quite another ground than that imagined by the defenders of them. Nobody supposes, for a moment, that when a great principle of permanent importance is at stake, men can do otherwise than range themselves under one party banner or another. There are great political crises, when it would be a grave breach of public duty not to be a partyman, but there are also periods of lull when to talk of them even, is a stupid joke. In the Reform struggle in England which terminated in 1832, a man must necessarily have ranged himself on one side or the other, and in the battle for responsible government a Canadian was compelled to be a partisan, and ought to have been ashamed if he were not one. But tempora mutantur et nos mutamur in illis, and, if the change does not pass over us, it is because we fail to see the altered circumstances of the times. We have had no "burning questions " since Confederation was established, nor are we likely to have any for many a long day. The "Pacific scandal" was a question of official morality, not one of party principle; it hurled one set of men from power who imagined themselves firmly seated, and elevated another set who, but for it, never would have secured place. It was a mere episode-a digression, so to say-with which party had little to do. It was a staggering blow to the ins and a godsend to the outs, but party principle was not involved. Had it been otherwise, how could Mr. Mackenzie, with any show of consistency, have taken half a dozen old Conservatives into his Government ?

The construction of the Pacific Railway is one upon which there is room for great diversity of opinion, and that is a substantial reason why every man's views should be expressed, unshackled by the bonds of party. No great national work on record, we believe, has been so seriously injured by the party system as this. The reason is not far to seek. During the last four or five years, each Opposition, in its turn, has felt it a duty to resist the scheme of the Government, whatever it might be. Whether those in power proposed that the work should be undertaken by a company, given out in sections to companies, or made a purely Government work, would have made no difference. The proposition issuing from Government must, as a matter of course, be resisted à l'outrance by the Opposition. There has

been no attempt at consultation between the so-called parties-nothing but a lying in wait for some blunder or gap in the scheme. In this way, a great national work, which is almost universally admitted to be a necessity, and which involves the expenditure of millions of money, is made the shuttlecock of parties to the detriment of the undertaking and at immense cost to the people. Why should the location and construction of the railway be cast into the arena at all, for our political wild beasts to mangle and destroy? Surely a competent Commission would deal with the matter much more satisfactorily, and, if they were directed to report their scheme, from time to time, to Parliament, no one would have reason to complain. The location of the line is a matter for surveyors and engineers, and not politicians, to settle; it is the time to be taken in its construction which alone concerns those who hold the purse strings of the Dominion. At any rate, the history of the Pacific Railway so far is a most notable-we had almost said melancholy-example of the mischief wrought by partyism.

Au reste, what is there to fight about? Nothing whatever; and there is but one thing therefore to be done, and it has been done till the public are fairly nauseated-to fling mud at each other in the confident hope that some of it will stick. When there are no principles in question, the only resource is to pile tale upon tale of corrup tion, in the hope that it may soon reach that hypothetical elevation, where the nauseous heap will "smell rank to heaven." Such is the party system as it obtains in Canada, and our contention is that it is an unmitigated curse to the country. Political parties have no right to exist unless they can show a sufficient raison d'être. They must prove that they are based upon the solid foundation of principle; that the questions dividing them are something better than a sham; and that the good of the country, not the desire for office, is the object kept steadily and persistently in view. Mr. Barney Devlin, a typical politician of the time, has boldly proclaimed the doctrine that "to the victors belong the spoils," and to this complexion our politics must come at last, if the rampant partyism of the day be not speedily checked. Perhaps it has been reached already.

The objection is made that if there were no parties, there could be no such watchful

scrutiny of governmental action as our national well-being requires. The cry is that there is need of a strong Opposition; and it is a hypocritical one. No matter how weak the Opposition, those in power, while affecting a desire that it should be stronger, resist to the utmost the addition of even one to its number. What is wanted is not opposition, for opposition's sake, but intelligent criticism, unceasing vigilance, and honest voting for or against a measure upon its merits. And how are we to obtain these desiderata, whilst it remains a standing maxim that, good or bad, ministerial measures are to be opposed at all hazards, especially if there be a chance of ejecting ministers from office? The amount of injury done to individual morality and the violence to conscientious conviction can never be known, but it would be something appalling if it were all revealed to human ken.

