,.^'. 
 
 e^x.% 
 
 IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 1.25 
 
 I SO ■^~ 
 
 m m 
 
 m 
 
 Si 
 
 25 
 
 ■ 40 
 
 2.2 
 
 1.8 
 
 U lilll.6 
 
 7 
 
 vQ 
 
 el 
 
 
 /.! 
 
 .■«>> 
 
 /> 
 
 y 
 
 s 
 
 s 
 
 ^ 
 
 V 
 
 \ 
 
 \ 
 
 [V 
 
 
 '^'^^L.^ ^>^ """O^ 
 
CIHM/ICMH 
 
 Microfiche 
 
 Series. 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 Collection de 
 microfiches. 
 
 Canadian institute for IHistoricai l\flicroreproductlons Instltut canadien de microreproductions historiques 
 
 1980 
 
Technical Notes / Notes techniques 
 
 The Institute has attempted to obtain the best 
 original copy available for filming. Physical 
 features of this copy which may alter any of the 
 images in the reproduction are checked below. 
 
 L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire 
 qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Certains 
 dAfauts susceptibles de nuire d la quality de ia 
 reproduction sont not6s ci-dessous. 
 
 D 
 
 Coloured covers/ 
 Couvertures de couleur 
 
 n 
 
 Coloured pages/ 
 Pages de couleur 
 
 D 
 D 
 
 Coloured maps/ 
 
 Cartes g6ographiques en couleur 
 
 Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ 
 Pages ddcolor^es, tachet^es ou piqudes 
 
 Tight binding (may cause shadows or 
 distortion along interior margin)/ 
 Reliure serrd (peut causer de I'ombre ou 
 de la distortion le long de la marge 
 int^rieure) 
 
 D 
 
 7( 
 
 D 
 
 Coloured plates/ 
 Planches en couleur 
 
 Show through/ 
 Transparence 
 
 Pages damaged/ 
 Pages endommagdes 
 
 D 
 
 Additional comments/ 
 Commentaires euppl6mentaires 
 
 Bibliographic Notes / Notes bibliographiques 
 
 □ 
 
 Only edition available/ 
 Seule Edition disponibie 
 
 Bound with other material/ 
 Reli6 avec d'autres documents 
 
 D 
 D 
 
 Pagination incorrect/ 
 Erreurs de pagination 
 
 Pages missing/ 
 Des pages manquent 
 
 D 
 D 
 
 n 
 
 Cover title missing/ 
 
 Le titre de couverture manque 
 
 Plates missing/ 
 
 Des planches manquent 
 
 Additional comments/ 
 Commentaires suppldmentaires 
 
 D 
 
 Maps missing/ 
 
 Des cartes g6ographiques manquent 
 
The images appearing here are the best quality 
 possible considering the condition and iegibiiity 
 of the original copy and in keeping with the 
 filming contract specifications. 
 
 Les images suivantes ont it6 reproduites avec la 
 plus grand soin. compte tenu de la condition at 
 de la nettet^ de Texemplaire film6, et en 
 conformity avec les conditions du contrat de 
 filmage. 
 
 The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall 
 contain the symbol —►(meaning CONTINUED"), 
 or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever 
 applies. 
 
 Un des symboles suivants apparattra sur la der- 
 nidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: 
 ie symbols — ► signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbols 
 y signifie "FIN". 
 
 The original copy was borrowed from, and 
 filmed with, the kind consent of the following 
 institution: 
 
 ;.:" National Library of Canada 
 
 L'exemplaire f ilm6 fut reproduit grfice d la 
 g6n6rosit6 de I'dtablissement prAteur 
 suivant : 
 
 Bibliothdque nationale du Canada 
 
 Maps or plates too large to be entirely included 
 in one exposure are filmed beginning in the 
 upper lAft hand corner, left to right and top to 
 bottom, as many frames as required. The 
 following diagrams illustrate the method: 
 
 Les cartes ou les planches trop grandes pour dtre 
 reproduites en un seul ciichd sont filmdes d 
 partir de i'angle sup^rieure gauche, de gauche d 
 droite et de haut en bas. en prenant le nombre 
 d'images ndcessaire. Le diagramme suivant 
 illustre la m^thode : 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 ' »•" 
 
 1 2 3 
 
 4 5 6 
 
■pmffswir 
 
 :, ^ . ;-Jr . . -.'.,;; ' .■■ ' ■:*-<trf>'<'--* '•^'- .-- •" 
 
 ^UGH H. K BELLOW, B.C.L.,M. A,, 
 
 LONDOK; 
 
 
 
IRELAND AND CANADA: 
 
 STUDIES IN COMPARATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL 
 LAW AND POLITICS. 
 
 BY 
 
 HUGH H. L. BELLOT, B.C.L., M.A., 
 
 Of the Inner Temple and Midland Circuit, Barrister-at-Law. 
 
 LONDON : 
 
 REEVES & TURNER, 
 100, CHANCERY LANE, AND CAREY STREET, 
 
 1893 
 
TEINTED BT 0. P. ROWOETH, GKEAT NEW STREET, FETTER LANE. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 The bearing of Canadian political institutions upon 
 the Home Rule question has recently been the sub- 
 ject of so much controversy, both in the House and 
 outside, that I feel that no apology for the appear- 
 ance of the following pages is needed. So many 
 inaccurate statements have been made, and so many 
 consequent misconceptions have arisen concerning 
 Canadian political history, that I have every confi- 
 dence in placing before the public the actual facts. 
 Whether the conclusions which I draw be correct or 
 not, the fact remains that our kinsmen across the 
 water have solved the questions of Home Rule and 
 Local Self-Government, perhaps more satisfactorily 
 than any other country in the old or the new world, 
 and this alone, I submit, is a sufficient and cogent 
 reason for the study of Canadian affairs, and for 
 ascertaining their bearings upon the similar prob- 
 lems seeking for solution in this country. I take 
 this opportunity of acknowledging my indebtedness 
 
to the Editors of the Westminster Review for kindly 
 allowing me to reproduce here an article entitled 
 '' The Home Rule Bill and the Canadian Constitu- 
 tion," which appeared in the May number of this 
 year. 
 
 HUGH H. L. BELLOT. 
 
 8, Kino's Bench Walk, Temple, London, 
 August 1, 1893. 
 
 « . ♦ ' 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 FAOB 
 
 Chapter I. 
 THE HOME RULE BILL AND THE CANADIAN 
 CONSTITUTION 7 
 
 Chapter II. 
 
 THE CANADIAN ANALOGY: A EE JOINDER TO THE 
 BELFAST CHAMBER OP COMMERCE - - - 20 
 
 Chapter III. 
 
 LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL ON THE CANA- 
 DIAN CONSTITUTION : A REPLY - - - 35 
 
 
CHAPTER I. 
 
 THE HOME RULE BILL AND THE CANADIAN CONSTITUTION. 
 
 The close analogy of the principles embodied in 
 the Government of Ireland Bill, 1893, with those 
 which go to build up the Canadian Constitution 
 is too remarkable for a mere coincidence. And, 
 moreover, we have reason to believe that Mr. Bryce, 
 our greatest constitutional lawyer, had a share, and 
 tliat a large one, in framing the present Bill. One 
 of the chief objections urged by the opponents of 
 the Home Rule Bill is that it will be impossible in 
 practice to distinguish and keep apart, without con- 
 stant friction and disorganization of all government, 
 both here and in Ireland, Imp( rial and purely Irish 
 affairs. Now this attitude of "impossibility" is a 
 notorious failing with the Conservative party, but 
 I it is all the more curioTis since what they declare to 
 
 ■- be impossible and impracticable under the Govern- 
 ment of Ireland Bill has actually been carried out 
 and been in operation for twenty-six years in 
 Canada, and that, too, under the British North 
 America Act, 1867, for the placing of which upon 
 the statute-book the Conservative party was respon- 
 sible. _ .-. , . ._.._ 
 , The Dominion of Canada is now composed of the 
 seven organized provinces of Ontario, Quebec, Nova 
 
8 
 
 Scotia, New Brunswick, Manitoba, British Columbia, 
 and Prince Edward's Island, the one organized dis- 
 trict of Keewatin, and a vast tract of land, sparsely 
 inhabited, known as the North- West Territories. 
 
 The Constitution of Canada may be briefly de- 
 scribed as follows : — For the Dominion of Canada, 
 as a whole, has been established an Imperial Parlia- 
 ment, consisting of the Queen, a Senate, and a 
 House of Commons. For each province within 
 the Dominion have been established Provincial 
 Legislatures, consisting, as a rule, of two houses, 
 viz. : — Legislative Councils and Legislative As- 
 semblies. Since, in examining the nature of the 
 Dominion Parliament, it will be found neces- 
 sary to refer to the Provincial Legislatures, it will 
 be conducive to clearness if the latter are first 
 described. 
 
 The Legislative Assemblies, then, are the popu- 
 larly elected bodies, but the qualifications of mem- 
 bers and electors vary very considerably in the 
 different provinces. Each province may decide for 
 itself the qualifications of the electors, the distribu- 
 tion of seats, the qualifications of members, and the 
 methods by which they shall be elected. 
 
 Four provinces, viz. : — Quebec, Nova Scotia, New 
 Brunswick, and Prince Edward's Island — j^ossess 
 Legislative Councils (a). The members of these 
 bodies are nominated by the Lieutenant-Governor 
 of the province. In Nova Scotia the Lieutenant- 
 Governor is under no restriction in his choice of 
 
 (a) Since writing the aboye, New Bi-unswick has abolished its 
 Legislative Council, 
 
9 
 
 councillors; wlicrca-s in tlio remaining provinces 
 certain statutory qualifications have been imposed. 
 The numbers in each Legislative Council vary from 
 thirteen to twenty-four. In Prince Edward's Island, 
 however, an exception occurs : the councillors are 
 elected, the electors being the same as for ttie Legis- 
 lative Assembly, and in Charlottetown a fresh elec- 
 tion is held every eighth year ; whereas in the other 
 districts of the province an election is held every 
 fourth year. In the other provinces, however, 
 councillors hold office for life. A Lieutenant- 
 Governor is appointed for each province by tlie 
 Governor-General in Council, under the Great Seal 
 of Canada, and he is at the head of the Executive 
 Council of the province. 
 
