A. Sentiment, to some extent, influenced them. It was a source of pride to them, in their distant homes, that they belonged still to a great nation. They felt that in leaving their native country they had not changed their nationality. They did not desire to become the subjects of small states, with long periods of political struggle before them. Materially, too, they did not expect gain from the change. On the contrary, to lose the connection of the colonies with the mother country they fully understood to mean, to lessen the value of property, and to increase the interest they would have to pay for borrowed money. On the other hand, a Federal Union they understood would tend to raise the value of colonial property, and of colonial securities. They clearly foresaw that this rise in value would much more than cover any charges to which Federation would subject them.

Q. And how was Federation brought about?

most

A. It was brought about when the dangers of dismemberment seemed most imminent. Amidst threats of secession on all sides, and when the prospects of a powerful and united Empire were gloomy, a few earnest men arose, and demanded of the nation-Did it wish to outlive all the glories of its own history? An irresistible response was made. The colonies were invited to assist in passing a scheme of Confederation. The work was soon completed. Every colony gave in its adhesion.

Q. Was the scheme difficult?

A. It primarily appeared so, but it proved tolerably easy, for, as it was designed, it became abundantly evident that the first details mattered little, so long as the power of improvement and of working out its own perfection remained. One point was jealously guarded,

Q. Was this approved ?

A. The question was asked, would the Federal Parliament possess sufficient power? Time has answered the question. Although the power of turning a Government out of office did not exist, no Government has ever ventured to defy the Federal Parliament without finding the Parliament of the Parliament of the mother country against it, and so being compelled to leave office.

Q. What was the immediate effect of Federation?

A. It was wonderful. At one bound Great Britain sprang into the position of foremost nation of the world. Germany had not long previously been consolidated, and the universality of its power had been discussed. But in the presence of Great Britain federated, the German nation sank into a second place. With boundless territories, possessing resources without limit, the moment Federation was effected, capital and population flowed to every portion of the Empire.

Q. How were the taxpayers of the mother country affected?

A. The colonies paying a portion of the naval expenditure, the burden of the taxpayers was to that extent at once lightened. But the colonies did not suffer because of the contribution. On the contrary, it partook of the nature of an insurance on the property of the colonies, the value of which was very much enhanced.

Q. Was the power of the navy increased?

A. At an early date it was determined that the Federation should always support a navy calculated to protect the Federal Dominions, and to maintain the nation as mistress of the seas.

Q. What were the other leading effects of Federation?

A. It tended to reduce pauperism. One of the first acts of the Federation was to deal with the whole subject of emigration on a comprehensive scale. Pauper emigration was forbidden. It was clearly laid down, that the mother country was not to rid herself of her disabled population. On the other hand, the means of emigration were placed within the power of every suitable person; and the vacancies created tended much to make room for labour previously valueless.

Q. What have been the total results?

A. I need not detail statistics of the present day; and it will be sufficient to state that nearly all the countries which were formerly colonies have now efficiently regulated internal Governments, and are well populated and prosperous. Their condition, generally, as compared with that which prevailed at the time they joined the Confederation, is marvellous.

Q. Can you state the areas of the principal former colonies, and the number of the European population when Confederation was effected?

A. Yes. What had previously been known as Ontario and Quebec, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia, but which had become the Dominion of Canada,' had a total of something less than four millions of souls, spread over 377,045 square miles of country. In the whole of British North America, including 632,418 square miles, there were not in all four millions and a quarter of people; and taken as a special example, the 213,000 square miles of British Columbia and Vancouver's Island bore more than a population of 10,000. The United States had coveted both Canada and British Columbia; but, though war on the subject had been by some persons regarded as probable, Confederation following closely

no

on the settlement of what were known as 'the Alabama claims,' and 'the Fisheries' questions, added the bond of real respect to the feelings of true friendliness between the Governments, and the amity of the peoples of the Anglo-Saxon race has since been unshaken. In the whole of Australasia on Federation Day,' the total population was only 1,800,000, though the area of the comprised colonies is equal to 2,582,070 square miles. New Zealand, which we know has completely fulfilled the cherished hope of its then settlers-that it would become the Britain of the South,' had not a quarter of a million of British population, and they were, mainly, on the seaboard of the islands. New South Wales and Tasmania (or Van Diemen's Land), the oldest of the Australian colonies, had populations of but 466,000 and 100,000 respectively but Victoria, with an area of 86,831 square miles, or not one-fourth that of New South Wales, had a population of nearly 700,000. At the Cape of Good Hope settlement there were not more than 200,000 British people; and in the Natal district the number was 45,000.

Q. Before we proceed to the consideration of the details of the Federal System, epitomise the various advantages that have resulted from Federation.