To be a party-man is to surrender one's own freedom of opinion and action to the whims or needs of a coterie. The assertion of private judgment at critical junctures, against the party, is as unpardonable a sin in politics as it is in some schools of the ology. A Minister may have opposed the introduction of a measure when broached in Council with earnest vigour, he may have denounced it in the bitterest terms; yet in the House he must vote and even speak for it, at his chief's command. On both sides when a test-question is before Parliament, no matter what conscience may whisper, the vote is mortgaged and the pledge must be redeemed. A more immoral political system it would be impossible to conceive. At crises when one great principle is at stake, we can fancy an honest man so far violating conscience as to support measures he detests in his heart; but when there is nothing but a paltry issue between the ins and the outs, what words can describe the slough of moral degradation through which such an one must too often be dragged? In Canada, we believe that there is no excuse for party organizations and the evil they inevitably carry with them, even when they are a painful necessity. There are no great principles upon which public men need to separate into hostile camps, nor are there likely to be any such for many a year. When they present themselves, let the party lines be drawnindeed, they will draw themselves without assistance. As we now are, partyism is a

sham to aggrandize the schemer and to gull the people. The best politics for this Dominion are no politics, or as little of them as possible. There is really nothing which ought to divide public men, and nothing really does divide them, except that wretched thirst for place and power which is the curse of the entire Continent. The objec tions against partyism in Canada ought by this time to be plain. They are not levelled at the party system per se, although it is always more or less an evil, but at its existence at a time and in a country where it is an unmingled evil. If those who talk so glibly about the advantages of party in the abstract, would condescend to tell us why there should be parties in the concrete case of Canada, they will meet us on a field where we should like to encounter an opponent. Meanwhile there need be no misunderstanding about the position of nationalists or non-party men.

It may not be without advantage, in this connection, to enquire how one, at least, of these parties is managed. For some reason or other there is discomfort, not to call it dismay, amongst the chiefs of the Reform camp. A Convention, so-called, was summoned at the bidding of Nestor to meet here in secret session. Presumably its members represented constituencies of partymen ; but if they did, no inkling of the deliberations was allowed to reach the rank and file. It may be urged that if the party is satisfied, no outsider has a right to complain. To that we at once demur; the manipulation of the political wires in any party is a matter of immediate concern to every member of the community. If political "rings" are to be formed here, it is time that all men were on the alert. What has befallen the United States may soon befall Canada, if a secret cabal is permitted to control an entire party. The secret system presents too many advantages not to secure imitators in other quarters, and therefore the sooner the whole matter is narrowly scanned in the interest of individual liberty, the better. The general public have a vital interest in any effort to "manage" large bodies of the people. A short time before the meeting of the convention, a striking protest against it appeared in a Western paper. It was attributed to the member for Bothwell, and if written by him, we can only say that it does him infinite credit. He objects to having a "head cen

districts, whose people, in most cases, are exceedingly jealous of dictation from headquarters. Each of these divisions is supposed to choose its representative independently, and, therefore, requires no advice,and should resent any interference from with- . out. There are certainly what may be euphemistically called "duties," the burden of which has weighed heavily upon the shoulders of Atlas: one of these would be to collect and distribute the election fund, which should not be a difficult matter when so paltry a sum as $3,700 is all that is usually required. Another would be to keep a large and varied assortment of candidates on hand to be sent out to rural constituencies, and so to arrange matters in Conventions or otherwhere that these candidates should be "chosen." Above all, it will be a duty to collect the ends of all the political wires from every part of the Province, so that they may be skilfully manipulated and pulled simultaneously. The "central authority" being supreme, it must decide upon the extent of its "duties;" like the Church it has its own sphere and must be the sole judge of its limits. In short, a system of centralization has been introduced, which, if unresisted, will not only interfere with local action, but destroy it altogether, save in appearance. Will the people submit to this arrogant as sumption of authority, or will theyunite with the Home Fournal in declaring that Reform party is not prepared for such organization;" that "drill of this nature is at direct variance with the genius of true liberal principles ;" and that "there is no call for any central authority to radiate orders or instructions?"

tre," and to Roman drill, "under which it is only necessary to say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to a servant, Do this, and he doeth it." The writer goes on to say that there are men in every constituency, "as compe. as compe tent to direct party manoeuvres as the class of men who would undertake that work in Toronto;" and further, that "we all know what the Central Reform Association at Toronto meant in the past and in whose interest it was intended to work." "Flat burglary as ever was committed;" high treason to the "party!" Would, only, that the traitors were more numerous ! We hear a good deal about priest-ridden populations, but for a docile beast of burden, commend us to your average Reformer; hence it is to be feared that Mr. Mills's manly recalcitrance will not count for much in the end. For the first time in the history of this country, a quasi representative body met with closed doors, which is in itself suspicious. One sentence in the Globe imparts all the information we are vouchsafed, but it is quite sufficient. "A very full discussion took place as to the necessity for organization and the establishment of an executive which, without in the slightest degree interfering with the independence of localaction, should undertake those duties which can only be discharged by a central authority." The sentence is admirably phrased, especi ally the parenthetical clause; indeed it may be doubted whether the Grand Sachem of Tammany could have put the matter in a neater way. Interfere with the independence of local action in the slightest degree, indeed! We should think not! In the States "central authorities" never do such things on any occasion, and as we are venturing upon the same path, what is there to fear? A further question seems to require an answer in the interest both of the "party," and the public:-What "duties" are they which can only be discharged by a "central authority?" There do not appear to be any legitimate duties for any such body to perform, and that may, perhaps, account for the unwonted secrecy in which the proceedings of the Convention were involved. There may, perhaps, be some justification for national party committees in the States, because the entire nation is called upon once in four years to select its Executive. But this Province is divided into eighty-seven electoral

