opposed this demand of the Imperial Government in a categorical refusal, a refusal respectful in form, but absolute in meaning. But we did more than that; we placed before the Conference our policy which we intended to follow. We declared our intention to sustain the obligation incumbent upon all nations of defending their own territory; that we had already organized a Militia and that we were equally ready to undertake our Naval defence; but that we would at all times follow and maintain the principle of our local autonomy. However, here is the Naval law and I defy contradiction when I say that this law is in complete accord with the policy of 1902 as defined by us, as approved by Messrs. Monk and Bourassa. Now, I have simply to call your attention to two things provided by this Naval law. It simply decrees that the Government of Canada should organize another Naval service, and that this Service should remain entirely under the control of the Government of Canada. Outside of this there is not a single word which would give to Great Britain that which she demanded in 1902-the organization of a war service to be put at the disposition of the War Office-not one word.

Sir Wilfrid then described the growth of Canada, declared its duty to be one of self-defence, intimated that he would seek fair Reciprocity with the United States even though the British jingoes accused him of treason, and proclaimed his hatred of war accompanied, however, by a realization of the necessity of protecting a great and wide territory.* Messrs. L. P. Brodeur and Sydney Fisher of the Government also spoke. As results proved this speech of the Premier's did not at once conciliate French-Canadian opinion whatever it might do in the future. It was followed by bitter attacks in the Conservative press such as that of the Montreal Star of Oct. 12, which described it as "a straight repudiation of the British Empire and of Imperial responsibility" and denounced Sir Wilfrid for pluming himself upon having thwarted all Imperial advice for the adequate defence of the Empire as a whole.

The Drummond-Arthabaska ByeElection in Quebec

On Oct. 13th it was announced at Ottawa that Mr. Louis Lavergne, M.P. for Drummond-Arthabaska, and Liberal whip for the Province since 1901, had been appointed to the Senate in succession to the late Sir George Drummond. The constituency thus vacated had been Liberal since 1887 and was held by Joseph Lavergne and then Louis Lavergne by large majorities or by acclamation-the lowest majority being 834 in 1908. A writ was at once issued, nominations were set for Oct. 27th, and polling a week later. Outside of Quebec the public thought little and knew less of the contest. It was a Liberal constituency, in a Liberal Province, supposed to almost unanimously approve the ascendency of Sir Wilfrid Laurier; it was the home county of the Premier himself where he had lived for many years and still occupied his country house. The Nationalists were known to be a disturbing element in the contest and Sir Wilfrid's visit to Arthabaskaville on and after Oct. 17th occasioned speculation; but there was little thought of a turnover and it was supposed, even in close

NOTE.-These extracts are from the verbatim report in the Toronto Daily Star (Liberal) of October 11, 1910.

political circles, that the Premier's Montreal speech would soothe any excitement which did prevail.

On Oct. 18th Mr. J. E. Perrault received the Liberal nomination at Kingsey Falls and made a speech in which the following issue was defined: "The Nationalists want to fight us. Let them come on, then. They have boasted that the people of the Province are behind them, but I call upon you to aid in proving that the Province of Quebec is behind Sir Wilfrid Laurier and that it desires that victory rest with the Liberal party. I appeal to all moderate men to vote for a policy that has contributed so much to make the Dominion of Canada what it is to-day. We must demonstrate that in the Counties of Drummond and Arthabaska we recognize what Sir Wilfrid Laurier has done and that the Naval Bill enjoys the confidence of the people." Sir Wilfrid Laurier also made a personal appeal to the Electors: "I am glad to see that you have not forgotten me here. When I come to this County I feel myself at home. I see here old friends that I knew fifty years ago. It is true that I have withdrawn to a great extent from the district in which I passed the happiest days of my life but I still possess my old home at Arthabaska; my name figures on the electoral lists of the County: and I am happy to count myself among the electors of Mr. Perrault." He then dealt with and denied the Nationalist statements as to immigration and undermining of the influence of the French-Canadian, the claim that the Navy was a blow at Canadian autonomy, the alleged compulsory Naval service, etc. Mr. Arthur Gilbert, the Nationalist candidate, was a farmer who claimed to be a Liberal and to be simply standing in opposition to the Navy.

