It might be said that these decisions which have been made meant the victory of one school of imperial thought over the other, but as I have tried to make clear I do not think that men consciously were responsible for these decisions. The complexity of circumstances, the exigencies of the war, political expediency, what could be done, and what could not be done, in a word, Destiny, simply vindicated the principles which had been enunciated by Burke with matchless lucidity as those which for this generation were the principles which should be applied. I know very well that there are people who are disturbed in their minds about this. They are people for whom I have the greatest admiration. They are devoted to British institutions; but they cannot get it out of their minds that if we are free to separate we will separate, though no formula could keep us together if we wanted to separate (hear, hear). That is the kernel at the heart of the whole question. These people say, "If it is a partnership by consent what will happen if that consent ceases..." Of course, if the consent ceases no constitution could keep us together. They think that the condition of dependence, which is our condition, should be continued; they are quite unable to realize that the true alternative to this status is not independence but interdependence (applause). I ask these people to look at some pages in our own history to quiet these apprehensions. Canada solved the constitutional problems and fought the battle of self-government for all the British dominions, and the most significant period in imperial history is covered by the ten years in Canada which began with Lord Durham’s report, and ended with the instructions which were issued by the Colonial Office to Lord Elgin when he came to Canada as governor-general. The constitutional documents covering those ten years throw a strong and encouraging light on this problem which we are now considering.