 He is responsible, not to the Crown, but to the 
 Governor-General and the Executive Council for 
 the Dominion. He holds office generally for a 
 period of five years. As head of the Executive 
 Provincial Council, he selects his own Cabinet, 
 although he is constitutionally bound to choose his 
 Ministers from the party Avhich has the confidence 
 of the Legislative or popular Assembly. 
 
 His powers are various ; but that to which I wish 
 to draw particular attention is his power to assent 
 to or veto Bills, or to reserve them for the conside- 
 ration of the Governor -General. The numbers of 
 the Cabinet, or the Executive Council, as it is called, 
 vary in the different provinces. 
 
 In British Columbia there are only four Ministers; 
 in Prince Edward's Island there are as many as 
 nine. To each Minister, as a rule, some depart- 
 ment of State is assigned. In all the provinces the 
 
10 
 
 following departments and offices are already esta- 
 blished, viz. : — 
 
 The Department of the Attorney- General. 
 „ „ ,, Public Works. 
 
 ,, ,, ,, Crown Lands. 
 
 ,, Office of Secretary of State. 
 „ ,, Treasurer. 
 
 And in addition to the above Ontario has a Minister 
 for Education, Quebec one for Agriculture, and 
 Manitoba one for Railways. Very extensive powers 
 have been given to the Education Department in 
 Ontario over the normal, high, public, and separate 
 schools in the province. 
 
 The Dominion Parliament is constituted, as has 
 been already stated, of the Queen, a Senate, and 
 a House of Commons. The Crown is represented 
 by the Governor-General, and may veto through 
 the latter any Act passed by the two Dominion 
 Houses, and, indeed may even veto any Act to 
 which the Governor-General has given his assent. 
 The Governor- General is appointed 1 y the Crown, 
 and as head of the Dominion Executive Council, 
 acting under the advice of his Ministry, exercises 
 all the powers belonging to the Crown of summon- 
 ing, proroguing, or dissolving the Dominion Parlia- 
 ment. Persons with the necessary senatorial quali- 
 fications are selected by him to the Senate. By 
 the British North American Act, 1867, s. 22, the 
 number of senators is limited to 72, but this 
 number has since been increased to 80 l)y various 
 Imperial statutes. A senator, it may be mentioned, 
 holds office for life. ' ., : 
 
 The House of Commons for the Dominion of 
 
 ifmtti ^tm'iimmmmM^ammkm, 
 
11 
 
 Canada is of coui'se an elective body, and consists 
 of 215 members. Since 1885 a uniform franchise 
 has existed throughout the Dominion. The dura- 
 tion of Parliament is quinquennial, subject to the 
 power of the Crown to dissolve it at any time. 
 
 As representing the Crown, the Governor- 
 General exercises the supreme executive power. 
 The members of the Executive Council, or the 
 Privy Council for Canada, as it is sometimes called, 
 are chosen by him in accordance with the well- 
 known constitutional principle that they shall bo 
 selected from that party which enjoys the con- 
 fidence of the majority of the members of the 
 House of Commons. 
 
 It is now possible to examine the relations which 
 subsist between the Dominion Parliament and the 
 Provincial Legislatures. By section 91 of the 
 British North America Act, 1867, in addition to 
 twenty-nine specific classes of subjects confined to 
 the exclusive legislative authority of the Dominion 
 Parliament, power is conferred upon the Dominion 
 Parliament to legislate ''for the peace, order, and 
 good government of Canada in relation to all 
 matters" not assigned to the provinces. And by 
 section 92 of the same Act exclusive legislative 
 powers are granted to the Provincial Legislatures 
 over sixteen specific classes of subjects, No. 16 
 giving a general power to legislate ''on all matters 
 of a merely local or private nature in the province." 
 Now, it might have been expected that this distri- 
 bution of powers would have given rise to serious 
 conflicts of law. To take one possible instance: 
 "Marriage and Divorce" is one of the subjects 
 
12 
 
 enumerated in section 1)1 as confined within the 
 exclusive authority of the Dominion Parliament, 
 and it is evident that the solemnization of marriage 
 would come within this general description ; and yet 
 "solemnization of marriage in the pro^dnce" is 
 one of the subjects enumerated in section 02 as 
 within the exclusive authority of the Provincial 
 Legislatures. Upon this point the Judicial Com- 
 mittee of the Privy Council remarked, in The 
 Cltizem'^ Insurance Company v. Parsons (b), that '^ it 
 could not have been the intention that a conflict 
 should exist ; and in order to prevent such a result, 
 the two sections must be read together, and the 
 language of the one interpreted and, where neces- 
 sary, modified by that of the other." But the only 
 serious conflict that has arisen has been due to the 
 Governor-General in Council exercising his j^ower 
 to veto some Act passed by a Provincial Legislature. 
 Between the years 1867 and 1887 some 8,000 Acts 
 were passed by the Provincial Legislatures, and of 
 these only the infinitesimal number of forty-five 
 were vetoed by the Governor-General as head of 
 the Dominion Executive ; for it will be remembered 
 that the Crown has only power to veto Acts of the 
 Dominion Parliament. Now, this fact alone goes 
 to show tliat the Provincial Legislatures keep well 
 within their rights, and that Dominion statesmen 
 have shown wonderful self-restraint and sound 
 common sense in refraining from harassing the 
 Provincial Legislatures, and from interfering with 
 the free play of local self-government. And, 
 
 (6) L. E., 7 App. Cas. 96. 
 
13 
 
 further, it is notorious that the decisions of the 
 Appeal Court of the Supreme CWrt of Canada, the 
 veto when exercised by the Governor-General in 
 Council, the decisions of the Judicial Committee of 
 the Privy Council, and the veto when exercised by 
 the Crown, have been cheerfully and gracefully 
 acquiesced in by the provinces, and loyally accepted 
 by the Dominion of Canada. 
 
 It will be apparent that the comparison attempted 
 here is not drawn between England and Canada, 
 but has reference to the relations which exist 
 between the Dominion Parliament and the Pro- 
 vincial Legislatures of Canada on the one hand, and 
 the relations to exist under the Government of 
 Ireland Bill, 1893, between the Provincial Legisla- 
 tures in Ireland and the Imperial Parliament of 
 Great Britain on the other. 
 
 As in a Canadian province, so in Ireland, there 
 is to be a Legislative Council and a Legislative 
 Assembly. The Irish Legislative Council, how- 
 ever, unlike its Canadian model, is to be an elective 
 body, and the councillors are to hold office, not for 
 life, but for eight years, one half retiring every 
 fourth year. In these respects, therefore, the con- 
 stitution of the Legislative Council is more demo- 
 cratic than that of its counterpart in Canada. The 
 number of councillors is fixed at forty-eight, and a 
 higher property qualification is required to entitle 
 an elector to vote for a councillor than is necessary 
 in the case of the election of members to the Legis- 
 lative Assembly. This safeguard to the interests 
 of the propertied classes may be said roughly to 
 correspond to the nomination of councillors by 
 
14 
 
 tlie Lieutenant-Governor of a Canadian province, 
 already referred to. 
 
 The Legislative Assembly to be elected on the 
 present Parliamentary franchise is the popular body. 
 It is to be quinquennial instead of being limited to 
 four years, as in the case of the Provincial Legisla- 
 tive Assembly in Canada. 
 
 By section 7 (1) of the Government of Ireland Bill, 
 1893, the Legislative Assembly is to consist of 103 
 members; and by sect. 7 (3), after the expiration of 
 six years from the passing of the Act, the Irish 
 Legislature ''may alter the qualification of the elec- 
 tors and the constituencies, and the distribution of 
 the members among the constituencies, provided that 
 in such distribution due regard is had to the popu- 
 lation of the constituencies." It will be remembered 
 that a Provincial Legislative Assembly is entitled 
 to decide for itself the qualification of both its 
 members and electors, and in 1871 Ontario actually 
 re-arranged the constituencies and increased the 
 Assembly from 82 to 89, and in 1885 the number 
 was further increased to 90. 
 
 The charge is made that by means of this section 
 7 (3) the Irish Legislature will be able to jerrymander 
 the constituencies. This has not been the case in 
 Canada, and there is in the case of Ireland the 
 further fact that such proceedings would be abso- 
 lutely impossible, since it is expressly jDrovided that 
 in any such re-arrangement " due regard" must bo 
 paid to the population of the constituencies. Any 
 such jerrymandering therefore would simply be ipso 
 facto void. With the exception of the retention of 
 the Irish members in the Imperial Parliament, the 
 
 'tmmmmmm-''^ 
 
15 
 
 crucial points in the Bill are the disli'ibution of 
 powers and the siipremacy of the Imperial Parlia- 
 ment. 
 
 The relations to exist between the Irish Legisla- 
 ture and the Imperial Parliament are almost iden- 
 tical with those already described as subsisting 
 between the Dominion Parliament and the Provincial 
 Legislatures in Canada. 
 
 It has ah-eady been pointed out that certain con- 
 flicts of law have arisen in consequence of the incon- 
 sistency of sections 91 and 92 of the British North 
 America Act, 18G7. It will be remembered that 
 each section did not entirely exclude the other, but 
 that certain classes of subjects were included in both, 
 and it was found necessary to appeal to Her Majesty 
 in Council, who by Her Judicial Committee of the 
 Privy Council decided the interpretation to be placed 
 upon the Act. 
 
 Now in the Grovernment of Ireland Bill this 
 blemish has been avoided, and the difficulty there- 
 fore does not exist to the same extent. By section 2 
 of the Bill the powers reserved to the Irish Legisr 
 lature are expressed in general terms, viz.: ''with 
 the exceptions and subject to the restrictions in this 
 Act mentioned there shall be granted to the Irish 
 Legislature power to make laws for the peace, 
 order, and good government of Ireland in respect of 
 matters exclusively relating to Ireland or some part 
 thereof." And then follow sections 3 and 4, contain- 
 ing in specific terms the exceptions and restrictions. 
 It will be observed that the words, ''to make laws 
 for the peace, order, and good government," occur 
 in section 91 of the British North America Act, 1867. 
 
