on those of the United States, and lay the foundation for future political union. Previous to 1840, which was the commencement of a new era in the political history of the provinces, there was a time when discontent prevailed throughout the Canadas; but not even then did any large body of the people threaten to sever the connection with the parent State. The Act of Confederation was framed under the direct influence of Sir John Macdonald and Sir George Cartier; and, although one was an English-Canadian and the other a French-Canadian, neither fell short of the other in the desire to build up a Dominion on the basis of English institutions, in the closest possible connection with the mother country.

While the question of union was under consideration, it was English statesmen and writers alone who predicted that this new federation, with its great extent of territory, its abundant resources, and ambitious people, would eventually form a new nation independent of Great Britain. Canadian statesmen never spoke or wrote of separation, but regarded the constitutional change in their political condition as giving them greater weight and strength in the Empire. The influence of British example on the Canadian Dominion can be seen throughout its governmental machinery

in the system of parliamentary government, in the constitution of the privy council and the Houses of Parliament, in an independent judiciary, in appointed officials of every class, in the provincial as well as Dominion system, in a permanent and non-political civil service, and in all the elements of sound administration.

During the thirty-three years that have passed since 1867, the attachment to England and her institutions has gained in strength; and it is clear that those predictions of Englishmen to which I have referred have been completely falsified. The war in South Africa has given remarkable proof of the power of this attachment. The dominant sentiment is for strengthening the ties that have in some respects become weak in consequence of the enlargement of the political rights of the Dominion, which has assumed the position of a semi-independent power, since England now only retains her imperial sovereignty by declaring peace or war with foreign nations, by appointing a Governor-General, by controlling colonial legislation through the King in council and the King in Parliament - but not so as to diminish the rights of local self-government conceded to the Dominion and by requiring that all treaties with foreign nations should be made through her own Government, while recognizing the right of the dependency to be consulted and directly represented on all occasions when its interests are immediately affected.

In no respect have the Canadians followed the example of the United States, and made their executive entirely separate from the legislative authority. On the contrary, there is no institution which works more admirably in the federation-in the general government as well as in the provincial governments-than the principle of making the ministry responsible to the popular branch of the legislature, in that way keeping the executive and legislative departments in harmony with each other, and preventing that conflict of authorities which is a distinguishing feature of the very opposite system that prevails in the Federal Republic.

If we review the amendments made of late years in the political constitutions of the States, and especially those ratified not long since in New York, we see in how many respects the Canadian system of government is superior to that of the Republic. For instance, Canada has enjoyed for years, as results of responsible government, the secret ballot; stringent laws against bribery and corruption at all classes of elections; the registration of voters; strict naturalization laws; infrequent political elections; separation of municipal from provincial or national contests; appointive and permanent officials in every branch of the civil service; a carefully devised code of private bill legislation, and the printing of all public as well as private bills before their consideration by the legislative bodies.'

Of course, in the methods of party government we can see in Canada at times an attempt to follow the example of the United States, and to introduce the party machine with its professional politicians and all those influences that have degraded politics since the days of Jackson and Van Buren. Happily, so far, the people of Canada have proved themselves fully capable of removing those blots that show themselves from time to time on the body politic. Justice has soon seized those men who have betrayed their trust in the administration of public affairs.

Although, according to their political proclivities, Canadians may find fault with some methods of government and be carried away at times by political passion beyond the bounds of reason, it is encouraging to find that all are ready to admit the high character of the judiciary for learning, integrity, and incorruptibility. The records of Canada do not present a single instance of the successful impeachment or removal of a judge for improper conduct on the bench since the days of responsible government; and the three or four petitions laid before Parliament, in the course of a quarter of a century, asking for an investigation into vague charges against some judges, have never required a judgment of the house.

1 I enter somewhat fully into this subject in an article in THE FORUM for May, 1895.

Canadians built wisely when, in the formation of their constitution, they followed the English plan of retaining an intimate and invaluable connection between the executive and legislative departments, and of keeping the judiciary practically independent of the other authorities of government. The life and prosperity of the people, as well as the satisfactory working of the whole system of Federal Government, rest more or less on the discretion and integrity of the judges. Canadians are satisfied that the peace and security of the whole Dominion do not more depend on the ability and patriotism of statesmen in the legislative halls than on that principle of their constitution which places the judiciary in an exalted position among all the other departments of Government, and makes law as far as possible the arbiter of their constitutional conflicts.

In comparing the federal constitution of the Australian Commonwealth with that of the Canadian Dominion, we must be impressed by the fact that the constitution of Canada appears more influenced by the spirit of English ideas than the constitution of Australia, which has copied some features of the fundamental law of the United States. In the preamble of the Canadian British North America Act, we find expressly stated "the desire of the Canadian provinces to be federally united into one Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a constitution similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom," while the preamble of the Australian constitution contains only a bald statement of an agreement "to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown."

