100 per cent.; these last have an increased range of
    about 35 per cent.... We have also supplied large numbers of
    heavy guns and trench mortars to our Allies in different
    theatres of war.

       *       *       *       *       *

    The Medical Service has continued to expand with the growth of
    the Army and its strength is now largely in excess of our whole
    original Expeditionary Force.... More than 17,000 women are
    employed as nurses and over 28,000 others are engaged in
    military hospitals on various forms of work.... Hospitals in the
    United Kingdom now number more than 2,000.

       *       *       *       *       *

    The health of the troops in the United Kingdom is actually
    better than the peace rate; the same is the case in France,
    excluding admissions to hospital by reason of wounds.

The above quoted figures prove that out of a total of 7,500,000 men for
the Armed Forces of the British Crown, Great Britain--the United
Kingdom--had contributed, at the end of last year, 5,625,000, out of
which number the shore of England and Wales amounted to 4,800,000. The
British Colonial Empire's contribution had been 1,875,000.

At the date of the current year--August, 1918--I am writing, I can
safely calculate that the number of men for the Armed Forces of the
British Crown--using the words of the Official Report above quoted--has
reached, at least, _the grand and magnificent total of 8,000,000_. The
percentage of respective contributions of the United Kingdom and the
Colonial Empire no doubt remaining the same, the relative number of each
of them is,--for the United Kingdom 6,000,000; for the Colonies
2,000,000.

I consider the War Cabinet Report of 1917 so interesting, so
encouraging, that my readers will, I am confident, kindly bear with me
in a few more very important quotations, the full Report itself having
had only a very limited circulation in Canada.


TRANSPORT.

In addition to the prodigious Naval effort of England, both military and
mercantile, previously illustrated, Great Britain has most powerfully
contributed to the fighting operations on land by an immense improvement
in transportation facilities by railway construction in all British
theatres of war.

The Report says:--

    In all these theatres railways have come to play a more and more
    important part. In France a vast light railway system has been
    created, involving the supply during the present year of
    approximately 1,700 miles of track and the whole of the
    equipment.... Exclusive of these light railway systems, the
    total amount of permanent railway track supplied complete to all
    theatres of war is about 3,600 miles. In Egypt the railway
    crossing the desert from the Suez Canal has now reached and
    passed Gaza. In Mesopotamia the rapid and successful movements
    of our troops have only been made possible by the construction
    of a whole series of lines since the beginning of 1917. The
    development of road-building has been on a similar scale, and
    the shipments of material, equipment and stores for these two
    purposes during the last nine months have averaged 200,000 tons
    a month. Much labour has also been spent in the organisation of
    an Overland Line of Communication through France and Italy to
    the Mediterranean in order to save shipping. This line was
    opened for personnel traffic in June, 1917, and for goods
    traffic early in August.

       *       *       *       *       *

    In France the conveyance of supplies of all kinds to our armies
    along the French rivers and canals is performed by a large fleet
    of tugs, barges, and self-propelled barges. The fleet thus
    employed in France consists of over 700 vessels, and the tonnage
    carried by it averages over 50,000 tons per week.


THE AIR SERVICE.

In a recital indicating generally what steps have been taken in matters
of administration and control, the Report says:--

    From the point of view of defence, the new arm presented
    problems pregnant with at least equal importance. The proud and
    ancient inviolability of these islands was being challenged in a
    new and startling fashion, and the seriousness of the problem
    was added to by the fact that the geographical position of the
    capital of the Empire rendered it particularly inviting to
    attack from the air.

Respecting the supply of Aircraft, the Report says that:--

    In endeavoring to describe the measures taken to meet the
    aircraft needs of the Navy and Army, the writer is at once
    confronted by the fact that the information desired by the
    country is precisely the information desired by the enemy. What
    the country wants to know is what has been the expansion in our
    Air Services; whether we have met and are meeting all the
    demands of the Navy and of the Army, both for replacement of
    obsolete machines by the most modern types, and for the increase
    of our fighting strength in the air; what proportion of the
    national resources in men, material and factories is being
    devoted to aviation; what the expansion is likely to be in the
    future. These are precisely the facts which we should like to
    know with regard to the German air service, and for that reason
    it would be inadmissible for us to supply Germany with
    corresponding information about ourselves by publishing a
    statement on the subject.

    It can be said that the expansion of our Air Services is keeping
    pace generally with the growing needs of the Navy and the Army.

In Chapter VIII, under the heading:--"_The Ministry of Munitions in
1917_," the following is read:--

    The number of persons engaged in the production of munitions in
    October, 1917, was 2,022,000 men and 704,000 women, as compared
    with 1,921,000 men and 535,000 women in January. They have thus
    been increased during the past six months at the rate of 11,000
    men and 19,000 women per month. These numbers include those
    employed in Government and in private establishments, in the
    principal munition industries, chemical and explosive trades,
    engineering and munition plants, furnaces and foundries, in
    shipbuilding and in mining other than coal-mining. The total
    represents approximately two-thirds of the total labour occupied
    on Government work in industry.

The preceding official statistics prove most conclusively that actually,
and ever since the beginning of the third year of the war, more than
_twelve millions_ of men and women--more than the fourth of the total
population of the United Kingdom--have been either in the Armed Forces
of the British Crown--Navy and Army--or in the shipbuilding yards, in
munitions factories, in transportation on land and sea, in the Medical
Service, in the Air Service, &c., employed for the success of the cause
of the Allies.


THE FINANCIAL EFFORT OF GREAT BRITAIN.

The gigantic military effort of Great Britain, in all the branches of
its wonderfully developed organization, as above illustrated, was only
rendered possible by a corresponding financial contribution.

During the financial year preceding the outbreak of the war, the total
expenditure of the Government of Great Britain was $987,464,845. The
hostilities have imposed upon the United Kingdom vast expenditures. "For
that period"--again quoting the War Cabinet Report--"from the 1st April,
1917, to the 1st December, 1917, the total Exchequer issues for
expenditure (including Consolidated Fund Service and Supply Services)
were £1,799,223,000,--($8,796,115,000) representing a daily average for
that period of £7,344,000 ($36,720,000)."

At this rate of expenditure, the total for the year equals at least
$13,500,000,000. But the financial charges entailed by the war being
constantly on the increase, they can be calculated at a daily average of
no less than $40,000,000 until the close of the conflict.

England has not only incurred very heavy financial obligations, met both
by an enormously increased taxation and the issue of large National
loans, to pay the cost of her own war expenditure, but she has also
generously helped her friends whose financial resources were not so
abundant as her own. To the 1st December, 1917, she had made advances to
the Allies amounting to no less than $5,930,000,000. In addition to this
large amount, the advances she had made to the Dominions for the same
period summed up $875,000,000.


ACHIEVEMENTS OF DOMINION, COLONIAL AND INDIAN TROOPS.

Under the above title, the War Cabinet Report concludes a general review
of the past year's effort by paying high tribute to the value of the
services rendered by the whole British Colonial Empire, in the following
elogious terms:--

    In the above sketch of military operations during the past year,
    it has not been possible to distinguish between the particular
    services rendered by the various nations and nationalities of
    the Empire. But it must not be forgotten that during the war the
    forces of the Crown have become welded into a true Imperial
    army, representative of every part of the world-wide British
    Commonwealth, and a brief note may be included as to the special
    services of the various overseas forces.

    The share of the Australian, New Zealand, Canadian, South
    African and Newfoundland contingents in the successes of the
    1917 campaign are well known. The capture of Vimy Ridge in
    April, the prolonged and bitter fighting around Lens during the
    whole summer and autumn, and the capture of Passchendaele were
    carried out by the Canadian Corps, which has thus proved itself
    as excellent in offensive as its splendid defence of Ypres in
    1915 had shown it to be in defensive fighting. The New Zealand
    and Australian contingents have corresponding achievements to
    their credit in their share of the battle of Messines and in the
    long sustained and bitterly contested fights in the Ypres
    salient from July to November. The South African brigade
    sustained the brilliant reputation which it won last year at
    Delville Wood by the devoted services it rendered on the
    battlefields of Arras and Ypres. Finally, the Newfoundland
    Regiment took a glorious and costly part in the same two
    battles. The troops of all the Dominions have shown themselves
    throughout the campaign of 1917 to have maintained the historic
    standards of the British Army and have been worthy rivals of the
    United Kingdom troops in every military effort and achievement.

    This testimony to the services rendered by the Dominions would
    not be complete without some reference to the part played by
    South Africa in German East Africa, where her troops have borne,
    under the brilliant leadership of General Van Deventer, a
    conspicuous share in a peculiarly arduous campaign.

    The smaller Colonies and Protectorates have naturally been
    unable to play so great and conspicuous a part in the World War,
    but in their own spheres they have contributed their full share
    to the military effort of the Empire. Labour and fighting troops
    were freely drawn upon for the Mesopotamian and East African
    theatres. West Africa, British East Africa, Uganda, Nyasaland
    and Rhodesia have all sent contingents to fight in German East
    Africa. 16,000 men from the West Indies have been sent across
    the Atlantic; and labour corps from the Eastern Colonies have
    been sent to the Mesopotamian and East African fronts, and,
    despite unfavourable conditions, to the Western theatre. A large
    number of individuals from overseas possessions, such as the
    Malay States and Hong Kong, have also joined the Imperial
    forces.

    Finally, India's contribution, both in man-power, material and
    money, has steadily increased throughout the year. India has
    taken a very important share in the victorious campaign in
    Mesopotamia. The great majority of the troops in this theatre of
    war are Indian. They have fully sustained the high reputation of
    the Indian Army for gallantry and endurance. India has been
    responsible for much of the supply, medical and transportation
    system by water and on land. Indian forces have also rendered
    conspicuous service in France, Egypt and East Africa. The
    question of the supply of officers, especially medical officers,
    has been solved; commissions have been granted to Indians, and a
    voluntary Indian Defence Force is now being organised and
    trained. Special mention should be made of the loyal and
    effective assistance of the Indian ruling princes and chiefs,
    from the smallest to the greatest.

The Indian Government has moreover generously contributed $500,000,000
towards the cost of the war.

The foregoing quotations of official figures, of facts undeniable, of
achievements really most extraordinary, constitute the unanswerable
refutation, complete and crushing, of the Nationalist charge that
England, while not doing her own duty with regard to the war, was using
undue influence to coerce the British Colonies to participate in the
conflict far beyond the fair proportionate effort to be expected on
their part; that an illegitimate pressure of Great Britain's Government
on her Colonies was being practised, as insidiously alleged, to promote
her Imperialist ambition of the World's ascendency.

Unfortunately, those false and most unjust notions had taken deeper root
in many minds, even in some who should have been much above such an
unfair misconception, than was at first supposed. Hence the importance
of setting the matter right, and the necessity of proving that England's
war achievements, in every branch of the Military Service, were far
exceeding what had, at first, been expected of her, and was ever
considered possible. British pluck and manliness were equal to the
direst emergency that ever called them forth. Patriotism, courage,
determination, perseverance, rising superior to any increased
difficulties, have truly worked miracles of manly efforts and
self-sacrifices inspired by the noble cause which brought Great Britain
in the World's struggle.




CHAPTER XIV.

THE VERITABLE AIMS OF THE ALLIES.


After doing their utmost to persuade the French Canadians that the
Allies, more especially England and Russia, were equally responsible for
the war, together with Germany and Austria, our "Nationalist" leaders
moreover asserted that they were hostile to a just and lasting peace on
account of their unfair claims. In support of their pretension, they
repeatedly affirmed that the Allies were pledged to the complete
destruction of the German Empire. No more unfounded charge could be made
against the Nations suddenly challenged to a gigantic struggle for life
or death.

It was very important to protect my French Canadian countrymen against
views which, if not proved to be absolutely wrong, were calculated to
bias their mind against the Allies. With this patriotic object strongly
impressed upon my mind, I fully explained what were the veritable aims
of Great Britain, France, Russia and Italy, in fighting their deadly
enemy. When I issued my French book, the United States had not then
entered the contest. Their declaration of war against Germany, in the
spring of 1917, after the outrage of the sinking of the Lusitania, and
the numerous criminal provocations of the submarine campaign, clearly
emphasized, once more, what the Allies had been strenuously struggling
for from the outbreak of the hostilities. They had taken up the gauntlet
savagely thrown to them, declaring to the world that they would battle
to the last to put an end to German militarism, always threatening
general peace, to protect the small nations, notably Belgium and Servia,
against the onslaught of mighty and tyrannical conquerors, to save
Humanity, Civilization and Freedom from the crushing ascendency of
autocratic rule. The great American Republic rallied with them to the
defence of this most sacred cause. Need I refer to the numerous and
eloquent messages of President Wilson, to the writings of the American
press, and to the declarations of all the leading public men of the
United States, in both Houses of Congress, or before public meetings, in
support of the contention which was proved beyond controversy for all
fair minded men.

Mr. Bourassa, whether from sheer misconception, or blindly carried away
by incomprehensible German sympathies, having their root in his
prejudiced hostility to England, could see no difference between a war
policy aiming at putting an end to Prussian militarism, and one having
for its object the dismemberment of the German Empire. Nor could he
conceive that fighting for human liberty was a nobler purpose than
struggling for autocratic tyranny. Though ever posing as the champion
of the small nationalities, he would not utter a word of sympathy for
martyred Belgium, barbarously conquered Servia, oppressed Poland, since
the beginning of the war.

The great conflict once begun under so terrific conditions, every one
somewhat posted with the immense resources of the belligerents, their
respective warlike spirit and enduring qualities, could easily foresee
that, unfortunately, it was most likely to last for several years, the
contending parties being so far apart in their respective aspirations.
Elated beyond all reason by her triumph over France, in 1870, which had
for its first very important result the final creation of the German
Empire, proclaimed to the world from Versailles,--the bleeding heart of
her vanquished foe,--the new great Power, dominating Central Europe,
lost no time in setting all its energies to the task of perfecting the
most gigantic military organization ever seen. To all clear sighted men,
Germany could not be supposed to accept the heavy sacrifices required
for such an end with the sole purpose of maintaining peace. Further
conquests were evidently her inspiring aim.

Who can forget how Humanity was staggered by the rapidity of the
onslaught of the Teutonic hordes let loose against nations whose
greatest wish was to keep the peace of the world? In a sudden rush, the
waves of the torrent overran Belgium and Northern France dashing direct
towards Paris.

The wonderful plan of campaign, so scientifically conceived and matured,
could then be understood as it was boldly and powerfully developed. The
Berlin military staff, knowing that France was not sufficiently prepared
for the struggle, that England, if forced to intervene in honour bound,
by the criminal violation of Belgium's neutrality, would require a
couple of years to organize an army of millions of men, decided to
strike the first blow with such an overpowering strength as to conquer
Belgium in a victorious run and crush France out of the fight. A couple
of months were to be sufficient to that most coveted end. Meantime
Austria was to face and resist the Russian attack, to allow Germany the
necessary time to settle victoriously the western part of the campaign,
so cleverly planned and successfully carried out, before transferring
her glorious legions to the Eastern theatre of the war. Russia was not
supposed to be able to properly organize her armies in less than many
months, when it could no longer expect to triumph over the enthusiastic
Huns.

In the depressing darkness of those anxious days, the great Marne
victory came like the brilliant sun piercing the heavy clouds, pledging
final success as the reward of the persevering courage and heroism to be
long displayed to deserve it. Germany's first dream of conquering
universal domination by military operations even overshadowing those of
the illustrious Napoleonic Era, and of Cæsar's marvellously laid deep
foundations of Roman grandeur, was shattered to pieces.

Before the Teutonic armies could be reorganized for another great
offensive, England's forces and those of her Colonies would be in a
position to enter the struggle; France's resources would be brought to
bear with all their strength; Italy would break away from the Central
Empires and heartily join the Allies.

Then the conflict turned to that weary trench fighting which to the
sadness of its trials added new evidence of the inevitable lengthening
of the war. No wonder that the longing for peace was intensified under
the pressure of conditions becoming more and more trying. Without doubt
all true friends of human prosperity and happiness, in their limited
possible worldly measure, were fervently praying to God in favour of the
restoration of harmony between the warring Nations. But they saw with
undeniable clearness that there were two essential--sine qua
non--conditions to the peace of the future. To be of any value it must
be _Just_ and _Durable_. If it could become permanent, much more the
better.

Unfortunately, outside the legions of the true friends of an honourable
peace, there were found, in the Allied countries, faint hearted men
getting tired of the worries and sacrifices consequent upon the
prolonged struggle. The moment they began to show their hands, was the
signal for the ultra Revolutionists of Russia, finally organized into
the disastrous bolshevikism, for the paid traitors of France, for the
disloyal elements of the British Empire, to rally around them to set in
motion, with accrued force, a current of opinion clamouring for peace
almost at any price. To quiet this unpatriotic longing of the
disheartened, the political leaders of the Allies publicly explained
their war aims, positively affirming that their objective was that _Just
and Durable_ peace to which alone they could and would agree.

Canada had also her _pacifist_ element. So far as the French Canadians
were concerned, it was, though small in numbers, almost entirely
recruited in the ranks of the supporters of "_Nationalism_." I feel I
must explain that our "_Nationalism_," as it has been repeatedly
propounded, does not in the least represent the sound views of the very
large majority of my French Canadian countrymen.

As was to be expected, Mr. Bourassa was again the outspoken organ of our
French Canadian _pacifists_. He laid great stress on what he gave out as
a fact: that if peace negotiations were not at once entered upon and
brought to a successful conclusion, it was on account of the Allies'
unreasonable claims, pointing especially to England's determination not
to surrender her supremacy on the high seas, to develop more and more
what he termed her _imperialism_ for the purpose of dominating the world
_economically_.

In my French work, I strongly took issue with the views of our
_pacifists_ as expressed by their leader and their press. Addressing my
French Canadian countrymen on the bounden duties of all loyal British
subjects, it was my ardent purpose to tell them the plain truth.
Writing, as I did, in 1916, I was then, as I had been from the very
beginning, firmly convinced that the conflict would be of long duration,
that it was very wrong--even criminal if disloyally inspired--for any
one to delude them by vain hopes, or deceive them by false charges.

Having some knowledge of military strategy and tactics, I saw with the
clear light of noon day that, despite the gigantic efforts put forth by
the Allies, and the admirable heroism of their armies--our Canadian
force brilliantly playing its part--final victory would be attained only
by indomitable perseverance, both of the millions of fighting men and of
the whole Allied nations backing them to the last with their moral and
material support. That profound conviction of mine I was very anxious to
strongly impress on the minds of my French-Canadian readers, imploring
them not to be carried away by the "Nationalist" erroneous pretentions
that peace could easily be obtained, if the Allies would only agree to
negotiate. I told them plainly, what was absolutely true, that the war
aims of Germany were so well known and inadmissible that there was not
the least shadow of hope that peace negotiations could lead to a
reasonable understanding realizing the two imperious conditions of
_Justice and Durability_ in a settlement to which all the Allies were
in honour pledged. I explained to them that it was no use whatever to be
deluded by expectations, however tempting they might appear, because
under the then conditions of the military situation--time and events
have since brought no favourable change but quite the reverse--there was
not the slightest chance of an opening for a successful consideration of
the questions to be debated and settled before the complete cessation of
the conflict. There was only one conclusion to be drawn from the
circumstances of the case, and, however sad to acknowledge, it was that
the fight must be carried on to a final victorious issue, any weakening
of determination and purpose being sure to bring about humiliating
defeat.


THE ONLY POSSIBLE PEACE CONDITIONS.

Whenever representatives of the belligerents shall meet to negotiate for
peace, there will of course be many questions of first class importance
to consider and discuss. But the one which must overshadow any other and
of necessity carry the day, is that peace must be restored under
conditions that will, if not forever, at least for many long years,
protect Humanity and Civilization against a recurrence of such a
calamity as ambitious and cruel Germany has criminally imposed upon the
world. I urged my French Canadian readers to consider seriously how
peace due to a compromise, accepted out of sheer discouragement, would
soon develop into a still more trying ordeal than the one Canada had
willingly and deliberately undertaken to fight out with the Allies. I
forcibly explained to them that if the present war did not result in an
international agreement to put an end to the extravagant and ruinous
militarism which, under Prussian terrorism, was proving to be the curse
of almost the whole universe, all the sacrifices of so many millions of
lives, heroically given, of untold sufferings, of so much treasures,
would have been made in vain if Germany was allowed to continue a
permanent menace to general tranquillity.

It was a wonder to me that any one could fail to understand that an
armed peace would be only a truce during which militarism would be
spreading with increased vigour and strength. It was evident--and still
daily becoming more and more so--that Germany would only consent to it
with the determination to renew, on a still much larger scale, her
military organization with the purpose of a more gigantic effort at
universal domination.

Then was it not plain that labouring under the inevitable necessity of
such an international situation, the Allied nations,--the British Empire
as much as France, the United States and Italy--would by force be
obliged to make the sacrifices required to maintain their military
systems in such a state of efficiency as to be always ready to face
their ambitious foe with good prospects of success. Such being the
undeniable case, I affirmed--I am sure with the best of reasons--that
Great Britain could not return to her ante-war policy of the enlistment
of only a small standing territorial army, trusting as formerly to her
Naval strength for her defence and the safe maintenance of her prestige
and power. Like all the continental nations, England would have to incur
the very heavy cost of keeping millions of men always fully armed.

I firmly told my French Canadian countrymen that it was no use deluding
themselves with the "Nationalist" notion that peace being restored under
the above mentioned circumstances, the British Colonies would not be
called upon to share, with England, the burdens of the extensive
military preparations necessitated for their own safety as well as for
that of Great Britain and the whole Empire. The very reasons which had
prompted Canada and all her sister Dominions to intervene in the present
war, would surely induce them to cooperate with the Mother Country to
maintain a highly and costly state of military preparedness in order to
be ever ready for any critical emergency.

Could it be believed that after the sad experience of the actual
conflict, the Allied nations--Great Britain perhaps more than any
other--would blindly once again run the risk of being caught napping and
deceived by an unscrupulous and hypocritical enemy, unsufficiently
prepared to at once rise in their might to fight for their very
national existence and the safety of Mankind against tyrannical
absolutism. If such abominable pages of History as those that for the
last four years are written with the blood of millions of heroes
defending Human Freedom were, by fear of new sacrifices, allowed to be
repeated, shame would be on the supposed civilized world having fallen
so low as to bow to the dictates of barbarism. Let all truly hearted men
hope and pray that no such dark days shall again be the fearful lot of
Humanity. Let them all resolve that if the world can at last emerge free
from the present hurricane, they will not permit, out of weakness and
despondency, the sweeping waves of teutonism to submerge Civilization
and destroy the monuments of the work of centuries of the Christian Art.

After showing the dark side of the picture, and what would be the
fearful consequences of a German victory, or of an armed peace pending
the renewal, with still much increased vigour and resources, of the
conflict only suspended, I explained to my French Canadian readers the
great advantages to be derived by all, Germany included, from the
restoration of peace carrying with it the untold benefits to be derived
from the cessation of extravagant military organization, yearly
destroying the capital created by hard work and the saving of the
millions of the working populations. If an international agreement could
be arrived at by which militarism would be reduced to the requirements
of the maintenance of interior order and the safeguarding of
conventional peace amongst the Powers, then many long years of material
prosperity, in all its diversity of beneficial development, would surely
follow. Canada, like the other British Colonies, would not have to incur
any very large expenditure for military purposes, devoting all her
energies to the intelligent building of the grand future which her
immense territorial resources would certainly make, not only possible,
but sure.

How much could material development be conducive to intellectual, moral
and religious progress, if the Nations of the Earth would only sincerely
and permanently abide by the Divine teachings of Christianity.

Considering all the conditions of the military situation, at the end of
the summer of 1916, I clearly perceived the imperious necessity of the
Allies--Canada as well as all her associates--to fight to a finish. That
duty I did my best to impress on the minds of the French Canadians.
Events have since developed in many ways, but they all tend to
strengthen the conviction that ultimate victory will only be the price
of unshaken perseverance, of undaunted courage, of more patriotic
sacrifices.




CHAPTER XV.

JUST AND UNJUST WARS.


In one of his pamphlets Mr. Bourassa favoured his readers with his views
on the justice and injustice of war. He affirmed that a Government could
rightly declare war only for the three following objects:--

    1.--For the defence of their own country.
    2.--To fulfill the obligations to which they are
        in honour bound towards other nations.
    3.--To defend a weak nation unjustly attacked.

I have no hesitation to acknowledge the soundness of those principles,
as theoretically laid down. I took the "Nationalist" leader at his own
word, wondering more than ever how he could refuse to admit the justice
of the cause of the Allies.

Looking at the case from the British standpoint, was it not clear as the
brightest shining of the sun that England had gone to war against
Germany for the three reasons assigned by Mr. Bourassa as those which
alone can justify a Government entering a military struggle.

Great Britain was by solemn treaties in honour bound to the defence of
Belgium whose territory had been violated by Germany, the other party
to those treaties which she threw to the winds contemptuously calling
them "_scraps of paper_."

Even outside of all treaty obligations, it was England's duty, according
to the third principle enunciated by Mr. Bourassa as authorizing a just
declaration of war, to rush to the defense of Belgium, a _"weak nation"
most dastardly attacked by the then strongest military Power on earth_.

The British Government, being responsible for the safety of the British
Empire, would have been recreant to their most sacred duty, had they
failed to see that if the German armies were freely allowed to overrun
Belgium, to crush France and vanquish Russia, Great Britain and her
Colonies, unprepared for any effective resistance as they would have
been, had they remained the passive onlookers of the teutonic conquest
of continental Europe, would have been the easy prey of the barbarous
conquerors. Consequently, in accepting the bold challenge of the Berlin
Government, that of England also did their duty for the defence of Great
Britain and the British Empire.

But the whole British Empire being at war with Germany for the three
above enumerated causes combined, were the free autonomous Colonies of
England not also in duty bound to help her in vindicating her honour and
theirs, and to do their utmost to support the Mother Country in her
efforts to oblige the Berlin Authorities to respect their treaty
obligations! Were they not also in duty bound to participate with
England in the defence of invaded weak, but heroic, Belgium! Were they
not in duty bound to at once organize for their own defence, sending
their heroic sons to fight their enemy on the soil of France, instead of
waiting the direct attack upon their own territories!

The British Parliament dealing exclusively with the Foreign Affairs of
the Empire, the international treaties which they ratify are binding on
the whole Empire. If such a treaty is violated by the other party or
parties who signed it, violently obliging England to stand by her
obligations, are not the Colonies also bound to uphold the Mother land
in the vindication of her treaty rights?!

Looking at the same question, in the full light of the sound principles
of the justice of any war, from the German standpoint, what are the only
true conclusions to be drawn? To satisfy Austria's unjust demands and
maintain peace, Servia had, in 1914, at the urgent request of England,
France and Russia, gone as far as any independent nation could go
without dishonour. Not only backed, but no doubt inspired, by the Berlin
Government, Austria would not consent to reduce by an iota her unfair
pretentions against Servia.

It was plainly a case of a great Power unjustly threatening a weak
nation. Consequently, according to the "Nationalist" leader's
principle, Russia was right and doing her duty in intervening to
protect the menaced weak State. Instead of hypocritically resenting
Russia's intervention in favour of Servia, it was equally Germany's duty
to join with her to save this weak nation from Austrian unjust
challenge. Had it done so, Austria would certainly have refrained from
exacting from Servia concessions to which she could not agree without
sacrificing her independent Sovereignty. The Vienna Authorities backing
down from their unjust stand, there would have been no war. And Germany,
together with Russia, would have deserved the gratitude of the world for
their timely intervention, prompted by a clear sense of their duty and a
sound conception of their international right.

It is well known how the very opposite took place. Russia, to be ready
for the emergency of the declaration of war by Austria against Servia,
ordered the mobilization of that part of her army bordering on the
Austrian frontier, answering to the Berlin request for explanations that
she had no inimical intention whatever against the German Empire, that
her only object was to protect weak Servia against Austria's most unjust
attack. The Kaiser's government replied by requesting Russia to cancel
her order for the mobilization of part of her army. And in the very
thick of this diplomatic exchange of despatches, whilst England and
France were sparing no effort, by day and night, to maintain peace and
protect Mankind from the threatening calamity, Germany suddenly threw
the gauntlet and declared war against Russia.

Foreseeing clearly that France was consequently in honour bound to
support Russia, in accordance with her international obligations towards
that great Eastern Power--in strict conformity with the second principle
enunciated by Mr. Bourassa and previously quoted--, Germany took the
initiative of a second unjust declaration of war, and this one against
France.

The military operations against France being very difficult, and
certainly to be very costly in a fearful loss of man-power, before the
strongly fortified French frontier could be successfully overrun,
Germany, after a most shameful attempt to bribe England into neutrality,
decided to take the easy route and ordered her army to invade Belgium's
neutral territory, in violation of her solemn treaty obligations. That
treacherous act filled the cup of teutonic infamy, and brought Great
Britain, and the whole British Empire, into the conflict.

So Germany was guilty of the most outrageous violation of the three
sound principles laid down by the "Nationalist" leader qualifying a just
war against an iniquitous one, whilst England and France won the
admiration of the world by their noble determination to stand by them at
all cost.

Still Mr. Bourassa, by an incomprehensible perversion of mind in judging
the application of his own loudly proclaimed principles, has not to
this day uttered one word openly condemning Germany's war policy and
eulogizing that of England and France. On the contrary, he has tried to
persuade his readers that both groups of belligerents were equally
responsible for the war, more especially giving vent to his, at the
least, very strange hostility to England and scarcely dissimulating his
teutonic evident sympathies. He never positively expressed his
disapproval of Austria's unjust attack against Servia, but condemned
Russia for her intervention to protect that weak country, concluding
that the Petrograd Government was the real guilty party which had thrown
the world into the vortex of the most deadly conflict of all times.

One of the most damaging and unfair arguments of Mr. Bourassa was that
in intervening in the struggle, England was not actuated by a real
sentiment of justice, honour and duty, but was merely using France as a
shield for her own selfish protection. And when he deliberately
expressed such astounding views, he knew, or ought to have known, that
by her so commendable decision to avenge outraged weak Belgium, Great
Britain had at once, by her command of the seas, guaranteed France
against the superior strength of the German fleet, kept widely opened
the great commercial avenues of oceanic trade, the closing of which by
the combined sea power of the Central Empires, would have infallibly
caused the crushing defeat of France by cutting off all the supplies
she absolutely required to meet the terrible onslaught of her cruel
enemy. He knew, or ought to have known, that the navigation of the seas
being closed to her rivals by Germany, Russia would have been very
easily put out of the fight, her only available ocean ports,
Vladivostock and Arkhangel, through which supplies of many kinds,
especially munitions, could reach her eastern coast, at once becoming of
no service to her.

He knew, or ought to have known, that if Great Britain had remained
neutral, Japan, Italy, Portugal, would not have declared war against
either Germany or Austria.

As such consequences of British neutrality were as sure as the daily
rising of the sun, was I not right when I drew the conclusion that if a
shield there was, it was rather that of Great Britain covering France,
all her allies and even the neutral nations, with the protection of her
mighty sea power. With such a conviction, the soundness of which I felt
sure, I told my French Canadian countrymen that, for one, I would, to my
last day, be heartily grateful to England to have saved France from the
crushing defeat which once more would have been her lot, had she been
left alone to fight the Central Empires. Heroic, without doubt France
would have been. But with deficient supplies, with much curtailed
resources, with no helpful friends, heroism alone, however admirable and
prolonged, was sure to be of no avail against an unmatched materially
organized power, used to its most efficiency by the severest military
discipline, by national fanaticism worked to fury, and by soldierly
enthusiasm carried to wildness.

In a single handed struggle with Germany, in 1914, France would have
been in a far worse position than in 1870. The extraordinary development
of the new German Empire--the outcome of the great war so disastrous to
France--in population, in commerce, in manufacturing industry, in
financial resources, in military organization, made her fighting power
still more disproportionate. To her wonderful territorial army, she
added her recently built military fleet, then much superior, in the
number of vessels carrying thousands and thousands of skilled seamen, to
the French one. Moreover Austria, with another fifty millions of people,
Bulgaria and Turkey, with more than thirty millions, were backing
Germany, whilst, in 1870, France had only Prussia to contend with.

All those facts staring him like any one else, how could Mr. Bourassa
reasonably charge Great Britain with using France merely as a tool for
her own safety. Under the circumstances of the case, such a preposterous
assertion is beyond human comprehension. I, for one, cannot understand
how he failed to see that, had England been actuated by the selfish and
unworthy motives to which he ascribes her intervention in the war, she
could have then, and at least for several years, wrought from Germany
almost all the concessions she would have wished for. Could it not, by
an alliance with the Central Empires, have attained the goal of that
dominating ambition which the "Nationalist" leader asserts to be her
most cherished aim.

But such a dishonourable policy England would not consider for a single
moment. She indignantly refused Germany's outrageous proposals, stood by
her treaty obligations, and resolutely threw all the immense resources
of her power in the conflict which, at the very beginning, developed
into a struggle for life and death between human freedom and absolutist
tyranny.

I am sure, and I do not hesitate to vouch for them, all the truly loyal
French-Canadians--they are almost unanimously so--are like myself
profoundly grateful to Great Britain for her noble decision to rush to
the defense of Belgium and France in their hour of need. Comparing what
took place with what might have been, moved by all the ties of affection
that will ever bind them to the great and illustrious nation from which
they sprung, they fully appreciate the inestimable value of the support
given by their second mother-country to that of their national origin.
They ardently pray that both of them will emerge victorious from the
great conflict to remain, for the good of Mankind, indissolubly united
in peace as they are in war.


A "NATIONALIST" ILLOGICAL CHARGE AGAINST ENGLAND.

Our Nationalists, after charging England with using France merely as a
shield against Germany, have been illogical to the point of reproaching
her for not having intervened in favour of her close neighbour, in 1870.
It is most likely that, had she done so, they would have pretended that
she would have been actuated by the same selfish sentiment that prompted
her, for the only sake of her own protection, to enter into the present
conflict.

How is it that Mr. Bourassa, so fond of charging England with ambitious
views of constant self-agrandizement, of worldly domination, can
suddenly turn about and accuse her of having shamefully sacrificed
France, in 1870, to the overpowering German blow?

The circumstances of the two cases--1870 and 1914--were very different.
The conflict of 1870 had, apparently at least, a dynastic cause. The
House of Hohenzollern had been intriguing to have a Prussian prince of
her own elevated to the Spanish Throne. The Imperial Government of
Napoleon III strongly objected to such a policy. The diplomatic
correspondence which ensued did not settle the difficulty. France
declared war against Prussia. Many years later it was discovered that by
a falsified diplomatic despatch, Bismark had succeeded in his satanic
design to bring the government of Napoleon III to attack Prussia, thus
shamefully throwing upon France the responsibility of the war.

In 1870, England was at peace with all the European Powers, as she had
ever been since 1815, with the only exception of the Crimean War. During
the diplomatic correspondence that led to the hostilities, what reason
would have justified England to break her neutrality? What would the
present critics of her course have said if she had sided with Prussia?
Would they have pretended that she would have used Prussia as a shield
against France?

I personally remember very well the tragic events of the terrible year,
1870. The crushing military power of Prussia as proved by the triumphant
march of her victorious armies, was a revelation for all, for France
still more than for others. True Prussia had beaten Austria in the short
campaign ended at Sadowa. The Prussia France was then fighting was not
the giant Empire against which she is battling with such heroism for the
last four years. France was at the time the leading continental Power.
The general opinion was, when war was suddenly declared, that France
would easily triumph over her enemy.

It must not be forgotten that, in 1870, England was even less ready than
in 1914 to engage in a continental conflict. Her standing army was not
large, and then partly garrisoned in the colonies. Some of her best
regiments were stationed in Canada. She could have been a really
important ally of France only as a strong support of another continental
power joining with her against Prussia, for instance Russia or Austria,
or both of them.

If England had been able to send 500,000 men in a few days to the very
heart of France, incessantly followed by another half million, it is
almost certain that the Prussian army would not have entered Paris. But
England had not that million of trained men. It would have taken at
least a year to organize such a large army.

I will speak my mind openly. After Sedan, any attempt at saving France
by force would have been vain and useless. Even Russia and Austria were
unprepared for such a task. Their intervention, coming too late, would
most likely have given Prussia a chance to win a much greater victory.
France out of the struggle, Prussia would then have had the opportunity
to achieve, as early as 1870, what she has ever since prepared for, and
tried to accomplish by the war she has brought on in 1914.

What then becomes of the "Nationalist" pretention that Great Britain has
ever been aiming at dominating the world, when it is so easy to
understand that without a very large territorial army, which she
persistingly refused to organize, she was unable to take an important
part in any continental war. The days were passed, after the
extraordinary development of Prussian militarism, when she could
brilliantly hold her own on the continent with a small standing army
backed by generous subsidies to the European powers. The present war is
surely proof evident of it, since England, instead of the two hundred
thousand men she was expected to send over to France, as her man-power
contribution, has had to raise a total army, with all the auxiliary
services, of 6,000,000 officers and men, exclusive of the 2,000,000
contributed by the whole British Colonial Empire.

The Nationalists accusing England to have abandoned France to her sad
fate, in 1870, was only another instance of their campaign to arouse the
feelings of the French Canadians against Great Britain.


OTHER "NATIONALIST" ERRONEOUS ASSERTIONS.

Mr. Bourassa has had his own peculiar way of explaining the real
determining cause of the war. Some men are--by nature it is to be
supposed--always disposed to judge great historical events from
considerations inspired by the lowest sentiments of the human heart. In
the "Nationalist" leader's view, the great war was brought about by the
treacherous alliance of British and German capitalists speculating
together, in actual partnership or otherwise, in the production of war
material: cannons, rifles, munitions, war shipbuilding, &c.

In my humble opinion, such views are lowering to a very vulgar and
lamentably repulsive cause--if it could be true--events of immense
significance, the result, on the one side, of criminal aspirations
which, however guilty they may be, have not yet been degraded to the
profound depth of abjection they suppose; on the other, by the most
noble sentiments which can inspire nations to make the greatest
sacrifices to avenge outraged Justice and Right.

Autocratic German ambition, such as it has proved to be, is bad enough.
Still the cause of the war, such as asserted by Mr. Bourassa, would have
been far worse. National aspirations, however wrongly diverted from
their legitimate conception, will never be as contemptible as the nasty
greed of individual speculators treacherously sucking the very life
blood of their countrymen for the sake of squeezing millions of dollars
at the cost of their country's honour and future.

Unfortunately, illegitimate "profiteering" has taken place in the course
of every war. Of course it must be severely condemned and firmly
prevented, to the utmost, by governmental authority strongly supported
by public opinion which must, however, be cautious not to be unduly
influenced and carried away by the wild charges of some who denounce
others with so much apparent indignation for the only reason that they
themselves are not succeeding as they would like to do in their
speculative attempts.

Illegitimate "profiteering" is one of the deplorable effects of a war;
it is never its real cause.

What are the true causes, humanly speaking, of the cataclysm so
violently shaking the world? They were of two kinds. The first was the
disordered ambition of a nation having reached, by prodigious efforts,
such a power that she fatally determined to dominate everywhere,
militarily and politically. To this first cause was added that of
secular race rivalry.

The two causes of the first kind--which can properly be called
_offensive_, were followed by the noble one of the resistance to
oppression, of the defence of the honour of threatened nations, of the
energetic determination to avenge violated international treaties, and
to save the civilized world from a new barbarous invasion.

If the Allies had humbly bowed to the odious German claims, there would
have been no war.

Consequently, the two evident causes of the war are, on the one hand,
German ambition to universal domination; on the other, the absolute
necessity on the part of the Allies to prevent by all possible means the
success of such a tyrannical enterprise.

However much guilty they have been in bringing on the most terrible war
of all times, it is still injurious for the Berlin Government to suppose
that in assuming this weighty responsibility, they were playing the part
of an unconscious instrument of the most diabolical thirst of money
making by shameless "profiteers."

But such a charge is absolutely inexplicable when one accuses France,
England and Belgium to be, in their admirable and heroic campaign for
the world's deliverance and freedom, the pliant tools of contemptible
speculators in the production of war materials.

Governments and nations are, as a rule, far from having dropped to such
a low state of incurable corruption. For many of them, there yet exists
bright summits, shining with the clear light of Justice, Right and
Honour, which in those times of sufferings and burning tears, are the
pledge of better days and the promise of the world's resurrection.


INCREDIBLE "NATIONALIST" NOTIONS.

Can it be possibly believed that the "Nationalist" leader has asserted
that when the British capitalists and bankers invested the savings
entrusted to their safe keeping, they were principally actuated by the
desire to create in Canada a financial influence which would, in due
course, assist with force in dragging the Dominion to participate in the
Imperial wars against her better judgment? Yet, so he has positively
written and developed the wild argument.

Any man, with the slightest business experience, knows that, in all
cases, would-be borrowers go where money is to be lent. I have not yet
learned that one of them ever went to the North Pole in search of
millions for railway building and all kinds of industrial and commercial
enterprises. Daring explorers who ventured thither, facing so many
risks, were stimulated by a laudable thirst of fame and the desire of
scientific progress. They did not imagine, for a moment, that they were
likely to discover, in these far away regions, great financial markets
amply provided with millions of accumulated capital waiting for safe and
profitable investments.

Canada, a young country, as large as all Europe in territorial extent,
with wonderful undeveloped resources of the agricultural soil, of the
mines, of immense forests, of mighty rivers, of large and breezy lakes,
could not progress without labour and capital. The large natural
increase of the population, supplemented by immigration, was sure to
supply the labour. Capital, to the amount of hundreds of millions, could
not be provided by the only savings of our people. Immigration of
capital was even more pressingly required than that of men. The
Governments of Canada, federal and provincial, city corporations,
railway companies, industrial concerns, wanting money, all went where it
could be found. It happened that London, the capital of the British
Empire, was by far the largest financial market of the world. No wonder
then that instead of going to Lapland, Canadian borrowers crowded in
London, where they met with those of nearly all the nations of the
world, gathering in the same city for the same purpose.