10 
 
 It would appear, then, that there is less likelihood 
 of a conflict of law here than in the case of sections 
 91 and 92 of the British North America Act, 18G7, 
 but if any should arise, by section 213 of the Govern- 
 ment of Ireland Bill special provision is made for 
 appeal to Her Majesty in Council, the question to be 
 heard and determined by the Judicial Committee of 
 the Privy Council. It follows, then, that, if any- 
 thing, Ireland will be placed in a more favourable 
 position than a Canadian province in respect of the 
 distribution of powers. 
 
 By section 5 (1) of the Government of Ireland 
 Bill the supreme executive power is to be vested in 
 Her Majesty the Queen and the Lord Lieutenant ; 
 by (2) an Executive Committee of the Privy Council 
 of Ireland is to be constituted to aid and advise in 
 the government of Ireland; and by (3) "the Lord 
 Lieutenant shall on the advice of the said Executive 
 Committee give or withhold the assent of Her Ma- 
 jesty to Bills passed by the two Houses of the Irish 
 Legislature, subject, nevertheless, to any instruc- 
 tions given by Her Majesty in respect of any such 
 Bill." Here again it will be observed that the Irish 
 Legislature will be in a more favourable position 
 than the Provincial Legislatures, since the Governor- 
 General may veto any Bills passed by the latter 
 bodies, and no appeal lies to Her Majesty. In fact, 
 the supremacy of the Dominion Parliament is abso- 
 lute and has never been impugned by the jjrovinces ; 
 why then should the supremacy of the Imperial 
 Parliament, which is even more absolute, over the 
 Irish Legislature be called in question ? And if we 
 compare the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament 
 
 ■^^trntuMmm nni.t 
 
17 
 
 over the Dominion Parliament of Canada, we find it 
 is as absolute as it will be over the Irish Legislature, 
 since the powers of the Dominion Legislature are 
 restricted by certain express and implied reserva- 
 tions in favour of the Imperial Parliament. The 
 Dominion Parliament cannot impose any duties as 
 between the different provinces, and cannot alter 
 the leading principles of its Constitution. So much 
 so, indeed, that when it was necessary to provide 
 for the representation of the North- West Territories 
 in the Dominion an Imperial Act had to be obtained 
 for the purpose. I shall be told, no doubt, that the 
 conditions in Canada and Ireland are totally dis- 
 similar. I say that if they were not precisely similar 
 they were even less favourable in Canada. Before 
 her first instalment of Home Rule, Canada was in 
 actual rebellion. There existed a powerful Orange 
 party ; there existed a numerous Roman Catholic 
 party. The latter, in Lower Canada for instance, 
 was in a large majority. Further, there existed not 
 only a difference of race, but a difference of lan- 
 guage. It was said that the so-called loyal minority, 
 which posed as the English party, would be oppressed 
 and persecuted by the French Roman Catholic ma- 
 jority. It was said that the Protestant minority 
 would be plundered. And yet none of these appre- 
 hensions were fulfilled. The problem of dealing 
 with various races of different creeds, possessing 
 the strongest national and religious feelings, with 
 minorities and majorities in different provinces, has 
 been solved, on the whole satisfactorily, in Canada. 
 Ireland has now to solve essentially the same 
 problem, and why should Ireland fail where Canada 
 
18 
 
 has succeeded ? It is further objected that the 
 Irish are incapable of governing themselves. The 
 same apprehension was expressed in the case of 
 Canada, and yet with the sense of responsibility 
 came the capacity for self-government. It is also 
 said that Home Rule means something more than 
 local self-government. What if it docs? I have 
 shown that Home Rule, as set forth in the Govern- 
 ment of Ireland Bill, is almost identical with Home 
 Rule in the Canadian provinces, and where it differs 
 it only differs in being slightly more democratic, 
 which is only reasonable, considering the progress 
 in democratic principles that has taken place since 
 the passing of the British North America Act, 1867. 
 The principle of Home Rule under almost precisely 
 the same conditions has solved the problem in 
 Canada ; and why, I ask again, should it fail when 
 applied to Ireland ? 
 
 At any rate, if the analogy which I have drawn 
 is worth anything, appearances are all in favour of 
 the application of this principle to Ireland proving 
 a complete success. The retention of the Irish 
 members at Westminster is, I admit, an anomaly 
 which is not present in the case of Canada, for 
 members of any Provincial Legislative Council or 
 Legislative Assembly are disqualified from sitting 
 in the Dominion House of Commons ; but the 
 anomaly is only technical, since each province is 
 directly represented in the Dominion House of 
 Commons, and so long as Ireland pays her share 
 of the Imperial taxation I fail to see upon what 
 principle the Irish members can be excluded. 
 
 In conclusion, then, Canada, once discontented, 
 
19 
 
 disloyal, and rebellious, has, under Home Rule, be- 
 come peaceful, contented, and tlie most loyal of all 
 our dependencies. The deduction may therefore 
 be fairly drawn, that Ireland, agitated, dis(;ontented, 
 and lawless, will under a similar measure of Home 
 Rule become peaceful, contented, and law^- abiding-, 
 and instead of a source of weakness, will become a 
 tower of strength to Great Britain, and a bond of 
 union to the whole English-speaking race. 
 
 b2 
 
20 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 THE CANADIAN ANALOGY. 
 
 I 
 I 
 
 A REJOINDER TO THE BELFAST v^HAMBER OF COMMERCE. 
 
 If, as I understand, the reply of the Belfast Chamber 
 of Commerce has had in this country a wide circu- 
 lation, it is high time that the specious and plausible 
 arguments of the writer should be exposed and dis- 
 counted ; and if this has not been the case, no harm 
 will ensue by recalling a few of the real facts of 
 Canadian Constitutional and Political History. I 
 shall confine myself, then, in this chapter entirely 
 to that portion of the ''Reply" which deals with the 
 Canadian Analogy. According to the writer of the 
 " Rej)ly," Mr. Gladstone's comparison of Ireland 
 with Canada, is wholly misleading. 
 
 Now there are two analogies which may be drawn 
 in this question. One is the analogy of Ireland with 
 Canada as a whole, and the other is the analogy of 
 the relations which subsist between the Dominion 
 of Canada and her provinces with the relations to 
 come into existence under the Government of Ire- 
 land Bill between Great Britain and Ireland. In 
 my opinion, Mr. Gladstone had both these analogies 
 in his mind when he made a few brief remarks on 
 this question. It is the latter analogy which has 
 
 I. 1 
 
91 
 
 the greatest bearing on the Homo Rulo question ; 
 and it is impossible that Mr. Gladstone, in framing 
 the Government of Ireland Bill on the very same 
 lines as the British North America Act, 1867 (as 
 most undoubtedly have been the case), should have 
 been unaware of this striking analogy. First of all, 
 says the writer of the " Reply," the Canada which 
 Mr. Gladstone described as happy, contented and 
 prosperous, is an entirely different Canada from the 
 Canada of 18.'i7. Of course it is ; the British public 
 does not need a Belfast Chamber of C'Ommerce to 
 inform them of facts which can be obtained from 
 any child's text-book of geography. 
 
 What Mr. Gladstone meant was that the people 
 of the Canada of 18'i7, who were then in actual 
 rebellion, in consequence of the large measure of 
 local self-government granted to them by the Eng- 
 lish Government in 1841, of which he himself was 
 a })rominent member, have become happy, contented, 
 and prosperous. Now what were the causes of this 
 rebellion ? 
 
 The writer of the ''Reply" admits that the re- 
 bellion "arose from the discontent caused by the 
 tyrannical treatment of the Assemblies by the 
 Governors and by the Executive and Legislative 
 Councils, which were not elective bodies ; " but he 
 wisely abstains from going to the root of the ques- 
 tion. It will be as well to describe the exact state 
 of affairs in the Canada of 1834. Canada at that 
 time consisted of the two provinces of Upper and 
 Lower Canada. In Lower Canada it was j^rimarily 
 a struggle between two nations. In the popular or 
 representative Assembly the French element pre- 
 
22 
 
 dominated : in the Executive and Legislative Coun- 
 cil the English and official <;r ruling element were 
 in the ascendancy. This struggle, which was really 
 political, became national. "The Executive Govern- 
 ment and Legislative Council," says Bourinot, " both 
 nominated by the Crown, were virtually the same 
 body in those days. Tlie English-speaking people 
 were those rulors who obstinately contested all the 
 questions raised from time to time by the popular 
 or French party in the Assembly "(a). 
 i'l' The chief struggle took place over the supplies 
 
 and civil list. It is an elementary principle of par- 
 liamentary government all tlie world over that to 
 the popular assembly shall belong, as of right, the 
 exclusive control of supplies and the initiation and 
 control of public expenditure. This the English 
 or official party retained in their own hands, and 
 when the French party in the Assembly refused 
 supplies, the casual and territorial revenues, admi- 
 nistered and appropriated by the Governor and his 
 officials, were used to render their party independent 
 of the Legislature. Hence the cry of the French 
 party for an elective Legislative Council. But this 
 was not their only cry. Judges sat in both houses, 
 and the seignorial land tenure was a constant source 
 of petty annoyances. The British Government 
 yielded so far as to disqualify the judges from sitting 
 in the popular Assembly; but they were still allowed 
 to sit in the Executive and Legislative Councils. 
 In Upper Canada the struggle was not national, 
 
 (a) J. G. Bourinot, "Federal Government iu Canada": John 
 Hopkins, U. S., Tth Series. 
 
23 
 
 but political. It was a contest between officialism 
 and Liberalism. The same constitution existed as 
 in Lower Canada, and caused much the same results. 
 It was a struggle between the executive and official 
 class and the popular Assembly. On this point, 
 referring to both Provinces, Lord Durham said, in 
 his Report, '' I know not how it is possible to secure 
 harmony in any other way than by administering 
 the Govei-nment on those principles which have 
 been found efficacious in Great Britain. I would 
 not impair a single prerogative of the Crown ; . . . . 
 but the Crown must, on the other hand, submit to 
 the necessary consequences of representative insti- 
 tutions; and if it has to carry on the government 
 in unison with a Representative Assembly, it must 
 consent to carry it on by means of those in whom 
 that representative body has confidence "(^). 
 
