our militia, and provoked a controversy which led to the recall of General Hutton. That was, and will probably remain, the last of the pretences of our Governors to regulate Canadian affairs. Canada is a constitutional monarchy. Neither the Colonial Secretary, nor (let it be said respectfully) even His Majesty himself, has any right to impose his will upon us. As Sir Wilfrid has well said:

"We are under the suzerainty of the King of England, and we bow the knee to him, but the King of England has no more rights over us than are allowed him by our own Canadian Parliament. This is the view of our relations to the Throne held by all true loyal British subjects."

Next, as to our judicial situation: We still permit appeals to the British Privy Council. But we can put an end to them if we wish, and we are, therefore, independent in this respect also. We ought to decide our own cases; for there can hardly be a more humiliating confession of national impotence than that involved in the submission of the decisions of our own judges to the review of men who cannot be, and are not, as well fitted as Canadians to settle Canadian questions.

Canada then is independent fiscally, legislatively, executively, and judicially. What is her position with reference to foreign countries-first, during peace, and secondly, as to war?

Formerly all our communications with foreign countries were conducted by the British Foreign Office, and treaties binding upon us were made without consultation with us. It was not until 1878 that we obtained a declaration that we were not to be bound without our assent; and, in 1879, we were still refused permission to take part in the negotiations of treaties in which we were to be interested.1 In 1884, Sir Charles Tupper succeeded not only in having himself associated with Sir Robert Morier in negotiating a treaty with Spain, but in having delegated to him the actual work. Again, in 1893, he was associated with Lord Dufferin in negotiations with France, and did the work. Notwithstanding these facts, the Foreign Office afterwards, in 1895 (28th June), declared that:

"To give the colonies the power of negotiating treaties for themselves without reference to Her Majesty's Government would be to give them an international status as separate and sovereign states, and would be equivalent to breaking up the Empire into a Number of independent States;" that "the negotiation must be conducted by Her Majesty's representative at the Court of the Foreign Fower, who would keep Her Majesty's Government informed of the progress of the discussions and seek instructions from them as necessity arose;" but that "it would be desirable generally that he should have the assistance,

1Sir John A. Macdonald's participation in the negotiations of 1871 was an exception to the rule.

either as a second plenipotentiary or in a subordinate capacity, as Her Majesty's Government might think the circumstances require, of a delegate appointed by the Colonial Government."

''Breaking up the Empire" by liberating Canada from subordination has, however, never had any terrors for Canada, and, now, we negotiate treaties as we like. In 1907, the Foreign Office, in connection with the French negotiations, practically acknowledged the situation. In that year, Sir Edward Grey, writing to the British Ambassador at Paris and referring to what I have just quoted, said:

"I do not, however, think it necessary, to adhere in the present case to the strict letter of this regulation, the object of which was to secure that negotiation should not be entered into, and carried through, by a colony unknown to and independently of His Majesty's Government. The selection of the negotiator is principally a matter of convenience, and in the present circumstances it will obviously be left to Sir Wilfrid Laurier and to the Canadian Minister of Finance, who will doubtless keep you informed of their progress."

The great advance in 1907, from the position won for us by Sir Charles Tupper in 1893, was referred to by Mr. Balfour in the British House of Commons on the 21st July last (1910). He quoted the despatch of 1895 (my first extract) and added:

and

"That was the radical policy in 1895. It was not the radical policy, in my opinion it was rightly not the radical policy in 1907—12 years later. The Dominion of Canada, technically, I suppose, it may be said, carried on their negotiations with the knowledge of His Majesty's representative, but it was a purely technical knowledge. I do not believe that His Majesty's Government was ever consulted at a single stage of those negotiations. I do not believe they ever informed themselves, or offered any opinion, as to what was the best policy for Canada under the circumstances. I think they were well advised. But how great is the change and how inevitable! It is a matter of common knowledgeand, may I add, not a matter of regret but a matter of pride or rejoicing-that the great Dominions beyond the seas are becoming great nations in themselves. Integral parts, they are, of the British Empire; but, nevertheless, claiming, and rightly claiming to have reached the adult stage in the process of social growth, and requiring no longer to lean in the same way upon other parts of the Empire, as was fitting and proper in the earlier days of their existence."

In late years, Canada has carried on negotiations with France, Germany, Italy and the United States, quite independently of either the Colonial or the Foreign Offices; and our Government does not see any reason for keeping either Office informed as to what it does. Mr. James Bryce, the British Ambassador at Washington, delights to speak of himself as the "Ambassador of Canada" also. From a practical standpoint, Canada is diplomatically independent.

Two incidents of recent occurrence strongly emphasize the fact of our diplomatic independence. The first is the order of King George that, at the Coronation, the representatives of the "Dominions" are to be accorded rank with the representatives of foreign nations. The other incident is the invitation extended by President Taft to the Canadian delegates at Washington to be present as guests at the diplomatic dinner in the White House.

"The effect," as the Toronto Globe very aptly said, "is to proclaim to the assembled ambassadors of foreign nations that the Dominion of Canada is sufficiently a 'nation' to be regarded as not out of place among the real ones."

Canada is also independent with reference to that most important subject, war. In the old days, our Governors controlled our militia, appointed the officers, and issued the marching orders. Lord Minto imagined that the Governor-General still retained certain authority, and would have lost his place had he not been willing to accept the contrary view.