Two incontrovertible economical truisms are, without the shadow of a
doubt, the following:--

1. That a would-be borrower wishes to get the money he wants in the
easiest way at the lowest interest charge;

2. That a wise lender wishes to secure for his money the safest
investment carrying the highest possible rate of interest; the rate of
interest being however subordinated, in his mind, to the safety of the
investment.

Such were the sound economical considerations which settled for the
Canadian borrowers of all sorts, and the British investors, the
conditions of all the loans made on Canadian account.

Any one merely hinting to the British saving public that the money
invested in Canada was sent over to our shores for the object of
creating a financial influence which would force the Dominion into
costly wars, could not have adopted a more unwise course to destroy the
best chances of the success of a loan. Canadian credit was of first
class order, because the British investors knew our grand possibilities;
because they were aware that Canada had always been a safe debtor,
honouring with clock regularity her interest charges and the payment of
maturing loans; because also, and in a very large measure, they realized
that we were not in the same position of so many nations of the Old
World, exposed to frequent warring necessities likely to exhaust our
means and to jeopardize our bright prospects.

Confidence being the sound basis of good credit, we got all the money we
wanted for all the purposes of our national economical development, the
true interest of Canada and of Great Britain being equally well served
by the financial intercourse between the wealthy mother-country and her
progressive colony.


CANADIAN FINANCIAL OPERATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES.

Our "Nationalists," so eager to discourage Canadian effort in the war,
and, with this object, always prone to magnify German warlike
achievements and the difficulties confronting the Allies, were rather
nervous at the increasing prospects of the United States joining the
_Entente_ Nations. Their leader seized every opportunity to argue that
they would be mistaken in doing so. During the weary months when the
President of the neighbouring Republic was prudently feeling his way
before taking the bold stand which he has ever since so brilliantly and
bravely upheld, the "Nationalists", through successive ups and downs in
their expectations, could scarcely help hiding their desire that the
United States would not intervene in the struggle. Those of us who had
not been moved by the horrors of the Belgian invasion, by the murder of
so many innocent victims of teutonic savageness, by the brutal killing
of Edith Cavell, by the Armenian massacres, by the wanton destruction
of admirable works of Art, could not be expected to thrill at the
barbarous sinking of the Lusitania, sending to the bottom of the ocean
hundreds of American citizens of the neutral American Northern Republic.
They were anxious that the Washington Government should condone the
outrageous offence and all the subsequent ones perpetrated by the German
submarines against our neighbours. How much they were dismayed at the
sudden close of Mr. Wilson's apparent hesitation, and at the proud
declaration of war from Washington to Berlin. Though rejoicing at it,
they did not consider that the Russian bolsheviki's collapse could
compensate for the additional military and financial resources the
Allies were sure to derive from the United States participation in the
war.

Canada having to borrow many millions to sustain her warlike effort, and
the British money market being closed to further outside investments,
had two sources left for her successful financial operations: her own
market and that of the United States. The Washington Authorities had
generously decided to help financially the European Allies in pressing
need of money. The Ottawa Government, before making a grand appeal to
the Canadian public, applied to Washington for a loan. Mr. Wilson's
cabinet, however much they would have liked to meet the wishes of the
Canadian Government, had to answer that, having such a large war
expenditure to incur, and such big sums to collect to assist their less
wealthy European associates in the struggle, they could not see their
way to grant Canada's demand.

Acknowledging the value of the reasons given for not complying with
their request, the Canadian Ministers then applied to Washington for the
permission to negotiate a loan in the open American market. This was
readily granted.

It was, of course, well understood that going in the open market,
Canada, to secure the required sum of money, would have to pay the then
current rate of interest increasing, as usual, in proportion to the
increased pressure of the demand of funds.

It is utterly incredible--but still it is true--that Mr. Bourassa did
denounce in his newspaper _Le Devoir_, the Ottawa Cabinet's action in
borrowing money from the American saving public. In severe terms he
blamed the Washington Authorities for not having lent millions to Canada
at the low rate of interest they had agreed to accept from France and
Italy. He asserted that this refusal on their part was a testimony of
ill-will against the Dominion. And in the most violent terms he charged
all those who favoured Canadian borrowings in the American market with
being traitors selling their country to the United States.

It is hard to say whether the charge is not more ridiculous than
contemptible. It is the repetition, in an aggravated form of absurdity,
of the argument accusing the British investing capitalists to have had
for their only object in lending us their money to help coercing Canada
into the Imperial wars.

Was Mr. Bourassa ignorant of the fact that the building of the
magnificent railway system of the United States, that their great
industrial development, were due to the billions of British capital
which for the last eighty years have flowed, in rolling waves, towards
the shores of the Republic, invading, in the most peaceful and friendly
way, her large territory, and drawing from its immense resources the
greatest immeasurable accumulation of wealth ever created by the labour
of man? I am not aware that any American writer ever ran the risk of
being crushed by ridicule in accusing all the United States borrowers in
the English market, governmental and others, of the hideous crime of
selling their country to Great Britain. It would have been sheer madness
to say so in the broad light of the marvellous economical progress of
our neighbours. They knew very well that the billions of dollars
invested by the British saving public for the development of their
territorial riches, were producing returns much larger than the rate of
interest paid to their British creditors.

No one in the United States ever apprehended, for a single moment, that
because the Republic had borrowed enormous sums from Great Britain, she
was likely to lose her State independence through the financial
influence of the holders of her securities of all sorts.

Such "Nationalist" notions, as above exposed and contradicted, can only
create very wrong and deplorable conclusions in the public mind, were
they allowed to follow their course without challenge and without the
refutation proving their complete absurdity.




CHAPTER XVI.

"NATIONALIST" VIEWS CONDENSED.


After refuting at length the "Nationalist" theories, I thought proper to
condense them in a concrete proposition, and challenge their
propagandist to call a public meeting in any city, town, or locality, in
the Dominion,--Montreal for instance--and to find a dozen of citizens of
standing in the community, to consent to move and second a
"_Resolution_" embodying their doctrines.

This condensed proposition, I translate as follows:--

"Whereas England has unjustly declared war against Germany;

"Whereas Great Britain has done nothing to maintain the peace of the
world;

"Considering that His Majesty King George V. _had not the right to
declare the state of war for Canada without the assent of the Canadian
Cabinet_;

"Considering that Canada, as an autonomous colony, _is a Sovereign
State_;

"Considering that British Sovereignty over Canada _is only a fiction_;

"Considering that Canada, interfering in the present war, _should have
done so as a Nation_;

"Whereas Canada should only have fought on her own account, like
_Belgium, Servia, Italy or Bulgaria_.

"Whereas _the maintenance of a compact British Empire is the most
permanent provocation against the peace of the world_;

"Considering that the supremacy of England on the seas is unjust;

"Considering that Great Britain's aspiration, for a long time past, has
been universal domination by means of her military naval power;

"Whereas England is unfair against France in using her as a shield
against German invasion;

"Considering that England is exercising by all possible means a strong
pressure upon the Colonies for her only benefit;

"Considering _that all the social leaders have united to demoralize the
conscience of the people, to poison their mind, to set their vigilance
at sleep, and to represent to them as a national duty what would
formerly have been considered as a betrayal of national interests_;

"Considering _that England is trying to crush Germany, being afraid of
her colonial expansion and her maritime and commercial competition_;

"Whereas our compatriots of the British races have many faults; _that
they are ignorant, assuming, arrogant, overbearing and rotten with
mercantilism_;

"Considering that they have acquired _many of the worst vices of the
Yankees_;

"Considering that Canada should never participate, outside of her own
territory, in the wars of the British Empire;

"Considering that the Canadian Cabinet and Parliament are criminally
guilty of having ordered the organization of a Canadian army to go and
fight against Germany on the French territory, and in authorizing the
payment of the cost of this military expedition;

"Be it "Resolved", that this meeting energetically protest against the
declaration of war against Germany by His Majesty King George V,
_without the assent of the Canadian Cabinet_, to defend Belgium's
territory invaded by Germany violating solemn treaties;

"That this meeting is of opinion that, for the purpose of favouring the
restoration of peace as soon as possible, England should notify all the
Powers that she abdicates for ever her supremacy on the seas, which
supremacy Germany could hereafter safely exercise;

"That this meeting being absolutely convinced that _the maintenance of a
compact British Empire is the most permanent provocation against the
peace of the world_, is strongly of opinion that Great Britain should,
in order to quiet the fears of the Nations friendly to peace and opposed
to militarism, like pacifist Germany, dissolve her Empire, at once
acknowledging the immediate independence of India and of all her
autonomous Colonies;

"That this meeting's formal opinion is that the Canadian Parliament's
imperious duty is to order without delay the dissolution of the British
bond of connection, _which would be a public benefit_, and to proclaim
the immediate independence of Canada;

"That a copy of the present "Resolution" be addressed to His Excellency
the Governor General, to the Members of the Federal Cabinet, to the
Senators and to the Members of the House of Commons."

The italics in the above draft "Resolution" and "Preamble" are quoted
from Mr. Bourassa's writings.

The "Preamble" and "Resolution" emphasize, in their true and complete
meaning, the "Nationalist" doctrines perseveringly propounded for years
past to poison French Canadian mentally. That such teachings can only
produce disloyal feelings, stir up national prejudices and hatred of the
Mother Country, and be most detrimental to the best interests of the
Province of Quebec, of the Dominion of Canada, and of the British Empire
as a whole, every one must admit with sadness.

My challenge, which is still maintained, has not been taken up yet. All
may rest assured that it will never be. The most ardent "Nationalist"
knows that no responsible citizens would move the adoption of such
views.




CHAPTER XVII.

LOYAL PRINCIPLES PROPOUNDED.


To the foregoing "Nationalist" proposition, I opposed one condensing, in
a concrete form, the views and principles of the truly loyal Canadian
citizens. I also translate it as follows:--

"Whereas, since 1870, the German Empire had been a permanent menace
against the peace of the world by her threatening military policy;

"Whereas England, throughout the same period, and more especially during
the twenty years previous to 1914, had done her utmost efforts to
maintain peace;

"Considering that Great Britain had, in many ways, solicited Germany to
agree to the limitation of armaments, especially of the building of war
vessels;

"Considering that she had persisted in her attempts with the German
Government to save the nations from the ruinous system of excessive
armaments, in spite of the latter's refusal to accede to her demands;

"Considering that though in honor bound, like England, by three solemn
treaties, to respect Belgium's neutrality, the German Government have,
in August 1914, ordered their army to violate Belgian territory in
order to more easily invade France to which they had declared war;

"Whereas Great Britain, in honour bound, could not permit the crushing
of Belgium by the German Empire;

"Considering, moreover, that Germany, after mutilating and destroying
Belgium, by the deprivation of her independence, after triumphing over
France which she would have once again dismembered, would have
undertaken to beat England to deprive her of sea supremacy, in order to
obtain, by this last conquest, her domination over Europe and almost all
the world;

"Considering that the defeat of England might very likely have resulted
in the cession of Canada to Germany;

"Considering that the world at large is greatly interested in the
maintenance of England and France as first class Powers on account of
their services in favour of Human Civilization and Liberty;

"Considering that the German armies have accompanied their military
operations with untold barbarous acts, by the murder of priests, of
peaceful citizens, of wounded soldiers, of religious women, of mothers,
of previously criminally outraged young girls, of old men, of young
children, with the destruction by fire and otherwise of Cathedrals,
Churches,--monuments of the Christian Art,--of libraries--sanctuaries of
Science--of historical monuments, the legitimate glory and pride of
Human Genius;

"Whereas the German Government is guilty of the murder of thousands of
persons, men, women and children, by the sinking of merchant
vessels--the Lusitania, for instance--by its submarine ships, without
giving the notices required by International Law;

"Whereas from the very beginning of the war, the Allied Nations,
England, France and Russia, have jointly agreed, in honour bound, to
require, as the essential peace condition, the cessation by all the
belligerent Powers of the crushing and ruinous militarism prevailing
before the opening of the hostilities, by the fault of Germany's
obstination to constantly strengthen her military organization both on
land and sea;

"Considering that England and her Allies are struggling for the most
venerable and sacred cause:--_outraged Justice_--; that, being a
British Colony, _Canada is justly engaged in the present cruel and
deplorable conflict, for the defence of the Right and the true Liberty
of Nations; that our Canadian soldiers are valiantly fighting with those
of England, France and Belgium for the great cause of sovereign
importance--the protection of the world threatened by Germanism_;

"Considering that England, to which the political life of Canada is
bound, and France, to which the French Canadians owe their national
existence, _have to fight for sacred interests in a war of endurance_
requiring the incessant renewal of all the energies of the most ardent
patriotism, the victims of which falling on the field of honour have
the merit of giving their lives _for Justice_";

"Considering that, though wishing the restoration of peace as soon as
possible, and earnestly praying Divine Providence to favour the world
with the blessings of peace, more and more urgently needed after this
assault of abominable barbarism against Christian Civilization lasting
for the last four years, the Allies are absolutely unable to terminate
the war by giving their consent to conditions which would not protect
Humanity against the direst consequences of the militarism fastened by
the German Empire on the Nations so anxious to bring it to an end;

"Be it "Resolved":--

"That this meeting approves of the free and patriotic decision of the
Federal Parliament to have Canada to participate in the so very Just War
which England, France, Belgium, the United States and Italy are fighting
against the German and Austrian Empires, allied in an effort to dominate
the world;

"That this meeting's strong opinion is that, on account of the terrible
crisis menacing the British Empire and Civilization, it was the bounden
duty of Canada to intervene in the war for the safety of the Mother
Country and her own, for the salvation of Liberty and _of the sacred
cause of outraged Justice_;

"That this meeting desires to express her admiration and profound
gratitude for the braves who enlist in the grand army which the
Canadian Parliament has ordered to be organized for the defence of the
cause of the Allies, which is also that of the civilized world;

"That this meeting also concur in the opinion that Canada is in duty
bound to continue to participate in the present war until the final
victory of the Allies, which will guarantee to the world a lasting peace
and put an end to German militarism which has been the direct cause of
so much dire misfortunes for Humanity."

The italics of the above draft "Resolution" are quoted from the writings
and speeches of leaders of French Canadian Roman Catholics.

There was no need of calling meetings to adopt the preceding
"Resolution" with its well defined preamble. It had been approved, in
all its bearings, at the outset of the hostilities by the unanimous
decision of the Canadian Parliament, by the almost unanimous consent of
public opinion, by the religious, social, commercial, industrial and
financial leaders of the country. It had been so approved by the four
hundred thousand brave Canadians who rallied to the Colours; by the
subscribers, by thousands, to the national war loans.

Since writing the above draft "Resolution", its full substance has been
almost unanimously approved by the Canadian people in general elections,
the two contending political parties entirely agreeing so far as the
Justice of the cause of the Allies was concerned, differing only as to
the best means for Canada to adopt to achieve final victory.

Without entering into any considerations respecting the divergence of
the views of the leaders of political thought, in the still recent
electoral campaign,--from which it is more advisable for me to abstain
in the interest of the cause I am defending--I may be allowed to remark
that only a small remnant of the "Nationalist" element dared to reaffirm
his hostility to Canada's intervention in the conflict and to avow his
opinion _that the country had done enough_.

What did those irreconcilable "Nationalists"--so few in numbers as the
event ultimately proved--mean by their assertion that _Canada had done
enough for the war_? According to its literal wording, it must have
signified that no more sacrifices should have been incurred for the
triumph of the Allied cause. If it was so, the conclusion to be drawn
from such sayings was that, to put an end to any further Canadian
contributions, orders should be given to bring back the Canadian Army
from Europe, and to send home all the forces still on Canadian soil. It
is plain that even if the new Canadian Parliament had decided not to
increase our contribution of man-power, in order to maintain the
efficiency of the Canadian divisions at the front, large sacrifices
would have had to be made to keep on the theatre of war the forces which
were still in the field.

To refuse to participate in the war would have been deserting the flag
at the hour of danger, and a total misconception of our plain duty.

Giving up the fight, once engaged in the struggle, before triumphant
victory, or irremediable defeat, in the very thick of the battle so
heroically carried on by the Allies, would have been sheer
cowardice--bolchevikism of the worst kind.

Whether they meant it or not, those few "Nationalists" dared not openly
propose the recall of our troops. The solitary "Nationalist" candidate
who had the nerve to face the electorate was defeated by a very large
majority.

No better proof of the weakness of the hold of the doctrines of
"Nationalism," on sound public opinion, is required than the decision of
its most outspoken advocate and leader, Mr. Bourassa, to refrain from
being a candidate in any constituency, and to advise all his supposed
friends to do likewise. No one was deceived, with regard to this
decision, by the reasons, or rather excuses, given to explain it.

Evidently, if the "Nationalist" group and their leader had been
confident of the support of the large number of electors whose opinion
they pretended to represent, they would certainly not have lost the
chance to show their strength, and the opportunity to elect many
candidates of their persuasion to enter Parliament free from any party
allegiance but that of their own element. But any one somewhat posted
with the currents of public opinion in the Province of Quebec, knew very
well that if pure "Nationalist" candidates had been nominated in all
the constituencies of the Province, running between the regular party
nominees,--ministerial and opposition--the average number of ballots
cast for them would scarcely have reached ten per cent. of the French
Canadian votes, less than two per cent. of the whole Canadian
electorate.

It was moreover highly probable that, had they tried the game, they
would not have even succeeded, in two-thirds of the constituencies, in
inducing citizens of sufficient standing to accept their nomination and
their political program. Once engaged in such a hopeless electoral
contest, they would have had either to humbly retire from the field, or
to await the doomed day by nominating men of no weight whatever. Both
alternatives would have led them to an equally disastrous defeat.


UNJUST "NATIONALIST" GRIEVANCES AGAINST ENGLAND.

At the end of the very first page of Mr. Bourassa's pamphlet,
entitled:--_What do we owe England_?--in French:--Que devons-nous à
l'Angleterre?,--The following lines are found:--(_Translation._)

    British Imperialism, in its concrete and practical form, can be
    defined in ten words: =the active participation by the Colonies
    in the wars of England=. It is almost precisely the definition I
    gave of it as early as the days of the African war. It is exact.
    Considered from a larger point of view, from its profound causes
    and far reaching consequences, British Imperialism calls for a
    more ample definition. Its object is to have Great Britain
    dominate the world by means of the organization and
    concentration of all the Military Forces of the Empire--both Sea
    and Land Forces--; it means the gradual annihilation, or at
    least the enslaving of all the divers nationalities constituting
    the British Empire, in order to bring about the World's
    supremacy of the Anglo-Saxon race, of her thoughts, of her
    language, of her political conceptions, of her commerce and her
    wealth. Its object is to crush all competitions, all internal
    and external oppositions. It is the German Ideal; it is the
    Roman Ideal. It is the Imperialism of all countries, at all
    times, enlarged to the limits of the monstrous pretensions of
    Pan-Anglo-Saxonism.

All the propositions of the above quotation do not bear, for one single
instant, the light of historical research, of reason, even of common
sense.

I challenge Mr. Bourassa, and any one else, to read the speeches and the
writings of all those who have studied the great question of the future
of the British Empire, and to detect therein one single word to justify
the assertion _that the organization and concentration of all the
Military Forces of the Empire have for their object to help England to
dominate the world_.

I have already abundantly proved that England never aspired to dominate
the world. I answered Mr. Bourassa's unfounded propositions as
follows:--

1--I will surely be allowed to say that for nearly the last fifty years,
I have done my best efforts to keep myself well informed with the
opinions expressed by the most authorized political men of the Mother
Country--of all parties--by the most renowned publicists, by the most
distinguished writers of the great English press. I have yet to read one
sentence leading me to suppose that the mind of any one of them was
haunted by the foolish hope of Great Britain's domination of the world.
Many of them have spoken and written to persuade their countrymen of the
growing urgency to consider the most effective measures to be adopted to
defend the Empire, in view of the efforts of other nations--notably
Germany--to strengthen their military organizations. No one advised them
to incur the most heavy sacrifices _in order to dominate the world_.
They had too much political sense to believe that such a ridiculous
scheme could ever be carried out.

2--What the "Nationalist" leader calls British Imperialism never had for
its objective _the gradual suppression, or at least the enslaving of the
divers nationalities constituting the British Empire_.

Such an assertion is nothing less than a stroke of the imagination which
recent history utterly refutes, proving, as it does, the very reverse,
as follows:--

A--The creation, by Imperial Charters, of the great autonomous federal
Canadian, Australian, South African Dominions.

B--The federal system adopted for the Dominion of Canada purposely for
the protection of the French Canadians whose special interests are
entrusted to the Legislature of the Province of Quebec.

C--The South African Union Charter is the guarantee of the Boers'
control of the future of that vast stretch of country, by means of the
two fundamental principles of the British constitutional
system:--government by the majority combined with ministerial
responsibility.

No Empire in the world grants as large a measure of freedom as the
British Empire does, to the various national groups living under the
protection of her flag.

3--British Imperialism, contrary to Mr. Bourassa's assertion, was never
deluded by the wild dream _of a world wide supremacy of the Anglo-Saxon
race, of her thoughts, of her language, of her political conceptions, of
her commerce and her wealth_.

Surely, I have yet to learn that Great Britain has dreamt, and is
dreaming, to impose _by Force_ her "mentality," her language, her
political institutions to China, to Japan, to Russia, to France, to all
the South American Republics, to Italy, to Spain, to Germany, to
Austria-Hungary, to Turkey, &c., which, considered as a whole,
represent, any one must admit, a pretty large part of the universe.

4--Mr. Bourassa's assertion that England aspires to dominate the world,
_economically_, _commercially_, is most positively contradicted by the
history of the last eighty years. Who does not know--and I cannot for a
moment suppose that Mr. Bourassa ignores it--that, nearly a century
ago, Great Britain, finally rallied in favour of a Free Trade Policy,
has opened her market free to the products of all the nations of the
world. Is that not a rather strange way of aspiring to an economical
domination! And whilst all the countries of the earth, the British
colonies as well as foreign nations, can freely sell their goods in the
British market, they protect their own markets by high customs
duties--in some cases almost prohibitive--against British goods.

National commercial statistics are opened to the "Nationalist" leader's
perusal as to any one else. If he had referred to them, he would have
learned that the Foreign Trade of Great Britain, in 1913, the year
preceding the outbreak of the war, amounted to $7,017,775,335; exports
were valued at $3,174,101,630; imports totalized $3,843,673,695,
exceeding the exports by the large amount of $669,572,065.

By looking at the figures, Mr. Bourassa would only have had to call upon
his common sense to draw the conclusion that England was certainly not
moving along an easy road to the commercial domination of the world by
maintaining a policy resulting in an import trade larger, by an annual
average of nearly twenty per cent., than her exportations.

Before the war, Germany, by rapid strides, had succeeded in attaining
the second rank amongst the great trading nations, coming next after
Great Britain. In the same year--1913--her Foreign Trade totalized
$5,351,500,000, divided as follows:--Imports $2,801,675,000; exports
$2,549,825,000.

The really wonderful industrial and commercial expansion of Germany,
during the last forty years previous to the war, offered another
opportunity to Mr. Bourassa to show his spite against Great Britain. He
would have been sorry not to make the best of it. Calling into play his
fertile imagination, he unhesitatingly charged England with deep rooted
jealousy of Germany's trade success and the guilty intent to crush it
out of existence.

To this absurd assertion--not using the word offensively, being always
determined to be courteous in any discussion I engage--I answered by
quoting the figures of the reciprocal relative external British and
German trade. In 1913, Great Britain sold to Germany goods to the amount
of $203,385,150, and bought German products for a total value of
$402,055,285. Great Britain's exports to Germany were then only about
fifty per cent of her imports from the same market. It is indeed
difficult to detect in such trade relations between two nations any sign
of the intent, on the part of the country buying from the other double
the value of her sales to her, to dominate her people commercially.

Any one knowing all the circumstances and the causes that imposed upon
Great Britain the duty of taking part in the European struggle, cannot
help being shocked at Mr. Bourassa's accusation _that England has
incidentally been brought into the conflict only through the frantic
desire of her business men to use it to crush the commercial competition
of Germany_. No serious men could have entertained such strange notions.
And the "Nationalist" leader certainly charged the political leaders and
the business community of England with sheer madness.

With all right minded men, the world over, I have long ago reached the
sound conclusion that universal economical domination is only a
chimerical idea absolutely outside of all possible realization. England
does not indulge in any such extravagant dream, being too well aware how
vain it would be.

May I ask my readers--and Mr. Bourassa has been one of them,--to join
with me in a short general review of the economical progress of the
world, in its broadest lines, rising, for this purpose, as should be
done in all cases, superior to all national and local prejudices. A
grand natural scenery is always better appreciated from the mountain
top. Equally so, questions of universal import must be considered from
the heights of the noblest principles inspiring the Christian desire to
promote the general good of Mankind. Considered from this elevated
standpoint, very short-sighted indeed is the man who fails to see THAT
THE ECONOMICAL PROGRESS OF THE WORLD, AGRICULTURALLY, INDUSTRIALLY,
COMMERCIALLY, IS BOUND UP WITH INTELLIGENT, ENERGETIC AND PERSEVERING
LABOUR; THAT IT IS THE OUTCOME OF THE IMPROVEMENTS OF ALL THE MEANS OF
PRODUCTION, TO THE CONSTANT INCREASED PERFECTION OF THE AGRICULTURAL AND
INDUSTRIAL ARTS, TO THE ENLARGEMENT OF THE RESOURCES OF CAPITAL,
ACCUMULATED BY JUDICIOUS SAVINGS. It is bound with the improvement of
means of transportation by land and sea; with the much enlarged
facilities of the exchange of all kinds of products; with the superior
management,--the result of a much wider experience--of all the
institutions distributing credit; with the energetic development of all
the resources which generous Providence has profusely provided the
earth for the good of Humanity. It is more than useless to expect
economical progress from disastrous armed conflicts which, in the course
of a few years, nay, only a few months, destroy the accumulated wealth
of many years of incessant labour.

War is productive of untold material losses. As a general rule, it
cannot make the nations of the world richer. Many successive generations
have for a long time to bear the crushing burden which they inherit from
guilty ambitious Rulers as the only result of their thirst of vain
glory. Materially, a nation may profit by an unjust war, resulting in
the defeat of a weaker rival, but the riches thus acquired by the one,
either by territorial acquisitions, or by the payment to her of war
contributions and indemnities, or both, from the other, are merely
transferred from the vanquished to the victor. The great society of
nations, instead of gaining anything by it, is only losing, as a whole,
the total amount of the financial cost of the military operations, of
the squandering of hard earned savings, of diminished labour and
production, of the waste of productive capital, of the loss of so many
long days which could have been so much better employed. But most
deplorable is the loss entailed by the warring nations, and the universe
at large, by the sacrifice of the younger generations, of early youth
and of strongly developed manhood, for the success of tyrannical and
criminal purposes.

There can be but one justification--and it is a noble, a glorious
one--of the sacrifice of so many valuable lives and so much material
wealth: the sacredness, the sanctity of the cause for which a nation, or
a group of peoples, take up arms against an enemy, or enemies, only
intent on crushing weaker rival, or rivals, by all the illegitimate
means at his, or their command, for self-aggrandizement, for unjust
domination. Such is the present war: sacred and just on the Allied side;
abominable, brutal, barbarous on the German side, enhanced in its guilt
by the ferocious Turks and the shameful submission of the enslaved
Austrians to the overpowering will of their teutonic masters. It will
not have cost too much if it has the result of freeing Mankind from the
horrors of German militarism, assuring to the world a long reign of
justice and moral grandeur.

England can rightly claim a very large part of the merit accruing to all
those who have contributed to the immense material progress of the world
during the last century. She has actively and most intelligently worked
for it by her vigorous industrial and commercial development, by the
very numerous billions of dollars she has contributed, all over the
world, to railway building and oceanic navigation. She has contributed
to it by her extraordinary amount of savings which allowed her to supply
the capital required for so many varied enterprises over all the
continents. She has played the very important part of universal banker,
distributing her immense treasures to foster production of all kinds
everywhere. She has most largely contributed to the economic phenomenon
of the gradual diminution of the universal rate of interest.

If, according to Mr. Bourassa's strange notion, all this is to be
considered as equivalent to economical domination, the more the whole
world will enjoy it the better, more prosperous it will be, and future
generations will have so much more cause for rejoicing at its increased
development, and to be grateful to England for it.

The witnesses who, for the last sixty years, have lived with their eyes
opened, preferring the full shining light of the bright days of
universal economical development to the darkness obscuring fanatical
minds only intent on stirring up local, sectional and national
prejudices, and miserable petty ambitions, have rejoiced at the greatly
varied advantages Humanity has derived from the gifts of Providence
favouring her with the great scientific discoveries which have worked,
are still, and will for all times, work wonders for her material
prosperity. The regular tendency of those natural forces recently
applied to production is an increased movement towards the unification
of the industrial, commercial and financial interests of the world. The
vital energies of all peoples have more or less been stimulated by the
same causes, operating everywhere, reaching until lately unknown and
undeveloped regions. Engineering genius, broadened by the new scientific
resources at its command, has triumphed over all difficulties. The
gigantic locomotive, drawing palatial passenger coaches, and sometimes
as much as a hundred heavily loaded freight cars, run by thousands and
thousands daily through luxurious prairies. They cross giant rivers,
ascend with alertness the highest mountains, or rush through tunnels
which the skill and hard work of man has pierced through them, backed by
the financial power of millions of money. Automobilism covers the whole
universe, multiplying intercourse and human relations, and making
possible, in a few days of marvellous organization, a glorious military
victory like that almost miraculously carried at the Marne.

Giant steamers, of fifty to sixty thousand tons--of a hundred thousand
in the near future--ply, day and night, over the high seas. In
mid-ocean they scatter human thoughts through the air to very distant
points. They carry within their large skulls immense quantities of the
most varied products.

Means of transportation have become so numerous, so improved, so rapid,
that the surplus agricultural production of the most fertile regions do
reach, in a few short days, the countries which, on account of their
numerous industrial and commercial population, have to import a large
quantity of food products. The equilibrium between production and
consumption becomes yearly more easily obtainable. Famine by the
inequality of agricultural production is very much less to be
apprehended. Millions of human beings are no longer, as hitherto,
threatened to die by starvation at the same time that more favoured
regions had a surplus of food products which they could not use, sell,
or export.

Without a most powerful capitalization of savings--totaling, in some
cases, billions of dollars--without the marvellous development of the
great transportation industry by land and sea, could the Canadian and
American western grain crops be delivered, within a few days' time, with
an astonishing rapidity and at very small cost, on all the markets where
they are absolutely required for daily consumption.

Every country on earth is multiplying her efforts to develop her
manufacturing interests by an active and intelligent use of the raw
materials with which her territory has been favoured by Nature.

To this intense economical development of the world, all the peoples are
contributing their shares in various proportions, of course:--In Europe,
Great Britain, France, Germany, Russia, Austria, Italy, Belgium, &c.; in
the two Americas, the United States, Canada--Canada with the sure
prospects of such a grand future--the Argentine Republic, Brazil, &c.;
in Asia, Japan, China, and the so very large Asiatic regions of Russia;
in Africa, the British colonies, Egypt, Algeria, &c.; and Australia, so
recently opened to the glories of Christian Civilization, blooming in
the Pacific ocean washing her shores, fertilizing her lands nearer to
its refreshing breeze.

Who does not see that all this development tends naturally to the
economical unity of the world. If Humanity is ever effectively delivered
from the dangers of wars like the one actually desolating her so
cruelly, she will have to be grateful for this great boon to the
unification, on a larger scale, of the general interests of all the
nations requiring permanent peace for their regular and harmonious
growth.

To the wonderful material prosperity achieved as above explained,
England has contributed her legitimate share, without trying to dominate
economically the universe which derived all the great advantages which
her business genius has so largely developed.

It must not be supposed that I lose sight of the inconveniences which
material prosperity may entail. One of them is the tendency to bend the
national aspirations to materialism. This can be counteracted by the
national will to apply material development to the more important
intellectual, moral and religious progress of the people at large.

Any nation aspiring to dominate the world by brute force or by the power
of wealth, would be guilty of attempting an achievement just as vain as
it would be criminal in its conception.

Any nation is within her undoubted right and duty in aspiring to the
legitimate influence of her material progress, of her intellectual
culture, of her moral development, of her religious increased
perfection. Happy indeed would be the future of Humanity if all the
Nations and their Rulers understood well, and did their best efforts to
practice Christian precepts in the true spirit of their Divine
teaching.




CHAPTER XVIII.

IMPERIALISM.


Mr. Bourassa is apparently so frightened by what he calls _Imperialism_
that the horrible phantom being always present to his imagination, he
shudders at it in day time, and wildly dreams of it at night. Judging by
what he has said and written, he seems to have worried a great deal, for
many years past, about the dire misfortunes which, he believed, were
more and more threatening the future of the world by the strong movement
of imperialist views he detected everywhere. It is the great hobby which
saddens his life, the terrible bugbear with which he is ever trying to
arouse the feelings of his French Canadian countrymen against England.

The deceased British statesman, called Joseph Chamberlain, by his
efforts to promote the unity of the Empire, inspired Mr. Bourassa with a
profound fear which he wanted his compatriots to share by all the means
at his command:--public speeches, newspaper editorials, pamphlets. He
charged him with the responsibility of the _infamous crime_ he brought
England to commit in accepting the challenge of President Kruger and the
then South African Republic, and fighting for the defence of her
Sovereign rights in South Africa. According to the Nationalist leader, a
vigorous impulse was given by the South African war to the political
evolution which he termed _British Imperialism_. Nothing was further
from the true meaning of this important event.

In refuting Mr. Bourassa's assertion, I showed that the South African
war was not the outgrowth of Imperialist ideas, and that it has in no
way resulted in a dangerous advance of the kind of Imperialism which so
much frightens him and all those who experience his baneful influence.

As I have previously proved, the South African campaign was imposed upon
England by the then aspiration of a section only of Boer opinion, led by
the unscrupulous and haughty President Kruger, imprudently relying on
the support of the German Kaiser who had hastened to congratulate him
for his success in the Jameson Raid. It resulted not in favor of
Imperialism of the type so violently denounced by Mr. Bourassa, but in a
most beneficent expansion of Political Freedom by the granting of the
free British institutions to the new great South African overseas
Dominion. It is only the other day that ex-Premier Asquith, on the
occasion of a great public function, has declared that Premier Botha,
the former most prominent Boer General, was now one of the strongest
pillars of the British Empire.

It being so important to set the opinion of the French Canadians right
respecting that question of Imperialism, so much discussed of late, and
by many with so little political sense and historical knowledge, I would
not rest satisfied with a refutation of the special Bourassist
appreciation of the causes and results of the South African conflict. I
summarized, in a condensed review, the divers phases of the political
movement which can properly be called _Imperialism_, tracing its origin
as far back as the organization of the first great political Powers
known to History: the Persian, the Egyptian, the Greek Empires, &c. More
than ever before, Imperialism was triumphant during the long Roman
domination of almost all the then known world. Every student of History
is impressed by the grandeur of the part played by the Roman Empire in
the world's drama. Constantine struck the first blow at Roman
Imperialism--unwillingly we can rest assured--in laying the foundations
of Constantinople, and dividing the Roman Empire into the Western and
Eastern Empires. At last, after repeated invasions, the Northern
barbarians succeeded in smashing the Roman Colossus.

After many long years during which European political society passed
through the incessant turmoil of rival ambitions, Charlemagne sets up
anew the Western Empire, being coronated Emperor in Rome. Ever since,
amidst multiplied ups and downs, Imperialism has swayed to and fro by
the successive edification and overthrow of the Holy Roman Empire, the
short lived Napoleonic European domination, the recently organized
North German Empire.

So far as Imperialism is concerned, all those great historical facts
considered, how best can it be defined? Is it not evident that from the
very birth of political societies for the government of Mankind, a
double current of political thoughts and aspirations has been
concurrently at work, with alternate successes and retrocessions: one
tending towards large political organizations, uniting a variety of
ethnical groups; the other operating the reverse way to bring about
their dissolution in favour of multiplied small sovereignties. Each of
the two opposing political systems has had its ebb and flow tides; the
waves of the one, in their flowing days, washing the shores of the other
until they had to recede before the pressure caused by the exhaustion of
their own strength and the increased resistance of internal opposition.

Viewed from this elevated standpoint, Imperialism is not new under the
sun. It is as ancient as the world itself. Mr. Bourassa has been
uselessly spending his energy in breaking his head against a movement
which is in the very nature of things, developing the same way under the
same favourable conditions and circumstances.

Are the days we live so fraught with the dangers of Imperialism as to
justify the fears of the alarmist? The answer would be in the
affirmative, the question being considered from the point of view of
Germany's autocratic Imperialism, if the free nations of the world had
not joined in a holy union to put an end to its extravagant and
tyrannical ambition. But how is it that Mr. Bourassa, the heaven-born
anti-imperialist, so frightened at the supposed progress of British
Imperialism, is so lenient towards Teutonic Imperialism? How is it that
from the very first days of the gigantic struggle calling for the most
heroic efforts of the human race to emerge safe and free from the
furious waves powerfully set in motion by the most daring absolutism
that ever existed, he has not thought proper to chastise as it deserved
the worst kind of Imperialism that he could, or any one else, imagine?

Taking for granted that the present economical conditions of the
universe, likely to intensify, are working for great political
organisations, from the causes previously explained, any intelligent
observer could not fail to see that for the last century four great
imperialist evolutions have been concurrently--or rather
simultaneously--developing themselves; they were the British, the
Teutonic, the Russian, the Republican in the United States. Let no one
be astonished at seeing the two words _Imperialism_ and _Republicanism_
coupled together. In their true sense, they are easily conciliated.

The Roman Republic, by the grandeur of its part, was Imperialist as much
as the Empire to which she gave birth. Cæsar, without the imperial crown
was Emperor as much as August. He was more so by his genius, and by the
eminent position he had acquired by one of the most brilliant careers in
History.

Bonaparte, General and First Consul, in the closing days of the first
French Republic, was Emperor as much as he became on the day of his
Coronation, at Paris, by the Sovereign Pontiff.

Imperialism being a great historical fact through all the ages, and most
certainly destined to further developments, is it to be judged
favourably or alarmingly?

No doubt the problem is of the greatest possible political importance.
The question can, I consider, be at the outset simplified as
follows:--Would the prosperity, the freedom, the happiness of the world
be better served by great political Powers, or by the multiplication of
small sovereignties? It is just as well, and even better, to admit at
once that a unique, a dogmatic, answer cannot be given to that question.
Independent nations, sovereign societies, are not created at will by
men, merely according to their fancy, to their variable and very often
undefined wishes. History teaches that they are the outgrowth of various
circumstances, of many divergent causes,--the most important, the one
inscrutable, being always the action of Divine Providence directing the
destinies of peoples as well as those of every human being. Different
causes produce, of course, different results. Large and small political
communities can surely be productive of much good for their
populations. Much depends upon the intelligence, the wisdom, the
devotion, the patriotism of the rulers and the governed. They can also
do much harm. Unfortunately, the readers of past events have too much
reason to deplore that both large and small political organizations have
been equally guilty of maladministration, of ambitious cupidity of their
neighbours' possessions, of unjust wars. As an uncontrovertible example,
can I not point to the present German Empire, whose origin dates back to
the days of the very small Prussia of two centuries ago, fighting her
way up to her actual greatness by successive, unfair, and often criminal
aggressions.

After reading much of the history of past ages, I have not been able to
come to the conclusion--and the more I read, the less inclined I am to
do so--that the days when England, France, Central Europe, Italy, &c.,
were subdivided into numerous small political organizations, almost
always warring, were preferable to ours, even darkened and saddened as
they are by the present trials and sufferings.

If, on the other hand, the causes which at all times have tended to the
creation of large political sovereignties are gradually acquiring an
increased momentum of strength and activity, from the changed conditions
brought about by the great scientific discoveries so wonderfully
developing the commercial relations of the nations, is it not more
advisable to study the true nature of the evolution and the good it can
produce, rather than to shiver at the supposed prospects of an
Imperialist cataclysm so certainly to be averted if public opinion is
sound and Rulers wise. Crying on the shores of the St. Lawrence, against
the advance of the rolling waves, would not prevent the tide from
running up. The mad man who would try it, and persist in remaining on
the spot, displaying his indignant and extravagant protest, would surely
be submerged and drowned.

Political developments, like many others, obey natural laws which no
true statesman can ignore nor overlook. Because the limits of a
political organization are extended, does it necessarily follow that
only deplorable consequences can be expected from their enlargement?
Surely not. One might as well pretend that unity, cohesion, strength,
grandeur, are only productive of baneful results. Is it not a certainty
that they can be equally beneficial or harmful, according to the
intellectual and moral qualities of those who are called upon to apply
them to the best interests of those they govern.

German Imperialism, for instance, was not _per se_ a public misfortune.
It became such because instead of using its instrumentality for the
general good of the world as well as that of Germany, it was applied to
a barbarous and criminal purpose to satisfy unjust and senseless
aspirations.

In the same years, all the resources of British Imperialism,--so
abhorrent to Mr. Bourassa and his Nationalist adepts who view with such
meekness the Teutonic type--have been brought into play for the freedom
of the world and the protection of the small nationalities--notably
Belgium.

Bulgaria was a small State. Was it on this account less ambitious and
troublesome for its neighbours? Any one conversant with the recent
Balkan history knows that Bulgaria has from the start aspired to
dominate the Balkan States. When the Berlin Government struck the hour
which was to throw not only Europe, but three-fourths of the universe
into the worst horrors of war, has Bulgaria rallied to the defence of
her weak neighbour, Servia? Has she proved any sympathy for
treacherously crushed Belgium?

I emphatically declare that I would oppose Imperialism with all my
might, if I thought that it is by nature a necessary producer of
absolutism, of autocratic tyranny. But, the British precedent considered
through all its beneficial developments, I must recognize that true
Imperialism is not incompatible with the just and wise exercise of
political liberty, with respectful protection of the rights and
conditions of the divers national elements under its ægis.

