compromise between the French and English was further developed by giving certain self-governing powers to both. The sanctions of the Quebec Act were renewed, both in regard to the Roman Catholic religion and the French civil law. While respecting these fundamental conditions of Canadian Government, the Act carried a step furtherand probably as far as the times would allow-the developement of representative government.

Under this Act Canada developed peacefully from 1792 to 1812, enjoying a happy detachment from the troubles of the French Revolution and the chaos of the great Napoleonic wars. But this detachment was not to last for ever. The stress of the great struggle which Great Britain was carrying on for her naval supremacy finally brought her into conflict with the United States, and the war which followed in 1812-15 chiefly took the form of an invasion of Canada. It is not for us here to go into the rights and wrongs of that unhappy struggle. The prohibition by Great Britain of the American carrying trade in the goods of the enemy produced furious resentment in the United States, and the anti-British policy of the democratic leaders finally forced Madison into a war which was never keenly supported by the Northern States. Perhaps, if the causation of this war is to be laid anywhere, it must be at the door of Napoleon, who, for his own purposes, ingeniously fomented hostility between the two great branches of the Anglo-Saxon

race.

Whatever the origin of the war, there is no doubt that the result was a great surprise to the United States. It seemed inevitable that a population of six and a half million whites should make an easy conquest of a vast territory easily exposed to attack and inhabited by less than 500,000. On the one side was a militia force available for service numbering from 400,000 to 500,000 and a regular army of 34,000. On the other was a scattered militia numbering little more than 10,000 in both provinces. The forces of the United States invaded Canada with absolute confidence in their ultimate success. Henry Clay spoke without hesitation about negotiating terms of peace at Quebec or Halifax. But America forgot that she was arousing in the Canadians precisely the same spirit that brought her successfully through the War of Independence. The Canadians were defending their homes and hearths against a scarcely veiled enterprise of conquest and annexation. They fought with courage and skill, and Nature was on their side. The vast

distances of that great land made the capture of capitals of little importance, and the Americans did not improve their cause when they attempted to awe by incendiarism the foe whom they could not conquer with the sword. The burning of the Parliament House at York-the modern Toronto-is still a bitter memory in Canada, and it united French man and Englishman against the invaders. The war brought to the United States neither profit nor glory, while Canada emerged from it far more closely united in race and more deeply attached than ever to the British connection.

The struggle of 1812-15 postponed for some years the internal agitation which was bound to come before Canada could emerge on to the higher stage of responsible government. The Constitutional Act of 1791, while giving to Canada a partial grant of responsible government, had left the ultimate control in the hands of nominees of the Crown. The expenses of the war aggravated the situation, and for the next twenty years the history of Canada is that of a long series of constitutional struggles between the councils and the assemblies, turning round the question of controlling supplies. Though the Council could nominate officials, the Assembly still had some control over their salaries. The struggle was aggravated in Upper Canada by the existence of an official group who obtained control of the government, and were familiarly known under the title of The Family Compact.' But both in Lower and Upper Canada the root question was essentially the same as that between the British House of Commons and the Stuart kings in the seventeenth century. History repeats itself, and the British stock in Canada, allied with the French, went through the same political stage as the British stock in England two centuries before. The Imperial Government at first refused to give way, and could conceive of no remedy excepting the assertion of law and order. In reply, the Canadian Assembly refused for several years to pay the salaries of the public service. In 1836, therefore, Lord John Russell passed an Act through the Imperial Parliament voting 140,000l. for this purpose out of the provincial treasuries, thereby overriding the self-governing powers of the colony.

6

Canada was immediately thrown into a state of rebellion, which lasted for some two years, and ushered in the reign of Victoria very much as the Boer War has ushered in the reign of Edward VII. The two incidents are not to be compared in importance. The Canadian rebellion was little more than a sputter of spasmodic and confused fighting,

which never rose to the dignity of a great struggle. Its history has often been told, and is now exciting a natural interest in connection with the South African problem. To readers of Canadian history the importance of the rebellion does not lie so much in its military suppression, which was never a difficult task, as in the fact that it resulted in the mission of Lord Durham and the ultimate concession of complete self-government to Canada under the terms of his famous report. The rebellion was suppressed in 1838. But these were the days of bold and rapid legislation. In 1840 the Whigs brought in a measure for giving Canada complete and responsible self-government, which became law on February 10, 1841. Under this Act the two Canadas were united and placed under the double rule of a legislative council and a legislative assembly, but with the grant of control both over ministries and finance to the lower and popular chamber.

