nationalistic attitude always assumed and splendidly persisted in, there, by Sir Wilfrid, he would have said so, for he has had many opportunities. Canada appears to be unanimous in her endorsation of what Sir Wilfrid has done. When Mr. Borden's day comes, he will, I feel certain, pursue the same course.

WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF IMPERIALISM?

Answer to this question is extremely difficult. Perhaps the best that can be said is:

1. Imperialists themselves are perplexed about it.

2. What some of them want is not imperialism.

3. A large number of them are, in reality, not imperialists at all. They are nationalists.

1. Perplexed Imperialists.—Recently, Lord Cromer (a pronounced imperialist) asked what reply an English imperialist would make to Quo vadis? (a) and added:

"He would be puzzled to give any definite answer; for he is, in truth, always striving to attain two ideals, which are apt to be mutually destructive-the ideal of good government, which connotes the continuance of his own supremacy, and the ideal of self-government, which connotes the whole, or partial, abdication of his supreme position" (a).

Mr. Edward Blake, some years ago, expressed the same idea, when he referred to the impossibility of reconciling "British liberty and British connection."

2. Imperialism not wanted.-Since the dissolution of the Imperial Federation League (because it could not frame a plan—1893) very many imperialists have renounced federation. Some still hold to it; and, according to the Globe of 29th April, 1904, that excellent imperialist, Sir Edmund Walker,

"declared that he was not an imperialist unless it meant some day-it might be 50 years hence, but some day-an imperial parliament representing all parts of the empire."

But that is not imperialism at all. There is no relationship. of dominant and subordinate in that scheme. It is one of equality. The United States, for example, is a federation, not an imperial federation. Indeed, as Professor Freeman has pointed out, that phrase itself is inaccurate; for the noun implies equality, and the adjective connotes inequality (b).

(a) Whither goest thou? "Ancient and Modern Imperialism," pp. 117, 118. (b) Greece and Britain, p. 105,6.

Probably, the point upon which most imperialists would agree is war-solidarity. There are two methods, however, by which that can be accomplished. The imperialistic method: control in England, and compliant response from the colonies. That has been suggested by Mr. Chamberlain, and resolutely rejected by the colonies. It need not be further discussed. The only other method is by agreement. In that there is no imperialistic element. If the Associated Kingdoms are to aid one another in war, they ought to come to agreement about it-as other nations do.

3. Some imperialists are nationalists.-Through misunderstanding of the terms, very many persons who call themselves imperialists are really nationalists. That they are not imperialists, they easily recognize as soon as imperialism is properly defined. And the reason why they balk at nationalism is often apparent by their question, Who would be King? It is not remembered that King George is now King of Canada; that practically Canada is now a kingdom; and that officially to declare the existence of that fact would have no effect whatever upon the relation of Canada to her King. Observe that nationalism means self-government; that its declaration would be nothing but the official assertion of an existing fact, namely, our freedom from Downing Street control; and that it would not depose our King, any more than it would stop the St. Lawrence. The point is not sufficiently understood.

For example in No. 1 of the Kingdom Papers, I told of a Halifax gentleman who objected to independence, but insisted that we should have every minutest fragment of self-government-which is, of course, independence. He was a nationalist. And a short time. ago (in a letter to The Standard, Montreal, 11th April, 1911) an apparently intelligent gentleman, after referring at considerable length to me and my opinions (in uncomplimentary terms) finished by saying (with reference to the coming of the Duke of Connaught) that:

"It marks formally, despite Mr. Ewart's melancholy reflections, the final stage in the evolution of the eldest and largest Dominion, from a colony dependent on the Colonial Office and the British parliament, into a nation equal in status with the inhabitants of the United Kingdom and constitutionally connected with them by no other tie than that of allegiance to a common sovereign.”

The writer is of course a nationalist of quite virulent type; but nevertheless, he believes himself to be a militant imperialist, for he speaks, with enthusiasm, of Canada continuing as

“an integral part of the greatest Empire the world has ever known.”

66

Replying to his letter, I quoted his language, and said it stated my position with the utmost precision." Much to my surprise, the editor added a note to my letter in which he said:

"The majority of Canadians will accept Mr. Ewart's statement of his position as expressed in the above quotation."

I have very grave doubt, however, whether I should have received the same endorsation, if, in expressing precisely the same idea, I had used the word independence. I feel certain that Canadians are almost unanimously nationalists; and that all that is necessary for open declaration of their attitude is clear understanding of the political points involved in the subject.

WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF IMPERIALISM?