I pray to remain to my last day a faithful friend of the political
liberties of the people. Knowing, as I do, how hard it is to apply them
to the government of nations--great or small--I am not bewildered by
vain illusions. But I cannot conceive--and never will--that the justice
of the real principles of Political Liberty is to be denied on account
of the difficulties of their satisfactory working, certainly obtainable
when applied in conformity with the dictates of moral laws owing all
their power to their Divine origin.

The best political institutions which can work out such great advantages
for the populations enjoying them, are too often diverted from their
beneficient course by the vicious passions of those who are charged
with, and responsible for, their administration. It would be most
illogical to draw the inference that good institutions become bad by
their guilty management.

Free and autocratic governments are essentially different in their
natural structure. Though liable to mismanagement by unscrupulous
politicians, free institutions can, under ordinary favourable
conditions, be trusted to be productive of much good for the peoples
living under their protection. Autocracy--the whole human history proves
it--by nature engenders absolutism. Crowned or revolutionary despots as
a rule are not imbued with the patriotism nor purified by the virtues
required for the good government of a country. Kaiserism, Terrorism and
Bolshevikism are equally despicable and unfit to contribute to the sound
progress which liberty, practiced by sensible and wise men, can develop.

Reverting to the Nationalist bugbear, which does not in the least move
me to despair of Canada's future, I consider that Imperialism, sensibly
appreciated, is of two kinds: Autocratic Imperialism; Democratic
Imperialism:--Absolutism is the foundation stone of the former;
Political Liberty that of the latter. I am energetically opposed to the
first. I sincerely believe that the second can do a great deal for the
prosperity of the countries where it has regularly and justifiably been
developed according to the natural laws of its growth.

Autocratic Imperialism, in contemporaneous history, is almost
exclusively typified by its Teutonic production. A general review of the
world shows that for the last century, and more, with one sad exception,
all the nations have been moving along the path leading to a greater
freedom of their institutions. Even Japan and China have joined in the
race. Russia had deliberately done so. Much was expected from her first
efforts, and much would certainly have been reaped in due course had not
the calamitous war still raging at first opened an opportunity for the
reactionary Russian element, strongly influenced by German intrigues,
spies and money, to check, through the Petrograd Court, the forward
movement of Russian political liberty, and to impede, for Germany's
sake, the success of the Russian military operations. Under those
circumstances--as was also to be expected--the advancing wave of the
aspirations of the great Russian people for more political freedom, was
bound either to recede before the autocratic outburst, or to rush
impetuously against the wall Germany was to her best helping to raise
against it. The latter prevision happened, history once more repeating
itself.

Even barbarous Turkey, in recent years, had been somewhat shaken by a
sudden desire to remove some of her secular shackles. The young Turks
movement might have had some desirable results had the Ottoman Empire,
as every national and political considerations should have induced her
to do, sided with France and England.

Germany is actually the only country in the world where Autocratic
Imperialism has been flourishing during the last century. We all know
the extent and the grievousness of the calamity it has wrought on the
universe.

During the same last century, Democratic Imperialism--using the term in
its broadest and most reasonable meaning--has had two distinct
beneficial developments:--the Monarchical Democratic Imperialism, and
the Republican Democratic Imperialism.

The Monarchical Democratic or free Imperialism--it is scarcely necessary
for me to say--is that of Great Britain.

The Republican Democratic or free Imperialism is that of the United
States of America, of the Argentine Republic, of Brazil.

Happily the two great and glorious countries which are favoured with the
advantages of the Democratic type of Imperialism are united in a grand
and noble effort to destroy the German Autocratic Imperialism in
chastisement of its criminal aspirations to universal domination.

The two types of Democratic or free Imperialism--the Monarchical and the
Republican--can be better illustrated by a comparative short historical
study of their development in Great Britain and her colonies, and in the
United States. I summarize it as follows, beginning by the last
mentioned, as it requires a shorter exposition.




CHAPTER XIX.

AMERICAN IMPERIALISM.


The still recent and wonderful growth of the two American continents, in
population and wealth, is almost an incredible marvel. It is none the
least politically.

The two Americas, by the extent of their areas, the vastness of their
productive lands, the length and largeness of their mighty Rivers, the
broadness of their Lakes, the grandeur of their scenery, seem to be most
adapted to great developments of many kinds. It is difficult to think of
small conceptions originating in the New World, which the genius of
Columbus discovered and the combined genius of all the great races of
the Old are united in developing.

Let me first put the question:--when the leading European nations
undertook to colonize the new Continents, were they not, consciously or
not, throwing the Imperialist seed in a fertile land where it was sure
to take root and blossom? Spain, France, and, last, England were
certainly not obeying the dictates of our "Nationalist school" when they
brought under their Sovereign authority such vast stretches of American
territory.

That Christian Civilization was to be extended to the new great
Hemisphere, goes without saying. That the riches, then unknown, of the
New World, were to be extracted from the land so full of them, was one
of the duties of the discoverers, all will admit. The European
Governments in extending their Sovereignties to America unfortunately
adopted the mistaken Colonial Policy then still too much prevalent.
Their error was to stick to the wrong conception that a colony was
important only in the measure that it could be favourable to the
interests of the Metropolis. History proves that this colonial system is
bound to lead to unfair treatment of the colonies. Absolutism, then
dominant in Europe, could not be expected to show any tender leniency
towards the Colonials who were above all to work for the wealth and
glory of the Metropolis. Spain proved to be the worst promoter of that
Regime. Her failure has been most complete. She has had to withdraw her
flag from the very large part of America over which it might have been
kept waving, if sounder and more just political notions had prevailed in
the narrowed minds of her Rulers.

England, treading along the wrong path of Colonial oppression, but in a
much less proportion, had to face a like result in the revolt of her
American Colonies. Fortunately for her, for America and the world at
large, the event widely opened her eyes. In acknowledging the
independence of the young Republic of the United States, she was
destined to be proud of her offspring in witnessing the astonishing
development of the child to whom she had given birth. Could she have
then foreseen that the day would come when at the hour of her dire
trial, the daughter who threw off her motherly authority, too
stringently exercised, would rush to her support for the defence of the
very principles of Political Liberty for which she, the child, had
fought for her independence, how soon would England have forgotten the
sufferings of the parting and blessed Providence for them!

The American Revolution, successfully carried out, was the occasion for
England to revolutionize her Colonial Policy. She was the first
nation--and I am sorry to say she has remained alone--to understand with
great clearness that the old Colonial Regime, fraught with such
disastrous consequences, must be done away with and replaced by the new
one which called the colonies to the enjoyment, to the largest possible
extent, of the free institutions of the Mother Land.

Like every new born child, whose laborious birth was critical, the
American Republic experienced great difficulties the very moment she
commenced to breathe freely. So true it is always that national
development, like personal success, cannot be achieved without struggle.

The United States offer the example of the best development of the
Imperialist evolution in the world. It dates as far back as the
proclamation of the Independence of the Republic. When she was admitted
into the international society of Sovereign States, she had at first to
settle her political organization. The framing of a constitutional
charter proved to be a very arduous task, at times almost desperate.

Three sets of divergent opinions were fighting at close range during the
protracted and solemn deliberations which at last reached a happy
conclusion. Thirteen American British Colonies had coalesced to wring
their Independence from England. The goal once attained, a first group
of opinion was favoured by the supporters of the dissolution of the
temporary union organized to secure the Independence of the whole, but
to revert, they said, if successful, to their previous separate status.
Had this view prevailed, at the very start North America would have been
cumbered with thirteen Sovereign States. Many were alarmed at the
creation of so many small Republics. More reasonable persons suggested
to organize three or four of them, instead of thirteen, meeting as much
as possible the wants natural to geographical conditions. It was no
doubt an improvement on the first mentioned scheme. It met with the
hearty support of devoted adepts.

It is much to be hoped that they will forever receive from the
successive generations of their countrymen the reward of the gratitude
they deserve, the true statesmen who, at this important juncture,
stepped on the scene and bravely took their stand in favour of the
maintenance of the Union which had conquered Independence, and of the
establishment of only one great Republic. The celebrated Hamilton was
their trusted leader. They knew they were undertaking an herculean task.
At that time, the population of the thirteen original States, scarcely
four millions in number, was scattered over a vast territory, and
located, for the most part, on the lands near the Atlantic coasts, two
thousand miles in length, from North to South. Transportation was in a
very primitive stage. Many years had yet to run before the whistle of
the locomotive, powerful and struggling, would be echoed by the solitude
of immense forests. No one foresaw that, in less than a century, the
overflowing tide of European immigration would roll its waves so
powerfully as to cross the whole continent and the Rocky Mountains to
reach the coast of the Pacific Ocean.

With such conditions, so unfavourable to the aspirations of only one new
Independent State, moulding together political groups so far apart,
interests apparently so hostile, the local point of view, local
prejudices, were sure to dominate. They inspired the strong current of
opinion in favour of the dissolution of the temporary Union, and the
organization of every one of the old provinces into a separate Sovereign
State.

How, under such circumstances, the friends of a unique National American
Union succeeded in the marvellous achievement of carrying their point by
a prodigy of persuasive demonstration, will forever be a wonder for the
student of the Republic's history. Few in numbers when they boldly
threw their challenge, they encountered the shock of local fanaticism
heightened by their offensive. Everything seemed to predict their utter
failure. If ever Founders of States have proved the heroism of their
convictions, the American Federalists have most gloriously done so.
Undoubtedly, the force of the argument was with them. But what can
logic, reason, good sense, too often do against inveterate prejudices?
Were they, in this particular instance, destined to be powerless?

The Federalists--such is their historical name--were not to be
disheartened by the formidable obstacles thrown in their way. An
_Imperialist_ inspiration was certainly the basic foundation of their
demonstration finally triumphant. They told their countrymen that if
they were to erect thirteen small Republics upon the burning ruins of
the first Union to which they owed their Independence, they would
prepare a very sad future for their children and children's children.
European immigration was setting in, slowly but surely. They predicted
that the World, this time, would witness, not a barbarous invasion like
that which overthrew the Roman Empire, but one which the Old World would
overflow to the New Continents. This surplus European population would
bring over to America Christian Civilization, the training of hard work,
large hopes, courage, experience in many ways, persevering energy,
which would transform the boundless regions which could become their
national heritage--until then the domain of the wandering Indian--into
one of the greatest and wealthiest countries on earth. Would they commit
the irreparable error to destroy the certainty of such a magnificent
National Destiny, by creating thirteen separate governments, with the
sure result of renewing in America, by such race groupings, the
atrocious military conflicts which, for centuries, have flooded the
European soil with human blood.

Hamilton and some of his most distinguished friends published that work,
entitled: "_The Federalist_", which will ever live as one of the
broadest and most elevated productions of Political Intelligence. To
all, and especially to the "Nationalist" theorists, I strongly recommend
the reading of that book, a monument of the genius of great statesmen.

In short, after a lengthy discussion characterized by their brilliant
eloquence and their argumentative strength, the supporters of the
Federal Union of the thirteen States, under one Sovereignty, carried the
day. They had well deserved their glorious triumph. The Republic of the
United States of North America was founded under the ægis of the free
constitutional Charter which has done so much for her prosperity and her
grandeur.

Such was the initial move of the evolution of American Imperialism.
Those amongst us who desire to learn more about its developments have
only to look over the boundary line. The thirteen original States,
federally united, have increased to number forty-four, with three more
territories gradually developing into Statehood.

The actual population of the Republic is already much over a _hundred
million_, living in unrivalled prosperity and contentment on a
territorial area of more than _three millions and a half square miles_,
larger than all the European Continent. The sun of the present century
will set upon a people of more than 250,000,000, with a splendid
situation in a world to the destinies of which they will contribute in
many admirable ways, if they are only true to the Christian principles
which alone can assure Civilization and Progress.

If the term _Imperialism_ truly means what the word
implies,--_Sovereignty being exercised over a large population and a
vast territory_, this political evolution, so decried by some, has most
undoubtedly achieved a great success amongst our neighbours to the
South.

In all sincerity, may I not ask every unprejudiced mind:--has not the
whole World every reason to be much elated at witnessing the beneficent
results of the triumph of the American Federalists? Evidently, it has
been _Imperial_ in its nature, in its proportions. It is so in its
promises for the future greatness of the Republic. It has maintained,
with only one exception, peace and harmony during nearly a century and a
half, between the descendants of the European nationalities who have
trusted their future welfare to the Sovereignty of the United States.
Instead of wasting their energies in endless conflicts, such as numerous
small States would have infallibly occasioned, thanks to the unity of
the Sovereign Power binding into an admirable whole territories larger
than Europe, they have learned to consider themselves as citizens of the
same free country, as the free subjects of the same governmental
authority. The temporary rupture of the Union, caused by the war of
Secession, was but a vain reactionary action against the powerful
current driving the Republic towards her grand future.

It is most unlikely--I can say _impossible_ without the slightest
hesitation--that the United States, after taking such a grand and
glorious part in the present war, will abandon the broad and felicitous
policy by which they have grown to be one of the greatest independent
nations of the world, to drop so low as to adopt the blinding notions of
a narrow, sectional, prejudiced and fanatical "Nationalism", such as the
type which would ruin the future of our own Dominion, if ever it was
allowed to prevail. They know too well, by the happiest experience, that
the only true "_Nationalism_" is that which by the united effort of the
intelligence, the culture, the strength, the patriotism of citizens of
divers races has wrought for them their present admirable national
status so full of the brightest promises. When peace shall have been
restored, the great and mighty American Republic will be one of the
leading Powers on earth, owing her unrivalled prosperity in a very large
measure to her appreciation of the wonderful results obtainable by the
union of all her subjects, of whatever racial origins, working with the
same heart and devotion for the grandeur of their common country.

I am not unduly enthusiastic, I am only speaking the plain truth, when I
affirm that the Republican Imperialism of the United States has been
most beneficent, having guaranteed to Mankind the inestimable boon of
laying deep and strong in a virgin soil, providentially gifted with the
most varied, the most abundant, the richest resources, the destinies of
a great Sovereign Nation comprising numerous ethnical groups. This
liberal, progressive, peaceful, harmonious Imperialism, it is a duty to
approve wishing it to achieve new triumphs for the general good of
Humanity.

Republican Imperialism is also making its way--contaminating it, our
"Nationalists" would say--in Southern America. This large and splendid
half of the New World has been for too many years the theatre of civil
troubles which appeared endless. A great change for the better has taken
place since the beginning of the concentration movement which has united
almost the entire Southern American Continent into eight Sovereign
States, two of which with really Imperial proportions.

The Brazilian Republic has a territorial area of 3,218,991 square miles,
with a population of more than 24,000,000 increasing at the average rate
of six or seven hundred thousand a year. With the great natural
resources at her command, she will certainly develop into one great
Power. The day is not so far distant when it will have a population
exceeding _fifty millions_ living in comfort on a soil of luxurious
wealth.

The Argentine Republic has a territory of 1,153,119 square miles in
extent. Her population is over 8,000,000, having doubled during the last
twenty years. At this rate of a yearly increase of five per cent., it is
easily foreseen what large total it will reach in a few years. It is
wealthy, doing the best with her splendid resources, already
contributing extensively to feed the population of Europe.

The other Southern American Republics--the Bolivian, the Chilean, the
Colombian, the Peruvian, the Venezuelan--have all territorial areas
double in extent of those of the Great Powers of Western and Central
Europe.

In Southern America, like everywhere else, the rising tide is not
running in favour of a multiplicity of small Sovereignties, always in a
warring frame of mind. Since her political reorganization, South
America, as a whole, has enjoyed the advantages of peace and of a large
material progress.

In reality the same political phenomenon is to be found in the five
continents forming the whole earthly globe. Let the "Nationalists" call
it _Imperialism_ if they like, I cannot help concluding that it is the
outgrowth of natural causes operating in the sense of larger political
units, giving to the Nations getting so constituted, prestige, power,
grandeur, favouring public order and, in many instances, the development
of free institutions.




CHAPTER XX.

BRITISH IMPERIALISM.


Let me now consider the wonderful development of what I have called
Monarchical Democratic or free Imperialism. It has so far been
exclusively of British growth. It is the typical form of Imperialism
which has been honoured with the most violent, the most unjust,
denunciations of our "Nationalists".

How did it deserve such an hysterical reprobation? Such is the question
to which I shall now endeavour to give a decisive negative answer.

I have previously once said that British Imperialism, like American
Imperialism, has Political Liberty as its foundation stone. I think this
can easily be proven.

Any close observer of political events, will agree with me, I am
confident, that Imperialism is also "OFFENSIVE" and "DEFENSIVE" in its
expansion. The meaning of these two terms is clear.

For the last fifty years, "OFFENSIVE" IMPERIALISM has been the GERMAN
DESPOTIC IMPERIALISM. The present war--its criminal work--is the
convincing evidence in support of the charge.

I have, I believe, proved to the satisfaction of every fair minded man,
that during the same last fifty years England's constant efforts have
been to maintain peace. Consequently, I am authorized to draw the
conclusion that British Imperialism was not intended to be, and has not
been "OFFENSIVE".

The Imperialist effort OFFENSIVELY, AGGRESSIVELY and VIOLENTLY tending
to the continuous and unmeasured expansion of a Sovereign Power, with
the objective of universal domination by all possible means, however
unjust, immoral and savage they may be, is a most guilty effort
deserving the severest condemnation. Such is the German autocratic
Imperialism.

On the contrary, the DEFENSIVE Imperialist effort, having for its only
object the protection of an Empire, the maintenance of her standing in
the society of nations, and of peace so essential to the general
prosperity of the world, is meritorious, beneficient and laudable. Such
has been the British Monarchical democratic Imperialism.

It is from this elevated standpoint that I will consider the
negotiations which, for the last few years, have taken place between the
Metropolis and her autonomous Colonies, respecting Imperial defence.
While admitting the right of all the free citizens of Canada to
appreciate them, and entertaining a real respect for the sincerity of
opinions which I cannot conscientiously share, I cannot help considering
that many amongst us have fallen into a serious error in judging the
nature of these negotiations.

Is it truly, as has been asserted, in obedience to a powerful wave of
"OFFENSIVE IMPERIALISM" that Great Britain has of late convened
representatives of her free Colonies to meet, in London, to confer about
the best means to adopt for the general security of the whole British
Empire?

Is it, as also asserted, with the unworthy design to entrap the Colonies
that their self-appointed delegates have been called in secret conclaves
where the political leaders of England would, by unfair and foul means,
prevail upon them to agree to unjust sacrifices on the part of the
peoples they represented?

I am absolutely unable to share such erroneous views. I must admit with
all candor that I have not yet been brought to the conclusion that
British Statesmen are all contaminated with "Machiavellism". A free
country like the United Kingdom is not a land where such deplorable
principles are likely to blossom.

What are then the extraordinary events which have recently taken place
to justify the assertion of the "Nationalist" leader that, in the course
of the last few years, a complete REVOLUTION has been wrought in the
relations of the autonomous Colonies with their Metropolis? Of such a
Revolution, cunningly promoted to bring the colonies against their will
to participate in the Imperial wars--_les guerres de l'empire_--I do not
perceive the smallest shadow of traces.

As everybody else, living with their eyes not closed to the light of
day, I clearly saw, principally during the last twenty years, that
important developments were taking place under the sun; that European
equilibrium upon the maintenance of which universal peace so much
depended, was rapidly breaking asunder; that the German Empire was more
and more unmasking her guilty ambition to dominate an enslaved universe;
that, to reach that goal, she was organizing an army formidable by its
millions of warriors, their superior training, their ironed discipline
and their unrivalled armament. I knew that the sadly famous Kaiser
Wilhelm II. was determined, at all cost, to increase the power of his
Empire by the addition of a military fleet in such proportions as to be
able, in a successful naval battle, to conquer the supremacy of the
seas.

Under such circumstances, was it to be supposed that the Statesmen
responsible for the government of Great Britain would be so careless and
so blind as not to see the dark spots crowding on the horizon!

The problem of Imperial defence was then once more raised, not by a mere
caprice of vain glory on the part of England, but by the inevitable
outcome of the initiative of would-be opponents, if not actually
declared enemies. The overseas colonies being more and more likely to be
attacked, in a general conflict, was it surprising that the British
Government was induced to confer with them for their common defence
under the new conditions which were surely not of their own
metropolitan or colonial creation.

All the representatives of Great Britain, of Canada, Australia, South
Africa, New Zealand, at the London conferences, took part in those
solemn deliberations with the full sense of their responsibility. None
of them was so mistaken as to consider the question, of paramount
importance, of the DEFENSIVE organization of the Empire, as futile,
merely to be used by the astuteness of some and the guilty complicity of
others, joining together to sacrifice the future of their common
country. The odious imputation, the shameless charge, were equally
unjust and calumnious for the British ministers and the colonial public
men who, in their turn, went to London to deliberate on subjects so
vitally interesting all the component parts of the Empire.




CHAPTER XXI.

THE SITUATIONS OF 1865 AND 1900-14 COMPARED.


Our "Nationalist" opponents of all colonial participation in the
Imperial wars, affirm that Canada should have abided with the convention
of 1865. Are they not aware that, since that year, a great deal of water
has run along the rivers; that the world, although perhaps not wiser,
has at least grown half a century older; that so many ancient conditions
have radically changed; that nations, like individuals, to be
progressive, cannot go on marking time on the same small hardened spot?

Any man sincerely desirous to form for himself an enlightened opinion on
the question of Imperial defence, must first admit that two national and
general situations, totally different, create widely different duties.

Let us compare for a moment, 1865 and 1900-14--_yesterday and
to-day_--as the "Nationalist" leader says.

Fifty years ago, the German Empire was non-existent. Nothing pointed to
the early birth of this terrible child destined to grow so rapidly to
such colossal proportions.

The French Empire was the leading continental Power; Great Britain, then
as now, the leading naval Power, both military and mercantile.

Those two nations, without a formal alliance, had been united ever since
the days when Lord Palmerston favoured the advent of Napoleon III.

The Union of England and France was doing much to maintain the peace of
the world.

The United States were just emerging from the trials of their great
Civil War. They had to solve the very difficult problem of their
national reconstruction. Their population did not exceed thirty-five
millions.

How different was the situation of 1900-14!

The German Empire had become formidable with her population of
68,000,000, her soldiers numbering more than 7,000,000, with 1,000,000
of men permanently under arms, ever ready for an offensive campaign,
with her fleet much enlarged yearly at the cost of enormous financial
sacrifices; allied to Austria-Hungary, with her population of
50,000,000, to Italy, with her 36,000,000--then being one of the Triple
Alliance--supported by Turkey and Bulgaria,--in all a combined strength
of 150,000,000 bodies and souls; with the Germans exalted to the utmost
by persistent appeals to their feelings and to their ambitious dreams.

The American Republic grown to the rank of a first class Power, with a
population of 100,000,000 and a magnificent military fleet.

Was it even sensible to pretend that such altered worldly conditions did
not make the revision of the understanding arrived at in 1865 an
imperious necessity.

They are living in an imaginary world those of us who assert that Canada
could remain a British Colony under a permanent agreement--never to be
amended--by which the Mother Country would be bound to defend her, at
all costs and all hazards, whenever and by whomsoever attacked, Canada
in the meantime refusing, whatever the perils of England might be, to
spend a dollar and to send one man for her defence. There could be but
one issue to the consideration of such propositions: the dissolution of
the British Empire. I regret to say that Mr. Bourassa has audaciously
declared that such has been the objective of his oppositionist campaign
to the Canadian participation in Imperial wars.

If Canada, through its constitutional organ, the Ottawa Parliament, had
signified to England, in 1914, that she would not take the least part in
the war imposed upon her by Germany, nor do anything to help her Allies,
France and Belgium, could she, without blushing with shame, have claimed
the protection of the British flag, if her territory had been attacked.

Would not England have been fully justified in taking the initiative to
break the bond which could henceforth but be disastrous to her, our
shameless attitude towards her, at the hour of her peril, being most
favourable to her mortal enemy.

Have I not every sound reason to conclude that Canadian participation in
the present war was in no way whatever the outcome of an Imperialist
attempt to drag her, against her will, in the conflict into which she so
nobly hastened to enter with the determination to fight to the last, and
to deserve her fair share of the glory which will be but one of the
rewards that will accrue to all those who will have united together to
save Liberty and Civilization from the German barbarous onslaught.




CHAPTER XXII.

BRITISH IMPERIALISM NATURALLY PACIFIST.


According to its "Nationalist" opponents, British Imperialism has always
been of a conquering nature, like that of the Roman type and those of
ancient history.

This opinion is formally contradicted by a long succession of undeniable
historical facts. Undoubtedly the splendid structure of the British
Empire was not erected without armed support. The creation, without an
army organization, of a Sovereign State comprising a fourth of the
Globe, which component parts, themselves of colossal proportions,
situated in all the continents, separated by the immensity of the seas,
would have been more than marvellous.

I will not pretend that always and everywhere the expansion of British
Sovereignty has taken place according to the dictates of strict justice.
Still I do not hesitate to say that, on the whole, it has developed
under conditions which were never the outcome of a mere conquering
ambition.

With much reason, English citizens are proud of the fact that their
Empire is the result of a NATURAL GROWTH. When the call to arms had to
be made, it was oftener for DEFENSIVE WARS.

The British Empire, outside the United Kingdom, comprise, for the most
important part, Canada, Australia, the South African Dominion, and
India. It is easy to explain, in a few lines, under what general
circumstances those immense regions were brought under the British flag.
I shall, of course, begin this short historical review by the
acquisition of Canada by England.

The great event of the discovery of the New World, at the end of the
fifteenth century, tempted the western European nations to acquire vast
colonies in the new continent. Spain, France, Portugal, Holland, were
the first in the field. If the craving for large colonies in the new
Hemisphere was of Imperialist inspiration, England does not appear to
have been one of the first Powers infested with the disease so dreaded
by our "Nationalists". She was rather late to catch it. Hollanders
settled in New York before the British.

As all ought to know, Spain took hold of the whole of Southern America.
France displayed her flag on the larger part of Northern America,
commanding the St. Lawrence and Mississippi Rivers, and the Great Lakes.
Those immense regions, extending from the cold north to flowery
Louisiana, were called NEW FRANCE. Later on, that part of North America
bordering on the Atlantic, from Maine to Virginia, became British, and
was subdivided into thirteen provinces, or separate colonies. For such a
dominating Imperialist, as some pretend she has ever been, it must be
admitted that England was rather in a modest frame of mind with regard
to her colonial enterprises. The British Government itself was slow in
moving towards the Imperialist goal which was stirring up Spain and
France to a much greater activity. The first British emigrants were
Puritans looking for that religious liberty, under a new shining sun,
which was denied to them by their native land in those days when
fanaticism was unfortunately too much triumphant in many countries.

As it was inevitable, the European Colonies in America, all satellites
of their metropolis, fell victims to the political rivalries of the
nations who settled them. Not satisfied with fighting in Europe, those
Powers also decided to gratify the New World with a specimen of what
they could do on the battlefields. The Seven Years War did not originate
in America, as it was the outcome of secular European international
difficulties.

If the European nations, in taking possession of America, were making a
conquest, it was that of the white race over the yellow one of the New
World. Spain and France, in raising their flags over four-fifths of the
American continent, were surely strengthening Imperialism. Will our
"Nationalists" accuse them of having unduly saved the New World from the
secular Indian barbarism?

More especially, Spanish Imperialism in America was most despotic. By a
very false political conception, Spain undertook a great settlement work
in America with the sole object of bleeding her colonies to her only
profit. It failed disastrously as it deserved to. It is because she
persevered in her fatal error that, in 1898, she was forced out of Cuba.
The last stone of her immense colonial edifice was cast away.

England shared Spain's error, but much less heavily. Like Spain, she
reaped what she had sowed. The thirteen British American colonies
revolted and conquered their Independence. Alone French Canada remained
loyal to England.

If the French Canadians had sided with the British Colonies to the South
in the contest for their Independence, the Canada of those days would
certainly have been included in the American Republic when England was
forced, by the fate of war, to acknowledge the new Sovereign nation. Her
offspring then violently broke away from the parental home, but has
recently hastened to her defence, at the hour of danger, only
remembering the first happy years of her childhood.

Following the loyal advice of their spiritual leaders, and of their most
trusted civil chieftains, the French Canadians remained true to England,
refusing to desert her, thus maintaining her Sovereign rights over the
Northern half of the Continent destined, a century later, to develop
into the present Dominion, enjoying the free institutions of the Mother
Country.

As previously stated, the American Revolution brought for ever to an end
British absolutism in the new continent. Henceforth, liberty and
autonomy were to be the two foundation stones of a new colonial Policy
which, far from disrupting the Empire as the autocratic one had done,
was to cement its union so strongly as to make possible the gigantic
military effort she has displayed for more than the last four years.

The Treaty of Paris brought the Seven Years War to a close. Once more
the peace of the world was temporarily restored. By the Treaty of Paris,
Canada was ceded to England, our "Nationalists" say. If so, how can they
pretend that the extension of British Sovereignty over the regions which
have become the great autonomous Dominion of Canada was an undue
manifestation of British conquering Imperialism?

An intelligent and impartial student of the early settlements of the two
continents of America can only draw the conclusion that the New World
has not been the theatre of the operations of British Imperialism. Its
first real attempt was tried--with much laudable success--in 1867, by
the federal union of the Canadian provinces, decreed by the Sovereign
legislative power of the Parliament of Great Britain, at our own request
and in accordance with our own freely expressed wishes.

Australia is the second autonomous colony of England in extent and
importance. It comprises nearly all the territory of the Oceanic
continent, so called from the geographical position, in the Pacific
Ocean, of the Islands forming it. New Zealand is the second group of
these Islands. It is another autonomous British colony, called, since
1907 "THE DOMINION OF NEW ZEALAND".

Those two Dominions have a combined territorial area of more than
3,000,000 square miles--almost as large as the whole of Europe--with a
population of six millions rapidly increasing. Their two largest cities,
Sydney and Melbourne, each having a population of 700,000, are great
commercial centres.

If British Imperialism has had anything to do with the bringing of
Australia and New Zealand under British Sovereignty, it must be admitted
by all fair minded men that it has worked its way in the most pacific
manner. Deservedly renowned British explorers--Cook, Vancouver, and
others--discovered and took possession of the Oceanic continent in the
name of their Sovereign. Welcomed by the aboriginal tribes, they raised
the British flag over the fair land of such a promising future in the
latter end of the eighteenth century--Cook in 1770. It has ever since
been graciously waving, by the sweet breeze of the Pacific, over one of
the happiest peoples on earth, enjoying the blessings of interior peace
and all the advantages of the political liberties conferred upon these
great colonies, more than half a century ago. As a matter of fact,
England has organized her Australasian possessions into free autonomous
colonies at the very dawn of their political life, dating from the
middle of the last century, when they began that splendid progressive
advance developing more and more every year.

Is it not evident, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that the settlement of
the Australasian colonies by England, so satisfactory and so promising,
has not been brought about by the illegitimate ambition of an unmeasured
Sovereign aggrandizement by a guilty sort of Imperialism.

The establishment of British Sovereignty in the Indian country, immense
in extent, wealth and population, is one of the greatest events of the
historical development of the British Empire.

I shall not say that all that took place in the government of India
deserves a blind approval. That British authority was much too long left
in the control of a company was a misfortune. Under such a regime abuses
were sure to develop and increase. They did and were energetically
denounced--more especially on that day when Sheridan rose to such an
eloquence, in the House of Lords, that a motion of adjournment had to be
carried, to allow the peers to recover the free control of their minds
before rendering judgment in the case brought before their tribunal,
impeaching Warren Hastings.

The rule of the Indian Company was abolished, in 1858, by _The
Government of India Act_.

In 1876, the illustrious Disraëli--Lord Beaconsfield--took the
statesmanlike decision of adding a new prestige to the British Crown and
to the Sovereign wearing it. He had Parliament to adopt the _Royal
Titles Act_, by which Her Majesty Queen Victoria was proclaimed EMPRESS
OF INDIA.

Such, in due course, and without any trouble, was accomplished that
great political evolution which substituted, for populations numbering
more than three hundred millions of human beings, an Imperial system in
place of the deplorable government by a company. For the last sixty
years, the new regime has given peace, order and prosperity to India.

A French publicist wrote as follows:--

    After troubles of nine centuries duration, India has recovered
    peace under the tutelage of England, the best colonizer of the
    peoples of Europe. England has rendered an evident service to
    India. She has freed her from the intestine wars tearing her
    since her historical origin; she has given her a police and an
    administrative system.

Nations, like individuals, are not perfect. To judge equitably,
impartially, the government by a Metropolis of the regions under her
Sovereignty, one must not only be scandalized at her failings, but must
take the broader view of her whole history in appreciating its final
good and commendable results. So judging the government of India by
England, every impartial mind must conclude that, on the whole--and more
especially for the last sixty years--it has been beneficient. It
promises to be still more so, as a consequence of the admirable share
India is taking in the present war.

Egypt and the Soudan have a territorial area of 1,335,000 square miles,
with a population of 15,000,000. I pride to be one of those who
congratulate Great Britain to have freed the ancient and glorious
Egyptian country from Turkish tyranny. A proclamation, dated the 18th
of December, 1914, has finally placed Egypt under England's protectorate
with the agreement of France.

In the chapters respecting the Soudanese and South African wars, I have
shown how satisfactory has been the rule of Great Britain in those
African countries.

It being ever true that the earth was Providentially created for men to
live in the legitimate enjoyment of the blessings of peace multiplied by
the fruits of their labours, the Egyptians and the Soudaneses have every
reason to congratulate themselves for their liberation from the Turkish
barbarous yoke, and for the protection they receive from one of the most
civilizing nations.

I sincerely believe that this short review of the respective situation
of five of the principal component parts of the British Empire, is
sufficient to form the honest conviction that if England has practised
Imperialism, she has done so for the real benefit of the peoples living
under the ægis of her Sovereignty, the most favourable to colonial
political liberty.




CHAPTER XXIII.

BRITISH IMPERIALISM AND POLITICAL LIBERTY.


British history, for the last century and more, proves that Imperialism
is not naturally incompatible with Political Liberty, nor with the
respect due the national aspirations of divers ethnical groups. The
unity and the consolidation of the Empire made their greatest strides
since the close of the war which resulted in the independence of the
neighbouring Republic. As previously explained, they were the outcome of
the very wise and statesmanlike change of colonial policy then adopted
by England. The days were to come when they would be put to the severest
test and would prove more than equal to its greatest strain. Those are
the days which the British Empire is living through, with brilliancy and
heroism, amidst the dazzling lightning and the roaring thunder of an
unprecedented military conflict, with every prospect of surviving its
sufferings and sacrifices with a still stronger political structure.

The same evolution by which Great Britain was to reach the summit of
Political Liberty by the final triumph of the new constitutional
principle of ministerial responsibility, was spreading to her far
overseas Colonies. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa,
Newfoundland were successively granted constitutional charters based on
the same principles as those of the institutions of the United Kingdom.

As I have already said, Imperialism becomes dangerous and deserves the
severest condemnation, only where and when it is the instrument of
autocratic absolutism. It causes me no alarm whatever when it is
developed under free institutions, guaranteed and protected by
ministerial responsibility.

Whatever said to the contrary, by prejudiced and designing writers,
imbued with the extravagant notions of a narrow and fanatical
"Nationalism", Canada, the most important of the autonomous Colonies of
the British Empire, is freer than ever. Like all the other nations, she
suffers from disastrous events shaking the whole worldly edifice, but
she is none the less the absolute mistress of the initiative of whatever
efforts she considers her duty to make under those trying circumstances.
England has imposed nothing upon Canada, has asked nothing from Canada,
since the beginning of the war. She has, of course, accepted, with much
pleasure and gratitude, the help we have freely offered and given her.
Let our "Nationalists", in their inspired unfairness, say, if they like,
that Canada, like all the Allies defensively fighting, was forced in the
conflict by the imperious necessity of the situation created by those
who expected to reach the goal of their ambition. But they have no
right to charge Great Britain to have coerced the Dominion, against her
will, to join in the struggle which the British Government had done
their utmost to prevent.

If it was not giving to this work too wide a range, I would like to
undertake an historical sketch of all the good the British
constitutional system has produced in the United Kingdom and in the
Colonies. I shall quote only a few of the most important examples.

In my opinion, the one development in England's history, since the close
of the eighteenth century, most interesting to the French Canadians, is
certainly that which resulted in the emancipation of the Roman Catholics
of the United Kingdom.

To persuade my French Canadian countrymen of the good to be wrought by
the patriotic use of the British institutions, I explained to them that
at the beginning of the last century, the Roman Catholics of the United
Kingdom enjoyed no political rights. They were neither electors, nor
eligible to the House of Commons. They asked that justice be done to
them. True statesmen, high and fair minded, admitted the justice of
their claims and supported them. The ensuing political contest lasted
more than twenty years.

To obtain the proposed change in the long standing laws of the realm
from an exclusively Protestant electorate, was indeed a great task to
accomplish. The public men supporting the Roman Catholics' claims were
courageous and eloquent. They carried the day. Have not the true friends
of political freedom every reason to congratulate themselves that a
great measure of justice granting political rights to Roman Catholics
was voted by an Electorate and a Parliament exclusively Protestant.

King George IV, through fear that his Royal prerogative might be
impaired by the change, was hostile to it. He was persuaded to agree to
the measure by Sir Robert Peel, the life long opponent of Roman Catholic
emancipation. Whatever were the religious convictions and feelings of
Sir Robert Peel, he was a statesman of a high class. As all the leading
public men of England, he had a broad conception of the duties of the
chief adviser of the Crown, and of the true spirit of the British
constitution. The voice of the nation having spoken in no uncertain
sounds, the national will must be followed. He plainly said so to His
Majesty who yielded. Then, in a most admirable speech, he--Sir Robert
Peel--moved himself the passing of the bill granting justice to the
Roman Catholics, carried it through the two Houses of Parliament and had
it sanctioned by the King.

A great act of national justice always receives its due reward. The
Roman Catholics have been faithful and loyal subjects. George IV and his
successors have lived to see many evident proofs of their loyal
devotion, more especially since the opening of the present war.

The final success of the free discussion of the question of granting to
the Roman Catholics of the United Kingdom all the rights enjoyed by the
British subjects of all the other religious denominations, carried in
spite of difficulties not easily overcome, is certainly one of the
greatest and most honorable triumphs that Political Liberty has ever
obtained. I was often deeply moved at reading the historic account of
that most interesting debate in Parliament, on the public platform and
in the press. More and more, the conviction was firmly impressed on my
mind and soul that a great people accomplishing a grand act of justice
gives a most salutary example to posterity deserving the admiration and
gratitude of all generations to come.

I was only appreciating with justice and fairness the part played by
England in Canada, in telling my French Canadian countrymen that they
enjoyed the political rights of British subjects many years before the
same privileges and justice was granted to the Roman Catholics of the
United Kingdom. That much in answer to the charge of our fanatical
extremists that England and her Government always wanted to oppress the
French Canadians on account of their religious faith.

Without going back to the eventful days of _Magna Charta_ and of the
_Bill of Rights_, both embodying the fundamental constitutional
principles which were finally bound to overcome the last pretentions of
absolutism of yore, I considered a short review, in broad lines, of the
work performed by the British Electorate and the Imperial Parliament,
during the last century, would help in destroying in the minds of my
French readers the prejudices forced upon them by "Nationalist" writers.
That great work is principally illustrated by eight important measures
of general interest.

I have just mentioned that most honourable one emancipating the Roman
Catholics of Great Britain.

Shortly after, it was followed by that abolishing the Corn Laws after a
protracted and very interesting discussion. That important measure was
also carried on the proposition of the same Sir Robert Peel, for a long
time its determined opponent. The manufacturing population, increasing
so rapidly, would soon have been starved by the continuously augmenting
cost of bread. Sir Robert Peel foresaw the fearful consequences sure to
ensue, if no relief was granted to millions threatened with hunger. He
was, as I have already said, too much of a statesman to hesitate in
doing his duty. He gave up his own opinion and advised his Sovereign to
do away with the Corn Laws, the repeal of which he had Parliament to
vote.

With the advent of Queen Victoria, ministerial responsibility for all
the acts of the Sovereign became definitely the fundamental principle of
the British constitution.

Complete ministerial responsibility, once fully recognized in Great
Britain, was without delay granted to all the British colonies having
representative institutions.

The abolition of slavery all over the British Empire is, every one must
admit, a political development of first magnitude, one doing the
greatest possible honour to the great nation having first taken the
glorious initiative of granting to the black race the justice ordered by
Christianity. It is undoubtedly a very valuable reform to the credit of
England.

The Imperial Parliament realized that the constitutional regime of the
United Kingdom could not bear all the fruits to be expected from it with
an electorate restricted to privileged classes. To support such a
splendid edifice, admirable in structure and strength, a larger basic
foundation, more solid, laid deep in the national soil, was required.
After a long political struggle, freedom was once more triumphant in the
Motherland. The first great Reform Bill of 1832 was the starting point
of successive legislative enactments, enlarging the franchise, calling
to the exercise of political rights various classes of the people,
bringing up the British electorate to the glorious standard of being one
of the freest, the most enlightened, and most independent in the world.
The crowning measure of this extensive political reform has been the
Bill of 1917 providing for the addition of some 8,000,000 voters to the
roll, including about 6,000,000 women.

The rotten boroughs of old were abolished and replaced by a much better
redistribution of electoral divisions.

Dating from 1867, great autonomous federal colonies, with full Sovereign
rights in the administration of all their interior affairs, have been
created by Imperial charters. The Canadian, Australian, South African,
and New Zealand Dominions, of a total territorial area exceeding
7,000,000 square miles, with a total population of over 25,000,000,
nearly 20,000,000 of which belong to the white race, have commenced
their new political career with all the confidence and the hopes
inspired by their free institutions.

Finally, the Imperial Parliament passed a law granting Home Rule to
Ireland. Unfortunately, the war, so disastrous in many ways, prevented
the immediate carrying out of the will of Parliament, certainly
representative of that of the nation. But this vexed question must at
last be settled once for all. It is to be hoped that the day is not far
distant when it will be removed from the political arena by a solution
satisfactory to Ireland, to England and to the whole Empire.

