and, when the latter body took instantaneous action to cancel the effect of the decision, a discussion followed in the House of Lords in which Lord Chancellor Cave stressed the fact that Ireland held the same relation as Canada to the Privy Council, and that since its jurisdiction over Canada was complete, as evidenced by the acceptance of its decision about criminal appeals, it was necessarily complete over the Free State. In a controversy with Mr. Swift Macneill in The Times, Lord Darling adopted a similar line of argument. These decisions and the resulting controversies have not escaped observation in Canada and they have provoked a vigorous agitation, headed by powerful papers like the Manitoba Free Press and the Toronto Star, for the complete abolition of all Canadian appeals to the Privy Council.

The argument of this Nationalist school of thought is that while Canada may be de facto an independent political entity, controlling her own affairs and even managing her own foreign policy, de jure she is still a subordinate community, bound and fettered by the terms of a statute of the Imperial Parliament called the British North America Act; they contend that her inability to amend her own constitution, the system of appeals to the Privy Council, and other trammels derived from this Act are unworthy badges of servitude which are inconsistent with her international status and should be swept away. They refuse to be content with the theory advanced by Mr. N. W. Rowell and other Canadians that the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament has been overridden and abrogated in practice by an extensive series of the constitutional conventions which are the lifeblood of political development in British countries; they point out that, while these conventions may get full recognition in the mutual relations of the British countries, litera scripta manet, and people like the French and Americans, who are great sticklers for the authority of constitutional documents, cannot appreciate their effect, and are completely baffled by the constitutional mélange of the British Empire. When the Imperial Conference of 1921 declined to sanction a constitutional conference, General Smuts expressed his disagreement with the decision in an interview to the London

press, in which he said :

Unfortunately the old machinery still remains and it is astonishing that statesmen have not yet realized the anachronism. I have insisted on a constitutional change in the Empire and I am also astonished that others

have not been equally impressed with its inevitability. The British people must realize that there must be a complete equality and freedom enjoyed by the sister States united by the King. Your constitutional problem is to find new formulas to fit the new conditions.

With this declaration Canadian Nationalists are in complete accord, and what they want is the complete acceptance of the implications of the doctrine of equality laid down in 1917, and its practical application for the removal of the constitutional debris now clogging the Imperial system with numerous absurdities and anomalies. They believe that the easiest approach to the problem would come through a declaration of constitutional right by the Canadian Parliament, and Sir Clifford Sifton, a statesman of wide experience who now holds strong Nationalist views, has offered the following formula which would take the form of a Parliamentary resolution :—

That the governing powers of Canada as constituted by the British North America Act, as amended and altered from time to time, hereafter ought to possess under the British Crown the same powers with regard to Canada, its affairs and its people, as the Parliament of Great Britain possesses in regard to Great Britain, its affairs and its people.

In the course of the present session a striking speech on the same theme was made by M. Henri Bourassa, whose knowledge of Imperial problems and foreign affairs is unrivalled in Canada:

I stated twenty-five years ago, at the time of the South African war, and I state again to-night with the same conviction, that I am not longing for secession. I believe we need for a long time, not the protection of Great Britain-I do not think Great Britain can afford us any protection that we are in need of-but I prize the association with Great Britain. I repeat, without any idea of offending members of this House or anyone of English stock, that I appreciate that link with Great Britain in a certain degree more than they can, because it is an appreciation based on study and on reflection; it is not the voice of blood. You cannot expect the French-Canadians to love the British; why should they? But you may expect the FrenchCanadians at all times to appreciate their connection with Great Britain.... I believe the association with Great Britain is needed by us for a long time, in order to help in developing our minds to the same broad standard of individual and political liberty. . . . But I repeat that it is not by playing the servile worshipper of everything English that we are going to benefit by that association. On the contrary, it is by standing up in the face of Great Britain, not in a defiant attitude, but in an attitude of self-respect and virile admiration, asserting to Great Britain that there are certain matters upon which

we can agree with her, and that there are other matters upon which we
cannot agree, because they have interests which are not the same as
ours and because we have trusts to perform, and to hand over to
generations to come, with which neither the Englishman nor the
Australian can deal for us.

So far the Nationalists have been unable to impress the King
Ministry with the urgency of their case, but their hopes have
been raised by the recent declaration of General Hertzog, the
South African Premier, that the policy of group unity for the
partner communities of the British Empire is not feasible, that
the self-governing Dominions are, for all practical purposes, inde-
pendent States held together by the slender link of the Crown, and
that it is time for foreign Powers to be made officially cognisant
of their exact political position. In certain circles, therefore, the
wish is freely expressed that the South African Premier will force
the pace with this issue at the approaching Imperial Conference,
and that Mr. Mackenzie King, if he attends, will be found giving
him vigorous support.