The Liberal candidate's policy was explicit. At St. Cyrille de Wendover (Oct. 26) Mr. Perrault said: "My policy is that of the Laurier Government. I support its platform in every plank. As on other questions I support the policy defined by Sir Wilfrid Laurier. I think that the time has come for Canada to make preparations for any emergencies which may arise. It is the duty of any Government to see that adequate measures are taken to protect the people they govern. In this respect I consider that the present Administration have acted wisely and I heartily support their measure." The Nationalist policy and methods of attack were fiercely criticized by Liberal speakers. Mr. Brodeur, Minister of Marine, at the nomination meeting on Oct. 27th, declared that these tactics were most dangerous: "I understand that there are Nationalists here who have come to shout rather than to listen to arguments. Canada has reached a position when I think we have done well to provide for a Navy. We are a nation, virtually independent. We have the right to make our own treaties. We have helped to aggrandize Canada. It is theypointing an accusing finger at Mr. Bourassa-who would belittle

Canada. I go further, I say that they are leading us into civil war. They are raising French-Canadians against English-Canadians. You are not accustomed-turning again to Mr. Bourassato be denounced as I denounce you now. I appeal to all Canadians -French as well as English-to have nothing to do with men who would lead us to civil war." He was explicit upon the point that "a Canadian fleet would, in case of necessity, serve to maintain. Great Britain's naval supremacy should the latter be attacked."

At this meeting A. M. Beauparlant, M.P., and L. J. Gauthier, M.P., also supported Mr. Perrault while Messrs. Monk, Bourassa and Lavergne upheld the Nationalist side. At other meetings before and after this the Government had a great array of speakers of whom the chief were those already mentioned, Mr. Jacques Bureau, Solicitor-General, Adelard Lanctot, M.P., Ernest Lapointe, M.P., Mèdéric Martin, M.P., Arthur Ecrèment, M.P., H. A. Meynard, M.P., Dr. H. S. Bèland, M.P., L. A. A. Rivet, M.P., A. Gauvreau, M.P., D. A. Lafortune, M.P., and Senators Lavergne and Mitchell-35 members of Parliament, altogether, it was stated. Everything possible to ensure success was done and a swarm of lesser Liberal speakers and canvassers and workers took part in the fray. It was said in a Conservative newspaper the day before the polling that 70 speakers were then defending the Navy and the Government in this constituency. The last meeting of the contest (in which Sir Wilfrid Laurier came down to vote on the following day) was held in Arthabaska Village on Nov. 2nd and here, as at other points, the Liberal speakers deplored the attempt to arouse prejudices against England. Dr. Bèland, one of the chief party campaigners, declared that the Nationalists were "sowers of discord and racial hatred."

Against the Liberal candidate in this contest were ranged the Nationalists, a part of the Ultramontane or extreme Roman Catholic press which had always viewed Liberalism with suspicion and, by passive support or active advocacy, a great many of the Bleus or Conservatives of an older day. The latter were represented by L'Evenement of Quebec which, according to a translation in The Globe of Oct. 26th took this view: "The spirit of party is so ingrained among us that it is not impossible that certain old Conservatives would have preferred a Bleu candidate. They fully understand, however, that the question at issue is not one of Bleu or Rouge but of liberty, of autonomy, of protection against militarism. Two years ago everybody was in accord with this point -no Imperialism. Sir Wilfrid Laurer himself directed, or at least appeared to direct, the opposition to militarism. He has betrayed us, but the mass of the people remain faithful to the principle of autonomy and hostile to Imperialism." On Oct. 24th this paper asserted that the English Admiralty was getting Canada where it was wanted. "Slowly, as Mr. Chamberlain said, we have been brought to the point-thanks to the feebleness and duplicity

of Laurier-of spending fifteen millions. In two years they will be asking us for twenty millions. Once we are on the train they will make us pay well. We will be in the crime up to the neck."

