In addition to two speeches, on education and on a legislative bill dealing with mortgages, Berthelot published several treatises on historical archaeology, including Dissertation sur le canon de bronze que l{apos}on voit dans le musée de M. Chasseur, à Québec (Québec, 1830) and Discours fait devant la Société de discussion de Québec, le 15 juillet 1844, sur le vaisseau trouvé à l{apos}embouchure du ruisseau St-Michel, et que l{apos}on prétend être la ‘Petite-Hermine’ de Jacques Cartier (Québec, 1844). His research into French grammar resulted in two works: Essai de grammaire française suivant les principes de l’abbé Girard (Québec, 1840) and Essai d’analyses grammaticales suivant les principes de l’abbé Girard (Québec, 1843; nouv. éd., 1847).

After a second winter at Fort Franklin, the expedition set off home in 1827, reaching Liverpool on 26 September. The second of his published narratives came out the following year. Franklin again received formal honours: he won the gold medal of the Société de Géographie de Paris and, along with W. E. Parry, was knighted on 29 April 1829 and received an honorary dcl from the University of Oxford in July. Also, he renewed an acquaintance with Jane Griffin*, a friend of his late wife, and they were married in Stanmore (London) on 5 Nov. 1828. There was an endearing gaucheness in his courtship of his two wives. Though lauded, Franklin was rather awkward in some aspects of his behaviour: he was a little embarrassed by fame and not entirely at ease in society, and his writing was clumsy and tortuous. During an audience at Montreal in August 1827 Governor-in-Chief Lord Dalhousie [Ramsay] had found him “shy and unobtrusive” but “full of general science” and capable of speaking “with slow, clear perception, with a dignified & impressive good sense, sound judgement & presence of mind.” Dalhousie further described him as a “square strong man of 5{foot}6", dark complexion & hair, his head very round, bald, with thick curled short hair.”

Gildersleeve was master builder as well as part-owner of the second steamboat from the Finkle yard, the Charlotte, but was not a member of the committee which sponsored its construction. He acted as purser on this vessel while qualifying for his captain’s certificate, and in 1821 he became its captain. From 1818 to 1827 the Charlotte ran between Prescott, on the St Lawrence River, and Carrying Place, on the Bay of Quinte. The Sir James Kempt, which replaced the Charlotte on this run in 1828, was built under Gildersleeve’s supervision. He was a stockholder of the ship and served as its captain for many years before becoming its agent. His identification with these steamers and others that later plied the same route led to Gildersleeve{apos}s designation by Edwin Ernest Horsey, a Kingston historian, as “the father of steam navigation on the Bay of Quinte and the upper St. Lawrence.”

Competition between steamboat operators became increasingly intense as the number of vessels multiplied. A bitter exchange of letters took place in the Kingston Chronicle in May 1830 between Gildersleeve and Archibald McDonell, whose ship Toronto had begun running on the Bay of Quinte. Gildersleeve also faced opposition there from Donald Bethune{apos}s Britannia. To counteract the effects of competition, operators began coordinating their schedules and establishing joint undertakings. Gildersleeve, for instance, arranged for cooperation in the schedules of his Commodore Barrie and the American steamer Oswego in 1835. At various times, he chartered the Commodore Barrie, the Henry Gildersleeve, and the New Era to John Hamilton* of Kingston for service on his lines.

In response to early proposals for Upper Canadian railways, which threatened Kingston{apos}s role as a trans-shipment centre, Gildersleeve and other enterprising businessmen conceived the idea of developing the city as the centre of a railway linking Toronto, Kingston, and (via Wolfe Island to the south of Kingston) Cape Vincent, N.Y., where it would connect with American railways. The Wolfe Island, Kingston and Toronto Rail-road Company was incorporated in 1846 but the railway was never built. An attempt to revive the plan, with the added feature of a canal across Wolfe Island, led to the incorporation in 1851 of the Wolfe Island Rail-way and Canal Company, of which Gildersleeve was named a director. He did not live to see the failure of this project, for he died in October of that year.

Gildersleeve participated in various other aspects of life in Kingston. He sat on the grand jury for the Midland District Assizes for several years and became a magistrate in 1842. The previous year he had served on the committee set up by the local board of trade to assess available accommodation for the use of the Canadian government after its scheduled move to Kingston. In religion he was an active member of St George{apos}s Church (Anglican).

ACC-O, St George{apos}s Cathedral (Kingston, Ont.), reg. of marriages, 1824. AO, MS 78, Henry Gildersleeve to John Macaulay, 24 May 1837, 28 Feb. 1843; MU 610, no.61 (cash-book of steamer Sir James Kempt, 1836). Kingston Public Library (Kingston), E. E. Horsey, “The Gildersleeves of Kingston – their activities, 1816–1930” (typescript, Kingston, 1942; copy at QUA). PAC, MG 24, D24: 236–44, 280–86; RG 5, A1: 20075–78; RG 42, ser.I, 205: 71. Can., Prov. of, Legislative Assembly, App. to the journals, 1857, app. 11, nos.7–8; Statutes, 1846, c.108; 1848, c.13; 1849, c.158; 1850, c.139; 1851, c.149. U.C., Statutes, 1837–38, c.30. British Whig, 13 May 1834–25 March 1848. Chronicle & Gazette, 27 July 1833–10 May 1845. Daily British Whig, 1 Oct. 1851. Daily News (Kingston), 8 Oct. 1851. Kingston Chronicle, 1 June 1827–26 Nov. 1831. Kingston Gazette, 14 Sept. 1816–8 June 1818. Weekly British Whig, 6 July 1849; 29 March, 5 April 1850; 30 July 1852. Canada directory, 1851: 119–29. Cyclopædia of Canadian biog. (Rose and Charlesworth), 1: 586–87. W. H. Gildersleeve, Gildersleeves of Gildersleeve, Conn., and the descendants of Philip Gildersleeve (Meriden, Conn., 1914). Heritage Kingston, ed. J. D. Stewart and I. E. Wilson (Kingston, 1973), 155, 164–65, 170. Pioneer life on the Bay of Quinte, including genealogies of old families and biographical sketches of representative citizens (Toronto, 1904; repr. Belleville, Ont., 1972), 332, 339. Canada and its prov. (Shortt and Doughty), 10: 493–502, 506–14, 536–40. E. E. Horsey, Kingston, a century ago; issued to commemorate the centennial of Kingston{apos}s incorporation (Kingston, 1938). To preserve & defend: essays on Kingston in the nineteenth century, ed. G. [J.J.] Tulchinsky (Montreal and London, 1976), 1–14 (editor{apos}s intro.), and J. K. Johnson, “John A. Macdonald and the Kingston business community,” 141–55. A. G. Young, Great Lakes saga; the influence of one family on the development of Canadian shipping on the Great Lakes, 1816–1931 (Owen Sound, Ont., 1965). Dorothy Geiger, “A history of the Kingston waterfront and water lots,” Historic Kingston, no.19 (1971): 3–16. A. L. Johnson, “The transportation revolution on Lake Ontario, 1817–1867: Kingston and Ogdensburg,” OH, 67 (1975): 199–209. Duncan McDowall, “Roads and railways: Kingston{apos}s mid-century search for a hinterland, 1846–1854,” Historic Kingston, no.23 (1975): 52–69. R. A. Preston, “The history of the port of Kingston,” OH, 46 (1954): 201–11; 47 (1955): 23–38.

The ships sailed in May 1819. After getting as far north as Sanderson’s Hope on the Greenland coast, Parry turned west and forced a passage to the mouth of Lancaster Sound. There was clear sailing westward and Croker’s Mountains proved to be a mirage. Coming to Prince Regent Inlet, which he named, Parry took time to push 120 miles down that waterway before continuing westward through Barrow Strait. Again James C. Ross was active making observations and Parry named one of the promontories of Melville Island Cape James Ross. The remarkable westward progress was halted at 112° 51{foot} and Parry turned back to an anchorage at Melville Island.

After enjoying a summer out of the Arctic, Ross was made second in command of Parry’s expedition to reach the North Pole. It was to reach the Pole by going north from Spitzbergen dragging boats on sledges over the ice in preparation for navigating the mythical “Open Polar Sea.” Hecla again was commissioned and sailed on 4 March 1827. On 21 June the boats left the ship and after a 100-mile sail the long journey over the ice began. It proved impossible. Not only were the trudging men plagued by wretched travelling conditions – fog, rain, and sun softened the snow so that pulling sledges loaded with 200 pounds per man was nearly impossible – but the ice was moving south under them. For every ten miles they laboriously dragged the sledges only four miles were gained. They never reached 83°. Parry became snowblind and Ross was severely injured when squeezed between a boat and an icy hummock. On 26 July, after finding they had gained only one mile in five days, Parry turned back. Their farthest north was a little beyond 82° 45{foot}, a record that lasted until 1875 but still 500 miles from the North Pole. Parry left the ship when it reached the Orkneys and Ross brought her into the Thames on 6 October.

Ice prevented the return of the Victory in the summer of 1830 and it was possible to move her only a few miles north of Felix Harbour, to an anchorage the party called Sheriff Harbour. Again she was roofed over and an observatory erected. The second winter’s routine was like the first, but John Ross discovered he could keep his men free from scurvy if they ate an Inuit diet: plenty of fat. As spring approached James C. Ross began his sledging journeys again. His objective was to locate the North Magnetic Pole, which he did at eight in the morning of 1 June 1831. He set up the British flag, took possession of the North Magnetic Pole and adjoining territory in the name of King William IV, and erected a cairn. The location was established as latitude 70° 5{foot} 17" north and longitude 96° 46{foot} 45" west (the pole has since moved farther north and west). Ross returned to the Victory on 13 June after an absence of 28 days.

Daily News (St John’s), 26 Dec. 1917. ...Evening Telegram (St John’s), 19 Nov. 1884, 12 Oct. 1900, 29 June 1906, 26 Dec. 1917. ...Mail and Advocate (St John’s), 18 Aug., 16 Sept., 28 Oct., 25 Nov. 1916. ...Melvin Baker, “Municipal politics and public housing in St. John’s, 1911–1921,” Workingmen{apos}s St. John{apos}s: aspects of social history in the early 1900s, ed. Melvin Baker et al. (St John’s, 1982), 29–43. ...The mercantile agency reference book . . . (Montreal), July 1917. ...Nfld, General Assembly, Proc., House of Assembly, 28 Feb. 1910: 378–79; Legislative Council, 31 May 1917: 11. ...A. B. Perlin, “The origin of daylight saving time in Newfoundland,” Newfoundland Quarterly (St John’s), 73 (1977–78), no.2: 48. ...Who{apos}s who in and from Newfoundland . . . , ed. R. Hibbs (St John’s), 1927.

As president of the Winnipeg Board of Trade, James Henry Ashdown prepared the board’s pamphlet An open letter to the shareholders of the Canadian Pacific Railway Co. . . . ([Winnipeg?], 1887). In addition, he is the author of “Winnipeg{apos}s board of control,” Canadian Municipal Journal (Montreal), 4 (1908): 445–46.

ANQ-M, CE603-S7, 10 oct. 1865. ...Arch. des Petites Franciscaines de Marie (Baie-Saint-Paul, Qué.), Album-souvenir des noces d{apos}argent de l{apos}hospice Sainte-Anne; Annales de la fondation de la communauté; Dossier personnel de mère Marie-Anne-de-Jésus. ...Michelle Garceau, Par ce signe tu vivras: histoire de la congrégation des Petites Franciscaines de Marie (1889–1955) (4e éd., Baie-Saint-Paul, 1989). ...Marguerite Jean, Évolution des communautés religieuses de femmes au Canada de 1639 à nos jours (Montréal, 1977), 121–24. ...Petites Franciscaines de Marie, Notice sur l{apos}Institut des Petites Franciscaines de Marie (Baie-Saint-Paul, 1916; 2e éd., 1927). ...Margaret Porter, Mille en moins: histoire du centre hospitalier de Charlevoix (1889–1980) (Baie-Saint-Paul, 1984).

Circuit Court of Cook County Arch. (Chicago), divorce file no.S-263982. Kim Beattie, Brother, here{apos}s a man! The saga of Klondike Boyle (New York, 1940). Lewis Green, The gold hustlers (Anchorage, Alaska, 1977). G. A. Hill, Go spy the land, being the adventures of I.K.8 of the British secret service (London, 1932). Marie, Queen Consort of Ferdinand I, King of Roumania, Ordeal; the story of my life (New York, 1935). Hannah Pakula, The last romantic: a biography of Queen Marie of Roumania (New York, 1984). E. G. Pantazzi, Roumania in light and shadow (London, 1921). L. W. Taylor, The sourdough and the queen: the many lives of Klondike Joe Boyle (Toronto, 1983)

Two recent collections of John Burke’s songs and ballads are available: The ballads of Johnny Burke: a short anthology, ed. Paul Mercer ([St John’s], 1974), and John White{apos}s collection of the songs of Johnny Burke, ed. W. J. Kirwin (St John’s, 1982).

Memorial Univ. of Nfld, Folklore and Language Arch. (St John’s), Tapes, 78-237 (Paul Mercer, interviews with Ken Hall, Mary-Ann Duggan, James Higgins, and Hugh O{apos}Neill, 1973–74). Evening Telegram (St John’s), 11 Aug. 1930. Encyclopedia of Nfld (Smallwood et al.). J. D. Higgins, “The Bard of Prescott Street” (lecture delivered to the Nfld Hist. Soc.; typescript, St John’s, 1970; copy in the Centre for Newfoundland Studies, Memorial Univ. of Nfld). Paul Mercer, “A bio-bibliography of Newfoundland songs in printed sources” (ma thesis, Memorial Univ. of Nfld, 1979), 73–81. M. P. Murphy, “The balladeers of Newfoundland,” Daily News (St John’s), 27 July, 18 Oct., 16 Nov. 1966; Pathways through yesterday, ed. G. S. Moore (St John’s, 1976), 148–65. Newfoundland songs and ballads in print, 1842–1974: a title and first-line index, comp. Paul Mercer (St John’s, 1979). Michael Taft, “The Bard of Prescott Street meets Tin Pan Alley: the vanity press sheet music publications of John Burke,” Newfoundland Studies (St John’s), 6 (1990): 56–73

ANQ-Q, CE302-S20, 2 août 1897; S25, 10 janv. 1866, 3 juill. 1888; E9/716, dossier 3233/12; 717, dossiers 3163/13, 3280/23; P350/1, 29 nov., 7 déc. 1929. ...Arch. de la Côte-du-Sud et du Collège de Sainte-Anne Enr. (La Pocatière, Qué.), F129 (famille Destroismaisons), 512/2, 512/13, 512/74. ...NA, MG 27, III, B4, 27: 13508–535 (mfm. at ANQ-Q). ...L{apos}Action catholique (Québec), 17 juill. 1930. ...Le Soleil, 18 janv. 1921, 17 juill. 1930. ...Claude Beauchamp, “Les débuts de la coopération et du syndicalisme agricoles, 1900–1930: quelques éléments de la pratique,” Recherches sociographiques (Québec), 20 (1979): 337–81. ...BCF, 1929: 104. ...DPQ. ...Nicole Lacelle, “Le Bulletin des agriculteurs,” 1921–1929: les visages d{apos}un journal (Montréal, [1981?]). ...A[rmand] L[étourneau], “Joseph Édouard Caron, 1866–1930,” Le Journal d’agriculture (Montréal), 34 (1930–31): 17. ...J.-C. Magnan, Confidences (Montréal, [1960]), 133–36; Le monde agricole (Montréal, 1972), 79–81. ...Qué., Assemblée Législative, Débats, 1902–12, 1924; Assemblée Nationale, Les grands débats parlementaires, 1792–1992, Réal Bélanger et al., compil. (Sainte-Foy, Qué., 1994), 209–11; Parl., Doc. de la session, rapport du ministre de l’agriculture, 1910–30. ...Rumilly, Hist. de la prov. de Québec, vols.14–31. ...Ste-Louise-des-Aulnaies, 1859–1984: album-souvenir (Sainte-Louise, Qué., 1984), 115, 118–19. ...Jacques Saint-Pierre, Histoire de la Coopérative fédérée: l{apos}industrie de la terre (Québec, 1997).

Publications by Ernest John Chambers include The Montreal Highland Cadets; being a record of the organization and development of a useful and interesting corps, with some notes on the cadet movements in Britain and Canada (Montreal, 1901); The Queen{apos}s Own Rifles of Canada; a history of a splendid regiment{apos}s origin, development and services . . . (Toronto, 1901); The Governor-General{apos}s Body Guard, a history of the origin, development and services of the senior cavalry regiment in the militia service of the Dominion of Canada . . . (Toronto, 1902); {d-0}The Duke of Cornwall{apos}s Own Rifles{d-1}; a regimental history of the Forty-Third Regiment, active militia of Canada (Ottawa, 1903); The 5th Regiment, Royal Scots of Canada Highlanders; a regimental history (Montreal, 1904); The book of Canada; illustrating the great dominion . . . (Montreal, [1905]); The Royal North-West Mounted Police: a corps history (Montreal, 1906); and The Canadian militia; a history of the origin and development of the force (Montreal, [1907]).

NA, MG 26, H; RG 6, E1. Ottawa Evening Journal, 12–13, 15 May 1925. W. A. Bausenhart, “The Ontario German language press and its suppression by order-in-council in 1918,” Canadian Ethnic Studies (Calgary), 4 (1972), no.1/2: 35–48. Can., Dept. of Militia and Defence, Militia list (Ottawa), 1903–20. Canadian annual rev., 1903: 412. Canadian men and women of the time (Morgan; 1912). CPG, 1905: 39; 1918: 87. Canadian who’s who (1910). Cyclopædia of Canadian biog. (Rose and Charlesworth), vol.3. W. Entz, “The suppression of the German language press in September 1918 (with special reference to the secular German language papers in western Canada),” Canadian Ethnic Studies, 8 (1976), no.2: 56–70. G. S. Kealey, “The early years of state surveillance of labour and the left in Canada: the institutional framework of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police security and intelligence apparatus, 1918–26,” in Espionage: past, present and future? ed. W. K. Wark (London, 1994), 129–48; “State repression of labour and the left in Canada, 1914–20: the impact of the First World War,” CHR, 73 (1992): 281–314. J. A. Keshen, Propaganda and censorship during Canada{apos}s Great War (Edmonton, 1996). Arja Pilli, The Finnish-language press in Canada, 1901–1939: a study in the history of ethnic journalism (Helsinki, 1982). Who’s who and why, 1919–20. Who’s who in Canada, 1922

ANQ-CN, CE901-S9, 23 nov. 1889; S10, 30 juill. 1848. ...ANQ-Q, ZQ6-S315, 14 juin 1871. ...L{apos}Événement, 19 nov. 1923. ...Pierre Frenette, Napoléon-Alexandre Comeau (Montréal, 1981). ...Pauline L[e Vallée] Boileau, La Côte-Nord contre vents et marées: biographie romancée de Napoléon-Alexandre Comeau (1848–1923) (Sillery, Qué., 1998). ...C. D. Melvill et al., Reports on fisheries investigations in Hudson and James bays and tributary waters in 1914 (Ottawa, 1915). ...Robert Parisé, Géants de la Côte-Nord (Québec, 1974).

