amongst the Jingoes. This view was not without support elsewhere. The Kingston Standard (Ind.-Cons.) denounced both the Navy and contribution proposals; the Woodstock Sentinel-Review (Lib.) inquired, after a reference to the alleged German "scare,' if "the peace of Canada will be at the mercy of the Jingo element every time it happens to be in a position to work mischief"; the Saturday Sunset (Lib.) of Vancouver fiercely denounced the idea of contribution and declared that “Canadians are to be taxed for twenty or thirty millions to be spent for purposes in which they have no voice or control, that in fact Canadians are to be reduced to the level of serfs, sacrifice such aspirations to nationhood as we may have, declare ourselves incompetent to spend our own money, invite the re-establishment of the old and hateful meddling of Downing Street in our internal affairs, and turn back the hands of the clock for sixty years." The Annual Report of the Executive of the Trades and Labour Congress, presented at Fort William on Sept. 12, was impartially severe in its criticism of both parties who, it was said, "vie with each other in voting away the moneys of the people in useless efforts to demonstrate loyalty that is not in question. Whether it is a 'tinpot navy' or the 'tin-can opposition proposal' the result is the same. We are committed to vast expenditures for war purposes, and the same Jingo elements that foisted the new policy upon the Canadian people will no doubt in the same way rush us into the wars of the Mother-Country."

French-Canadian Opinion in the Naval Controversy

From the initiation of the Canadian Navy idea, as in the proposal to aid the Empire during the South African war, the pivotal position was that of Quebec. It gave an almost solid support to the Laurier Government; yet the margin in the popular vote was small and was looked at with hopefulness from time to time by the Conservative leaders. Hence the unanimous Parliamentary Resolution of 1909 seemed to meet a difficult situation for both Government and Opposition because it appeared to embody the maximum that French-Canadians would give in this connection with the minimum of friction in each party. Politics, however, which in this case meant F. D. Monk, the Conservative leader in Quebec, and Henri Bourassa, the free-lance Liberal member in the Quebec Legislature, ordained otherwise and Sir Wilfrid Laurier had to confess in his speech on Feb. 4th in the Commons that "in saying. ' when England is at war we are at war' I have shocked the minds and souls of many of our friends in Quebec." In this whole matter the French-Canadians were greatly concerned. To Britain they owed the permanent guarantee of certain privileges in laws, language and religion; in Canada their Province stood as the key to its national sea-board and great water routes; as a Province they were the guardians of important Federal interests, and the source of large commercial and shipping interests; as a people they held the scale between the parties.

The beginning of the year saw the appearance (Jan. 10) of Le Devoir, an evening journal published by an incorporated company, organized by Mr. Bourassa. Of the paper itself he was the Managing-Director and to it the chief political contributor. His first editorial announcement was one of opposition to the Gouin Government in Quebec and support for the Navy views expressed by Mr. Monk in recent speeches, coupled with the demand for an appeal to the people. Succeeding articles opposed the Navy policy with vigorous, biting denunciation of Imperialism and all its works; of Lord Grey, who in some insidious way was supposed to be at the back of all these developments; of Mr. Borden and any form of contribution to British naval or military power. On Jan. 20, in the City of Montreal, Mr. Bourassa commenced a campaign of oratory against the Navy Bill. A large gathering listened and then unanimously passed a Resolution declaring that " Parliament has no right to embark Canada in a Naval policy which is entirely new without having beforehand obtained the consent of the people." His point of view in this and many succeeding speeches was that of Canada and Britain as foreign countries with no close and intimate relationship. "Suppose," he observed at one stage of this first speech," that Belgium and France were in treaty for mutual defence, can you imagine the Government at Brussels presenting to the Belgian Parliament a Bill of this kind—a measure which would place the Belgian army at the service of the French Government and, from that time on, would have that army commanded by the President of the Republic?"