A. A Federal Great Britain has become the most powerful nation of the world. Even the United States Republic desires to enter the Federation, and will probably do so. The Federal navy is unquestionably the sovereign of the seas. Over and over again, war between other nations has been authoritatively arrested by the Federal Government. Indeed, the Federation, in conjunction with the United States, has decided that the free navigation of the ocean shall not be interrupted by the territorial wars of European nations. The taxation of Great

F the history of France for the more distinctly and forcibly than another, it is probably this: That political maxims the stock maxims of English Liberalism more especially are not universally true, that is, not of universal application; that in politics there are few or no axioms, few or no general or abstract principles; that on no subject is reasoning a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter so invariably mischievous and shallow; that in practical dealing with State affairs empiricism may almost be said to be safer than science-than any science, at least, which is not profounder than statesmanship in these days ever reaches; that, in a word, in managing or speculating on the management of nations as of individuals, an acquaintance with the constitutional idiosyncrasies of the patient is more essential than a theoretic mastery of the sciences of medicine and of nutrition. We mean that Frenchmen-like other nations probably, but more than any other-have peculiarities, social and moral, which forbid us to regard them or prescribe for them as an ordinary or average civilised people; and that, politically, we should fall into grave error in either treating them or judging them as if they were Englishmen or Germans, or even Spaniards or Italians. Let us try to understand two or three of these peculiarities, if we would estimate aright the meaning of the moral of the two unprecedented catastrophes of the last year.

A 'Nation,' or a 'People,' consists of an aggregate of classes, not always homogeneous or or harmoniously blended, often far from identical in their origin or their characteristics, and still farther at issue as to their aims or their desires. But when we speak of a People in

common phraseology, we usually mean those classes in the community which predominate-which give the tone to a nation's policy and action, and create the colouring which it presents in the eyes of other countries which confer that special physiognomy or congeries of fea tures by which it is popularly known and distinguished. Thus we speak of the Spaniard as grave, dignified, courteous, and stagnant; of the Italian as artistic, impressionable, and passionate; of the Prussian as stiff, hard, and sterling; of the Austrian as genial and aristocratic, but arriéré; of the Belgian as industrious; of the Dutch as commercial; of the Englishman as gruff, solid, and honest; of the Scotchman as frugal and pushing, &c.-meaning that such are the salient characteristics respectively of those races as a whole. It used to be possible to speak of the Frenchman in the same way, with a certain rough correctness, as gallant, lighthearted, brilliant, pleasureloving, and polite. We can scarcely do so now. It is not easy to find any epithet, or string of epithets, which would now faithfully characterise the French people as a whole. Usually in Europe it is the upper or governing classes which are most salient, which most determine the character and conduct of the nation, and therefore most represent and depict it-most seem to be it to neighbouring nations. But this is scarcely so with the France of today. We have all of us been accustomed to hear and read of the gay, courageous, witty, courteous, lighthearted nobles of the old régime, who governed, coloured, made the France of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, full of folly, full of vice, but full of charm as well-sometimes cultivated, generally kind, always polished

the soul of honour as they understood it, faithful to the death to the traditions of their ancestors, loyal with a perverse but respectable fidelity to a worthless dynasty and a corrupted church. But these, though they still linger in France, no longer represent France, or guide its destinies, or colour its physiognomy. They were all dethroned; most of them were exterminated, and the few survivors have been reduced, or have retired, to powerless obscurity. Again, we have many of us known, and felt privileged to know, the brilliant and illustrious men of a later generation-profound savans, wise and successful statesmen, writers of world-wide fame in every branch of literature and science, thinkers than whom no nation has produced sounder or deeper who culminated and ruled about forty years ago. But these, like the others, are gone; lost, pushed from their preeminence, seldom heard, scarcely felt in public life at all; hushed, not so much in the silence of death or oblivion as in the overpowering Babel of a myriad of maniac voices. The France of to-day is the France of the ruling classes of a fresh era and another race; of the Gaul in place of the Frank; of the peasant proprietor, intensely selfish, intensely narrow, intensely frugal and industrious; of the moneymaking, money-saving bourgeois, equally selfish, almost equally busy, and somewhat less ignorant and borné; of the money-snatching adventurer and speculator, living in excitement, and grasping after unearned gains; of the youth of the cities, sometimes wealthy, oftener penniless and greedy, feasting on unwholesome literature, thirsty for xcessive pleasure, without one healthy aim, one great idea, or one saving faith, and therefore ready for any folly, and capable of any crime; and lastly, of the vast urban population which forms the sub

stratum of society, where life is congregated into masses- -where honest artisans in toilsome yet noble poverty; ignorant idealists, maddened by wild dreams, of which they feel the fascination but are unable to detect the falsity; ment furious with privation, men demoralised by idleness, men steeped in crime; socialist aspirers after a model government and an ideal' community; desperadoes, the irreconcilable foes of every government and of any social system; fools who would live on visions, wretches who would live by pillage'

lie seething together in one heterogeneous, perilous, and fermenting mass, with Journalists, often the lowest and the worst in Europe, for ever stirring up the mud.

6

Now, the first peculiarity we notice is, that this mass, which for brevity we will in future call the Proletariat,' holds a different position in France from that which it occupies elsewhere. In all old countries it constitutes the most numerous class of the population: in France only is it the most prominent. Elsewhere it is a great potential element in politics: in France it is an active and paramount one. There alone it is armed and organised; there alone since 1789 it has mingled in, diverted, coloured, for a time dominated, and in the end generally ruined, every political movement or convulsion. Its intervention has changed every attempted reform into a revolution. In 1830 only was that great step of progress and justice rescued from its fatal auxiliary action. But en revanche it was on that occasion that the deplorable error of establishing_the National Guard gave to the Proletariat-in common, no doubt, with other classes of citizens, but (as we shall presently point out) in virtual predominance over allthe armed organisation, and the recognised political rights and status, which have since rendered

3