of British bullets." Mr. Sevigny appears to have been a particularly inflammable speaker. At Arthabaska (Nov. 1) he said: "The Navy belongs to His Majesty. Is that a Canadian Navy? Who is His Majesty? Have we any Majesty here?" As to this Naval taxation it was wanted by the Lords of England "who will not pay taxation there and are striving to get it out of the Colonies." Mr. Lavergne, on this occasion, expressed himself clearly in another matter: "On three occasions French-Canadians have fought for British supremacy in Canada. I declare now that it is England which is indebted to us and not we who are indebted to England." At the succeeding Victoriaville meeting he turned to a few ladies present and said: "It will be you who will have to send your husbands, your lovers or your sons to fight on foreign seas. I appeal to you, Ladies, for I feel, if I may make the remark without sacrilege, that the sacrifice of Calvary would not have been so complete had there not been a woman to mingle her tears with those shed by the Crucified."

The issue of the contest was proclaimed by the Liberal correspondents of the Herald, Montreal, and the Star, Toronto, to be "Laurier versus the Navy" and there can be no doubt that this was the case. The cartoons issued by the Nationalists were interesting to say the least. According to a Montreal Star correspondent (Nov. 3) one of them depicted an angry Mercier as "a Voice from the Tomb" telling the Prime Minister that he had betrayed his country; while another showed a defiant Habitant being pushed from the top of a cliff on to the points of a pleasing collection of European bayonets. After the election was over all kinds of inflammatory utterances were attributed to Nationalist canvassers and the Winnipeg Free Press (Nov. 4) instanced the following:

In twenty years the recruiting officer will come to your homes and will say to your wives: 'Mother, you count on your son to make you happy in your old years, you expect him to protect you in your old age, but you are mistaken. The law passed in 1910 by the Laurier Government robs you of your children, and I shall carry away thy son with me.'

This will take 50,000 to 60,000 men, all fathers of families, or young men on the point of so becoming, who will have to go to Japan, China or Oceana, under the command of English officers, who, wishing to make our race disappear, will see to it that these ships go to the bottom of the sea. The English have never done anything for the French-Canadians; we owe them nothing. Those who disembowelled your fathers on the Plains of Abraham ask you to-day to go and get killed for them.

The Nationalists and Conservatives afterwards claimed that the Liberals had also been anti-British in their advocacy. Mr. Lavergne in a Quebec interview on Nov. 7th said: "The Government contingent in Drummond were tempted to say that the Navy would not be used to help England but would enable Canada to break with England. Perrault, the defeated candidate, Gauthier and Dube, all used this argument for all it was worth." To charges

of a similar kind against himself Mr. Perrault replied in a letter to the Toronto Mail on Nov. 9th: "At every meeting which I addressed I dwelt on Canada's duty to assume the naval defence of her shores and commerce and I declared that she would come to the rescue of the Motherland should the supremacy of Britain on the seas be ever threatened."

What was the Conservative attitude in this campaign? It was in the main one of official inaction but of local Nationalistic support. L'Evenement has been already quoted. So far as Mr. Monk and Mr. Blondin and other French Conservative members of Parliament-bolters from their own party on this question could be termed Conservatives they gave the party sanction to the Opposition fighting. Mr. P. E. Blondin, M.P. for Charlevoix, followed Mr. Monk with enthusiasm and even went beyond him on some points. The press, including Le Soleil of Oct. 29th, reported him as saying at St. Louis de Blandford that "We owe nothing to Great Britain. England did not take Canada for love or to plant the cross of religion, as the French did, but in order to plant its trading posts and make money. The only liberties we have won are those we won by force, and to-day England tries to dominate its Colonies as Imperial Rome once did." The Montreal Herald on Oct. 28th addressed to seventeen recognized Conservative leaders, outside of Quebec Province, the inquiry: "How do you advise Conservatives to vote in Arthabaska Election ?"

