The sun., 1903-05-17

Coniedoratton ana tnD britlsn cnPno'
, The French Canadian Liberals. he said.
were not like the Liberals Of France or
other Liberals Of the Continent OF Europe
who wore at any time ready by violence
TO overturn tho existing Government.
They resembled rather the Liberals OF Eng
land, who for 90 many years worked ana
voted for reform, and. by constitutional
means, achieved the great results which
might be beheld to-day. From the moment
the French-speaking opponents OF Con-
federation in Canada were defeated, they
bowed to tho decision. and frankly and
earnestly endeavored to advance the IN
terests Of the new Dominion. Their pro-
gramme was based upon the principle OF
respect for authority, and full acceptance
OF the obligation to labor for the general
good OF the country. There was not
man in Canada, said Mr.. Laurier, who did
not support the union brought about by
the British North America Act OF 1907,
and the process OF welding into one the dh-
ferent provinces had been 30 successful
that they were all proud to be Canadians
while equally proud to be subjects OF the
British Empire.
How quickly Mr.. Laurier came 10 be
recognized as the natural leader OF the
Liberals In the province Of Quebec will
be manifest whom We point out that In
the autumn of 1877 he was invited to take
the portfolio OF Inland Revenue in the
Mackenzie administration. The Toronto
Globe OF the day declared: 'Mr. Laurier
will prove a decided accession to the Min
istry, and his presence in tho Cabinet will
be welcomed by all the English-speaking
Reformers. as we'll as by the Liberals
among his own compatriots. His in
huence among the latter has long been ad-
mitted, and the former have como to regard
him as ono Of the rising members Of the
party to which he belongs. What ever
differences may once have existed be-
tween the Reformers Of Ontario and those
Of Quebec, no trace Of those differences
is to be found in the utteranoes OF Mr..
Laurier."
1t is we'll known that in the Canadian
Dominion, as in the United Kingdom.
member OF the House Of Commons, when
he enters the Ministry, must resign his
seat, and seek reelection. The Globe was
mistaken In assuming that Mr.. Laurier,
II opposed at all. would be reelected by
large majority. As matter OF fact his
reelection was vehemently opposed by
the Roman Catholic ecclesiastics. and he
was defeated by 70 votes. This was the
most grievous blow that Mr.. Laurier has
suffered during the whole OF his public
carer. He found himself beaten in his
own home. beaten just az he had accepted
Office, and beaten by the men Of his own
race and faith. In the English portions Of
the constituency he had run very strongly,
and gained very heavily on the vote he
had polled three years before. Under the
circumstances, the Mackenzie Govern
ment could not permit Mr.. Lauher's de-
feat to interrupt his political career, and
1t was arranged that Mr. Thibeaudeau
should resign his seat for Quebec East in
the young Minister'S favor. Here, again,
he was bitterly opposed by the Catholic
clergy, but won a decisive victory. He
served. however. as Minister under Mr..
Mackenzie for only one session, for when
the Government went to the country In
September. 1873, it was beaten In every
province except New Brunswick. and Sir
John Macdonald came back to power at
tho head of the Conservatives, with q
majority Of 80 in the Ottawa House OF
Commons.
A long day Of adversity for the Liberal
party Of Canada ensued. The principal
events which marked the period between
Mr.. Asckenzies resignation Of ONCE and
Mr.. Launer's election to the leadership
OF the liberal party were the establishment
OF the system OF protection, the construc-
tion Of the Canadian Pacific Railway. the
settlement of the Northwestern boundary
of Ontario. the successful assertion Of
provincial authority over the issue Of liquor
licenses, the redistribution of constitu-
encies in 1882, the adoption Of the Federal
Franchise Act, the elimination by purchase
of the monopoly provisions Of the Canadian
Pacific Railway charter the Northwest
Rebellion. and the negotiation Of the abor-
tive Fisheries Treaty between Canada
and the United States. Meanwhile In
April 1880, Mr. Alexander Mackenzie had
withdrawn from the position OF leader
of the Liberal Opposition. and had been
succeeded by Mr.. Edward Blake, who
retained the place until June. 1887 Who
should succeed Mr.. Blake was serious
problem for the opposition. There was no
approach to unanimity on the subject. for
the reason. apparently, that up to that
time few English speaking Canadians had
considered it practicable to put . French
speaking Catholic at the head of a political
party In Canada. For the moment the
Liberal CAUCUS appointed small advisory
committee to manage the affairs and direct
the policy Of the party. This. Of course,
was but . temporary expedient. 1t was
necessary to agree upon a leader. At
least three names were seriously canvassed;
they were those OF Sir. Richard Cartwright
and Mr.. David Mills Of Ontario and Mr..
Iaurier OF Quebec. The retiring leader.
Mr.. Blake, who probably knew Mr.. Laurier
better than did any other man in Psrl a.
ment, thought the interests Of the party
would be best served by his appointment.
The knowledge of Mr.. Bake's preference
determined the action OF the
caucus, for when 1t met on June 7, 1887.
Mr.. Laurier was nominated by Sir Richard
seconded by Mr.. Mills and
chosen,
It was no light thing to undertake to All
the place that Mr. Blake had occupied.
Regarding this remarkable man. Mr.. Will
llson has good deal to say in the first chap
ter Of his second volume, under the caption, |
A Contrast in Leadership" the men con-
trasted being, Of course, Blake and Mac |
donald. With regard to the assertion. still |
sometimes heard. that Mr.. Blake was fail |
ure In Canada, our author insists that. on |
almost every great question Of public policy. |
time has justified his position. 'On land
-