Notwithstanding the unfeigned respect with which I regard many Canadian imperialists-respect for their abilities, attainments and character-I am most perfectly persuaded that their influence upon the political present of Canada is pernicious, and upon her political future, dangerous.

It is so because its underlying principle is "Canadian insufficiency. Tell Canadians that their affairs can be managed better in London than in Canada, and to the extent of your influence you are doing them an injury. Tell Canadians that particularly with reference to foreign relations, they are inferior to the diplomats of other nations, and ought to be glad if they are even consulted as to what is good for them, and, to the extent to which you can make them believe you, your language is baneful. Tell Canadians that they cannot properly settle their own law-suits-that it is better to call to our assistance some trans-Atlantic judges, and if your language does not provoke quick resentment, you may have convinced some more of your fellow-countrymen of their impotence. Tell Canadians that they are inferior in physique and military ability to other nationalities-well, perhaps, I need not carry imperialistic disparagement to such palpable absurdity as that.

I say that national depreciation is mischievous and injurious. Even were it well-founded it would be impolitic. In Canada there should be none of it. We have nothing to be ashamed of either in our country, our men, or our achievements. We can manage our own affairs better than anyone else. Does anybody wish to return to the old way of making commercial arrangements with foreign countries through the Governor-General; then the Colonial Office;

then the Foreign Office; then the British Ambassador; and back by the same route? Will anyone tell me that he thinks it consistent with our national dignity to submit our law-suits to London judges? The chief fault of Canadians, politically, is their diffidence and their timidity. Imperialism has taught them their insufficiency, and big, robust and strong as they are, they reflect their education. Our mean colonialism is part of our fibre. We ought to give our children a chance of being something better.

We have a difficult problem here in Canada, but, if imperialism is not too strong for us, we shall solve it. We have to unify and nationalize a people-several peoples-whose geographic and ethnographic conditions make for separation. Prince Edward Island is the only one of our Provinces lying to the north of another of them. It is separated by the sea from its nearest neighbor. Nova Scotia is separated, substantially, from New Brunswick by the Bay of Fundy; New Brunswick from Quebec by the State of Maine; the Englishspeaking maritime provinces from Ontario, by the French-speaking Quebec; eastern Canada from central by 800 miles of rock and water; and central from western by the Rocky Mountains. Add to all this, the divergence in interest caused by the difference in situation; add also the similarity of interest between the various parts and the corresponding portions of the United States, and the magnitude of our difficulty may be, to some extent perceived. But only partially, for other disintegrating influences are in operation, amongst which perhaps the chief is the growing tendency in provincial legislation (1) to discriminate in favor of Canadians who reside within the province as against Canadians who reside in other provinces; and (2) to encroach upon the federal control of purely federal affairs.

We are terribly disunited now. I fear that the tendency is towards further disunion. We have had frank, and I am afraid, perfectly sincere warnings from the prairie provinces that they refuse to be dominated by the east, and we have had premonitions of the eastern reply. The prairies have always had a feeling of resentment and antagonism towards the east. It commenced with our bungling over premature exercise of authority there; it was intensified by the disallowance of all attempts by Manitoba to establish railway communication with the United States; it has been perpetuated by tariff arrangements; and unfortunately the policy of one of the political parties in the west (each in turn) has always been to protest against Ottawa injustice and patriotically to fight for "Provincial Rights."

How are we to unify Canada? There is but one possible way: Make her a nation, in name as well as in fact. Let her throw off her

mean colonial wrappings, and let her assume her rightful place among the nations of the world. Give us a common pride.

Yes, there is but one way, but, unfortunately, there is also one great obstacle-one, which I fear, will for some time bar the road. Had imperialism any plan of its own-could it tell us that, even in fifty years, it could produce some plan, it might plead some justification for blocking our path. But it cannot-helplessly it admits that it cannot, and sullenly, frequently contemptuously, it sits there, blocking the way. No imperialist believes that Canada will ever again submit to imperialism. Nobody pretends that any other political scheme of union with the Associated Kingdoms is possible. Why, then, will not imperialists join with us in giving to Canada a position of which we might all be proud? I appeal to them. As I respect them, let them at least listen to me. I do not ask them to abandon their hope of larger political union. I do not ask them to forego their aspirations, their loyalties, or their aims-Canadian independence is not incompatible with realization of all that they desire. But I do entreat them to lend their aid in the great work of the consolidation of Canada; the development of a unifying and elevating Canadian sentiment; and the creation of a true Canadian nation, always in close sympathy with the other members of the Associated Kingdoms, and, always, with the same Sovereign as theirs.

OTTAWA, June, 1911.

JOHN S. EWART.