[A small collection of William Davies papers is held at the Univ. of Western Ont. Library, J. J. Talman Regional Coll., London. Most of its contents were published as Letters of William Davies, Toronto, 1854–1861 (Toronto, 1945), edited with an introduction by William Sherwood Fox, a grandson of the subject. The collection includes various letters Davies published in agricultural journals on the need for improvements in hog breeding and the industry generally, but does not contain his important personal memoir, “The early history and development of Canada{apos}s export bacon trade,” Farming World (Toronto), 2 Sept. 1901: 217–18. According to Canadian men and women of the time (Morgan; 1912), Davies was also the author of a memoir entitled “Reminiscences of a pioneer” (1904), but this item has not been found.

The post-1892 history of the William Davies Company, and Davies’s role in it, is chronicled in the author’s book A Canadian millionaire: the life and business times of Sir Joseph Flavelle, bart., 1858–1939 (Toronto, 1978). Many of the details of the company’s later history are derived from documents in the J. [W.] Flavelle fonds at Queen{apos}s Univ. Arch. (Kingston, Ont.) and in the McLean family papers at the AO (F 277, MU 1127). Davies’s philanthropic activities are recorded in J. E. Middleton, The municipality of Toronto: a history (3v., Toronto and New York, 1923), 3: 84. m.b.]

Cape Breton Development Corporation, Dominion Coal Company (Glace Bay, N.S.), Human resources dept., employment records. ...NA, RG 31, C1, 1901, Springhill, N.S., dist.2: 14 (mfm. at NSARM). ...NSARM, Churches, All Saints{s-1-unknown} Anglican (Springhill), reg. of baptisms, 6 June 1894 (mfm.); RG 32, M, Cape Breton County, no.348/1907. ...Private arch., Don MacGillivray (Sydney, N.S.), David Frank, interview with Robert Davis, 24 July 1975. ...Sydney Post, 10 March, 4–10, 12–13, 19 June 1925. ...Sydney Record, 11 June, 9 Oct. 1925. ...Edith [Davis] Pelley, “Edith Pelley, William Davis{apos}s daughter; an interview, with photographs, by Norman MacKinnon,” Cape Breton{apos}s Magazine (Wreck Cove, N.S.), no.60 ([1992]): 45–54. ...C. M. Lamey, “Davis Day through the years: a Cape Breton coalmining tradition,” N.S. Hist. Rev. (Halifax), 16 (1996), no.2: 23–33. ...M. W. Littler, “Mary Willa Littler and ‘The Strangers’ Grave,’” Cape Breton{apos}s Magazine, no.71 ([1997]): 33. ...Don MacGillivray, “Military aid to the civil power: the Cape Breton experience in the 1920’s,” Acadiensis (Fredericton), 3 (1973–74), no.2: 45–64.

ANQ-M, CE601-S6, 26 janv. 1858. Boston Public Library, Boston Symphony Orchestra scrapbooks, comp. A. A. and M. A. Brown et al.(mfm.), 1881–82. MUA, RG 39, c.68. “Au conservatoire du McGill: les professeurs canadiens-français,” La Patrie, 16 mai 1904. L.-O. David, “Alfred Desève,” L{apos}Opinion publique (Montréal), 10 oct. 1878; “Concert Desève,” L{apos}Opinion publique, 17 oct. 1878. Le Devoir, 25 nov. 1927. Arthur Letondal, “Alfred De Sève,” Le Devoir, 28 nov. 1927. “Mr Desève{apos}s concert,” Canadian Spectator (Montreal), 21 Dec. 1878. Le Monde illustré (Montréal), 13 oct. 1894. “Notre violoniste canadien à Paris,” L{apos}Opinion publique, 30 mai 1878. Léon Trépanier, “Petite histoire locale,” La Voix populaire (Montréal), 3, 17, 24, 31 oct., 7 nov. 1951. “Alfred De Sève,” Le Canada artistique (Montréal), 1, no.1 (prospectus, décembre 1889): 1. Encyclopedia of music in Canada (Kallmann et al.). J.-A. Houle (Montreal), “Frantz Jehin-Prume (1839–1899): son apport culturel au milieu québécois” (thesis, Music Conservatory of Quebec, Montreal, 1989). M. A. De Wolfe Howe, The Boston Symphony Orchestra, 1881–1931 (New York, 1931). Arthur Laurendeau, “Musiciens d{apos}autrefois: Alfred Desève,” L{apos}Action nationale (Montréal) 35 (1950): 186–96. The musical red book of Montreal . . . , ed. B. K. Sandwell (Montreal, 1907). New England Conservatory of Music, Calendar (Boston), 1888–89. Les rues de Montréal (Montréal, 1995)

Encyclopedia of Ukraine, ed. Volodymyr Kubijovyc (5v. in 6, Toronto, 1984–93). Jubilee book of the Ukrainian National Association: in commemoration of the fortieth anniversary of its existence, ed. Luka Myshuha (Jersey City, 1936) [text in Ukrainian]. V. J. Kaye, Early Ukrainian settlements in Canada, 1895–1900; Dr. Josef Oleskow{apos}s role in the settlement of the Canadian northwest (Toronto, 1964). M. H. Marunchak, Biographical dictionary to the history of Ukrainian Canadians (Winnipeg, 1986) [text in Ukrainian]. Jaroslav Petryshyn, Peasants in the promised land: Canada and the Ukrainians, 1891–1914 (Toronto, 1985). Julian Stechishin, History of Ukrainian settlements in Canada (Edmonton, 1975) [text in Ukrainian], translated by Isidore Goresky as A history of Ukrainian settlement in Canada, ed. David Lupul (Saskatoon, 1992)

The Arch. des Pères Blancs in Montreal holds the most materials on John Forbes, in particular his personal correspondence and his annual reports. Forbes is the subject of a detailed biography by Father É.-J.[-A.] Auclair, titled Vie de Mgr John Forbes, le premier père blanc canadien, évêque de Vaga et coadjuteur de l{apos}Ouganda, 1864–1926 ([Québec, 1929]).

ANQ-M, CE601-S50, 10 janv. 1864. Le Devoir, 15 mars 1926. J. F., “Mgr John Forbes, des Pères blancs,” La Semaine religieuse de Montréal, 6 mai 1926. Canada ecclésiastique, 1901–27. Lionel Groulx, Le Canada français missionnaire: une autre grande aventure (Montréal et Paris, 1962). Guy Laperrière, Les congrégations religieuses: de la France au Québec, 1880–1914 (2v. parus, Sainte-Foy, Qué., 1996– ), 2. “Le premier père blanc canadien, son Exc. Mgr John Forbes,” Missions d{apos}Afrique des Pères blancs (Québec), 47 (1951): 261–71

[This biography draws heavily on newspapers, in particular La Presse, where Joseph-Pierre Gadbois worked as a sports writer between 1904 and 1908. Many unsigned articles which appeared in the paper from 1907 to 1910 are undoubtedly his, among them “Les tournois athlétiques de la Presse,” a series of 165 columns published between 14 Oct. 1907 and 9 July 1908. A large number of items concerning Gadbois can also be found in La Presse from 1893 to 1930. Other useful newspaper accounts include the following: L{apos}Autorité nouvelle (Montréal), 25 janv. 1914; Le Canada (Montréal), 24 avril, 3 sept. 1903; 8–9 avril, 24 juin, 3 sept. 1918; 11, 21 févr., 6, 24 mars 1919; 10–11, 17, 22, 24 mai, 4, 8 juin 1926; 23, 25 août 1930; Le Cultivateur (Montréal), 13 mai 1893; Le Devoir, 15 mai, 21 juill. 1914; 16 nov. 1915; 14 juill. 1916; 20 avril 1918; 23 août 1930; Le Journal (Montréal), 14 juin 1902; La Minerve, 11, 16 oct., 6 nov. 1897; Le Nationaliste (Montréal), 16, 23 janv., 6, 20, 28 nov., 4 déc. 1910; 12, 19, 26 mars, 2 avril, 7 mai, 4, 11, 18 juin, 23 juill., 27 août 1911; 25 févr., 3, 10, 24 mars, 14, 28 avril, 5, 19 mai 1912; 14 juin 1914; La Patrie, 16 mars, 24 avril, 9 juin 1903; 30 mars, 1er avril 1929; 23, 25 août 1930; Le Réveil (Montréal), 5 janv., 31 août 1915; and Le Soleil, 22, 24–25, 29–30 juin, 2–3, 7–8 juill., 24 août, 15 oct. 1908; 26, 28, 30 avril, 6 mai, 16 juin, 9 juill., 21 oct. 1909; 28 mai 1914. g.j.]

ANQ-M, CE601-S51, 31 mai 1893; CE607-S20, 23 août 1868. Arch. de l{apos}Univ. du Québec à Montréal, 1P (fonds de la Palestre nationale), 2/34–38; 13/11. Arch. du Séminaire de Saint-Sulpice (Montréal), Fonds du collège de Montréal, liste des étudiants. VM-DGDA, “Comités et commissions: 1900 à nos jours” (report prepared by the Div. des arch.), 1906–10; P39; VM6, Dossiers de coupures de presse, DO16.293 (J.-P. Gadbois); VM47, procès-verbaux, 20 févr. 1906–17 janv. 1908. “Bulletin,” L{apos}Union médicale du Canada (Montréal), 21 (1892): 220, 548–51; 22 (1893): 217–19. L. J. Cannon, Rapport sur l{apos}administration de la ville de Montréal, décembre 1909 (s.l., n.d.). “Correspondance,” L{apos}Union médicale du Canada, 22 (1893): 235–36. Directory, Montreal, 1890–1910. P. A. Dutil, “‘Adieu, demeure chaste et pure’; Godfroy Langlois et le virage vers le progressisme libéral,” in Combats libéraux au tournant du XXe siècle, sous la direction d{apos}Yvan Lamonde (Montréal, 1995), 247–75. Jean de Laplante, Les parcs de Montréal: des origines à nos jours (Montréal, 1990), 86–92. É.-Z. Massicotte, Athlètes canadiens-français; recueil des exploits de force, d{apos}endurance, d{apos}agilité, des athlètes et des sportsmen de notre race depuis le XIIIe siècle; biographies, portraits, anecdotes, records (2e éd., Montréal, [1909]), 216–23. “Le sport chez nos Canadiennes,” La Rev. moderne (Montréal), 10 (1929), no.10: 12

Five letters written by Galt to his mother while he was Dewdney’s assistant have been published as “Letters from Elliott Galt: travelling the prairies, 1879–80,” ed. A. A. den Otter, Alberta Hist. (Calgary), 26 (1978), no.3: 21–33. The Manitoba Free Press for 9 Sept. 1904 has a comprehensive story on the Galt enterprises as well as an extensive interview with Elliott Galt, including the quotation cited in the text. The two most recent works which discuss his career are A. A. den Otter, Civilizing the west: the Galts and the development of western Canada (Edmonton, 1982) and H. B. Timothy, The Galts: a Canadian odyssey (2v., Toronto, 1984–87), 2. Marginally useful are C. A. Magrath, The Galts, father and son, pioneers in the development of southern Alberta . . . ([Lethbridge, Alta, 1935]); O. D. Skelton, The life and times of Sir Alexander Tilloch Galt, ed. Guy MacLean (new ed., Toronto, 1966); and E. C. Springett, For my children{apos}s children (Montreal, 1937). a.a.den o.]§

Fernhill Cemetery Company (Saint John), Burial records, order for interment, Wilhelmina Smith. ...NA, RG 31, C1, 1901, Saint John, Kings Ward: 18, dwelling 123. ...PANB, RS71/1894, G. F. Smith. ...Pictou-Antigonish Regional Library (New Glasgow, N.S.), “Alexander Gordon, tacksman of Dalcharn, 1732–1810.”. ...Queen{apos}s Univ. Arch. (Kingston, Ont.), D. M. Gordon fonds, reminiscences, vol.1; box 9, diary, 1925. ...Victorian Order of Nurses (Saint John), Arch., Minutes, 1919–25. ...Daily Telegraph (Saint John), 30 Oct. 1879. ...Ottawa Citizen, 5 March 1918. ...Saint John Globe, 5 March 1918, 17 July 1925. ...Mrs Willoughby Cummings [E. A. McC. Shortt], Our story: some pages from the history of the Woman’s Auxiliary to the Missionary Society of the Church of England in Canada, 1885 to 1929 (Toronto, [1929?]). ...Directories, N.B., 1889/90; Saint John, 1891/92. ...A. L. Fleming, A book of remembrance; or, the history of St. John{apos}s Church, Saint John, New Brunswick (Saint John, 1925). ...Wilhelmina Gordon, Daniel M. Gordon: his life (Toronto and Halifax, 1941). ...A. G. McIntyre, Our first fifty years, 1903–1953; Woman{apos}s Auxiliary of the Church of England in Canada, Fredericton diocesan board ([Fredericton?, 1953?]). ...J. P. MacPhie, Pictonians at home and abroad: sketches of professional men and women of Pictou County; its history and institutions (Boston, 1914). ...National Council of Women of Canada, Year book (Toronto), 1905–12. ...St John{apos}s Church, Parish Notes (Saint John), 1889, 1891–92; continued as St. John’s Church Record and Parish Notes, 1892–93. ...J. V. Young, Brief history of the Victorian Order of Nurses, Saint John, N.B., 1899–1963 (Saint John, 1963).

NSARM, Churches, St Paul{apos}s Roman Catholic (Herring Cove), reg. of baptisms (mfm.); RG 32, M, Halifax County, no.362/1892. ...Acadian Recorder (Halifax), 31 March 1926. ...Evening Echo (Halifax), 28, 30 April 1924. ...Evening Mail (Halifax), 29 April 1924. ...Halifax Herald, 9 Jan. 1918; 16 Aug., 15 Oct. 1919; 29 April, 9 May 1924; 31 March 1926; 16 Jan. 1935. ...Morning Chronicle (Halifax), 2 May 1924, 31 March 1926. ...Michael Boudreau, “Crime and society in a city of order: Halifax, 1918–1935” (phd thesis, Queen{apos}s Univ., Kingston, Ont., 1996). ...Halifax, City Council, Annual report of the several departments of the civic government of Halifax, Nova Scotia (Halifax), 1917/18, annual report of the chief of police. ...Peter McGahan, “Halifax Police Department, 1919–1924,” Atlantic Institute of Criminology, Report (Halifax), no.14 (1989).. ...Greg Marquis, Policing Canada{apos}s century: a history of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police (Toronto, 1993); “Working men in uniform: the early twentieth-century Toronto Police,” Social Hist. (Ottawa), 20 (1987): 259–77.

ANQ-Q, CE301-S22, 27 sept. 1866; S96, 2 juill. 1894. ...L{apos}Action catholique (Québec), 3 sept. 1918, 21 juill. 1920, 19 févr. 1923. ...Le Soleil, 19 févr. 1923. ...J.-P. Archambault, Figures catholiques (Montréal, 1950), 153–92. ...M.-A. Bluteau et al., Les cordonniers, artisans du cuir (Montréal, 1980). ...Confédération des Travailleurs Catholiques du Canada, Programme-souvenir du deuxième congrès . . . (Québec, 1923). ...Aubert du Lac [Maxime Fortin], L’œuvre d{apos}une élite (Québec, 1918). ...Jacques Rouillard, Les syndicats nationaux au Québec, de 1900 à 1930 (Québec, 1979). ...Semaines Sociales du Canada, Section française, Semaine sociale du Canada (Montréal, 1920), 162–64.

Elisha Frederick Hutchings is the author of “Winnipeg{apos}s increase of manufactured products in 1912 has been over fifty per cent,” Dominion Magazine (Toronto) (December 1912): 27–28.

ANQ-M, CE601-S60, 25 déc. 1882; TP11, S2, SS2, SSS1, dossier 2963 (1908) (C. Y. Rogers c. George Kennedy, alias George Kendall). Arch. des Pères de Sainte-Croix (Montréal), D1 (fonds du collège de Saint-Laurent), annuaires. BCM-G, RBMS, St Patrick (Montréal), 1er juin 1907. Rosaire Barrette, Léo Dandurand, sportsman (Ottawa, 1952), 105–10, 155, 180, 201–2. François Black, Habitants et glorieux: les Canadiens de 1909 à 1960 (Laval, Qué., 1997), 17–47, 133–35. Line Bonneau et Taïeb Hafsi, Sam Pollock et le Canadien de Montréal ([Sainte-Foy, Qué.], 1996), 21–40. [Pat Calabria et al.], The official National Hockey League Stanley Cup centennial book, ed. Dan Diamond (Montreal, 1992). Michel Chemin, La loi du ring ([Paris], 1993), 44–59. Directory, Montreal, 1912–13, 1915–16, 1918–19. Chrys Goyens and Allan Turowetz, Lions in winter (Scarborough [Toronto], 1986). Donald Guay, L’histoire du hockey au Québec; origine et développement d’un phénomène culturel (Chicoutimi, Qué., 1990), 256–74. Graeme Kent, A pictorial history of wrestling (London, 1968), 128–83. Charles Mayer, L’épopée des Canadiens de Georges Vézina à Maurice Richard: 46 ans d{apos}histoire, 1909–1955 (Montréal, [1956?]). Claude Mouton, The Montreal Canadiens: a hockey dynasty (Toronto, 1980). Andy O’Brien, Fire-wagon hockey: the story of the Montreal Canadiens ([Toronto, 1967]). Alexis Philonenko, Histoire de la boxe (Paris, 1991), 155–267. Quebec Official Gazette, 1908: 1601–2; 1916: 880. Maurice Richard and Stan Fischler, The flying Frenchmen: hockey’s greatest dynasty (New York, [1971])

Canadian Heritage, Parks Canada, Western Canada Service Centre, S. M. Evans, “George Lane: notes on a life” (research paper, Calgary, 1993); “George Lane: purebred horse breeder” (research paper, Calgary, 1994). ...GA, M 651, Elizabeth Sexsmith Lane, “A brief sketch of memories of my family” (1945). ...Wayne Dinsmore, “Development of the Percheron horse in Canada,” Nor{s-1-unknown}-West Farmer (Winnipeg), 20 Feb. 1917. ...Edward Brado, Cattle kingdom: early ranching in Alberta (Vancouver, 1984). ...D. H. Breen, The Canadian prairie west and the ranching frontier, 1874–1924 (Toronto, 1983). ...Leaves from the medicine tree . . . (Lethbridge, Alta, 1960). ...[J. W.] G. MacEwan, Heavy horses: highlights of their history (Saskatoon, 1986). ...“A pioneer stockman,” Farm and Ranch Rev. (Calgary), 20 Sept. 1922. ...Norman Rankin, “The boss of the Bar U,” Canada Monthly (London, Ont.), 9 (1910–11): 323–33. ...C. I. Ritchie, “George Lane – one of the big four,” Canadian Cattlemen (Winnipeg), September 1940. ...Bruce Roy, “The Bar U Percherons,” Horses All (Calgary), January 1980.

ANQ-M, CE601-S15, 20 juin 1899. ...BCM-G, RBMS, Notre-Dame de Montréal, 20 mars 1902, 11 nov. 1903, 17 juin 1906; Sacré-Cœur de Jésus (Montréal), 22 juill. 1901, 28 sept. 1902; Sainte-Brigide (Montréal), 10 mai 1907; Saint-Louis-de-France (Montréal), 12 nov. 1903 (mfm). ...VM-DGDA, VM1, 29 mai 1917; VM6, Règlement 624. ...Le Monde ouvrier (Montréal), 1er juin 1929, 31 août 1935. ...La Patrie, 1er avril 1903, 6 août 1907, 4 juin 1909. ...Éric Leroux, “Les syndicats internationaux et la commission royale d{apos}enquête sur l{apos}éducation de 1909–1910,” RCHTQ [Regroupement des Chercheurs-Chercheuses en Hist. des Travailleurs et Travailleuses du Québec], Bull. (Montréal), 23 (1977), no.1: 5–28. ...Jacques Rouillard, “Implantation et expansion de l’Union internationale des travailleurs en chaussures au Québec de 1900 à 1940,” RHAF, 36 (1982–83): 75–105; Les syndicats nationaux au Québec, de 1900 à 1930 (Québec, 1979), 56–65, 106–11, 191–93. ...Robert Tremblay, “Répertoire biographique du mouvement ouvrier québécois, 1880–1914” (rapport postdoctoral, Univ. du Québec à Montréal, 1995), 69–70.