Amidst cries of "shame" he repeated Sir Wilfrid Laurier's statement that when England was at war Canada was at war and, amid renewed cries of the same nature, said: "The object of this fleet is not to defend our ports and our coasts. It is to replace in the Atlantic and in the Pacific the fleet which the British Government withdrew, without consulting the Canadian Parliament." He did not believe in the "German Peril." But "if Germany really is a menace to England and to English commerce I ask you is it our fault. England has drawn it on herself." It was British not Canadian trade that England wanted us to help in defending. He concluded as follows: "I ask you in the name of your sons who will pay for this criminal policy, who will have to meet the taxes which will be imposed-in the name of those who will probably have to fight on those distant vessels-I have the right to ask you to say to Lord Grey, to Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and to Mr. Borden, that before embarking on this policy they shall give to us their reasons and submit their policy to the people."

Another journal, Le Pays, made its re-appearance on Jan. 16 under the direction of Godfroi Langlois-recently Chief Editor of La Patrie. It was keenly opposed to the Government and to the Naval policy. One quotation will indicate the nature of its comments. Montreal was said to be no longer a village but to Canada

what Paris was to France and London to England. "Therefore, we should leave to Toronto the pride of being a cemetery and to Quebec that of being a city behind the times." After a month of vigorous campaigning by the Nationalists the Liberals appeared to wake up to the necessity of active work in the Province and, on Feb. 10, La Patrie of Montreal declared that Mr. Bourassa could not have things all his own way while its proprietor (Mr. L. J. Tarte) stated over his own name that an earnest campaign would be at once initiated. He stated that a Canadian contribution to the Royal Navy, either direct or indirect, would not affect the status of Canada or its autonomy; that Canada had been very fortunate in having the protection of the British Navy for so long without having to pay anything for it and that all races were in favour of at once assuming part of the burden. He challenged Mr. Bourassa's right to speak for the people, declared that FrenchCanadians were ready to do their share for the defence of the Empire, and announced that the leaders of opinion in Quebec would be at once interviewed on this point.

On the following day the paper pointed out that something had to be done and the Government policy should be approved for defence. "Let those who speak of resistance tell us what the results would be. Would we relieve ourselves of allegiance to Great Britain, or would we ask the United States to take over the Province of Quebec? In the first place, England would not let us go, and certainly the United States would not want us under such conditions. In fact all these propositions are absurd. No doubt this is the view Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who is one of our own, took before committing himself and his Government. The Province of Quebec is a part of the Dominion which is a British Colony and any division amongst the people of Canada cannot but retard our greatness and our prosperity." La Presse, the French-Canadian newspaper of the greatest circulation and influence, promptly followed with a plebiscite of its readers on the question and argued, by way of premise, that Canada owed to itself and to Britain the creation of a National Fleet and had no right to show indifference to the prosperity and success of the Mother-Country. Within a few days the votes were announced and showed 2473 in favour of a Canadian Navy, 38 in support of a contribution to the British Navy, 2205 for continuance as at present and 102 for Quebec remaining aloof from Great Britain even in the hour of danger and even though she had support of all the other Provinces.

Mr. Bourassa responded in Le Devoir on Feb. 17th by claiming that there was a conspiracy amongst the other French and Englishspeaking papers of Montreal to chloroform the public into neglect of the issue by keeping quiet as to the actual meaning of this policy-" a conspiracy of which Earl Grey is the instigator, Sir Wilfrid Laurier the responsible head and Mr. Borden the devil's advocate." Into this debate there was interjected Mr. Monk's

speech in the Commons on Feb. 15th which opposed the Naval policy because it assumed for Canada a place in the Empire's wars, diplomacy and responsibilities. Following it came a mass-meeting at Longueuil with speeches from various Nationalist orators. Mr. Tancrède Marcil started out by declaring that the Boers in South Africa had been merely fighting for what French-Canadians won in 1837 and to prevent Cecil Rhodes from stealing their patrimony. Mr. J. H. Rainville thought that if the United States attacked or wanted Canada Britain would not or could not defend her; Mr. Jules Fournier informed the interested audience that an ancestor of Lord Grey's (Colonel Grey of a British Regiment) had fought on the side of the English troops against the liberties of the people at Ste. Eustache.

