disposed towards casting in their lot with the citizens of the great and successful Republic on their southern border. As a matter of fact nearly all of those appearances are utterly fallacious: they are extraneous, not fundamental.

In the matter of government, it would be well-nigh impossible to convince a Canadian that he enjoys less freedom than his American neighbour, because it would be positively incorrect to make the assertion; the mere fact that there is, in the "British North American Act" of 1867, of the Imperial Parliament of Great Britain, which created the Dominion, a proviso that it shall be administered in such a way as not to conflict with English law, amounts to nothing as limiting the power of self-government in Canada. In the security which Dominion and local government affords to life and property, the Canadian will not be far wrong when he contends that he is the better off of the two. If the government of borough, municipality, township, county, territory, and province in Canada is not as truly representative of the people, by the people, and for the people as is that of any commonwealth or minor political subdivision in the United States of America, I do not know what "representative government' means. If Canada is wiser than the United States in slightly limiting the suffrage, by property qualification in some places, by a literacy test generally, and in making it impossible for a batch of alien immigrants to be marched to the polls within a month after their arrival and for them to cast their ballots, this in no way impugns her representative government; rather does it

make the government more lawfully representative: it is an example that the elder republic would do well to follow.

In the matter of the administration of justice and court procedure, I am compelled to admit that the Canadian is better off than I am; and I blush with mortification as I pen the confession. As to promptness, I recall a phrase in a magazine story I have just read which exactly describes it: "They'd give you twenty years for that job, and they'd do it in twenty minutes. You buck against British justice up here!" An eminent American jurist and statesman, Hon. Albert J. Beveridge, in a series of articles which has already been mentioned, has shown conclusively that in promptness of action and in ability to enforce judgment, the Canadian courts are far ahead of ours. These conditions give a sense of security alike against highwaymen and grinding monopolies, for Canadian judges are quick in harnessing trusts.

In the administration of public utilities, there seems to be a similarity in methods on both sides of the border; yet a superficial investigation of these services, let us take a railway for example, shows that in Canada these public servants do not dare to act in the autocratic manner which is characteristic of all of them in the United States. With pleasing resemblances in peoples and customs in many ways, there is then a fundamental difference between Canada and the United States which will make annexation not only impossible but in nearly every way undesirable so long as the British Empire remains intact.

I

CHAPTER XXIII

CANADA AND THE BRITISH EMPIRE

COMMENCE this chapter with an extract from the

Introduction to a very valuable and scholarly work.* "In 1840, when responsible government may be said to commence, there were prevailing two main principles of law with regard to the position of the British Colonies. In the first place, it was held by the Crown lawyers that it was not possible to deprive an Englishman of the inestimable advantages of English law, and that therefore, if he settled in parts abroad which were not under a legitimate foreign sovereignty, he carried with him so much at least of the English law as was appropriate to the circumstances in which he found himself. But obviously, the mere carrying with him of the provisions of such law would not have been adequate to meet the circumstances of a new Colony. It was impossible to expect the Parliament of England to legislate effectively for distant territories concerning which it had, and could have no information, and it was therefore necessary that there should be passed by some competent authority legislation adapted to the needs of the new Colony."

It is manifest at a glance that the writer of these remarks had specifically in mind the Canadian colonies;

* Arthur Berriedale Keith, Responsible Government in the Dominions, 3 vols. 1912.

and also that the British sovereign, parliament, and statesmen were giving to those colonies a large measure of careful consideration, because it needs no statement by me to show that at that time, the British colonies in other parts of the world had not attained the importance of Canada. Most of the others were "Crown Colonies"; administered by Governors appointed directly by the sovereign and responsible to him and his Privy Council. These conditions indicate clearly the importance, as a unit of the British Empire, which Canada held in the opinion of the Home Government, seventy and more years ago.

In that same year, 1840, was passed by the British Parliament the "Union Act" which united - only temporarily, however - the two provinces of Upper Canada (a part of what is now Ontario) and Lower Canada (the southern portion of the present Quebec), under a representative legislature. The political aspect of this Act and its unsatisfactoriness have been considered in a previous chapter.

But simultaneously a new start was given in constitutional history by the enunciation and adoption of the principle of responsible government. From that beginning, as has been shown, the same principle was extended to each of the provinces which were original, "charter,' if I may use the expression, members of the Dominion, as well as to those which have since been admitted; and undoubtedly it will be applied to the territories when population and development justify their promotion. By responsible government in this sense is to be understood: first, that the head of the executive government

of a province, being, within the limits of his jurisdiction, the representative of the sovereign, is, through his intermediary the Governor-General, responsible to the Imperial authority alone. But this Lieutenant-Governor cannot satisfactorily conduct the affairs of his province without the assistance, counsel, and information of subordinate officials chosen from the resident population. Second, that these chief advisers of the Imperial representative ought to have the confidence of the people's representatives in the local legislative assembly. Third, that the people of the province have the right to expect from such provincial administration the exertion of their best efforts that the Imperial authority within its constitutional limits should be exercised in the manner most consistent with their well-understood wishes and interests.

It thus becomes evident that the Dominion of Canada is looked upon by the Imperial government as an important factor in the British Empire. Nothing has been done for more than half a century which might tend to the arousing in Canada of the same feelings which incited the people of the thirteen southern colonies to assert themselves so vehemently that opposition finally led to revolt, revolt to war, war to independence, whereby England lost her most valuable over-seas possessions. It is not at all inappropriate to repeat here that had the King of England, in 1773 to 1775, and his immediate advisers been inspired with the same feelings towards "parts abroad which were not under a legitimate sovereignty," and over which England claimed dominion, as those which have influenced the