Besides all those very important measures of political reform, the
British Parliament has passed many laws of urgent social improvement.

The crowning act of the Imperial Parliament has been its determined
attitude for the maintenance of peace through a long series of years.

If all the above enumeration of measures of widespread influence for the
general good is to be called Imperialism, I say without hesitation that
it is an Imperialism worth favouring. The world will never have too much
of it.




CHAPTER XXIV.

IMPERIAL FEDERATION AND "BOURASSISM".


The leader of our "Nationalists," always frightened, apparently at
least, with the supposed dangers of further Imperialist encroachments
detrimental to the best interests of the British autonomous Colonies,
seems alarmed at the prospects to follow the close of the hostilities.
Consequently, it has been a part of his campaign to bring the French
Canadians to share his fears for their future.

Not in the least worried by such apprehensions, it was also my duty to
try and persuade my French Canadian compatriots not to be unduly
disturbed by the sayings of a publicist magnifying the errors of his
excited imagination.

That there will be after-the-war problems to consider, is most likely.
What will they be? It is very difficult to foresee just now with
sufficient definiteness. So much will depend upon the general conditions
of the restoration of peace. However, broad lines have, for the last
four years, been outlined with fair clearness permitting a general view
of what is likely to happen.

Let us for a moment examine the traces of the initial phases of the
constitutional developments likely to be the outcome of the joint
effort of the whole Empire to win the war.

The second chapter of the Report of the War Cabinet for the year
1917--already quoted somewhat extensively--deals with the new aspect of
Imperial Affairs more especially the consequence of the war. The opening
paragraph partly reads as follows:--

    The outstanding event of the year in the sphere of Imperial
    Affairs has been the inauguration of the Imperial War Cabinet.
    This has been the direct outcome of the manner in which all
    parts of the Empire had thrown themselves into the war during
    the preceding years. Impalpable as was the bond which bound this
    great group of peoples together, there was never any doubt about
    their loyalty to the Commonwealth to which they belonged and to
    the cause to which it was committed by the declaration of war.
    Without counting the cost to themselves, they offered their men
    and their treasure in defence of freedom and public right. From
    the largest and most prosperous Dominion to the smallest island
    the individual and national effort has been one of continuous
    and unreserved generosity.

After mentioning that during 1917 "great progress has been made in the
organisation both of the man-power and other resources of the Empire for
the prosecution of the war," and that "the British Army is now a truly
Imperial Army, containing units from almost every part of the Empire,"
the Report says:--

    The real development, however, of 1917 has been in the political
    sphere, and it has been the result of the intense activity of
    all parts of the Empire in prosecuting the war since August,
    1914.

    It had been felt for some time that, in view of the
    ever-increasing part played by the Dominions in the war, it was
    necessary that their Governments should not only be informed as
    fully as was possible of the situation, but that, as far as was
    practicable, they should participate, on a basis of complete
    equality, in the deliberations which determined the main
    outlines of Imperial policy.

Accordingly, a Special War Conference was convened to meet in London,
where for practical convenience it was divided into two parts: one,
"known as the Imperial War Cabinet, which consisted of the Oversea
Representatives and the members of the British War Cabinet sitting
together as an Imperial War Cabinet for deliberation about the conduct
of the war and for the discussion of the larger issues of Imperial
policy connected with the war." The other "was the Imperial War
Conference, presided over by the Secretary of State for the Colonies,
which consisted of the Oversea Representatives and a number of other
ministers, which discussed non-war problems connected with the war but
of lesser importance."

On the 17th May, 1917, the British Prime Minister, giving "to the House
of Commons a short appreciation of the work of the Imperial War
Cabinet," said in part:--

    I ought to add that the institution in its present form is
    extremely elastic. It grew, not by design, but out of the
    necessities of the war. The essence of it is that the
    responsible heads of the Governments of the Empire, with those
    Ministers who are specially entrusted with the conduct of
    Imperial Policy should meet together at regular intervals to
    confer about foreign policy and matters connected therewith, and
    come to decisions in regard to them which, subject to the
    control of their own Parliaments, they will then generally
    execute. By this means they will be able to obtain full
    information about all aspects of Imperial affairs, and to
    determine by consultation together the policy of the Empire in
    its most vital aspects, without infringing in any degree the
    autonomy which its parts at present enjoy. To what
    constitutional developments this may lead we did not attempt to
    settle. The whole question of perfecting the mechanism of
    "continuous consultation" about Imperial and foreign affairs
    between the "autonomous nations of an Imperial Commonwealth"
    will be reserved for the consideration of that special
    Conference which will be summoned as soon as possible after the
    war to readjust the constitutional relations of the Empire. We
    felt, however, that the experiment of consulting an Imperial
    Cabinet in which India was represented had been so fruitful in
    better understanding and in unity of purpose and action that it
    ought to be perpetuated, and we believe that this proposal will
    commend itself to the judgment of all the nations of the Empire.

The preceding are words of political wisdom, worthy of the best form of
British statesmanship. Were they the dawn of a new era, dissipating the
clouds accumulated by the trials of a long period of military conflict,
and showing in a future, more or less distant, the rising constitutional
fabric of a still greater Imperial Commonwealth, not so much in size,
than in unity, in freedom and strength? Time will tell. But can we not
at once note with confidence that the fundamental principle upheld by
all the leading British public men is that, whatever constitutional
developments may be in store for us all, they will not be allowed to
infringe "in any degree the autonomy" presently enjoyed by the Oversea
Dominions.

The Imperial War Conference held in London, last year, passed the
following very important "Resolution" dealing with the future
constitutional organisation of the Empire:--

    "The Imperial War Conference are of opinion that the
    readjustment of the constitutional relations of the component
    parts of the Empire is too important and intricate a subject to
    be dealt with during the war, and that it should form the
    subject of a special Imperial Conference to be summoned as soon
    as possible after the cessation of hostilities.

    "They deem it their duty; however, to place on record their view
    that any such readjustment, while thoroughly preserving all
    existing powers of self-government and complete control of
    domestic affairs, should be based on a full recognition of the
    Dominions as autonomous nations of an Imperial Commonwealth, and
    of India as an important portion of the same, should recognise
    the right of the Dominions and India to an adequate voice in
    foreign policy and in foreign relations, and should provide
    effective arrangements for continuous consultation in all
    important matters of common Imperial concern and for such
    necessary concerted action, founded on consultation, as the
    several Governments may determine."

We can await without the slightest alarm the holding of the proposed
"_special Imperial Conference to be summoned as soon as possible after
the cessation of the hostilities_." The fundamental principles upon
which "_the readjustment_," if any one is made, "_of the constitutional
relations of the component parts of the Empire_" are to rest, are well
defined in the above "Resolution":--_through preservation of "all
existing powers of self-government and complete control of domestic
affairs_;--_full recognition of the Dominions as autonomous nations of
an Imperial Commonwealth, and of India as an important portion of the
same_";--the admission of "_the right of the Dominions and India to an
adequate voice in foreign policy and in foreign relations_."

Upon that large and strong basis, I, for one, am ready to wait with
patience and confidence the result of the deliberations of the future
special Imperial Conference. With regard to the proposed Conference, I
cannot see any reason for anyone to indulge in the "Nationalist"
hysterical fears of an oppressive Imperialism devouring, as the old
mythological god--Saturn--his own children.

As I have said, the work of the special Imperial Conference will be
rendered more or less easy by the conditions of the future peace. I
pray, with all the fervour of my soul, that the war shall not end by a
hasty compromise--as wished for by our blind, if not really disloyal,
pacifists--by which the world would be doomed to another disaster far
worse than the one it is straining every nerve to overcome, and that
after years of the most costly warlike preparations. Such a peace would
be the saddest possible conclusion of the present conflict, and much
worse than the sacrifices yet to be borne by the prosecution of the war
to a finish. We must all implore Providence to save Humanity from such a
cataclysm.

A special Imperial Conference meeting under such disheartening
circumstances would indeed have a most difficult task to accomplish. It
was evidently an act of wisdom on the part of the Imperial War
Conference of last year to express the opinion that the special Imperial
Conference should be summoned only after the cessation of hostilities.

When peace shall have been restored with the only conditions which can
be satisfactory to the Allies and to the world at large, a special
Imperial Conference will be in order, having for its object to consider
the readjustment of the constitutional relations of the component parts
of the Empire, in conformity with the requirements of the new situation
which will have grown out of the necessities of the war. However
important the task, the tranquility of the world being, let us hope,
assured for many long years, there will be no reason for the Conference
to proceed hastily to any insufficiently matured conclusion. The
representative public men who will meet in London from all over the
Empire will not forget, we may rest confident, that the safest way to a
good working readjustment will be, as it has always been in the past,
that which will follow the straight line of natural growth. Dry cut
resolutions, imprudently adopted, and pressed upon unwilling populations
would have ninety-nine chances out of a hundred to be more injurious
than profitable.

Every sensible man must acknowledge that the war has in an extraordinary
manner hastened the rapidity of the advance towards the turning point in
the Constitutional organization of the British Empire. The day is near
at hand when the problem will have to be faced with courage and
broadness of mind. Very blind indeed, and far behind the times, is he
who does not realize that TO BE, or NOT TO BE, for the Empire, is
confined to two clear words: CONSOLIDATION or DISSOLUTION. The tide has
either to ebb or flow, the wave to advance or recede. The edifice must
be strengthened or left to decay. Like any living being, a political
society, be it great or small, after its birth, more or less laborious,
grows to a prosperous and healthy old age, or crumbles down prematurely.
Very much depends, for either course, on the wisdom or extravagance of
the way of passing through life. Unmeasured ambitions, wild
expectations, are too often, alike for the individual and the nation,
the surest road to a lamentable ruin. Wisdom, the outcome of sound moral
principles, and wide experience, is, on the other hand, the safest
guarantee of longevity, of bright old days full of contentment, honour,
prestige and true grandeur.

Grave will be the responsibility of those who will meet in solemn
conclave to lay down the foundations of the future British Imperial
Commonwealth. No less serious will be the responsibility of the
populations, scattered over the five continents, who will be called upon
to pronounce, freely and finally, upon the propositions which will be
submitted to their approval or disavowal. Consequently undue haste would
be more than ill-advised.

For instance, the paramount question to be considered by the new
Imperial Conference will most likely be that of the future military
organization of the Empire. Is it not evident that this problem will be
much more easily settled if the Allied nations succeed in carrying the
point they have the most at heart:--The reduction of permanent
armaments as the safest protection against any new outburst of savage
militarism flooding the earth of God with human blood. If this _sine qua
non_ condition is the top article of the future peace treaty, the great
Powers having agreed, in honour bound, to maintain the world's
tranquillity and order, will all be afforded the blessings of a long
rest from the ruinous military expenditures too long imposed upon them
by the mad run of Germany to conquer universal domination. The British
Empire, as a whole, will, as much as any other nation, enjoy the full
benefits of such a favourable situation. She will, like her Allies,
return to the pursuits of peace, with millions of veteran soldiers who,
for the next ten years at least, would, in large numbers, certainly join
the Colours once more, if need be, to defend their country in a new just
war. Then, under such circumstances, why should the peoples of the whole
Empire be immediately called upon to incur more expenses for military
purposes than absolutely necessary for the maintenance of interior
order, and to meet any sudden and unforeseen emergency.

The liquidation of the obligations necessarily accumulated during the
war will be the first duty of all the Allied nations. The task will no
doubt be very large, most onerous. Still I trust that it will not be
beyond their resources of natural wealth, of capital and labour, of
courageous savings.

As the "Resolution" adopted by the Imperial War Conference says, "the
readjustment of the constitutional relations of the component parts of
the Empire is too important and intricate a subject to be dealt with
during the war." When taken up after the war--even if just _as soon as
possible_--it will be none the less IMPORTANT AND INTRICATE. Such a
subject should not be dealt with without matured consideration and given
a hasty solution. If the peace treaty satisfactorily settles the world's
situation for a long future of general tranquillity which will certainly
bless all the nations with many years of unprecedented prosperity,
plenty of time will be afforded to deliberate wisely upon the paramount
question of the building of a "new and greater Imperial Commonwealth."
Our frenzied "Nationalists" can quiet their nerves. The imperialist wild
bear will not be growling at the door. Because we are all likely to be
called upon to consider how best to promote the unity and the future
prosperity of the Empire, we will have no reason to fear that we shall
be, from one day to the other, forcibly thrown into perilous adventures
by the Machiavellic machinations of out and out Imperialist enthusiasts.

I have already said that it is becoming more and more evident that TO
BE, or NOT TO BE, the British Empire must either CONSOLIDATE or
DISSOLVE. I must not be understood to mean that with the restoration of
peace under the happy conditions all the Allies are fighting for, the
Empire, as she will emerge from the tornado, could not, as a whole,
resume, for more or less time, her prosperous existence of _ante_-war
days. What will be best to do, it is too early to foresee. Then it is
better to wait for the issue of the war, trusting that all the truly
loyal British subjects will then join together to pronounce upon
whatever questions of imperial concern will claim their urgent
consideration.

But there is a certainty that can be at once positively affirmed. All
the peoples living and developing under the ægis of the British flag are
determined that the British Empire is to be. Whenever a special Imperial
Conference sits in London, all the representatives of the many component
parts of the British Commonwealth will meet in the great Capital surely
to deliberate over the most practical means TO CONSOLIDATE THE EMPIRE.
We may all depend that no one will propose to destroy it.

How best to consolidate the Empire, such will be the important question.
To be sure, the future special Conference will not likely be wanting in
propositions from many outside would-be constitutional framers. Schemes
may be numerous, some worth considering, others useless if not
mischievous. No reason to feel uneasy and to worry about them. We can
confidently hope that British statesmanship will be equal to the new
task it will be called upon to perform. Our Canadian public men will
have much to gain by closer intercourse with their Imperial colleagues,
and by judging great questions from a higher standpoint.

Let there be no mistake about it: the true secret of the most effective
consolidation of the Empire was discovered by the British statesmen the
day when they realized that henceforth free institutions and the largest
possible measure of colonial autonomy were the only sure means to
solidify the structure of the British Commonwealth. Such is the opinion
of the Imperial War Conference outlining in their previously quoted
"Resolution" what must be the fundamental basis of any future
"READJUSTMENT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL RELATIONS OF THE COMPONENT PARTS OF
THE EMPIRE."


CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT OF INDIA.

As a preliminary to the prospective readjustment of the political status
of the Empire, it is worth noting the advance of India towards political
autonomy. It was made manifest by the significant step of inviting India
to the deliberations of the Imperial War Cabinet, and by the
"Resolution" adopted by the Imperial War Conference that India must be
fully represented at all future Imperial Conferences.

Respecting India, the Report of the War Cabinet, for the year 1917,
says:--

    It was clear, however, that this recognition of the new status
    of India in the Empire would necessarily be followed by
    substantial progress towards internal self-government.
    Accordingly, on August 20th, the following important declaration
    of His Majesty's Government on this subject was made in the
    House of Commons by the Secretary of State for India:--

    "The policy of His Majesty's Government, with which the
    Government of India are in complete accord, is that of the
    increasing association of Indians in every branch of the
    administration and the gradual development of self-governing
    institutions with a view to the progressive realization of
    responsible government in India as an integral part of the
    British Empire. They have decided that substantial steps in this
    direction should be taken as soon as possible, and that it is of
    the highest importance, as a preliminary to considering what
    these steps should be, that there should be a free and informal
    exchange of opinion between those in authority at home and in
    India. His Majesty's Government have accordingly decided, with
    His Majesty's approval, that I should accept the Viceroy's
    invitation to proceed to India to discuss these matters with the
    Viceroy and the Government of India, to consider with the
    Viceroy the views of local Governments, and to receive with him
    the suggestions of representative bodies and others. I would add
    that progress in this policy can only be achieved by successive
    stages. The British Government and the Government of India on
    whom the responsibility lies for the welfare and advancement of
    the Indian peoples, must be the judges of the time and measure
    of each advance, and they must be guided by the co-operation
    received from those upon whom new opportunities of service will
    thus be conferred and by the extent to which it is found that
    confidence can be reposed in their sense of responsibility.
    Ample opportunity will be afforded for public discussion of the
    proposals, which will be submitted in due course to Parliament."

    In accordance with this declaration, the Secretary of State left
    for India in October, and has since been in consultation with
    the Government of India and deputations representative of all
    interests and parties in India in regard to the advances which
    should be made in Indian constitutional development in the
    immediate future. No reports as to the results of these
    discussions had been made public by the end of the year.

    Another important decision relating to India was that whereby
    the Government abandoned the rule which confines the granting of
    commissions in the Indian army to officers of British
    extraction. A number of Indian officers, who have served with
    distinction in the war, have already received commissions.

Who, only twenty years ago, would have believed that the day was so near
at hand when this Asiatic vast and populous country, called India, would
be most earnestly considering, through numerous representatives, in
consultation with the British Government, the proper steps to be taken
"FOR THE GRADUAL DEVELOPMENT OF SELF-GOVERNING INSTITUTIONS WITH A VIEW
TO THE PROGRESSIVE REALIZATION OF RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT IN INDIA AS AN
INTEGRAL PART OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE." In every way, it is a most
extraordinary political evolution. If it reaches the admirable
conclusion aimed at--for which success every true friend of Political
Liberty will fervently pray--it will have realized one of the greatest
constitutional achievements of modern times.

Behold just now how safely and wisely this Indian evolution is
proceeding under the experienced direction of British statesmanship. It
is "TO BE ACHIEVED BY SUCCESSIVE STAGES", declares the Secretary of
State for India, speaking in the name of the whole British responsible
Cabinet. Such have been accomplished all the constitutional developments
which have wrought so much perfection for British free institutions.

True progress, in every form, is never revolutionary. And why? For the
very reason that instead of fighting for destruction by brute force, it
aims at perfecting by regular advances in the right direction, by
successive improvements which experience justifies, which reason,
intelligence and wisdom approve, which political sense recommends, which
sound moral principles authorize and sanction.

A country favoured with the free British constitutional regime is not
the land where bolshevikism of any grade or stamp, can flourish and bear
fruits of desolation and shame.

The wonderful Indian country, for so many centuries tortured by
intestine troubles, at last rescued by England from that barbarous
situation, given a reorganized administration able to maintain interior
peace, favoured by British business experience and capital with material
progress in many ways, specially in transportation facilities, may soon
see--let us hope--the dawn of the glorious days of a large measure of
political freedom and responsible government.

Far away indeed from the perilous Imperialism abhorred by our much
depressed "Nationalists" is India safely moving.




CHAPTER XXVII.

THE FUTURE CONSTITUTIONAL RELATIONS OF THE EMPIRE.


Though very difficult to say what they will be, I thought proper, for
the better information of my French Canadian readers, to consider some
of the suggestions which of late years have been repeatedly made.

Mr. Bourassa, in his recent pamphlets, reviewing the situation from his
wrong and prejudiced standpoint, has decidedly come out in favour of
Canadian Independence. The least that can be said is that the time was
very badly chosen to raise the question. To select the moment when the
Motherland was engaged in a fight for life or death, to propose to run
away from the assailed home where we had lived many happy years, was
certainly not an inspiration of loyal devotion and gratitude. I am glad
to say that the wild proposition met with no countenance on the part of
our French Canadian compatriots.

To the point raised in England, some years ago, that it was not to be
supposed that the British Empire was destined to exist forever, one of
the leading British statesmen of the day, then a member of the Cabinet,
answered that, though it was likely to be true that the British
Commonwealth would not be eternal, like many other great political
societies of times gone by, it was surely not the particular duty of a
British minister to do his best to hasten the day of the final downfall
of the country he was sworn to maintain. The rejoinder was no doubt
peremptory. It can very properly be used in answer to Mr. Bourassa's
plea for the independence of Canada.

However, the question having been so unwisely raised, to say the least,
for the obvious purpose of disheartening the French Canadians from their
present situation and raising in their minds extravagant hopes of a
change for the better, I believed it advisable to tell them not to be
carried away by dreams of a too far distant possible realization.

In all frankness, I must say that I have never taken any stock in the
suggestion made from time to time, for the last fifty years, in favour
of Canadian Independence. It always seemed to me that our destinies were
not moving along that way. In my opinion, which nothing has happened to
alter, the steady growth of the consolidation of the Empire was yearly
working against the assumption of the prospective independence of the
Dominion.

But even supposing that the course of events would change and put an end
to British connection, could we pride ourselves with having at last,
though in a very peaceful way, achieved our national independence? I am
more and more strongly impressed by the paramount consideration that,
nominally independent, Canada would be very little so in reality.
Situated as she would be, she could not help being under the
protectorate of the United States. I have always thought so. I think it
more firmly than ever, when I see looming larger every day on the
American political horizon the fact that the neighbouring Republic will
come out of the present war with flying Colours, taking rank as one of
the most powerful nations on earth.

Be that as it may, there is every certainty that the question of
Canadian Independence is not within the range of practical politics. Mr.
Bourassa's proposition is doomed to the failure it deserves.

Consequently, it is much better to try and foresee what the future
political conditions of Canada are more likely to be after the close of
the hostilities. And this must be done with the only purpose of wisely,
and patriotically,--in the larger sense of the word--contributing our
due share to the sound and solid framing of the changes, if any, which
the best interests of the Empire, generally, and of all her component
parts, in particular, may require.

We have not, and I most earnestly hope and pray that we shall not have,
to consider what new political conditions would be as the consequence of
the defeat of the Allies, or even as necessitated by a peace treaty due
to a compromise. We must only look ahead for the encouraging days to
follow the victory won by the united efforts and heroism of the nations
who have rallied to put an end to Prussian militarism.

One certainty is daily becoming more evident. All loyal British subjects
will applaud the triumphant close of the war with the desire to do their
best to maintain and consolidate the Empire they will have saved from
destruction at the cost of so much sacrifices of heroic lives and
resources.


NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION.

The great objection raised by Mr. Bourassa against the participation of
Canada in the wars of the Empire is that the Dominion is not represented
in the Parliament to which the British ministers, advising the Sovereign
on all matters of foreign relations, are responsible. He draws the
conclusion that the Colonies are called upon to pay for the war
expenditures of Great Britain in violation of the constitutional
principle:--NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION. The principle is no
doubt true. But it is altogether wrong to pretend that so far it has
been violated to coerce the Dominion to participate in the wars which
England has been obliged to wage. Our "Nationalists" would be right in
their opposition if the Imperial Parliament had attempted to pass laws
compelling the autonomous Colonies to contribute men and money to a
conflict. Had they claimed the right to raise revenues in Canada by an
Imperial statute, we would certainly have been entitled to affirm that
not being represented in the British House of Commons, we could not be
taxed in any way for any Imperial purpose--war or others.

Nothing of the kind has ever been done, ever been attempted, even ever
been hinted at.

The argument falls entirely to the ground, shattered to pieces, from the
fact that Canada has only participated in the wars of the Empire of her
own free will, in the full enjoyment of her constitutional rights.
Whatever sums of money the Dominion has to pay for the conflicts into
which we have freely and deliberately decided to intervene, are
perceived by the Canadian treasury in virtue of laws passed by our
federal Parliament upon the advice of our responsible Cabinet.

Last year, the people of Canada were called upon to elect new members of
our House of Commons. The citizens of the Dominion had the undoubted
constitutional right to pass condemnation on the ministers and on the
members of Parliament who had voted for the participation in the war
with men and money. They could have elected a new House of Commons to
discontinue such participation and recall our army from Europe. But had
they not the equally undoubted right to do what they have done by such a
solemn expression of a decided and matured opinion:--approve and order
to fight until victory is won?

In accepting with deep gratitude the noble and patriotic support we,
Canadians, were giving her in the most terrible crisis of her Sovereign
existence, was England in any way violating any of our cherished
constitutional privileges? No sensible, no reasonable, no unprejudiced
man can so pretend. The case being such as it is, there is not the
shadow of common sense in the assertion that Canada is taxed without
representation for Imperial war purposes.


COLONIAL REPRESENTATION.

If the question of Colonial representation is raised at the special
Imperial Conference to be held as soon as possible after the war, Mr.
Bourassa and his friends will not be welcomed to cry if it is settled
very differently from their wishes, after their unwise clamour for an
excursion into the unknown.

The question of the readjustment of the constitutional relations of the
component parts of the Empire, when duly brought up, will very likely
take a wide range, so far at least as consideration goes. What will be
the conclusions arrived at, nobody knows.

Pending that time, any one is allowed to express his own views. I
thought proper to explain mine in my book dedicated to the French
Canadians. I now summarize them as follows:--

Would it be advisable to have the Colonies represented in the present
Imperial Parliament? After full consideration of the question, I must
say that I have finally dismissed it from my mind as utterly
impracticable. Can it be supposed for a moment that the electors of
Great Britain would agree to have the Dominions overseas and India
represented in their House of Commons, to participate in the government
of the United Kingdom for all purposes? With representation in the
present British House of Commons, would the Colonies be also represented
in the British Cabinet, to advise the Crown on all matters respecting
the good government of England?

Would the Colonies be represented according to their population in the
British House of Commons? If they were, India alone would have a number
of representatives five times larger than all the other parts of the
Empire.

Is it within the range of possibility that the people of Great Britain
would consent to colonial representatives interfering, even controlling
the management of their internal affairs, whilst they would have no say
whatever in the internal government of the Colonies?

Would the colonial ministers in the British Cabinet be constitutionally
responsible to the people of the United Kingdom without holding their
mandate from them?

Such a system would be so absurd, so radically impossible, that it is
not necessary to argue to prove that it would not work for one single
year.

In my opinion, Colonial representation would be practicable only with
the creation of a new truly Imperial Parliament, the present British
Parliament to continue to exist but with constitutional powers reduced
to the management of the internal affairs of the United Kingdom. If such
is the scheme of the "Nationalists," then they are converts to that
Imperial Federation which they have vehemently denounced for years, and
to the largest measure possible of that Imperialism which has been
cursed with their worst maledictions.

If ever complete Imperial Federation becomes an accomplished fact, how
will it be organized? Will the new Imperial Parliament consist of one
Sovereign, one House of Lords--or Senate--one House of Commons?

Would the Sovereign be King or Emperor? I, for one, would prefer the
word EMPEROR. He might be titled His Majesty the Emperor of the British
Commonwealth and the King of Great Britain.

With Imperial Federation--a regime of complete Imperial autonomy--the
word "colonies" would no longer apply. Would Canada, Australia, South
Africa, India, New Zealand be called Kingdoms, like Prussia, Bavaria,
Saxony, Wurtemberg, of the German Empire?

Evidently, the constitutional powers of the new Parliament would be
limited to external relations, to strictly Imperial affairs.

The new constitutional organization of the British Empire would combine
Imperial, National and Provincial autonomy, each operating within the
well defined limits of their respective privileges and attributions.

Under such a regime, there would be three sorts of responsible Cabinets:
The Imperial Cabinet responsible to the whole Imperial electorate; the
National Cabinets of the component Kingdoms of the British Empire
responsible to the electorate of each one of those Kingdoms
respectively; the Provincial Cabinets responsible to the electors of
each province respectively.

The Royal--or rather Imperial--Prerogative to declare war and to make
peace would be exercised upon the responsibility of the Imperial
Cabinet.

To the new Imperial Parliament would undoubtedly be given the right and
the duty to provide for Imperial defense. They would have to organize an
Imperial army and an Imperial navy for the protection of the whole
Empire.

The whole of the reorganized Empire would have to pay the whole of the
expenditures required for Imperial purposes, defense and others, on land
and sea, out of revenues raised by laws of the Imperial Parliament.

Under the new Imperial constitutional regime, would the Imperial
Parliament be given the authority to regulate Imperial trade and
commerce, the Imperial postal service, &c.?

Would the new Parliament have the exclusive right to approve commercial
treaties sanctioned by His Majesty the Emperor, upon the advice of his
responsible Imperial Cabinet, without reference whatever to the National
Parliaments of the component Kingdoms?

How easily is it ascertained that numerous questions of paramount
importance are at once brought to one's mind the moment the vast problem
of a new and greater Imperial Commonwealth is considered. Shortsighted
and inexperienced are the politicians and the publicists who imagine
that it could be given a satisfactory solution after hasty and
insufficient deliberations. It is very reassuring to know that the
matter necessarily being suggested for consideration at the Imperial War
Conference, last year, it was immediately decided, by a "Resolution,"
adopted on the proposition of the Canadian Prime Minister, "THAT THE
READJUSTMENT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL RELATIONS OF THE COMPONENT PARTS OF
THE EMPIRE IS TOO IMPORTANT AND INTRICATE A SUBJECT TO BE DEALT WITH
DURING THE WAR."

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 participate, 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 constitutional 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 shivering 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
constitutional 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 constitutional
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, CÆSARISM. 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 institutions. 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 substituted 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 CÆSARISM 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 passed 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 constitutional 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 constitutional 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 constitutional 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 constitutional 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 constitutional institutions.

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 vassalage 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 passions? 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 circumstances. 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 constitutional 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_.

And to-day, when the United States are doing such a gigantic effort,
conjointly with the whole British Empire, to save Humanity from German
cruel domination, England, to use the very words of the distinguished
writer and historian just cited, "MAY WELL BE PROUDER OF THE VIGOROUS
FREEDOM OF HER PROSPEROUS SON THAN OF A HUNDRED PROVINCES SUBJECT TO THE
IRON RULE OF BRITISH PRO-CONSULS."

The possibilities of the material development of the Dominions of
Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa--without counting India
and the lesser colonies--on account of their immense natural resources,
are such as to justify very great hopes for their future. The time will
come when they will number together a much larger population than the
United Kingdom. Will the British Empire, as foreseen by one of the
greatest political minds Canada has produced, declared by his chief and
worthy opponent the equal to the celebrated William Pitt, then develop
into a grand Commonwealth of nations.

If so, as wrote Sir Erskine May, England "_will reflect, with
exultation, that her dominion ceased, not in oppression and bloodshed
but in the expansive energies of freedom, and the hereditary capacity of
her manly offspring for the privileges of self-government_."

Several generations will certainly rise and disappear before such an
important question, looming far off in the future, is likely to be--if
ever--raised requiring a practical solution. But foreseeing such a
distant possibility, it is still more our bounden duty to be true to our
present and prospective obligations for many years to come, as
foreshadowed by the actual course of events shaping themselves in the
sense of the consolidation of the Empire which may never be really
dissolved even by the separation of her manly _offspring_. Family bonds,
strengthened by deep affection, are not broken because the faithful boy,
grown up a healthy and strong man, leaves to go under his own blessed
roof, taking with him to his last day the cherished recollections of the
happy days he has passed in the equally blessed parental home.

One of our most ardent desires must be that our successive generations
of children be so well trained to the intelligent and patriotic use of
Political Liberty, as to accumulate, in due course of time, an admirable
heritage of sound principles of self-government enriched by the
honourable examples of our faithful loyalty to the Mother land never
grudged to her, but given with overflowing measure, not only as a matter
of duty, but also as a reward from grateful subjects for the regard and
respect always paid to their constitutional rights and privileges.

If such is ever the natural outcome of our political achievements, the
vast Empire reared with such a great success would truly survive
separation, being merely transformed into a splendid galaxy of
independent States still bound together by the strong ties created by
centuries of reciprocal devotedness. It would constitute a real league
of nations working in concert and with grandeur for the peace and the
prosperity of the whole world.


A MACHIAVELLIAN PROPOSITION.

On reading Mr. Bourassa's pamphlet entitled:--_Yesterday, To-day,
To-morrow_, I discovered what I have qualified a _Machiavellian
proposition_. What _Machiavellism_ means is well known. It expresses the
views of that most corrupt and contemptible politician and publicist,
called MACHIAVEL, born at Florence, in 1649.

At page 140 of the above mentioned pamphlet, Mr. Bourassa wrote:--

"I WILL SPEAK MY MIND OPENLY--_JE VOUS LIVRE TOUTE MA PENSÉE_--: IF IN
DEFAULT OF INDEPENDENCE, I CLAIM IMPERIAL REPRESENTATION, IT IS BECAUSE
IT WOULD WEAKEN THE MILITARY ORGANIZATION OF ENGLAND,--_l'armature de
guerre de l'Angleterre_--PRECIPITATE THE DISSOLUTION OF HER EMPIRE,
HASTEN THE DAY OF DELIVERANCE, FOR US AND FOR THE WHOLE WORLD."

Such are the loyal sentiments expressed by the "Nationalist" leader. He
clamours for the Imperial representation of the Colonies, for the
solemnly avowed object to use the privilege for the destruction of the
Empire. To achieve this end he declares that the military power of
England must first be weakened.

No wonder then that he started his "Nationalist" campaign by fighting
with all his might the two successive proposals of contribution to the
great military naval fleet of Great Britain.

No wonder that he opposed Canada's intervention in favour of England in
the South African war.

No wonder that from the outbreak of the hostilities, in 1914, until the
day when he was shut up by the Order-in-Council censuring all disloyal
speaking and writing detrimental to the winning of the war, he has tried
to move heaven and earth to prevent Canada's participation in the
conflict.

He tells his countrymen that if he has become a convert to Imperial
representation--in other words, Imperial Federation--it is because he
considers it would be the best way of ruining the Empire and of
delivering, not only Canada, but the whole world from British
domination.

For fear that the French Canadians, whom he especially wished to
influence, would not be very easily caught in the disloyal trap, he
tries hard to prevail upon them by the following reasons:--

"_If we are not sufficiently clear-sighted and energetic to work for
this salutary object by the most constitutional, the most British, means
at our disposal, others, happily, will do it for us._

"_The English-Canadians, the Australians, the New Zealanders persistingly
claim representation in the government of the Empire. When the war is
over, their claims will be reaffirmed with increased ampleness and
energy. The Indians (les Hindous) themselves will do the same. Shall we
remain alone to rot stupidly (croupir béatement) in colonial
abjection._"

Without the slightest doubt, there are many English-Canadians,
Australians, New Zealanders, South Africans, Indians, in favour of
Colonial Imperial representation. The number is increasing and likely to
increase. But Mr. Bourassa is absolutely, I might as well say, absurdly,
mistaken, if he really believes that they do so for his own purpose of
destroying the British Empire. They want the very reverse: their object
is TO CONSOLIDATE THE EMPIRE, not TO DISSOLVE HER. They will not accept
as a very flattering compliment Mr. Bourassa's charge that their desire
to strengthen the British Commonwealth proves that they prefer to
continue _stupidly rotting in colonial abjection_ rather than work for
their deliverance from British domination.

But what in the world has brought the "Nationalist" leader to the
conclusion that the surest way to save Canada from the peril of
Imperialism was to secure Imperial representation for the treasonable
purpose, on entering the fort, to pull down the flag and destroy the
whole Empire? To frighten his French Canadian compatriots with terror at
the slightest move in favour of an increased Imperialism, he waves
before them, with wild gesticulation, any and every extravagant writings
he lays his hand on preaching a ridiculous expansion of Imperialist
aspirations. He is perhaps the only man in Canada who has read a most
absurd work which he pretends to have been written by a General named
Lea, and from which, in horror stricken, he summarized a few
unbelievable views.

Mr. Bourassa said that General Lea, _gifted with an astonishing
foresight, predicted all that was happening in Europe and in the world.
The General_, again affirms Mr. Bourassa, _has proved in a striking way
that if England wishes to maintain her Empire and to continue exercising
her domination over the world she must make the sacrifice of her
political liberties and of those of her Colonies, abolish the
Parliamentary and Representative Governments and resolutely adopt the
ironed regime of the Romans of old, of the Germans of the present day_.

Once so brilliantly inspired, General Lea went on in a splendid manner.
He added, says Mr. Bourassa, _that England must transform her Empire
into a vast armed camp, must keep in her own hands all the powers of
command, must subdue all the non-British races to the supremacy of the
Anglo-Saxons united together by the unique thought of dominating the
world by brutal force_.

These views--so says Mr. Bourassa--are to be found in a book entitled:
"_The Day of the Saxon_." If they have been really expressed with the
full sense given to them by Mr. Bourassa's translation into French, I
cannot say less than that they are most absurd, most extravagant. The
Nationalist leader would have proved himself a much more sensible, a
wiser man, if, laughing at such senseless notions, he had refrained from
quoting those lines for the purpose of telling the French-Canadians that
like all non-British races on earth they were doomed to be
devoured--flesh and bones--by the voracious Anglo-Saxons bent on
swallowing humanity. And to save them from such a cruel fate, he
implores them to clamour for Imperial representation with the criminal
intent of betraying their trust, and to use the honourable privilege
they would be granted to ruin the Empire they would swear to maintain
and defend. So far as the political program of General Lea is
concerned, we have not yet learned that its benevolent author was doing
much in the war to carry it out. If I had the honour to meet the
General, being presented, I presume, by Mr. Bourassa, I would ask him,
first, when and where he has discovered that England was _dominating the
world_.

I know that there exists a great England holding a large situation on
earth. Her Empire extends to almost a fourth of the globe. Her
Sovereignty reigns over nearly four hundred million of human beings; a
truly beneficient Sovereignty, because it rules according to the wishes,
to the opinions of its subjects, managing their own affairs in virtue of
the freest political institutions in the whole world.

I know of no England dominating, or even aspiring to dominate, the
world. Such an England only exists in the heated imagination of that
General Lea and in the minds of all those, like the Nationalist leader,
who are, or feign to be, tortured by the bugbear of military Imperialism
of the old Roman ironed type.

As long as three-fourths of the earth will remain independent of the
British Empire, under numerous sovereignties, England's pretended
domination of the world will ever only be an extravagant dream.

Wishing England _to continue her domination of the world_, General Lea,
no doubt to please Mr. Bourassa, was bound to suggest the means to do
so. Let us analyze them.

1.--England _must make the sacrifice of her political liberties and of
those of her Colonies_.

2.--She _must abolish parliamentary and representative governments_.

It is beyond conception that Mr. Bourassa should have for one minute
seriously considered such absurd notions.

I would enjoy attending large public meetings in Great Britain, where
General Lea would propose to British free men the sacrifice of all their
political liberties, to witness the rather warm reception he would be
favoured with. I am sure he would have to rush out of the halls much
faster than he would have walked in.

Where is the sane man who really believes that, dreaming of a domination
of the world by _brute force_, British free men would consent to do away
with their Parliamentary system _to transform the whole of the Empire
into an armed camp_? Such a proposition was sheer madness, a most
foolish talk, unworthy of the slightest attention from sensible people.
Mr. Bourassa was very wrong in giving it publicity, and very unwise, to
say the least, in using it to frighten his French-Canadian compatriots
by blandishing before their eyes that ridiculous specimen of the phantom
of Imperialism.

Is it to be supposed for one single instant that the British people, so
rightly proud of their political liberties, and of their representative
government, which after centuries of efforts and trials they have
successfully brought to such perfection, basing its future permanency on
the solid rock of ministerial responsibility, would consent to sacrifice
them for the sake of a vain, a ridiculous, an odious and impracticable
scheme _to dominate the world by brute force_?

It is ten times worse than madness to believe that the British people
who have torn away from the British soil the last root of ABSOLUTISM,
would, for any earthly reason, renounce their most legitimate conquests,
to rebuild, on the burning ruins of their most sacred rights, an ironed
political regime of the old Roman or present German type! Is it to be
believed that they would agree to replace, on the glorious Throne which
they protect with all the might of their loyal affection, their present
constitutional Sovereign by a new Nero or another Wilhelm II?

If it is with the purpose of preventing such a dire calamity that the
Nationalist leader became a convert to Imperial Federation, he is
absolutely losing his time and his energy in promoting such a regime.
If ever Imperial Federation becomes a fact, we can all rest perfectly
assured that the new Imperial Parliament will not vote their own
destruction to be replaced by an autocratic and tyrannical government.

I hope that Mr. Bourassa is the only believer, all over Canada, in the
assertion of General Lea that England's aspirations is _to dominate the
world by brute force_. It is a most injurious, I can say, calumnious,
charge. All know, or should know, that England was the first nation to
completely abolish slavery over all her Empire; that has granted, in the
largest possible measure, Political Liberty to all her Colonies; that
guarantees to all races the same rights and privileges, never
interfering in colonial internal management. He is wilfully guilty of a
calumnious charge the man who accuses the British race to aspire to
dominate the world by an _ironed regime_, when he should know that Great
Britain ran the risk of a crushing defeat, in refusing to organize a
standing army of several millions of trained officers and men.


A TREASONABLE PROPOSAL.

The Nationalist leader wants the French-Canadians to support his scheme
in order _to work for the salutary object of demolishing the British
Empire by the so very constitutional means of Imperial Federation_. How
he has failed to realize the infamous kind of suggestion he was making
will always be a wonder to all those reading it.

If, sooner or later, Great Britain and her Colonies are politically
organized as an Imperial Federation, the Province of Quebec will have
several French-Canadian representatives in the new Greater Imperial
Parliament. The Nationalist leader wants those French-Canadian Members
to go to London pledged to destroy the Empire to which they will have
to swear allegiance and fealty before crossing the threshold of the
House of Commons and taking their seats. Does he not understand that any
French-Canadian doing what he wishes and recommends would deliberately
perjure himself? Does he not comprehend that he was paying a rather poor
compliment to his British countrymen from Canada, Australia, New Zealand
and India, when he affirmed, without the shadow of truth, that they
would elect to the Imperial Parliament members holding the mandate from
them to work for the dissolution of the Empire?

I notice, with surprise, that in the enumeration he has drawn of the
future destroyers of the future federated British Empire, he has not
convened his friends, the Boers, to his holy task. Does he not consider
them as _farsighted_ and _energetic_ as the others he has pompously
mentioned with such childish illusion. Or, has he not, unconsciously,
paid them the high compliment to suppose that they would be unable to
accomplish the treasonable act which, with confidence, and even
certainty, he expects from the others. Our countrymen, the Boers of
South Africa, have, by a large majority, become so loyal to the Crown,
to the Empire,--and they have so gloriously proved it since the outbreak
of the war--that it is manifestly evident that they are very well
satisfied with their present position, that they have dispelled from
their minds all bitter recollections of the struggle which, a few years
ago, finally brought them within the Empire they are doing such a noble
effort to maintain and save from the German tyrannical grasp.

