which constitutional development is no longer to be anticipated. Indeed, the genius of the British people and all our past history lead us to believe the contrary. The steps in advance have been usually gradual and always practical; and they have been taken on instinct rather than upon any carefully considered theory.

Which was admonition at once of the Centralizationists and their opponents, the Nationalists.

Whatever alteration of existing British inter-arrangements may come after the war will be done on instinct in view of circumstances that cannot now be foreseen. Wherefore clamorers for this or that, their favorite scheme, are now inopportunists. Hence they are neglected by the public as unimpressive, futile wasters of breath or ink. Indeed Canada, Great Britain, the whole race of mankind are now swept on the crest of a huge wave of Fate. When it casts them ashore, recedes, leaves men to consider what may best be done for the future, then will have come the time to rearrange political fabrics, if need be. Then Sir Robert Borden will probably continue in his often clearly specified opinion that Canada, if remaining liable as now to be drawn into Great Britain's more perilous wars-a liability which must ever urge Canada to strong participation in order that the peril may be the sooner ended-ought to have a share in controlling Great Britain's foreign policy. Which sharing Mr. Asquith declared last year impracticable, in that sense inadmissible.

Westminster must retain freedom to move, act, strike quickly. Her course toward Germany had to be decided last August within a few hours. Obviously her freedom, her power for promptitude would be hindered in proportion to need for such consultation with and approval by councilors of many distant countries as is presupposed by advocates of imperial federation. Why establish control by cumbersome, superfluous machinery when the war has made it clear as the sun at high noon that the essential desideratum, British Union, exists now? All the notable communities of the King's realms have demonstrated that they are in the mind, the condition of a voluntary empire. What more

can be desired save by such as desire old country domination of all the concerned countries, and who really long for a formal and subservient Empire?

Sir Richard Jebb, a deep student of the Empire problem, declared clearly last November the meaning of that general voluntary British war union which is a wonder of mankind, and in the course to teach a profound, general political lesson. He wrote:

That the war will in any event change the external relations is evident. But why, if we win, should it change the political relations between the parts, except to the extent of encouraging us to conserve and develop the existing system which has given so signal an example of effective imperial unity in time of need? Continually talking of imperial unity, we fail to recognize it when we have got it. There is never going to be a moment when one might say 'Yesterday we were not united; today the Grand Act (of Imperial Federation understood) has been signed;

henceforth we are united."

The cult of the Grand Act is a snare and a delusion. Whatever may happen hereafter-even the Grand Act itself-posterity is likely to look back upon August, 1914, as the moment when the British Empire reached the zenith of its unity. Let us remember that the existing system is not stationary, though its principle (voluntary union) may be final. It has been developing steadily since 1902.

The Australian fleet unit, the first of the Dominion navies, which enables each to exert upon foreign policy the full weight of its importance in the empire, was not begun until 1910. The corollary, that any Dominion Minister appointed to reside in London should have free and constant access to the British Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary, was only conceded in January, 1912, and has not yet been taken advantage of, even by Australia.

But the development is all true to principle. What principle? Voluntary co-operation, as opposed to central compulsion. In war, as in peace, each of the Britannic nations is free to do or not to do. But we have invoked naval and military co-ordination, with results which the Australian Navy has already exemplified (on the Emden, &c.)

Has this system of the free Commonwealth, as distinguished from the German principle of a centralized empire organized primarily for war, broken down under the supreme test, as so many of our prophets predicted? On the contrary, it has alone saved South Africa to the empire, besides eliciting unrestricted military aid from each part. Why change it for something diametrically opposed to its spirit, substituting compulsion for liberty. provinces for nation-States?

Sir Richard Jebb's sentence, specifying

the nature of the Australian influence on foreign policy, seems apt reply to Sir Robert Borden's oft-repeated specification that a share in control of foreign policy should accrue to the Dominions by reason of their participation in or liability to war. This liability really compels them to engage with all their strength, lest they comfort an enemy by abstention, or by confining their armaments to self-defense, which might and would be read as disapproval of Britain's course, if the war were one of magnitude endangering her. A system more powerfully requiring Great Britain to take heed that her quarrel be just, lest she be not thrice armed by approving children, can scarcely be imagined.

On this matter I have had the pleasure and benefit, during the last twelve years, of talking with Sir Wilfrid Laurier often. In the quoted Jebb view he agreed closely when I saw him a few days ago. He remarked, with special regard to this article for THE NEW YORK TIMES, that his point of insistence at the Imperial Conferences of 1902, 1907, 1911, and on all proper occasions, has been that local autonomy-that is, complete self-government for each of the Dominions-is not only consistent with British unity but necessary thereto as promoting and conserving that unity.

When Mr. Asquith's denial of the practicability of giving the Dominions a direct share in control of Great Britain's foreign policy is considered, the Jebb-Laurier view would appear one to which Sir Robert Borden, cautious statesman, must be led by recognition that potent influence on foreign policy cannot but come to Dominions energetically providing at once for their own defense and for their power to aid Great Britain all along the line.

