Now will anyone tell me what is the political connection between the United Kingdom and Canada? They have the same King? Yes, but of course, two kingdoms with the same king are two kingdoms, and not an empire or in the least like an empire.

What other political connection is there? Can you think of any? The United Kingdom does not legislate for us. She does not administer for us. She does not make treaties for us-either

a

respecting trade or war. She has no control over our soldiers. Our own flag floats over our own navy. If Canada is a part of the political organism known as the British Empire, will some one be good enough to tell me what is the nature of the connection? Is it the Judical Committee of the Privy Council?-the fact that British judges decide our law-suits for us? But they do that only because, so far, we seem to want them to do it, and not because we are in any way subordinated to them. A short time ago the Dominion Parliament passed statute cutting off all such appeals in criminal cases. If we are a part of the British Empire merely because we permit some of our civil cases to go across the Atlantic, would the Empire be dismembered if we ceased to give to corporations and other very wealthy suitors the privilege of unduly protracting litigation-if we require them to be satisfied with the same sort of justice that appears to be good enough for the rest of us, namely Canadian justice?

The imperial relation, then, between the United Kingdom and Canada has, practically, come to an end; and probably, in view of Lord Grey's other language, what he meant by "inside the empire" was not that he desired that an effort should be made to restore it, or rearrange it, but that Canada ought to ally herself and closely co-operate with the British Empire. That is an entirely different matter. It is not one of status but of policy, about which there is possibly not very much difference of opinior. It has no bearing upon the nature of our constitutional relation to the United Kingdom. It is perfectly consistent with completest independence.

Canada is not now and never again will be part of the British Empire. But that is no reason why Canada should not remain in close sympathy and co-operation with her British sister-kingdom. The principle, which, from the first, I have persistently advocated is "co-operation, not incorporation," and I am glad to obserye that at the recent Imperial Conference, Mr. Harcourt (the Colonial Secretary) said that its "governing note" had been not "imperial concentration" but "imperial co-operation" (a).

I most heartily agree with Lord Grey's appreciation of

(u) Proceedings, p. 340.

"the British Empire as the most potent instrument ever conceived by man for diffusing the blessings of law and order, freedom and duty, service and mercy throughout the world."

It

may be that the day has come when we are too big to be subordinate-nature does that for us whether we wish it or not, individually as well as nationally. It may be that our dignity and self-respect require that we should assume befitting charge and direction of every item of our own affairs. It may be that, in doing so, we shall encounter some of the problems that attend the commencement of all independent life. But we have promised to us, and in any case we should be sure that we should receive, the sympathy and encouragement of the people from whom most of us are descended, and for whose welfare very many of us would be willing to make sacrifice. Canada cannot fail. Those who know her best are those who have the least apprehension as to her perfect success.

Lord Grey has done much to cement the heart-union of the two countries. If in his earlier stages he kept us timid and apprehensive about his federation schemes, we at least never doubted the sincerity of his conviction that the path he proposed was the best for Canada. And if now, as appears probable, he has accepted the Canadian view that for the future the relation of the sister-kingdoms must be based not upon written constitutions and political parchments, but upon sympathy and good will, upon common ancestry and traditions, upon similarity of ideals and aims, he will be better able than when he came to us to take an important, not improbably a leading part, in the re-adjustment of the present anomalous and unsatisfactory relations between the Associated Kingdoms.

A man of great capacity, of splendid ideals, of untiring energy, of unfailing tact, and having at command unlimited opportunity for the exercise of his talents, Lord Grey has not completed, as he leaves Canada, the full tale of his achievements. We have in him a warm and powerful friend. He takes with him our respect, our esteem, and our affection.

OTTAWA, October, 1911.

JOHN S. EWART.

In February last, in the British House of Commons, Mr. Balfour said:

"the British Empire has reached a point of development now at which this country is simply the first among equals, so far as the great self-governing parts of the Kingdoms are concerned" (Times, 7 Feb. 1911).

THE KINGDOM PAPERS, No. 5.

NE TEMERE DECREE.

SOME IMPERIALISTS.

(In order to draw attention to the purpose for which quotations are employed,
italics not appearing in the original are sometimes made use of.)

Everything that makes either for unity or discord among Canadians comes within the scope of the Kingdom Papers. I cannot hope, and I shall not endeavor to produce universal agreement. We have different mental organizations and shall always differ upon very many points. But whenever occasion seems to require it, I shall do what I can to enable English and French, and Protestant and Catholic, at least to understand one another a little better, and to sympathize with each other a little more.

It is with that purpose in view that I venture to submit a short (I hope a reasonably clear) statement with reference to the Ne Temere decree. And, may I ask that, during perusal of it, an effort may be made to discard the effects which have not unnaturally been produced by much that has been very foolishly said by persons who either knew little of that which they discussed, or cared little what complexion they put upon it.

Particularly may I ask, that persons whose opinions have been induced by the report of the committee appointed by the Synod of the Diocese of Toronto, will think it possible that they have been misled by that document-that they will afford me a fair opportunity of proving that for many of the statements of the report not the slightest justification can be offered; and that for the innuendoes of many of its disturbing headlines such as: "Are the Decrees of Rome to Rule in Canada?"; "The Dominion Supreme"; "Interference with this Supremacy"; "What Does Rome Now Claim?"; "Rome Can Destroy Matrimony"; "The Members of the

Protestant Reformed Religion Have Rights"; "Citizens Must Not Be Deprived of the Freedom Given by the Law of the Land"; "What Power is to Settle Our Marriage Laws" that for the innuendoes of these sentences there can be no adequate apology.

MISUNDERSTANDING: Present excitement was precipitated by the Hebert case. But for it, the promulgation of the Ne Temere decree might have attracted as little attention in Canada as in England (a). Protestant assemblies here have associated the decree with the case. They have imagined that the case was an enforcement of the decree-that the Pope had issued a decree in Rome, and that a Canadian court had forthwith given effect to it in Canada. For example, a resolution of a Methodist meeting in Toronto contained the following:

"We note with alarm that the ground is taken by the Romish Church, and evidently by the judge in the case cited, that the Ne Temere decree of the Pope and College of Cardinals at Rome gives authority to the said Church to subordinate the civil laws of the Province of Quebec, and thus make null and void the authority of the Lieutenant-Governor under whose seal the marriage was performed."

And a pastoral letter of the Anglican House of Bishops (21 May, 1911) contained the following:

"Whereas the minds of many have been greatly disturbed by a decision in the Courts of the Province of Quebec annulling a marriage between two members of the Roman Church, solemnized by one authorized by the state to officiate at marriages, and by enforcement of the decree known as the Ne Temere decree by the Bishop of Rome; and

"Whereas we believe the said decision to be contrary to the Christian ideal of marriage, to involve grave civil injustice, and to be in its consequences destructive to the home life of the people."

The writers of these sentences most completely misapprehended the situation. The Ne Temere decree had no more to do with the Hebert case than had the Turco-Italian war. Let me make this perfectly clear (it is a simple task), and afterwards endeavor to explain, with such precision as I can, what the effect of the decree really is.

(a) In reply to a question in the House of Commons, Mr. Birrell (a member of the British Government) said: "The law knows nothing of papal marriage legislation. We believe that under it, our Catholic fellow men are not so free as we to marry and to divorce and marry again. Our courts will continue to administer our own law, and all who apply or its benefits shall have them. It has lost none of its efficiency since August 2, 1907."