The following views, recently expressed, in London, by Mr. Burton,
Minister of Railways and Harbours in the Government of South Africa, a
leading public man of the far away sister Dominion, is refreshing
reading after Mr. Bourassa's outrageous outburst above quoted. He
said:--

"_One of the motives which prompted South African support of the British
cause was the fact, which appealed not only to the English-speaking
population, but moved the Dutch population--the fact that the British
cause had embraced all the progressive peoples of the world. It was not
Britain's wealth, or influence, or power that appealed to them; it was
the priceless privilege of the maintenance of our constitutional
liberties. He could illustrate their attitude by a single incident which
had come within his own experience in connection with a Transvaaler,
born and bred, whom he had questioned as to his future in the military
service in which he was an officer. The officer replied that he had been
through the German South-West African campaign, that he was going
through the German East African campaign, and when that was done he
intended making for Flanders. He added: "I mean that as a man I could
not act otherwise in view of the treatment dealt out to us by Great
Britain. If she had not done what she did for us I should not have
stirred hand or foot._""

No one need be surprised that the South African Dominion is suffering a
little from the "Nationalist" fever, a disease infesting many countries,
in various degrees, and with time cured by the safe remedy of the sound
common sense of the people. We know too much about it ourselves, after
nearly eighty years of free responsible government, to wonder at the
fact that a small minority of the Dutch South Africans--from the Boer
element--is not yet fully reconciled with their lot under the British
Crown. They apparently dream of Republicanism, in sullen recollection of
a recent past which only some of the present generation still regret,
but which the next will strive to cherish only as the stepping stone to
their actual status so full of good promises for their future. The few
South Africans suffering from this virus are almost exclusively
recruited amongst the populations of the late Republics of South Africa.
The people of the provinces of Natal and Cape Colony, with a long
experience of British rule, have no faith in the "republican
nationalism" desired by some, which does not in the least appeal to
their good sense and their sound political foresight. Mr. Burton
believes "_that the instigators of the movement are looking for votes
more than for anything else_."

Mr. Burton, moreover, truly said:--

"_It was part of the history of all countries that what was called
"Nationalism" made a powerful appeal to the finer classes of young men.
It was an admirable sentiment, but what was complained of in South
Africa was that the sentiment was expended upon a wrong conception of
"nationalism" and what nationhood should be. In South Africa it was
restricted, it was sectional, and practically racial. The energy and
activity displayed were being spent upon a mistaken cause._"

Every word of this quotation applies with still greater force to the
"nationalism" of the Province of Quebec.

Mr. Burton goes on saying:--

"_It was the cause of South Africa first--as it should be--but it was
more than that. It was South Africa first, last, and all the time, and
South Africa alone. He and those who were associated with him could not
accept that view. It would mean ruinous chaos in South Africa. They had
obligations to Great Britain. It was not merely that they had received
recognition from the beginning that their Constitutional cause was just.
It was not merely that Great Britain in its relation with South Africa
had been actuated by that beneficent influence which the British system
of liberty effected under the sway of its flag throughout the world, but
it was that the people of the Union realized the true inward
significance of the struggle in which the Empire was engaged. They knew
that the world's freedom was at stake, and with it their own. The people
in South Africa had long ago awakened to this great fact, and they were
realizing it more and more as the war went on. When he had spoken of
putting "South Africa first" as the motto of a party he wished it to be
understood that he and the people of South Africa generally accepted it,
as every nation was bound to accept it. But they also realized that
their future as a nation and their freedom as a nation were at stake,
and that their interests were bound up with those of the British
Empire._

"_It was because they realized that fact that the Government of the
Union had in these troublous times nailed its flag to the mast. It was
the honourable course, the right course, and they had stuck to it
through good report and ill report, and through much trial and
sacrifice. His last message as representative of the Union Government
was: Upon that attitude of the Union Government they might depend to the
very last. They might be forced--he did not see any present prospect of
it--to abandon office, but so long as they were in office they would
adhere absolutely in the letter and in the spirit to the undertaking
they had given and would continue in the path they had followed
hitherto._"

Sensible, truly political and patriotic, noble words, indeed. Are they
not the complete expression of the powerful wave of enthusiasm which
spread throughout the length and breadth of the whole British Dominions
overseas, when, after exhausting to the last drop her efforts to
maintain peace, Great Britain, in honour bound, threw her gallant sword
in the balance in which the destinies of the world were to be weighed
during the frightful years of the most terrific thundering storm ever
witnessed by man?

How weighty those words are is evident. They are still more so by the
fact that they positively and firmly express the views and sentiments of
the two most trusted and illustrious leaders of the Boers, who, both of
them, took a very prominent part in the South African war, as generals
commanding the forces of the South African Republics: General Botha and
General Smuts.

General Botha is, and has been for several years, the Prime Minister of
the South African Dominion. General Smuts is minister of Defence in
General Botha's Cabinet. He is the representative of the Government of
the Union of South Africa in the Imperial War Cabinet. In June, 1917, he
was, moreover, "invited to attend the meetings of the British War
Cabinet during his stay in the British Isles."

Both General Botha and General Smuts have often spoken about the present
relations of their great Dominion with England. The press of the whole
British Empire has published their speeches, most favourably commented
by that of the Allied nations. In every case, they were brilliant with
true and staunch loyalty, worthy of the real statesmen the speakers are,
in every sense fully up to what could be expected from the illustrious
military and political leaders of a valiant race deserving the respect
of all by her heroism of the past and her loyalty of present days.

If ever Mr. Bourassa, as I hope he will, reads the above quoted lines, I
am sure he will find therein every reason to be satisfied with his
decision not to call upon the South Africans to join with him and those
he has summoned, in the unworthy task of bringing on Imperial Federation
for the very treasonable purpose of destroying the British Empire. For
once, his judgment did not fail him.

Nobody knows if representatives from the whole present colonial
Dominions and India will ever sit, in London, as members of a new
Imperial Parliament. It is most unlikely, at all events, that any one,
merely to please Mr. Bourassa, will help building such a political
structure with the criminal and treasonable purpose of throwing it at
once to the ground with a tremendous crash. But we can all safely join
in the affirmation that in the event of such a great historical fact
being accomplished as that of a federated British Commonwealth, the
representatives of the Colonies overseas will meet in the Imperial
Capital to do their duty with loyalty and honour. I have no hesitation
whatever to pledge my word that the French Canadian representatives in
London would be amongst the most loyal to their Sovereign and to the
Empire, the most true to their oath.

I solemnly protest against the injurious imputation the Nationalist
leader has addressed to my French Canadian compatriots in charging them
with the desire _to rot stupidly in colonial abjection_. Let us
repulse the unfounded accusation from an elevated standpoint. I feel the
utmost contempt for all kinds of narrow prejudices, of blind fanaticism.
Nations, like individuals, all pursue Providential destinies in this
human world. There is no more abjection in the colonial status than in
any other. Canada is a British colony by the decree of Providence. Every
nation--like every individual--has duties to perform in any situation
she may occupy in the course of historical events. Abjection is not the
result of the faithful discharge of duty, however trying the
circumstances may be. It would be in its violation with the guilty
intent to betray.

A hundred times better it is to remain a colony as long as the Supreme
Ruler of the world will so order, than to attempt to break through by
the dark plot of an infamous conspiration.

Let our destinies follow their natural development, striving to the best
of our ability and patriotism to have them to achieve the happy
conditions which we enjoy. Any man aspiring to a legitimate influence on
the mind of our compatriots, must encourage them, by words and deeds, to
faithfully accomplish their daily task in showing them the advantages of
their position. Inconveniences are the outgrowth of any political
standing. In the true Christian spirit, trials are everywhere to be met
with. Sacrifice, when necessary, ennobles national as well, and as much,
as individual life.

It is very wrong on the part of any one to trouble the mind of our
compatriots in purposely exhibiting to their view discouraging pictures
of the difficulties of their situation. Their national existence is not,
never will, never can be, exclusively rosy. Be it as it may, who can
pretend, in good faith, that there exists, on the surface of the globe,
a population, all things considered, happier than our own. Our race
freely grows on a fertile and blessed soil which she cultivates with her
vigorous and intelligent daily toils, which she waters from the sweat of
her brow, to which she clings by all the affections of her heart, by the
noblest aspirations of her soul. On week days, proudly working on her
domains; on Sundays, kneeling before the Altars of her Church, fervently
thanking Him for past graces and gifts, she prays to the Supreme Giver
of all earthly goods to continue to favour her with peace, with order,
in the legitimate enjoyment of her liberties, together with the moral,
intellectual and material progress she is striving to deserve.

Guilty is the man who tortures them with chimerical aspirations, who
advises them to conspire against the legitimate authority which she
must, and will, respect in spite of the seductions attempted to have her
to fail in her duty.




CHAPTER XXVIII.

OUTRAGES ARE NO REASONS.


The failings of human nature, the differences of temper, of the
qualities and defects of heart and soul, are such that harmony and
good-will amongst men in private life are too often difficult to secure.
The Divine precept, so frequently broken, should, however, always rule
the relations between man and man. It should, with still more constant
application, rule the relations between different races Providentially
called to live together on the same soil, under the same Sovereign
authority, enjoying the same institutions, the same liberties, protected
by the same flag. That the house divided against itself is sure to fall
is true of the nation as well as of the home. National and family
happiness and prosperity are alike dependent on the feelings of real
brotherhood which prevail in both. Any good hearted man appreciates how
much kindness of speech, courtesy of dealings, cordiality of manners,
contribute to reciprocal good-fellowship, brotherly in the home,
inspiring in the daily intercourse of citizens, patriotic in the nation
at large. The more a Sovereign State is inhabited by numerous ethnical
groups, like the British Empire and the American Republic, the more
important it is that the freedom of expressing one's opinion on all
matters of public interest should be used with fairness, with respect
for those holding different views, with due regard for the feelings
which are the natural outcome of racial developments, of cherished
recollections, of legitimate hopes.

Such are the principles, I am most happy to say, that I have admired and
try to practice in the exercise of my rights as a citizen of the
Province where I saw the light of day, of Canada where I have lived and
hope to live all my years, of the British Empire whose loyal subject I
have been and am determined to remain to my last moment.

How then could I have helped being shocked when I came to read the
following lines I translate as follows from page 121 of Mr. Bourassa's
pamphlet:--"_Yesterday, To-day, To-morrow_":--

"_Were the French Canadians to persist in their obstination to rot in
colonialism and to consider that it is for them the happiest and the
most glorious condition of existence, the English Canadians would force
them out of it. Our countrymen of the British races have grave defects:
they are_ IGNORANT, PRETENTIOUS, ARROGANT, SHORT-SIGHTED, DOMINEERING.
_They are, more than ourselves_, ROTTEN WITH MERCANTILISM. _They seem to
have lost some of the best qualities of the English people, to have
developed their faults and acquire many of the_ VICES NATURAL TO THE
WORST CATEGORY OF YANKEES. _But they have not_, LIKE US, _totally_
ABDICATED _the_ PROUD CHARACTER _and the_ PRIMORDIOUS RIGHTS _of the
British peoples. When the war is over, they will claim, like the
Australians, the New Zealanders, and the Indians (les Hindous), a
readjustment of the powers of government_."

Thus, in a few lines the Nationalist leader, in appealing to his
disordered imagination, has succeeded in slapping, in one single stroke,
with dynamical outrages, the faces of the English-speaking Canadians of
the three great British races, of our neighbours, the Yankees, and of
his own compatriots, the French-Canadians. How could he expect that such
vitriolic language would promote, in the Dominion, that harmony of
feelings never before so essential as at the very time he was writing
that injurious paragraph of his work, surely not intended to help
winning the war so full of the greatest consequences, for good or ill,
for the World, the British Empire, Canada, and our own Province of
Quebec.

So far, Mr. Bourassa, having gone back on the admiration he was wont to
profess for England, in his early youth, had reserved all his assaults
for the English people. But the heart of man, once under the sway of an
unlimited and unsatisfied ambition, is bound to drop to the lowest
depths of the extremist's aberration. In the above quotation, he fires
his battery of _Kruppic_ dimensions--loaded with poisonous invectives,
at the THREE GREAT BRITISH RACES, ENGLISH, SCOTCH AND IRISH, living in
Canada.

Had his charge been intended for the English race alone, he would have
been very particular in so saying. But, let there be no mistake about
it, he deliberately wrote _our countrymen of the British races_.
Wanting, I suppose, to prove his impartiality, he remembered that the
United Kingdom is peopled by three illustrious races represented all
over the globe by many millions of worthy sons, everywhere to be found
hard at work for the intelligent development of the resources of the
countries they live in and are rearing their children. More than four
millions of them are Canadians by birth or born in Great Britain. Many
more numerous they are in the United States where they form the solid
stock upon which the future of the Republic is firmly grounded.

With the same thrust, Mr. Bourassa strikes at the Yankees who, we may
hope, have not trembled too much at the blow. He charges them with
having infested his poor _countrymen of the British races_ with _many of
the vices natural to the worst category of_ "YANKEEISM." Kind, cordial,
courteous, indeed he was in such a mood of tender sympathies for the
Canadian British races and their contagious cousins the Yankees of the
most corrupted class!

However, the finest flower of the whole _bouquet--the rose par
excellence_--is the one he has gallantly presented to his
French-Canadian compatriots. He tells them with the sweetest tones of
his charming voice that they are pleased and happy to rot in
"_colonialism_." But, evidently wishing to speak to them a few
encouraging words, he mildly reminds them _that they are less rotten
with "mercantilism" than their countrymen of the British races_.

A man can be suffering less than his more sickly brother without, for
all that, being in very good health. It is a poor consolation for the
French Canadians to hear from the Nationalist leader that they are less
infested with the mercantile virus than their brothers of the British
races.

All those who have followed with some attention Mr. Bourassa's course
for the last twenty years, know that he is an equilibrist of the first
class. Having favoured the French Canadians with the flattering
compliment as above, he turns about and lashes them with the sweeping
slap that, contrary to the stand the Canadians of the British races
cling to with an obstination which he deigns to approve, they, the
degenerated French Canadians whom he pities so much, "_have totally
abdicated their proud character_ of old _and the primordial rights of
British subjects_."

So, in Mr. Bourassa's opinion, his French Canadian compatriots are
infested to a high degree both with the _colonialist_ and _mercantile_
corruptions. Hence, his fear that they are threatened with a premature
national death if they do not at once listen to his brotherly warnings.

I have already answered the Nationalist leader's charge that the French
Canadians are stupidly rotting in "COLONIAL ABJECTION." The same reasons
refute his assumption that "COLONIALISM" is an abject status for a
people.

A people, a race, who would enjoy living under the German autocratic
colonial rule--for which the Nationalist leader has so little
dislike--would indeed prove some disposition to _rot stupidly in
abjection_. But the divers peoples, the different races, who appreciate
all the beneficent advantages of the present British colonial rule, are
of very superior stock. They know, from the clearest conception, that
Monarchical democratic institutions are as much different from Imperial
autocratic tyranny, as true broad patriotism is far above narrow and
fanatical "Nationalism."

I have only to say a few words about the "ROTTENNESS OF MERCANTILISM"
against which, according to Mr. Bourassa, the French Canadian are not
sufficiently protected.

Going back to my recollections of the last sixty years, if there is a
complaint which through all my life I have heard almost daily, with deep
regret, it is that the French Canadians were not striving with
sufficient energy and perseverance to achieve a better and larger
position in the business world. Their leaders, religious, political and
civil, to induce them to increased exertions, have always pointed to the
example given them by their countrymen of the British races: by the
clear headed and far-seeing English business man, the sturdy and hard
working Scotch, the enterprising and witty Irish. Thank God, I have well
enough understood my duty to do my humble but patriotic share to favour
this progressive movement. Never, in so wisely advising the French
Canadians, any one supposed for a minute that he was leading them to the
infested pond of _mercantile corruption_. The change wished by all was
becoming more urgent. All were looking for the best means to carry it
out. Our leaders, having at their head, by right and merit, our
religious chiefs under the authority of a prince of our Church, his
Eminence the Cardinal-Archbishop of Quebec, took the initiative with an
ever increasing interest in the success they considered so important.

The establishment of a permanent school of high commercial education and
of several technical schools was most favourably approved. Political
economy is even, in a certain measure, taught in several of our
classical colleges for secondary education. The necessity for our young
men of knowing the English language, to succeed in commercial,
industrial and financial pursuits in Canada and in the neighbouring
Republic, is more and more generally admitted. The French Canadians,
fully enjoying the undoubted right to do so, aspire to achieve an
advantageous and honourable position in commerce, in industry, in
finance, in transportation, in mine working. The more we realize this
goal of our legitimate ambition, the more we are also intensifying our
efforts to promote agricultural progress and the improvement of our
country roads.

If, in all the branches of our national activity, we obtain the success
we hope for, one single man alone amongst us shudders at the idea that
the French Canadians will blindly destroy their race with a mortal dose
of the cursed "MERCANTILISM" so dishonourable to the British races.

And Mr. Bourassa, instead of heartily joining with all the leaders of
his race--Cardinal, Archbishops, Bishops, priests, statesmen, political
men, judges, professional men, merchants, manufacturers, financiers,--to
favour, as much as possible, the commercial and technical training of
his compatriots, sneers at such efforts which, in his candid opinion,
are only plunging them in the irremediable depths of "MERCANTILE
CORRUPTION"!

Are not such abominable teachings a curse to all those of the race to
which they are addressed with an unsurpassed cynicism?




CHAPTER XXIX.

HOW MR. BOURASSA PAID HIS COMPLIMENTS TO THE CANADIAN ARMY.


With a most admirable unanimity--_nemine contradicente_, as
Parliamentary procedure says--the Canadian Parliament decided at once,
at the very outbreak of the hostilities, to organize a great army to go
and defend the Empire of which the Dominion is an important component
part, and Civilization in peril from the Teutonic crushing wave of
barbarism, let loose over Belgium and France. In the most evidently
constitutional ways, the Canadian people, as a whole, as they had the
right and the bounden duty to do, approved the decision of Parliament.

When Mr. Bourassa issued the pamphlets referred to, some four hundred
thousands volunteers had already enlisted. A large number of them--over
one hundred and sixty thousands had reached the western front--some the
eastern--where they fought valiantly, heroically, on French soil,
against the German hordes. Thousands of them had fallen on the field of
honour, resting with imperishable glory, for them and for us all, in
that ancestral land which we, and ever will, cherish.

More than one hundred and twenty-five thousands were on British soil,
being trained for the military operations of the following spring.

The rest of the army, in numerous thousands, was still with us, getting
organized for the noble task, and waiting to cross over the Atlantic to
go on the field of battle.

The Canadian army had in every way merited the respect and the
admiration of all their countrymen who were very happy to so testify.

However, in this admirable concert of praise and grateful
congratulations, a very discordant note was one day heard resounding
from the lowest inspiration of the human heart vibrating with feelings
of shameful contempt. It is found at page 105 of the pamphlet previously
quoted, and reads as follows in its naked outrageous language:--

"_In Canada, a militarism is being forged unparalleled in any civilized
country, a depraved and undisciplined soldiery, an armed scoundrelism,
without faith nor law, as refractory to the call of individual honour as
to the authority of its parading or patronage officers._"

For all the treasures of the world, I would not agree to bear before my
countrymen the responsibility of such injurious words addressed to the
Canadian army whose valour is doing so much for our national honour.

In one single masterly stroke of his poisoned pen the Nationalist leader
decrees that the Canadian army is far below the worst type of German
and Turkish soldiery, that no other civilized country is cursed with
such a degraded, undisciplined, dishonoured militarism.

For God's sake, whence and where has such an outrageous outburst
originated? From what dark corner has the electric current been poured
out with such infernal fury?

I shall not pretend that all our volunteers, from first to last, had
reached the saintly state of soul of their inexorable judge. As a rule
poor mortals do not jump, by a single effort, up to that degree of
Christian perfection shining with the great virtues of humility,
charity, justice--by words and deeds. We must not suppose that many of
our heroic volunteers had deserved, like their trusted friend and
admirer, Mr. Bourassa, to be canonized during their life time. That some
of them, whose past was perhaps not a very strong recommendation, have
enlisted with the laudable purpose to rehabilitate themselves in their
own self-estimation and in that of their countrymen, it is very likely.
Far from blaming them for so doing, we must congratulate them and
encourage them to persevere in the glorious task which will entitle them
to the everlasting gratitude of their country. Such has been the case in
the armies of all nations for many centuries past.

Fortunately, far better and much more authorized judges of the devotion,
courage and patriotism of the volunteers of the great Canadian army, as
well as of the cause for the triumph of which they have offered, and in
so many cases, given their lives, were easily found. They wrote and
spoke with no uncertain voice.

In a letter approving the publication of a very interesting pamphlet,
entitled:--"_War controversy between Catholics_"--"_La controverse de
guerre entre Catholiques_,"--His Eminence Cardinal Begin, Archbishop of
Quebec, said:--

"_Attentively read, as it deserves to be, this work will help to
understand and to love to the limit of devotion, (jusqu'au dévouement)
the beauty and the sovereign importance of the great cause--the
protection of the world threatened by Germanism--for which our soldiers
are so valiantly fighting together with those of England, France and
Belgium._

"_I pray God to bless those brave warriors and to grant peace to the
Christian world by the reestablishment of Justice and Right._"

What an encouraging contrast! On the one hand, a publicist, with the
fury of its resounding organs, so widely used, vowing to eternal
damnation, _the armed scoundrelism which Canada is_ forging, with
conditions inferior to Teutonic and Turkish barbarism, considering that
it has reached the lowest depth of "_a degradation unparalleled in any
civilized country_."

On the other, the Head of the Catholic Church in Canada, Cardinal Begin,
blessing in the name of God Almighty _our brave warriors who fight so
valiantly with those of England, France and Belgium_, because _they
love with true devotion the beauty and the sovereign importance of the
great cause_ to the triumph of which they sacrifice _their lives--the
protection of the world threatened by Germanism_.

On Thursday, October 26, 1916, Archbishop Bruchesi, of Montreal, present
at a funeral service, in Notre-Dame Church, attended by many thousands,
for the glorious victims of the sacred duty of defending the cause of
the Allies, eloquently said in part:--

"_They (our heroes) had voluntarily enlisted. Two years ago, they
organized their Battalion, the glorious 22nd. They enlisted, conscious
that they were defending the most just of all causes, that of
Civilization, of Right, of Humanity. They enlisted with the conviction
that they would serve the interests of their country, for, when oversea,
they knew that they were defending Canada. They were young and strong;
one could not see them without admiration._

"_They have made their country's name and their own grand. They have for
all times immortalized themselves in History, and, by them, Canada has
been immortalized._

"_The war is not over; it goes on horribly, but our hearts are hopeful.
It is impossible that they should triumph the men who, during forty
years, have prepared for the greatest war and who, during two years,
have torn the world asunder and flooded the earth with blood.
Impossible that they should triumph the men who have declared this war
without a right to avenge, without a grievance to redress, without being
menaced in any way. Impossible that they should triumph those who have
torn, like a scrap of paper, a pact upon which the nations relied,
having faith in the pledged word. Impossible that they should triumph
those who have invaded the territory of valiant Belgium, whose only
fault was_: TO REMAIN TRUE TO HER HONOUR. _They shall not triumph those
who, on account of their military service, have made this war a carnage
and a butchery without precedent in History. I believe in God of all
Justice. Humanity wanted a suffering which purifies, but when mothers
shall have wept long enough, God will have His Divine word heard._

"_When this great work is accomplished, and when we shall sing the_ TE
DEUM _of thanksgiving, we will be able to say that Canada, that all the
Provinces of Canada, that our Province of Quebec, have deserved their
share of glory_."

On Tuesday, November 28, 1916, at a funeral service in the Quebec
Basilica, addressing the large audience rallied to pray for the dead
heroes, Reverend Mr. Camille Roy, one of the most distinguished
professors of the Quebec Seminary, said in part:--

"_They went, our officers and soldiers, to serve a great cause. Several
reasons, perhaps intermingled in their conscience, have inspired their
courageous decision...._

"_But dominating, penetrating them all, purifying what in them was too
personal and restricted, was the thought that in doing all this they
were going to fight with heroic brothers and employ their strength to
defend what is most venerable on earth: outraged justice._

"_Perhaps they ignored historical secrets and diplomatic complications,
but they knew the war brutally declared, the treaties torn away, Belgium
violated, and agonizing, France mutilated and invaded, England, herself,
chased over the moving frontier of her oceans invaded; they knew the
destroyed homes, the profanated Cathedrals, the brutally murdered old
men, women and children, and the flood of barbarians rushing in
tumultuous waves over the fields of the sweetest country. They knew
that, over there, two nations to whom we are attached by our political,
or by our national, life, wanted the support of their sons far away,
that they had to battle for sacred interests in a war requiring an
endurance commanding an incessant renewal of our energies; and then,
without halting to consider if they were obliged to it by laws, they
have answered the most pressing call of their souls, and have freely
made the devoted sacrifice._"

What other edifying contrast between the appreciation of the part played
by the Canadian army by three intellects, one overpowered by an
inexplicable hostile passion, the two others, inspired by the noblest
sentiments, rising to the sublime conception of the great sacrifice
accepted by our brave volunteers, which they express by eloquent words
who moved the hearts and brought _abundant and warm tears to the eyes of
those who_ heard or read them.

Where one only sees _depraved_ beings more contemptible _than all those
which any other country_ could produce or _forge_, the two others, so
much superior in every way, admire, the first, THOSE WHO WENT TO DEFEND
THE MOST JUST OF ALL CAUSES, THAT OF CIVILIZATION, OF RIGHT, OF
HUMANITY; the second, THE SUPERNATURAL BEAUTY OF SACRIFICE THAT THEIR
BROTHERS IN ARMS HAVE MADE OF THEIR LIVES TO THE JUSTICE OF GOD.

The pamphleteer cruelly attacks those who, to-morrow, will face with
unfaltering courage the guns of the enemy to defend Civilization and
avenge the martyrs of barbarity.

The sacred orator blesses the mortal remains of our sons who have fallen
on the field of honour, on the soil of France, where our forefathers
were born and bred, with the fervent prayer of their grateful country
that knows they died heroically "FOR A GREAT CAUSE" TO DEFEND WHAT IS
MOST VENERABLE ON EARTH: "OUTRAGED JUSTICE."

The following pages from a very eloquent Pastoral Letter by Bishop
Emard, of the diocese of Valleyfield, will, I am sure, be read with most
respectful interest by all. They are as follows:--

    "Dear Brethren, we certainly have the right, and we even
    consider that it is for us all, citizens of Canada, loyal
    subjects of England, a duty to demand from God the success of
    the arms of our Mother-country and of her Allies in the present
    war. If we are not called upon, as a matter of faith, to pass
    judgment on the true causes of the war, and to divide the
    responsibilities respecting the calamity which covers Europe
    with blood, we are surely allowed to think and to say that all
    the circumstances actually known sufficiently prove that right
    is on the side of the peoples who have checked the invasion, and
    discouraged the overflowing of the enemy from his territory, in
    order that the sentiment of justice may serve to support the
    devotion of our soldiers, in this great conflict, called the
    struggle of Civilization against barbarism.

    "The Church of Christ, always the same by her doctrine, has been
    marvellously constituted by the Divine Wisdom, to adapt her
    externally everywhere and always, to the infinitely varied
    circumstances consequent on the diversity of peoples, of
    governments, of social relations. She has never ceased to
    practice, by Her Pastors and her faithful children, the great
    lesson given by Christ: "=Render therefore to Cæsar the things
    that are Cæsar's and to God the things that are God's=," and to
    claim with the Apostle all the rights as well as accept all the
    duties of citizens and subjects."

After recalling that from the day _Divine Providence, in Her mysterious
designs_, allowed Canada to pass from the French to the English
Sovereignty, _the Church, by Her Bishops, has declared that, henceforth,
it was the duty of the French Canadians to transfer to the British
Crown, without reserve, the cordial allegiance which the King of France
had hitherto received from them_, and that since then until the present
days, the Canadian Episcopate has remained true to his course, Bishop
Emard proceeds as follows:--

    "We are then, very dear Brethren, in perfect communion of
    sentiments, action and language, with our venerable predecessors
    of the Canadian Episcopate, in asking you to-day to address to
    Heaven fervent prayers for the complete and final success of
    England and her Allies in the frightful war which is covering
    the earth with such unheard of horrors."

    The Clergy, never forgetting Peter's word respecting the
    submission all are in duty bound to practice towards Kings as
    well as towards all those holding civil power, was always
    faithful in obeying the Episcopal directions never ceasing to
    deserve the eulogium which the Bishops expressed to the Pope in
    their favour.

    "The French-Canadian people, so taught by words and examples,
    have given in all our history the admirable spectacle of a
    constant fidelity which circumstances more than once rendered
    highly meritorious. Such are the true religious and national
    traditions of our country. They have in our own days, as in the
    past, found the exact expression suggested by the situation.

    "On the other hand, it appears to us a well established fact,
    and the most serious minds so proclaim everywhere, that the
    British Empire, together with France, martyred Belgium and their
    Allies are actually struggling for the defence of the peoples'
    Rights and true Liberty. (Card. Begin.) Therefore, very dear
    Brethren, it must be acknowledged that Canada, herself
    threatened by the possibilities of a war fought with conditions
    heretofore unknown, has acted both wisely and loyally in giving,
    in a manner as generous as it was spontaneous, all the support
    in her power to the mother-country, England.

    "The Catholics, and especially those of French origin, have not
    remained behind in this manifestation of true patriotism. If it
    was well to make a comparison between the other groups, from the
    standpoint of the free and generous participation of all to the
    European war, it would be necessary, in the respective figures
    obtainable, to take into account several elements which are
    perhaps not sufficiently considered.

    "But this is not the real question. It is sufficient to show and
    to note for historical authenticity that, with the encouragement
    and the blessings of their Pastors, and true to their constant
    tradition, the Canadian Catholics, as a whole, have, in this
    frightful conflict proved the perfect loyalty which is the sound
    expression of true patriotism, and which is blessed by the
    Church and by God.

    "Thousands and thousands of our young men, for a large number of
    them at the cost of particular and most painful sacrifices, and
    in many cases, without being able to give to their race the
    benefit of their chivalrous devotion, have gone, oversea, to
    fight and die for the cause which was proved to them noble and
    urgent.

    "Moreover, all over the country, the courage of our soldiers was
    echoed and answered by many active and important works
    characterized by charitable solidarity, and this universal
    co-operative and sympathetic movement must be supported by the
    sentiments of faith and piety.

    "Since we are, at all costs, engaged in a disastrous war, the
    causes of which we have not to discuss and judge, but the
    consequences of which will necessarily reach our country, and
    since our Canadian soldiers are battling under the British flag,
    with the clear conscience of an honourable duty loyally and
    freely accepted, it is just, it is legitimate that our prayers
    do accompany them on the very fields of battles to support their
    courage, and that these prayers ascend to Heaven to implore
    victory for our armies."

Evidently the venerable Bishop of Valleyfield is far from believing,
like the publicist whose errors we must all deplore, that in organizing
a powerful army "_to go overseas to fight and die for the noble and
urgent cause so proved to them_," the Canadian Parliament "_were forging
for us a militarism without parallel in any other civilized country, a
depraved and undisciplined soldiery, an armed scoundrelism, without
faith nor law_."

The blessings of the Head of the Canadian Church and those of the whole
Episcopate have consolated our brave volunteers for the outrages thrust
at them, and have inspired them with the great Christian courage to
forgive their author. The only revenge they have taken against their
accuser has been to defend himself and his own against the barbarous
Germans.




CHAPTER XXX.

RASH DENUNCIATION OF PUBLIC MEN.


A long experience of public life, whether by daily observation, begun in
my early youth, when the Union of the Provinces was finally discussed,
carried and established, or, subsequently, during many years of active
political life as a journalist and member of the Quebec and Ottawa
representative Houses, has taught me to judge the actions of responsible
men, whether ministerialists or oppositionists, with great fairness and
respectful regard. At all times the government of a large progressive
country peopled by several races, of different religious creeds, is a
difficult problem. It should not be necessary to say that in days of
warlike crisis, of previously unknown proportions, like the present one,
the task becomes almost superhuman. Anyone taking into serious
consideration the very trying ordeal through which, for instance, the
rulers of Great Britain and France have been, and are still passing,
since early in 1914, cannot help being indulgent for those who have the
weighty and often crushing burden of the cares of State. Let so much be
said without in the least contesting the right of free men to their own
opinion about what is best to be done. But it was never more opportune
to remember that the honourable privilege of constitutional criticism
must have for its only superior object the good of the country by
improved methods.

We have reason to congratulate ourselves that this sound view has widely
prevailed rallying almost as units great nations,--our own one of
them--previously much divided in political thoughts and aspirations, for
the noble and patriotic purpose of winning a disastrous war they were
forced to wage, in spite of their most determined efforts to prevent it.

Public men, nations rulers, like all others are human and liable to fail
or to be found wanting. Unconscious inefficiency, however desirable to
remove, cannot be fairly classed on the same footing as guilty failures.
The first may, more or less, injure the bright prospects of a country;
the second stains her honour which an exemplary punishment can alone
redeem.

But it is said with much truth that there are always exceptions to a
general rule. That of the human heart to be fallible in public life, as
well as in other callings, has met with only one solitary exception in
Canada: the saintly Nationalist leader who will never have his equal,
"nature having destroyed the mould when she cast him."

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
warship 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
participation 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 Constitutional 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 passionate
indignation, and charges not only all the leading social classes, 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 classes_. 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 passed 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
circumstances 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
class 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 institutions, 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 blandishing before the eyes of
the Canadian people, so enamoured of their constitutional 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 reassuring proof, to point at the wonderful
achievements of free institutions, 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 passions, 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
asserts, 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:--

"_The truce arrived at in 1914 could not, it is true, resist the thirst
for power. "Blues" and "Reds" have recommenced tearing themselves about
patronage, places, planturous contracts and "boodle." But with regard to
the substantial question itself, and to the Imperialist revolution
brought on and sanctioned by the war, they have remained in accord._"

It could not strike such a prejudiced mind as that of the Nationalist
leader, that political chieftains, and their respective supporters,
could conscientiously unite to save their country, their Empire and the
world from an impending terrible disaster, and yet freely and
conscientiously differ as to the best means to achieve the sacred object
to the success of which they have pledged, and they continue to make,
their best and most patriotic efforts.

The public men, and even the private citizens, who, not believing that
he speaks and writes with Divine inspiration, dare to differ from the
Nationalist leader, cannot, in his opinion, do so unless influenced by
unworthy corrupt motives. And he further draws the awful conclusion
"_that it is his duty to note the ever increasing revolutionary
character that the European war, as a whole, is assuming on the side of
the Allies_."

To support this last and absolutely unfounded charge, he positively
asserts that the joint "_policy of the statesmen, politicians and
journalists, has much less for its object to liberate oppressed nations
like Belgium, Servia_, IRELAND, _Poland and Finland, from a foreign
yoke, than to overthrow in all the countries, allies or enemies, the
monarchical form of government_."

And then follows a most virulent diatribe by which he points, in
support of his wild conclusion aforesaid, to the Russian revolution,
charging "_the officious and reptile press of the Allied countries to
have joined in spreading the legend that it had been precipitated by
German intrigues at the Court of the Czar, and to have accused the
ill-fated Emperor to have been the spy and the accomplice of the enemies
of his country_."

At this hour of the day, in the turmoil of flashing events perhaps never
before equalled in suddenness, pregnant with such alarming, or
comforting, prospective consequences, it is much too early to attempt
passing a reliable judgment on the true causes which produced the
Moscovite revolution so soon and so dastardly developed into criminal
"bolshevikism." The question must be left for History to settle when
peace is restored and the sources of truth are wide opened to the
impartial investigations of high class historians.

However, enough is known to prove that Mr. Bourassa's charge is
altogether unfounded. Anyone conversant with Russian history for the two
last centuries, is aware that German influences and intrigues have
always played a great part in the Capital of that fallen Empire. From
the very beginning of the war, it became evident that they were actively
at work at the Petrograd Court, thwarting the Emperor's efforts and
those of his advisers, military and civil, he could trust, to be true to
the cause he had sworn to defend with France and England.

The Nationalist leader, I hope, is the only man still to wonder at this,
after all that has been discovered proving what Germany has tried to
bribe the political leaders and the press of the Allies, with too much
success in France, England and the United States.

Russia has been for too many years the favourite soil where Germany was
sowing her corrupt intrigues, to let any sensible man suppose that she
would kindly withdraw from the preferred field of her infamous
operations, at the very time she was exerting herself with such energy,
and at the cost of so many millions, to extend her vast spy system
almost all over the earth,--Canada included--debauching consciences
right and left.

Is it unfair to say, for instance, after the event as it developed, that
Roumania was prematurely brought into the war in consequence of the dark
German machinations at Petrograd, with the evident understanding that
the military operations, both on the Teutonic and Moscovite sides, were
to be so conducted as to rush poor Roumania into a most disastrous
defeat, in order to feed the Central Empires with the products of the
fertile Roumanian soil?

No representative man of any consequence has pretended that the
unfortunate Czar was himself a party to that treason of the Allied
cause. He has likely been the victim of his own weakness in not using
what was left to him of his personal autocratic power to silence the
sympathies of the friends of Germany at his Imperial Court, and even in
his most intimate circle, rather than exhausting it in a supreme, but
doomed, attempt at checking the rising tide of popular aspirations sure,
as always, to overflow to frightful excesses, if unwisely compressed.

Almost daily witnessing the successive miscarriages of so many of the
Russian military operations, too often by the failure of the
ammunitions, supplied to such a large extent by the Allies, to reach the
Russian soldiers, or by other inexplicable causes, it is not surprising
that the people at large became suspicious of their government which
they soon believed to be under German tutorage.

The rapid, almost sudden, overthrow of the Russian autocratic Empire can
be accepted as evidence that the movement in favour of a change which
would more efficiently conduct Russia's share of the conflict, was
widespread. The goal it aimed at, once reached, and Russia proclaimed a
Republic, with a regular _de facto_ government under the leadership of
abler men, whose patriotism was proved by their words, but more surely
by their deeds, France, England, Italy and the United States cannot be
reasonably reproached with having unduly opened diplomatic relations
with the new Moscovite authorities.

Unfortunately, once successful in her intrigues at the Petrograd Court,
soon to fall under the weight of popular exasperation, Germany tried her
hand in a triumphant, but shameful, way with the fiery sanguinary and
treasonable element always to be found operating in the darkest corners
for their own criminal purposes. The calamitous outcome has been
"bolchevikism" betraying their country in the light of day, without
blushing, without hiding their faces in eternal shame, and signing, with
their hands stained with the blood of their own kin, the infamous treaty
of Brest-Litovsk dismembering poor Russia, scattering to the winds her
fond hopes of a grand future at the very dawn of the better days
promised by a free constitution, and plunging her in the throes of
German autocratic domination.

With regard to the Nationalist leader's rash denunciation of public men,
I have only a few more words to say. My personal recollections going
back to the early sixties of the last century, for several years free
from all party affiliations, unbiassed by any sympathies or prejudices,
I consider it my duty to say that, on the whole, Canadian public life,
as well as British public life, is honourable and entitled to the
respect of public opinion. Out of hundreds and thousands of politicians,
both in the Motherland and in our own Dominion, there may have been
failings. It would be useless, even pernicious, to point at them. The
revulsion of public feeling towards the fallen for cause, and the severe
judgment of misdeeds by the impartial historian, has been the deserved
punishment of the few who have prevaricated. I prefer by far to take my
lofty inspiration from the galaxy of faithful public servants who, from
all parties, and from various standpoints, have given the fruits of
their intelligence, of their learning, of their hard work--and in many
cases--of their private wealth, for the good of their country. In the
course of the last fifty-five years, I have known hundreds of our public
men who lived through, and came out of, a long political life getting
poorer every day without being disheartened and retiring from the public
service to which they were devoted to the last. Need I point, as
examples, to the cases of several men who, departed for a better world,
Parliament, irrespective of all party considerations, united to a man to
vote a yearly allowance of a few hundred dollars to save their surviving
widows and children from actual want and destitution!

Just as well as the Canadians of the three British races, and the
gallant volunteers of our heroic army, Canadian and British public men
can rest assured that from the high position they occupy in the world's
estimation, they are far above the fanatical aspersions of the
Nationalist leader blinded by the wild suggestions of an inexhaustible
thirst of rash condemnation.




CHAPTER XXXI.

MR. BOURASSA'S DANGEROUS PACIFISM.


Two historical truths, undeniable, bright as the shining light of the
finest summer day, which have triumphantly challenged the innumerable
falsehoods to the contrary constantly circulated by Germany, even prior
to the outbreak of the hostilities, are:--

First, that all the countries united under the title--the Allies, have
been energetically in favour of MAINTAINING THE PEACE OF THE WORLD, when
it became evident, for all sensible people, that Germany was eagerly
watching her opportunity to strike the blow she had prepared for the
previous forty years on such a gigantic scale.

Second, that, once engaged in the conflict against their deliberate
will, and in spite of their noble efforts to prevent the war which they
clearly foresaw would be most calamitous, they have always remained the
staunch supporters of the RESTORATION OF PEACE upon the two _sine qua
non_ conditions of JUSTICE and DURABILITY.

To achieve these two objectives, they have been fighting for now more
than four years, at tremendous cost of men and treasures, and they are
determined to fight until victorious.

They would all lay down their arms to-morrow, if the results so
important for the future of Humanity could be secured with certainty.

Like all great causes, PEACE WITH JUSTICE AND DURABILITY has had its
TRUE and its FALSE friends.

The TRUE friends of PEACE were those who realized from the very
beginning of the frightful struggle that it was perfectly useless to
expect it, if the disastrous Prussian Militarism was to be maintained
and allowed to continue threatening Civilization.

The TRUE friends of PEACE were those who pledged their honour not to
sheathe the sword they had been forced to draw before Germany would
acknowledge that she had no right to violate solemn treaties, and would
agree to redeem the crime she had committed in invading the neutral
territory of Belgium which she trampled under her ironed heels and
crucified.