Canada has plainly asserted her independence with reference to British wars. (You will observe that I am not at all referring to the action which Canada would take in the event of a British war. I am proving merely that Canada may do as she pleases. Any credit that she got in connection with the Boer war was rightly hers, only because her action was purely voluntary.) At the Celonial Conference of 1902, Mr. Chamberlain put directly to the Colonial Prime Ministers the question: What contingents will the colonies send in case of a European war? Canada and Australia replied that the matter would be considered "when the need arose."

Since that date, Sir Wilfrid Laurier has declared in the House of Commons that Canada may, or may not, take part in British wars. And in a speech at Montreal (10th October, 1910) he said:

"Does it follow that because we are exposed to attack we are going to take part in all the wars of the Empire? No. We shall take part if we think proper; we shall certainly take part if our territory is attacked" (a).

There are two other points to be noticed in this connection. In the first place, can we declare war? Of course we can. We can commit an act of war to-morrow, if we so wish.

There is very little

(a) This is the doctrine of the Colonial Office, as well as of Canada. In discussing the suggestion that a Governor-General has a right to over-rule his Ministers upon matters relating to war, Mr. Keith (of the Colonial Office) in his book "Responsible Government in the Dominions," (p. 198) said that that "would involve the theory that the Imperial Government could insist on colonial forces taking part in a war, a doctrine onposed to the fundamental principles of selfgovernment, which leaves it to a colony to decide how far it will participate in wars due to imperial policy."

likelihood of our doing it. We have the power to do it-that is my point. Secondly, what is our position in case the United Kingdom is at war? With reference to a situation of that sort, are we independent? That is, can we do as we wish? To this extent, we can: We may decline to take part. It would then be optional with Britain's enemy whether to attack us, or to treat us as a neutral. If we were attacked we should have to fight. But the enemy (unless it were the United States) would most probably be only too glad to leave us neutral. Practically, therefore, the decision as to our participation in any war (except with the United States) would rest with us. And in no case need we fight unless we are attacked. country in the world is any more independent than that.

No

I have now dealt with all classes of our national activities. Practically we are in all respects independent: as to our fiscal relations, as to legislation, as to government, as to litigation, as to treaties and as to war. Theoretically, we have no independent power. Practically, we are independent, and may do as we please.

And now let me point out that not only is this true, but that all British statesmen acknowledge it as an existing fact. Fortunately, the situation is not (as in the case of the United States in 1776) one of assertion on our part, and denial by the imperial parliament. Upon the contrary, British statesmen quite freely, and frankly, apply the word "independent" to us, whereas, curiously enough, it is some of our own people that rather shy at it. Let me give you some quotations in proof of what I say. Mr. Joseph Chamberlain has said:

"How are we to bring these separate interests together; these states which have voluntarily accepted one Crown and one Flag, and which, in all else are absolutely independent of one another" (26th June, 1905).

They

"The time has gone by when we could treat them with indifference, when we could speak of them as though they were subject to our dictation. are self-governing nations. They are sister-States. They are our equals in every thing except population and wealth; and very quickly you will find that they will equal and surprise us in these respects." (2nd January, 1906).

Mr. Arthur Balfour has said:

"We have, therefore, a great experiment to carry out, the experiment of retaining in our Empire, communities which must each be left unhampered, untramelled, unimpeded, to follow its own laws and destiny, and development. (April, 1907.)

Upon another occasion (10th June, 1909) Mr. Balfour said:

"There was a time when the relations between the mother country and the offspring of the mother country were those of parent and child. No politician

to-day holds that view. Everybody as far as I know, recognizes that the parental stage is past. We have now arrived at the stage of formal equality and no one wishes to disturb it,”

Lord Curzon said:

"In the economy of the imperial household we were dealing not with children, but with grown men. At our tables were seated, not dependants or menials, but partners as free as ourselves, and with aspirations not less ample or keen." (11th December, 1907.)

These are all unofficial utterances. At the Colonial Conference in 1907, the British Prime Minister (Campbell-Bannerman), officially addressing the colonial Prime Ministers, said:

"We found ourselves, gentlemen, upon freedom and independence—that is the essence of the imperial connection. Freedom of action in their relations with one another and with the mother country."

And Mr. Asquith (then Chancellor of the Exchequer ) said:

The special feature of the British Empire has been that it has combined, and succeeded in combining in a degree unknown in any other combination in history, a loyal and affectionate attachment between the centre and parts of the Empire, and between the various parts themselves, with complete practical independence."

Mr. H. J. Mackinder, a strong British imperialist who lectured in Canada in 1908 delivered an address upon his return to London, and is thus reported in the Standard of Empire:

"In the course of his remarks Mr. Mackinder said that two facts which those who were concerned with the building up of Empire must reckon with in Canada were a spirit of triumphal nationalism and a spirit of manly independence."

Another British militant imperialist who lectured in Canada, Mr. Howard d'Egville, addressed to us the following language:

"Yet, I think we in the old country understand and sympathize with you in your loyalty to your own land. England has ceased to regard her Colonials as children. She recognizes that they are Powers in themselves."

Mr. P. D. Ross of Ottawa, a member of the Imperial Press Conference of 1909, which was addressed, as he said, by:

"Practically every big man in England in the political line, every big man in the newspaper line, many of the great Generals and Admirals, and a good many of the leading men in industry and commerce."

told the Empire Club at Toronto that,