MUA, MG 3099; RG 96, c.23, c.26–34, c.37, c.405, c.421. Gazette (Montreal), 25 July 1927. Yolande Cohen et Michèle Dagenais, “Le métier d’infirmière: savoirs féminins et reconnaissance professionnelle,” RHAF, 41 (1987–88): 155–77. D. MacL. Jensen, History and trends of professional nursing (9th ed., St Louis, Mo, 1950). H. E. MacDermot, History of the School of Nursing of the Montreal General Hospital (Montreal, 1940; repr. 1961). Barbara Melosh, “The physician{apos}s hand”: work, culture and conflict in American nursing (Philadelphia, 1982). Michigan 1850 census index, ed. R. V. Jackson and G. R. Teeples (Bountiful, Utah, 1978)

John Joseph Mackenzie’s publications include “A preliminary list of algae collected in the neighbourhood of Toronto,” Canadian Institute, Proc. (Toronto), 7 (1889–90): 270–74; “A case of acute phlegmonous gastritis,” Canada Lancet (Toronto), 40 (1906–7): 491–94; “Ultramicroscopic organisms” and “Presidential address: human evolution and human disease,” Canadian Institute, Trans., 8 (1904–9): 53—62 and 535–47; and “Chairman{apos}s address,” Public Health Journal (Toronto), 10 (1919): 265–69. A report on his research with T. G. Brodie appears under the title “On changes in the glomerules and tubules of the kidney accompanying activity,” in Royal Soc. of London, Proc., ser.B, 87 (1914): 593–609. The best summary of Mackenzie’s annual work for the Provincial Board of Health is found in his “Report of the laboratory work for the board for 1899,” in its Annual report (Toronto), 1899: 29–32 (also published in Ont., Legislature, Sessional papers, 1900, no.32).

The main collection of Mackay papers, including her publications, clippings, and copies of much of the material located in other archives, is housed in the Lady Aberdeen coll. at the Univ. of Waterloo Library, Special Coll. Dept. (Waterloo, Ont.), WA 18. Scattered letters and manuscripts are in the Acadia Univ. Library, Esther Clark Wright Arch. (Wolfville, N.S.); BCA, MS-2367 (I. E. Mackay papers); the Lorne and Edith Pierce Coll. of Canadian Literary mss in Queen{apos}s Univ. Arch. (Kingston, Ont.), and in the Univ. of B.C. Library, Special Coll. and Univ. Arch. Div. (Vancouver), M399 (I. E. Mackay papers). Mackay’s birth and marriage records are in AO, RG 80-2-0-69, no.15412 and RG 80-5-0-227, no.9376. An extensive list of her published and unpublished writing has been issued as Isabel Ecclestone Mackay bibliography, comp. Susan Bellingham (Waterloo, 1987).

AO, RG 80-8-0-912, no.6854. Toronto Board of Education, Records, Arch., and Museum, Toronto Collegiate Institute Board, minutes, 1896–98; Toronto Public School Board, minutes, 1901–10. Evening Telegram (Toronto), 31 Oct., 1 Nov. 1923. Globe, 18 Feb. 1910; 1–2 Nov. 1923. Toronto Daily Star, 24 April 1914, 1 Nov. 1923. Alexandra Anderson, “The first woman lawyer in Canada: Clara Brett Martin,” Canadian Women’s Studies ([Toronto]), 2 (1980), no.4: 9–11. Constance Backhouse, Petticoats and prejudice: women and law in nineteenth-century Canada ([Toronto], 1991), 293–326; “‘To open the way for others of my sex’: Clara Brett Martin’s career as Canada’s first woman lawyer,” Canadian Journal of Women and the Law, 1 (1985–86): 1–41. Isabel Bassett, The parlour rebellion: profiles in the struggle for women’s rights (Toronto, 1975). Canadian men and women of the time (Morgan; 1912). Directory, Toronto, 1888–1923. “Laws affecting women in Ontario,” Canadian White Ribbon Tidings (Toronto), 1 Aug. 1912: 2258. Theresa Roth, “Clara Brett Martin – Canada{apos}s pioneer woman lawyer,” Law Soc. of Upper Canada, Gazette (Toronto), 18 (1984): 323–40. H. R. S. Ryan, “A pilgrim{apos}s progress” (transcript, n.d.; copy in Queen’s Univ. Arch., Kingston, Ont.). Types of Canadian women . . . , ed. H. J. Morgan (Toronto, 1903)

“Epic of the west unfolded by pioneer of {s-0}70s,” Calgary Daily Herald, 13 Oct. 1923. ...Lethbridge Herald (Lethbridge, Alta), 6 Jan., 13 Nov. 1923. ...Alta Geneal. Soc., “Alta cemetery records surname index.”. ...John Blue, Alberta, past and present, historical and biographical (3v., Chicago, 1924), 2: 102–4. ...Fort Macleod – our colourful past: a history of the town of Fort Macleod, from 1874 to 1924 (Fort Macleod, Alta, 1977), 341–42. ...A. O. MacRae, History of the province of Alberta (2v., [Calgary], 1912), 2: 692. ...“The west of Edward Maunsell,” ed. H. A. Dempsey, Alberta Hist. (Calgary), 34 (1986), no.4: 1–17; 35 (1987), no.1: 13–26.

Oscar-Félix Mercier wrote many articles, most of them published in L{apos}Union médicale du Canada (Montréal), for example: “L{apos}anesthésie chirurgicale par la stovaine,” 35 (1906): 249–55; “À propos de quelques observations de cures radicales de hernies,” 25 (1896): 20–30; “L{apos}art obstétrical à Paris,” 19 (1890): 626–31; “Des appendicites,” 21 (1892): 617–22; “Du traitement des grands écrasements des membres par l{apos}embaumement,” 29 (1900): 831–43; “L{apos}iode, antiseptique chirurgical,” 42 (1913): 138–48; and “Le mouvement chirurgical depuis le congrès de Québec,” 33 (1904): 412–24.

ANQ-M, CE601-S51, 2 déc. 1866, 4 juin 1895. Arch. de l{apos}Hôpital Notre-Dame (Montréal), Procès-verbaux du bureau médical, 1892–1928; Rapports annuels, 1892–1928. Arch. de l{apos}Institut Pasteur (Paris), Cours de microbie technique, MP 29048 (liste des personnes ayant suivi les cours, 1889–1970). Le Devoir, 27 juill. 1929. Canadian men and women of the time (Morgan; 1898 and 1912). College of Physicians and Surgeons of the Prov. of Quebec, Medical reg. (Montreal), 1897; 1911. “Le docteur Oscar Félix Mercier,” La Rev. moderne (Montréal), 10 (1929), no.9: 8. École de Médecine et de Chirurgie de Montréal, Annuaire, 1890–1919. Denis Goulet, Histoire de la faculté de médecine de l{apos}université de Montréal, 1843–1993 (Montréal, 1993). Denis Goulet et al., Histoire de l{apos}hôpital Notre-Dame de Montréal, 1880–1980 (Montréal, 1993). Denis Goulet et Othmar Keel, “Les hommes-relais de la bactériologie en territoire québécois et l{apos}introduction de nouvelles pratiques diagnostiques et thérapeutiques (1890–1920),” RHAF, 46 (1992–93): 417–42. Denis Goulet et André Paradis, Trois siècles d{apos}histoire médicale au Québec; chronologie des institutions et des pratiques (1639–1939) (Montréal, 1992). [Albert] Le Sage, “In memoriam: le professeur Oscar F. Mercier, 1867–1929,” L{apos}Union médicale du Canada, 58 (1929): 523–28. Univ. de Montréal, Faculté de médecine, Annuaire, 1920–28

Canadian Heritage, Parks Canada, Western Canada Service Centre, Philip Goldring, {d-0}Southeast Baffin historical reports{d-1} (1988); North Baffin Oral Hist. Project, Taped interview with Inuit elder Timothy Kadloo (a distant relative of Niaqutiaq), 18 Aug. 1924. NA, RG 18, 3293, 3667. Private arch., S. D. Grant (Peterborough, Ont.), Pangnirtung Oral Hist. Interviews, Taped interviews with Inuit elders Pauloosie Angmarlik and Etuangat Aksayuk (both distant relatives of Niaqutiaq), 15–18 June 1995. Trent Univ. Arch. (Peterborough), Finley McInnes papers, ser.A, box 1, file 11 (testimony of nine witnesses to the Kevetuk/Kivitoo murders, February–April 1924) [A private collection of papers and photographs now owned by a granddaughter and temporarily housed, with restrictions, in the archives. s.d.g.]. Arctic whalers, icy seas: narratives of the Davis Strait whale fishery, ed. W. G. Ross (Toronto, 1985). A. L. Fleming, Perils of the polar pack: or, the adventures of the Reverend E. W. T. Greenshield, Kt., o.n., of Blacklead Island, Baffin Land (Toronto, 1932). Philip Goldring, “Inuit economic responses to Euro-American contacts: southeast Baffin Island, 1824–1940,” in Interpreting Canada{apos}s north: selected readings, ed. K. S. Coates and W. R. Morrison (Toronto, 1989), 252–77. S. D. Grant, “Religious fanaticism at Leaf River, Ungava, 1931,” Inuit Studies ([Quebec]), 21 (1997): 159–88. W. G. Ross, “Whaling, Inuit, and the Arctic islands,” in Interpreting Canada{apos}s north, 235–51. M. G. Stevenson, Inuit, whalers, and cultural persistence: structure in Cumberland Sound and central Inuit organization (Toronto, 1997). Gavin White, “Scottish traders to Baffin Island, 1910–1930,” Maritime Hist. (Tavistock, Eng.), 5 (1977): 34–50

[Details concerning One Spot and the Six Mouths band have been drawn from the author{apos}s interviews with Frank Red Crow in May 1954 and with Jack Low Horn on 21 July 1954. h.a.d.]

Almost all the references for this account can be found in Desmond Morton, The Canadian general: Sir William Otter (Toronto, 1974). Otter{apos}s papers are in NA, MG 30, E242. A large collection of scrapbooks, papers, and family bibles is in the possession of the author. The other main secondary sources are Carman Miller, Painting the map red: Canada and the South African War, 1899–1902 (Montreal and Kingston, Ont., 1993), and S. J. Harris, Canadian brass: the making of a professional army, 1860–1939 (Toronto, 1988)

[Sir Joseph Pope was a good biographer. He was discreet in Memoirs of the Right Honourable Sir John Alexander Macdonald, g.c.b., first prime minister of the Dominion of Canada (2v., Ottawa, [1894]; repr. in 1v., Toronto, 1930) because many of the men who had worked with Macdonald, or fought against him, were still alive. His later biography, The day of Sir John Macdonald: a chronicle of the first prime minister of the dominion (Toronto, 1915), was more frank, if much shorter. Pope’s other writings include Jacques Cartier, his life and voyages (Ottawa, [1890]); Traditions (Ottawa, [1891]); and Sir John A. Macdonald vindicated: a review of the Right Honourable Sir Richard Cartwright{apos}s {d-0}Reminiscences{d-1} (Toronto, 1912). As Macdonald’s literary executor, he published a useful selection of letters, Correspondence of Sir John Macdonald . . . (Toronto, 1921). Pope’s own papers, including the correspondence of the Macdonald estate, 1891–1922, are in NA, MG 30, E86.

Pope’s life story, edited and completed by his son Maurice Arthur Pope, was published as Public servant: the memoirs of Sir Joseph Pope (Toronto, 1960). A well-turned piece of work and a basic foundation for this article, it is composed of two parts: Pope’s own memoirs (1857–1907) and his son’s biography of the rest of his life (1907–26). The first part was heavily edited, adding nothing and unfortunately eliminating what Maurice A. Pope called matter “merely of private interest.” Shorter biographical accounts are found in Canadian men and women of the time (Morgan; 1898 and 1912) and Standard dict. of Canadian biog. (Roberts and Tunnell). A family tree and history are provided in the introduction to Maurice A. Pope’s Letters from the front, 1914–1919, ed. Joseph Pope (Toronto, 1993). Louise Reynolds, Agnes: the biography of Lady Macdonald (Toronto and Sarasota, Fla, 1979), has much about Pope in its later chapters. For the development of the Department of External Affairs during his time, see John Hilliker and Donald Barry, Canada{apos}s Department of External Affairs . . . (2v. to date, Toronto, 1990-- ). p.b.w.]§

William Henry Price is the author of Baby{apos}s guide to health; or, how to promote and preserve the health of babies from the time of birth to the age of two years or more in all seasons and climates (New York, 1880). An earlier work noted on the title page, Children{apos}s guide to health, has not been located.

Paul-Eugène Roy published a number of books and articles, among them: L. A. Olivier (Lévis, Qué., 1891); “Le règne social du Sacré-Cœur,” Le Messager canadien du Sacré-Cœur (Montréal), 13 (1904): 248–52, 305–10, 357–63; L{apos}Action sociale catholique et l{apos}Œuvre de la presse catholique; motifs, programme, organisation, ressources (Québec, 1907); Discours religieux et patriotiques (Québec, 1926); Apôtres et apostolat (Québec, 1927); and D{apos}une âme à une autre: correspondance spirituelle et familière avec une âme consacrée à Dieu (Montréal, 1927). He is also believed to be the author of Action sociale catholique et tempérance (Québec, 1927).

AAQ, 20 A, IX: 123; 31-18 A; 61 CD, I: 7; 81 CD, II: 144. ANQ-Q, CE302-S2, 9 nov. 1859. MCQ-DSQ, P7; P10; FSQ, ms 34.3, 24 févr.–10 mars 1890; SME 9/151. “La croisade de tempérance,” La Semaine religieuse de Québec, 9 févr., 11 mai 1907. Le Devoir, 22 févr. 1926. “Notre programme,” La Semaine religieuse de Québec, 18 sept. 1913. Action Sociale Catholique, Statuts et règlements de l{apos}Action sociale catholique (Québec, 1908). Almanach de l{apos}Action sociale catholique (Québec), 1 (1917): 18, 40–41; 10 (1926): 35–36; 11 (1927): 10–14. Comité du Drapeau National des Canadiens Français, Le drapeau national des Canadiens français: un choix légitime et populaire (Québec, 1904). “Fondation du premier comité paroissial de l{apos}A.S.C.,” Le Croisé (Québec), 1 (1910–11): 7–9. Histoire du catholicisme québécois, sous la direction de Nive Voisine (2 tomes in 4v. parus, Montréal, 1984– ), tome 3, vol.1 (Jean Hamelin et Nicole Gagnon, Le XXe siècle (1898–1940), 1984). Mandements, lettres pastorales et circulaires des évêques de Québec (19v. parus, Québec, 1887– ), 10: 57–69; 13: 5–77. Sœur Marie-du-Perpétuel-Secours, “Bibliographie de l{apos}œuvre de Sa Grandeur monseigneur Paul-Eugène Roy, 1859–1926, dix-huitième évêque et huitième archevêque de Québec” (mémoire, école de bibliothéconomie, univ. Laval, Québec, 1964). “Monseigneur Roy et les caisses populaires,” Le Croisé, 1: 155. J.-T. Perron, Mgr Paul-Eugène Roy: 8ième archevêque et 18ième évêque de Québec; notes biographiques et documentaires (Québec, 1926). “Le Secrétariat général des œuvres de Québec,” Le Croisé, 1: 29. “S. G. Mgr Roy à l{apos}Union régionale de Québec,” Le Semeur (Montréal), 8 (1911–12): 108–11. M. A. Welton, Un orateur apôtre, Mgr Paul-Eugène Roy, archevêque de Québec (1859–1926) (Québec, 1941)

[The details for Henri-Thomas Scott’s biography were drawn from newspapers, particularly La Presse and Le Devoir. Close to 150 items concerning Scott were found in these two dailies. La Presse was scanned systematically for 1905 to 1910, May to September 1911, and March to October 1913. The obituaries for 1 and 2 June 1926 were also used. Le Devoir was systematically searched between 1910 and 1920. The following newspapers were consulted as well: Le Canada (Montréal), 16 oct., 28 déc. 1907; 2 janv. 1908; 2 juin 1926; Le Droit (Ottawa), 1er–2, 4–5, 7 juin 1926; L{apos}Illustration (Paris), 3 oct. 1908; Le Nationaliste (Montréal), 21 mai, 20 août 1911; 20 avril 1913; La Patrie, 1er–2, 4 juin 1926; Le Réveil (Montréal), 15 janv. 1916; and Le Soleil, 2 janv., 30 oct. 1908; 19 mai 1909; 18–19, 24, 31 mai, 7–8 juin, 6, 11 juill., 3, 12 août 1911. g.j.]

AO, RG 80-2-0-151, no.28894. Arch. de l’Univ. du Québec à Montréal, 2P (fonds de l{apos}école normale Jacques-Cartier), 2a/17, 2a/26; 2e/4. Commission Scolaire de Montréal, Secrétariat Général, Secteur de la gestion des doc. administratifs et des arch., letters of H.-T. Scott to the director general of the Catholic Board of School Commissioners of Montreal, November 1907, and to the commissioners, 28 Sept. 1909. NA, RG 150, Acc. 1992–93/166, box 8722. École Normale Jacques-Cartier, Annuaire (Montréal), 1905–6; États de service . . . (Montréal), 1857–1909. Robert Gagnon, Histoire de la Commission des écoles catholiques de Montréal; le développement d{apos}un réseau d{apos}écoles publiques en milieu urbain ([Montréal], 1996), 103–10. Jacques Gouin, William-Henry Scott et sa descendance ou le destin romanesque et tragique d’une famille de rebelles (1799–1944) (Hull, Qué., 1980). Donald Guay, L’éducation physique dans les écoles normales du Québec, 1836–1969 (Montréal, 1969); L’histoire de l{apos}éducation physique au Québec: conceptions et événements (1830–1980) (Chicoutimi, Qué., 1980). Quebec Official Gazette, 1908: 839. Denise Villiard-Bériault, Saint-Laurent: un collège se raconte: 120 ans de collège, 10 ans de cégep (Montréal, 1977), 99–107

[The principal manuscript source for this study is the Sifton papers at NA, MG 27, II, D15. The collection is substantially complete for Sifton{apos}s political career from 1896 to 1905, but is sketchier for his earlier and later life and for his business investments. It contains almost nothing on his private family life or his personal interests. Also of critical importance are the following collections at the NA: Macdonald papers (MG 26, A), Laurier papers (MG 26, G), Borden papers (MG 26, H), King papers (MG 26, J), and Dafoe papers (MG 30, D45). There is a small collection of Sifton papers at the AM (MG 14, B41), which also houses the important Greenway papers (GR 1662) and Schultz papers (MG 12, E). The Univ. of Man. Libraries, Dept. of Arch. and Special Coll. (Winnipeg), holds the valuable J. W. Dafoe fonds. A selection of letters between Dafoe and Sifton during the last decade of Sifton{apos}s life was edited by Ramsay Cook and published as The Dafoe–Sifton correspondence, 1919–1927 (Altona, Man., 1966).