The Hon. G. E. Foster replied as follows: " My advice to every Conservative is to vote as his intelligence and conscience dictate. The Laurier Administration is so extravagant, corrupt and lacking in principle that I would vote to turn it out and so give opportunity to replace it by a better one." Mr. S. Barker repudiated the antiImperial propaganda, but expressed the hope that every Conservative will do his duty for Canada, for his party, and against the Liberal Government." Dr. Sproule declined to give any advice; Mr. Premier McBride, of British Columbia, declared that Conservatives should follow "the advice of our leader at Ottawa "; Hon. R. Rogers wired that "every Conservative and loyal Canadian, whether in Arthabaska or elsewhere, should recognize that his first duty to his country is to vote against the Laurier Administration." Mr. Borden returned to Ottawa from Virginia on Nov. 1st and disclaimed knowledge of the situation. He thought the electors should "vote according to the dictates of their own consciences."

On Nov. 3rd the unexpected happened, so far as the public was concerned, and the Nationalist candidate was returned by a majority of 207. The Town of Arthabaska gave the Government candidate a majority, the County went against him; the Englishspeaking voters were said by the Liberals to have supported the Nationalists and it was also claimed that much Church influence was exerted in their favour. In the evening, at Victoriaville, Mr.

Gilbert was given a public reception and the Nationalist gathering sang "Veni Creator Spiritus" and "O Canada." As to the Liberals the Herald correspondent from the above place wrote: "To say that the Liberal organizers were surprised at the result would be to put the matter mildly. Their surprise smacks rather of stupefaction." In Montreal a great gathering swarmed about the offices of Le Devoir and Mr. Bourassa addressed it briefly: "I say to you French-Canadians that we have to-day done a great work; we have taught Sir Wilfrid Laurier that he is not omnipotent, and that he cannot plunge Canada into the responsibility of supporting a Navy without first consulting the people." Mr. Monk declared that the electors had spoken for the whole Province. In the official publication giving the returns of this election the vote was recorded as Conservative 3,451 and Liberal 3,244. The Nationalists were not mentioned.

of the Arthabaska ByeElection

When the news of the Nationalist victory reached Public Opinion the public mind of the country there was a very wide discussion of its effect upon politics and the future. The text of a myriad editorials was the influence of Nationalism upon the parties. The Liberal press was unstinting in its condemnation; the Conservatives were inclined to denounce the principles urged but to applaud the result as a belated punishment for the Prime Minister and his old-time relationship with Rielism and similar cries. Liberal opinion may be first indicated. The Toronto Globe said: "This is the year of the big wind in Quebec. The storm of Nationalist and Conservative oratory has blown over Drummond-Arthabaska and carried all before it. The election of Mr. Gilbert, who is opposed to the spending of a dollar on naval defence, is a fact that must be faced. It means that the Bourassa propaganda has made more progress than had been imagined, and that the most vigorous steps must be taken toward putting the actual conditions as to Naval defence before the electorate all over the Province." The Toronto Star described the result as not so much a party defeat as "a blow at National Unity." As to the future: "A solid French-Canadian vote arrayed against a solid vote of the other elements of the community is a contingency which we must all look forward to with misgivings. To prevent it, to present Imperial questions in such a way as to bring Canadians together in sympathy and co-operation is the task of the statesmen of to-day and will be the task of statesmen for many years to come."

The Montreal Herald, after praising Mr. Bourassa's ability and declaring that "he has now arrived," added: "The result of this election in Arthabaska, it is well to be quite frank about it, is of vastly more significance to Liberals elsewhere than to Sir Wilfrid Laurier. If he chose he could follow the example of his prototype, Lafontaine, accept the intimation that a new generation proposed to be master of its destinies, and retire from public life with such

a record of honour and of service as no other Canadian has ever had to his credit. What that would mean to the Liberal party of the Dominion it is needless to say." The Montreal Witness said: "Mr. Bourassa knows very well that his appeal for several years past has been to race, religion and prejudice, and that the election in Drummond and Arthabaska has been won largely by frightening the voters into the belief that the able-bodied men would be dragged off to fight in Britain's wars by land and by sea." It described the result, also, as a warning to Conservatives and insincere Imperialists. The St. John Telegraph was fearful of the future: "If it should become evident that Mr. Bourassa could build up in Quebec a formidable party committed to such opinions and such strivings as those to which he gave a violent voice in DrummondArthabaska, undoubtedly there would spring up in Canada, spontaneously, an overwhelming electorate determined to check or to crush out any such movement, by whatever means might seem to be necessary. And it would be a most lamentable thing if matters should ever come to that pass in Canada."