The TRUE friends of PEACE were those who determined to bring Germany to
renounce the abominable principles she has professed, training the mind
of her peoples to believe and proclaim that MIGHT is RIGHT and the only
sound basis of INTERNATIONAL LAW.

The TRUE friends of PEACE were those who, however anxious they were to
have it restored as soon as possible--fervently praying the Almighty to
that purpose--, knowing what are the principles of International Law
recognized by all truly civilized nations, could not forgive Germany,
UNLESS SHE SINCERELY REPENTED, the barbarism she displayed in her
murderous submarine campaign, and practised in Belgium, Northern France
and in every piece of belligerent territory her armies occupied.

The TRUE friends of PEACE were those who clearly understood that to meet
the two essential conditions of JUSTICE and DURABILITY, it was
PRACTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to secure it by a compromise which could not, by
any means, protect the world against further German attempts at
universal military domination.

The FALSE friends of PEACE were those who said and wrote, in sheer
defiance of truth, that the Allies, more especially England and Russia,
were as much responsible for the war as Germany herself.

The FALSE friends of PEACE were those who falsely alleged that the
Allies were preventing it by their repeated declarations that their
principal war aim was to destroy, not only the German Empire, but also
the German race, thus wilfully and maliciously pretending that to battle
for the abolition of Teutonic militarism, weighing so heavily on all the
nations, was equal, in guilty knowledge, to fighting for an enemy's race
destruction.

The FALSE friends of PEACE were those who were ready to sanction, at any
time, a compromise between HEROIC and criminal war aims, which would
leave future generations to the tender mercies of a Sovereign Power
straining every nerve to dominate the world by the foulest means ever
devised.

The FALSE friends of PEACE were those whose daily effort was to
dishearten their countrymen from the noble and patriotic task they had
bravely undertaken with the strong will to accomplish it at all costs,
knowing, as they did, that it was a question of life or death for human
Civilization.

"Defeatists," as they are called, to mean the shameless supporters of
PEACE negotiations to be opened by the Allies acknowledging their defeat
and the victory of Germany, there were, and there are, in all the
"Allied" belligerent nations. No one need be too much surprised at the
hideous fact. In all countries, at all times, under the direst
circumstances, when it is most important, in very distressing hours,
that all be of one mind, of one heart, to save the nation's existence,
are to be found heartless, low minded, cowardly beings, ready to betray
their countrymen rather than stand the strain of their due share of
sacrifices, or, which is still far worse, for corrupt motives, to
deliver them over to the enemy.

"Defeatists" we have had, we have yet, in Canada, in the Province of
Quebec. Most happily, they are few and far between.

Imbued with the false notions he has so tenaciously ventilated
respecting Canada's participation in the war, it is no wonder that the
Nationalist leader was sure to be found at the head of the small group
of PACIFISTS, at almost any cost, mustered amongst the French
Canadians. A sower of prejudices, he was bound to watch with eagerness
the growing crop of ill-feelings he was fostering.

Those of us who oppose all, and any, participation by the Dominion in
the wars of the Empire, be they even so just, so honourable, so
necessary, under Mr. Bourassa's deplorable leadership, were naturally
supporters of any kind of "PACIFISM."

I will not classify the Nationalist leader and his dupes as
"_defeatists_," who were ready to accept peace as the consequence of
defeat. The real "_pacifists_," so far as it is possible to ascertain
their views, unable, consciously or not, to see any difference in the
respective responsibilities of the belligerents in opening the war,
consider that they are equally guilty in not closing it.

Most happily, such a disordered opinion is shared only by a small
minority. It can be positively affirmed that public opinion, the world
over, outside the Central Empires and their swayed allies, is almost
unanimous that Germany, through her military party and the junkers
element, is responsible for the dire calamity she has brought on
Humanity. The question of the restoration of "PEACE" must be viewed from
this starting point--the only true one.

The standpoints of the TRUE and the FALSE friends of PEACE being so far
apart, the conclusions they draw are naturally widely different.




CHAPTER XXXII.

A MOST REPREHENSIBLE ABUSE OF SACRED APPEALS TO THE BELLIGERENT NATIONS.


I cannot qualify in milder words the use Mr. Bourassa has made of the
solemn appeals His Holiness the Pope of Rome has, at different dates,
addressed to the belligerent nations in favour of the restoration of
peace. I bear to the Head of the Church I am so happy to belong such a
profound respect and devotion that I will scrupulously abstain from any
comment of the Sovereign Pontiff's writings and addresses. I have read
them several times over with the greatest attention and veneration, so
sure I was that, emanating from the highest spiritual Authority in the
world, they were exclusively inspired by the ardent desire to promote a
recurrence to good-will amongst men, in obedience to the Divine precept.

Having to reproach the Nationalist leader with having abused of the
weighty words of His Holiness, to support his own misconceptions of duty
as a loyal British subject and a Christian publicist, I will refrain
with great care from writing a sentence which might be construed as the
shadow of an attempt to do the same.

I will take from Mr. Bourassa's own comments of the Sovereign Pontiff's
appeals, the two conclusions upon which he lays great stress, and which
clearly summarize the convictions of His Holiness Pope Benedict XV.

Praying with all the powers of His heart and soul for the orderly future
of the world, the Sovereign Pontiff implored, in the most touching
terms, the belligerent nations to agree to a "JUST AND DURABLE PEACE."

As it was certain, even if He had not said so with such pathetic
expressions, His Holiness drew the saddest possible picture of the
untold misfortunes war, carried on in such vast proportions, was
inflicting upon the peoples waging the struggle.

I will only quote the few following words from the first letter of His
Holiness, dated July 28, 1915:--

"_It cannot be said that the immense conflict cannot be terminated
without armed violence._"

No one can take exception to this truism, authoritatively expressed
under circumstances greatly adding to its importance and to its solemn
announcement. It is just as true to-day as it was,--and has been ever
since,--when the whole world was passing through the crucial ordeal of
the days during which England and France were almost imploring Germany
not to plunge the earth into the horrors of the war she was determined
to bring on.

The questions at stake could then have been easily settled without
"ARMED VIOLENCE," if the Imperial Government of Berlin had listened to
the pressing demand of Great Britain in favour of the maintenance of
peace.

It is scarcely believable that the Nationalist leader has abused of
those weighty words to the point of attempting to persuade the
French-Canadians that the Allies, even more than the Rulers of the
Central Empires, have refused to listen to the prayers of the Pope. In
January last, he published a new pamphlet, entitled "THE POPE, ARBITER
OF PEACE," in which he reproduced from "Le Devoir" his numerous
articles, from August 1914, on the intervention of the Sovereign Pontiff
in favour of the cessation of the hostilities, and on the current events
of the times.

The oft-repeated diatribes of Mr. Bourassa against England were bound to
be once more edited in the above pamphlet. Their author, in a true
fatherly way, not willing to allow them to die under the contempt they
deserve, would not lose the chance to have them to survive in tackling
them with his comments on His Holiness' letters.

This pamphlet, the worthy sequel of its predecessors which, for the good
of Mr. Bourassa's compatriots, should never have seen the light of day,
would call for many more refutable quotations than I can undertake to
make in this work. A few will suffice to show the deplorable purport of
the whole book.

In his letter dated, July 28, 1915, the Pope wrote:--

"_In presence of Divine Providence, we conjure the belligerent nations,
to henceforth put an end to the horrible carnage which, for a year,
dishonours Europe._"

Positively informed about the horrible crimes committed by command of
the German military authorities in Belgium, and Northern France, and by
the ferocious Turks in Armenia, well might His Holiness say that Europe
was being dishonoured by such barbarous deeds. If the military
operations had been conducted by the nations of the Alliance in
conformity with the principles of International Law, most likely the
Pope would not have used the same language. For, however much to be
regretted are the sufferings inseparable from a military conflict
carried on with the utmost regards for the fair claims of human feelings
and justice, it could not have been pretended that such a war was a
dishonour for the belligerents on both sides, especially when fighting
with an equally sincere conviction that they are defending a just cause.

Referring to recent history, none asserted, for instance, that the
Russo-Japanese war was a dishonour to Europe and Asia. It was fought out
honourably on both sides. Peace was restored without leaving bitter and
burning recollections in the minds of either peoples. And when Germany
dishonoured herself and stained Humanity with blushing shame, both
Russia and Japan joined together to avenge Civilization.

Let us now see how Mr. Bourassa distorted the words of the Pope so as to
use them for his own purpose of misrepresenting the true stand of the
Allies, and more especially of England.

The first sentence of his article dated, August 3, 1915, to be found at
page 11 of the pamphlet, under the title: "_The Pope's Appeal_," reads
thus:--

"_The anniversary of the hurling of the sanguinary fury which makes of
Europe the shame of Humanity has inspired the Rulers of peoples with
resounding words._"

And after eulogizing the Pope's intervention, he adds:--"_that men will
not hear his voice, drunk as they are with pride, revenge and blood_."

This may be cunningly worded, but it should deceive nobody.

One cannot help being indignant at the contemptible attempt to place the
Allies on the same footing as the Central Empires with regard to the
responsibility _in hurling the sanguinary fury in 1914_.

The plain, incontrovertible, truth is that the outbreak of the war was a
shame, not for Humanity, the victim of Teutonic treachery, but for
Germany herself; whilst the sacred union of Belgium, France, England and
their allies to resist the barbarous onslaught hurled at them all, was
an honour for Civilization and the promise of an heroic redemption.

At page 12 of the pamphlet, he closes the first paragraph with the
following words:--"_since the fatal days when peoples supposed to be
Christian hurled themselves at one another in a foolish rage of
destruction, of revenge and hatred_." In French, it reads
thus:--"_depuis le jour fatal ou les peuples soi-disant chrétiens se
sont rués les uns contre les autres, dans une rage folle de destruction,
de vengeance et de haine_."

Read as a whole, with the full meaning they were intended to convey,
those words constitute a daring falsehood. Historical events of the
highest importance cannot be construed at will. There are facts so
positively true, and known to be such, that they should preclude any
possibility of deceit.

It is absolutely false that, _on a fatal day_ of mid-summer, 1914,
_peoples hurled themselves at one another_. What really took place, in
the glaring light of day, was that Germany, fully prepared for the fray,
_hurled_ herself at weak Belgium, throwing to the waste basket the
scraps of the solemn treaties by which she was in honour bound to
respect Belgian neutrality. She had first opened the disastrous game by
_hurling_ her vassal, Austria, at weak Servia.

Rushing her innumerable victorious armies over Belgian trodden soil, she
_hurled_ herself at France with the ultimate design to _hurl_ herself at
England.

That in so doing, Germany was _raging_ with a _foolish_ thirst of
_destruction, of revenge and hatred_, is certainly true. But Mr.
Bourassa's guilt is in his assertion that the victims of Germany's
_sanguinary fury_ were actuated by the same criminal motives in
heroically defending their homes, their wives, their children, their
all, against the barbarians once more bursting out of Central Europe,
this time bent on overthrowing human freedom.

Is the respectable citizen who bravely defends himself against the
ruffian who _hurls_ himself at his throat, to be compared with his
murderous assailant?

But England was not alone in _hurling_ herself at Germany, as Mr.
Bourassa so cordially says. Without a word, even a sign, by the only
momentum of her _furious outburst of foolish destruction_, she was
followed by the whole of her Empire. How much we, Canadians, were, for
instance, deluded, the Nationalist leader is kind enough to tell us in
his ever sweet language.

When the Parliament of Ottawa unanimously decided that it was the duty
of the British Dominion of Canada to participate in the war; when
Canadian public opinion throughout the length and breadth of the land,
almost unanimously approved of this loyal and patriotic decision, we,
poor unfortunate Canadians, thought that we were heartily and nobly
joining with the mother-country to avenge "OUTRAGED JUSTICE," to rush to
the rescue of violated Belgium, of France, once more threatened with
agony under the brutal Teutonic ironed heels, of the whole world--Mr.
Bourassa's commanding personality included--menaced with the HUNS'
DOMINATION.

How sadly mistaken we were, Mr. Bourassa tells us. According to this
infallible judge of the righteousness or criminality of historical
events, we were labouring under a paroxysm of passion--_of a rage of
foolish destruction, of vengeance and hatred_.

Once overpowered by this vituperative mood of calumnious accusations,
the Nationalist leader slashes England, as follows,--page 18--:--

"_England has violently destroyed more national rights than all the
other European countries united together. By force or deceit, she has
swallowed up a fourth of the earthly globe; by conquest, and more
especially by corruption and the purchase of consciences, she has
subjugated more peoples than there were, in the whole human history,
ever brought under the same sceptre._"

Thus, in Mr. Bourassa's impartial estimation, the depredations and
slaughters of the hordes commanded by Attila, the savagery of the Turks
of old and present days, the crimes of Germany in this great war, are
only insignificant trifles compared with the horrors of British history.
Shame on such outrageous misrepresentation of historical truth.

Mr. Bourassa accuses England to have _by force or deceit swallowed up a
fourth of the earthly globe_. Considering the happy and flourishing
condition of the vast British Empire, the Nationalist leader, as every
one else, must admit that England is endowed with great digestive
powers, as she does not show the least sign that she suffers from
national dyspepsia from having swallowed up a fourth of the universe.
Her national digestion is evidently sound and healthy, for instead of
weakening and decaying, she grows every day in strength, in stature, in
freedom, in prestige, and, above all, in WISDOM.

The Nationalist leader has thought proper to express his formal hatred
of militarism. One would naturally suppose that, in so doing, he should
have pointed at the worst kind of militarism ever devised--the German
type of our own days. Let no one be mistaken about it. At page 58 of his
pamphlet, Mr. Bourassa bursts out as follows in the top paragraph:--

"_As a matter of fact, of all kinds of militarism, of all the
instruments of brutal domination, the naval supremacy of England is the
most redoubtable, the most execrable for the whole world; for it rules
over all the continents, hindering the free relations of all the
peoples._"

Was I really deluded when I felt sure that in peaceful times, British
naval supremacy on the seas was not interfering in the least with the
freest commercial intercourse of all the nations, whose mercantile ships
can, by British laws, enter freely into all the ports of Great Britain?
Mr. Bourassa's assertion to the contrary, I shall not, by the least
shadow, alter my opinion which is positively sound.

From the above last quotation, I have the right to infer that Mr.
Bourassa is very sorry that, in war times like those we have seen since
July 1914, British naval supremacy is sufficiently paramount to protect
the United Kingdom from starvation, to keep the coasts of France opened
to the mercantile ships of the Allies and of all the neutral nations, to
"rule the waves" against both the German military and mercantile fleets,
chased away from the oceans by the British guns thundering at the
Teutonic pirates on land and sea. If he is, he can be sure that he is
alone to cry and weep at a fact which rejoices all the true and loyal
friends of freedom and justice.

Mr. Bourassa cherishes a wish that will certainly not be granted. He
will not be happy unless England agrees to give up her naval supremacy
to please Germany. Let him rest quietly on his two ears; the dawn of
such a calamitous day is yet very far distant.

At the end of page 12, Mr. Bourassa asserts that _the Germans proclaim
their_ RIGHT _to "Germanize" Europe and the world, and that the English
imperiously affirm their_ RIGHT _to maintain their Imperial power over
the seas and to oppose "Anglo-Saxonism" to "pan-Germanism."_--

I have already refuted the Nationalist leader's pretention, and informed
him that England, no more than any other country, has no "Sovereign
rights" on the seas outside the coastal limits as prescribed by
International Law. He appears totally unable to understand the simple
truth that Great Britain's sea supremacy is nothing more nor less than
the superiority of her naval strength created, at an immense cost, out
of sheer necessity, to protect the United Kingdom from the domination of
a great continental power.

Does he not know that, in the days prior to England's creation of her
mighty fleet, she has been easily conquered by invaders? Is he aware of
the great British historical fact called the Norman Conquest? Has he
never heard that before starting on his triumphant march across Europe,
culminating at Austerlitz, the great Napoleon had planned an invasion of
England, with every prospects of success, if he had not been deterred
from carrying it out by the continental coalition which, calling into
play the resources of his mighty genius, he so victoriously crushed and
dispersed? Has he never read anything about panic stricken England until
she was relieved from the dangers of the projected invasion?

Does he not realize that, unless they were madmen, no British ministers
will ever consent to renounce their "UNDOUBTED RIGHT" to be ever ready
for any emergency, to save their country from enslavement by would-be
dashing invaders? It is the height of political nonsense to suppose that
responsible public men ever could be so blind, or so recreant to their
most sacred duty, as to follow the wild course recommended by
extravagantly prejudiced "Nationalists."

The man who would throw away his weapons of defense would have nothing
else to do but to kneel down and implore the tender mercy of his
criminal aggressor. Truly loyal subjects of the Empire cannot clamour to
bring England down to such an humiliating position. They know too well
that if ever matters came to so disastrous a pass, Great Britain could
easily be starved into irremediable submission with the consequent and
immediate destruction of the whole fabric of the Empire. A Nationalist,
yawning for such an end, may suggest the best way to reach it. But no
loyal man, sincerely wishing the maintenance of the great British
Commonwealth, will ever do so.

No wonder that he who came out openly in favour of Imperial Federation
for the express purpose of ruining the Empire, endeavours to achieve his
most cherished object in first destroying British naval supremacy on the
seas. Imperial Federation would then no longer be necessary for the
consummation of his longing wishes.

Freedom of the seas and British naval supremacy are not antagonistic by
any means, as I have previously well explained. It is an unanswerable
proposition--a truism--to say that supremacy on the ocean will always
exist, held by one nation or another. The Power commanding the superior
naval fleet will for ever be supreme on the seas. It is mere common
sense to say so. Mr. Bourassa would vainly work his wind-mill for
centuries without changing this eternal rule of sound sense.

If, by whichever cause, England was to lose her sea supremacy, it would
at once, as a matter of course, pass on to the next superior naval
Power.

In a subsequent chapter on the after-the-war military problem, I shall
explain the way or ways, by which, in my opinion, the question of the
freedom of the seas, so much misunderstood, could be settled to the
satisfaction of all concerned.

With regard to the supposed conflict of "anglo-saxonism" and
"pan-germanism" I will merely say that it is only another sample of Mr.
Bourassa's wily dreams.

As I have already said, this last pamphlet of the Nationalist leader is,
for a large part of it, but the repetition of his diatribes so often
_hurled_ at England. I will close this chapter by quoting from page 57,
the following paragraph which summarizes, in a striking way, the charges
Mr. Bourassa is so fond to _hurl_ at the mother-country. It reads
thus:--

"_What has allowed England to bring Portugal into vassalage? to dominate
Spain and keep Gibraltar, Spanish land? to deprive Greece of the Ionians
and Cyprus Islands? to steal Malta? to foment Revolution in the Kingdom
of Naples and the Papal States? to run, during thirty years, the foreign
policy of Italy and to throw her in Austria's execrated arms? to take
possession of Suez and to make her own thing of it? to chase France from
the Upper Nile, and subsequently from the whole of Egypt, to intervene
in the Berlin treaty to deprive Russia of the profits of her victory,
to galvanize dying Turkey, to delay for thirty years the revival of the
Balkan States and to make of Germany the main spring of continental
Europe? In a word, what has permitted England to rule the roost in
Europe and to accumulate the frightful storm let loose in 1914? Who?
What? if it is not the "naval domination" of England ever since the
destruction of the French and Spanish fleets at Trafalgar._"

It would be most difficult to condense more erroneous historical
appreciations and political absurdities in so few lines.

Many will be quite surprised to learn, from Mr. Bourassa's resounding
trumpet, that England had been for many years gathering the storm which
broke out in 1914. So far all fairminded men were convinced that this
rascally work had been done by Germany, in spite of England's
exhortations to reduce military armaments.

In all sincerity, I am unable to understand how Mr. Bourassa can expect
to successfully give the lie to such incontrovertible truths as the
guilt of Germany in preparing the war she finally brought on more than
four years ago, and as the unceasing determination of England to
maintain peace.




CHAPTER XXXIII.

A CASE FOR TRUE STATESMANSHIP.


Whatever the TRUE and the FALSE friends of PEACE may hope and say, it is
perfectly useless to close our eyes to the glaring fact that its
restoration can only be the result of military effort combined with the
highest practical statesmanship. After all what has happened, and the
oft-repeated declaration of the Rulers of the belligerent nations, it
would be a complete loss of a very valuable time to indulge any longer
in the expression of views all acknowledge in principle, but which no
one, however well disposed he may be, is actually able to traduce in
practical form.

When writing my French book, in the fall of 1916, reviewing the
situation as it had so far developed, I said:--

    "All are most anxious for peace. However it is infinitely better
    to look at matters such as they are. It is evident that the
    military situation does not offer the least hope that the war
    can be immediately brought to an end. Successes have been
    achieved on both sides. But nothing decisive has yet happened.
    The armies are facing one another in defiant attitude. The
    belligerent nations, on both sides, have yet, and for a long
    time, great resources in man-power and money."

    "If Germany, which should first give up the fight in
    acknowledging her crime, is obdurate to final exhaustion, how
    can it be possibly expected that the Allies who were forced to
    fight, will submit to the humiliation and shame of soliciting
    from their cruel enemy a peace the conditions of which, they
    know, would be utterly unacceptable. Consequently they must with
    an indomitable courage and an invincible perseverance go on
    struggling to solve, for a long time, the redoubtable problem to
    which they are pledged, in honour bound, to give the only
    settlement which can reassure the world."

I am still and absolutely of the same opinion. The present military
situation has certainly much improved in favour of the Allies since
1916. However, looking at the question, first, from the standpoint of
the developing military operations, there is no actual, and there will
not be for many months yet--more or less--practical possibility of a
satisfactory peace settlement.

Secondly, looking at the question from the standpoint of true
statesmanship, it is very easy to draw the inexorable conclusion that,
again, there is not actually the least chance of an immediate
restoration of peace.

Statesmen, responsible, not only for the future of their respective
countries, but, actually, for that of the whole world, are not to be
supposed liable to be carried away by a hasty desire to put an end to
the war and to their own arduous task in carrying it to the only
possible solution:--A JUST AND DURABLE PEACE.

A broad and certain fact, staring every one, is that the Berlin
Government will not accept the only settlement to which the Allies can
possibly agree as long as her armies occupy French and Belgian
territories. If Mr. Bourassa and his "pacifists" friends--or dupes--have
really entertained a faint hope to the contrary, they were utterly
mistaken.

Present military events, however proportionately enlarged by the
increased resources, in man-power and money, of the belligerents, are
not without many appropriate precedents. History is always repeating
itself. Great Powers having risked their all in a drawn battle, do not
give in as long as they can stand the strain, considering the importance
of the interests they have at stake.

For the same reason above stated, but reversed, the Allies will not
negotiate for peace before they have thrown the German armies out of
French and Belgian soil, and repulsed them over Teutonic territory. I do
not mean to say that peace must necessarily be proclaimed either from
Berlin or from Paris. But it will only be signed as the inevitable
result of a final triumphant march on the way either to Berlin or to
Paris. There is no possible escape from the alternative. In such
matters, there is no halfway station.




CHAPTER XXXIV.

AFTER-THE-WAR MILITARY PROBLEM.


Two of the most important propositions of His Holiness the Pope more
especially deserve earnest consideration. They are indeed supported by
the Allies who are purposely fighting for their adoption.

In his note of the first of August, 1917, addressed to the Rulers of the
belligerent nations, the Pope says in part:--

"AT FIRST, THE FUNDAMENTAL POINT MUST BE TO SUBSTITUTE THE MORAL FORCE
OF RIGHT TO THE MATERIAL FORCE OF ARMS."

No truer proposition could be enounced. If Germany had put this
principle into practice, she never would have violated Belgian
territory.

When England protested against the proposed invasion of Belgium, she did
so in obedience to the sacred principle enunciated by the Sovereign
Pontiff. She strongly insisted to the last minute that _the moral force_
of solemn treaties should prevail upon _the material force of arms_.

In a letter dated October 7, 1917, His Eminence Cardinal Gasparri,
Secretary of State to His Holiness, addressing the Archbishop of Lens,
wrote as follows respecting conscription:--

    "The Holy See, in his Appeal of the first of August, did not
    consider, out of deference for the leaders of the belligerent
    peoples, that he should mention it, preferring to leave to
    themselves the care of determining it, but for him, the only
    practical system and, moreover, easy to apply with some good
    will on both sides, would be the following: to suppress, with
    one accord between civilized nations, military obligatory
    service; to constitute an arbitration tribunal, as already said
    in the Pontifical Appeal, to settle international questions;
    finally, to prevent infractions, to establish universal
    "boycottage" against any nation attempting to reestablish
    military obligatory service, on refusing either to lay an
    international question before the arbitration tribunal, or to
    abide by its decision."

Cardinal Gasparri then points to the ante-war British and American
systems of military "voluntarism", in the following terms:--

    "As a matter of fact, omitting other considerations, the recent
    example of England and America testifies in favour of the
    adoption of this system. England and America had, in effect,
    voluntary service, and, to take an efficient part in the present
    war, they were obliged to adopt conscription. It proves that
    voluntary service well supplies the necessary contingent to
    maintain public order (and is public order not maintained in
    England and America just as well, if not better, than in the
    other nations?) but it does not supply the enormous armies
    required for modern warfare. Consequently in suppressing, with
    one accord between civilized nations, obligatory service to
    replace it by voluntary service, disarmament with all the happy
    consequences above indicated would be automatically obtained
    without any perturbation of public order."

    "For the last century, conscription has been the true cause of
    calamities which have afflicted society: to reach a simultaneous
    and reciprocal suppression will be the true remedy. In fact,
    once suppressed, conscription could be reestablished only by a
    law; and for such a law, even with the present constitution of
    the Central Empires, Parliamentary approbation would be required
    (which approbation would be most improbable for many reasons and
    above all on account of the sad experience of the present war);
    in this way, what is so much desired, for the maintenance of
    agreements, would be obtained: the peoples' guarantee. If, on the
    other hand, the right to make peace or war was given to the
    people by way of =referendum=, or at least to Parliament, peace
    between nations would be assured, as much at least as it is
    possible in this world."

It should be very gratifying indeed to all the loyal subjects of the
British Empire to ascertain, from the declarations of Cardinal Gasparri,
that the Pope is in so complete accord with England on this the most
important question to be settled by the future peace treaty.

As proved in one of the first chapters of this work, the Government of
Great Britain, supported in this course by almost the unanimous opinion
of the peoples of the United Kingdom, was the first to suggest the
holding of the Hague conferences to consider the best means to adopt to
favour the world with the blessings of permanent peace. Their own view,
which they forcibly expressed, was that the surest way to reach that
much desired result was to limit the military armaments, both on land
and sea. For more than twenty years previous to the war, they pressed,
and even implored, for the adoption of their program.

I have also proved how obdurate Germany was in resisting England's
propositions, and her successful intrigues to thwart Great Britain's
efforts to have them adopted and put into practice.

England's policy has not changed. On the contrary, it is more than ever
favourable to the limitation, and even to the complete abolition, of
armaments, if one or the other can be achieved. It is the principal war
aim of Great Britain, only coming next after her determination to
avenge Belgium.

The future peace of the world could no doubt be well guaranteed by a
large measure of disarmament. But it would certainly be much more so, if
complete abolition could be obtained by an international agreement
binding on all nations, with, of course, the allowance of the necessary
forces required for the maintenance of interior public order.

The whole world can safely depend on the strenuous support of England
for either the limitation or the abolition of armaments whenever the
question is seriously taken up for consideration.

Evidently the problem will be difficult to solve. However, it should not
be beyond the resources of statesmanship which, assuredly, ought to rise
superior to all prejudiced aspirations after the terrible ordeal
Humanity will have experienced during the present war.

The maintenance of internal public order, and permanent preparedness for
foreign wars, are two very different questions to examine. The first can
safely be left to the care of every nation sure to attend to it if
willing to maintain her authority. The second has a much wider scope and
will tax the ability of statesmanship to the utmost limit.

Will the great civilized nations decide, when the war is over, to
completely abolish conscription to return to voluntary military service
within a very limited organization, thus doing away by a bold and
single stroke with a system which, for more than a hundred years, has
been the curse of continental Europe?

Or will they, at least as an initial attempt, come to the conclusion to
only limit armaments, maintaining compulsory service for the reduced
strength of the armies?

If armaments are either abolished, or merely reduced, will they be so on
sea as well as on land? I would answer at once:--of course, they should.

Looking at the question from the British stand-point--and I can also say
from that of the United States--it should be easily solved.

Public opinion in Great Britain and all over the British Empire, as well
as in the United States, has always been against conscription in peace
times, until the present war.

Not exactly foreseeing the full extent of the effort she would be called
upon to make, England entered into the conflict determined to meet the
requirements of her military situation out of the resources of voluntary
enlistment. Canada, joining in the struggle, did the same. Both have
done wonderfully well during the three first years of the prolonged war.

I can, without the slightest hesitation, positively assert that public
opinion, in the whole British Empire, and, not only in the United
States, but in the whole of the two American continents, is, as a matter
of principle, as much hostile to compulsory military service as it was
before the present war, and would exult at its complete abolition as one
of the happiest results of the gigantic contest still going on.

It is to be deplored, but still it is a fact, that great questions of
public interest too often cannot be settled solely in conformity with
the principles they imply.

If Great Britain, if the United States, if Canada, could consider the
question of conscription exclusively from their own stand-point, they
would most surely decide at once, and with great enthusiasm, to abolish
the obligatory military service they have adopted only as a last resort
under the stress of imperious necessity.

Moreover, I have no hesitation to express my own opinion that whatever
will be the military system of continental Europe after the war, the
British Empire and the United States will certainly not be cursed with
permanent conscription. They are both so happily situated that, in peace
times, they cannot be called upon to go very extensively into the costly
preparedness which the European continental nations will have again to
submit themselves to, if they are not wise enough to put an end forever
to the barbarous militarism they have too long endured for fear of
Teutonic domination.

Under the worst European situation, England, with a territorial army of
a million of men ready to be called to the Colours, or actually flying
them, backed by her mighty fleet maintained to its highest state of
efficiency, could always face any continental enemy. And such an army of
a ready million of well trained officers and men, voluntary service
would easily produce.

If future conditions would require it, Canada herself could do her share
to prepare for any emergency by reverting to voluntary enlistment, but
in improving the service so as to produce more immediate efficiency.

Very apparently, the United States will come out of the present conflict
with flying Colours and will dispense with compulsory service under any
circumstances in the peace days to follow.

What then will the continental powers do? Blessed they will be, if they
make up their mind to do away, once for all, with a system which has
crushed the peoples so unmercifully.

To speak in all frankness, I believe it would be almost vain, however
much desirable it is, to indulge in fond hopes of the complete abolition
of militarism on the European continent. The canker is too deep in the
flesh and blood of nations to be extirpated as if by magic. Such a
reversal of conditions grown to extravagant proportions, during more
than a century, will not likely be accomplished at the first stroke. Let
us all hope that, at least, a good start will be made by a large
limitation of armaments which may, with time, lead to the final
achievement for which the whole world would be forever grateful to the
Almighty. I have positively stated that extravagant militarism should
be discontinued on sea as well as on land. Such has been the policy of
England for many years past. I have proved it by the diplomatic
correspondence between Great Britain and Germany, and the solemn
declarations of all the leading British statesmen for the last quarter
of a century. How persistingly England has implored Germany to agree
with her in stopping that ruinous race in the building of war vessels,
we have seen.

So, the assent, nay more, the determination of England to adhere to her
old and noble policy, is a foregone conclusion.

The closing sentence of the last quoted paragraph of Cardinal Gasparri's
letter expresses the opinion that "_the right to make peace or war
should be given to the people by way of referendum, or at least to
Parliament_."

The system preconized by the Eminent Cardinal has been in existence in
England for a number of years; ever since the day when complete
ministerial responsibility was adopted as the fundamental principle of
the British constitution. That system was carried to the letter by Great
Britain with regard to her intervention in the present war.

The right to declare war and to make peace is one of the most important
prerogatives of the British Crown. This prerogative of the Crown, like
all the others, is held in trust by the Sovereign for the benefit of
the people and exercised by Him ONLY UPON THE ADVICE AND RESPONSIBILITY
OF HIS MINISTERS.

In conformity with this great British constitutional principle, what
happened in London, in August, 1914? The then Prime Minister, Mr.
Asquith, in his own name and in those of his colleagues, advised His
Majesty King George V. to declare war against Germany because she had
invaded Belgian territory in violation of the treaties by which these
two countries were, in honour bound, to protect Belgium's neutrality.
They were constitutionally responsible to the Imperial Parliament and to
the people of the United Kingdom for their advice to their Sovereign.

In his admirable statement to the British House of Commons, Sir Edward
Grey, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, said:--

"_I have assured the House--and the Prime Minister has assured the House
more than once--that if any crisis such as this arose, we should come
before the House of Commons and be able to say to the House that it was
free to decide what the British attitude should be, that we would have
no secret engagement which we should spring upon the House, and tell the
House that, because we had entered into that engagement, there was an
obligation of honour upon the country._"

The British House of Commons, had they considered it to be their duty,
had the right to disapprove the foreign policy of the Cabinet and to
censure the ministers for the advice they had given, or had decided to
give, to the Sovereign. On the other hand, the House of Commons had the
right to approve the stand taken by the Government. They did so
unanimously, and were most admirably supported by the people.

I must say that I consider it would be very difficult, if not absolutely
impracticable, to have questions of war or peace dealt with by way of
"_Referendum_." Crises suddenly created lead almost instantly to
declarations of war. But this outcome could hardly be so rapidly
produced that Parliament could not be called to deal with the emergency.

How could France have been able to oppose the crushing German invasion,
in 1914, if her Government and her representative Houses had been
obliged to wait for the result of a "_Referendum_" whether she would
fight or kneel down?

But the whole world--outside the Central Empires and their
Allies--witnessed with unbounded delight the spontaneous and unanimous
decision of the heroic French nation to fight to the last. She threw
herself with the most admirable courage against the invading waves of
Teutonic barbarism, and succeeded by the great and glorious Marne
victory in forcing them to ebb, thus giving England and the other Allies
the time necessary to organize and train their armies which, by their
united efforts will save Civilization from destruction and the world
from the threatened German domination.




CHAPTER XXXV.

THE INTERVENTION OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE WAR.


The hostilities, once opened as the direct consequence of Germany's
obduracy, many of the most influential leaders of public opinion in the
United States foresaw that the conflict taking such a wide range, the
great American Republic was most likely to be, sooner or later, involved
in the European struggle. They were of two classes. Those out of office,
holding for the time no official position, were, of course, not bound to
the same careful discretion in judging the daily developments of the
military operations, and their far reaching consequences, as those who
were at the helm of State.

In appreciating the course followed by the United States since the war
commenced, it must never be forgotten that if an autocratic Empire,
trampled upon by a domineering military party, can be thrown in a minute
into a great conflict, a Republic like that of our powerful neighbours
cannot be dragooned into any hasty action. In a free country, under a
responsible government, public opinion is the basis of the success of
any important official decision.

The political men and the numerous publicists who incessantly called the
attention of our neighbours to what was going on in Europe and on the
seas, have rendered a great service in moulding public opinion for the
grand duty the Republic would eventually be obliged to accomplish.

Having ourselves decided to participate in the war at once after its
outbreak, and deeply engaged in the task, we, Canadians, felt somewhat
uneasy about the apparent determination of our neighbours to stand
aside, and let the European Powers settle the ugly question. As a rule,
we were all wishing to see the United States joining with the Allies in
the fray.

Once again, we had some black sheep with us. Whilst all the loyal
Canadians were anxiously waiting for the day when they would applaud the
American Republic's declaration of war against Germany, our Nationalists
were getting more nervous at the increasing signs of the growth of
public opinion amongst our neighbours against the criminal German cause
and the crimes by which the Teutons were supporting it. Their leader,
Mr. Bourassa, was doing his best to persuade the Americans that they had
much better to remain out of the struggle. He expected he would succeed,
as he had done in the Province of Quebec, in influencing, by his
erroneous theories, many of the French Canadian element in the United
States.

The wish being always father to the thought, Mr. Bourassa easily came to
the conclusion that Mr. Wilson, the president of the United States, was
decidedly opposed to any intervention of the Republic in the war, and
would prevent it at all hazards. How prodigal he was of his eulogiums,
of his advices, to the American "pacifists," with the President as their
leader, to know one has only to read his newspaper "_Le Devoir_."

How disappointed, how crest-fallen, he was when he discovered how much
mistaken he had been!

When Mr. Wilson, who had long been waiting for the right hour to strike
the blow at the Teutonic autocratic attempt at domination, rising
grandly to the rank of a great statesman, supported by the splendid
strength of the public opinion he had wisely and skilfully rallied in
favour of the decision he had taken, was a sad day for our Nationalists
and their heart-broken leader. Blind, prejudiced, as they were, meekly
pandering to pan-Germanism which they considered as the best antidote to
the Anglo-Saxonism they abhor, they could not understand that the
Lusitania horror, the slaughtering of hundreds of American citizens in
violation of all the principles of International Law, the crimes of the
Teutonic submarine campaign more than justified the intervention of the
United States in the war.

What our neighbours have done since they have joined with the Allies,
what they are doing and promise to do, is worthy of all admiration. Like
the British Empire, like France, the United States have given the
inspiring example of a most enlightened patriotism, of a splendid unity
of purpose, of a boundless confidence in the triumph of the cause of
Justice and Right.

Such a grand spectacle of true national unity offered a striking
contrast with the sad exhibition of the narrow Nationalism Canada has
had to endure without, however, hindering to any appreciable extent our
loyal and patriotic effort to help winning the war.

Mr. Bourassa, who had been out of his natural vituperative tune in
complimenting Mr. Wilson on his supposed peace proclivities, was sure to
turn his guns against the President of the Republic the moment he boldly
and energetically took his stand against German barbarism as exhibited
since the beginning of the war. Mr. Wilson had especially protested
against such outrages as were perpetrated on the seas by Teutonic
orders. He had repeatedly warned the Berlin Government what the
inevitable consequences of such proceedings would be, and going to the
full length of what friendly relations between two Sovereign States
could permit, had demanded that an end be put to a kind of warfare most
formally condemned by International Law, contrary to all justice, to all
human notions of civilization.

When the cup of German iniquities overflowed with new crimes, American
reprobation was also raised to the high water mark. Indignation was at
the height of its exasperation. Public opinion had rapidly rallied and
ripened at the horrible sight of so many American citizens, women and
children, murdered in mid-ocean, their dead bodies floating over the
waves, and their souls from above crying for vengeance.

Then the President, Congress, statesmen, politicians, publicists, loyal
Americans numbering almost a hundred million, all of one mind, of one
heart, pledged their national honour to avenge the foul deeds of
Teutonic barbarity, and to do their mighty share in rescuing Freedom and
Civilization from the threatening sanguinary cataclysm which was cruelly
saddening our times and darkening the prospects of our children.

How powerfully, how grandly, how admirably they have kept their word,
all know. The laws necessary to prosecute the war with the utmost vigour
were unanimously passed by Congress. The organization of the man-power
of our neighbours has been made on a grand scale. The calls to the
financial resources of the Republic have been patriotically answered by
the people who poured out billions and billions of their hard earned and
prudently saved money to support the national cause so closely
identified with that of the Allies. Besides spending innumerable
millions for their own gigantic military effort, the United States are
lending billions of dollars to their associates in the great struggle to
curb down German autocratic criminal ambition.

The universe, as a whole, gratefully applauded the magnificent effort
of the leading nation of the New-World in defending the old continents
of Europe, Asia and Africa against the new invasion of the Huns.

The only shadow to this ennobling picture is that which our
Nationalists, from this side of the boundary line, try to breathe on it,
expecting that their treacherous whisper will find some echo amongst the
French Canadian and the German elements of the Republic.

The following lines are a sample of the kind words Mr. Bourassa has
addressed to Mr. Wilson--the warrior--not the pacifist. On August 30,
1917, respecting the answer of the President of the United States to the
Pope's appeal in favour of peace, he wrote in a gentle mood:--

"_Truth and falsehood, sincerity and deceit, logic and sophism are
sporting with gracefulness in this singularly astonishing document. One
would imagine that the President, persuaded that the European
Governments are playing an immense game of "poker" having the life of
the peoples at stake, wanted to go further and to prove to them that at
such a game the great American democracy is their master. Perhaps did he
believe that the "bluff" outbidding would succeed in tearing to pieces
the mask of falsehoods, of ambiguities and hypocrisy, by which the
national Rulers are blinding the peoples in order to lead them more
readily to be slaughtered._"

On perusing such outrageous writing, one cannot help being convinced
that Mr. Bourassa considers all the distinguished and most patriotic
political leaders who, for the last four years, have guided with so much
talent and devotion France, the British Empire, and their Allies through
the unprecedented crisis they have had to face, are a criminal gang of
murderers.

So, in Mr. Bourassa's kind opinion, when Mr. Wilson and all the members
of the two Houses of Congress, with a most admirable unanimity of
thought and aspirations, called upon the American nation to avenge their
countrymen, countrywomen and children, murdered on the broad sea, they
were criminally joining with European Rulers in a game of "bluff", going
further than all of them in order to tear to pieces the falsehoods and
hypocrisy they were using to blind their peoples to the facile
acceptance of the slaughtering process. A very strange way, indeed, of
unmasking others' hypocrisy by being more hypocritical than them all.

The next day, in a second article on the same subject, the Nationalist
leader said:--

"_Since the outbreak of the war, more especially since the exhausted
peoples have commenced to ask themselves what will be the result of this
frightful slaughter, the supporters of war to the utmost have tried hard
to create the legend that Germany wants to impose her political,
military and economical domination over the whole universe. To this
first falsehood, they add another one, still more complete: the only way
to assure peace, they say, is to democratize Germany, Austria and all
the nations of the Globe._"

Two falsehoods no doubt there are, but they are not asserted by those
who affirm Germany's aspiration at universal domination, and who believe
that if true free democratic institutions were to replace autocratic
rule in many countries, peace could be much more easily maintained. They
are circulated by those who deny that such are the two cases.

Whose fault is it if the almost universal opinion, outside the Central
Empires and their few allies, is that Teutonic ambition, for many years
past, has been to dominate the world?