There are two principal biographies of Sifton. The first is a fine, sympathetic work by his long-time friend and confidant, J. W. Dafoe, Clifford Sifton in relation to his times (Toronto, 1931). The other is the author’s study, Clifford Sifton (2v., Vancouver and London, 1981–85). The second of the two volumes contains a full bibliography, including a list of Sifton{apos}s writings. Two more recent works that are important in understanding Sifton’s career are Réal Bélanger, Wilfrid Laurier; quand la politique devient passion (Québec et Montréal, 1986), and M. F. Girard, L’écologisme retrouvé: essor et déclin de la Commission de la conservation du Canada: 1909–1921 (Ottawa, 1994). d.j.h.]§

E. W. B. Snider{apos}s article “Waterloo forests and primitive economics” appears in Waterloo Hist. Soc., Annual report (Kitchener, Ont.), 6 (1918): 14--36.

Kitchener Public Library, Rare Books Dept., MC 5.4 (Dan Detweiler papers); MC 6.17 (E. W. B. Snider papers); E. W. B. Snider file. Ontario Agricultural Museum (Milton, Ont.), Waterloo Manufacturing Company coll. Kitchener Daily Record, 17 Oct. 1921. John English and Kenneth McLaughlin, Kitchener: an illustrated history (Waterloo, 1983). Neil Freeman, “Turn-of-the-century state intervention: creating the Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario, 1906,” OH, 84 (1992): 171–94. F. L. Leung, Grist and flour mills in Ontario: from millstones to rollers, 1780s--1880s (Ottawa, 1981). H. V. Nelles, The politics of development: forests, mines & hydro-electric power in Ontario, 1849--1941 (Toronto, 1974). Elliott Richmond, “E. W. B. Snider,” Waterloo Hist. Soc., Annual report, 9 (1921): 183--88. W. A. Schmidt, “The Waterloo Manufacturing Co. Limited,” Waterloo Hist. Soc., Annual report, 75 (1987): 16–23. H. S. Turner and R. W. Irwin, Ontario{apos}s threshing machine industry: a short history of these pioneer companies and their contribution to Ontario agriculture (Guelph, Ont., 1974). G. M. Winder, “Following America into corporate capitalism: technology and organization of the Ontario agricultural implements industry to 1930” (phd thesis, Univ. of Toronto, 1991)

AM, MG 11, A34; P 3361. ...Western Canada Aviation Museum (Winnipeg), F. J. Stevenson file. ...Winnipeg Free Press, 19 Oct. 1936, 13 July 1970. ...Winnipeg Tribune, 16 Dec. 1972. ...Peter Corley-Smith, Barnstorming to bush flying: British Columbia{apos}s aviation pioneers, 1910–1930 (Victoria, 1989). ...F. H. Ellis, Canada{apos}s flying heritage (Toronto, 1954; rev. ed., 1961). ...G. A. Fuller et al., 125 years of Canadian aeronautics: a chronology, 1840–1965 (Willowdale, Ont., 1983). ...K. M. Molson, Pioneering in Canadian air transport ([Winnipeg], 1974). ...D. F. Parrott, Harold Farrington, pioneer bush pilot (Thunder Bay, Ont., 1982). ...S. L. Render, “Canadian Airways Limited” (ma thesis, Univ. of Man., Winnipeg, 1984). ...A. G. Sutherland, Canada{apos}s aviation pioneers: 50 years of McKee Trophy winners (Toronto, 1978). ...Bruce West, The firebirds ([Toronto], 1974).

Arch. Départementales, Aveyron (Rodez, France), État civil, Millau, 11 juill. 1842. Arch. des Sœurs de la Présentation de Marie, P8.3.2 (mère Saint-David), Doc. pédagogique, 27 mars 1899; “A jubilee story, 1903–1978” (typescript, Duck Lake, Sask., n.d.), 3–4. Le Courrier de Saint-Hyacinthe, 8 janv. 1921. [Sœur Sainte-Calixte Bourque], Sœur Marie Saint-Guibert, 1832–1925: la fondation et les soixante-dix premières années de la Présentation-de-Marie en Amérique (Saint-Hyacinthe, 1928). Canada ecclésiastique, 1898, 1917. M.-J. Ducharme, “Ou nos écoles et le salut . . . ,” in Les Franco-Américains et leurs institutions scolaires, sous la direction de Claire Quintal (Worcester, Mass., 1990), 82–105. Guy Laperrière, Les congrégations religieuses: de la France au Québec, 1880–1914 (2v. parus, Sainte-Foy, Qué., 1996– ), 1: 32–33; “‘Persécution et exil’: la venue au Québec des congrégations françaises, 1900–1914,” RHAF, 36 (1982–83): 389–411. Sœur Marie-Aimée de Jésus [Éliza Saint-Jacques], L{apos}enseignement à l{apos}institut de la-Présentation-de-Marie (Saint-Hyacinthe, 1939). “Notre album de famille: mère Marie Saint-David,” La Rev. présentine (Saint-Hyacinthe), 8 (1933): 211–14; 9 (1934): 5–8, 81–85, 141–45. Trois présentines modèles: biographie de vénérée sœur Saint-David (Avignon, France, 1922)

Adélard Turgeon gave many speeches, several of which were published: Discours de l{apos}hon. M. Lomer Gouin, premier ministre et de l{apos}hon. M. Adélard Turgeon, ministre des Terres et Forêts, à Longueuil le 22 septembre 1907 (Québec, [1907?]); Discours prononcé par l{apos}hon. M. Turgeon, ministre des Terres et Forêts, à St-Michel de Bellechasse, le 18 août 1907 ([Québec, 1907?]); The National Battlefields Commission: Hon. A. Turgeon in the Quebec Legislative Council reviews and explains the progress made in the work: monument to King Edward VII (Quebec, 1911); Provincial politics: speeches of Hon. A. Turgeon, minister of Lands and Forests, delivered at St. Michel of Bellechasse and Longueuil, in August and September, 1907 ([Québec?, 1908?]); The Roberts case: the judicial and social point of view: speech delivered in the Legislative Council on Wednesday, 22nd November 1922 ([Quebec, 1922?]).

ANQ-Q, CE301-S4, 19 déc. 1863; S100, 19 juill. 1887; P412; P433; P1000, D2348. Arch. de l{apos}Assemblée Nationale (Québec), Commission royale re Abittibi, copie de la preuve, 1907–8; Procès-verbaux des séances, 1908. Arch. du Collège de Lévis, Qué., Corr. entre Wilfrid Laurier et Adélard Turgeon; Fichier des étudiants. Barreau du Québec (Montréal), Tableau de l{apos}ordre des avocats, 1900–1. Bibliothèque de l{apos}Assemblée Nationale (Québec), Service de la recherche, dossiers des parlementaires; Service de la reconstitution des débats, Débats, 1930–31 (texte manuscrit). Cimetière de la Paroisse Saint-Étienne (Beaumont, Qué.), Pierre tombale d{apos}Adélard Turgeon. NA, MG 26, G (mfm. at ANQ-Q). Le Devoir, 14 nov. 1930. L{apos}Événement, 20 août, 10 sept., 6–7 juin, 29 oct. 1907. Le Nationaliste (Montréal), 27 mars 1904; 9–10, 16, 30 juin, 7, 14, 21, 28 juill., 27 août, 22, 29 sept., 20, 27 oct., 3, 10, 17 nov., 15 déc. 1907; 18 mai 1908; 17 janv., 21 nov. 1909. La Patrie, 15 juill.–5 nov. 1907. Le Soleil, 27 nov. 1897; 4 oct. 1902; 23 nov., 21 déc. 1904; 17 mai, 26 août 1905; 30 juin 1906; 25 juin, 10 sept., 18, 24, 28 oct., 5 nov. 1907; 24 juill. 1908; 5 févr. 1914; 8 juill. 1916; 8, 28 juin 1922; 7 avril 1928; 14 nov. 1930. Georges Bellerive, Orateurs canadiens-français aux États-Unis; conférences et discours (Québec, 1908). C.-M. Boissonnault, Histoire politique de la province de Québec (1867–1920) (Québec, 1936). Canadian album (Cochrane and Hopkins), vol.2. Canadian men and women of the time (Morgan; 1898). P.-A. Choquette, Un demi-siècle de vie politique (Montréal, 1936). Cyclopædia of Canadian biog. (Rose and Charlesworth), vol.3. Dîner offert à l{apos}honorable Adélard Turgeon par ses amis de Lévis à l{apos}occasion de son départ pour Québec au Club de la garnison, jeudi, le 26 septembre 1901 (Lévis, 1901). Directories, Quebec, 1880–91, 1916–21; Quebec and Levis, 1889–1916. BCF. DPQ. P. A. Dutil, “The politics of progressivism in Quebec: the Gouin ‘coup’ revisited,” CHR, 69 (1988): 441–65. Encyclopaedia of Canadian biography . . . (3v., Montreal and Toronto, 1904–7), vol.1. J. Hamelin et al., La presse québécoise, vols.2–3. Hector Laferté, Derrière le trône: mémoires d{apos}un parlementaire québécois, 1936–1958, Gaston Deschênes, édit. (Sillery, Qué., 1998). Charles Langelier, Souvenirs politiques; récits, études et portraits (2v., Québec, 1909–12). “Le Nationaliste” devant la justice de son pays, condamné au maximum de la pénalité; remarques indignées et émues du juge: il regrette de ne pouvoir prononcer une sentence d{apos}emprisonnement (Québec, [1907?]). 1905, the settler{apos}s guide: province of Quebec (Quebec, 1905). Hélène Pelletier-Baillargeon, Olivar Asselin et son temps (2v. paru, [Montréal], 1996– ). Prominent men of Canada: a collection of persons distinguished in professional and political life, and in the commerce and industry of Canada, ed. G. M. Adam (Toronto, 1892). Qué., Assemblée Législative, Débats, 1890, 1892–1909. A.-B. Routhier, Québec et Lévis à l{apos}aurore du XXe siècle (Montréal, 1900). P.-G. Roy, À travers l{apos}histoire de Beaumont (Lévis, 1943); Les avocats de la région de Québec (Lévis, 1936 [i.e. 1937]). Robert Rumilly, Hist. de la prov. de Québec; Honoré Mercier et son temps (2v., Montréal, 1975). Gustave Turcotte, Le Conseil législatif de Québec, 1774–1933 (Beauceville, Qué., 1933). Univ. Laval, Annuaire, 1885–88. Un ministre canadien à Mortagne: réception de l{apos}honorable Turgeon, ministre des Terres et Forêts de la province de Québec, par la Société percheronne d{apos}histoire et d{apos}archéologie; Discours de M. Charles Turgeon, professeur à la faculté de droit de l{apos}université de Rennes (Bellême, France, 1905). J. S. Willison, Sir Wilfrid Laurier and the Liberal party: a political history (2v., Toronto, 1903), 2: 34–35

[Many of Walker{apos}s addresses were published in professional journals or as pamphlets. A good sampler is Addresses delivered by Sir Edmund Walker, c.v.o., l.l.d., d.c.l., during the war ([Toronto, 1919]). A history of banking in Canada was originally presented to the Congress of Bankers and Financiers at Chicago on 23 June 1893, and appeared in the Canadian Bankers{s-1-unknown} Association Journal (Toronto), 1 (1893–94): 1–25, under the title “Banking in Canada.” The History went through numerous reissues and revisions, including the Toronto editions of 1899 and 1909. Walker’s contribution to the Dictionary of political economy . . . , ed. R. H. I. Palgrave (3v., London and New York, 1894–99), on “Canadian banking” also appeared in pamphlet form at Toronto sometime in the 1890s. The majority of Walker{apos}s publications have been made available on microfiche by the CIHM and are listed in its Reg. A chronological listing of Walker{apos}s addresses and publications is available in box 34A, file 3, of his papers at the Univ. of Toronto, infra. Also listed in both sources is a pamphlet issued by the Canadian Bank of Commerce under the title Jubilee of Sir Edmund Walker, c.v.o., l.l.d., d.c.l., 1868–1918 (Toronto, 1918), to commemmorate his 50th year of service.

The principal repository of manuscript documents is the Walker papers at the Univ. of Toronto Library, Thomas Fisher Rare Book Library (ms coll. 1). The records of the Civic Guild of Toronto (formerly the Toronto Guild of Civic Art) are preserved in TRL, SC. Walker{apos}s involvement in the fine arts is documented in archival collections in the library of the Art Gallery of Ontario, Toronto, and in the B. E. Walker papers and Advisory Arts Council records in the National Gallery of Canada Library, Ottawa. Finally, both the CIBC [Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce] and the Canadian Bankers{s-1-unknown} Association possess institutional archives in their head offices in Toronto.

There are three biographies: George P. de T. Glazebrook{apos}s commissioned study, Sir Edmund Walker (London, 1933); C. W. Colby, “Sir Edmund Walker,” Canadian Banker (Toronto), 56 (1949): 93–101; and B. R. Marshall, “Sir Edmund Walker, servant of Canada” (ma thesis, Univ. of B.C., Vancouver, 1971). Marshall{apos}s dissertation is very good, but is not widely available. Hector Willoughby Charlesworth writes about Walker in More candid chronicles: further leaves from the note book of a Canadian journalist (Toronto, 1928), as does Augustus Bridle in Sons of Canada: short studies of characteristic Canadians (Toronto, 1916). The business side of his life can be culled from Victor Ross and A. St L. Trigge, A history of the Canadian Bank of Commerce, with an account of the other banks which now form part of its organization (3v., Toronto, 1920–34); R. T. Naylor, The history of Canadian business (2v., Toronto, 1975); and . Christopher Armstrong and H. V. Nelles, Southern exposure: Canadian promoters in Latin America and the Caribbean, 1896–1930 (Toronto, 1988). On Walker{apos}s involvement in politics and public life, see the Canadian annual rev., 1901–24, and R. D. Cuff, “The Toronto Eighteen and the election of 1911,” OH, 58 (1965): 169–80, as well as A. B. McKillop, Matters of mind: the university in Ontario, 1791–1951 (Toronto, 1994).

K. A. Jordan, Sir Edmund Walker, print collector: a tribute to Sir Edmund Walker on the seventy-fifth anniversary of the founding of the Art Gallery of Ontario (exhibition catalogue, Art Gallery of Ontario, 1974), and Images of eighteenth-century Japan: ukiyoe prints from the Sir Edmund Walker collection, Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, comp. David Waterhouse ([Toronto], 1975), discuss Walker the art connoisseur. Maria Tippett, Art at the service of war: Canada, art and the Great War (Toronto, 1984) and Making culture: English-Canadian institutions and the arts before the Massey commission (Toronto, 1990), Lovat Dickson, The museum makers: the story of the Royal Ontario Museum (Toronto, 1986), and David Kimmel, “Toronto gets a gallery: the origins and development of the city{apos}s permanent public art museum,” OH, 84 (1992): 195–210, survey some of his organizational contributions to Canadian cultural life. The best discussion of Walker{apos}s confrontations with critics is found in Ann Davis, “The Wembley controversy in Canadian art,” CHR, 44 (1973): 48–74. d.k.]§

AO, RG 22-354, 12212-310. ...Commonwealth of Virginia, Dept. of Health, Div. of vital records (Richmond), Marriage certificate, Norfolk, 8 Sept. 1874. ...NA, MG 9, D7-35, 113; MG 27, I, B5, 8–10; MG 28, I 32; I 37, 1–2; III 26, 719. ...North York Public Library (Toronto), Canadiana Coll., Ontario Geneal. Soc. Library coll., cemetery transcripts, Beechwood Cemetery (Ottawa), sect.50: 44. ...Ottawa Citizen, October 1899, 12 Feb. 1925. ...Ottawa Evening Journal, October 1896, October 1898, November 1908, May 1909, February 1910, June 1912, December 1918, November 1922, 12 Feb. 1925. ...Ottawa Free Press, June 1899. ...S. A. Cook, “A helping hand and shelter: Anglo-Protestant social service agencies in Ottawa, 1880–1910” (ma thesis, Carleton Univ., Ottawa, 1987). ...R. P. Gillis, “E. H. Bronson and corporate capitalism: a study in Canadian business thought and action, 1880–1910” (ma thesis, Queen{apos}s Univ., Kingston, Ont., 1975). ...N. E. S. Griffiths, The splendid vision: centennial history of the National Council of Women of Canada, 1893–1993 (Ottawa, 1993). ...Protestant Orphans{s-1-unknown} Home, Annual report (Ottawa), 1864–1925 (copies in City of Ottawa Arch.). [These reports reveal that secondary sources are wrong in claiming Ella Hobday Webster was known for her work with this home; it was her mother-in-law and sister-in-law who were involved in its management. s.a.c.]§.

T. W. Acheson, “The National Policy and the industrialization of the Maritimes, 1880–1910,” in Atlantic Canada after confederation; the “Acadiensis” reader: volume two, comp. P. A. Buckner and David Frank (Fredericton, 1985), 176–201. ...Ron Crawley, “Class conflict and the establishment of the Sydney steel industry, 1899–1904,” in The Island: new perspectives on Cape Breton{apos}s history, 1713–1990, ed. Kenneth Donovan (Fredericton and Sydney, N.S., 1990), 145–86. ...W. J. A. Donald, The Canadian iron and steel industry: a study in the economic history of a protected industry (Boston, 1915). ...E. A. Forsey, Economic and social aspects of the Nova Scotia coal industry (Toronto, 1926). ...M. D. Hirsch, William C. Whitney, modern Warwick (New York, 1948; repr. [Hamden, Conn.], 1969). ...Kyle Jolliffe, “A saga of Gilded Age entrepreneurship in Halifax: the People’s Heat and Light Company Limited, 1893–1902,” N.S. Hist. Rev. (Halifax), 15 (1995), no.2: 10–25. ...T. W. Lawson, Frenzied finance (New York, 1905). ...Don MacGillivray, “Henry Melville Whitney comes to Cape Breton: the saga of a Gilded Age entrepreneur,” Acadiensis (Fredericton), 9 (1979–80), no.1: 44–70. ...National cyclopædia of American biography . . . (63v., New York, [etc.], 1892–1984), 10. ...N.S., House of Assembly, Debates and proc., 13 March 1892: 123–24; Journal and proc., 1893, app.16: 1–8. ...David Schwartzman, “Mergers in the Nova Scotia coalfields: a history of the Dominion Coal Company, 1893–1940” (phd thesis, Univ. of Calif., Berkeley, 1953).

AO, RG 80-5-0-42, no.3540. Univ. of Toronto Arch., A73-0026/527(17). Canadian Medical Assoc., Journal, 23 (July–December 1930): 725–26. Canadian men and women of the time (Morgan; 1912). Wendy Mitchinson, The nature of their bodies: women and their doctors in Victorian Canada (Toronto, 1991). Who{apos}s who and why, 1921

AO, RG 22-191, no.9526; RG 80-5-0-47, no.11760. ...General Register Office (Southport, Eng.), Reg. of births, Great Yarmouth (Norfolk), 11 Dec. 1847. ...Canadian Statesman (Bowmanville, Ont.), 9 Feb. 1922. ...Globe, 12, 17 Sept. 1883; 4, 9, 13 Sept. 1884; 3 Feb. 1922. ...Toronto Daily Mail, 18 Sept. 1883. ...Bright lights, big city: the history of electricity in Toronto (Toronto, 1991). ...Canadian men and women of the time (Morgan; 1898 and 1912). ...Canadian National Exhibition, Greater Toronto picture souvenir ([Toronto], 1934). ...C. W. Condit, The pioneer stage of railroad electrification (Philadelphia, 1977). ...Merrill Denison, The people{apos}s power: the history of Ontario Hydro ([Toronto], 1960). ...Directory, Toronto, 1873/74–1915. ...Electrical News (Toronto), 21 (1911), no.7: 73. ...History of Toronto and county of York, Ontario . . . (2v., Toronto, 1885), 1: 385. ...J. E. Middleton, The municipality of Toronto: a history (3v., Toronto and New York, 1923), 1: 318.

