ward for those abilities which
conspicuously serve the general welfare--so Sir Wilfrid and his
compatriots acknowledge their Britishism to be acutely conscious of
political kinship with the American people. The French-Canadian
yearning, like that of many Canadians of British origin, is rather for
English-speaking union--a union of at least thorough understanding and
common designs with the American people--than for the narrower exclusive
British union sought by Canadian imperial federationists.

Sir Wilfrid said, in effect, (I do not profess to report his very
words,) that federation of those British communities widely separated by
geography, but alike in race, language, laws, principles, has always
attracted him as a project of excellent intentions. It is at worst a
noble dream. That dream has become less impracticable than it was
formerly, he thinks, by reason of the essential diminution of the world,
diminution of distances and of time by latter-day inventions.

Against the idea of general representation in a central Parliament at
London, Sir Wilfrid pointed out that Edmund Burke objected "opposuit
natura"--nature forbade it. The wisest of political philosophers could
not foresee the telegraph, wireless, steam, airships. These have made a
useful central imperial Parliament at least conceivable. Could it be
more useful than the advisory council, or Imperial Conference which has
become quadrennial, and might possibly become annual? That is matter for
discussion. Sir Wilfrid said that such is the political genius of the
British race that he would be rash who alleged any design impracticable
toward which the race may tend so generally as to put it under
discussion for arrangement of details. Conservation of local
self-government, prime essential to agreement for union on common
purposes, might prove reconcilable with federated defense.

But there is, to Sir Wilfrid's way of thinking, one large objection
against now attempting imperial federation. Its agitators contemplate a
scheme immense, yet not sufficiently inclusive. They do not contemplate
English-speaking solidarity. They purpose leaving out the majority of
English-speakers--the American people. In this they do not follow Cecil
Rhodes, a chief propagandist of their main design. It is true that the
idea of getting Americans to participate in any formal union with all
the rest of their brethren by race and tongue seems now impractical. But
time works wonders. Mr. G