Whose fault is it if, for the last forty years, autocratic rule has once
more proved to be the curse of the nations which it governs, and of the
peoples it subjugates?

Has not Germany only herself to blame? If she had respected the eternal
principles of Divine Morals; if she had been contented of her lot and
mindful of the rights of other nations; if she had been guided by the
true law that Right is above Might; if she had followed the ever
glorious path of Justice, she would not be presently under the ban of
the civilized world rising in a mighty effort to crush her threatening
tyranny out of existence.

So much the worse for her, if she falls a victim to her insane ambitious
dreams and to the atrocious crimes they have inspired her to commit. In
her calamity, the Nationalists' sympathies will avail her very little,
as they will everywhere meet with the contempt they fully deserve.

At page 116, in a virulent charge, Mr. Bourassa says that Mr. Wilson
_though a passionate and obstinate pedantic of democracy, is as much of
an autocrat as William of Prussia_.

Blinded by his fanatical antipathies towards every one and every thing,
directly or indirectly, favouring England, the Nationalist leader fails
to see any difference between the man who blasphemously claims by Divine
Right the power to hurl his whole Empire at the throat of staggering
Humanity, to satisfy his frenzied lust of domination, denying to his
subjects any say whatever in the matter, and the responsible chief of
State who, holding his temporary functions from the expressed will of
the people who trusted him, calls upon that same nation to avenge the
murder of a large number of her citizens, of her women and children, and
the barbarous crimes committed in violation of her Sovereign Rights.

If Mr. Bourassa is conscious of the enormity of the stand he has taken,
and of the views he has expressed, he is indeed much to be blamed; if he
is not, he is greatly to be pitied.

At page 109 of his pamphlet--entitled:--"_The Pope, arbiter of peace_,"
Mr. Bourassa has written the following monstrous proposition, after
having said that peace must be restored "_without victory_":--

"_The more the results of the war are null, for both sides, the more
chances there are for the peoples, astounded at the frightful
uselessness of those monstrous slaughters, to protect themselves against
a new fit of furious folly. To become odious to men, war must be
barren._"

So Mr. Bourassa has emphatically proclaimed that the war must be barren
of any practical results, that the extraordinary sacrifices of lives, of
resources of wealth, must be without reward of any kind; that the world
must return to the ante-war conditions. And this, he asserts, would be
the best means of preventing a renewal of the monstrous slaughters which
have been the outcome of Germany's horrible attempt at dominating an
enslaved Humanity.

In all sincerity, it is very difficult to suppose that the exponent of
such outrageously abominable views is conscious of what he says.

A red hot "pacifist," Mr. Bourassa clamoured as best he could for "PEACE
WITHOUT VICTORY," claiming that it was _the only kind of peace that
could be "just and durable."_ The time was when he pretended--surely
without any show of reason--that such was the sort of peace Mr. Wilson
wanted and suggested.

Even as far back as December 31, 1915, Mr. Bourassa, no doubt desirous
of giving full vent to his new year's wishes to all, had written:--

"_In spite of the lies, of the impudent "bluff," of the sanguinary
appeals and of the false promises of victory of the partisans of war to
excess, in all the warring countries, popular good sense commences to
discern truth.... The more victory_ (the issue) _will be materially null
and sterile for all the nations at war, the more chances there will be
that peace will be lasting and that the peoples will be convinced that
war is not only an abominable crime but an incommensurable folly_."

Evidently it had already become a hobby on the brain of the Nationalist
leader. He dogmatically proclaims that war between peoples--not the wars
formerly fought by mercenary armies,--is a _crime_,--_abominable_,--and
a _folly_,--_incommensurable_.

True it is on the part of a State tramping upon all the principles of
Justice and of International Law to gratify her guilty ambition.

But honourable, glorious, is war on the part of peoples rising in their
patriotic might to resist a sanguinary enemy, to defend their countries,
their homes, their mothers, their wives and their children from
oppression, to stem the conquering efforts of barbarous invaders.

No doubt it was a crime on the part of Germany to break her pledged
honour by solemn treaties, and to violate Belgium's territory.

No doubt it was a crime for Germany--and one abominable--to overrun
Belgium, spreading everywhere desolation, devastation, incendiarism,
murder.

But can it be said that the admirable and heroic resistance Belgium has
opposed to her tyrannical invaders was a dastardly crime?

No doubt it was a crime--and one most abominable--for Germany to order
the sinking of the Lusitania and hundreds of merchant ships, without the
warning required by the Law of Nations, murdering by hundreds
non-combatants, children, women, and old men.

But can any one be justified in asserting that, after exhausting, for
the redress of such abominable wrongs, all the resources of diplomacy,
the United States were committing a crime when they accepted the
criminal teutonic challenge and decided to join with the British Empire,
with France, Italy and their Allies, to rescue human Freedom and
Civilization from the impending destruction?

It is an aberration of mind--incommensurable in depth--for a publicist,
or any one else, to be so blinded by prejudices, so lost to all sense of
justice, as to place on the same footing, on the same level, the
assailant and he who defends his all, the murderer and the victim.

I positively affirm that I am not actuated by the least ill-will or
ill-feeling against the Nationalist leader, in judging his course and
his views as I do. Thank God, I know enough of the teachings of
Christianity to wish good to all men. But I cannot help being deeply
sorry and deploring that one of my French Canadian compatriots is buried
in such mental darkness as to be unable to perceive the
difference--incommensurable--there is in the present war between the
hideous Teutonic guilt, and the commendable and meritorious defence by
the Allied nations of the most sacred cause on earth:--outraged Justice.

And with all sincerity, I express the profound wish that during the
prolonged recess the timely war measure adopted to censure and prevent
all utterances detrimental to the best Canadian effort in the conflict,
the Nationalist leader has the pleasure to enjoy, he will reconsider the
whole situation and his opinions--too much widely circulated. Is it yet
possible to hope that, at last, he will see the dawn which will lead him
to the full light with which the great and noble cause of his country
and of the world is shining?

It is no surprise that such opinions utterly failed to have any echo
amongst the liberty loving people of the neighbouring Republic. They
died their merited shameful death before crossing over the boundary
line, buried deep under the heap of the profound feelings of reprobation
they provoked.

The Nationalist leader even missed the mark where he felt sure his shot
would strike. We can rest assured that the large majority of the United
States Germans, by birth or origin, would not change the responsible
President of their new country for the autocrat Kaiser from whose
absolutist power so many of them fled to breathe freely in the new land
of promise it was their happy lot to enter.

Mr. Bourassa met with a complete failure in his expectation to arouse
the feelings of his compatriots over the frontier against the
intervention of the Republic in the war.

It has been a profound satisfaction for us, French Canadians, to learn
that from the very moment war was declared by the Republic against
Germany, the French Canadian element in the United States has been to
the forefront of the most loyal of our friendly neighbours in fighting
the common enemy.

The French Canadians of the United States, either by birth or origin,
have wisely turned a deaf ear to the Nationalist leader's seductive but
prejudiced theories, to the wild charges he was wont to level at all the
national rulers of the Allies, and, as a final attempt, at those of the
American Republic. They have rallied to their Colours with enthusiastic
patriotism.

They have nobly done their duty. They are doing it, and will continue to
do so to the last: to the final victory for which they are fighting with
the patriotic desire to share in the glory of the triumph of their
country.




CHAPTER XXXVI.

THE ALLIES--RUSSIA--JAPAN.


Since its outbreak the great war has, and, before it is over, will have,
played havoc in many ways in the wide world. Criminal aspirations have
been quashed, extravagant hopes shattered, an ancient throne overthrown
almost without a clash, an autocrat sovereign murdered, another forced
to abdicate and go into exile.

In the open airs, on land, over the waves, under sea, the fighting demon
has been most actively at work, ordering one of the belligerent, eager
to obey, to spare no one, young, weak or old. Death has been dropped
from the skies on sleeping non-combatants, assassinating right and left.
On the soil Providentially provided with the resources necessary to
human life, homes have been ruined, their so far happy owners brutally
murdered. On the ocean the treacherous and barbarous submariner,
operating in the broad light of the day, or in the darkness of the
night, has sent, without remorse, to the fathomless bottom, thousands
and thousands of innocent victims, children, women, old men, wounded
soldiers spared on land but drowned at sea.

Viewed from the height of a much nobler standpoint, the war has
developed a superior degree of heroism perhaps never equalled. Belgians,
Serbians, Poles, Armenians have endured, and are still suffering, their
prolonged martyrdom with a fortitude deserving the greatest admiration.

The nations united to withstand the torrent of German cruel and depraved
ambition are writing, with the purest of their blood, pages of history
which, for all times to come, will offer to posterity unrivalled
examples of the sound and unswerving patriotism which has elevated them
all to the indomitable determination to bear patiently, perseveringly,
all the sacrifices, in lives courageously given, in resources profusely
spent, in taxation willingly accepted and paid, in works of all kinds
cheerfully performed, which the salvation of human Liberty and
Civilization shall require.

The collapse of the ancient and hitherto mighty Empire of Russia will
undoubtedly be one of the most startling events of the "Great War." For
the present, I shall not comment, on the causes of this momentous
episode, incidental to the wonderful drama being played on the worldly
stage, more than I have done in a previous chapter. Still the important
change it has made in the respective situation of the belligerents, with
the prospective consequences likely to follow, one way or the other,
calls for some timely consideration.

Evidently, the downfall, first, of the Imperial regime, second, of the
_de facto_ Republican government by which it was replaced, throwing the
great Eastern ally of Great Britain, France and Italy under the
tyrannical sway of the "bolchevikis" terrorists, most considerably
altered the relative strength of the fighting power of the belligerents.
Very detrimental to the Allies, it was largely favourable to the Central
Empires. The "Triple Entente" as first constituted, was much weakened by
the desertion of one of the great partners in the heavy task they had
undertaken, whilst the "Triple Alliance" was strengthened in a relative
proportion, at least for the time being and the very near future.

Evidence, incontrovertible, is coming to light, proving what had been
soundly presumed, that "bolchevikism" was not merely the result, as in
other instances, of the violence of sanguinary revolutionists
overpowering a regular progressive movement of political freedom and
reform, but that it has been the outcome of German intrigue easily
succeeding in corrupting into shameless treason the "bolchevikis"
leaders.

As a Sovereign State, as an independent nation, Russia was, in honour
bound, pledged not to consent to a separate peace, and to make peace
with Germany only with conditions to which all the Allies would agree.
Acceptance of, and concurrence in, all peace agreements, were the
essential clause of the pledge Great Britain, France and Russia had
reciprocally taken in going to war with the Central Empires. With this
sacred pledge Italy concurred fully on joining the Allies.

To that solemn pledge, the American Republic has emphatically assented
when she threw her weighty sword in the balance against blood stained
and murderous Germany.

The "bolchevikis'" treacherous government repudiated the solemn
engagement of their country, threw her honour to the winds, sold her
dearest national interests by the infamous Brest-Litovsk treaty.
Betrayed Russia was out of the war, leaving her Allies to their fate.

From a military point of view, the consequences were easily foreseen.
Freed from the danger of further attacks on the eastern front, both
Germany and Austria could send their eastern armies, the first, on the
western front in France, the second, on the Italian front. Germany, only
requiring a sufficient force to keep down trodden Russia under the yoke
treacherously fastened on her neck by the traitors who had ignominiously
sold their country to her enemy, and anxious to profit to the utmost by
her success in coercing the Russians to agree to dishonourable peace
conditions, hurried more than a million men over to the western front.
Austria did likewise, sending a large force with the hope of smashing
the Italians out of the fight.

Those were no doubt very anxious days. All remember how the Italian army
lost in a very short time all the ground they had so stubbornly
conquered.

Germany made formidable preparations to strike, in the very early spring
of the present year, a decisive blow by which she fully expected to
reach and take Paris. We shall never forget the feverish hours we lived
when came the successive reports of the crushing advance of the Teutonic
hordes so close to the illustrious capital of France.

For a while, it seemed to be--and really it was--a renewal of the first
terrific invasion of northern France, in 1914. Fortunately, it was
Providentially decreed that the second onslaught was to meet with a
second Marne disaster. The Huns were forced to retire after a tremendous
loss of men and war materials, the allied armies, brilliantly led and
fighting heroically, redeeming all the lost territory and, at the moment
I am writing, moving steadily towards the German frontier.

The great good luck of the Allies, treasonably sacrificed by the Russian
bolchevikis terrorist government, was the solemn entry of the United
States into the European conflict.

Preparing for the grand effort which she confidently expected would be
final, Germany rashly decided to resume her barbarous submarine
campaign, positively determined to criminally violate all the principles
of International Law regulating warfare on the seas. That outrageous
decision was her fatal doom.

Its direct result was to bring the American Republic into the war. And
then the whole world was called upon to witness, with unbounded delight,
the very impressive spectacle of millions of fighting free men being
successfully transported over the sea, and landed on the French soil, to
join the grand army which, for the last four years, had been resisting
the full might of the autocratic forces.

However difficult it is to foretell what the political developments of
the present deplorable Russian situation will be, still it is not
illusory to believe that, history once more repeating itself, the
present sanguinary Russian regime will hasten its well deserved
ignominious downfall by the very brutal excesses it multiplies in its
delirious tyranny. There are too many elements of the immense population
of Russia favourable to an orderly and sensible government, to suppose
that they will long fail to gather their strength in order to redeem
their country's honour, and to remove from power the traitors who are
the shame of their fair land. When the infallible reaction sets in, it
will increase the more in momentum that it will have been longer
repressed by foul means.

The most important point of the present Russian situation to consider is
that of the best initiative the Allies could, and ought to, take
respecting the military question.

Many are of opinion that it would be possible, for the Allies, to help
Russia out of the present difficulties by an armed support. Such views
have been more especially expressed in the United States. Could they, or
can they be carried out? I must say that in a large measure I share the
opinion of those who would give an affirmative answer to the question.

It is well known that the matter has been most seriously considered by
the Allies, and a favourable solution seems on the way of a satisfactory
realization.

To the armed intervention of the Allies in Russia, following closely
upon the infamous Brest-Litovsk peace treaty, there was a very serious
obstacle of German creation.

It was evident, at the very start, that if intervention there was to be,
the one Ally to play the most important part in the great undertaking
would be Japan.

The British statesmen who, several years ago, brought about the treaty
of alliance between Great Britain and Japan have deserved much from the
Empire and from the world generally. Surely they had a clear insight of
the future. True to her treaty obligations Japan at once sided with
Great Britain in the war. All those who have closely followed the trend
of events since the outbreak of the hostilities, know how much Japan has
done to assist in chasing the German military and mercantile fleets from
the high seas, more especially from the Pacific ocean. Canada owes her a
debt of gratitude for the protection she has afforded our western
British Columbia coast from the raids of German war ships.

Foreseeing that the proximity of Japan to eastern Russia was an
inducement for the Allies to decide upon an armed intervention which,
starting from Siberia, might roll westward over the broad lands leading
back to the European eastern war front, Germany lost no time in trying
to poison Russian public opinion against the Japanese. Her numerous
representatives and agents told the Russians that if they allowed Japan
to send her army on Russian territory, they would be doomed to fall
under Japanese sway. They recalled the still recent Russo-Japanese war,
amplifying the supposed aims of Japan so as to stir up the national
feelings of the Russians. Such a cry, assiduously and widely spread, was
no doubt a dangerous one.

Under those circumstances, Japan wisely decided to remain in the
expectation of further developments before moving. She took the safe
stand that she would intervene only upon the request of the Russians
themselves, pledging her word of honour that her only purpose would be
to free Russia from German domination, and that she would withdraw from
Russian territory as soon as complete Russian independence would have
been restored and the treacherous Teutonic aims foiled.

Evidences are increasing in number and importance that the Huns'
propaganda in Russia against Japan is being successfully counteracted by
the good sense of the people, realizing how much their vital national
interests have been trampled upon by Germany in imposing her peace
conditions on their country betrayed by the bolchevikis rulers.

An armed Allied force has been sent to, and has been, for some weeks,
operating, in Siberia so far with commendable results.

For one, I have most at heart an expectation which I would be most happy
to see realized. It seems to me that there ought to be a chance, nay
more, a possibility, for the Allies to organize, between this day and
next spring, a strongly supported intervention in Russia. In that event,
Japan of course, would take the lead. She could rapidly send to help the
Russians to resume their part in the war against Germany at least a
million of men; two millions if they were needed. As a guarantee of
Japan's good faith, the Allies, more especially the United States, could
send over contingents to Siberia.

There is no doubt whatever that so supported, the revulsion of Russian
public feeling, once set in motion, would soon overwhelm the
bolchevikis. A sensible and patriotic government, once at the helm of
the state, could easily and rapidly reorganize a powerful army out of
the numerous available millions. The financial aspect of the question
would certainly be the most difficult for Russia to meet, after the
exhaustive strain she has had to bear. But however great their moneyed
effort, the United States could yet do a great deal to help Russia
financially.

Will the hopes of so many be realized, and will Russia, resuming her
place of honour in the glorious ranks of the Allies, be found battling
once more with them when together they will finally crush the German
tyrannical militarism? God only knows, and time will tell.




CHAPTER XXXVII.

THE LAST PEACE PROPOSALS.


I was writing the last pages of this work when the surprising news was
flashed over the cable that Austria-Hungary had taken the initiative of
suggesting peace discussion, which proposition she had communicated to
all the belligerents, to the neutral governments and even to the Holy
See. Without delay the rumour proved to be true. The very next day the
full text of Austria's communication was published all over the world.

I have read it with great care and, I confess, with profound amazement.

From several stand-points, this document is astonishing and weighty:
astonishing as it reveals more than ever before the astuteness of the
inspiration which dictated it; weighty because it derives its importance
from one of the most serious situation of the world's affairs ever
recorded in History.

It is difficult to suppose that the Austrian Government really expected
that their move would be considered as the outcome of their own
initiative. Not the hand, but the sword--the dominating sword--behind
the Throne is clearly visible.

The carefully drafted document, issued from Vienna, was evidently
dictated from Berlin. It is stamped with the Teutonic seal.

After the experience of the last four years--I can safely say of the
last half century as well--over credulous is he who believes that,
swayed as she has been by her overpowering northern neighbour, Austria
would have dared to address such a proposition to the Allies if she had
not been asked by Germany to do so.

It is rather amusing to read the news cabled from Amsterdam, Holland, on
the 20th of September, that an official communication issued in Berlin
said that the German Ambassador in Vienna that day presented Germany's
reply to the recent Austro-Hungarian peace note. The purport of the note
was that Germany agreed to participate in the proposed exchange of
views. This is indeed high class cynicism.

The document would certainly call for somewhat lengthy and strong
comments, but they can be dispensed with after the curt, sharp and
decisive reply it has elicited from those it was intended to seduce and
deceive.

President Wilson was the first to answer a positive, a formidable NO,
which, thundered out from Washington, was echoed with equal force in
London, Paris and Rome. So that the astute attempt to deter the Allies
from the glorious course they were forced to adopt by Germany, and by
Austria herself, was doomed to failure, and bound to meet with the
contempt it deserved.

But a few remarks expressing the retort that strikes one's mind on
reading the Austrian communication, are in order and had better be made.
The whole stress of the document is that peace should be restored as
soon as possible on account of the sacrifices and sufferings war
nowadays entail, and in conformity with the unanimous wishes of the
peoples engaged in the conflict.

Did Austria ever suppose that, when she addressed that sadly famous and
outrageous ultimatum to Servia, dated the 23rd of July, 1914, which she
well knew would bring about the cataclysm she now feigns to deplore--and
which Germany and herself were longing for--the war would be only a
child's play, a game of golf, or something of the kind? Was Austria at
that time cherishing the kind feelings of the German Kronprinz who, on
being asked by an American lady, in a social event, at Berlin, why he
was so desirous of seeing a great war, replied that "_it was only for
the fun of the thing_?"

That war, when once declared, would have terrible consequences, would
cost millions of dear lives, would cripple many more millions for the
rest of their earthly days, would cost innumerable millions--even
billions--of hard earned money, would destroy an immense amount of
accumulated wealth, would delay for years the onward march of Humanity
towards more and more prosperous destinies, was not only long foreseen
before it broke out, but was positively known to be pregnant with all
such disasters.

But what was not foreseen, not known, nor imagined as at all possible,
after nearly twenty centuries of Christianity, was that, war being on,
Germany, the Power responsible for it, guilty of the crime of having let
loose the frightful hurricane, would multiply the horrors inseparable
from military operations, with unconceivable barbarous acts condemned by
all international, moral and Divine laws.

It was not foreseen, nor supposed possible, that heroism would be
challenged by murder, that the glorious defenders of their country's
rights would have to fight against sanguinary savages obeying the
barbarian orders of a modern Attila.

It was not foreseen that hundreds of children, women, old men, wounded
soldiers, would be assassinated on the open sea and sent to their
eternal watery graves.

So far as the horrors of regular warfare were concerned, they were, as I
have just said, very well known. And was it not on account of this
knowledge that Great Britain and France had exhausted all their efforts
in favour of the maintenance of peace?

Was it not out of this knowledge that England had, for more than twenty
years, implored the Berlin Government to agree at least to partial
disarmament, to discontinue, or, at the least, to reduce war ship
building operations?

When Austria, bowing herself down to the ground under the German
tyrannical lash, unjustly and cruelly declared war against weak Servia,
she knew what the horrors of the conflict could not fail to be. How is
it that at that time she was not moved by the sympathetic feelings
expressed in her recent appeal for peace negotiations?

How is it that Austria, and her inspiring angel, Germany, are getting so
nervous about the misfortunes of war, just at the time when they are
forced to admit that they are utterly unable to realize the aims for
which they brought on the frightful struggle?

How is it that those who could order with clear conscience and fiendish
delight the violation of Belgium guaranteed neutrality, the sinking of
the Lusitania and so many other ships carrying non-combatants, children,
women and old men, the murder of so many innocent victims, the Belgian
deportations, the destruction of the monuments of art--the work of human
genius--are suddenly moved to pity just as they see the hand writing on
the wall warning them that their days of foul enjoyments are at end?

How is it that the voice who dictated the following sentence was not
silenced and choked by the abominable lie it contains? How is it that
the hand that wrote it was not instantly dried up at the impudent
falsehood it expresses?

Austria's official communication says in part:--

"_The Central Powers leave it in no doubt that they are only waging a
war of defence for the integrity and the security of their
territories._"

But why is it that the Central Empires are now only waging a defensive
war, if it is not because after having opened the game with the
certainty of crushing their opponents by the tremendous power of their
formidable military organization, they are getting beaten and
overpowered by the unrivalled heroism called forth by their criminal
attempt at destroying weak nations and enslaving Humanity?

The Austrian and German Governments wilfully forget that the important
point is not to consider who are the belligerents that are NOW forced by
the fortune of arms to wage a defensive struggle. It is to ascertain who
started the conflict of an OFFENSIVE war.

To that question, the voice of the truly civilized world has answered
with no uncertain sound. It was given, and ever since most energetically
emphasized, the very day the first Austrian shot was fired at Belgrade,
the first thundering German gun and the first German soldier ordered to
cross over the Belgian frontier.

The Austrian tentative peace document pretends "_that all peoples, on
whatever side they may be fighting, long for a speedy end to the bloody
struggle_."

This is so evidently true that the writer of the communication might
very properly have dispensed with asserting it.

But have the Austrian and the German Governments forgotten that the
peoples were equally longing for the maintenance of peace during the
many years of intense war preparation prior to the outbreak of the
hostilities in 1914?

If they are not yet aware of it, the Central Empires must be taught that
the Allied nations have another longing than that for peace, to which
they have given precedence and for which they will continue to fight
strenuously until it is fully gratified. They long for an honourable, a
just and lasting peace. They long to see once more the old landmarks of
Civilization and Political Liberty emerging safe and radiant from the
waves of Teutonic Barbarism. They long, and most earnestly, for peace
restored under such conditions as will put an end to extravagant,
ruinous and autocratic militarism, which will henceforth relieve the
peoples from the drastic obligation of maintaining, at a cost more and
more crushing, an ever increasing military organization for fear of
being suddenly subjugated by an ambitious foe bent on dominating the
world.

Using the very words of the most admirable speech addressed by President
Wilson to the United States Congress, on the 11th of February last, the
Allied Nations long for a peace which will provide "_that peoples and
provinces are no longer to be bartered about from sovereignty to
sovereignty as if they were mere chattels and pawns in a game, even the
great game now for ever discredited of the balance of power; but that
every territorial settlement involved in this war must be made in the
interest and for the benefit of the populations concerned and not as a
part of any mere adjustment or compromise of claims amongst rival
states_."

The Allied peoples are longing for a peace by which "_all well defined
national aspirations shall be accorded the utmost satisfaction that can
be accorded them without introducing new or perpetuating old elements of
discord, and antagonism that would be likely in time to break the peace
of Europe and consequently of the world_."

The _pacifists_ of the Allied nations who have, like the Nationalist
leader and his henchmen in the Province of Quebec, clamoured for peace
by compromise, must have had a few hours of delightful enjoyment after
reading Austria's communication. It is evidently the echo of their oft
repeated views and has been carefully drafted to stir them to further
exertions in favour of a settlement which will gratify their ill
disguised Teutonic sympathies.

Austria's document is a plea intended to be strong for peace by
negotiations irrespective of the war situation and its probable result.

This is the kind of peace dear to the heart of the Nationalist leader
and his friends. The newspaper "_Le Devoir_" is their daily organ in
Montreal. A Sunday paper called "_Le Nationaliste_" is the weekly
edition of the daily organ.

By what mysterious inspiration was "_Le Nationaliste_" able to forestall
the publication of the Austrian peace document by an article in its
issue of Sunday, the 13th of August, which summarizes the leading
reasons given by the Government of Vienna to induce the Allied
Governments to agree "_to a confidential and unbinding discussion_" of
the conditions of peace, "_at a neutral meeting place_?"

Since the official publication of the document, our Nationalists, who
had been subdued by the Order-in-Council tightening the censure of
disloyal writings and speaking, and reduced to the necessity of merely
whispering their fond hopes of an early peace which would relieve the
Central Empires, Turkey and Bulgaria from the deserved chastisement of
their crimes, are getting again more outspoken in the expression of
their views and of their Teutonic proclivities. The street corner
propaganda is being resumed with more discreet vigour than formerly when
loud talk was considered safe. New efforts, better guarded against a
compromising responsibility, to instil the virus in the body politic,
are tried over again. They creep in a few newspapers well known for
their hardly disguised hostility to the cause of the Allies and to the
participation of Canada to its defence. All this under the hypocritical
cover of a longing for the restoration of peace and the cessation of the
sacrifices the country is still making for the victory for which all
loyal British subjects are praying and doing their best to secure.

Germany has prudently--cowardly is the more proper word--remained
behind, satisfied, for the time being, to play the part of prompter to
her vassal, Austria. But, however desirous of remaining free to
repudiate publicly, if considered more advisable, Austria's move, she
could not help showing her hand. She betrayed herself by the peace offer
she has had the outrageous audacity to make to Belgium she has
barbarously crucified.

And what are the terms of this astonishing proposal? I will mention only
two of them.

First: "THAT BELGIUM SHALL REMAIN NEUTRAL UNTIL THE END OF THE WAR."

That Germany should have decided to address such a demand to Belgium is
truly inconceivable. Has she forgotten the days when Belgium was
neutral, and determined to remain so, under the joint protection of
England, France and Germany, bound by solemn treaty to uphold Belgian
independence? Does she not realize that if Belgium has not been neutral
up to this day, she has been the cause of it in tearing to pieces the
_scrap of paper_ which should have been the sacred shield of the nation
she criminally martyred? After having violated Belgium's frontier,
overrun her territory, destroyed her happy homes, murdered by thousands
her children, her women, her mothers, her old men, ransomed her to the
tune of hundreds of millions, without granting her liberty, shattered
her monuments of arts, she has the impudence to ask her to betray those
who hastened to her defence, and who are pledged to require the
restoration of her complete independence with due reparation as one of
the essential conditions of peace. A more brazen outrage cannot be
imagined. It is on a par with that addressed to England whose neutrality
Germany wanted to secure at the cost of her honour in betraying France.

What was the true object of Germany in making such a proposition? Was it
not to protect herself against the increasing likelihood that the Allied
army would soon be able to enter on German soil by passing through
Belgium. But in that event, so much to be hoped for, there would be that
difference that whilst Germany invaded Belgium in sheer violation of her
solemn treaty obligations, France, England and the United States would
honour themselves in turning the guilty invaders out of the soil they
have sullied by their hideous presence and their horrible savageness.

The second German peace proposition to Belgium reads as follows:--"_That
Belgium shall use her good offices to secure the return of the German
colonies_."

And such a request is made by the Power that, in spite of the treaties
it was in honour bound to respect, ordered the German army to conquer
Belgium in a dastardly rush, in order to reach France at once and crush
her out of the conflict before she could be helped by Great Britain and
her Colonies! Incredible indeed!

Germany and Austria knew very well that their proposals would be
indignantly and contemptuously rejected. But they had a twofold object
in making them. First, they wanted to stir up their own peoples to
further efforts in carrying on the struggle by throwing upon the Allies
the apparent responsibility of refusing even a confidential and
unbinding discussion of the question of the restoration of peace.

Second, they were anxious to make a strong bid for the support of the
_pacifists_ of the Allied countries.

How much will they succeed in galvanizing the enthusiasm of their
peoples for another grand effort, remains to be seen.

So far as their attempt to move our _pacifists_ to exert themselves in
favour of a peace by compromise, it has already met with a complete
failure. Our Nationalist _pacifists_ are getting so few and so far
between, that they will most likely once more disappear and give up the
street propaganda.

On completing the reading of the official communication of Austria,
President Wilson at once gave his reply, authorizing the Secretary of
State to issue the following statement, dated the 16th of September and
published broadcast on the next day:--

"_I am authorized by the President to state that the following will be
the reply of this Government to the Austro-Hungarian note proposing an
unofficial conference of belligerents_:

"'_The Government of the United States feels that there is only one
reply which it can make to the suggestion of the Imperial
Austro-Hungarian Government. It has repeatedly and with entire candor
stated the terms upon which the United States would consider peace and
can and will entertain no proposal for a conference upon a matter
concerning which it has made its position and purpose so plain.'_"

On the eleventh day of February, 1918, President Wilson, instead of
addressing as usual a message to the two Houses, went personally to meet
the Senate and the House of Representatives, in Congress assembled, and,
in a most admirable speech, replied to the then recent peace utterances
of Count von Hertling, the German Chancellor, and Count Czernin, the
Austro-Hungarian Foreign Minister, fully explaining the only principles
by which the Government of the United States would be guided when peace
negotiations do take place. This most important statement is published
as an appendix to this book. It is worthy of the great statesman who
made it, and deserves the most attentive reading on account of the lofty
views and noble principles it expresses, of the large issues it involves
and of the ardent patriotism it inspires.

The prime ministers of Great Britain and France have signified their
entire assent to the energetic stand taken by President Wilson in the
above quoted reply to Austria's peace communication.

The whole British Empire, France, the United States and Italy are a unit
in refusing to consider for a moment Austria's cynical peace proposals.

Belgium, from the cross of martyrdom to which the Huns' barbarity has
nailed her, has summoned all her wonderful courage, in her long and
cruel agony, to repudiate with scorn the infamous German proposition to
betray those who are pledged to be her saviours.

Consequently, the peace offensive, so cleverly planned by Germany and
opened by her contemptible Austrian satellite, has met with as dismal a
failure as the military offensive launched on the twenty-first day of
March last, with such superior numerical forces, and unbounded
confidence that this gigantic effort would at last smash the Allies'
resistance.

Just as the Teutonic hordes are hurled back by the matchless strategy of
the Chief Commander of the Allied armies and their incomparable heroism,
the Austrian peace offensive communication is returned to their authors
a miserable "_scrap of paper_".

And the grand and noble fight will go on until Germany is brought to her
knees and forced to recognize that "THE RESOURCES OF CIVILIZATION ARE
NOT YET EXHAUSTED."

The modern Huns are doomed to a very sad awakening from their dream of
universal domination.

Germany has challenged the world to a deadly struggle. She must bear the
consequences, however sad they may be. Four years ago, anticipating a
crushing victory, she exulted over the early fall of her enemies, madly
certain that in a few weeks they would kneel down crying for mercy. She
trusted her all to the fortunes of war. They will at last go against
her. She would have been cruelly triumphant. Will she be cowardly in
defeat?

Austria has blindly served Germany's criminal ambition. She must abide
by the result of her blindness.

Both carried away by passion, they forgot that there would be a terrible
reckoning day for their atrocious crime. It is near at hand, and they
cannot avoid being called to a severe account for their foul deeds.

Kaiser Wilhelm II will soon find out that Divine Justice is very
different from what he fondly believed. He will receive the proper
answer to his blasphemous appeals to the Almighty to bless with success
his guilty ambition to dominate the world. He will learn that from above
the innocent victims whom he has mercilessly sacrificed to his lust of
autocratic power, have cried for vengeance and have been heard. He bears
the guilt of blood and sacrilegious war. He shall receive his deserts in
due time.




CHAPTER XXXVIII.

NECESSARY PEACE CONDITIONS.


It can be positively affirmed that, taking no account whatever of the
treasonable views of the _defeatists_, and no more of the disloyal
opinions of the _pacifists_--because they only deserve absolute contempt
and reprobation--the peoples called the Allies have been long ago, are
now, and will remain to the last, unanimous on the essential PEACE
CONDITIONS without which all the sacrifices they have made and are
making would be a total irreparable loss.

It has been proclaimed with the highest authority, and universally
approved, that henceforth PEACE MUST BE JUST AND DURABLE. Such it should
always have been.

The principle is no doubt very easily enunciated. It is applauded by all
and every where, even by Germany and Austria. The great, the
insuperable, difficulty is to agree upon SUCH CONDITIONS as will
PERMANENTLY, and to the COMPLETE SATISFACTION OF ALL CONCERNED, bless
the world with the maintenance of a TRULY JUST AND DURABLE PEACE.

It is better to admit at once that the very moment the question is
considered, the presently contending belligerents are as far apart as
the two poles of the earthly globe.

It is extremely easy to prove it.

No one now ignores--or at least should fail to realize--what kind of
peace would be accepted by Germany as JUST AND DURABLE.

To be satisfied with a settlement of peace, Germany would require the
sanction by her opponents of her right to maintain, develop and
strengthen her MILITARISM so threatening to the universe.

At the time she was exulting over the great and crushing victory which
she was sure to have within her powerful grasp, in debating with her
vanquished enemies, the conditions of peace, Germany, elated as she
would certainly have been by her triumph, would have positively claimed
the annexation of Belgium and of all the northern part of France by
right of conquest. She would not have been less exacting than she was,
in 1870, when in the face of indignant but powerless Europe, she
stripped France of her two fine and wealthy provinces, Alsace and
Lorraine.

She would have claimed the right to supersede England as mistress of the
seas,--German supremacy replacing the British and henceforth ruling the
waves.

She would have claimed the annexation of Russian Poland, and that of
Servia to Austria.

She would have claimed the recognition of her imperial paramount power
over the Balkans, which she would have united under the direct sway of
her ally and vassal, Bulgaria.

Victorious over all continental Europe and equally over Great Britain,
she would most likely have claimed the cession to her of the great
British autonomous Colonies for the purpose of pouring over to Canada,
Australia and South Africa her increasingly overflowing population. And
to better achieve that most coveted result, she would have destroyed at
once the free institutions they enjoy under the British Crown to replace
them by her autocratic rule.

In one of his illogical pamphlets, abounding in extravagant views, the
Nationalist leader has denied with scorn that Germany had ever intended
to acquire Canada by force of arms. He supported his assertion by the
declaration made to the contrary by a German Minister. But he failed to
explain that this German public man said so only when the Berlin
Government had fully realized that they could not succeed in breaking
asunder the mighty British Empire. The Teutonic declaration was
hypocritical, intended to deceive, and to supply our Nationalist
"_pacifists_" with what would seem a plausible argument to cover their
sympathies for the gentle cause of the tender hearted Huns. It is very
easy to disclaim any aspiration to possess what one is sure never to
get.

Triumphant Germany would have bargained very hard to lay her powerful
hand on the great Indian Empire.

She would have dismembered Russia, as she has effectively done--at least
temporarily--by the infamous Brest-Litovsk treaty.

She would have strongly supported Austria in destroying for ever Italy's
legitimate aspirations to round off her national territory by the
annexation of that part of Austria's possessions called _The Trentino_,
which is hers by nature.

Following the precedent she had laid down, in 1870, after her triumph
over France, Germany would undoubtedly have exacted from her fallen
enemies, billions and billions of dollars as indemnities of war.

And Germany, with such a peace treaty imposed to her despairing enemies
with her sanguinary sword at their throat ready to murder them--as she
did at Brest-Litovsk--would have swayed the world with her UNIVERSAL
DOMINATION.

But I hear--I must say without being the least frightened--the
thundering clamour of the Nationalist leader crying that Germany does
not NOW claim such peace conditions as above enumerated.

Very true, and why?

Only because she is no longer able to exact and impose them!

In 1914, Germany being victorious over all Europe, England included,
after a four months overpowering campaign, as she expected, would
certainly not have been satisfied with less than the conditions just
specified. They were the goal for which she had been strenuously
preparing for fifty years, her success, in 1870, being the preliminary
opening of her conquests.

To bring Germany to renounce--temporarily--to her fond hopes of
domination, it has required the heroic efforts and the untold
sacrifices, in men and money, which Great Britain, her Colonial Empire,
France, Italy, Belgium, Japan, betrayed Russia, and, LAST BUT NOT LEAST,
the United States, have made during more than the last four years and
which they are pledged to make until a successful issue.

The kind of peace as above would have been what can be very properly
called--Germany's "OFFENSIVE PEACE." In Germany's opinion this would
have been the just and durable peace dear to her so kind heart.

But having failed to carry the tremendous victory for which she had so
powerfully prepared, Germany would NOW likely agree to negotiate what
can be as properly called a "DEFENSIVE PEACE."

By "DEFENSIVE PEACE", I mean Germany negotiating NOW with her opponents
with the determination to repulse, as much as possible, their just
claims, to prevent them to the utmost limit to reap the legitimate
fruits of their admirable endeavours, to thwart the realization of their
noble aspirations to protect the world hereafter against her guilty and
barbarous militarism.

Germany--I mean, of course, the Teutonic Imperial Government--has yet
given no sign of a change of mind on the vital points at stake in the
consideration of the restoration of peace. If the fortune of arms was
once more to favour her armies, her blood stained for Colours, she
would, to-morrow, be as mercilessly exacting as she would have been, in
1914, had she triumphantly entered Paris inside of two months after her
challenge to the civilized world.

Germany is surely not a convert to sound Christian principles. She will
not repent for her crimes. She does not feel the tortures of remorse at
her foul deeds. She would certainly be a relapser, in the near future,
if the Allies, unwisely heeding the clamour of the "_pacifists_",
imprudently gratified her ACTUAL wish for a peace compromise.

And before long Humanity would be forced to go again, in much aggravated
conditions, over the way of the cross she has been threading along for
nearly five years, steeped to the knees in the blood of millions of her
heroic sons, with a reorganized Germany this time straining all the
Huns' accumulated power to lead Civilization to her Calvary.

With God's grace, that shall not be. Five years of martyrdom have
deserved and will receive JUSTICE.

After having explained what Germany, from her stand-point, considers a
JUST AND DURABLE PEACE, let us see what such a peace means from the
Allies' stand-point.

Every free man has a right to his own opinion. However, he must never
forget that Liberty of opinion does not mean--never meant--absence of
knowledge, ignorance of the basic principles of political society.

I do not hesitate to expound what the real conditions of the coming
peace MUST BE to make it JUST AND DURABLE.

Let the inveterate opponents of Political Liberty say what they please,
it is undeniable that the present war has rapidly developed into a
deadly conflict between Autocratic Power and Political Freedom.

Consequently a peace patched up to uphold Autocracy and destroy free
institutions could not be JUST and DURABLE.

Under the dominating circumstances of the present struggle, to bring it
to a satisfactory conclusion, peace, to be Just and Durable, must be
restored with all the necessary guarantees that Political Liberty will
hereafter be safe against the foul attempts of military despotism.

This _sine qua non_ condition is general in its nature and equally
interests all the contending Allied nations.

Let us now consider the peace conditions which, though of general
importance so far as they are NECESSARY for its permanency, are
essential from the particular stand-point of each one of the Allies
separately.

I shall begin the review by considering the particular case of Great
Britain.

To be JUST and DURABLE for the British Empire, the future peace treaty
must not be so drafted as to supersede British sea supremacy by that of
Germany.

The question of what is to be done with the great German African
Colonies, conquered by the South African Dominion army, is next in
importance to England's sea supremacy, from the British Empire
stand-point.

Germany, very far from foreseeing what was to happen, deliberately
opened that question when she precipitated the present conflict by
coercing Austria to crush weak Servia, herself challenging Russia and
France, and thundering at Belgium in violation of her most sacred treaty
obligations.

Great Britain, as in honour bound, standing by Belgium, was forced to
fight with Germany. The great autonomous Colonies nobly rallying to her
support, the South African Dominion, Boers and British admirably united
for the purpose, undertook for her share to conquer the German African
Colonies. She has grandly succeeded.

If, as we all hope, the Allies are finally victorious, would it be just
to relinquish Great Britain's right over the German African Colonies,
more especially if the South African Dominion is strongly opposed--as
there is no doubt she will be--to their retrocession?

And what about Belgium and France? No peace treaty could be called JUST
nor could be DURABLE, which would not completely restore Belgium's
independence; which would not oblige Germany to indemnify Belgium for
the damages wrought upon her, more especially those which were inflicted
to the Belgian weak but heroic nation out of sheer barbarous
destruction.

To France, the northern part of her presently occupied territory,
together with Alsace and Lorraine, MUST be restored.

The Germans are loudly crying that in exacting the restoration to France
of the provinces of Alsace and Lorraine, the Allies would be partly
dismembering the German Empire.

