I also thought proper in my French book to write a few lines on the important question respecting the mode of ascertaining the deliberate consent of the Colonies to any intended readjustment of the constitutional relations of the component parts of the Empire, specially if it was proposed to rear a new and larger political fabric. I did so because of late it has been frequently suggested to use the _plebiscit_ or the _referendum_ as the most opportune way to consult public opinion. I must say that, without going to the length of denying that a public consultation may, in a particular case, be advantageously made by way of a _plebiscit_ or _referendum_, I am not a strong believer in the efficiency of either proposition, and why? Because I cannot help considering them as more or less contrary to the solid constitutional principle of ministerial responsibility which they would gradually undermine if frequently appealed to. I feel specially adverse to the _plebiscit_, because History proves that, by nature, it engenders DESPOTISM, CAESARISM. Contemporary history offers two striking examples never to be forgotten. Napoleon the First, whose power was the legitimate result of his wonderful genius and of his eminent services to France, wanted his dynasty to rest on the _plebiscitary_ foundation. Millions of votes--almost the unanimity of French public opinion--answered enthusiastically to his call. He was not such a man as to refuse the chance offered him to exercise a supreme power so manifestly tendered to him. All know that he very soon unbridled his devouring ambition and ruled France with all the might of an absolutism strengthened by the glories of military campaigns truly marvellous. To any attempt at freedom of criticism, he could reply that his Imperial power--mightily supported by his commanding genius--was strongly entrenched on the unanimity of opinion of the French nation expressed by the result of the plebiscit.