Arch. Départementales, Haute-Garonne (Toulouse, France), État civil, Revel, 11 mai 1871. ...Bibliothèque Nationale du Québec (Montréal), Div. des coll. spéciales, Programmes de théâtre, 9.19 (Théâtre national français), semaine du 11 mars 1901. ...Gazette (Montreal), 7 Feb. 1899, 16 Feb. 1901. ...Le Monde illustré (Montréal), 30 mars 1901. ...Montreal Daily Star, 27 June 1925. ...Le Passe-Temps (Montréal), 1er juin 1907. ...La Patrie, 9 janv. 1909, 25 juin 1925. ...La Presse, 27 févr., 9 mars 1901; 27 mai, 1er juill. 1905; 12 janv. 1909; 6 août 1910; 25 juin 1925. ...Quebec Daily Mercury, 3 Feb. 1899. ...Le Soleil, 14 sept. 1904. ...Christian Beaucage, Le théâtre à Québec au début du XXe siècle: une époque flamboyante! ([Québec], 1996), 30–34, 70–73, 75–77. ...L.-H. Bélanger, Les Ouimetoscopes: Léo-Ernest Ouimet et les débuts du cinéma québécois (Montréal-Nord, 1978), 206–14. ...Jean Béraud, 350 ans de théâtre au Canada français (Ottawa, 1958), 96. ...Brooks Bushnell, Directors and their films: a comprehensive reference, 1895–1990 (Jefferson, N.C., 1993), 98, 203. ...Denis Carrier, “Le premier directeur artistique du National: Paul Cazeneuve,” L{apos}Annuaire théâtral (Montréal), automne 1987: 153–64. ...Franklin Graham, Histrionic Montreal; annals of the Montreal stage . . . (2nd ed., Montreal, 1902; repr. New York and London, 1969). ...Renée Legris et al., Le théâtre au Québec, 1825–1980: repères et perspectives (Montréal, 1988), 53–58. ...Magill{apos}s survey of cinema – silent films, ed. F. N. Magill et al. (3v., Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1982), 3: 892–95. ...David Ragan, Who{apos}s who in Hollywood, 1900–1976 (New Rochelle, N.Y., 1976), 572. ...G.-É. Rinfret, Le théâtre canadien d{apos}expression française: répertoire analytique des origines à nos jours (4v., [Montréal], 1975–78), 3: 176–79.

British Library (London), Add. mss 50088 (Hutton papers). Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Geneal. Soc., International geneal. index. General Register Office (Southport, Eng.), Reg. of marriages, Brackley (Northampton), 5 May 1886. NA, MG 26, H, 22813–14, 31777; RG 9, III, 29, file 8-1-28. Times (London), 14 Jan. 1916, 15 Dec. 1927. [J.] B. Burke, A genealogical and heraldic history of the peerage and baronetage . . . , ed. A. P. Burke (80th ed., London, 1921). DNB. A. F. Duguid, Official history of the Canadian forces in the Great War, 1914–1919 (only 1v. in 2 pts. [1914–September 1915] was published, Ottawa, 1938), 1, pt.2, app.120: 18. G.B., War Office, The official army list (London), 1881–1921. W. A. Griesbach, “Lieut.-Gen. Sir Edwin Alderson, k.c.b., a brave commander who was sacrificed to the Ross Rifle,” Khaki Call ([Toronto]), February 1928. Hart{apos}s annual army list . . . (London), 1881–1921. Andrew Macphail, Official history of the Canadian forces in the Great War, 1914–19: the medical services (Ottawa, 1925). Carman Miller, Painting the map red: Canada and the South African War, 1899–1902 (Montreal and Kingston, Ont., 1993). Desmond Morton, A peculiar kind of politics: Canada{apos}s Overseas Ministry in the First World War (Toronto, 1982). Nicholson, CEF

Arriving in Fredericton in the summer of 1861, Bailey found his prime duty was to teach, which he did with enthusiasm, skill, and devotion for 46 years. One of his early students, George Robert Parkin, recalled later that {d-0}the introduction to Natural Science was like the opening of a new world to me, and it gave me just the intellectual stimulation I needed.{d-1} Initially, Bailey was a one-man natural science faculty, covering the broad spectrum of physics, chemistry, zoology, botany, and geology, but in 1900 his sphere was reduced to biology and geology. To illustrate his lectures he collected geological and botanical specimens, and added them to the museum cabinets started by his predecessor, James Robb*. He valued museums as educational tools and lamented the attitudes of people who regarded them as {d-0}a mere collection of curiosities.{d-1} His appeals for financial support from the provincial legislature, however, fell on deaf ears.

After confederation the director of the Geological Survey of Canada, Sir William Edmond Logan*, met with Bailey and Matthew in 1868 to discuss the survey’s expansion to New Brunswick. Once again Bailey was employed in the summers. Accompanied by Matthew or by assistants such as Robert Wheelock Ells, he surveyed the southern half of the province and later the northern counties along the Saint John River, together with adjoining areas of Quebec and Maine, as well as southern Nova Scotia. Bailey’s discovery of Silurian fossils in northern New Brunswick suggested that rocks of that region covered a wider range of geological time than had previously been supposed. His survey results were published in a series of GSC reports over the years 1872–1906. Together with Ells he also reported on the coalfields of central New Brunswick and mapped the area of bituminous shales in Albert and Westmorland counties. His philosophical bent is apparent in overviews of geological problems such as his 1897 paper entitled {d-0}The Bay of Fundy trough in American geological history.{d-1} He was greatly admired for undertaking arduous field work in spite of having a lame leg, injured in a childhood accident.

While still a student, he had completed a scientific paper, started by his father, on the diatoms (plankton) of the Pará River in Brazil. In retirement he renewed this interest. Working sometimes in cooperation with the Biological Board of Canada and the Atlantic Biological Station at St Andrews, N.B., he identified diatoms of the Bay of Fundy, the coast of Prince Edward Island, and other parts of the east coast. His expertise became so widely recognized that he received specimens from the Pacific coast and Alberta and Saskatchewan lakes. The results were published in various Canadian and American scientific journals and later brought together in {d-0}An annotated catalogue of the diatoms of Canada,{d-1} issued a few months before his death. Altogether he was the author of around 100 scientific works, several of which were major publications.

AO, RG 80-5-0-171, no.5537. PARO, Acc. 2323: 2109–71 (Bell family); P.E.I. Geneal. Soc. coll., reference files, Bell and Howatt family files; RG 6.1, ser.19, subser.2, file 90. People{apos}s Cemetery (Summerside, P.E.I.), Tombstone inscription. Charlottetown Herald, 16, 23 Sept. 1896. Morning Guardian (Charlottetown), 31 Aug. 1896; continued as the Charlottetown Guardian, 21 Dec. 1915, 30–31 Jan. 1929. Patriot (Charlottetown), 20 Dec. 1915, 17 April 1920, 26 April 1922, 30 Jan. 1929. Pioneer (Summerside), 9, 16, 23 March 1896; 2 Feb. 1929. Summerside Journal, 3 Aug. 1882. Canadian annual rev. (Hopkins), 1915–23. Canadian directory of parl. (Johnson). CPG, 1886–1900, 1915–23. Cyclopaedia of Canadian biog. (Rose and Charlesworth), vol.3. Katherine Dewar, “John A. Dewar: the principled maverick,” Island Magazine (Charlottetown), no.43 (spring/summer 1998): 3–7. Frank MacKinnon, The government of Prince Edward Island (Toronto, 1951). W. E. MacKinnon, The life of the party: a history of the Liberal party in Prince Edward Island ([Charlottetown], 1973). Maple Leaf (Oakland, Calif.), 22 (February 1929): 51. P.E.I., Legislative Assembly, Journal, 2 May 1916; 1920: 41–42

Bengough’s own religious upbringing was Presbyterian but he apparently imbibed few of the distinctive doctrines of that denomination. Instead, at least in his mature years, his religion eschewed doctrine in favour of ethics. Like many other social reformers he believed that theologically informed preaching reflected conservative other-worldliness while moralistic preaching concerned the here and now. He made his position plain in an 1875 poem criticizing churches, {d-0}Whose preachers preach theology a deal more than they should,/And try to make men wise when they should try to make them good.{d-1}

Bengough’s major publications, other than Grip (1873–94), include: . The Grip cartoons, vols. I and II, May 1873 to May 1874 (Toronto, 1875); . The decline and fall of Keewatin: or, the free-trade redskins; a satire (Toronto, 1876); Bengough{apos}s popular readings: original and select (Toronto, 1882); A caricature history of Canadian politics . . . (2v., Toronto, 1886; an abridged one-volume edition, selected and introduced by Douglas Fetherling, was published in 1974); The Prohibition Aesop: a book of fables, published in Hamilton some time between 1889 and 1897; The up-to-date primer . . . (New York and Toronto, 1896; reprinted with an introduction by Douglas Fetherling, 1975); The whole hog book: being George{apos}s thoro{s-1-unknown} going work {d-0}Protection or free-trade?{d-1} rendered into words of one syllable, and illustrated with pictures; or, a dry subject made juicy (Boston, 1908); and Bengough{apos}s chalk talks: a series of platform addresses on various topics, with reproductions of the impromptu drawings with which they were illustrated (Toronto, 1922).

Among secondary sources, Stanley Paul Kutcher’s dissertation “John Wilson Bengough: artist of righteousness” (ma thesis, McMaster Univ., 1975), is the most complete. Carman Cumming, Sketches from a young country: the images of {d-0}Grip{d-1} magazine (Toronto, 1997) is a critical examination of Grip’s journalism, while Ramsay Cook, The regenerators: social criticism in late Victorian English Canada (Toronto, 1985), places Bengough in context with his contemporaries.   r.c.]

Centre for Newfoundland Studies, Memorial Univ. of Nfld, Arch. (St John’s), coll-236 (George J. Bond papers); coll-237 (Robert Bond papers). ...Memorial Univ. of Nfld, Dept. of Geography, Gordon Handcock coll. ...PANL, GN 2/39/A, 1921, Whitbourne. ...Private arch., Randall Nelson (Ottawa), Bond family research collection; J. R. Nichols (Digby, N.S.), Bond family research collection. ...Queen’s College, Taunton (Somerset, Eng.), [formerly Taunton Wesleyan Collegiate Institution], Admissions reg. ...Univ. of Edinburgh Library, Special Coll. Dept. ...Daily News (St John’s), 1909. ...Evening Herald (St John’s), 1898. ...Evening Mercury (St John’s), 1889. ...Evening Telegram (St John’s), 1889–90, 1894–95, 1898–1901, 1904, 1909, 1914, 1923, 1927, 1949. ...Royal Gazette and Newfoundland Advertiser (St John’s), 1889, 1894–95, 1900, 1909. ...Times (London), 1907. ...Melvin Baker, “The government of St John’s, Newfoundland, 1800–1921” (phd thesis, Univ. of Western Ont., London, 1980). ...Melvin Baker and P. [F.] Neary, “Sir Robert Bond (1857–1927): a biographical sketch,” Newfoundland Studies (St John’s), 15 (1999): 1–54. ...A. K. Bond, The story of the Bonds of earth (Baltimore, Md, 1930). ...Burke’s genealogical and heraldic history of the peerage, baronetage and knightage, ed. Peter Townend (104th ed., London, 1967). ...B. C. Busch, “The Newfoundland sealers’ strike of 1902,” Labour (St John’s), 14 (1984): 73–101; The war against the seals: a history of the North American seal fishery (Kingston, Ont., and Montreal, 1985). ...St John Chadwick, Newfoundland: island into province (Cambridge, Eng., 1967). ...Jessie Chisholm, “Organizing on the waterfront: the St John’s Longshoremen’s Protective Union (LSPU), 1890–1914,” Labour, 26 (1990): 37–59. ...Coaker of Newfoundland by J. R. Smallwood, ed. Melvin Baker (Port Union, Nfld, 1998). ...D. J. Davis, “The Bond-Blaine negotiations: 1890–1891” (ma thesis, Memorial Univ. of Nfld, 1970). ...Decisions of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland, 1927–31, ed. E. P. Morris et al. (St John’s, 1948), 12. ...Directory, St John’s, Harbour Grace, and Carbonear, 1885/86. ...DNLB (Cuff et al.). ...W. J. S. Donnelly, A general statement of the public debt of the colony of Newfoundland from its commencement in 1834 down to 31st December 1900, and a yearly analysis of the same (St John’s, 1901). ...Encyclopedia of Nfld (Smallwood et al.), 4. ...F. W. Graham, “We love thee, Newfoundland”: biography of Sir Cavendish Boyle, k.c.m.g., governor of Newfoundland, 1901–1904 (St John’s, 1979). ...J. [K.] Hiller, “A history of Newfoundland, 1874–1901” (phd thesis, Univ. of Cambridge, 1971); “The Newfoundland fisheries issue in Anglo-French treaties, 1713–1904,” Journal of Imperial and Commmonwealth Hist. (London), 24 (1996): 1–23; The Newfoundland railway, 1881–1949 (St John’s, 1981); “The origins of the pulp and paper industry in Newfoundland,” Acadiensis (Fredericton), 11 (1981–82), no.2: 42–68; “The political career of Robert Bond,” in Twentieth-century Newfoundland: explorations, ed. J. [K.] Hiller and P. [F.] Neary (St John’s, 1994), 11–45. ...R. B. Joyce, Sir William MacGregor (Melbourne, Australia, 1971). ...Margaret McBurney and Mary Byers, True Newfoundlanders: early homes and families of Newfoundland and Labrador (Toronto, 1997). ...I. D. H. McDonald, “To each his own”: William Coaker and the Fishermen’s Protective Union in Newfoundland politics, 1908–1925, ed. J. [K.] Hiller (St John’s, 1987). ...Harvey Mitchell, “Canada’s negotiations with Newfoundland, 1887–1895,” CHR, 40 (1959): 277–93; “The constitutional crisis of 1889 in Newfoundland,” Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science (Toronto), 24 (1958): 323–31. ...P. [F.] Neary, “The embassy of James Bryce in the United States, 1907–13” (phd thesis, Univ. of London, 1965); “Grey, Bryce, and the settlement of Canadian-American differences, 1905–1911,” CHR, 49 (1968): 357–80; Newfoundland in the North Atlantic world, 1929–1949 (Montreal and Kingston, 1988). ...P. [F.] Neary and S. J. R. Noel, “Newfoundland{apos}s quest for reciprocity, 1890–1910,” in Regionalism in the Canadian community, 1867–1967, ed. Mason Wade (Toronto, 1969), 210–26. ...Newfoundland: economic, diplomatic, and strategic studies, ed. R. A. MacKay (Toronto, 1946). ...Newfoundland in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries: essays in interpretation, ed. J. [K.] Hiller and P. [F.] Neary (Toronto, 1980). ...Nfld, General Assembly, Proc., 1911, 1927; House of Assembly, Journal, 1885, 1887. ...S. J. R. Noel, “Politics and the crown: the case of the 1908 tie election in Newfoundland,” Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, 33 (1967): 285–91; Politics in Newfoundland (Toronto, 1971). ...W. G. Reeves, “The Fortune Bay dispute: Newfoundland’s place in imperial treaty relations under the Washington treaty, 1871–1885” (ma thesis, Memorial Univ. of Nfld, 1971). ...G. F. G. Stanley, “Further documents relating to the union of Newfoundland and Canada, 1886–1895,” CHR, 29 (1948): 370–86. ...F. F. Thompson, The French Shore problem in Newfoundland: an imperial study (Toronto, 1961). ...Twentieth-century Newfoundland: explorations, ed. J. [K.] Hiller and P. [F.] Neary (St John’s, 1994). ...Fred Vallis, “Sectarianism as a factor in the 1908 election,” Newfoundland Quarterly (St John’s), 70 (1974), no.3: 17–28. ...Whitbourne, Newfoundland’s first inland town: journey back in time – 1884–1984, comp. J. S. R. Gosse (Whitbourne, Nfld, 1985). ...W. V. Whiteway, Duty’s call: Sir W. V. Whiteway states his position (St John’s, [1904]).

NA, MG 26, A; H; J; MG 27, II, D15. Univ. of Alta Arch. (Edmonton), 509.1 (R. G. Brett file); file 2315-5 (honorary degree recipients). Univ. of Toronto Arch., Reg. of students. Whyte Museum of the Canadian Rockies, Arch. and Library, Maps of Banff, 1922, detailing Bretton Hall and Brett Hospital. Calgary Albertan, 17–20 Sept. 1929. Calgary Herald, 17 Sept. 1929, 16 Nov. 1935. John Blue, Alberta, past and present, historical and biographical (3v., Chicago, 1924). Can., Parl., Sessional papers, reports of the Dept. of the Interior, 1886–1900. Canadian annual rev. (Hopkins), 1901–29. CPG, 1888–99, 1915–25. Directory of the Council and Legislative Assembly of the North-West Territories, 1876–1905 (Regina, 1970). Dominion Illustrated (Montreal), 21 Sept. 1889. G. S. Fahrni, Prairie surgeon (Winnipeg, 1976). F. W. Gershaw, “An early convention,” Alberta Medical Bull. (Edmonton), 19 (1954), no.1: 38. J. M. Gibbon with M. S. Mathewson, Three centuries of Canadian nursing (Toronto, 1947). Ernest Ingersoll, The Canadian guide-book, part II: western Canada . . . (New York, 1892). G. R. Johnson, “Place names up to 1930 commemorating medical men who have practised their profession in Alberta,” Alberta Medical Bull., 18 (1953), no.2: 53–54. R. C. Johnson, “Resort development at Banff,” Alberta Hist. (Calgary), 23 (1975), no.1: 18–24. G. E. Learmonth, “The fiftieth anniversary of the Alberta Medical Association,” Alberta Medical Bull., 20 (1955), no.3: 51–57. C. C. Lingard, Territorial government in Canada: the autonomy question in the old North-West Territories (Toronto, 1946). E. G. Luxton, Banff: Canada{apos}s first national park; a history and a memory of Rocky Mountains Park (Banff, 1975). A. O. MacRae, History of the province of Alberta (2v., [Calgary], 1912), 1. Jim McDonald et al., Hotsprings of western Canada: a complete guide (Vancouver, 1978). H. [M.] Neatby, “The medical profession in the North-West Territories,” in Medicine in Canadian society: historical perspectives, ed. S. E. D. Shortt (Montreal, 1981), 165–88. G. H. W. Richardson, “The Conservative party in the provisional district of Alberta, 1887–1905” (ma thesis, Univ. of Alta, 1976). Dean Robinson, “Early ‘C.P.R.’ doctors of Alberta and the west,” Alberta Medical Bull., 18, no.3: 24–27. Patricia Roome, “A report on Dr. Robert George Brett (1851–1929) and the Sanitarium Hotel” (typescript, 1970; copy in the Brett family fonds in Banff). Edward Roper, By track and trail: a journey through Canada (London, 1891). Saturday Night (Toronto), 9 Aug. 1924: 3. Douglas Sladen, “The hot springs of the Canadian north-west,” Dominion Illustrated, 19 Sept. 1891: 276–78; On the cars and off: being the journal of a pilgrimage along the queen{apos}s highway to the east, from Halifax in Nova Scotia to Victoria in Vancouver{apos}s Island (London and New York, 1895). G. D. S[tanley], “Medical pioneering in Alberta: Dr. Robert George Brett (1851–1929),” Calgary Associate Clinic, Hist. Bull., 4 (1939–40), no.1: 5–12. [H. C. Stovel], 50 Switzerlands in one: Banff the beautiful, Canada{apos}s national park . . . (Banff, [1914?]). H. H. Thomas, From barnacle to Banff (2nd ed., [Calgary?], 1945). Univ. of Alta, Calendar (Edmonton), 1908/9, 1912/13