As to imperial federation, Sir Wilfrid remarked that he has ever been openly attracted by that aspiration toward permanent British union, on which advocacy of the vague project has ever been bottomed. He is, as he said to me, and as all his long series of political actions have manifested, British in heart and way of political thinking, as indeed sub

stantially all his French-Canadian compatriots are. British liberality, not to say liberalism, has attached them to the British system as firmly as any community originating from the United Kingdom. It was a French-Canadian statesman who asserted, some fifty years ago, when many British-Canadians seemed tending toward union with the United States, "The last shot fired in Canada for British connection will be from a French-Canadian.” That was before the civil war abolished slavery.

But, even as the Britishism of Ola Country liberals is strongly tinctured by devotion to ideals which Americans are wont to regard as theirs-ideals making for settled peace, industry, the uplift of the "common people," fair room and reward for those abilities which conspicuously serve the general welfare-so Sir Wilfrid and his compatriots acknowledge their Britishism to be acutely conscious of political kinship with the American people. The French-Canadian yearning, like that of many Canadians of British origin, is rather for English-speaking union-a union of at least thorough understanding and common designs with the American people-than for the narrower exclusive British union sought by Canadian imperial federationists.

Sir Wilfrid said, in effect, (I do not profess to report his very words,) that federation of those British communities widely separated by geography, but alike in race, language, laws, principles, has always attracted him as a project of excellent intentions. It is at worst a noble dream. That dream has become less impracticable than it was formerly, he thinks, by reason of the essential diminution of the world, diminution of distances and of time by latter-day inventions.

Against the idea of general representation in a central Parliament at London, Sir Wilfrid pointed out that Edmund Burke objected opposuit natura "-nature forbade it. The wisest of political philosophers could not foresee the telegraph, wireless, steam, airships. These have made a useful centrai imperial Parliament at least conceivable Could it be more useful than the advisory

council, or Imperial Conference which has become quadrennial, and might possibly become annual? That is matter for discussion. Sir Wilfrid said that such is the political genius of the British race that he would be rash who alleged any design impracticable toward which the race may tend so generally as to put it under discussion for arrangement of details. Conservation of local self-government, prime essential to agreement for union on common purposes, might prove reconcilable with federated defense.

Its

But there is, to Sir Wilfrid's way of thinking, one large objection against now attempting imperial federation. agitators contemplate a scheme immense, yet not sufficiently inclusive. They do not contemplate English-speaking solidarity. They purpose leaving out the majority of English-speakers-the American people. In this they do not follow Cecil Rhodes, a chief propagandist of their main design. It is true that the idea of getting Americans to participate in any formal union with all the rest of their brethren by race and tongue seems now impractical. But time works wonders. Mr. Gladstone foresaw the United States a people of six hundred comfortable millions, living in union before the end of the next century. The hegemony of the English-speaking nations seems likely to be within attainment by that one of them which appears destined to become far the most powerful of all in numbers, in wealth, and in security of environment. Time may show to our successors in this world some effective method of establishing agreements amounting to that solidarity for Englishspeaking action which has been acclaimed as existent for English-speaking thinking by a mind so eminently reasonable as that of Lord Haldane.

It would be hasty, thinks Sir Wilfrid, and it might be injurious for the British countries to move toward any sort of formal union ostensibly tending to set them collectively apart from the United States. Give great beneficent ideas time to develop. Britons can well afford to take their time, since the war

has shown existent among them an almost perfect union of sentiment and purpose. And this, apparently, with the blessed effect of enhancing general American good-will to Britons. From so much good understanding more may ensue, Sir Wilfrid concluded.

Such Canadians as hold Edmund Burke to have been a spokesman of consummate political wisdom are apt to regard the busy stir of doctrinaires, who scream for closer political junction of the British peoples, even as Burke regarded the hurry of some of the same kidney in his time. Resolute to bind the thirteen colonies forever to England, they proceeded to offend, outrage, and drive those colonies to independence. Be it remembered that these colonies had contributed so loyally, so liberally to England's armaments and wars that grateful London Parliaments had insisted on voting back to them the subsidies they had granted, holding the contributions too generous. To later proposals of foolish henchmen of George III., proposals that the colonies, since they had revealed themselves as strong and rich, should be dragged into some formal political subordination by which, as by latter-day Imperial Federation, they might be involuntarily mustered and taxed for imperial purposes, Burke said:

Our hold on the colonies is the close affection which grows from common names, from kindred blood, from similar privileges, and equal protection. These are the ties which, though light as air, are strong as links of iron. Let the colonies always keep the idea of their civil rights associated with your Government; they will cling and grapple to you, and no force under heaven will be of power to tear them from their allegiance. *

* *

As long as you have the wisdom to keep the sovereign authority of this country as the sanctuary of liberty, the sacred temple consecrated to our common faith, wherever the chosen race and sons of England worship freedom, they will turn their faces toward you. The more they multiply, the more friends you will have. The more ardently they love liberty, the more perfect will be their obedience. Slavery they can have anywhere. It is a weed that grows on every soil. They may have it from Spain; they may have it from Prussia; but until you become lost to all feeling of your true interest and your natural dignity, freedom they can have from none but you.