organised and worked under the British North America Act of 1867. Laurier's speech sounded the key-note of many subsequent speeches on the same subject, made, some in Canada, some in England, after he had established his position in Dominion politics, and, as a political leader, had become as acceptable to the English-speaking provinces as to Quebec.

At this time Laurier was on the back-benches in the Legislative Chamber. His speech, as remarkable for its grace of style as it was for its frankness, brought him into a prominence that extended beyond the boundaries of the French province. He ranked thereafter as an advocate of a united Canada—a as a French-Canadian who was opposed to a continuance of the old racial and religious divisions between French and English-speaking Canadians. He showed himself also an admirer of British political institutions and British civilisation, who from his study of English history could state the grounds on which his admiration was based; and an outspoken upholder of the tie between the Dominion and Great Britain.

Laurier's Quebec speech-his first speech that was of more than provincial interest-together with his distinguished personal appearance, his genial temperament, and his grace of manner, soon made him acceptable to his fellow-members from the English-speaking provinces in the House of Commons of 1874-1878. He had the instinct for parliamentary procedure which is characteristic of French-Canadians, and a love for the usages and traditions of Parliament; and he possessed these qualities to a degree that was remarkable even among the men of his province. Moreover, he was a polished and graceful speaker and formidable in debate. He was equally attractive whether speaking in the House of Commons or on the platform in the constituencies. In some respects he was not the intellectual equal of Blake or Cartwright, but he could hold the attention of the House as well as either of these contemporaries; and from his earliest years at Ottawa he was always careful not to weary his audience-a remark that could not uniformly be made of either Blake or Cartwright.

In the Parliament of 1874-1878-the only Parliament in the period 1867-1896 in which the Liberals were in

power-Laurier's success was almost immediate. In a comparatively short time his mental equipment for parliamentary life, and its obvious value to the Liberal party at this juncture in its history, were recognised by Mackenzie and his colleagues of the Cabinet. In October 1877, Laurier was appointed Minister of Inland Revenue; and from 1877 until 1918, the last session in which he attended the House, he was a front-bench member. His seat for Drummond and Arthabaska was regarded a safe one at the time when he received his portfolio as minister; otherwise Mackenzie, whose administration was at this time much assailed, might not (to use an Ottawa phrase) have opened' the constituency. But the Church had not yet settled its account with Laurier for his contumacy while he was engaged in the practice of the law at Montreal, and while he was editor of a newspaper at Arthabaskaville. It opposed his return; and, when he sought re-election, he was defeated by a majority of forty. This failure, however, involved no break in his parliamentary or ministerial career. A vacancy was created for Quebec East. Laurier was successful there; and he represented this constituency continuously for forty-two years.

It was about this time that Sir John A. Macdonald and his followers of the Conservative Opposition began the agitation for a tariff for the protection of Canadian industry. There had been tariffs for the protection of home industries during the era of the United Provinces of Upper and Lower Canada (1841-1867). The first of these tariffs was enacted in 1858, the second in 1859. There were duties as high as 20 and 25 per cent. in these tariffs; and the duties were imposed avowedly for the protection of manufacturers in Upper and Lower Canada. But between 1866 and 1878 most of these protectionist duties had been eliminated, because the Maritime Provinces were then hostile to protection. During the lifetime of the Parliament of 1874-1878, there were few duties in excess of 17 per cent. Notwithstanding much pressure from the manufacturing interests, the Mackenzie Government, in which Sir Richard Cartwright was Minister of Finance, refused, in the session of 1877, to call upon Parliament to enact any protectionist duties. Mackenzie's refusal to accept the principle of protection,

and to embody that principle in the tariff, gave the Conservatives an opportunity. Acting in the spirit of opportunism, Macdonald promptly committed the Conservative party to protection.

Macdonald and the Conservatives thus thrust a new issue into Dominion politics, an issue on which the two parties were to be sharply divided for the next eighteen or nineteen years. The general election of 1878 was fought on what in Canada for forty years has been known as the National Policy. It was the first election in Canada, or in the British North-American provinces, at which protection was the issue. The Liberals were overwhelmingly defeated. Macdonald again became Premier; and he held that office until his death in 1891.