Little has been written on Brodeur’s career, but information on him can be found in biographies of his major contemporaries and works on the cases which he defended: Réal Bélanger, Wilfrid Laurier; quand la politique devient passion (Québec et Montréal, 1986); R. MacG. Dawson and H. B. Neatby, William Lyon Mackenzie King: a political biography (3v., Toronto, 1958–76); B. L. Vigod, Quebec before Duplessis: the political career of Louis-Alexandre Taschereau (Kingston, Ont., and Montreal, 1986); Robert Rumilly, Honoré Mercier et son temps (2v., Montréal, 1975); John Hilliker, Canada’s Department of External Affairs (2v., Montreal and Kingston, 1990–95), 1; and M. L. Hadley and Roger Sarty, Tin-pots and pirate ships: Canadian naval forces and German sea raiders, 1880–1918 (Montreal and Kingston, 1991). For his Supreme Court career, see Ian Bushnell, The captive court: a study of the Supreme Court of Canada (Montreal and Kingston, 1992); J. G. Snell and Frederick Vaughan, The Supreme Court of Canada: history of the institution ([Toronto], 1985); and J.-L. Baudouin, “L{apos}interprétation du Code civil québécois par la Cour suprême du Canada,” La Rev. du Barreau (Montréal), 53 (1975): 715–37. Mention should also be made of the article on Brodeur by his grandson, N. D. Brodeur, “L. P. Brodeur and the origins of the Royal Canadian Navy,” in The RCN in retrospect, 1910–1968, ed. J. A. Boutilier (Vancouver and London, 1982), 13–32, and of the Brodeur family history: Clément et Grégoire Brodeur, Brodeur: essai sur l{apos}histoire et la généalogie de la famille Brodeur en Amérique (Saint-Hyacinthe, Qué., 1981).   r.c.]§

ANQ-Q, CE301-S97, 31 déc. 1885; Index BMS, dist. judiciaire de Québec, Notre-Dame de Québec, 11 oct. 1920. Musée du Royal 22e Régiment (Québec), AV5/172/2 (“Journal du Royal 22e Régiment, 1920–1939”); D-6/172 (fonds d{apos}archives J.-P. Gagnon); Dossiers personnel militaire. NA, RG 150, Acc. 1992–93/166, box 1655-38. Private arch., Estelle Lafleur (Chassé) (Hull, Que.), Henri Chassé fils, “50 ans au service du Canada; portraits, souvenirs et anecdotes” (ms, 1997); papers concerning Henri Chassé. Le Devoir, 10 juill. 1928. Joseph Chaballe, Histoire du 22e bataillon canadien-français . . . (Montréal, 1952). J.-P. Gagnon, Le 22e bataillon (canadien-français), 1914–1919; étude socio-militaire (Québec et Ottawa, 1986)

ANQ-M, CE601-S4, 24 mars 1840. ANQ-Q, CE301-S97, 1er juill. 1869. Arch. du séminaire de Trois-Rivières, Qué., 0016 (fonds Louis-François Richer-Laflèche). Centre de Recherche en Civilisation Canadienne-Française (Ottawa), P2 (fonds Jean-Charbonneau). Mass., State Dept. of Public Health, Registry of vital records and statistics (Boston), Marriage records, Lowell, Mass., 18 Oct. 1892. Le Bien public (Montréal), 20 mai 1876. Le Canada (Montréal), 25 nov. 1911. Le Courrier du Canada (Québec), 18 oct. 1861. Le Devoir, 24–25 août 1926. Le Monde illustré (Montréal), 4 déc. 1886. L{apos}Opinion publique (Montréal), 5 févr. 1870. La Presse, 29 déc. 1896. L{apos}Union nationale (Montréal), 8 sept. 1864. DPQ. Thérèse Dufresne, “Bibliographie de M. L.-O. David” (école de bibliothécaires, univ. de Montréal, 1944). J. Hamelin et al., La presse québécoise, 2; 3. Pierre Hébert et Patrick Nicol, Censure et littérature au Québec (Saint-Laurent, Qué., 1997). Jacques Lacoursière, Histoire populaire du Québec (4v. parus, Sillery, Qué., 1995– ), 3. Marcel Lajeunesse, Les sulpiciens et la vie culturelle à Montréal au XIXe siècle (Montréal, 1982). Yvan Lamonde, Gens de parole: conférences publiques, essais et débats à l{apos}Institut canadien de Montréal (1845–1871) (Montréal, 1990). L. L. LaPierre, Sir Wilfrid Laurier and the romance of Canada ([Toronto], 1996). Edmond Lareau, Histoire de la littérature canadienne (Montréal, 1874). Jean-Marc Larrue, Le monument inattendu: le Monument-National de Montréal, 1893–1993 (LaSalle, Qué., 1993). Le Jeune, Dictionnaire. Dorylas Moreau, “Le débat L.-O. David–P. Bernard (1897–1898) à propos du libéralisme” (mémoire de ma, univ. Laval, 1972). [Alexis Pelletier], Coup d{apos}œil sur le libéralisme européen et sur le libéralisme canadien: démonstration de leur parfaite identité (Montréal, 1876). Jacques Rouillard, Histoire du syndicalisme au Québec: des origines à nos jours (Montréal, 1989). Robert Rumilly, Hist. de Montréal; Histoire des Franco-Américains (Montréal, 1958). Arthur Savaète, Voix canadiennes: vers l{apos}abîme (12v., Paris, [1905–22]), 3; 7. Un catholique [Alexis Pelletier], La source du mal de l{apos}époque au Canada ([Montréal, 1881])

Robert Drummond’s publications include: To the officers and members of Keystone Lodge (Stellarton, N.S., 1896); “The mine and the farm,{d-1} Mining Soc. of Nova Scotia, Journal (Halifax), 14 (1909–10): 15–29; The sixties and subsequently; paper read August 31st, 1912 (n.p., [1912]); “Mining fatalities,{d-1} Mining Soc. of Nova Scotia, Journal, 19 (1914–15): 49–58; Minerals and mining, Nova Scotia (Stellarton, 1918); “The beginnings of trade unionism in New Glasgow,” Evening News (New Glasgow, N.S.), 7 July 1924 (reissued in Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Trans. (Montreal), 20 (1924): 914–32); and Recollections and reflections of a former trades union leader ([Stellarton, 1926]).

Dalhousie Univ. Arch. (Halifax), MS-9 (Labour union papers), Provincial Workmen{apos}s Assoc., no.27, Holdfast Lodge, Joggins, N.S., minutes. General Register Office for Scotland (Edinburgh), Greenock (West), reg. of births and baptisms, 29 Oct. 1840 (mfm. at Scottish Record Office, Edinburgh). Human Resources Development Canada Library (Hull, Que.), Provincial Workmen’s Assoc. of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, Constitution, by-laws, and minutes of proc. of the grand council, 1879–1917 (typescript). NSARM, Mining Soc. of Nova Scotia, minutes, 1902 (mfm.); RG 21. Pictou County Court of Probate (Pictou, N.S.), Estate papers, will of Robert Drummond (mfm. at NSARM). Eastern Chronicle (New Glasgow), 29 Dec. 1925. Evening News, 28 Dec. 1925. Halifax Herald, 21 Feb., 7 March 1895; 28 Dec. 1925. Trades Journal (Springhill, N.S.), 1880–82; continued at Stellarton, 1882–91. Canadian Mining Institute, Monthly Bull. (Montreal), no.[81] (January 1919)–no.98 (June 1920); continued by the Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, no.99 (July 1920)–no.124 (December 1924). Eugene Forsey, Economic and social aspects of the Nova Scotia coal industry (Montreal, 1926); Trade unions in Canada, 1812–1902 (Toronto, 1982). Dawn Fraser, Echoes from labor{apos}s wars, intro. David Frank and Donald MacGillivray (expanded ed., Wreck Cove, N.S., 1992), intro. M. S. Kirincich, A centennial history of Stellarton (Antigonish, N.S., 1990). H. A. Logan, The history of trade-union organization in Canada (Chicago, 1928). Ian McKay, “‘By wisdom, wile or war’: the Provincial Workmen’s Association and the struggle for working-class independence in Nova Scotia, 1879–97,” Labour (St John{apos}s), 18 (1986): 13–62. Maritime Mining Record (Stellarton), 1900–24. John Moffatt, P.W.A. Grand Secretary Moffatt{apos}s valedictory report (n.p., [1917]). N.S., House of Assembly, Debates and proc., 1906, 1910–11; Legislative Council, Debates and proc., 1891–1922. B. D. Palmer, Working-class experience: rethinking the history of Canadian labour, 1800–1991 (Toronto, 1992). David Pigot, The Mining Society of Nova Scotia, 1887–1987; a history of the society . . . (Glace Bay, N.S., 1987). Post office Greenock directory . . . (Greenock, Scot.), 1864/65. S. M. Reilly, “The Provincial Workmen{apos}s Association of Nova Scotia, 1879–1898” (ma thesis, Dalhousie Univ., 1979). Daniel Samson, “Dependency and rural industry: Inverness, Nova Scotia, 1899–1910,” in Contested countryside: rural workers and modern society in Atlantic Canada, 1800–1950, ed. Daniel Samson (Fredericton, 1994)

ANQ-Q, CE301-S1, 31 mars 1841; CE301-S97, 22 févr. 1865; Index BMS, dist. judiciaire de Québec, Notre-Dame de Québec, 2 déc. 1922; P1000, D2396; TP11, S1, SS2, SSS1, dossiers 170 (1891), 730 (1896), 1251 (1885), 1338 (1889), 1411 (1889), 1536 (1873), 1544 (1881), 1955 (1891), 2462 (1890). AVQ, QD4-1A, 1662–63; QD4-1G, 1739-02–05; QP1-4, 40/0004, 62/0005. Monique Duval, “Québec doit le téléphone . . . à Cyrille Duquet,” Le Soleil, 11 mai 1977. L{apos}Événement, 13, 17, 20 févr. 1906; 5 nov. 1907; 10, 18 févr. 1908. Le Journal de Québec, 29 nov. 1866; 26 févr. 1868; 27, 31 mars 1871. Le Soleil, 16 févr. 1904. “Orfèvrerie: établissement de M. Cyrille Duquet,” in Annuaire du commerce et de l{apos}industrie de Québec . . . (Québec), 1873: 44–46. René Lagacé, “Cyrille Duquet, inventeur de renom,” Concorde (Québec), 7 (1956), nos.6–7: 9–11. Alyne Le Bel, “Le magicien de la rue Saint-Jean: l{apos}inventeur Cyrille Duquet,” Cap-aux-Diamants (Québec), 4 (1988–89), no.4: 45–48. William Patten, Pioneering the telephone in Canada (Montreal, 1926)

No complete file of the Eye Opener has survived. In 1962 the known extant copies were microfilmed by the Canadian Library Association; some additional issues have subsequently been obtained by the Glenbow Library, Calgary, and the Univ. of Alta Library, Edmonton. The Glenbow Library holds a complete set of Bob Edwards{s-1-unknown} Summer Annual (Toronto).   h.a.d.]

G. C. Porter, “Legendary Midnapore character made Calgary laugh; Lord Strathcona was not amused,” Calgary Herald, 4 Feb. 1939. Andrew Snaddon, “Bob Edwards{s-1-unknown} story a bit of a mystery,” Calgary Herald, 4 Dec. 1954. Alberta newspapers, 1880–1982: an historical directory, comp. G. M. Strathern (Edmonton, 1988). Max Foran, “Bob Edwards & social reform,” Alberta Hist. (Calgary), 21 (1973), no.3: 13–17. Bertha Hart Segal, “‘Bob’ Edwards,” Cattlemen (Winnipeg), June 1950: 18, 35, 42. T. U. Primrose, “Bob Edwards of High River,” Cattlemen, January 1954: 6, 33

AO, RG 80-27-2, 10: 4. ...NA, RG 18. ...Times (London), 8, 11, 13 July 1921. ...Australian dictionary of biography, ed. Douglas Pike et al. (14v. and index to date, Melbourne, 1966–    ). ...Can., Parl., Sessional papers, 1871, no.7: 123–31; 1872, no.8: 86–95; 1874, no.7: 37–39, 49–51. ...Canada Gazette, 21 Oct. 1871: 343–46. ...Canadian men and women of the time (Morgan; 1898). ...Debrett{apos}s peerage, baronetage, knightage, and companionage . . . (London), 1920. ...G.B., War Office, The official army list (London), 1882, 1910. ...Hart{apos}s annual army list . . . (London), 1874, 1893–95, 1901. ...R. C. Macleod, The NWMP and law enforcement, 1873–1905 (Toronto, 1976). ...G. W. L. Nicholson, The gunners of Canada; the history of the Royal Regiment of Canadian Artillery (2v., Toronto, 1967–72), 1. ...H. P. Noble, “The commissioner who almost wasn’t,” RCMP Quarterly (Ottawa), 30 (1964–65), no.2: 9–10. ...J. P. Turner, The North-West Mounted Police, 1873–1893 . . . (2v., Ottawa, 1950), 1.

Joseph-Narcisse Gastonguay produced a number of writings, the most important of which was the beginning of a history of surveying published by the Land Surveyors of Quebec in their Annual report (Quebec) between 1891 and 1896. He is also the author of two articles: “La colonisation et les cercles de colonisation,” Almanach de l{apos}Action sociale catholique (Québec), 3 (1919): 122–23, and “Cercle de colonisation,” La Semaine religieuse de Québec, 12 avril 1917: 512.

AC, Québec, État civil, Catholiques, Saint-Jean-Baptiste (Québec), 8 juin 1901. ANQ-MBF, CE402-S72, 28 avril 1879. ANQ-Q, CE302-S25, 13 janv. 1849; E9, Registraire, dossiers 1098/40, 4196/38, 5581/41; P293. L{apos}Action catholique (Québec), 28 juin 1922. Le Devoir, 28, 30 juin 1922. Assoc. Catholique de la Jeunesse Canadienne-Française, Le problème de la colonisation au Canada français; rapport officiel du Congrès de colonisation tenu par l{apos}A.C.J.C. à Chicoutimi, du 29 juin au 2 juillet 1919 (Montréal, 1920). Le Centenaire d{apos}Arthabaska ([Arthabaska, Qué.], 1951). Directory, Quebec and Levis, 1908–22. Alcide Fleury, Arthabaska, capitale des Bois-Francs (Arthabaska, 1961). Jean Hamelin, Histoire de l{apos}université Laval: les péripéties d{apos}une idée (Sainte-Foy, Qué., 1995), 121–25. Yves Hébert, “La colonisation au service d{apos}une idéologie; l{apos}œuvre colonisatrice de l{apos}abbé Ivanhoë Caron (1875–1941) en Abitibi (1911–1924)” (mémoire de ma, univ. Laval, Québec, 1986). Paul Joncas, “Monsieur J.-N. Gastonguay, professeur à la faculté des arts de l{apos}université Laval,” in Univ. Laval, Annuaire, 1923–24: 252–54. Ligue Nationale de Colonisation, La Ligue nationale de colonisation, constituée civilement en corporation, sous l{apos}empire des statuts refondus de la province de Québec, 1909–au 1er février 1924; constitution et règlements (Québec, 1924). Hormisdas Magnan, “Les drapeaux arborés dans la province de Québec,” BRH, 25 (1919): 141–43. P.-P. Magnan, Lac-Sergent, comté de Portneuf, P.Q. (Québec, 1948). J.-R. Pelletier, Arpenteurs-géomètres, un siècle, 1882–1982 (Québec, 1982). Eugène Robillard, “Une nomenclature géographique: les nouveaux noms géographiques de l’Abitibi et comté de Pontiac,” Soc. de Géographie de Québec, Bull., 6 (1912): 156–64. É.-G. Talbot, Généalogie des familles originaires des comtés de Montmagny, L{apos}Islet, Bellechasse (16v., Château-Richer, Qué., 1971–78), 3. D. W. Thomson, Men and meridians: the history of surveying and mapping in Canada (3v., Ottawa, 1966–69), 2. Cyrille et Pierre Tremblay, 50 ans de vie municipale: des faits, des dates, des hommes, des chiffres, 25 février 1921–18 juillet 1971, Lac-Sergent 1921–1971 (Lac-Sergent, Qué., 1971). Univ. Laval, Annuaire, 1908–22

Evening Telegram (St John{apos}s), 8 Oct. 1917, 7 Nov. 1930. ...Melvin Baker, “The government of St. John{apos}s, Newfoundland, 1800–1921” (phd thesis, Univ. of Western Ont., London, 1981), 367–71; “Prominent figures from our recent past: William Gilbert Gosling,” Newfoundland Quarterly (St John’s), 81 (1985–86), no.1: 43; “William Gilbert Gosling and the charter: St John’s municipal politics, 1914–1921,” Newfoundland Quarterly, 81, no.1: 21–28; and “William Gilbert Gosling and the establishment of the Child Welfare Association, 1917–1921,” Newfoundland Quarterly, 77 (1981–82), no.4: 31–32 (the texts of the articles are also available on the author’s web site, ...Melvin Baker and G. M. Story, “Book collectors in Newfoundland: the case of W. G. Gosling,” in {d-0}The book disease{d-1}: Atlantic provinces book collectors, ed. E. L. Swanick (Halifax, 1996), 83–92. ...A. [E.] N[utting] G[osling], William Gilbert Gosling: a tribute (New York, [1935]).

Additional material concerning Gravel is scattered among several collections, among them the Arch. of the Diocese of Gravelbourg, Sask.; the Fonds Langevin in the Arch. de l{apos}Archevêché de Saint-Boniface, Winnipeg; and the records from the period of O.-E. Mathieu’s installation as bishop in 1911 in the Arch. of the Archdiocese of Regina. Material at the NA includes Gravel’s reports as immigration agent to the federal superintendent of immigration, W. D. Scott (MG 26, G: 13703–6 and RG 76, Acc. 1969/017, box 213, file 595025-2).