 With what equal truth might this be aj^plied to 
 Ireland, whose wishes, expressed through its repre- 
 sentatives, are totally ignored by the so-called 
 Unionists! It was thought at the time that the 
 struggle between the two nationalities might be 
 ended by uniting the two Provinces under one 
 Legislature, and accordingly the Act of 1841 was 
 passed. 
 
 '' It is noteworthy," says the writer of the ''Reply," 
 "that the settlement of 1841 was actually an act of 
 Legislative Union;" it '' abolished two legislatures 
 and two executives." But this Union was after- 
 wards found to be d mistake, and the Act of 1867, 
 
 (&) Lord Durham's Eeport, p. 106. 
 
24 
 
 which is also an ''Act of Union," actually separated 
 the two provinces. 
 
 In an argument which purports to be serious, this 
 play upon words is out of place. We on our part 
 maintain that the Government of Ireland Bill will 
 be an '' Act of Union," since it will in reality, and 
 not merely verbally, unite two countries. " But," 
 says the writer of the ''Reply" naively, " the settle- 
 ment of 1841 did not produce contentment;" and 
 then he gives reasons for this discontent, which can 
 only have been evolved out of the brain of one 
 afflicted with "Ulsteria." At any rate it is far from 
 the actual facts of the case. 
 
 By the Act of 1841 an equal number of repre- 
 sentatives in the popular assembly was given to 
 Upper and Lower Canada. Now at this period the 
 population in the latter province was much larger 
 than that of the former, and considerable discontent 
 was shown by the French party ; but as time went 
 on the population of Upper Canada increased so 
 much as to largely out-number that of Lower 
 Canada, and this caused similar discontent on the 
 part of the upper province. Although, therefore. 
 Lower Canada had lost this cause of complaint, 
 there existed other and serious ones. The French 
 language had been abolished by the Act of 1841 in 
 all official documents and jjarliamentary proceed- 
 ings, and this was a source of the most intense 
 annoyance to the French in Lower Canada. A 
 further cause of discontent to both provinces was 
 the absence of that resjDonsible government recom- 
 mended by Lord Durham in the passage quoted 
 above. Owing to the obstinacy of Lord Metcalfe 
 
25 
 
 during his Governor-Generalship, this leading prin- 
 ciple of parliamentary government was not allowed 
 to be apj^lied, and it was not until after the arrival 
 of Lord Elgin in 1847, that the principle of the 
 responsibility of the Cabinet to the popular legisla- 
 ture — without which any constitutional government 
 is unworkable — was established. But although 
 matters ultimately came to a deadlock, much good 
 work was effected in the meantime. It has been 
 seen how the principle of responsible government 
 was established; the popular assembly obtained 
 control thereby over taxation, supply and expendi- 
 ture, and the civil list was placed on a permanent 
 and equitable basis. Municipal institutions, proposed 
 by Lord Durham in his Report "as a matter of 
 vital importance," were firmly established. In 
 Upper Canada the Clergy Reserves question was 
 settled, and the lands sold for public or municipal 
 purposes ; and in the lower province the seigniorial 
 land tenure was abolished. The deadlock which 
 occurred in the legislature arose, then, from the two 
 questions which still remained — viz., the represen- 
 tation according to population demanded by Upper 
 Canada, and resisted by the lower province as an 
 unwarrantable interference with the security gua- 
 ranteed to it under the Act, and the re-introduction 
 of the French language demanded by the lower 
 province, the abolition of which was regarded as a 
 personal insult. So much irritation was thus caused, 
 that all government became practically impossible, 
 and the result was another "Act of Union" — the 
 British North America Act, 1867 — which separated 
 the two provinces, giving to each separate legisla- 
 
26 
 
 tures. The moral to be drawn here is, that when a 
 constitution is distasteful to the majority of the 
 people who live under it, no mere word;?, such as 
 '' Act of Union" will render it workable. That the 
 writer of the '' Reply" should seriously claim this 
 as an argument in his favour is ridiculous, since the 
 Act of Union of 18G7, which centralised the govern- 
 ment for national purjooses, decentralised it as much 
 as possible for local affairs. This is exactly what 
 the Government of Ireland Bill proposes to do ; but 
 according to the writer of the '' Reply," if the 
 Dominion Parliament decentralises, it is an ''Act of 
 Union ; " if Great Britain decentralises, it is an act 
 of separation ! 
 
 After giving an almost complete list, in large 
 type, of the exclusive powers conferred upon the 
 Dominion Parliament, the same writer proceeds : — 
 " The provinces onhj reserved [c) for themselves the 
 exclusive right to legislate on such local matters as 
 the constitution of the province^ the taxation and rais- 
 ing money for provincial purposes, management and 
 sale of provincial lands, establislnnent and manage- 
 ment of prisons, hospitals, asylums, municipal insti- 
 tutions, licences, local works and undertakings, 
 property, and civil rights in the province; the 
 administration of justice, education, and generally 
 all matters of a local or private nature in the pro- 
 vince." Now each of those powers is contained in a 
 separate sub-section of section 92 of the Act, but in 
 the " Reply" they are all lumped together in order 
 to make it appear to the reader as if it was only one 
 
 (c) Tho italica are mine. 
 
27 
 
 
 insignificant section. And the list is not even com- 
 plete. 
 
 These powers are even more ample than those 
 proposed to be given to the Irish Legislature to be 
 created under the Government of Ireland Bill. For 
 instance, ''the powers of the Irish Legislature shall 
 not extend to the making of any law whereby any 
 person may be deprived of life, liberty, or property, 
 without due process of law, or may be denied the 
 equal protection of the laws, or whereby private 
 property may be taken without just compensa- 
 tion "(^0- " * 
 
 Whereas, as has been seen, exclusive powers over 
 
 those matters have been conferred upon the Pro- 
 vincial Legislatures, in Ontario, for example, the 
 municipalities may take land by compulsory pur- 
 chase without any compensation for disturbance and 
 severance, and "the principle of betterment" is 
 well understood and applied in the smallest village 
 municipality (e). 
 
 It is evident, then, that to this extent the powers 
 to be conferred upon the Irish Legislature are not 
 so full as in the case of the Canadian Provincial 
 Legislatures. 
 
 This clearly is an attempt to extol the authority 
 of the Dominion Parliament at the expense of the 
 Provincial Legislatures ; an attempt to belittle pro- 
 vincial institutions in order that the powers proposed 
 to be given to Ireland may appear so much greater 
 than those granted to the provinces. Now it is 
 
 (d) Governmont of Ireland Bill, 1893, s. 4. 
 
 (e) The Consolidated Municipal Act. Statutes of Ontario, 1892. 
 
28 
 
 perfectly evident that the very fullest local self- 
 government has been granted to the provinces of 
 Canada that is compatible with a Central National 
 Parliament. This attempt, therefore, fails, and its 
 very failure is an additional argument in favour not 
 only of the present Government of Ireland Bill, but 
 of a Bill containing even ampler provisions for self- 
 government in Ireland. 
 
 We are then told that the sharp division of race, 
 language, and religion, referred to by Mr. Glad- 
 stone, "is mastered and moderatea by the prepon- 
 derance of other interests which overspread the vast 
 continent comprised in the Dominion. The million 
 of French in Quebec, or the 1,900,000 Roman 
 Catholics witliin the Dominion, find that counter- 
 poise in tlie other races and denominations contained 
 in the 5,000,000 which constitute the Dominion 
 population. The ascendency of provincial majorities 
 is thus absorbed in the representation of the whole 
 Dominion, just as the ascendency of the Irish majority 
 is merged in the Parliament of the United Kingdom." 
 If this be so, what becomes of the argument for the 
 exclusion of the Irish Members from the Imperial 
 Parliament ? and what becomes of the argument that 
 the Irish Members' votes ought not to woigh in 
 deciding the Home Rule question because the 
 majority of the English Members are opposed to it? 
 
 But in the very next paragraph we are told 
 exactly the opposite. In Quebec, we are told, are 
 1,000,000 French Catholics, and 400,000 Protes- 
 tants ; the pretensions of the priests have never 
 been exceeded since the days of Thomas h Becket ; 
 the Courts are impotent to restrain their interference 
 
29 
 
 with civil rights, and the supremacy of the Church 
 is unquestioned. We were told in the preceding 
 paragraph that the 1,000,000 Frenchmen in Quebec 
 find this counterpoise in the other races and denomi- 
 nations. Clearly, then, these two statements cannot 
 both stand. They are illogical in the extreme. 
 Either the million French Catholics iind their coun- 
 terpoise, and the 400,000 Protestants are not op- 
 pressed, or the latter arc oppressed and the former 
 do not find their counterpoise. Even a person 
 afflicted with " Ulstcria " cannot both eat his cake 
 and have it. 
 
 We arc next told that '' one-sixth of the provincial 
 revenue of Quebec is applied to the maintenance of 
 ecclesiastical institutions." Now it appears to me 
 that if rather more than two-thirds of tlic pojwlatioii 
 decide to spend one-sixth of the total revcime in 
 supporting this particular form of religion, when 
 they are entitled to spend two-thirds, they are fully 
 within their rights, although personally I am opposed 
 to all state-aided religions. 
 
 Now what are the facts. In Canada the bulk of 
 direct taxation is levied on real jn-operty. But there 
 are certain exemptions. All Government and public 
 property, places of worship, and a great number of 
 buildings connected with scientific, educational and 
 charitable institutions, are exempt from taxation. 
 
 In the province of Quebec the Church of Rome 
 has accumulated a vast amount of valuable property, 
 especially in and near Quebec and on the Island of 
 Montreal. The value of these exemptions is esti- 
 mated at many millions of dollars. Stienuous exer- 
 tions have been made in the l^ovince of Ontario to 
 
30 
 
 narrow and restrict these exemptions, but without 
 avail ; tlie interests of the Protestant denominations 
 are too powerful, and in Quebec any attempt would 
 be quite futile. The reason for this will be seen 
 when it is stated that the true numbers of Roman 
 Catholics in Quebec is 1,291,969 for the year 1891, 
 out of a total population of 1,488,535, thus leaving 
 196,566 to be accounted for. But even these are 
 not all Protestants; for a large number are pagan 
 Indians, and persons of any or no religious denomi- 
 nation. 
 