The first National Policy tariff, with protectionist duties ranging from 25 to 35 per cent., was enacted in 1879, a year after the return of the Conservatives to power. From that time, the Conservative party had the unwavering support of all the interests, industrial and financial, that directly or indirectly derive advantage from National Policy tariffs. Despite the fact that there were general elections in 1882, 1887, and 1891, the Liberal party was continuously in opposition until 1896. In the Parliament of 1878-1882, the Liberals, then led by Mackenzie, numbered only 69, in a House of Commons containing 206 members. Mackenzie, who among other distinctions had that of being the only Premier of Canada to decline a knighthood, soon wearied of the uphill task of leading the Opposition, almost a forlorn hope in those years. He retired in 1882, and was succeeded by Edward Blake, who was leader until after the general election of 1887. Blake then retired, because of ill-health. At a caucus of the Liberal members, whose numbers had been increased to 87 at the last election, Laurier was chosen as Blake's successor. He had been elected leader of the French-Canadian group of the Liberal party in the House of Commons in the first session of the 1878 Parliament.

It has always been the rule at Ottawa to elect party leaders in a caucus. In Canada the caucus is older than Confederation. In the course of a parliamentary session at Ottawa, much business comes before the caucus of

each party. The Government unfolds its legislative

policy and plans in caucus; and in caucus the Opposition discusses legislation proposed by the Government, and decides on its policy and House of Commons tactics in respect to such legislation. Each party, when in opposition, chooses its leader in caucus; and generally it may be said that the caucus is as firmly established and as frequently in service as it is at Washington.

Laurier, on Blake's retirement (1887), was not anxious to change his position as leader of the French-Canadian group for that of leader of the Opposition. He was aware that it was an excessively difficult position for a French-Canadian. He pleaded first the condition of his health, which from the time when he removed from Montreal to Arthabaska had never been robust. Next, he advanced the fact, already well known, that he was not a man of independent means. Finally, he agreed to accept the leadership for a session, pending an improvement in Blake's health. But Blake was not willing to resume the position. In the early days of the session of 1888, Laurier was re-elected by the Liberal caucus; and thereafter his leadership of the party, whether it was in opposition or in power, was unquestioned. There were, moreover, no divisions in the party until the question of Conscription came before Parliament in the session of 1917.

During the long period of eighteen years through which the Liberals were in opposition, only two questions which have any large place in the political history of the Dominion occupied for any considerable time the attention of Parliament. One was the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and the policy of the Macdonald Government in regard to that undertaking; the other was the so-called National Policy, with its tariff protection to Canadian manufacturers, and (after 1883) bounties from the Dominion Treasury in aid of the iron and steel industry in Nova Scotia, Quebec, and Ontario.

At every session from 1878 to 1885 there were long and often acrimonious debates in the House of Commons on the first of these questions. There were Liberals, of whom Cartwright was the most prominent, who were opposed to the Canadian Pacific as planned and supported by the Conservative Government. These Liberals held that a less costly scheme could be devised to fulfil the

conditions made with British Columbia when that remote and isolated province agreed to come into Confederation. It was a conviction with these members of the House that the Canadian Pacific Railway could never pay; that the Company would become bankrupt; and that the Government would be deeply involved in the failure of the undertaking. Laurier never seems to have gone as far as this in his opposition to the scheme, but he was opposed to the land grants, to the subsidies, and also to the section in the Act which exempted the Company for many years from taxation of its lands and its railway properties. The railway was, however, made; and its success justified the foresight of its promoters.

From 1879 to 1896 the one continuing cause of contention was the National Policy tariff. The Liberals were not free-traders; they always agreed that there must be duties on imports in order to raise revenue. What they objected to was the fiscal system established by Macdonald and the Conservatives in 1879, which was so framed as to afford protection to Canadian industries. Their alternative policy was a fiscal system, with duties on imports devised solely for the raising of revenue, and with no concern on the part of the Government for the interests of Canadian manufacturers. They condemned protection on the ground that it corrupted politics, fostered the growth of trusts and combinations to advance prices, increased the cost of living, retarded immigration, and was responsible for the large and continuing exodus to the United States of native-born Canadians, and also of new-comers from the United Kingdom.

At no time during Laurier's career was he regarded as an authority on trade or commerce, or on the details and operation of tariffs. These were not subjects to which he applied his mind, either when in Opposition or as head of the Government. In Opposition, from 1878 to 1896, Cartwright and Mills, who had both been members of the Mackenzie Administration of 1874-1878, were the foremost authorities on trade, tariffs, bounties, and reciprocity. When the Liberals were in power, Laurier left the details of tariff and bounty enactments, as well as of reciprocity agreements with France and the United States, almost exclusively to his subordinates, H. S. Fielding, Cartwright, and Paterson.