The Canadian musical heritage, ed. Elaine Keillor et al. (23v. in 18 to date, Ottawa, 1983–    ). “Dr. Charles Harriss,” Musical Times (London), 50 (1909): 225–29. Encyclopedia of music in Canada (Kallmann et al.). A. C. Mackenzie, A musician{apos}s narrative (London, [1927]). Musical Canada (Toronto), November 1908. The musical red book of Montreal . . . , ed. B. K. Sandwell (Montreal, 1907). Tancrède Trudel, “Charles A. E. Harriss,” Le Canada artistique (Montréal), 1, no.12 (décembre 1890): 193–94. Nadia Turbide, “Charles Albert Edwin Harriss: the McGill years” (ma thesis, McGill Univ., 1976)

Arch. de la Chancellerie de l{apos}Archevêché de Montréal, RLF (Reg. des lettres de Mgr Fabre), 6: 43, 74, 86, 95, 104, 106, 168–69; 421.154 (dossier Antoine Labelle); 465.108 (Congrégation du Très-Saint-Sacrement), 885-1, 890-1. ...Arch. de la Congrégation du Très-Saint-Sacrement (Montréal), D-1, Fondation de Montréal; E-XV, Marie de La Rousselière; E-XVI, La Réparation; Aimé Côté, “Le Montréal des premiers jours,” dans “Le livre du famille” (texte dactylographié, juin 1951). ...“Association des prêtres adorateurs, revue et approuvée par S. S. Léon XIII, le 25 janvier 1881,” Le Très Saint Sacrement (Paris), 6 (1881–82): 464–67. ...Adrien Bergeron, “Mademoiselle de la Rousselière,” Le Sauveur (Montréal), 59 (juillet–août 1985): 7–8 to 61 (novembre–décembre 1987): 16–17. ...Léo Boismenu, “Mademoiselle de la Rousselière, en religion sœur Marie-Clémentine, du Carmel d{apos}Angers (1838–1924),” Annales des Prêtres-Adorateurs et de la Ligue sacerdotale de la communion (Montréal), 27 (1924): 337–45. ...“Chronique et correspondance de l{apos}Association des prêtres adorateurs,” Le Très Saint Sacrement, 7 (1882–83): 445, 640, 643; 8 (1883–84): 150. ...André Guitton, Pierre-Julien Eymard, 1811–1868; apôtre de l{apos}eucharistie (Paris et Montréal, 1992), 302–3. ...P.-M. Hébert, “La famille Brisset des Nos, de Dreux (Normandie) à Montréal,” SGCF, Mémoires, 28 (1997): 243–59. ...Marie [Hébert] de La Rousselière, Histoire du pèlerinage La Réparation au Sacré-Cœur; un écrit posthume, P.-M. Hébert, édit. (Montréal, [1979?]). ...Guy Laperrière, Les congrégations religieuses: de la France au Québec, 1880–1914 (2v. parus, Sainte-Foy, Qué., 1996–    ), 1: 116–25. ...“Œuvre de l{apos}exposition mensuelle,” Le Très Saint-Sacrement, 9 (1884–85): 830. ...Une apôtre de l{apos}eucharistie et de la réparation: Mlle Marie de la Rousselière, en religion “sœur Marie-Clémentine de Jésus-Hostie” du Carmel d{apos}Angers, 1840–1924 (Angers, France, 1925; 2e éd., revue et augmentée par P.-M. Hébert, Montréal, [1996]).

Hughes{apos}s contribution on “Canadian forests and timber interests” appears in Canada, an encyclopædia (Hopkins), 5: 511–20, under the byline “Miss Catherine Hughes, of Ottawa.” In addition to the publications cited in the biography, her writings include Archbishop O{apos}Brien: man and churchman (Ottawa, 1906) and English atrocities in Ireland; a compilation of facts from court and press records (New York, [1920]). ...American Irish Hist. Soc. (New York), D. F. Cohalan papers. ...City of New York Municipal Arch., Dept. of Records and Information Services, Death certificate. ...NA, MG 27, II, D19, vols.9, 14; MG 28, I 232, vols.1–2, 11–12, 41, 43, 46; MG 30, D71. ...PAA, 74.350/81, 83–84; Arch. of the Oblates of Mary Immaculate, Prov. of Alberta-Saskatchewan, 71.220, items 6548–49; Orders-in-council, O.C. 12/11; O.C. 325/08; O.C. 627/14; O.C. 759/13. ...PARO, St Mary{apos}s Roman Catholic Church (Indian River, P.E.I.), Reg. of baptisms, 2 Nov. 1876. ...Richard Davis, “Irish nationalism in Manitoba, 1870–1922,” in The untold story: the Irish in Canada, ed. Robert O{apos}Driscoll and Lorna Reynolds (2v., Toronto, 1988), 1: 393–415; “The Self-Determination for Ireland leagues and the Irish Race Convention in Paris, 1921–22,” Tasmanian Hist. Research Assoc., Papers and Proc. (Hobart, Australia), 24 (1977). ...Illustrated historical atlas of the province of Prince Edward Island . . . ([Toronto], 1880; repr. Belleville, Ont., 1972). ...P. E. Magennis, “Catherine Hughes – a memory,” Catholic Bull. and Book Rev. (Dublin), 15 (1925): 1045–54. ...Pádraig Ó Siadhail, “Katherine Hughes, Irish political activist,” in Edmonton: the life of a city, ed. Bob Hesketh and Frances Swyripa (Edmonton, 1995), 78–87; “Ó Emerald go hÉirinn (Spléachadh ar bheatha is ar shaothar Katherine Hughes, 1876–1925) [From Emerald to Ireland (A look at the life and works of Katherine Hughes, 1876–1925],” Irisleabhar Mhá Nuad [Maynooth Journal] (Maynooth, Republic of Ire.), 1991: 13–39.

AO, RG 22-357, no.3322; RG 80-5-0-212, no.6180. ...NA, MG 26, H; MG 27, II, D9. ...R. C. Brown, Robert Laird Borden, a biography (2v., Toronto, 1975–80). ...R. C. Brown and Donald Loveridge, “Unrequited faith: recruiting the CEF, 1914–1918,” Rev. internationale d{apos}hist. militaire, no.[54] (éd. canadienne, Ottawa, 1982): 53--79. ...Can., Parl., Sessional papers, 1915–19. ...Canadian annual rev., 1914–19. ...John English, The decline of politics: the Conservatives and the party system, 1901–20 (Toronto, 1977). ...J. L. Granatstein and J. M. Hitsman, Broken promises: a history of conscription in Canada (Toronto, 1977). ...R. G. Haycock, Sam Hughes: the public career of a controversial Canadian, 1885–1916 (Waterloo, Ont., 1986). ...A. M. J. Hyatt, General Sir Arthur Currie: a military biography (Toronto, 1987). ...J. A. Keshen, Propaganda and censorship during Canada{apos}s Great War (Edmonton, 1996). ...Desmond Morton and J. L. Granatstein, Marching to Armageddon: Canadians and the Great War, 1914–1919 (Toronto, 1989). ...Nicholson, CEF. ...Nila Reynolds, In quest of yesterday (3rd ed., Minden, Ont., 1973). ...R. J. Sharpe, The last day, the last hour: the Currie libel trial ([Toronto], 1988).

BCA, GR-1415, file 11774. ...Ken Adachi, The enemy that never was: a history of the Japanese Canadians (Toronto, 1976). ...Peter Duus, “The takeoff point of Japanese imperialism,” in Japan examined: perspectives on modern Japanese history, ed. Harry Wray and Hilary Conroy (Honolulu, 1983). ...Roy Ito, Stories of my people: a Japanese Canadian journal (Hamilton, Ont., 1994). ...Kanada Nikkeijin Godo Kyokai shi, 1892–1959 [A history of the Japanese congregations of the United Church of Canada, 1892–1959] (Toronto, 1961). ...Kenneth Matsugu, “A brief history of the Japanese United Church of Canada,” in A centennial legacy: history of the Japanese Christian missions in North America, 1877–1977, comp. Sumio Koga (Chicago, 1977). ...Tadashi Mitsui, “The ministry of the United Church of Canada amongst Japanese Canadians in British Columbia, 1892–1949” (m.s.t. thesis, Union College of British Columbia, Vancouver, 1965). ...Mark Mullins, Religious minorities in Canada: a sociological study of the Japanese experience (Lewiston, N.Y., and Queenston, Ont., 1989). ...Nakayama Jinshiro, Kanada doho hatten taikan [Encyclopedia of the Japanese in Canada] (Tokyo, [1929]). ...Nitta Jiro, Mikkosen Suian Maru [The secret journey of the Suian Maru] (Tokyo, 1979). ...P. E. Roy, A white man{apos}s province: British Columbia politicians and Chinese and Japanese immigrants, 1858–1914 (Vancouver, 1989). ...Sasaki Toshiji, Yamamoto Senji (2v., Tokyo, 1998), 1. ...Shinpo Mitsuru, Kanada Nihonjin imin monogatari [Tales of Japanese immigrants in Canada] (Tokyo, 1986). ...Shinpo Mitsuru et al., Kanada no Nihongo shinbun: minzoku ido no shakaishi [Japanese-language newspapers in Canada] (Tokyo, 1991). ...Toyo Takata, Nikkei legacy: the story of Japanese Canadians from settlement to today (Toronto, 1983).

Emma Lajeunesse is the author of Forty years of song (London, 1911; repr. New York, 1977); Gilles Potvin published a translation under the title Mémoires d{apos}Emma Albani; l{apos}éblouissante carrière de la plus grande cantatrice québécoise (Montréal, 1972). Despite extensive searching, Emma Lajeunesse’s baptismal certificate could not be found. The most reliable document on the subject of her birth, cited in Hélène Charbonneau, L{apos}Albani: sa carrière artistique et triomphale (Montréal, [1938]), is the register of the convent of the Religious of the Sacred Heart, which lists Albani’s birth date as 1 Nov. 1847. A copy of her marriage certificate is in the Fonds Gilles-Potvin cited below.

Arch. de la Ville de Chambly, Qué., FA (fonds Albani). Arch. de l{apos}Univ. de Montréal, P 279 (fonds Arthur-Prévost); P 299 (fonds Gilles-Potvin). NA, MG 26, G; J1; MG 30, D178; D207. National Library of Canada (Ottawa), Music div., MUS 10. “Albani,” L{apos}Album musical (Montréal), mars 1883: 17–19. Catalogue of Canadian composers, ed. Helmut Kallmann (2nd ed., Toronto, 1952; repr. St Clair Shores, Mich., 1972), 144. M.-B. Clément, “Albani,” BRH, 55 (1949): 199–210; “Les concerts à Montréal de madame Albani,” BRH, 53 (1947): 364–72. Dictionnaire biographique des musiciens canadiens (2e éd., Lachine, Qué., 1935). Encyclopedia of music in Canada (Kallmann et al.). Romain Gour, “Albani (Emma Lajeunesse), reine du chant (1847–1930),” Qui? (Montréal), 1 (1949–50): 3–20. Helmut Kallmann, A history of music in Canada, 1534–1914 (Toronto and London, 1960; repr. [Toronto], 1987). Napoléon Legendre, Albani (Emma Lajeunesse) (Québec, 1874). Cheryl MacDonald, Emma Albani: Victorian diva (Toronto, 1984). Renée Maheu, “Les grandes voix du Québec,” Cap-aux-Diamants (Québec), no.35 (automne 1993): 10–14. É.-Z. Massicotte, “La famille d{apos}Albani,” BRH, 37 (1931): 660–69, 713. The new Grove dictionary of music and musicians, ed. Stanley Sadie (6th ed., 20v., London, 1980), 1: 196–97; 5: 7. The new Grove dictionary of opera, ed. Stanley Sadie (4v., London and New York, 1992), 1: 49, 1000; 3: 918; 4: 76. Gilles Potvin, “Emma Albani,” Opera Canada (Toronto), 23 (1982), no.4: 20–21; “Emma Albani (1847–1930),” ARMuQ [Assoc. pour l{apos}Avancement de la Recherche en Musique du Québec], Cahiers (Québec), 7 (1988): 46–64; “Emma Albani dans I Puritani au siècle dernier: un succès pyramidal et des déluges de fleurs,” Aria (Montréal) 10 (1987), no.1: 7. Pierre Vachon, Emma Albani (Montréal, 2000)

There is no known collection of La Rivière papers in any Canadian repository. The odd letter may be found in the papers of the politicians with whom he had contact, such as Sir George-Étienne Cartier (NA, MG 27, I, D4), but the most significant body of correspondence is probably at the Arch. de la Soc. Hist. de Saint-Boniface, Winnipeg, in the Fonds de la Corporation Archiépiscopale Catholique Romaine. It includes 62 letters in the Série Taché, mostly from La Rivière to Taché, and 110 letters in the Série Langevin. No books have been written about La Rivière and his name rarely appears in works on the history of Manitoba. P. [E.] Crunican, Priests and politicians: Manitoba schools and the election of 1896 (Toronto and Buffalo, N.Y., 1974), and Robert Painchaud, Un rêve français dans le peuplement de la Prairie (Saint-Boniface, 1986), give an indication of his role in history. A chapter in M. S. MacGregor and [A.-A. Taché], Some letters from Archbishop Taché on the Manitoba school question (Toronto, 1967), throws light on his ineffectiveness in business as well as in politics. Short notices in the Canadian directory of parl. (Johnson), Canadian men and women of the time (Morgan; 1898 and 1912), the CPG, 1878–1927, and A.-G. Morice, Dictionnaire historique des Canadiens et des Métis français de l{apos}Ouest (Québec et Montréal, 1908), provide basic biographical information. The Manitoba Free Press, a Liberal newspaper, was generally hostile to the Conservative La Rivière, but it is the most important Manitoba paper. The most abundant and sympathetic source on La Rivière is his own newspaper, Le Manitoba (Saint-Boniface), which was published until 1925. Unfortunately only the issues to 1900 have been microfilmed and are widely available. The Index du journal “le Manitoba” (1881–1925) (Saint-Boniface, 1982) provides numerous references to him, but it also leaves out many more.

ANQ-Q, CE301-S7, 12 févr. 1851, 24 juill. 1876; CT1-1, 10 avril 1928; TP11, S1, SS10, SSS1, mars 1935, no.2964F; SS20, SSS48, 17 janv. 1890, no.4432; 9 mars 1891, no.4591; 11 nov. 1896, no.6035; 10 mars 1903, no.37; 25 oct. 1910, nos.253–54; 20 avril 1918, no.355. AVQ, M1-1; M2; QA5, rôles d{apos}évaluation. Arch. de l{apos}Univ. Laval, P136 (fonds Joseph-Ernest-Grégoire), C2/3, discours de 1935. Arch. paroissiales, Sacré-Cœur (Ottawa), RBMS, 10 févr. 1903. MCQ-FSQ, SME 2.2/55/22d., 16 juill. 1897; 9/15/45, 29 mars 1920; 9/15/46, 16 juin 1920; 9/15/65, 28 sept. 1920; 9/189/51, 21 avril 1920; 9/190/63, 18 mai 1921. NA, MG 26, G: 23908–9, 56658–62, 86948–50; I: 67226, 89548–51; RG 17, AI, 900: 115816; RG 31, C1, 1851, 1861, 1871, 1881, 1891, 1901, Quebec City; RG 95, ser.1, 1375, 1612, 1791; RG 125, 705, file 6588. Private arch., Guy Legaré (Le Bic, Qué.), papiers de la famille Legaré. L{apos}Action catholique (Québec), 30 juin, 3, 5–6 juill. 1926. L{apos}Événement, 16 mai 1889, 14 févr. 1921, 7 juill. 1926. La Presse, 17 janv. 1920. Le Soleil, 26 juin 1902; 3 mars 1903; 3, 5–6 juill. 1926. Annuaire du commerce et de l{apos}industrie de Québec . . . (Québec), 1873. Bradstreet Commercial Report, ed. John Bradstreet (New York), 1881–1933. C. H. Cheasley, The chain store movement in Canada (Montreal, [1930]), 57–78. Directories, Quebec, 1873–74, 1880–90, 1916–24; Quebec and Lévis, 1875–79, 1890–1916, 1924–39. J. Hamelin et al., La presse québécoise, 2; 6. Index to “The Financial Post,” 1907–1948, comp. and ed. G. R. Adshead (Toronto, [1990]) (contains numerous references to Legaré). P. T. Legaré Limitée, Catalogue no.44 (Québec et Montréal, 1920). Michel Lessard, “L{apos}empire P. T. Legaré Limitée,” Cap-aux-Diamants (Québec), 40 (hiver 1995): 34–37; Objets anciens du Québec (2v. parus, [Montréal], 1994– ). David Monod, Store wars: shopkeepers and the culture of mass marketing, 1890–1939 (Toronto, 1996), 124. Univ. Laval, Annuaire, 1911/12: 177. Who{apos}s who and why, 1915–16. Who{apos}s who in Canada, 1925–26

Arch. de la Soc. Hist. de Saint-Boniface, Winnipeg, Dossiers généalogiques; Fonds de la Corporation archiépiscopale catholique romaine, sér. Langevin; sér. Taché. ...NA, RG 15, 1322. ...PAM, HBCA, E.6/2; MG 3, B19; D1; D2; P 4895, Émile Lépine fonds, file 2. ...Manitoba Free Press, 9 March 1909. ...Le Métis (Saint-Boniface), 30 nov. 1872. ...Winnipeg Evening Telegram, 8, 11 Feb. 1909. ...Alexander Begg, Alexander Begg{apos}s Red River journal and other papers relative to the Red River resistance of 1869–1870, ed. W. L. Morton (Toronto, 1956). ...Alexander Begg and W. R. Nursey, Ten years in Winnipeg: a narration of the principal events in the history of the city of Winnipeg from the year A.D. 1870 to the year A.D. 1879, inclusive (Winnipeg, 1879). ...J. M. Bumsted, “The trial of Ambroise Lépine,” Beaver (Winnipeg), 77 (1997–98), no.2: 9–19. ...Can., House of Commons, Select committee on the causes of the difficulties in the North-West Territory in 1869–70, Report (Ottawa, 1874). ...The Canadian north-west, its early development and legislative records . . . , ed. E. H. Oliver (2v., Ottawa, 1914–15). ...Dufferin–Carnarvon correspondence, 1874–1878, ed. C. W. de Kiewiet and F. H. Underhill (Toronto, 1955; repr. New York, 1969). ...J. A. Kerr, “‘I helped capture Ambroise Lépine’” Canadian Magazine, 79 (January–May 1933), no.5: 13, 40–41. ...Constance Kerr Sissons, John Kerr (Toronto, 1946). ...Denys Lamy, “Ambroise-Didyme Lépine,” Les Cloches de Saint-Boniface (Saint-Boniface), 22 (1923): 114–16. ...R. G. MacBeth, The making of the Canadian west: being the reminiscences of an eye-witness (Toronto, 1898). ...Preliminary investigation and trial of Ambroise D. Lepine for the murder of Thomas Scott . . . , comp. G. B. Elliott and E. F. T. Brokovski (Montreal, 1874). ...Louis Riel, The complete writings of Louis Riel, ed. G. F. G. Stanley (5v., Edmonton, 1985). ...G. F. G. Stanley, Louis Riel (Toronto, 1963).

[No collection of Agnes Maule Machar’s papers has been located. Some of her correspondence is available in the Louisa Murray fonds in York Univ. Libraries, Arch. and Special Coll. (Toronto); the Helena Coleman papers, file 152, in Victoria Univ. Library, Special Coll. (Toronto); and the George Monro Grant papers in NA, MG 29, D38. Her estate file is in AO, RG 22-159, no.3867. Information on her background can be found in Memorials of the life and ministry of the Rev. John Machar, d.d., late minister of St. Andrew{apos}s Church, Kingston (Toronto, 1873), compiled by members of the family and edited by Agnes, and in John Machar’s biog. file at the UCC-C.