-

When we consider the use of "Commonwealth a word of republican significance to British ears as well as the selection of "State" instead of "Province," of "House of Representatives" instead of "House of Commons," of "executive council" instead of "privy council," we may well wonder why the Australians, all British by origin and aspiration, should have shown an inclination to deviate from the precedents established by the Canadian Dominion, which, though only partly English, resolved to carve the ancient historic names of the parent State on the very front of its political structure.

As the several States of the Commonwealth have full control of their own constitutions, they may choose at any moment to elect their own governors, as do the States of the American Union, instead of having them appointed by the Crown, as in Canada. We see also an imitation of the American constitution in the principle which allots to the central Government only certain enumerated powers, and leaves the residuary power of legislation to the States. Again, while the act provides for a high court

and other federal courts, the members of which are to be appointed and removed as in Canada by the central Government, the States are still to have full jurisdiction over the State courts as in the United States.

The Canadian constitution, which gives to the Dominion exclusive control over the appointment and removal of the judges of all the superior courts, offers a positive guarantee against the popular election of judges in the provinces. It is not going too far to suppose that, with the progress of democratic ideas in Australia - a country inclined to political experiments we may find the experience of the United States repeated, and see elective judges make their appearance when a wave of democracy has suddenly swept away all dictates of prudence and given unbridled license to professional political managers anxious for the success of party only.

In allowing the British Parliament to amend the Act of Union on an address of the Canadian Parliament, we have yet another illustration of the desire of Canadians to respect the supremacy of the sovereign legislature of the Empire. On the other hand, the Australians make themselves entirely independent of the action of the imperial Parliament, which might be invaluable in some crisis affecting deeply the integrity and unity of the Commonwealth, and give full scope to the will of democracy expressed at the polls. In also limiting the right of appeal to the King in council by giving to the high court the power to prevent appeals in constitutional disputes-the Australians have also, to a serious degree, weakened one of the most important ties that now bind them to the Empire, which affords additional illustration of the inferiority of the Australian constitution, from an imperial point of view, compared with that of the Canadian Dominion, where a reference to the judicial committee of the privy council is highly valued.

No country in the world gives more conclusive evidences of substantial development and prosperity than the Dominion of Canada under the influences of responsible government and federal union. This system of union gives, as was hoped by its promoters, thirty-six years ago at Quebec, due expansion to the national energies of the whole Dominion, and at the same time affords every constitutional security to the local interests of each provincial member of the federal compact. No dangerous question like slavery or the expansion of the African race in the United States exists to complicate the political and social conditions of the confederation; and although there is a large and increasing French-Canadian element in the Dominion, its history so far need not create fear as to the future, except perhaps in the minds of gloomy pessimists. While this element naturally clings to its national language and institutions, yet,

under the influence of a complete system of local self-government, it has always taken as active and earnest a part as the English element in establishing and strengthening the confederation. It has steadily grown in strength and prosperity under the generous and inspiring influence of British institutions.

Professor Freeman has truly written that in Canada, which is preeminently English in the development of its political institutions, French Canada is still "a distinct and visible element, which is not English an element older than anything English in the land—and which shows no sign of being likely to be assimilated by anything English." Though nearly a hundred and forty years have passed since the signing of the treaty of Paris, many of the institutions which the French-Canadians. inherited from France have become permanently established in the country; and we see constantly in the various political systems given to Canada from time to time— notably in the constitution of the federal union -the impress of these institutions and the influence of the people of the French section.

While the French-Canadians, by their adherence to their language, civil law, and religion, are decidedly "a distinct and visible element which is not English "—an element kept apart from the English by positive legal and constitutional guarantees or barriers of separation-nevertheless, it is the influence and operation of English institutions which have made their province one of the most contented communities of the world. While their old institutions are inseparably associated with the social and spiritual conditions of their daily lives, it is, after all, their political constitution, which derives its strength from English principles, that has made the French-Canadians a free, self-governing people, and developed the best elements of their character to a degree which was never possible under the depressing conditions of the French régime.

It is the influence of this liberal federal constitution, which owes its origin to the joint efforts of French- and English-Canadians alike, that has given to Canada so many able statesmen of French origin, and has at last placed at the head of the administration of public affairs a brilliant FrenchCanadian, who has often declared that it is the aspiration of his public life to unify the two races, and build up a powerful Canadian nation in the closest possible onnection with England, on the basis of compromise, conciliation, and justice to every class and creed.

JOHN G. BOURINOT.