"the

The coarse and angry attack made upon Mr. Justice Wilson the other day by the Globe may serve to open even party eyes to the true character of the man who will control the "central authority." One might almost think, after reading this outrageous onslaught, that Dr. Kenealy had abandoned the Englishman and taken refuge in the Globe. That, however, would be doing an injustice to the member for Stoke. He has been guilty of applying some violent language to the Lord Chief Justice and to Lord Coleridge; and he might assert that Mr. Justice Wilson's "offence was so rank "but that is a favourite phrase with the Globe, as M. Cauchon may possibly remember. But it is not likely that, even in his wildest moments,

Kenealy would rave in this fashion :-"The Bench has descended low indeed when a Judge of the Queen's Bench condescends to take up the idiotic howl, and rivals the dirge of the most blatant pot-house politician." Such, however, is the language which the Globe thinks it consistent with self-respect and a due regard to the dignity of the Bench to apply to Mr. Justice Wilson.

It may be remarked en passant that these frantic ebullitions of rage on the part of the Globe are always associated with some mishap to the position, prospects, or popular credit of Mr. Brown. In 1858, the twodays' Premier was chagrined to find that, by taking advantage of a statutory provision, his successors had managed to remain in the House, while he was put to the expense and hazard of an election. The "double shuffle," as it was called, came before two Courts-Mr. (now Justice) Wilson being one of counsel for Mr. Brown's party. Both Courts decided unanimously for the defendants; indeed, they could not do otherwise. The Globe, however, had ideas of the administration of justice peculiarly its own, and forthwith launched a scathing thunderbolt at the entire Common Law Bench. It was not, to be sure, so coarse in its ribaldry as on the present occasion; at any rate, in the end "nobody seemed to be any the worse." In 1875, Mr. Mills threatened to disturb the repose of Mr. Brown and the Second Chamber by his Senate Bill. Now this was annoying, and it brought the vials of wrath upon the head of the offending legislator. When everything else in the way of reproach failed, Mr. Mills was charged with the odious crime of having been a schoolmaster. And now, in 1876, because Mr. Justice Wilson chose to characterize fittingly the "big push" letter, he is visited by the Globe with an assault more brutal, we believe, than has ever appeared in any paper published within the British Empire.

Let us examine the facts, beginning, for convenience' sake, with the letter itself. It may be well to premise that the document was attached as an exhibit to an affidavit of Mr. Wilkinson, in which he swore that he 66 was credibly informed and did verily believe that he (Mr. Simpson) did in fact receive the same, and that he replied, or caused a reply to be written, thereto." The Globe attempts to throw discredit upon the

defendant's affidavit by making much ado over the words we have italicized. This is exceedingly disingenuous; for no one knows better than our contemporary that they are invariably employed when speaking of matters not within the range of personal knowledge. We shall not republish the celebrated letter, because it may be presumed that every reader has seen it more than once. The fund to which Mr. Simpson was urged to subscribe was not the "general election fund," because that had been expended “in aiding the out counties and helping our city candidates." It was a special fund for use in Toronto on the polling days, so as "to work up against the enormous sums the Government candidates have in their hands.” Could such a disposition of money be for legitimate expenses? How could any such expenses be incurred so late as the polling days? How could any legitimate expenditure counteract the influence of Government money? All three divisions could be carried, it remarks, but "for the cash against us." The "grand stand" was to be made on the Saturday, and as there were but half a dozen who could "come down handsomely," a few outsiders were asked to give their aid, and of these Mr. Simpson was implored to be one.

Now it will be observed, that the difficulty in the way was the "cash against us," presumably used for corrupt purposes, and then follows the petition for "cash" to be employed on "our" side. Is it not a legitimate inference that the money subscribed in answer to this letter was to be employed in the same way as the "cash against us"? Indeed, what other construction can be put upon the words? Of what avail would money be on polling-days, and to what use could it be put, but for purposes of corruption? There is no escaping the inevitable conclusion. Again, it is observable that since the publication of this letter, there is an evident anxiety to confound two funds which are entirely distinct. In his defence, published under his own signature, Mr. Brown spoke of a fund of " $3,700, or the trumpery sum of $45 to each of the 82 constituencies, had they all participated in it." Of course, this bit of special pleading bears its absurdity on the face of it; but the "big push" fund was a fund belonging specially to Toronto. Whether it was raised or not is beside the question; it was to be used in