A Resolution in favour of an immediate Plebiscite was passed by a meeting at Waterloo on Feb. 24th. At Rigaud on the 26th Mr. P. Cousineau, M.L.A., declared that all England wanted at this time was to get a Canadian contribution to her Budget; Mr. Rainville denounced the French papers of Montreal as being "sold to the project of Sir Wilfrid Laurier "; Mr. Gustave Boyer, M.P. (Lib.) followed in reply. "The speakers that have preceded me stated that we owe nothing to Great Britain. Is it not a fact, however, that we owe all to Great Britain? Is it not a fact that for the past fifty years we have had, under the protection of the British Flag, more personal, political and municipal liberties than any other people on earth?" Mr. Boyer said that Mr. Monk and Mr. Bourassa wanted to have a Referendum taken on the question but he would simply remind them that at the time of Confederation no referendum was asked or taken, while the present Parliament had been before the electorate a year ago. The verdict of the people was then in favour of Sir Wilfrid Laurier's Government and until the latter was called upon to come again before the people of the country his mandate was an absolute one; and to the people of this Province more than to any other, since the present chief of the Government was one of their kith and kin.” Rather dramatically he concluded as follows, according to the Montreal Herald report: "Are you in favour of Laurier? Yes, cried 700 voices. Are you in favour of giving England your earnest support? Yes, cried the crowd." A Liberal semiofficial view at this juncture was given by La Presse* as follows: "Is it not evident that the security of our institutions rests on the Naval force of the British Empire? If the British Fleet disappeared from the seas, of all the Provinces of Canada, the Province of Quebec would lose the most because the other Provinces could pass over to the United States without change of language, laws or religion, while the privilege of our faith, our tongue and our laws would disappear in the above case. The Province of

• NOTE.-Translation in Toronto News of Mch. 23, 1910.

Quebec and we French-Canadians, we Catholics, have the first interest in the power and preservation of the Navy of the British Empire. We are the most interested to fly to her succour in danger and, in the name of Heaven, in the name of common sense, what would we then do without a fleet, that is to say a Canadian fleet that could harmoniously become a part of the Imperial fleet in the hour of danger?"

In April Mr. Olivar Asselin-a fighting young Nationalistissued a pamphlet containing the opinions and policy of this party. In the matter of Defence he took a purely negative position: "Could anything, for instance, be more illogical than to acknowledge a military duty to the Mother-Country on the part of the Colonies, and at the same time reserve the right for the latter to say when and how that duty shall be performed? You want Canada to contribute to just wars only? But who will be the judge of the justness of the wars? Sir Wilfrid's proposal that the sending of Canadian ships out of Canadian waters be subjected to the consent of Parliament will not bear examination. The action must be lightning-like or it will be useless. There is hardly more sense in the cash contribution proposal, unless the contribution is based on the principle of obligation and the quota determined accordingly. And, here again, once the principle is admitted you must go at it manfully and take up the burden in no niggardly spirit. The Quebec Nationalists, for fear of the consequences, will not admit the principle." Independence as opposed to Imperialism was clearly the issue. "If we are expected, under the proposed Imperial defence system, to shoulder all the liabilities of nationhood, why should we continue to drag the fetters of colonialism? Why should we not in our external relations look for that consideration which is the lot of all independent states, however small, and let that proud spirit which the full enjoyment of nationhood can alone beget impel us to great deeds?" Formally and concisely he summarized their policy as follows:

Nationalism as advocated by the recognized leaders of the Nationalist Movement in Quebec aims at the upbuilding of a Canadian nation on the four following principles:

(1) In Canada's relations with the Mother Country the greatest measure of autonomy consistent with the maintenance of the Colonial bond.

(2) In Canada's internal relations the safe-guarding of Provincial autonomy on the one hand and of the constitutional rights of minorities on the other hand.

(3) The settlement of the country with a sole view to the strengthening of Canadian nationhood.

(4) The adoption by both the Federal and Provincial Governments of provident, economic and social laws that the natural resources of the country may be a source of social contentment and political strength.

At a meeting at Coteau Landing, April 24th, Mr. P. E. Blondin, M.P., Conservative and Nationalist, advocated the for