But other factors may be found operating to check the enthusiasm of Mr. King for such an enterprise. The Liberal politicians, who lead the solid bloc of 61 Quebec Liberals at Ottawa, and thereby dominate the King Ministry, are to a man perfervid Nationalists and completely unsympathetic to all plans for Imperial co-operation in the fields of diplomacy or armaments. By a strange paradox, however, they are extremely lukewarm, indeed, actively hostile, to any plans for tampering with the British North America Act or terminating the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament. An excellent illustration of their attitude and the motives which produce it is at present available in the circumstances of an age-long controversy which, after some years of quietude, has suddenly, to the dismay of all intelligent Canadians, emerged to trouble the political waters of the Dominion, and may soon relegate Imperial and all other issues into the background.

For generations the problems involved in the school rights of the Roman Catholic minority in Canada have been a source of trouble and vexation to Canadian statesmen; but in recent years the controversy has been restricted to legal battles. The King Government, however, in a mood of shortsighted folly has allowed this thorny question to be dragged once more into the political

arena, and it would be rash to predict what the ultimate consequences upon Canadian political life may be. The revival of the controversy has its origin in a recent bargain, reached after years of negotiation, between the Federal Government and the provincial administration of Alberta, whereby the latter province was to receive possession of its natural resources which were retained under Federal control at the time the province was created in 1905. The Roman Catholic minority in Alberta has since that date enjoyed the privilege of separate schools and, although the Protestants have accepted them as an integral part of the educational system, the constitutional authority for their existence is dubious. The transfer of the resources must be ratified by both an Act of the Federal Parliament and by a statute of the Imperial Parliament, and the French-Canadian members of the Cabinet, backed by the solid bloc of French Liberal members and M. Bourassa, have insisted upon the insertion of a clause in all the three enabling Acts which will irrevocably rivet the separate school system of Alberta. Their attitude in this matter reveals them firmly fixed in the belief that the Imperial Parliament is still the best watchdog of their racial and religious privileges and that, however much they may fulminate on the hustings about the menace of British Imperialism, they are not yet ready to countenance the abrogation of the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament.

Meanwhile the Legislature of Alberta, at the bidding of the Progressive Premier, Mr. Brownlee, who asserts that this mandatory clause was no part of the original bargain for the transfer of the resources, has struck it out of the enabling bill just passed in Alberta, and insists on retaining provincial freedom of action in educational matters. The next move lies with the King Government which finds itself on the horns of a pretty dilemma. If it retains the clause it must face the resolute opposition of the western Progressives and the prospect of probable defeat in the House; on the other hand, if the clause is withdrawn, some French-Canadian ministers are certain to resign and the Government's life will be equally threatened. The Manitoba Free Press, which has been supporting the ministry, has issued an ultimatum that the obnoxious clause must be deleted, and offers a grim forecast of the consequences of letting loose the flood-waters of this age-long controversy :

If history should repeat itself, the issue will go from bitterness to

bitterness until finally it becomes the pivot upon which all other issues turn; it will make and destroy Governments and before it runs its course it will renew in full vigour the religious and racial feuds which have done so much to keep this country distrusted and poor.

A month ago it seemed as if the King Government had before it a clear path for its financial and legislative programme, and that its survival to the end of the session would enable Mr. Mackenzie King to represent his country once more at an Imperial Conference. But this Alberta school issue throws an unexpected cloud over his prospects, and, unless he can find some excuse for postponing until next session the production of the Federal measure to which he and his colleagues are pledged, his ministry will be in real danger of extinction. Even if the King ministry should survive the threatened crisis, Mr. King's attitude at the Imperial Conference cannot fail to be affected. He will go to the Conference conscious of the danger that this school controversy may provoke a bitter religious feud in Canada which will submerge all other issues in politics and may leave him, a strong Protestant, as the leader of a virtually Catholic party. Under the circumstances he will walk with even greater wariness than in 1923, and quieta non movere will be his motto in regard to all proposals for adventures in constitutional reconstruction. Without the co-operation of Canada there can be no attempt made to find "new formulæ to fit the new conditions," and accordingly the prospects are that the Imperial Conference of 1926 will be as barren of practical measures which seek a solution of the present confusions as were its predecessors. It is a gloomy prospect with which only the disciples of the doctrine of "the inevitability of gradualness" will care to be satisfied.

Ottawa,

J. A. STEVENSON.

June, 1926.