last century who left their homes for the sake of “king and country,” and laid the foundations of prosperous and loyal English communities by the sea and by the great lakes, and whose descendants have ever stood true to the principles of the institutions which have made Britain free and great; to the unknown body of pioneers some of whose names perhaps still linger on a headland or river or on a neglected gravestone, who let in the sunlight year by year to the dense forests of these countries, and built up by their industry the large and thriving provinces of this Dominion; above all, to the statesmen—­Elgin, Baldwin, LaFontaine, Morin, Howe, and many others—­who laid deep and firm, beneath the political structure of this confederation, those principles of self-government which give harmony to our constitutional system and bring out the best qualities of an intelligent people.  In the early times in which they struggled they had to bear much obloquy, and their errors of judgment have been often severely arraigned at the bar of public opinion; many of them lived long enough to see how soon men may pass into oblivion; but we who enjoy the benefit of their earnest endeavours, now that the voice of the party passion of their times is hushed, should never forget that, though they are not here to reap the fruit of their labours, their work survives in the energetic and hopeful communities which stretch from Cape Breton to Victoria.

CHAPTER XII

A COMPARISON OF SYSTEMS

In one of Lord Elgin’s letters we are told that, when he had as visitors to government house in 1850, Sir Henry Bulwer, the elder brother of Lord Lytton, and British minister to the United States, as well as Sir Edmund Head, his successor in the governorship of Canada, he availed himself of so favourable an opportunity of reassuring them on many points of the internal policy of the province on which they were previously doubtful, and gave them some insight into the position of men and things on which Englishmen in those days were too ignorant as a rule.  One important point which he impressed upon them—­as he hoped successfully—­was this: 

“That the faithful carrying out of the principles of constitutional government is a departure from the American model, not an approximation to it, and, therefore, a departure from republicanism in its only workable shape.”

The fact was:  “The American system is our old colonial system, with, in certain cases, the principle of popular election substituted for that of nomination by the Crown.”  He was convinced “that the concession of constitutional government has a tendency to draw the colonists” towards England and not towards republicanism; “firstly, because it slakes that thirst for self-government which seizes on all British communities when they approach maturity; and secondly because it habituates the colonists to the working of a political mechanism which is both intrinsically superior to that of the Americans, and more unlike it than our old colonial system.”  In short, he felt very strongly that “when a people have been once thoroughly accustomed to the working of such a parliamentary system as ours they never will consent to resort to this irresponsible mechanism.”