The arguments used by the Nationalists were of an interesting and varied character. The keynote of many speeches was, of course, Mr. Bourassa's mass-meeting in Montreal on Oct. 20th when he and Mr. Monk replied to Sir Wilfrid Laurier's preceding speech in the same city. It was an enthusiastic gathering of from 5,000 to 8,000 persons and upon the platform were Messrs. Lavergne, M.L.A., W. B. Nantel, M.P. (Cons.), J. M. Tellier, M.L.A., Conservative Leader in the Provincial House, and E. L. Patenaude, M.L.A. (Cons.). Mr. Monk commenced by describing the Laurier demonstration as factitious enthusiasm, denounced the Naval policy as involving Canada in wars of no interest to her people, and charged the Governor-General with mixing up in party politics. According to the Montreal Herald and the Toronto Star (both Liberal papers) he instanced Germany as a case in point and declared that Canada would have to participate in such a war because of the new Navy although, as a people, they were not interested in the matter. Mr. Bourassa followed* and denounced the Premier as having thought that he could "with impunity falsify public documents and announce utter falsehoods." In this he referred to certain statements as to speeches made by himself and Mr. Lavergne and to Sir Wilfrid's description of the Imperial Conference proceedings.

The Premier's actions in London and in this Navy Bill were described as " deception and traitorous conduct" and he was told that French-Canadians were loyal but as unwilling to sell their liberty to-day as when Sir Charles Bagot "wished to spit honours and favours in the faces of the patriots" of his period. "I continue to believe," he added, "that Canada owes nothing to England, that Canada has paid all her debt to England; that if Canada were separated from Great Britain to-morrow the British taxpayers could not cut down a farthing of their taxes, could not dispense with one of their warships and could not retrench in their expenditure for defence." Mr. Bourassa went on to denounce the Premier for his one-time Federation speeches in England and for his South African War policy; and to declare that Mr. L. P. Brodeur and other Liberals had at one time gone all over Quebec denouncing the militarism of the Conservatives. "You, who voted as I did in 1896 for Mr. Laurier when his partisans. M. Brodeur in the lead, declared throughout Quebec that the Conservatives should be put out of power because they had spent one million in the purchase of guns; do you find it a good thing that M. Laurier has spent fifteen millions in ships?" Then came the description of the Navy as leading straight to conscription-the chief issue,

*NOTE.-Special translation in Toronto Star from Le Devoir, the Nationalist organ.

probably, of the Nationalist campaign: "A day will come when draught officers will be scouring the country and compelling young men to enlist either in the Navy or the Army, to go to foreign lands and fight the battles of Great Britain, to co-operate with Downing Street in the oppression of weak countries, and to maintain, at the price of their blood, the supremacy of the British flag in Asia or Africa." The Premier had no children and could not be so deeply moved at the idea that his policy would send the sons of Canada "to scatter their bones on the inhospitable soil of Africa where fever would kill those spared by the bullets."

At Victoriaville, on Sunday, Oct. 23rd, Mr. Monk referred to the increased cost of living in the United States. This increase he ascribed largely to the increase of governmental expenditure for military and naval purposes, and declared that it was coincident with the development of the ambition of the United States to be a great world Power. The same condition would inevitably follow in Canada if this country sailed into the vortex of militarism and, instead of attracting new immigrants from the neighbouring country, we would see our own Canadians driven by the extortions of a war policy into emigration and the loss of their national character. Mr. Bourassa reiterated the story already proclaimed and pressed in Le Devoir that Sir Wilfrid had, after years of resistance, now yielded to the pressure of Great Britain and the insistence of Earl Grey. "If the electors of Arthabaska return Mr. Gilbert, the Nationalist candidate, many other Counties of Quebec will follow their example and the Government will be compelled to amend the Navy bill and limit the fleet solely to the defence of Canada." At St. Cyrille de Wendover (Oct. 26) Mr. Tancrède Marcil denounced the Government for paying Admiral Kingsmill $50,000 a year! In a tiny store a few miles from this place the Montreal Star correspondent heard a Nationalist tell a little group that "under the B.N.A. Act we pay England millions every year to defend us; we have paid it every year since Confederation; yet England has withdrawn her troops from Canada and is now calling upon us to defend ourselves."

At Tingwick (Oct. 31) Alfred Sevigny, a Quebec advocate, expressed himself as follows: "The Laurier Cabinet is a cabinet of Imperialists who want to sacrifice Canada's interests and plunge us into wars with which we have nothing to do. The Navy Bill is an attempt by Ontario and the Provinces of the West to coerce Quebec and enslave our people forever. What has England ever done for you? She has no need of your help. She is strong enough to defend herself. Laurier's ideal is to make you the vassals of the majority in the West. You must protest by your votes against this slave traffic. You must protest against helping England in her wars; unless you do conscription will come next.' At the same meeting Tancrède Marcil made the significant remark that "I come from a parish where the Church yet bears the mark