NATIONALITY AND EMPIRE.
ON Tuesday the Times published a remarkable letter addressed to M. Henri Bourassa, the leader of the French-Canadian Nationalists, by his cousin, Captain Papineau. The letter is an appeal to M. Bourassa to revise his policy and to throw the weight of the French party which he leads in Canada on to the side of Great Britain and France. That there is good reason for this appeal is common knowledge. It is, of course, true that many French-Canadians, of whom Captain Papineau himself is one, have fought magnificently in the common cause. It is also true that many leaders of French-Canadian thought have warmly supported that cause in Canada. Yet, to quote Captain Papineau's words :— " The fact remains that the French in Canada have not re- sponded in the same proportion as have other Canadian citizens, and the unhappy impression has been created that French- Canadians are not bearing their full share in this great Canadian enterprise." For this deficiency Captain Papineau places personal blame upon M. Bourassa, and asks him whether he has seriously thought out the whole problem.
When Great Britain became involved in war with Germany, of necessity Canada became a belligerent, whether she wished it or not, in the sense that her citizens were liable to be attacked by the German enemy of Great Britain, her coasts to be bombarded, her property to be destroyed. But under the free constitution of the British Empire Canada remained at liberty to decide for herself whether she would be an active or merely a passive belligerent. M. Bourassa was in favour of passivity. In criticism of that attitude Captain Papineau puts to M. Bourassa two alternatives from which there is no escape. In this life and death struggle either Germany wins or Great Britain wins. If Germany were to win, then sooner or later Canada would become a German colony. Is that what M. Bourassa and the extreme party of French-Canadians which he leads desire I It certainly is not the desire of all French-Canadians. Speaking at Quebec at the beginning of the war, Mgr. Bruchesi, quoted in the Revue des Deux Mondes of July 15th, 1916, said :— "NOW avons ens-era la couronne d'Angleterre des obligations salutes, at c'est un devoir pour chacun de noes de seconder lea Anglais dans leur
herolque defense de la libertk. etaient vaincus, lee Allemands r6gneraient sur les bords du Saint-Laurent. icoutez-moi bien, Can; adieus-Francais: je no veux pas, quant a moi, devenir Allemand I"
We may, indeed, safely assume that neither M. Bourassa nor any French-Canadian wishes to become a subject of the German Empire.
The alternative hypothesis is that Great Britain should win. In dealing with this hypothesis, Captain Papineau, himself a French-Canadian by origin, himself the grandson of a French- Canadian rebel against British rule, strikes a note which will find response throughout the whole British Empire. He says if Canada had stood aside, and if Great Britain had won without Canadian help, " Canada mtht still have retained her liberties, and might with the same freedom from external influences have continued her progress to material and political strength. But would you have been satisfied— you who have arrogated to yourself the high term of Nationalist ? What of the soul of Canada ? . . . If we accept our liberties, our national life, from the hands of the English soldiers, if without sacrifices of our own we profit by the sacrifices of the English citizen, can we hope ever to become a nation ourselves ? "
The position could not have been better put, and it is a position which has been accepted by the vast majority ad British subjects throughout the self-governing Dominions. There are, indeed, only two groups of opinion at home es overseas where a distinct anti-British attitude has been dis- played during this gigantic struggle on which the fate of the whole Empire depends. These are the extreme Na- tionalist group in French-Canada and the extreme Nationalist group in Ireland. In both these cases, largely through historic accidents, nationality is based upon the spirit of antagonism rather than upon the spirit of unity. The dominant feeling of the extreme Irish Nationalist is hatred of England. There is no reason to believe that any such strong feeling exists in French-Canada, yet there is undoubtedly there also an anti-English feeling which keeps alive the particularist spirit on which M. Bourassa's party is based. It would be idle to ignore the fact that the religious element plays a big part in both eases. The Irish Catholic hae memories of long generations of Protestant persecution, and these he combines with memories of wrongs alleged to have been done by the "English garrison." The French-Canadian Catholic has local controversies about religious education and the use of the French language, and in addition he is affected by the fact that modern France is, or has been, anti-Catholic. Indeed, it is probable that the extreme French-Canadian Nationalist is almost more anti-French than anti-English.
In both these cases the Nationalist feeling rests upon a spirit of antagonism to another nationality. But is it possible to build up a nation upon an antipathy? Great nations are created by a positive spirit of patriotism which leads all the individuals in the nation to work together to help one another. If for this positive feeling of mutual help we substitute a negative feeling of antipathy to some- body else, no progress is possible. That in the last resort is why the extreme Irish Nationalist remains in a backwater. His conception of creating his own nation begins and ends with hatred of England and of the British Empire, and in a very much lesser degree a certain section of the French-Canadians appear to be possessed of the same mental habit. It is a pity that it should be so, but it is difficult to see how we on our side can de more than we have done to alter the position. Ireland has no material grievances, either constitutional or. financial. She is over-represented, she is under-taxed, relatively to the rest of the United Kingdom. She has in every material sense a greater measure of self-government than either England or Scotland. But the men who profess to speak on behalf of Irish nationality have inherited a hatred of British rule, and no means has yet been devised for enabling them to relieve themselves of the damnosa hereditas. As long as they are cursed with this inheritance, they are to their own injury debarred from sharing in any conception of a more extended Imperial patriotism and their chance of progress as a separate nationality is nil.
Apart from these two failures the British Empire can claim that it has built up a number of self-governing unite in which particularist patriotism is reconcilable, and in fact is reconciled, with a wider Imperial patriotism. In the final resort this success is due to what we may fairly call the special English creed of tolerance. "The expansion of England," to use Professor Seeley's phrase, has not been accompanied by any conscious desire to Anglicize the world as the Germans wish to Teutonize the world. Realizing ouz own dislike of coercion, we have in the main refrained from attempting to coerce other peoples. The result has been the building up of a multitude of separate groups which possess many of the qualities of distinct nationalities. The Englishman or the Scotsman who has settled in Canada is proud after a few years to call himself a Canadian, and we who have remained at home are proud that he should de so. From this point of view the very absence of some common name for all the subjects of the British Empire, though often deplored, is perhaps almost an advantage. Did such a name exist, we might get into the habit of applying it where it would be unwelcome. There is at least a danger that any attempt to impose a common name upon the inhabitants of the different parts of the United Kingdom and of the different self-governing Dominions would be resisted by those who take pride in the names of the nationalities to which they belong. Experience has shown that the absence of a common name involves no weakening of the spirit of common patriotism. We are in name Englishmen or Scots- men, Welshmen or Irishmen, Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, or Afrikanders, but at heart—with very few exceptions—we are all one when the common interests of the Empire are involved.
Previous page