 In the Quebec Sessional Papers, 1891 (No. 3), in 
 which are the returns for the year ending 30th 
 June, 1890, under the head of ''Special Expendi- 
 ture," occurs the following item, viz., '' Settlement 
 of the Jesuits' Estates, $400,000." 
 
 The facts of this case are simply these. When 
 the Order of the Jesuits was suppressed in 1773 
 their estates were confiscated by the Imperial autho- 
 rities in 1800, and afterwards transferred to the 
 authorities of the former province of Canada. 
 
 A large portion of these estates was at the time 
 of the confederation ceded to the Province of 
 Quebec. Since the year 1799 repeated protests 
 were made by the heads of the Roman Church, 
 who contended that the property ought to be vested 
 in them. In order to settle this vexatious claim, 
 which had given rise to considerable religious 
 feeling, the Provincial Government offered to settle 
 the claim by paying the sum of $400,000 as a 
 compensation to the Order of the Jesuits which had 
 been revived in 1887. This offer was accepted by 
 the procurator of the Jesuit Fathers, although he 
 
31 
 
 
 had demanded $990,009, and had valued the pro- 
 perty at $2,000,000. The Act of 1888 was accord- 
 ingly passed, which, however, did not admit any 
 legal but only a moral claim on the part of the 
 Order (/). 
 
 The heated controversy which consequently arose 
 was carried to the floor of the Dominion House of 
 Commons. A resolution was formally moved assert- 
 ing that the Government should have at once dis- 
 allowed the Act as beyond the power of the Pro- 
 vincial Legislature. That was defeated by 188 
 to 13. In a minute of the Council, which was 
 approved by the Governor-General, it was declared 
 that '' the subject matter of the Act is one of pro- 
 vincial concern, only having relation to a fiscal 
 matter entirely within the control of the legislature 
 of Quebec." 
 
 Now, according to the Returns for the Province 
 of Quebec, the latest which are yet to hand in this 
 country, viz., those for the year 1890(^), there is not, 
 with the exception of this " special expenditure" of 
 $400,000, a single item which can be described in 
 any manner whatever as '' applied to the mainten- 
 ance of ecclesiastical institutions ; " and, indeed, any 
 such application of revenue would be ultra vires 
 under section 93 of the British North America Act, 
 1867, and the cases which decide the interpretation 
 to be placed on that statute (Ji). 
 
 To represent, therefore, an extraordinary and 
 special payment, which is classed in the returns 
 
 (/) Statutes of Quebec, 1888, Chap. XtU. 
 
 {g) Quebec Sessional Papers, 1891. 
 
 (A) Board of School Trustees v. Granger, 28 Grant, Ch. 570. 
 
32 
 
 under the head of ** special expenditure," as an 
 annual payment of one-sixth of the revenues of the 
 province towards the maintenance of ecclesiastical 
 institutions, is simply scandalous ; and for the credit 
 of the Belfast Chamber of Commerce I can only 
 assume that its executive committee is entirely 
 ignorant of the real facts, and has trusted to the 
 honesty of some party hack. And, moreover, just 
 as in Canada any such application of revenue is 
 illegal, so in Ireland, under the Government of 
 Ireland Bill, the Irish Legisliiure is expressly pro- 
 hibited from making any law '' respecting the estab- 
 lishment or endowment of religion, or prohibit 
 ing the free exercise thereof, whether directly or 
 indirectly "(z). 
 
 The writer continues, "the exchequer is practi- 
 cally empty." Referring to the Returns for 1890, 1 
 find the following : — 
 
 Receipts. Expenditure. 
 
 $ cts. $ cts. 
 
 5,798,940 29 5,273,595 86 
 
 625,344 43 
 
 5,798,940 29 (A-) 
 
 According to the writer of the "Reply," a balance 
 of over half a million dollars really means an ex- 
 chequer which is practically empty. Again, " and 
 in order to make both ends meet, the commercial 
 classes — notably those of Montreal — are subjected 
 to special taxation." 
 
 (?■) Government of Ireland Bill, sect. 4(1). 
 (A;) Quebac Sessional Papers, 1891, No. 3. 
 
 '' ■ f* 
 
33 
 
 Now there is an Act(/) by which certain direct 
 taxes have been imposed on certain commercial 
 corporations throughout the province of Quebec, 
 and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council 
 have upheld the Canadian Courts in deciding that 
 this statute is intra vires (m). 
 
 The mere assertion, unsupported by any evidence 
 of any sort or kind, that the commercial classes of 
 Montreal are subjected to special taxation, I decline 
 to believe. As far as I have been able to ascertain, 
 there is not a word of truth in this assertion. 
 
 The statement that '^ The Courts of law have 
 shown themselves in well-known instances impotent 
 to restrain the interference of the ecclesiastical autho- 
 rities with civil rights," is also a mere assertion, as 
 groundless as the preceding. In fact, the Act of 1 888, 
 imposing certain direct taxes on certain commercial 
 corporations, was originally passed in 1882, and was 
 declared by the Superior Court of Quebec to be 
 ultra vires. The Court of Queen's Bench of the pro- 
 vince of Quebec, however, reversed this decision 
 of Mr. Justice Raiuville by the majority of three 
 judges to two, and the Judicial Committee of the 
 Privy Council affirmed the decree of the Court of 
 Queen's Bench (n). 
 
 Only one other statement calls for any remark. 
 The rest are entirely beside the question. A quota- 
 tion from Mr. Justin McCarthy's History is given, 
 with approval. It is : ''so far as one may judge of 
 
 (1) Statutes of Quebec, 1888, c. xi. 
 (m) Ba7ik of Toronto y. Lamhey L. Ei 12 App. Cas. 575. 
 In) Ihid. 
 B. C 
 
 IBI 
 
34 
 
 tho tendencies of modern times, it would seem that 
 the inclination is to the formation of great State 
 systems. Tho days of small independent States 
 seem to be over." Now, whether this statement is 
 absolutely accurate I shall not question here ; but it is 
 obvious to anyone who takes the trouble to read 
 the signs of the times that the modern tendency is 
 centralization for national purposes, combined with 
 decentralization in local affairs. 
 
 In conclusion, then, I may fairly claim that the 
 writer of tho '' Reply" has entirely failed to prove 
 his case. His statements are either devoid of foun- 
 dation, or inaccurate, or inconsistent, and his con- 
 clusions are consequently worthless. No one with 
 any real knowledge of Canadian affairs will venture 
 to assert that the Canadian Constitution has not on 
 the whole been a complete success, much less that it 
 has broken down. Of course, the Dominion Parlia- 
 ment and the Provincial Legislatures have made 
 mistakes from time to time ; but what constitutional 
 government has not? ''Our English Parliament," 
 said Mr. Gladstone recently in the House, ''has 
 made a multitude of gross and culpable mistakes, 
 and has adhered to them, fought for them, and 
 maintained them"(o). To all, therefore, who ac- 
 cuse Canadians of failure in national or local govern- 
 ment I would say, " He that is without sin among 
 you, let him first cast a stone." 
 
 (o) Times, 21 Juno, 1893. 
 
35 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 LORD RANDOLPH CHURCIIILL ON THE CANADIAN 
 CONSTITUTION. 
 
 A REPLY. 
 
 Upon his rc-appearance in the field of English 
 politics, Lord Randolph Churchill, fresh from his 
 victories in Mashonaland, has assumed the role of a 
 constitutional lawyer. In the May number of the 
 Westminster Rcvietv, I pointed out the close analogy 
 of the relations which subsist between the Dominion 
 Parliament of Canada and the Provincial Legislatures 
 with the relations to be created by the Government 
 of Ireland Bill between the Imperial Parliament 
 and the Irish Legislature. I also pointed out that 
 the conditions under which Home Rule was granted 
 to Canada were much the same as the present con- 
 ditions in Ireland. In his speech, delivered at 
 Macclesfield on June 7(«), Lord Randolph urged 
 upon his audience the completeness of this analogy. 
 He is reported to have said, " this is the comparison 
 I propose to draw. . . . You must contrast the 
 relationship between the Dominion Parliament of 
 Canada and its Provincial Legislatures with the 
 
 (a) See Times, June 8, 1893, and Manclmkr Courier, same date. 
 
 r2 
 
36 
 
 relations of the Imperial Parliament and the Irish 
 Legislature. Thus you will get a perfect exemplifi- 
 cation and a perfect picture of what has happened 
 in Canada and what must happen in Ireland." 
 Moreover, lie insisted again and again that the 
 circumstances under which the Canadian Constitu- 
 tion was created are precisely similar to those which 
 surround the Irish question to-day. But then ho 
 attempted to show how, in practice, this Canadian 
 Constitution has utterly broken down and has re- 
 sulted in miserable failure, and that the same result 
 is inevitable in Ireland under the present Bill. 
 Now, here I join issue, and I shall endeavour to 
 prove that this assertion of failure is entirely 
 unsupported by the evidence adduced by Lord 
 Randolph, and, on the contrary, is quite at variance 
 with the real facts of Canadian political history. 
 
 Lord Randolph commences his course of instruc- 
 tion in constitutional law by telling his audience 
 that the Dominion Parliament of Canada consists of 
 two Chambers — a Senate, and a House of Commons. 
 This Parliament, he says, "can, and does, and is 
 entitled to legislate and govern unrestrained on 
 every matter which ij of any concern to Canada — 
 just the position which the Imperial Parliament of 
 England occupies towards the Irish Parliament 
 which is proposed." Now, the Dominion Parlia- 
 ment consists of the Queen, a Senate, and a House 
 of Commons, and, so far from being able to legislate 
 as it pleases, any alteration in its constitution can 
 only be effected by an Imperial Statute (b). 
 
 {h) Seep. 17. 
 
37 
 
 Mr. Justice Gray, in his judgment in the Chinese 
 Tax case, said, ''The British North America Act, 
 1867, was framed not as altering or defining the 
 changed or relative j^ositions of the provinces 
 towards the Imperial Government, but solely as 
 between themselves ; " that the Imperial Parliament, 
 '' as the paramount or sovereign authority, could 
 not be restrained from future legislation. The 
 British North America Act, 1867, was intended to 
 make legal an agreement which the jirovinces 
 decided to enter into as between themselves, but 
 which, not being sovereign states, they had no 
 power to make. It was not intended as a declara- 
 tion that the Imperial Government renounced any 
 part of its authority." 
 
