seven years in bondage. Patience was needed, but Blake was never patient. He was not the man to fight uphill battles. He was proud, and expected men to come to him; sensitive, for he lacked humor; honorable and earnest, and saw charlatans and men steeped in corruption holding high place in public life. Public life in the eighties was not a calling where thin-skinned men throve. The kindliest of men to his intimates, he wore the sensitive man's mask of indifference to the public. Ill health and a nervous temperament unfitted him for the drudgery and disappointments of politics. He was moody and nervous when things were not going well. Yet without any of the lesser arts, he cast a spell over every man in Parliament. We felt in the presence of genius, and would have been proud to serve to the end, had he not drawn himself aloof.

"Cartwright was the most finished speaker in the House in my time, and a very effective debater. Mackenzie knocked his opponent down; Cartwright ran his through with keen rapier-thrust, and usually turned the sword in the wound. He was a master of classic eloquence, and it was a pleasure, at least on our side, to listen to the fluent, precise, faultless English of his most impromptu utterance. Blake was perhaps a more omnivorous reader, but Cartwright was distinctly the most lettered man in the House. His mordant wit set his opponents writhing, and did not always spare his technical friends. His duels with Tupper, who was a better hand at the bludgeon, were particularly interesting, though the exchange of personalities was more intense than I had been used to in Quebec. He was a good Liberal, at least a good Grit, after he left the Tory fold, but I often felt that he would have been more at home in the old unreformed House of Commons in England or in the diplomatic service. No man among us paid so much heed to international affairs, and to the international aspect of Canadian questions.

"I have mentioned Tupper. He was the Danton of the Tory party, the incarnation of force and audacity. He was a splendid fighter, utterly fearless; the more desperate his cause, the bolder his front. His speech came with the rush

He

and vehemence of a mountain torrent. Few men had more constructive vision, but it is not of that side that memories come strongest, but of his power to storm through a party measure. was an incomparable political pugilist. Macdonald showed his knowledge of men nowhere better than in his utilization of Tupper. He was vigorous and he was vain, and so Sir John used him for debate on all possible occasions. He usually took a broad or broadside view, struck powerful blows, which sometimes landed, and sometimes hit the air; he never knew the difference, and the crowd behind him applauded equally.

"Sir John Macdonald was the supreme student of human nature. That was the secret of his power. I doubt if any man of his century was his equal in the art of managing men. He could play on the strength and weakness of each and all his followers at his will. That was his chief interest. He had imagination, he had a deep and responsible interest in Canada's welfare, but he did not usually take long views. He was always careful to bring his vision back to the next step. Of course he was a master of strategy, but not in the detached objective fashion of the bloodless chess-player or the general twenty miles behind the trenches; it was his instinctive, sympathetic reading of the men in the mêlée about him that made him sense the way out, and turned the game. Perhaps his chief disservice was to make his countrymen feel that politics was not only a game, but a game without rules. He was our greatest Canadian, but he did more than any other to lower the level of Canadian public life.

"Macdonald was never interested in the details of administration. What is less realized, he was not a very good speaker. The matter rarely rose above commonplace; he stammered, and repeated himself. Yet he usually drove his point home; he had a remarkable memory and an unfailing fund of humor; he knew precisely how to embarrass his opponents and delight the benches behind him. In writing it was another matter. His state papers, such as you will find in Pope's 'Memoirs,' are on a very high plane, admirable work, none better anywhere.

"For sheer eloquence, none of the English-speaking members could match Chapleau. He was easily our greatest French-Canadian orator, though his impassioned and somewhat theatrical speech did not score the same success in the Commons that had greeted it on the hustings. He had a splendid presence, a vibrant, caressing voice, all the natural gifts and graces of the orator. When he seized the platform, head thrown back, chest thrust forward, shaking his lion's mane, his mobile face lighting with the joy of battle, he first intoxicated himself and then swept every hearer into wild applause. Mercier had less fiery passion, but he was a powerful tribune, a stronger and more robust character than Chapleau, until success went to his head. Langevin, who for many years led the Bleus as Macdonald's first lieutenant in Quebec, was really not in the same class with Chapleau or Mercier, a weak man, bolstered up by the clergy.

