he strong and rising tide of national feeling, she showed
now that, strong as was this tide, it was destined to find scope and
outlet within the bounds of the Empire. Now imperial sentiment, now
national aspirations, might be uppermost, but consciously or
unconsciously {217} the great mass of Canadians held to an idea that
embraced and reconciled both, the conception of the Empire as a free
but indissoluble league of equal nation-states.

When the terms of the treaty were first announced Mr Borden declared
that it should have been made subject to ratification by the Canadian
parliament. After the award Sir Wilfrid Laurier went further,
contending that the lesson was that Canada should have independent
treaty-making power. 'It is important,' he said, 'that we should ask
the British parliament for more extensive powers, so that if ever we
have to deal with matters of a similar nature again, we shall deal with
them in our own way, in our own fashion, according to the best light we
have.' The demand was not pressed. The change desired, at least in
respect to the United States, did come in fact a few years later,
though, as usual in British countries, much of the old forms remained.

[1] Shortly after arriving in England Mr Laurier had been made a Knight
Grand Cross of the Order of St Michael and St George. Though on
personal grounds sincerely reluctant to accept such honours, he had
bowed to circumstance and the wishes of his friends.

[2] The reason for the Government's action was clearly stated by Mr
David Mills, minister of Justice, as follows: 'There were two things
that presented themselves to the minds of the administration. One was
to call parliament together and obtain its sanction for a proposition
to send troops to South Africa. The other was to await such a
development of public opinion as would justify them in undertaking to
send the contingent ... the general sanction of the political
sovereignty of this country from which parliament derives its
existence. Now there was such an expression of opinion in this country
as to justify the government in the course which they took.'--Senate
Debate, February 6, 1900.

[3] The Australian representatives afterwards met with much difficulty
in securing the consent of the Commonwealth parliament to this
arrangement. A majority of the members who took part in the debate
expressed the opinion that an Australian navy must sooner or later take
the place of dir