 Lord Randolph goes on to inform his audience 
 that the great object of the Act was the protection 
 of minorities, and to attain this object a number of 
 ** paper safeguards" were inserted. The principal 
 *' safeguard," continues Lord Randolph, was the 
 institution of second Chambers. " In the begin- 
 ning," says his Lordship, " all the provinces had 
 Second Chambers, except Ontario and British 
 Columbia, and those provinces only entered the 
 Union with Canada on the condition that they had 
 no Second Chamber. ... It cannot bo said 
 there is any unfairness in their election. The 
 Members of the Second Chamber arc elected by the 
 people." Now, unfortunately for his Lordship, in 
 none of the Second Chambers, except in that of 
 Prince Edward's Island, are the Members elected by 
 the people. They are nominated by the Lieutenant- 
 Governors of the respective provinces. Legislative 
 
38 
 
 Councils in Canada have been, and are, in process 
 of being abolislied, chiefly because they are non- 
 elective bodies; secondly, because minorities are 
 sufficiently protected by law ; and thirdly, by reason 
 of their expense. 
 
 In Ontario, previous to 1867, a long struggle had 
 been going on between the Legislative and Execu- 
 tive Councils, whose members were nominated by 
 the Crown, and the popular Assembly ; all reforms 
 were obstinately contested and opposed by this 
 official class, and it was not until, in 1848, when the 
 principle of the resj^onsibility of the Cabinet to the 
 majority in the popular Assembly was recognized, 
 that any constitutional government became possible. 
 With the knowledge of these facts before them, it 
 shoidd not be a matter of surprise that the people of 
 Ontario determined to abolish their Second Chamber. 
 Second Chambers, then, being non-elective in Canada, 
 but elective in the proposed Irish Legislature, the 
 whole of Lord Randolph's argument on this point 
 falls to the ground. 
 
 The next ''paper safeguard" referred to by Lord 
 Randolph is the power of veto residing in the 
 *' Viceroy and the Colonial Governors." This veto, 
 according to Lord Randolph, ''is perfectly useless, 
 because it never makes its appearance; and if it 
 does it is immediately resisted and put out of the 
 way by the Legislature. That has been the result 
 of the supreme veto of the Viceroy of the Dominion 
 Government in Canada." Now what is the true 
 history of the exercise of the veto in Canada? 
 First, the Lieutenant-Governor of a province must 
 assent to, veto or reserve for the consideration of 
 
39 
 
 the Governor-General all Bills passed by the Pro* 
 vincial Legislature (c). Now this power of veto is 
 seldom exercised by a Lieutenant-Governor. Pro- 
 vincial Acts are frequently referred to the Supreme 
 Court of the province, from whence an appeal lies 
 to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. 
 Whenever the Lieutenant-Governor has assented to 
 a Bill he must send a copy thereof to the Governor- 
 General. Secondly, the Governor-General, within 
 one year from the receipt of a Provincial Act 
 assented to by a Lieutenant-Governor, may disallow 
 the same, and where a Provincial Bill has been 
 reserved for his consideration, the same has no 
 operation unless within one year from the date of 
 its reser ation it receives the assent of the Governor- 
 General. A lengthy correspondence took place 
 between the Dominion authorities and the Home 
 Office as to the powers of the Crown over provincial 
 legislation. It was finally settled, in 1877, that the 
 Governor-General could only disallow Provincial 
 Acts in Council, i.e., on the advice of his ministers, 
 and as a matter of fact, ever since the British North 
 America Act, 1867, tlio Governor-General has in- 
 variably so acted. It is, therefore, now established 
 that the Crown cannot interfere with provincial 
 legislation. This power has been exercised with 
 extreme caution, and comparatively seldom. 
 
 Of the 8,000 Acts passed by the Provincial Legis- 
 latures in the years 1867 to 1887, only forty-five 
 have been disallowed. This small number is 
 attributed by Lord Randolph to the impotency and 
 
 (c) Britielx North America Act, 1867, 6. 90, 
 
40 
 
 fear of the Dominion Parliament. 13 ut tliid is not 
 so. The real reason is this : where such Acts are 
 altogether illegal and unconstitutional, they are fre- 
 quently so declared by the Supreme Court of the 
 province; e.g., Mr. Justice Grray, of the Supreme 
 Court of British Columbia, decided the Chinese Tax 
 Bill, 1878, to be ultra vires, and consequently uncon- 
 stitutional and void {d). 
 
 Where such Acts are partially illegal, or unconsti- 
 tutional, or prejudicial to the general interests of the 
 Dominion, the usual practice is to give the Provincial 
 Legislature the opportunity of considering and dis- 
 cussing the objection raised, and of remedying the 
 same. And, as a general rule. Provincial Bills are so 
 amended, and consequently the veto of the Governor- 
 General is not called into operation. And, moreover, 
 by the Act which established, in 1875 (e), the Supreme 
 and Exchequer Courts of the Dominion, provision is 
 made whereby special jurisdiction is conferred on 
 those Courts in all controversies between the 
 Dominion and a province, or between the provinces, 
 or relating to the validity of Provincial Laws, wher- 
 ever any province has passed an Act agreeing to 
 such jurisdiction. Such Acts have already been 
 passed by British Columbia in 1882 (/), by Nova 
 Scotia in 1884 (^), and by Ontario in 1887 (7^). 
 From these Courts an appeal lies to the Judicial 
 Committee of the Privy Council by permission of 
 the Judicial Committee. 
 
 (d) Brit. Col. Soss. Papers, 1879. 
 (e) 38 Vict. c. 11. (sr) N. S. R. S., 1884, c. 111. 
 
 (/) B. C, 45 Vict. c. 2. [h) 0. R. S., 1887, c. 42. 
 
BB 
 
 41 
 
 Thirdly, the Governor-General in Council must 
 assent to, veto, or reserve for the consideration of the 
 Crown, all Bills passed by the Dominion Parliament. 
 Previous to 1878, the old practice was to reserve 
 certain Bills. Of the twenty-one Bills thus reserved, 
 eleven received the royal assent. Finally, the Queen 
 in Council may disallow any Act of the Dominion 
 Parliament, even where assented to by the Governor- 
 General in Council, within two years after the receipt 
 of a copy thereof, which must be immediately for- 
 warded to the Secretary of State. Since 1878, it 
 has not been the custom for the Governor-General 
 to reserve Bills, as the power above described is 
 considered sufficient for all purposes. During the 
 years 1841 to 1867, nine Acts of the Canadian 
 Legislature were disallowed by the Crown. 
 
 It will have been observed that this right of inter- 
 ference has been very sparingl}^ exercised by the 
 Crown. And this is put down by Lord Randolph 
 to the weakness of the Crown's supremacy. ]3ut 
 this is far from being the case. The Crown has 
 acted upon the principle of never interfering, if 
 possible, with Colonial legislation, except where it 
 is of an imperial nature, or an infringement of some 
 constitutional principle. It is the usual practice of 
 the Crown, not only in the case of Canada but of 
 all the Colonies and dependencies, to point out, in 
 despatches from the Secretary of State to the 
 Governor, any errors, defects, or omissions, and to 
 caution Colonial Legislatures as to the spirit in 
 which certain exceptional powers should be exer- 
 cised so as to avoid abuse or oppression. And this 
 practice has resulted in benefit to the Colonies 
 
42 
 
 without any loss to them of their rights of local self- 
 government (i). 
 
 As illustrations of this alleged failure of the veto, 
 Lord Randolph quotes the cases of Mr. '' Letaillo " 
 St. Just, Mr. Mercier, and the Manitoba Railway 
 Bill. I will deal with each in detail. Unfortu- 
 nately for Lord Randolph, neither the ease of the 
 Hon. Letellier de St. Just, nor of Mr. Mercier, have 
 anything to do with the princi2)le of the veto. The 
 facts of the Letellier case are briefly these: — In 1878, 
 M. Letellier dismissed his Ministers, who had the 
 confidence of the majority in the Legislature. A 
 petition by certain members of the dismissed 
 Ministry, praying for the dismissal of M. Letellier, 
 was presented to the Governor-General. This peti- 
 tion was commu n'cated to the Dominion Parliament. 
 The two Houses disagreed upon the merits of the 
 case, but in the following year both Houses united 
 in censuring the dismissal of the Quebec Ministry. 
 Upon the Cabinet advising the removal of M. Le- 
 tellier, the Governor-General sought the advice of 
 the Home Office. 
 
 Sir M. Hicks-Beach, the Colonial Secretary, 
 replied, " that there can be no doubt that the 
 Lieutenant-Governor of a province has an unques- 
 tionable right to dismiss his Ministers, if from any 
 cause he feels it incumbent upon him to do so. In 
 the exercise of this right .... he should of 
 course maintain the impartiality towards rival 
 political parties which is essential to the projier 
 performance of the duties of his office ; and for any 
 
 (i) Todd. Tarl. Govt, ia tho Colonies, p. 128. • i 
 
^ 
 
 43 
 
 action ho may take, he is directly responsible to the 
 Governor-General," and that the Governor-General 
 must act ''by and with the advice of his Ministers;" 
 and accordingly M. Locellicr was removed by an 
 Order in Council dated 25 July, 1879. The merits 
 of this case were, and arc, the subject of much dispute 
 in Canada. It was the first case of the removal of a 
 Lieutenant-Governor by the Dominion authorities ; 
 and although it may be doubted whether the action 
 of the Lieutenant-Governor was wise, and whether 
 the Dominion Parliament was wise in taking the 
 initiative for his removal, this case established the 
 principle that the Governor-General ought to act 
 by and with the advice of his Ministers in purely 
 Canadian affairs. In this case the question of veto 
 was not, and could not be, raised. 
 