"The Canadian Governor-General long ago ceased to determine policy, but he is by no means, or need not be, the mere

Seated, Barbara Harcourt, Anthony Asquith

figurehead the public imagine. He has the privilege of advising his advisers, and if he is a man of sense and experience, his advice is often taken. Much of his time may be consumed in laying corner-stones and listening to boring addresses, but corner-stones must be laid, and people like a touch of color and ceremony in life. Some men, particularly mayors, even like making formal addresses to governor-generals or any one else who may be compelled to listen.

"Lord Dufferin was in many ways an ideal governor-general for the early stages of the dominion. His touch of the blarney gave us the good conceit of ourselves needed to help us through our first awkward hobbledehoy years. He had tact and a quick shrewdness that carried him far. He was prone to magnify his office and incidentally Dufferin. He was always speaking to the galleries. He had no special oratorical gift, but a pleasing literary gracefulness. His fellow Irishman, Lord Lansdowne, was a man of another mold, a strong mind, of clear-cut judgment, distinctly our ablest governor. Lord Stanley was an affable

gentleman, no more, but Lady Stanley was an able and witty woman; she did not seek the lime-light, content to shine in the family circle. The warm heart and unresting energy of the Aberdeens are not forgotten in Canada. Lord Minto had much sound sense, a stronger man than was thought. When he first came to Canada he was absolutely untrained in constitutional practice, knew little but horses and soldiering; but he took his duties to heart, and became an effective governor, if sometimes very stiff. Lord Grey took his duties still more seriously, to the point of fussiness. The Duke of Connaught was the rigidly trained and repressed constitutional monarch, correct and aloof, knowing nothing of Canadian political affairs and caring less; he might well have taken occasion to give a hint to Sir Robert Borden about his dismissals of office-holders.

"A visit to England is in many ways a pleasure, even if it involves an uncomfortable voyage for a poor sailor. The throb of the world's affairs in London, the stimulus of contact with men of high and disciplined capacity, the comfort of town and country life in a land cushioned in tradition, where leisure is an art and hospitality a science, make a deep appeal. Yet it was always a strain. The endless round of dinners and receptions would wear down a body stronger than mine, but there was more than that. Along with much genuine and spontaneous kindliness, one felt the incessant and unrelenting organization of an imperialistic campaign. We were looked upon not so much as individual men, but abstractly as colonial statesmen, to be impressed and nobbled. The Englishman is as businesslike in his politics, particularly his external politics, as in business, even if he covers his purpose with an air of polite indiffer

in 1907 and after society pressure was the chief force. It is hard to stand up against the flattery of a gracious duchess. Weak men's heads are turned in an evening, and there are few who can resist long. We were dined and wined by royalty and aristocracy and plutocracy, and always the talk was of empire, empire, empire. I said to Deakin in 1907, that this was one reason why we could not have a parliament or council in London: we can talk cabinet to cabinet, but cannot send Canadians or Australians as permanent residents to London, to debate and act on their own discretion. Fortunately, there were some good friends who seemed to like us for ourselves, not least the children.

were aca

"Chamberlain was the first English statesman whom we came to know intimately. I was much impressed by his force and directness. He was ambitious, but not for himself alone. Unfortunately, our views often clashed. There was little serious discussion in the Imperial Conference of 1897, which was a mere curtain raiser. The debates demic; we did not come to sufficiently close quarters to bring out the cleavage of opinions. But in 1902 a dead set was made to take advantage of the supposed wave of imperial enthusiasm following the Boer War. Chamberlain was the head and front of the campaign. He pushed his own plan of an imperial council, and backed Brodrick in seeking to induce the colonies to give one fourth their militia special training for foreign service and to hold them at the call of the British War Office, and Selborne in seeking money grants to the British Navy. He handled the discussion skilfully; when it was apparent that refusal was coming, he headed off Selborne and Brodrick, and took up the questions later in private conference. Australia and Canada stood fast, though Australia made slight concession in extending the Australian squadron agreement. He urged us again and again, and seemed unable to understand our position. He said to me time and again, 'I am very much surprised and disappointed at Canada's position.' At last he roused my anger, and I replied: 'I am very much surprised at your surprise and your persistence. You do not realize