The Ottawa Free Press was explicit in its advice: "There is no use blinking our eyes to the fact that the Government's hold in Quebec is weakening, but there is time to repair the damage before it is too late. A systematic campaign of education must be started now. Instead of running about the world, participating in the welding of the Empire, members of the Cabinet will have to stay at home and set to work welding Canada; nor must these campaigns be confined to Quebec." As to personal opinion Mr. Premier Scott of Saskatchewan told the Montreal Star that the issue was so serious as to "demand for Sir Wilfrid Laurier's naval policy the earnest and active adherence of every Canadian who is in favour of Canada remaining in the British Empire." Mr. A. B. Warburton, M.P., thought that by the time another election came around the people would understand the situation and reverse their verdict. Senator Lavergne described the campaign as a very unfair one. The Nationalists made the farming community believe that "their children would all be taken to the wars and blown to pieces."

The French-Canadian Conservative or Nationalist papers were very limited in number but jubilant in comment. Le Devoir, whose Editor was Oliver Heroux, a native of France, had a contribution from Mr. Bourassa declaring the result "a double and formidable check to Laurierism, to the Naval law and to the person and policy of the Prime Minister." It was moreover a defeat for Imperialism and for political corruption; a victory for Mr. Monk and the autonomists. "This is the beginning of the end-such is the word upon the lips of all." L'Evenement of Quebec declared that "the defeat of their candidate sounds as the death toll of the Administration that has been reigning at Ottawa since 1896. No more has Sir Wilfrid Laurier the confidence of his friends;

the electors in his own County turn their back on him; they repudiate the Imperialist policy. He has secretly plotted with Lord Grey and the other agents of English Imperialism that are in this country." The battle had seemed hopeless but the Oppositionists had won. Senator A. C. P. Landry said: "The verdict is decisive; Laurier has lost his hold on the Province."

a dis

Of the Liberal press Le Canada described the election as agreeable incident," which education of the people would sufficiently meet; La Patrie thought it "one of the greatest surprises in our political history" and asked if any one could prophecy that this result will not "repeat itself in most of the Counties of the Province"; Le Pays (Ind. Lib.) declared that the party was weakening and "gravely sick," that many people believed Liberalism had given way to Ministerialism, that keen appetites and personal aspirations had too largely taken the place of patriotism. The Quebec La Vigie described the majority of the electors as grossly deceived by tales of war and death; La Patrie of Montreal described the election as "one of the most significant that has ever taken place in Canada" and of great importance to the political situation; Le Soleil of Quebec summarized the situation as follows: "The only conclusion to be drawn is that the electorate of the Riding have formed an absolutely false opinion on the matters at issue. It is our duty now to take the necessary means without the slightest delay to put public opinion on the right side of the Naval question."

The Conservative opinion of Canada was regretful in a certain sense, jubilant in another. The Montreal Gazette reviewed the influences that had made a "solid Quebec" and concluded: "The result of the election will be good. It will make both Ministers and their followers understand henceforth that the cry that they are for Laurier will not be accepted as a reply to popular criticism of Ministerial conduct, and for this reason the rending asunder, with Laurier's own powder, of Laurier's solid Quebec will be a good thing." The Toronto News described the election as a staggering blow to the Laurier administration." The St. John Standard saw in it "a crushing defeat" for the Government. "For years a solid Quebec has been the chief consideration with Liberal politicians, consequently the loss of this seat is of tremendous significance, and it is the most direct evidence that could be offered of the disintegration of the Liberal party. A defeat for Laurier in Quebec, in his own home, is capable of only one interpretation. It means that he has lost control of his native province." The Hamilton Spectator was emphatic in its comments: "Laurier is the man who created the Quebec Nationalist trouble; who trained its leaders. He has seen fit to play Quebec against the rest of the Dominion for years, to talk double to the people of Canada. Is he, then, the man or is his the party to look for relief from a situation that they themselves have created and that may