 In December, 1891, M. Mercier was dismissed by 
 Mr. Angers, the Lieutenant-Governor of Quebec, 
 on the grounds of corruption. In November, 1892, 
 M. Mercier and M. Pacaud, his financial agent, were 
 indicted for malfeasance in ofiice, and acquitted. 
 Mr. Angers Avas not removed by the Dominion 
 Government, but resigned this year, and was aj)- 
 l)ointed Minister of Agriculture to the Dominion ; 
 and even if he had been dismissed, this case would 
 not have been an illustration of the exercise of the 
 veto. It is merely an instance of the same constitu- 
 tional principle as that involved in the Letellier 
 case. 
 
 Now, what are the facts of the Manitoba Railway 
 question. By its contract with the Canadian Pa- 
 cific Railway Company, tlie Dominion Parliament 
 had granted a monopoly of trafiic within certain 
 limits for the period of twenty years to the Pacific 
 
44 
 
 Company. Tlio Government of Manitoba, how- 
 ever, conceived it to be within its powers to con- 
 struct railways wherever it saw fit, and accordingly 
 passed two Acts in 1886 incorporating certain 
 railways within the restricted limits, and, in 1887, 
 an Act incorporating the Rock Lake, Louis Valley 
 and Brandon Railway Company. These Acts were 
 disallowed by the Dominion Government. Now, 
 here clearly was a case for compromise. 
 
 Legally, the Dominion Parliament was bound, and 
 constitutionally it was entitled, to disallow the Acts. 
 Constitutionally, the province was entitled to con- 
 struct railways within the province. The dispute 
 was settled in a manner honourable to both dis- 
 putants alike, as such disputes ought to be settled. 
 
 The Manitoban Railway Acts were allowed, and 
 the Canadian Pacific Railway Company was com- 
 pensated for the loss of its exclusive privileges. It 
 may be mentioned that Railway Acts of British 
 Columbia, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia have 
 been disallowed for similar reasons, viz., that they 
 were contrary to the railway policy of the Dominion. 
 
 Lord Randolph then proceeds to give what he 
 professes to call a '^ detailed history " of the Mani- 
 toba School legislation question. The Protestants 
 in this province, says his lordship, being in a 
 majority, have gone " in for Anti-Catholic legis- 
 lation, and have passed a laAv abolishing the separate 
 schools for the Catholics which had been guaranteed 
 by the Dominion Parliament. . . . The Lieu- 
 tenant-Governor could not exercise his veto . , , 
 and the Dominion Government did not dare to veto ; 
 perhaps the most unjust act on the part of a majority 
 towards a minority which was ever passed in the 
 
^<M 
 
 45 
 
 history of Canada. They left the matter to the 
 Courts, and the Privy Council decided that the 
 original Act of the Province was not strong enough 
 to support the claim of separate schools." This 
 resulted, continues his lordship, in a minority being 
 '' deprived of all educational resources and of the 
 exercise of its power," and a '' Government com- 
 pletely thwarted, completely baffled, and obliged to 
 give it up." His lordship here appeals to history. 
 Let history then decide the issue between us. 
 
 The facts of this question were clearly stated by 
 Lord Macnaghten, who delivered the judgment of 
 their lordships ujion the hearing of the appeals 
 before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Coun- 
 cil {k). 
 
 These two appeals were heard together. One 
 was an appeal from the judgment of the Supreme 
 Court of Canada, which had reversed the judgment 
 of the Court of Queen's I^ench for Manitoba, which 
 had declared the Public Schools Act of 1890 to be 
 valid. The other was an appeal from the subse- 
 quent judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench for 
 Manitoba following the judgment of the Supreme 
 Court. '' The judgments under appeal," says Lord 
 Macnaghten in his judgment, " quashed certain 
 bye-laws of the City of Winnipeg which authorized 
 assessments for school purposes in pursuance of the 
 Public Schools Act, 1890, a statute of Manitoba to 
 which Roman Catholics and members of the Church 
 of England alike take exception. The views of 
 
 {h) City of Winnipeg V, Barrett; City of tl'tnnipeg y. Logan, "L. E. 
 (1892) App. Ca. 445. 
 
46 
 
 the Roman Catholic Church were maintained by 
 Mr. Barrett ; the case of the Church of England was 
 put forward by Mr. Logan." Instead, then, of this 
 being a fight between Protestants and Roman Catho- 
 lics for the possession of the schools, both those 
 bodies appear before the Privy Council making 
 common cause against the non-sectarian school 
 party. Previous to Manitoba becoming a province 
 of the Dominion in 1871, the system of education 
 was voluntary and denominational ; after the union 
 a system of denominational education was estab- 
 lished. The denominational schools formed under 
 this system were supported partly by the province 
 and partly by special school rates. Lord Mac- 
 naghten remarks, '' it is, perhaps, not out of place 
 to observe that one of the modes prescribed was 
 ' assessment on the property of the school district,' 
 which must have involved, in some cases at any rate, 
 an assessment on Roman Catholics for the support 
 of a Protestant school, and an assessment on Protes- 
 tants for the support of a Roman Catholic school." 
 From 187G, however, until 1890, enactments were 
 in force declaring that in no case should a Protestant 
 ratepayer be obliged to pay for a Roman Catholic 
 school, or a Roman Catholic ratepayer for a Protes- 
 tant school. 
 
 "In 1890," continues Lord Macnaghten, ''the 
 policy of the past nineteen years is reversed ; the 
 denominational system was entirely swept away. 
 Two Acts in relation to education were passed. 
 The first (53 Vict. c. 37) established a department 
 of education, and a board consisting of seven 
 members, known as the ' Advisory Board.' .... 
 
47 
 
 One of tlic powers of the Advisory Board was to 
 proscribe the forms of the religious exercises to bo 
 used in schools." 
 
 The second (53 Vict. c. 88) enacted ''that all 
 Protestant and Koman Catholic School districts 
 should be subject to the provisions of the Act, and 
 that all public schools should be free schools." The 
 provisions relating to religion are as follows : — 
 
 '' 6. Religious exercises in the public schools shall 
 be conducted according to the regulations of the 
 Advisory Board. The time for such religious exer- 
 cises shall be just before the closing hour in the 
 afternoon. In case the parent or guardian of any 
 pupil notifies the teacher that he does not wish such 
 pupil to attend such religious exercises, then such 
 pupil shall be dismissed before such religious exer- 
 cises take place. 
 
 '' 7. Religious exercises shall be held in a public 
 school entirely at the option of the school trustees 
 for the district, and upon receiving written autho- 
 rity from the trustees, it shall be the duty of the 
 teacher to hold such religious exercises. 
 
 ''8. The public schools shall be entirely non-sec- 
 tarian, and no religious exercises shall be allowed 
 therein except as above provided." 
 
 The Act further provides for the formation, altera- 
 tion, and union of school districts, for the election 
 of school trustees, and for levying a rate on the 
 taxable property in each school district for school 
 purposes. The refusal to pay these rates, both by 
 the Church of England as well as by the Roman 
 Catholic party, led to the present actions. The 
 question the Privy Council bad to decide was, 
 
48 
 
 whether the Public School Acts, 1890, of Manitoba 
 were ultra vires or not. Their Lordships decided 
 that these Acts were not tiltra vires. It was agreed by 
 all parties to the dispute that, previous to the union, 
 there was no law, or regulation, or ordinance relat- 
 ing to education in force. Their LordshijJS found, 
 therefore, that there were '' no rights or privileges 
 with resjoect to denominational schools existing by 
 law"; consequently none could have been abolished. 
 They found that certain exemptions in favour of 
 Roman Catholics existed under the Acts, whereas no 
 such corresponding exemptions were to be made in 
 the case of Protestants. "Notwithstanding the 
 Public Schools Act, 1890," continues Lord Mac- 
 naghten, "Roman Catholics and members of every 
 other religious body througliout the province are 
 free to establish schools throughout the province; 
 they are free to maintain their schools by school 
 fees or voluntary subscriptions; they are free to 
 conduct their schools according to their own religious 
 tenets without molestation or interference. No child 
 is compelled to attend a public school. No special 
 advantage, other than the advantage of r )duca- 
 
 tion in schools conducted under pubV vgement, 
 
 is held out to those who do attend. ^s said that 
 
 it is impossible for Roman Catholics, or for members 
 of the Church of England, to send their children to 
 public schools when the education is not superin- 
 tended and directed by the authorities of their church, 
 and that, therefore, Roman Catholics and members 
 of the Church of England who are taxed for public 
 schools, and at the same time feel themselves com- 
 pelled to support their own schools, are in a less 
 
49 
 
 favourable position than those who can take advan- 
 tage of the free education provided by the Act of 
 1 890. That may bo so. But what right or privilege 
 is violated or prejudicially affected by the law? It 
 is not the law which is in fault. It is owing to the 
 religious convictions which every one must respect, 
 and to the teaching of their Church, that Roman 
 Catholics and members of the Church of England 
 find themselves unable to partake of advantages 
 which the law offers to all alike " (/). 
 
 Clearly, then, this was a struggle between the 
 denominational school party, and the non-sectarian 
 or free school party. It may be compared to the 
 contest between our board and national schools 
 here. Denominational education has been the chief 
 obstacle to the advance of civilization : it has been 
 the curse of every country of the old and new 
 world alike, and I rejoice to find that the party of 
 progress in Manitoba has so far prevailed. 
 
 According to Lord Randolph, the Lieutenant- 
 Governor could not exercise his veto. He could 
 have done so if he had considered the action of his 
 Minister unconstitutional. He did not think so, 
 and, as matters turned out, was right in so thinking. 
 Then we are told the Dominion Government was 
 afraid to exercise its veto. The whole question 
 was raised and discussed in the House of Commons 
 on March 6, 1893, and two subsequent sittings, and 
 that House wisely determined that the question was 
 one for the decision of the Courts, which had been 
 
 - (/) Pp. 457, 458, L. E. (1892) App. Cas. 
 
 B. . , r : ^ D 
 
s^ 
 
 m 
 
 established to decide questions of this character; 
 and accordingly the House refused to interfere, 
 although the Premier, Sir John Thompson, ex- 
 pressly stated that the Government was prepared 
 to consider any remedial legislation that might be 
 found necessary. Writing in the spring of this 
 year upon this question. Professor George Bxyce 
 stated that Mr. Laurier was mistaken in saying 
 that the new schools in Maritoba were Protestant 
 schools. '' Out of 719 schools in Manitoba in 1890, 
 when the Act was passed, ninety-one were Eoman 
 Catholic, which are still under Catholic trustees, so 
 that there can be no possibility of a Protestant 
 bias " (m). 
 