that we are Canadians first, as you are an Englishman first, and that the needs and outlook of the two countries are wholly different. England is always thinking of war and of the extension and strengthening of her domains; not so Canada. Our need is to build up our industry and consolidate national unity; then, if need comes, we shall be stronger to give aid. You scorn the Little-Englanders, but you are yourself hopelessly insular; you never think of looking at questions from the Canadian's or the Australian's point of view.' I did not convince him. His imperialism was a racial imperialism; he considered all English-speaking Canadians and Australians merely as Englishmen living overseas, and expected French and Dutch to be made over into more Englishmen. I saw that he looked upon me as a very imperfectly assimilated Englishman; in fact, he hinted that my imperial lukewarmness was due to my French blood. So I suggested after a dinner he gave to all the Canadian ministers that he should have an interview with my English-speaking colleagues by themselves.

He jumped at the sugges

tion, and arranged a conference at his house the Sunday following. To his surprise, Fielding, Mulock, Fred Borden, Paterson, all talked precisely the same way; Mulock and Borden particularly struck straight from the shoulder. He was intensely disappointed to find that the obstacle to his schemes was not French Canada, but Canada. It was the experience of this conference that convinced him he could make no headway in centralizing either the Government or the defense of the empire, and that set him off on the tariff tack a year later.

"Of English public men, Asquith impressed me most deeply. Balfour has a subtle note of distinction, a suggestion of unknown potentialities that challenged interest, but he has not Asquith's stability and dependableness. Asquith is extremely able, his mind a perfectly working logic engine, and with character as notable as capacity, decisive, courageous; an honest man with an honest mind. He is the best type of the cultivated Englishman, solid, balanced, intellectual withal. He is not imagina

tive or given to long views; he gives the impression of half-cynical detachment, perhaps of lethargy; certainly it is only in emergencies that he is roused to his full power.

"I was attracted to Winston Churchill when he was a youngster. He had courage, even the courage to go against the mob to-day if convinced that would advance his career to-morrow, or make it clear how far he was above them. Still, he enjoys a fight for its own sake, quite unlike Asquith. His mind works clearly and powerfully, and his industry gives it constantly new material to work upon. He is a driving administrator, ruthless, but effective. His earlier insolence is being disciplined by ambition, but his youthful feeling for the dramatic, or, rather, the melodramatic, remains. He knows what he wants and what the public wants. His career will show how far a man may go in politics who has vigor and capacity, but who lacks principle and sincerity.

"Lloyd George has a much more winning personality. He has all of Churchill's driving force, and a more supple persuasiveness. He has not Churchill's, much less Asquith's, intellectual equipment; he has little grasp of principles, or power to think things through, little ballast in the way of intellectual convictions; but usually his sympathies guide him right, except on the finer issues. He feels rather than reasons his way, carrying into all his intercourse the orator's intuition as to how his audience is responding. No, he is not quite a Chamberlain. He is temperamentally a protectionist rather than a free trader; he will very likely become a strong imperialist, and he may be swallowed by the Tories, though they would not find him a very digestible morsel. He has Chamberlain's selfconfidence, but not his pride; he is as keen for power, but he has more sympathy for men in the mass and more power to understand individual men. He may sometimes be carried away by his own oratory, but I think there is no question that he is sincere in his sympathy for the under dog and in his democratic purpose.

"Bonar Law I found a man of good sense and moderation, a fluent, orderly