protectionist policy, but to increase the revenue tariff from 171⁄2 to 20 per cent., in order to meet the necessities of the treasury in a time of unexampled commercial depression. In fact this policy was foreshadowed in The Globe with the full knowledge and concurrence of Mr. Brown, and was reluctantly abandoned in consequence of the representations of the Liberal contingent from the Eastern Provinces that any increase of customs taxation would be fatal to Liberal candidates in the Maritime constituencies. The suspicion that 1 The Globe on February 7th, 1876, said: "No one proposes to abolish our custom houses, or to fall back upon direct taxation for all our national revenues. In these circumstances no one can object to our raising that revenue by duties on imported articles, and that very much at our discretion. No one could object to this, and no one will, Britain least of all. If, in order to raise this needed revenue, a tariff of twenty or even twenty-five per cent. were necessary, no one, we suppose, would object to its imposition, though they might regret its necessity. Upon this point there is no diversity of opinion, and no need, therefore, of either argument or discussion. . We have already practically seventeen and a half per cent. protection, which the freight and other charges on foreign goods materially increases. Some very naturally argue that any industry which cannot live and thrive under that amount of protection does not deserve to live. If, however, the fiscal exigencies of the country require more revenue, no one would seriously object to the rate being still further raised. The range, however, within which this can be done to any advantage is limited. Scarcely any very would go further than twentyfive; while thirty or thirty-five, we should fancy, even our most rabid protectionist would, in any case, think excessive. After all, then, the diversity of sentiment on this tariff business is excessively small. On the one hand, the greatest sticklers for free trade never have objected to a revenue tariff, and as little have they objected to its increase, if, after the most rigid economy has been practised, the credit of the country required it, while they have never fixed upon a maximum tariff there was ever any open quarrel or even any general lack of sympathy between Mr. Brown and Mr. Edward Blake does not seem to be well founded. Mr. Blake was not inferior to Mr. Brown in intellectual calibre, while they were quite dissimilar in temperament, and very likely to seek common ends by different methods. It is too much to expect that either of two such men could be quite the echo of the other, particularly when we remember that each had a resolute strain of independence, and each the temper of leadership. If we do not mistake, Mr. Brown was profoundly conscious of Mr. Blake's remarkable ability, and largely instrumental in persuading the great advocate to embark upon a public career. Mr. Brown and The Globe were just as loyal to the Blake Administration in Ontario as to the Mackenzie Government at Ottawa, and Mr. Brown's counsel was as sympathetically received and as solidly considered by the leader of the provincial Cabinet as by the chief of the federal Ministry.1 for any supposable circumstances. On the other hand, their opponents are shy about even mentioning taxation at all for purely protectionist reasons, while even at the worst they would never venture on more than two or three per cent. higher than what those whom they are continually denouncing as free traders are very willing to acquiesce in, if the national obligations make it necessary." On February 15th, The Globe added: "No one in Canada, any more than in England, has any desire to prevent our revenue tariff from affording such incidental protection to manufacturers as it can be made to afford without injuring it for revenue purposes." 1 In his letter of 1871, to the Roman Catholic Committee, George No one would suppose, however, that absolute identity of opinion often exists among a group of opposition leaders, or even among members of the same cabinet. There must be differences of view, discussion, surrender, and compromise. There need not be disloyalty or intrigue. The collective wisdom must determine the final policy, and to secure the triumph of that policy the zeal and the energy of all must be applied. This is a necessary condition of the party system, certainly a necessary condition of the cabinet system. It is well that the secrets of council are not often unveiled, and that historical inquiry should not degenerate into mere curiosity. Of course neither a leader of opposition nor a cabinet minister is bound to accept a policy which his judgment and his conscience condemn. His only legitimate alternative, however, is open repudiation of the policy and frank appeal to the judgment and conscience of the country. This was Mr. Brown's course on more than one occasion, and here is the best evidence that he had no reverence for party except as an instrument of reform, and that he ranked progressive measures far above stagnant office-holding. Brown said: "At the convention of 1867, I voluntarily resigned the leadership of that (Liberal) party, and have not since then taken any action in that capacity. Mr. Alexander Mackenzie is now leader of the Liberal party from Ontario in the House of Commons, and Mr. Edward Blake is leader in the Ontario Assembly; they have my most cordial confidence and support, and to them I refer you for an official answer to your questions." But while Mr. Brown was sometimes a restless and uncomfortable political yoke-fellow, he never stooped to treachery or intrigue, and he was resolutely faithful to accepted co-workers in the great movements in which he was concerned. The passion of jealousy he never knew. He cared not how high men towered at his side, so long as they did not betray the reforms that were dear to him, in order to make more profitable alliances and step obliquely into office and emoluments. He was, in short, a simple, candid, loyal comrade, a bold reformer, an eager and even tempestuous agitator, a statesman in scope and vision, an unwavering champion of British connection and British institutions, and in his life and achievements are set deep the roots of Canadian Liberalism. In undertaking a study of the work and character of the present leader of the Liberal party, it has seemed necessary to make this historical survey in order that we may better understand the traditions to which he must appeal, the prejudices he must respect or overcome, the forces he must unite, the elements he must conciliate, if he is to establish and maintain the Liberal party as a ruling party and give the country orderly, stable, and progressive govern ment. ALL CHAPTER II THE STUDENT AND THE INSTITUTE LL down the generations the green and quiet country has been the nursery of poets, philosophers, and statesmen. It is there that men have room to grow and time to think. There is comfort and serenity in the open sky, the wide field, and the strip of bush, and a spacious leisure in the long, slow days, and solemn brooding nights. All there is of divinity in man ripens under such conditions, and the elemental simplicities and austerities of life breed in him high resolves and large ambitions. If we examine the rolls of the great public schools and universities, we shall find that very many of the leaders in the class-lists have come up from rural homes, and were reared perhaps in grievous circumstances. So we shall find it in the professions, in the churches, in the parliaments, in great commercial and financial enterprises. The roar and clamour of cities seem to produce diffusion and distraction. Social duties and social ambitions take the best out of lives that under the steadier conditions which prevail in rural communities, would have been deeper and fuller and richer in human service. How much of the strength and sanity of British statesmanship is the product of quiet English fields |