This brings us to the final period of Canadian political evolution. The Act of 1841 settled once and for all the question of Canadian self-government. It was the offspring of that now despised period in our political history, when some English statesmen faced with complacency the prospect of colonial secession, and were quite willing to let the Colonies do as they liked, as long as they did not take up the time and energies of the home country. It is written that those who lose themselves shall find themselves; and it almost looks as if that deep law was working behind the Whig policy of indifference towards the Colonies. It is probable that if the home Government had punished the Canadian rebellion with a long period of Crown government the unrest would have continued. If they had irritated the French Canadian with talk of mastery' and 'conquest' it is unlikely that we should have their loyalty to-day. And yet human nature is so constituted, and political foresight is so rare, that these mistakes were probably avoided only by our indifference. If we had cultivated that possessive pride in our Colonies which goes to-day by the name of Imperialism,' we should probably have lost Canada after 1838. In our first panic, indeed, we suspended the 1791 Constitution, and after the second outbreak the military authorities on the spot, angered by the apparent failure of Lord Durham's capricious clemency, hanged a few rebels under martial law. But the Whig Government at home stopped all this. Not only did the grant of self-government follow immediately on the suppression of the rebellion, but the Colonies themselves

By its pro

were consulted in the framing of the measure. visions both English and French rebels, the rebels of both Upper and Lower Canada, secured almost everything for which they had fought. In 1845 the rebels were compensated for the loss of property, and by 1848 every individual rebel had been amnestied. Instead of being encouraged to further rebellions, both Reformers' and French Canadians have ever since remained loyal and law-abiding citizens.

The liberty of self-government was gradually extended to the other Canadian colonies which had grown up since 1791. But it was now becoming clear to Canadian statesmen that there was a further problem before them. It was not enough that the Canadian colonies should be self-governing: it was also necessary that they should be united. Stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific, across the whole breadth of America, from Nova Scotia on the Eastern coast to British Columbia on the West, it was inevitable that the Canadian Colonies should drift apart unless some steps were taken to tie them together by both a material and political bond. The barrier of the Rocky Mountains shut off British Columbia from the central colonies, and the very difference of climate divided the colonists of the sea and the North-West. When the journey across the continent was a matter of months it was impossible to hope that the population should be brought together by frequent intercourse. The coast colonies were absorbed in their fisheries: the interior colonies thought of nothing but agriculture. Politics were becoming rapidly more provincial, and the size of the colonies left no scope for ambitious men. Without a railway or a common assembly the two chief nerve-centres of Canada were still wanting.

The agitation for a confederation went on all through the early sixties. It was brought to a head by the difficulty of securing a stable government in the province of united Canada. The Act of 1840, while uniting Upper and Lower Canada, according to Lord Durham's recommendation, had established a fixed proportion between the representatives of the French and English districts in the united province. But the British population was steadily increasing, and the reformers of Upper Canada as steadily agitated for a division between the two districts. The lead in this agitation was taken by the Toronto Globe,' which was then edited by Mr. George Brown, the most powerful journalist Canada has ever produced. Within two years there were as many as five successive ministries in the Canadian Parliament, and it seemed impossible that the government could be carried on.

In 1864 a Committee of the Canadian Assembly declared in favour of confederation, and a Coalition Government was formed to carry it out. A similar movement had taken place in Nova Scotia, and a conference was arranged between delegates from Canada and the three maritime provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island. It was decided to hold a further conference at Quebec, and there, in the autumn, at the famous Quebec Convention of 1864, the main lines of Canadian confederation were definitely laid down.

The ruling spirit in this Convention was, undoubtedly, Sir John Macdonald, who is probably responsible, as far as we can tell in the absence of any report of the proceedings, for the main outlines of the present Canadian Constitution. That Constitution is borrowed partly from America and partly from Great Britain. The federal idea which underlies it is American, and the provinces of Canada were probably suggested to Canadians by the analogy of the States of America. But there are certain conspicuous contrasts which mark the influence of British ideas. The provinces have a power of direct taxation, but use it to a very small extent. Their finance is based upon a system of subsidies from the central Government, rising with the growth of population. These subsidies are supplemented by local revenues from lands, forests, and mines, while undertakings of national importance, like canals, harbour works, and railways, are paid for by the central Government. Similarly, the administration of justice is centralised in the Dominion authorities, who appoint the judges of the superior, district, and county courts in the provinces as well as in the Dominion. The provincial courts have complete control of criminal justice, but appeals in all civil cases are allowed from provincial courts as well as from the Supreme Court to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. But, apart from these details, there is a broad governing difference between the Canadian and American Constitutions. In Canada all powers not expressly reserved to the provinces still belong to the central Government, though the definitions of the North American Act are so precise as to leave a very small margin for settlement under constitutional law. In the United States, on the other hand, all powers not expressly claimed by the central Government are possessed by the individual State. The distinction is familiar to constitutional students, but is worth emphasising; for it means that Canada is a closer confederation, more tightly

!