Quite so, and why not? Does the victim of the highway man lose the right
to claim his property from the ruffian who has stolen it by brutal
force?

In 1870, under the circumstances all know, Prussia imposed upon France
the cession of Alsace and Lorraine, rounding off the territory of the
new German Empire.

France naturally smarted under the cruelty of the condition which she
could not help accepting. For many years she cherished the hope that the
lost provinces would ultimately return to the parental home.

But it is well known how TIME is an efficient cure of many ills.
France's yearning for the restoration of Alsace and Lorraine had
gradually subsided. The general opinion was spreading that the
Alsace-Lorraine matter was more and more becoming a finally settled
question.

Before the war, no Power, European or American, would have countenanced
France in any attempt to break peace to run her chance of reconquering
Alsace and Lorraine. France knew it perfectly well and at last bowed to
her fate.

Who has reopened the closed question of Alsace and Lorraine? Is it not
Germany herself?

Great Britain, Russia, the United States and Italy, who would not have
supported France in an OFFENSIVE WAR with the objective of getting back
her lost provinces, are now a most determined unit in favour of the
restoration of Alsace and Lorraine to France as a result of the
DEFENSIVE war Germany forced her to wage.

That would be JUSTICE pure and simple: the peace treaty MUST do it.

Germany having run the risk of reopening the Alsace-Lorraine acute
question, the Allies MUST close it anew but this time against the Huns.

Germany MUST also pay for the devastation she has savagely spread in
France.

I stand firm for a final settlement of the Austro-Italian too long
pending question by giving to Italy the Trentino territory to which she
has an evident national claim supported by the best of geographical
conditions.

Servia's independence MUST be once more secured, and Poland SHOULD be
resuscitated.

The United States part in the war is truly a grand, a noble one. They
have no particular territorial interest to serve. Their only object is
the general public good. They will be the benefactors of Humanity in
claiming for their Allies the above enunciated conditions without which
no JUST and DURABLE peace can be expected nor obtained.

It is most important to caution the public against the insidious
clamours of our _"pacifists"_, trying again to deceive the people by
asserting that Germany is ready to negotiate for peace on fair terms.

The Huns will acquiesce only to such peace terms as they will be forced
to.

The Allies are better to be guided in consequence in their unfaltering
determination to realize a JUST and DURABLE peace by a GLORIOUS
VICTORY.




CHAPTER XXXIX.

CONCLUSION.


My ardent desire to speak the plain truth and only the truth, is just as
strong to-day as it was when, in concluding my French work, I summarized
the situation such as it was at the end of the year 1916, to show the
hard duty incumbent on all the Allies, Canada included. It has been
perhaps still more intensified by the outrageous efforts of those
amongst us whose sole object has been, since the outbreak of the
hostilities, to discourage our people from the herculean task they had
bravely undertaken.

Two years have since elapsed--years full of great events, and of
untiring heroism on the part of the glorious defenders of Justice and
Right--and I do not see the slightest reason to modify the conclusions I
then arrived at as a matter of strict duty. Unworthy of public
confidence is the man who, pandering to the supposed prejudices of his
countrymen, refrains out of weakness, or of more guilty considerations,
to tell them what they are bound to do for their own country, for their
Empire, for the world, in the supreme crisis of our time.

True every one is longing for the restoration of peace. But few are
those who, even before being tired of the war, were ready to curb their
heads under the German yoke, are now praying for a compromise between
the Allies and their enemies. There are some left, it is sad to admit.
Everywhere they are chased by the indignant public opinion daily growing
more determined that millions of heroes shall not have given their lives
in vain, that millions of others, wounded on the fields of battles,
shall not, until the last of them is gone for ever, be the betrayed
victims of Teutonic dastardly ambition.

True, peace is sorely wanted, and would be welcomed by the thanksgivings
to the Almighty of grateful peoples, who have borne with undaunted
courage such untold and admirable sacrifices to uphold their Rights and
their Honour. But it cannot be sued for by the nations whom Germany
wanted to enslave by the might of her crushing militarism operating
under the dictates of a new code of International Law of her own
barbarous creation.

Thank God, the flowing tide of unlimited Teutonic ambition let loose
over the world, more than four years ago, has met with inaccessible
summits where love of Justice, respect of Right, devotion to human
Civilization, obedience to Christian Law, heroism of sacrifices, were so
deeply entrenched, that they could not be reached and conquered. From
this commanding altitude, they not only continue to defy the tyrants
bent on dominating the universe, but they are mightily smashing their
power.

From the overshadowing point of view which cannot be forgotten, or
wilfully abandoned, nothing has changed since the German Empire, in her
delirious aspirations, challenged the world to the almost superhuman
conflict by which she felt certain to succeed in realizing her fond
dream of universal domination.

At the outbreak of the war, ever since, to-day, to-morrow, there were,
there are and there will be but three alternatives to the restoration of
peace:--

1.--A victorious German peace imposed on beaten and cowed belligerents:
the peace of the "_defeatists_."

2.--A peace by compromise, patched up by disheartened "_pacifists_,"
lured by cunningness, winning where force would have failed to succeed,
to agree to conditions pregnant with all the horrors of a new and still
greater struggle in the near future.

3.--A peace the result of the indomitable courage and perseverance of
all the nations who have joined together to put an end to Germany's
ambition to rule the world, and to destroy the instrument created for
that iniquitous purpose: Prussian militarism.

There could be a fourth alternative to peace, but it would be possible
only by a miracle which, we can grant without hesitation, the world has
perhaps not yet deserved.

It would be peace restored by the sudden conversion of Germany to the
practice of sound Christian principles, acknowledging how guilty she has
been, repenting for her crimes, agreeing to atone for them as much as
possible, and taking the unconditional pledge to henceforth behave like
a civilized nation.

All must admit that there is not the slightest hope of such a move from
a nation whose autocratic Kaiser, answering, in February last, an
address presented to him by the burgomaster of Hamburg, thundered out,
in his usual blasting manner, that the neighbouring peoples, to enjoy
the sweetness of Germany's friendship, "MUST FIRST RECOGNIZE THE VICTORY
OF GERMAN ARMS."

As an inducement to the Allies to bow to his wishes, he pointed to
Germany's achievement in Russia, where a beaten enemy, "_perceiving no
reason for fighting longer_," clasped hands with the generous Huns. The
world has since learned with appalling horror with what tender mercy the
barbarous Teutons reciprocated the grasping of hands of defeated Russia,
tendered to them by the "bolshevikis" traitors.

The Allies had then to select one of the three above mentioned
alternatives.

They have made their choice and they will stick close to it until it is
achieved by the victory of their arms.

Knowing as they do that the future of their peoples, and that of the
whole world, are at stake, they will not waver in their heroic
determination to free Humanity from Germany's cruel yoke.

Viewed from the commanding height it requires to be worthily
appreciated, the joint military effort of the Allies offers a truly
grand spectacle, daily enlarging and getting more gloriously
magnificent.

All the Allies--every one of them--are doing their duty and their
respective share in the great crisis they are pledged to bring to a
triumphant conclusion.

Belgium and Servia were the first to be martyred, but the hour of their
resurrection is getting nearer every day.

France, the British Empire, the United States, Italy, have done and are
doing wonders. There can, there must be no question of appraising their
respective merit with the intention of giving more credit either to the
one or to the other. With the greatest possible sincerity, I affirm my
humble, but positive, opinion that each one of the Allies has done and
is doing, with overflowing measure, all that courage could and can
earnestly perform, all that patriotism and the noblest national virtues
can inspire.

France has been heroic to the highest limit.

The British Empire--Great Britain and her Colonies--has been grand in
her unswerving determination to fight to a finish.

The great American Republic is putting forth a wonderful exhibition of
pluck, of strength, of boldness, of inexhaustible resources.

Italy has stood nobly with her new friends ever since she broke away
from the Triple Alliance, to escape the dishonour of remaining on good
terms with the Central Empires in the shameful depth of their
ignominious course. She has bravely gone through days of disaster which
she has heroically redeemed.

All the Allies, bound together by the most admirable unity of purpose,
only rivalling in the might of their respective patriotic effort,
having nobly _"chosen their course upon principle,"_ can never turn
back. They must move steadily forward until victorious. They are
indomitable in their decision not to live, under any circumstances, "_in
a world governed by intrigue and force_."

Echoing the wise and inspiring words addressed by President Wilson to
Congress, on the eleventh of February last, we can affirm that the
"_desire of enlightened men everywhere is for a new international order
under which reason, justice and the common interests of mankind shall
prevail. Without that new order the world will be without peace, and
human life will lack tolerable conditions of existence and
development_."

A most encouraging achievement was realized, a few months ago,
emphasizing to the utmost the unity of purpose of the Allies. Every one
of them have millions of men under arms and at the front. It is easily
conceived how tremendous is the task of properly directing the military
operations of such immense armies, unprecedented in the whole human
history. Most patriotically putting aside all national susceptibilities,
the statesmen governing the Allied nations acknowledged the necessity of
supporting unity of purpose by unity of military command. Their decision
was heartily approved and applauded by all and every where.

It is important to note the great difference between the standing of the
two groups of belligerents with regard to the leadership of the armies.
Whilst the Powers dominated by Germany, and fighting with her, are
coerced to endure the Teutonic military supremacy of command, those
warring on the side of France have all most cordially agreed to the
appointment of a Commander-in-Chief out of the profound conviction that
unity of command was more and more becoming a necessity for the
successful prosecution of the war.

Since this most urgent decision has been taken, events have surely
proved its wisdom and usefulness. Evidently, the same as unity of
purpose, to bear all its fruits, must be wrought out by statesmanship of
a high order, unity of military command, to produce its natural
advantages, must be exercised with superiority of leadership.

Great statesmen, in a free country, are successful in the management of
State affairs, just as much as they inspire an increasing confidence in
their political genius, developed by a wide experience, honesty of
purpose, a constant patriotic devotion to the public weal.

Great military leaders can do wonders when their achievements are such
as to create unbounded reliance on their ability. Superiority of
command, proved by victories won in very difficult circumstances, is
always sure to be rewarded by an enlightened enthusiasm permeating the
whole rank and file of an army, and trebling the strength and heroism of
every combatant.

Added to the widespread renewal of confidence produced by the timely
decision of the Allies to rely on unity of military command, is the
reassuring evidence that the Commander-in-Chief to whom has been imposed
the grand task of leading the unified armies to a final and glorious
triumph, is trusted by all, soldiers and others alike.

The cause for which the Allied nations are fighting with so much
tenacity and courage being that of the salvation of Civilization,
threatened by a wave of barbarism equal at least to, if not surpassing,
any to which Humanity has so far survived, all must admire the wonderful
spectacle offered by those millions and millions of men, under arms,
from so many different countries, united, under one command, into a
military organization which can most properly be called the GRAND ARMY
OF HUMAN FREEDOM.

It has been said by one who has presided over the destinies of the
American Republic, as the chief of State, that peace must be dictated
from Berlin. Can we really hope to behold the dawn of such a glorious
day? It is hardly to be supposed that Germany would wait this last
extremity to realize that she must abandon for ever her dream of
universal domination, relieve the world from the enervating menace of
her military terrorism, and redeem her past diabolical course by the
repentant determination to join with her former enemies to deserve for
Mankind long years of perpetual peace with all the Providential
blessings of order, freedom, truly intellectual, moral and material
progress.

When the Kaiser ordered his hordes to violate Belgium's territory, to
overrun France in order to crush her out of existence as a military and
political Power, preparatory to their triumphant march to St.
Petersburg, in his wild ambition, which he made blasphemous by
pretending that it was divinely inspired, he felt sure that his really
wonderful army, which he believed was, and would remain, matchless,
would in a few weeks enter Paris.

What a reverse of fortune, what a downfall from extravagant
expectations, would be a return of the tide which, after flowing to the
very gates of Paris, spreading devastation and crimes all over the fair
lands it submerged, would ebb, broken and powerless, to Berlin,
bringing the haughty tyrant to his knees before his victors!

If such a day of deliverance is Providentially granted the world, having
deserved it by an indomitable courage in resisting oppression, history
would again repeat itself but with a different result. The French
"TRICOLORE" would once more enter proud Berlin, but this time it would
not be alone to be hoisted over the conquered capital of the modern
Huns, scarcely less savage than their forefathers. It would be entwined
with the "UNION JACK" of Great Britain and Ireland, the "STARS AND
STRIPES" of the United States, the Colours of Italy, and, I add with an
inexpressible feeling of loyal and national pride, with the Dominion
Colours so brilliantly glorified by the heroism of our Canadian soldiers
who have proved themselves the equals of the bravest through the
protracted but ever glorious campaign, unfolded with those of Australia
and South Africa into the glorious flag of the British Empire.

When after the glorious battle of Iena, the great Napoleon, who could
have ruined for ever the rising Prussian monarchy, entered Berlin at the
head of his victorious legions, the new Cæsar, then already the victim
of his unlimited ambition, represented, though issued from a powerful
popular movement, triumphant absolutism.

In our days, on entering Berlin, as the final act of this wonderful
drama, the entwined Colours of the Allies would symbolize Human Freedom,
delivering Germany herself and the whole world from autocratic rule.

Such a memorable event taking place, and rank with the most remarkable
in the world's history, the great satisfaction of all those who would
have contributed to its achievement, would be that the joint Colours of
the Allies would not be raised over Germany's capital to crush the
defeated nation under despotic cæsarism, but to deliver her from
autocratic tyrannical rule. Waving with dignity over the great Empire
they would have freed from the thraldom of absolutist militarism, they
could be welcomed as the promise of the renewal, for her as well as for
her victorious rivals, of the reign of Justice, of Christian precepts,
of Right, Order and Peace, of honest and productive Labour, of science
applied to works creative of human happiness instead of diverting the
marvellous resources of the great modern discoveries to criminal uses
for the calamitous misfortune of the peoples.

I will close this work with the expression of two of the wishes I have
most at heart, cherishing the confident hope that they will be realized.

England, France and the United States, fighting as they do for the
triumph of such a sacred cause, should emerge indissolubly united from
the great struggle they have pledged themselves to carry to a successful
issue. I cannot conceive that so many millions of their heroic defenders
will have given their lives only for a temporary achievement, soon to be
forgotten. They will be gone for ever. Their sacrifices will be eternal.
They must bear permanent fruits. United in death, buried together in the
soil of France flooded with their blood, from their glorious graves they
will implore their surviving countrymen to remain shoulder to shoulder
in peace as they are in war. Their holocaust should be the holy seed
from which loyal amity ought to grow ever stronger between the future
generations of their countrymen who could not testify in a more eloquent
and noble way their everlasting gratitude for the glorious heritage of
permanent freedom they will have derived from their heroism.

A most enthusiastic daily witness of the immortal deeds of the millions
of our brothers, sons and friends, fighting with such splendid courage
in the land of my forefathers for our common cause, how often have I,
for the last four years, ardently vowed to God from the very bottom of
my heart, deeply moved by the reports of their noble achievements, that
those who will rest for ever in the ground over which they fell
heroically, may enjoy from above the inspiring spectacle of the union
for the permanent triumph of Liberty and Christian Civilization, of the
great nations for whose grand future they gave their lives!

I also most earnestly hope that the more fortunate of our defenders who
will return either safe from the fields of battle, or proudly bearing
the glorious wounds which will have crippled their bodies, but not their
hearts, will enjoy from the sanctuary of their homes, made comfortable
by their grateful compatriots, the profound satisfaction to see the holy
union cemented on the thundering firing line perpetuated for the lasting
prosperity and happiness of Mankind.

The last shadow of the recollections of the feuds of past ages between
England and France should be forever sunk in patriotic oblivion, buried
deep beneath the glory both valorous nations will have jointly reaped in
their mighty efforts to rescue the world from the frightful wave of
barbarism which they will have forced to recede.

All the well wishers of peaceful and happy days for future generations
are very much gratified at knowing that in joining with the Allies in
the mighty struggle they were carrying with such undaunted courage, the
great American Republic was also inspired by a feeling of gratitude for
France in remembrance of what she has done to help her to achieve her
independence. Let us behold anew the inscrutable designs of Providence.
Nearly a century and a half has elapsed since France, England and her
American Colonies seemed to be for all times irreconcilable opponents.
What a change in Destiny! Years have rolled by. New and unforeseen
conditions have been developed the world over. Gradually two great
currents of thoughts and aspirations have been flowing with increased
strength preparing a formidable clash which was to threaten Civilization
with utter destruction.

Autocratic ambition was for many long years challenging Political
Liberty to a deadly conflict. At last from the cloudy sky came the flash
of lightning, and the thunderbolt was on the earth shaking it to its
depth by the tremendous shock.

Germany, having fired the wonderful autocratic shot, fully expected that
her rivals would be thunderstruck beyond possibility of resurrection.
But to her great dismay, the friends of Political Liberty the world over
rallied as one man to its defence. And Germany trembled at seeing
England burying for ever all ill-feelings against France, her ancient
foe, rushing to her support with millions of her brave sons, after
having drawn around her ally the protecting chain of her matchless
fleet.

Another very discomforting surprise was in store for the cruel Huns. The
American Republic, grateful to France for past services, was also moved
by renovated feelings of affection for the mother-country from whom she
had parted without disowning her. Determined to be at the forefront of
the battle for the triumph of human Freedom--after unsuccessfully
exhausting every means of bringing Germany to her senses--she clasped
hands with England and France and valiantly rallied to their sides to
share the merit and the glory of saving Political Liberty from the
terrible Teutonic onslaught.

In my humble but sincere and profound opinion, the present spectacle
offered to the world's admiration by the sacred and mighty union of the
British Empire, France and the United States, every patriotic home of
theirs thrilling with undiminished enthusiasm for the success of their
heroic efforts, is a truly grand one inspiring unbounded faith in the
future of Humanity. Let no one forget for a moment that the present war,
certainly NATIONAL so far as the existence of each one of the Allied
States is concerned, is, above all preeminently a world's conflict which
favourable issue deeply concerns the destinies of all the peoples of
the earthly globe.

The whole question is whether autocratic tyranny will henceforth rule
the world, or if Humanity will yet enjoy the blessings of Liberty, of
free institutions!

In all hearts must abide the supreme desire that when peace is restored
with all and the only conditions to which they can agree, the British
Empire, France and the American Republic will forever remain united to
promote the prosperity and the welfare of all the nations of the earth,
large, middle-sized or small. The duty of those of Imperialist
proportions will be as hitherto performed by England and the United
States in their democratic way, to protect the independence of the small
States, never aspiring to any territorial acquisitions but those
accruing to them with the full and free consent of the new populations
asking the protection of their ægis and the advantages of their union.

When I consider the grand and magnificent part the three above named
leading nations can play for the happy future of Humanity, by working
hand in hand, and shoulder to shoulder, for general peace, order and
prosperity, my heart is full with the ardent desire to witness them
accepting that glorious task with the stern determination to
accomplish it to its better end. In spite of the vicissitudes and the
failings of their past, they have done a great deal for the general
good. They can do still more in the future. Like everyman bearing with
fortitude the trials of life with the worthy design of profiting by the
experience thus acquired to elevate himself to a higher conception of
his duty, the British Empire, France and the United States will
undoubtedly emerge from behind the dark clouds of the present days with
aspirations ennobled by the sacrifices they are making, purified by the
sufferings and the holocaust of so many of their own, with a stronger
will to help working out the world's destiny by maintaining permanent
peace and good-will amongst men. If they pursue that dignified course of
high ideals they will fully deserve the admiration and the gratitude of
all those who will benefit by their examples, and reap the abundant
fruits of their devoted and enlightened leadership.

It is one of the blessings of true Political Liberty, when duly
understood and intelligently practised, to produce a class of
politicians and statesmen of wide experience, of commanding character,
of high culture, of great attainments, with a superior training in the
management of public affairs, who are readily acknowledged as national
leaders by the people who confidently trust them, reserving, of course,
their constitutional right to call new men to office whenever they
consider in the public interest to do so. Those trusted leaders do not
claim, as the German autocratic Kaiser, the power, by Divine Right, to
do anything they please, asserting that in every imaginable case they do
the will of the Almighty.

When charged with the Government of their country, they understand very
well that their duty is to manage the national affairs under their
responsibility, first, to the Divine Ruler, as any other man in any
other calling; secondly, to those who, having required their services,
have the constitutional right to call them to account for their
stewardship.

Just as confidence is the basis of sound national credit, trust, on the
part of the people, and responsibility, on that of the national leaders,
are the two cornerstones of free institutions.

Great Britain,--and her great autonomous Colonies also--for many long
years past, have been most fortunate in the choice of the national
leaders whom they have successively entrusted with the affairs of State.

In that momentous occurrence, more than four years ago, when the whole
question whether Great Britain would go to war, or not, was laid before
the Imperial Parliament supported by the strongest possible reasons in
favour of the decision to accept the challenge of Germany, and fight
with the firm determination not to sheathe the sword before victory was
won, no British public man would have dared, like the German Emperor, to
claim, by Divine Authority, the right to violate the solemn treaties the
provisions of which his country was in honour and duty bound to carry
out to the very letter.

The commanding parts national leaders play in a free country, in
consequence of the public confidence they inspire and enjoy, can have
their counterparts in the great society of nations.

Whatever shall be the final settlement of all the difficult matters
brought up for solution by the war, it is certain that the management of
the world's affairs will be well served by the legitimate influence of
great nations whose leadership will be beneficial just in proportion as
it is itself directed by the true principles of political Freedom, and
an uncompromising respect of the rights of weaker nations always
entitled to the fairest dealings on the part of their stronger
associates in the great commonwealth of Sovereign States.

There cannot be the slightest doubt that the British Empire, France and
the United States, until Providentially ordered otherwise, will
hereafter be the three leading nations of the world. Their union
maintained sacred in peace, as it is in war, will be the safest
guarantee that the days of autocratic domination have ended. Henceforth
the tide of political Freedom will flow with increased rapidity and
strength. The only danger ahead, against which it is always wise to
provide with due care and foresight, is that which would be the result
of abuse and wild expectations always sure to react in favour of
absolutist principles. Political Liberty and Order, Governmental
Authority and Freedom, both well directed, must work hand in hand for
the national welfare.

The British Empire, France and the American Republic are free countries.
More and better than any others they should and must, by example and
friendly advice, lead the peoples in the successful practice of
self-government.

Considering more especially the part the British Empire will be called
upon to play in the reorganized world, freed from autocratic terrorism,
we must not lose sight of the much larger place England's great
autonomous Colonies will occupy in the broadened English Commonwealth.
We, Canadians, together with our brethren from Australia, New Zealand
and South Africa, will have done our glorious share to win the war. We
shall have to perform with equal devotion the new duty of sharing the
British Empire's task in gradually elevating the nations to an
enlightened practice of Political Liberty.

Evidently to do so with the success this noble cause will deserve, we
must first strive to utilize our admirable free institutions to the best
advantage, for ourselves, for our own future, and for the grand
destinies of our Empire.

As an instrument of good government our constitutional charter is almost
perfect, as much so as any thing worldly can be. Let us never forget
that the best weapon for self-protection may become useless, or even
dangerous for us, if not handled with the required intelligence, justice
and skill. We would lose all claims to contribute guiding others in the
enjoyment of free institutions if we, ourselves, were mistaken in the
proper working of our own constitution from a misconception of its
literal wording or of its largeness of spirit. We must never challenge
the truth that "spirit giveth life."

More than ever the supreme difficulties of governing numerous racial
groups, issued from ancient stocks so long divided by endless
feuds,--the result of the many sudden changes of territorial limits to
be wrought by the restoration of peace--will be very hard to settle
satisfactorily. The task will require the constant effort of
statesmanship of a high order.

Many of those who will hereafter be trained to self-government will look
to us for their guidance. We must give them the inspiring example of
fair play, of justice for all, of unity of purpose and aspirations in
the diversity of ethnical offsprings.

Need I say that the most urgent duty of all fair minded Canadians is,
and will ever be, to heartily join together, to bless our dear country
with concord, good feeling, harmony and kindly dispositions to grant an
overflowing measure of justice to all our countrymen of all origins and
creeds.

Writing this book with the express purpose of explaining and strongly
disapproving the deplorable efforts of a few to deter my French Canadian
compatriots from doing their bounden duty through the dire crisis we are
all undergoing, I will close these pages by calling anew upon my English
speaking countrymen not to judge them by the sayings and deeds of
persons who can at times somewhat stir up dangerous prejudices, but who
are utterly incompetent to lead them as they should and deserve to be.
Silenced at last by a patriotic measure to censure any disloyal
expression of sentiments, matters have easily resumed their regular and
honourable course. All loyal citizens, throughout the length and breadth
of the land, have, I am sure, much rejoiced at the loyalty with which
the French Canadians, of all classes, religious, social, commercial,
industrial, financial, agricultural, have united to obey a statute of
military service to which many of them did not agree, as long as they
had the constitutional right to differ from the opinion of the large
majority of our people, but to the successful operation of which they
rallied the moment it was the law of the land. The worthy leaders of our
Church strongly recommended obedience to the decision of the constituted
authority, firmly condemned any guilty attempt at disturbing public
order, and ordered all the members of their flocks to fervously pray the
Almighty for PEACE WITH VICTORY FOR THE ALLIES.

Our "pacifists at all hazards" once more silenced, this time by the very
religious leaders under whose ægis they had shamefully tried to shield
themselves, the patriotic impulse was moved to most commendable action.
Without waiting for the call of the law, hundreds of young men from the
better classes, from the universities and other educational
institutions, well educated, voluntarily enlisted and rallied to the
Colours. At least as much as in the other provinces, the class of our
young manhood called by law heartily responded, all the real leaders of
public opinion uniting to give the only advice loyal men could express.

For one, I was most happy to ascertain how favourably western public
feeling was impressed by the new turn of thoughts and events in the
Province of Quebec. The reaction of sentiments operating both ways,--in
Ontario, the western Provinces and Quebec--augurs well for the final
abatement of the excitement which for a time menaced our fair Dominion
with regrettable racial strifes so much to be deprecated.

It can be positively affirmed that the whole people of Canada, east to
west, north to south, are now more than ever a unit in their patriotic
determination to fight the war to its final victorious issue. To this
end the two millions of French British subjects in Canada, in perfect
communion of thoughts and aspirations with the two millions of the
neighbouring Republic's subjects of French Canadian origin, are loyally
doing, and will continue to do, their share. Their representatives at
the front are gloriously fighting the common enemy. Their valour and
their achievements during the Allies' offensive so masterly planned and
carried out by the Commander-in-Chief, Foch, have been worthy of their
victories at Ypres, Vimy, Courcelette, Passchandaele. Many have, during
the last three months, given their lives for the cause they defend. Many
more have been wounded and are anxiously waiting their cure, when
possible, to return to the field of honour. Daily reports from the
front tell of their enthusiasm, of their bravery, of their heroism!

The French Canadians--I have no hesitation whatever in vouching for
it--will continue to bear stoically with the sacrifices of so many kinds
the conflict imposes upon them. Though smarting, as all others, under
the burden, yet they cheerfully pay the heavy taxes required from the
country to meet our national obligations the outcome of the war.

So all is for the best under the strenuous present conditions of our
national existence.

In closing, I pray leave to reiterate, from the Introduction to this
work, the following lines expressing my most sincere and profound
conviction:--

I hope,--and most ardently wish--that all my readers will agree with me
that next to the necessity of winning the war--and may I say, even as of
almost equal importance for the future grandeur of our beloved
country--range that of promoting by all lawful means harmony and good
will amongst all our countrymen, whatever may be their racial origin,
their religious faith, their particular aspirations not conflicting with
their devotion to Canada as a whole, nor with their loyalty to the
British Empire, whose grandeur and prestige they want to firmly help to
uphold with the inspiring confidence that more and more they will be the
unconquerable bulwark of Freedom, Justice, Civilization and Right.

May I be allowed to conclude by saying that my most earnest desire is to
do all in my power, in the rank and file of the great army of free men,
to reach the goal which ought to be the most persevering and patriotic
ambition of loyal Canadians of all origins and creeds.

And I repeat, wishing my words to be re-echoed throughout the length and
breadth of the land I so heartily cherish:--I have always been, I am and
will ever be, to my last breath, true to my oath of allegiance to my
Sovereign and to my country.




APPENDIX--A.

PRESIDENT WILSON'S SPEECH

TO THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS--11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1918.


On the above mentioned date, Mr. Wilson, the President of the great
American Republic, delivered the following speech to the Congress, in
Washington. This noble and statesmanlike utterance met with the
unanimous and enthusiastic approval of the members of both Houses, and
was highly applauded, not only in the United States, but over all the
truly civilized world. It reads thus:--

    "On the eighth of January, I had the honor of addressing you on
    the objects of the war as our people conceive them. The Prime
    Minister of Great Britain had spoken in similar terms on the
    fifth of January. To these addresses the German Chancellor
    replied on the 24th and Count Czernin for Austria on the same
    day. It is gratifying to have our desire so promptly realized
    that all exchanges of view on this great matter should be made
    in the hearing of all the world.

    "Count Czernin's reply, which is directed chiefly to my own
    address, on the eighth of January, is uttered in a very friendly
    tone.

    "He finds in my statement a sufficiently encouraging approach to
    the views of his own government to justify him in believing that
    it furnishes a basis for a more detailed discussion of purposes
    by the two governments. He is represented to have intimated that
    the views he was expressing had been communicated to me
    beforehand and that I was aware of them at the time he was
    uttering them; but in this I am sure he was misunderstood. I had
    received no intimation of what he intended to say. There was, of
    course, no reason why he should communicate privately with me. I
    am quite content to be one of his public audiences.

    "Count von Hertling's reply is, I may say, very vague and very
    confusing. It is full of equivocal phrases and leads, it is not
    clear where. But it is certainly in a very different tone from
    that of Count Czernin and apparently of an opposite purpose. It
    confirms, I am sorry to say, rather than removes, the
    unfortunate impression made by what we had learned of the
    conferences at Brest-Litovsk. His discussion and acceptance of
    our general principles leads him to no practical conclusions. He
    refuses to apply them to the substantiate items which must
    constitute the body of any final settlement. He is jealous of
    international action and of international council. He accepts,
    he says, the principle of public diplomacy, but he appears to
    insist that it be confined at any rate in this case, to
    generalities and that the several particular questions of
    territory and sovereignty, the several questions upon whose
    settlement must depend the acceptance of peace by the
    twenty-three states now engaged in the war, must be discussed
    and settled, not in general council but severally by the nations
    most immediately concerned by interest of neighbourhood. He
    agrees that the seas should be free, but looks askance at any
    limitation to that freedom by international action in the
    interest of the common order. He would, without reserve, be glad
    to see economic barriers removed between nation and nation, for
    that could in no way impede the ambitions of the military party
    with whom he seems constrained to keep on terms. Neither does he
    raise objection to a limitation of armaments. That matter will
    be settled of itself, he thinks, by the economic conditions
    which must follow the war. But the German colonies, he demands,
    must be returned without debate. He will discuss with no one but
    the representatives of Russia what disposition shall be made of
    the peoples and the lands of the Baltic provinces; with no one
    but the Government of France the "conditions" under which French
    territory shall be evacuated and only with Austria what shall be
    done with Poland. In the determination of all questions
    affecting the Balkan states he defers, as I understand him, to
    Austria and Turkey and with regard to the agreements to be
    entered into concerning the non-Turkish peoples of the present
    Ottoman Empire, to the Turkish authorities themselves. After a
    settlement all around effected in this fashion, by individual
    barter and concession, he would have no objection, if I
    correctly interpret his statement, to a league of nations which
    would undertake to hold the balance of power steady against
    external disturbance.

    "It must be evident to everyone who understands what this war
    has wrought in the opinion and temper of the world that no
    general peace, no peace worth the infinite sacrifices of these
    years of tragical suffering, can possibly be arrived at in any
    such fashion. The method the German Chancellor proposes is the
    method of the Congress of Vienna. We cannot and will not return
    to that. What is at stake now is the peace of the world. What we
    are striving for is a new international order based upon broad
    and universal principles of right and justice--no mere peace of
    shreds and patches. Is it possible that Count von Hertling does
    not see that, does not grasp it, is in fact living in his
    thought in a world dead and gone? Has he utterly forgotten the
    Reichstag resolutions of the 19th of July, or does he
    deliberately ignore them? They spoke of the conditions of a
    general peace, not of national aggrandizement or of arrangements
    between state and state. The peace of the world depends upon
    just settlement of each of the several problems to which I
    adverted in my recent address to Congress. I, of course, do not
    mean that the peace of the world depends upon the acceptance of
    any particular set of suggestions as to the way in which those
    problems are to be dealt with. I mean only that those problems,
    each and all, affect the whole world; that unless they are dealt
    with in a spirit of unselfish and unbiassed justice, with a view
    to the wishes, the natural connections, the racial aspirations,
    the security and peace of mind of the peoples involved, no
    permanent peace will have been attained. They cannot be
    discussed separately or in corners. None of them constitutes a
    private or separate interest from which the opinion of the world
    may be shut out. Whatever affects the peace affects mankind,
    and nothing settled by military force, if settled wrong, is
    settled at all. It will presently have to be re-opened.

    "Is Count von Hertling not aware that he is speaking in the
    court of mankind, that all the awakened nations of the world now
    sit in judgment on what every public man, of whatever nation,
    may say on the issues of a conflict which has spread to every
    region of the world? The Reichstag resolutions of July 19
    themselves frankly accepted the decisions of that court. There
    shall be no annexations, no contributions, no punitive damages.
    Peoples are not to be handed about from one sovereignty to
    another by an international conference or an understanding
    between rivals and antagonists. National aspirations must be
    respected; peoples may now be dominated and governed only by
    their own consent. "Self-determination," is not a mere phrase.
    It is an imperative principle of action, which statesmen will
    henceforth ignore at their peril. We cannot have general peace
    for the asking, or by the mere arrangements of a peace
    conference. It cannot be pieced together out of individual
    understandings between powerful states. All the parties to this
    war must join in the settlement of every issue anywhere involved
    in it because what we are seeking is a peace that we can all
    unite to guarantee and maintain whether it be right and fair, an
    act of justice, rather than a bargain between sovereigns.

    "The United States has no desire to interfere in European
    affairs or to act as arbiter in European territorial disputes.
    We would disdain to take advantage of any internal weakness or
    disorder to impose her own will upon another people. She is
    quite ready to be shown that the settlements she has suggested
    are not the best or the most enduring. They are only her own
    provisional sketch of principles, and of the way in which they
    should be applied. But she entered this war because she was made
    a partner, whether she would or not, in the sufferings and
    indignities inflicted by the military masters of Germany,
    against the peace and security of mankind; and the conditions of
    peace will touch her as nearly as they will touch any other
    nation to which is entrusted a leading part in the maintenance
    of civilization. She cannot see her way to peace until the
    causes of this war are removed, its renewal rendered, as nearly
    as may be, impossible.

    "This war had its roots in the disregard of the rights of small
    nations and of nationalities which lacked the union and the
    force to make good their claim to determine their own
    allegiances and their own forms of political life. Covenants
    must now be entered into which will render such things
    impossible for the future; and those covenants must be backed by
    the united force of all the nations that love justice and are
    willing to maintain it at any cost. If territorial settlements
    and the political relations of great populations which have not
    the organized power to resist are to be determined by the
    contracts of the powerful governments which consider themselves
    most directly affected, as Count von Hertling proposes, why may
    not economic questions also? It has come about in the altered
    world in which we now find ourselves that justice and the rights
    of peoples affect the whole field of international dealing as
    much as access to raw materials and fair and equal conditions of
    trade. Count von Hertling wants the essential basis of
    commercial and industrial life to be safeguarded by common
    agreement and guarantee, but he cannot expect that to be
    conceded him if the other matters to be determined by the
    articles of peace are not handled in the same way as it was in
    the final accounting. He cannot ask the benefit of common
    agreement in the one field without according it in the other. I
    take it for granted that he sees that separate and selfish
    compacts with regard to trade and the essential materials of
    manufacture would afford no foundation for peace. Neither, he
    may rest assured, will separate and selfish compacts with regard
    to the provinces and peoples.

    "Count Czernin seems to see the fundamental elements of peace
    with clear eyes and does not seek to obscure them. He sees that
    an independent Poland, made up of all the indisputably Polish
    peoples who lie contiguous to one another, is a matter of
    European concern and must of course be conceded; that Belgium
    must be evacuated and restored, no matter what sacrifices and
    concessions that may involve; and that national aspirations must
    be satisfied, even within his own empire, in the common interest
    of Europe and mankind. If he is silent about questions which
    touch the interest and purpose of his Allies more nearly than
    they touch those of Austria only, it must, of course, be because
    he feels constrained, I suppose, to defer to Germany and Turkey
    in the circumstances. Seeing and conceding, as he does, the
    essential principles involved and the necessity of candidly
    applying them, he naturally feels that Austria can respond to
    the purpose of peace as expressed by the United States with less
    embarrassment than could Germany. He would probably have gone
    much farther had it not been for the embarrassments of Austria's
    alliance and of her dependence upon Germany.

    "After all the test of whether it is possible for either
    Government to go any further in this comparison of views is
    simple and obvious. The principles to be applied are:

    "First, that each part of the final settlement must be based on
    the essential justice of the particular case, and upon such
    adjustments as are most likely to bring a peace that will be
    permanent.

    "Second, that peoples and provinces are not to be bartered about
    from sovereignty to sovereignty as if they were mere chattels
    and pawns in a game, even the great game, now for ever
    discredited, of the balance of power; but that,

    "Every territorial settlement involved in this war must be made
    in the interest and for the benefit of the populations concerned
    and not as a part of any mere adjustment of compromise of claims
    amongst rival states; and,

    "Fourth, that all well defined national aspirations shall be
    accorded the utmost satisfaction that can be accorded them
    without introducing new or perpetuating old elements of discord,
    and antagonism that would be likely in time to break the peace
    of Europe and consequently of the world.

    "A general peace entered upon such foundations can be discussed.
    Until such a peace can be secured we have no choice but to go
    on. So far as we can judge, these principles that we regard as
    fundamental are already everywhere accepted as imperative
    except among the spokesmen of the military and annexationist
    party in Germany. If they have anywhere else been rejected, the
    objectors have not been sufficiently numerous or influential to
    make their voices audible. The tragic circumstance is that this
    one party in Germany is apparently willing and able to send
    millions of men to their death to prevent what all the world now
    sees to be just.

    "I would not be a true spokesman of the people of the United
    States if I did not say once more that we entered this war upon
    no small occasion, and that we can never turn back from a course
    chosen upon principle. Our resources are in part mobilized now,
    and we shall not pause until they are mobilized in their
    entirety. Our armies are rapidly going to the fighting front,
    and will go more rapidly. Our whole strength will be put into
    this state of emancipation--emancipation from the threat and
    attempted mastery of selfish groups of autocratic
    rulers--whatever the difficulties and present partial delays. We
    are indomitable in our power of independent action, and can in
    no circumstances consent to live in a world governed by intrigue
    and force. We believe that our own desire for a new
    international order under which reason and justice and the
    common interests of mankind shall prevail, is the desire of
    enlightened men everywhere. Without that new order the world
    will be without peace, and human life will lack tolerable
    conditions of existence and development. Having set our hand to
    the task of achieving it, we shall not turn back.

    "I hope that it is not necessary for me to add that no word of
    what I have said is intended as a threat. That is not the
    temper of our people. I have spoken thus only that the whole
    world may know the true spirit of America--that men everywhere
    may know that our passion for justice and for self-government is
    no mere passion of words, but a passion which, once set in act,
    must be satisfied. The power of the United States is a menace to
    no nation or people. It will be never used in aggression or for
    the aggrandizement of any selfish interest of our own. It
    springs out of freedom and is for the service of freedom."




APPENDIX--B.

TEXT OF UNITED STATES REPLY TO AUSTRIA.


On the 18th of September, 1918, the Secretary of State made public the
official text of the letter he sent, to Mr. W. A. F. Ekengren, the
Swedish Minister, in charge of Austro-Hungarian affairs, conveying
President Wilson's rejection of the Austrian peace proposals. It reads
as follows:--

    "Sir,--I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note,
    dated September 16, communicating to me a note from the Imperial
    Government of Austria-Hungary, containing a proposal to the
    Government of all the belligerent States to send delegates to a
    confidential and unbinding discussion on the basic principles
    for the conclusion of peace. Furthermore, it is proposed that
    the delegates would be charged to make known to one another the
    conception of their Governments regarding these principles, and
    to receive analogous communications, as well as to request and
    give frank and candid explanations on all those points which
    need to be precisely defined.

    "In reply, I beg to say that the substance of your communication
    has been submitted to the President, who now directs me to
    inform you that the Government of the United States feels that
    there is only one reply which it can make to the suggestion of
    the Imperial Austro-Hungarian Government. It has repeatedly, and
    with entire candor, stated the terms upon which the United
    States would consider peace, and can and will entertain no
    proposal for a conference upon the matter concerning which it
    has made its position and purpose so plain.

    "Accept, sir, the renewed assurances of my highest
    consideration.

    "(Signed), ROBERT LANSING,
    "Secretary of State."


       *       *       *       *       *

Transcriber's Notes

Obvious punctuation errors repaired.

Numerous obvious spelling errors have been corrected.

Archaic or unusual words and spellings have not been changed:
beneficient, coronated, consolated, conspiration, devotedness, divers,
elogius, enflame, enounced, equilibrist, eulogium, fervously,
injustifiable, irresistable, instil, Magna Charta, planturous,
plebiscit, plebiscitary, preconized, profonated, Roumanian, Servia,
subtilties, tragical, treasonably, troublous, tutorage, unbiassed,
uncontrovertible, unsufficiently, woful.

Both "bolshevik" and "bolchevik" appear and have not been changed.

Both "standpoint(s)" and "stand-point(s)" appear and have not been
changed.

The following inconsistent usages appear and have not been changed:
"Mother Country", "mother country", "mother-country", "Mother Land",
"Mother land", "mother land", "Motherland".

Italic font is indicated by _xxx_ and bold font by =xxx=.

Page 34: Duplicate word "His" deleted (His Excellency had just).

Page 96 (and elsewhere): "per cent" changed to "per cent." for
consistency.