 Because, argues Lord Eandolph, the Protestant 
 majority have oppressed the Catholic minority in 
 Manitoba, the Catholic majority in Ireland will 
 oppress the Protestant minority under Home Rule. 
 This is hardly logical, and, as I have shown, the 
 Manitoba school question was not a case of Pro- 
 testant V. Catholic at all ; and even if it were, the 
 conclusion drawn by his Lordship would not neces- 
 sarily follow. So far, the only religious persecu- 
 tion which has taken place in Ireland of late years 
 has been exercised by Protestants against Roman 
 Catholics. There has not, exclaimed Mr. James 
 Bryce recently in the House of Commons, been a 
 single case of persecution of Protestants by Catho- 
 lics within the last ten years. But, on the other 
 hand, as is well known beyond all dispute, there 
 have been numerous instances of oppression and 
 
 {m) Canadian Gazette, 4 May, 1893. 
 
51 
 
 persecution of Catholics by Protestants in the north 
 of Ireland. 
 
 *' In 1868," we are told, ''Nova Scotia sought to 
 have the Union repealed." Now, according to 
 Lord Randolph, in 1868 Nova Scotia voluntarily- 
 entered the Union. Further comment is needless. 
 Nova Scotia has never sought to repeal the Union. 
 
 In 1870, declares his Lordship, Manitoba rose in 
 rebellion against the Canadian Government. Lord 
 Wolseley's Red River Expedition is, of course, 
 common history, but the causes which brought it 
 about are perhaps less generally known. In 1869 
 the Dominion Government agreed to purchase from 
 the Hudson Bay Company their territories known 
 as Rupert's Land for £300,000. In this tract of 
 land were included the Red River Settlements, 
 isolated colonies of half-bred French-Canadians and 
 English and Scotch descendants of the Company's 
 old servants. 
 
 The Company, without in any way consulting 
 the wishes of the inhabitants, simply handed over 
 these vast territories to the Dominion for so much 
 cash. The Red River settlors, more particularly 
 the half-breeds, determined to resist, and proclaimed 
 Louis Riel as President of the Republic of the 
 North- West. In the internal struggles which then 
 took place between the two parties in the Republic 
 occurred the murder of Hugh Scott, a leader of the 
 party favourable to the Dominion. It was only 
 subsequently to this event that Rupert's Land was 
 conveyed to the Dominion Government, which 
 determined at once to take possession by force. 
 The expedition under Colonel Wolseley reached 
 
 d2 
 
62 
 
 Fort Garry, the liead-quarters of the new Republic, 
 on 23rd August, 1870, only to find Riel had fled. 
 Not a shot was fired. The troops were enthusiasti- 
 cally received by the party favourable to Canada, 
 and met with no opposition from the disaffected. 
 On 29th June, 1871, the Red River Settlements 
 entered the Union as the Province of Manitoba. 
 To call this affair a rebellion of Manitoba against 
 the Canadian Government, and to give it as an 
 illustration of the failure of the Central Govern- 
 ment of Canada, is an obvious absurdity. At the 
 time of the so-called rebellion Manitoba had no 
 existence. 
 
 ''In 1871," says Lord Randolph, ''the New 
 Brunswick Provincial Legislature abolished the 
 rights of the Catholic minority, and did away with 
 their separate schools." What are the facts ? By 
 the "Act relating to Common Schools, 1871," non- 
 sectarian common schools were established through- 
 out the province, and all ratepayers were assessed 
 and rated for their support. Nothing was abolished. 
 Under section 93 of the British North America Act, 
 1867, the separate schools already in existence could 
 not be interfered with, and no attempt is made in 
 this Act of 1871 to do so. The Roman Catholics 
 appealed, on the ground that the assessment was 
 ultra vires. " The supremacy of the Imperial Par- 
 liament," continues Lord Randolph, " was invoked 
 in vain." This is quite true, but why ? Because all 
 the authorities, both of the Dominion as well as of 
 England, the Minister of Justice in Canada, the 
 Courts, the Colonial Secretary of State, and the 
 Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, were of 
 
53 
 
 the opinion that the Legislature had the right to 
 enforce those assessments, and had acted legally 
 within the powers conferred upon them by the Act 
 of 1867, and that the Act was entirely intra vires 
 and constitutional. 
 
 *'In 1876," says Lord Randolph, "there was 
 such an agitation for separation in British Columbia 
 that the Government was compelled to expend large 
 sums of money on British Columbian railways." 
 What is the real history ? 
 
 By section 1 1 of the Order in Council (w), which 
 brought British Columbia within the Dominion of 
 Canada, the Government agreed to connect the sea- 
 board of British Columbia with the railway system 
 of Canada, to commence the work within two years, 
 and to complete it within ten years from the date 
 of the Union. This agreement the Government 
 neglected to carry out within the prescribed time, 
 and accordingly, after a formal remonstrance to 
 the Dominion Parliament in 1873, the Provincial 
 Legislature deputed two of its Ministers to proceed 
 to England to petition her Majesty. Before their 
 arrival, however, the Earl of Carnarvon, in a dis- 
 patch to the Governor-General, dated 18th June, 
 1874, offered his services as arbitrator. This offer, 
 and the subsequent terms of the arbitration, were 
 frankly accepted by both parties. In consequence 
 of the magnitude of the undertaking, further delay 
 took place and occasioned much irritation. This 
 was allayed by a visit of the Governor-General, 
 Lord Dufferin, to the province in order to deliver 
 
 (n) Dated 16th May, 1871. ... 
 
64 
 
 an address on the subject and to vindicate the 
 Government from the imputation of bad faith. It 
 is common knowledge that the railway was at last 
 completed to the entire satisfaction of all concerned. 
 To call this dispute an agitation for separation is 
 absurd, and to assert that the Government were 
 obliged to expend large sums of money to prevent 
 this threatened separation is even more ridiculous. 
 The Government was merely fulfilling its part of 
 the agreement of 1871. 
 
 Lord Eandolph then proceeds to talk largely of 
 the secessionist and annexation party. Now, it is 
 well known that this party is an extremely Sx^iall 
 and insignificant one in Canada, and has no hold 
 whatever on the mass of the nation. What little 
 influence it has acquired has been obtained from its 
 advocacy of the commercial union with the United 
 States. All Canadian writers, and almost the whole 
 Canadian press, unite in pointing to the growing 
 strength of the feeling of nationality throughout the 
 Dominion. 
 
 "In 1882," according to Lord Randolph, "the 
 Farmers' Union advocated secession and annexation 
 to America, and they immediately received very 
 much better terms for their agricultural conditions, 
 and for the laws which regulated the tenure of their 
 land." Whether the first assertion is correct or not 
 I have been unable to ascertain, but I have been 
 equally unable to find any proof of these "better 
 terms " extorted from the Dominion under threat of 
 secession. The only Acts relating to agriculture 
 passed by the Dominion Parliament between 1882 
 and 1886, are two Acts to prevent fraud in the manu- 
 
r^rr 
 
 55 
 
 facture and sale of agricultural fertilizers (o), and an 
 Act respecting Experimental Farm Stations (/?). I 
 can scarcely believe that these Acts, beneficial as no 
 doubt they are, could have prevailed so far with the 
 secessionist Farmers' Union as to convert them into 
 loyal and contented subjects ! If, however, this is 
 the case, Canadian farmers are extremely easy to 
 please. 
 
 Lord Randolph recently informed the House of 
 Commons that Professors, when they talk politics, 
 always talk nonsense. This is rather hard, by the 
 way, on Professor Dicey and his "Leap in the Dark" ; 
 but then the professor considers that there is no 
 analogy between Home Rule in Canada and Home 
 Rule in L^eland; whereas Lord Randolph, on the 
 contrary, msists that there is. Generalisations are 
 always dangerous, and I cannot help thinking that 
 if his lordship had asserted that politicians when 
 they talk law sometimes talk nonsense, he would have 
 more accurately defined his own position. As a Pro- 
 fessor of Constitutional Law and Political History, 
 his lordship cannot be said to have added to his 
 reputation. He is wrong in his law and wrong in 
 his facts. Almost every statement is either abso- 
 lutely devoid of foundation or inaccurate, and con- 
 sequently, his conclusions are erroneous, and, in 
 several instances, assuming the premises to be 
 correct, are illogical. And then, after proving him- 
 self to be completely ignorant of Canada, her 
 institutions and history, with an assurance only 
 
 (o) 47 Vict. c. 37, and 48 & 49 Vict. c. 68. 
 Ip) 49 Vict. c. 23. 
 
66 
 
 equalled by the ignorance displayed, he coolly 
 asserts that Mr. Gladstone has "never taken the 
 trouble to study Canadian History." Now, con- 
 sidering the part that Mr. Gladstone has played in 
 making Canadian History, such an assertion must 
 be wildly wide of the mark, and it is obvious 
 that what little knowledge his lordship has displayed 
 has been acquired at second hand. No one studying 
 the subject in the original authorities could have 
 made such stupendous blunders. I submit, there- 
 fore, that Lord Randolph has utterly failed to make 
 out a case against the successful application of the 
 Home Rule principle in Canada. 
 
 Not a tittle of evidence has he produced to show 
 the breakdown of constitutional principles in Canada. 
 His illustrations are either not to point, or are gross 
 misrepresentations. I am not so extravagantly ena- 
 moured of Canadian institutions as to assert that 
 Canadian Legislatures have never made a mistake ; 
 but I am not called upon to prove his lordship's 
 case. I maintain that, on the whole. Home Rule 
 has been a complete success in Canada, and I further 
 maintain that my original analogy of the Canadian 
 Constitution with that to be set up in Ireland under 
 the present Bill remains unimpaired ; and I repeat 
 that the lesson taught by Canada is invaluable as a 
 precedent for the extension of Home Rule to Ire- 
 land, and that such extension, arguing from analogy, 
 will meet with similar successful results. 
 
 LONDON : PBINTED BT 0. F, BOWOBTH, OBEAT NSVf 8TBKET, B.C.