Machar’s first book, published anonymously, was Faithful unto death, a memorial of John Anderson, late janitor of Queen{apos}s College, Kingston, C.W. (Kingston, [Ont.], 1859). Her novels include Katie Johnstone’s cross: a Canadian tale (Toronto, 1870); Lucy Raymond, or, the children{apos}s watchword (Toronto, [1871?]); For king and country: a story of 1812 (Toronto, 1874; originally serialized in the Canadian Monthly and National Rev., Toronto); “Lost and won” (serialized in the Canadian Monthly in 1875 but not subsequently published, although journalist and poet Thomas O’Hagan regarded it as one of her two best novels: see O’Hagan, infra); Marjorie{apos}s Canadian winter, a story of the northern lights (Boston, 1892; repr. Toronto, 1906); Roland Graeme: knight (reprinted in Toronto in 1906 and again in 1996; the modern reprint, including an introduction by Carole Gerson, was issued as part of the Early Canadian women writers series); Down the river to the sea (New York, 1894); and The heir of Fairmount Grange (London and Toronto, [1895]). The quest of the fatal river (Toronto, 1904) is attributed to Machar in several sources including Wallace, Macmillan dict., and the Canadian annual rev., 1904: xiv, but researchers have been unable to locate any copies. A memorial entitled Mère Marie-Rose, fondatrice de la Congrégation des SS. Noms de Jésus et de Marie au Canada (Montréal, 1895), which is attributed to Machar in some libraries because its author also used the pseudonym Fidelis, was in fact written by Jules-Henri Prétot.

More extensive lists of Machar’s publications can be found in Nancy Miller Chenier, “Agnes Maule Machar: her life, her social concerns, and a preliminary bibliography of her writing” (ma research essay, Carleton Univ., Ottawa, 1977), and in D. M. Hallman, “Religion and gender in the writing and work of Agnes Maule Machar” (phd thesis, Univ. of Toronto, 1994). Her contributions to the Canadian Monthly and its successor, Rose-Belford{apos}s Canadian Monthly and National Rev., are listed in the Index compiled by Marilyn G. Flitton (Toronto, 1976).

Among the sketches of Machar written during or just after her lifetime, and useful for identifying her Canadian and international circle of friends, are A. E. Wetherald, “Some Canadian literary women – II: Fidelis,” Week (Toronto), 5 April 1888: 300–1; Thomas O{apos}Hagan, “Some Canadian women writers,” Week, 25 Sept. 1896: 1050–53; L. A. Guild, “Canadian celebrities, no.73: Agnes Maule Machar (Fidelis),” Canadian Magazine (Toronto), 27 (May–October 1906): 499–501; F. L. MacCallum, “Agnes Maule Machar,” Canadian Magazine, 62 (November 1923–April 1924): 354–56; Robert William Cumberland’s tributes in the Queen{apos}s Quarterly (Kingston), 34 (1926–27): 331–39, and Willisons Monthly (Toronto), 3 (1927–28): 34–37; and the entry by Alfred Edward Prince in Standard dict. of Canadian biog. (Roberts and Tunnell), vol.1.

ANQ-M, CE605-S12, 19 juill. 1844; S14, 11 juill. 1871. ...Le Devoir, 25 avril 1924. ...BCF, 1922. ...Georges Boulanger, “Gloire à M. I. J. A. Marsan,” Le Journal d{apos}agriculture (Montréal), 30 (1926–27), no.4: 56. ...J.-C. Chapais, “Notes historiques sur les écoles d{apos}agriculture dans Québec,” Rev. canadienne (Montréal), 70 (janvier–juin 1916): 426–34, 520–27; “Le premier Docteur es-sciences agricoles canadien-français,” Le Journal d’agriculture et d’horticulture illustré (Montréal), 20 (1916), no.1: 1–2. ...École d{apos}Agriculture de L’Assomption, Rapport . . . au Conseil d{apos}agriculture P.Q. pour l{apos}année 1876–1877 (s.l., [1877?]). ...“J. A. Marsan, 1844–1924,” Le Journal d{apos}agriculture, 27 (1923–24), no.11: 161, 174. ...Bruno Jean, Les idéologies éducatives agricoles (1860–1890) et l’origine de l{apos}agronomie québécoise (Québec, 1977). ...Père Louis-Marie, L’Institut d{apos}Oka: cinquantenaire, 1893–1943; école agricole, institut agronomique, école de médecine vétérinaire ([Oka, Qué., 1944]). ...J.-C. Magnan, Le monde agricole (Montréal, 1972), 52–53. ...Réjean Olivier, La petite histoire du collège de L’Assomption: chroniques parues dans le “Joliette-Journal” de janvier à juin 1980 (L’Assomption, Qué., 1980). ...Qué., Assemblée Législative, Débats, 1924: 333–39.

New Brunswick Museum (Saint John), F1, item 1-5 (H. Ami to G. F. Matthew, 27 Jan. 1888) G. F. Matthew corr., esp. G. M. Dawson to Matthew, 11 Jan. 1898 and 23 May 1900. Daily Telegraph and the Sun (Saint John), 8 Oct. 1921. Saint John Globe, 30 April 1903; 8 Oct. 1921; 18, 21 April, 12 May 1923. St. John Morning Telegraph (Saint John), 21 April 1868. L. W. Bailey, “George F. Matthew,” RSC, Trans., 3rd ser., 17 (1923): vii–x. W. D. Matthew, “Memorial of George F. Matthew,” Geological Soc. of America, Bull. (New York), 35 (1924): 181–82. R. F. Miller, “George Frederic Matthew (1837–1923),” in Trace fossils, small shelly fossils and the Precambrian–Cambrian boundary: proceedings, August 8–18, 1987, Memorial University, ed. Ed Landing et al., New York State Museum, Bull. (Albany), no.463 (1988): 4–7; “George Frederic Matthew: Victorian science in Saint John,” NBM News (Saint John), August–September 1987: 1–28. R. F. Miller and D. N. Buhay, “Life and letters of George Frederic Matthew: geologist and palaeontologist: an annotated list of Matthew{apos}s geological correspondence in the New Brunswick Museum library and archives,” N.B. Museum, Pubs. in Natural Science (Saint John), no.8 (1990); “The Steinhammer Club: geology and a foundation for a natural history society in New Brunswick,” Geoscience Canada (St John{apos}s), 15 (1988): 221–26

London Public Library and Art Museum (London, Ont.), Hist. ser. scrapbooks; London scrapbooks. ...NA, MG 25, 175 (mfm.); MG 26, A, Macdonald to O{apos}Connor, 22 Feb. 1872; Meredith to Macdonald, 29 April 1879, 20 Oct. 1882; Lynch to Macdonald, 9 May 1882; D, Meredith to Thompson, 1 Oct. 1894. ...Daily Mail and Empire, 22 Aug. 1923. ...London Free Press, 29 April 1879. ...Mail (Toronto), 10 Jan. 1879, continued by Toronto Daily Mail, 3, 20, 23 Dec. 1886. ...Toronto Daily Star, 22–23 Aug. 1923. ...F. H. Armstrong, The Forest City: an illustrated history of London, Canada ([Northridge, Calif.], 1986). ...Canadian album (Cochrane and Hopkins), vol.1. ...Canadian Bar Rev. (Toronto), 1 (1923): 557–58. ...Canadian men and women of the time (Morgan; 1912). ...Cyclopædia of Canadian biog. (Rose and Charlesworth), vol.1. ...P. [E. P.] Dembski, “A matter of conscience: the origins of William Ralph Meredith{apos}s conflict with Archbishop John Joseph Lynch,” OH, 73 (1981): 131–44; “Political history from the opposition benches: William Ralph Meredith, Ontario federalist,” OH, 89 (1997): 199–217; “William Ralph Meredith: leader of the Conservative opposition in Ontario, 1878–1894” (phd thesis, Univ. of Guelph, Ont., 1977). ...A. M. Evans, Sir Oliver Mowat (Toronto, 1992). ...C. W. Humphries, “Honest enough to be bold”: the life and times of Sir James Pliny Whitney (Toronto, 1985). ...J. R. Miller, Equal rights: the Jesuits{s-1-unknown} Estates Act controversy (Montreal, 1979). ...National encyclopedia of Canadian biography, ed. J. E. Middleton and W. S. Downs (2v., Toronto, 1935–37). ...Ont., Legislature, “Newspaper Hansard,” 1867–86. ...R. C. B. Risk, “Sir William R. Meredith, c.j.o.: the search for authority,” Dalhousie Law Journal (Halifax), 7 (1982–83): 713–41. ...Toronto, City Council, Minutes of proc., 1894: 53, 61, 224; app.A: 51–52, 69. ...Eric Tucker, Administering danger in the workplace: the law and politics of occupational health and safety (Toronto, 1990). ...Types of Canadian women . . . , ed. H. J. Morgan (Toronto, 1903).

[James Wilson Morrice’s works are held by several Canadian museums and private collectors. The main collections are those in the National Gallery of Canada, Ottawa, and the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts. Outside Canada, Morrice’s paintings are found in the Musée d{apos}Orsay, Paris, the Hermitage, St Petersburg, and the Tate Gallery, London, among others. The Montreal Museum of Fine Arts has presented two major retrospectives of his works, in 1965 and 1985.    n.c.]

ACC, Diocese of Rupert{apos}s Land Arch. (Winnipeg), DRL-84-111, RBMB; 112, RBMB; 129, RBMB. ...Man., Dept. of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Corporations branch (Winnipeg), Partnership agreements, file no.580, 30 Sept. 1884; index no.83w, 25 June 1902. ...PAM, GR 1418, G-1-7-3, MH0035, book 1; MG 14, C85; P 483. ...Private arch., David Nanton (Vancouver), Paul Nanton, “Prairie explosion: setting the pace for Canada” (typescript, 1991). ...Trinity Anglican Church (Cambridge, Ont.), RBMB, 1874-88: f.204, no.81. ...Univ. of Aberdeen Library, Dept. of Special Coll. and Arch. (Aberdeen, Scot.), ms 3211/1-84 (North of Scotland Canadian Mortgage Company Limited), Ledgers, nos.2–3; Minutes. ...Manitoba Free Press, 1 May, 1 July 1884; 20 Feb. 1885; 2–3 Feb. 1909; 12 May 1914; 4 June, 8, 17, 26 Nov. 1917; 8, 14 Nov. 1918; 28 Oct. 1919; 13 Aug. 1924. ...Monetary Times (Toronto), 25 July 1919. ...Winnipeg Telegram, 29 Jan. 1910, 13 Feb. 1919. ...Winnipeg Tribune, 26 Feb. 1930. ...Canadian annual rev. (Hopkins), 1919. ...The Canadian Patriotic Fund: a record of its activities from 1914 to 1919, comp. and ed. P. H. Morris ([Ottawa, 1920?]). ...London Gazette, 8 Aug. 1917. ...R. G. Macbeth, Sir Augustus Meredith Nanton: a biography (Toronto, 1931). ...Newspaper reference book. ...E. B. Osler, Osler, Hammond & Nanton Limited: commemorating 65 years of business development in a growing nation (Winnipeg, [1948]). ...A. A. den Otter, Civilizing the west: the Galts and the development of western Canada (Edmonton, 1982). ...Osler, Hammond & Nanton, New homes, free farms in Alberta and Saskatchewan, western Canada ([Winnipeg, 189?]); The Qu{apos}Appelle, Long Lake and Saskatchewan Railroad and Steamboat Co. has 1,000,000 acres of odd numbered sections . . . (Winnipeg, [1891?]).

At the trial McFadden argued that Angelina had been provoked into murder by her husband’s abuse, most notably when he had stabbed her the previous year. But the judge ruled such evidence inadmissible, saying that {d-0}if anybody injured six months ago could give that as justification or excuse for slaying a person, it would be anarchy complete.{d-1} In an era before a history of abuse was admissible, Britton’s interpretation was reasonable though not generous.

ACC, Diocese of Ottawa Arch., Girls{s-1-unknown} Friendly Soc. and Ottawa Diocesan Council, minute-book, 1894; General Synod Arch. (Toronto), GS 76-15 (Woman{apos}s Auxiliary papers), R. E. Tilton, journals. ...AO, F 885, MU 8397–98, 8406–7, 8425.10; RG 80-8-0-988, no.9405. ...NA, RG 31, C1, 1901, Ottawa, B, 4: 23, no.39 (mfm. at AO). ...Ottawa Citizen, 29 May 1925. ...Church of England in Canada, Board of Domestic and Foreign Missions, Woman{apos}s Auxiliary, Letter leaflet (Toronto), November 1896. ...S. A. Cook, “To ‘bear the burdens of others profitably’: the changing role of women in the diocese of Ottawa, 1896–1996,” in Anglicanism in the Ottawa valley, ed. F. A. Peake (Ottawa, 1997), 129–53. ...Mrs Willoughby Cummings [E. A. McC. Shortt], Our story: some pages from the history of the Woman{apos}s Auxiliary to the Missionary Society of the Church of England in Canada, 1885 to 1929 (Toronto, [1929?]). ...Key Eliot, “History of the Woman{apos}s Auxiliary in Carleton deanery” (typescript, Ottawa, 1957; copy in ACC, Diocese of Ottawa Arch.). ...National Council of Women of Canada, Year book (Ottawa; Toronto). ...Vital statistics from N.B. newspapers (Johnson), 17, no.864. ...[L. C. W.], Sketch of the life and work of Roberta E. Tilton, by one of her first W.A. members ([Ottawa?], n.d.).

ANQ-M, CE601-S1, 6 juin 1898; S46, 25 sept. 1872. Le Devoir, 20 nov. 1930. Le Soleil, 4 févr. 1921. DPQ. P. [A.] Dutil, Devil’s advocate: Godfroy Langlois and the politics of liberal progressivism in Laurier’s Quebec (Montreal, 1994). Hector Grenon, Camillien Houde, raconté par Hector Grenon ([Montréal], 1979). Hertel La Roque, Camillien Houde, le p{apos}tit gars de Ste-Marie (Montréal, 1961). Charles Renaud, L{apos}imprévisible monsieur Houde (Montréal 1964)

Times (London), 6 June 1927. D. [G.] Creighton, John A. Macdonald, the old chieftain (Toronto, 1955; repr. 1965). Lord Minto{apos}s Canadian papers: a selection of the public and private papers of the fourth Earl of Minto, 1898–1904, ed. and intro. Paul Stevens and J. T. Saywell (2v., Toronto, 1981–83). Carman Miller, Painting the map red: Canada and the South African War, 1899–1902 (Montreal and Kingston, Ont., 1993). P. B. Waite, Canada, 1874-1896: arduous destiny (Toronto and Montreal, 1971); The man from Halifax: Sir John Thompson, prime minister (Toronto, 1985). W. S. Wallace, The memoirs of the Rt. Hon. Sir George Foster, p.c., g.c.m.g. (Toronto, 1933)

AO, RG 22-354, no.14544; RG 80-5-0-232, no.2604. NA, RG 17, A I, 617, nos.69943--44, 71588; 1959: 401; 2802. Univ. of B.C. Library, Special Coll. and Univ. Arch. Div. (Vancouver), M556 (J. W. Robertson papers). Farmer{apos}s Advocate and Home Magazine (London, Ont.), December 1886, March 1890. Ottawa Citizen, 20 March 1930. Can., Parl., Sessional papers, 1891, no.6D: 8; 1896, no.8: xii. Canadian annual rev., 1900–30. Canadian men and women of the time (Morgan; 1912). G. C. Church, An unfailing faith: a history of the Saskatchewan dairy industry (Regina, 1985). J. M. Gibbon, The Victorian Order of Nurses for Canada, fiftieth anniversary, 1897–1947 ([Ottawa, 1947]). George Iles, “Dr. Robertson{apos}s work for the training of Canadian farmers,” American Rev. of Reviews (New York), 36 (July–December 1907): 576–84. D. A. Lawr, “The development of Ontario farming, 1870–1914: patterns of growth and change,” OH, 64 (1972): 239–51. H. R. Neilson, Macdonald College of McGill University, 1907–1988: a profile of a campus (Montreal, 1989). Political appointments and judicial bench (Coté). A. M. Ross, The college on the hill: a history of the Ontario Agricultural College, 1874–1974 (Vancouver [and Guelph], 1974). J. F. Snell, Macdonald College of McGill University: a history from 1904–1955 (Montreal, 1963). Who{apos}s who and why, 1919/20

Annette Saint-Amant is the author of L’art d{apos}être heureuse (Montréal, 1929; réimpr., Winnipeg, 1931).

ANQ-MBF, CE403-S15, 1er juill. 1892. ANQ-Q, ZQ137, dossiers 359–62. Roman Catholic Chancery Office (Prince Albert, Sask.), Sacred Heart Cathedral, RBMB, 26 Dec. 1918. A.-F. Auclair, “En famille,” Le Patriote de l{apos}Ouest (Prince Albert), 8 mai 1918. La Liberté (Saint-Boniface [Winnipeg]), 1920–26, 8 août 1928, juill. 1993 (special issue). Hélène Chaput, Donatien Frémont: journaliste de l{apos}Ouest canadien (Saint-Boniface, 1977). École Normale Laval, Annuaire (Québec), 1908–10. Nadia Fahmy-Eid, “La presse féminine au Québec (1890–1920): une pratique culturelle et politique ambivalente,” in Femmes et politique, sous la direction de Yolande Cohen (Montréal, 1981), 101–15. Robert Rumilly, Chefs de file (Montréal, 1934), 113–21. J.-C. Saint-Amant, L{apos}Avenir, townships de Durham et de Wickham; notes historiques et traditionnelles, avec précis historique des autres townships du comté de Drummond (Arthabaskaville [Victoriaville], Qué., 1896)

ANQ-Q, CE301-S98, 14 févr. 1864. ...AO, RG 22-354, nos.8112, 13347; RG 80-5-0-310, no.5289. ...NA, RG 31, C1, 1901, Ottawa, St George{apos}s Ward, div.5: 23 (mfm. at AO). ...Ottawa Evening Journal, 21 Nov. 1927. ...Ottawa Free Press, December 1897–February 1903. ...Sandra Gwyn, The private capital: ambition and love in the age of Macdonald and Laurier (Toronto, 1984). ...National Council of Women of Canada, Women of Canada: their life and work; compiled . . . for distribution at the Paris international exhibition, 1900 ([Montreal?, 1900]; repr. 1975), 76. ...Saturday Night (Toronto), March 1897–July 1902. ...Lilian Scott Desbarats, Recollections (Ottawa, 1957). ...“The Scotts of Tredinnock: some notes for the eleven grandchildren – some of whom remember their loving grandparents, the house and the gardens,” comp. Eileen Scott Morley (typescript, London, 1989; copy in the possession of Sandra Gwyn). ...Fraser Sutherland, The monthly epic: a history of Canadian magazines, 1789–1989 (Toronto, 1989).

Edmund Ernest Sheppard is the author of Dolly, the young widder up to Felder{apos}s (Toronto, 1886); Widower Jones, a faithful history of his {d-0}loss” and adventures in search of a {d-0}companion”; a realistic story of rural life (Toronto, 1888); A bad man{apos}s sweetheart (Toronto, 1889); and The thinking universe; reason as applied to the manifestations of the infinite (Los Angeles, 1915).

Canadian athletics, 1832–1992, comp. Bill McNulty and Ted Radcliffe ([Richmond, B.C.], 1992). ...DHB, vol.3. ...[Alexandrine Gibb?], “Report of the women{apos}s athletic team, which competed in international games held at Stamford Bridge, London, Eng., August 1st, 1925,” in Canadian Olympic Committee, Report, 1925 Games held in Chamonix and Paris, France . . . , comp. J. H. Crocker (n.p., [1925?]). ...Bruce Kidd, The struggle for Canadian sport (Toronto, 1996). ...N. R. Raine, “Girls invade track and diamond,” Maclean{apos}s (Toronto), 38 (1925), no.16: 12–13, 62–63.

PAM, HBCA, D.38/53: f.229; D.38/57: ff.396d–97. Manitoba Free Press, 13 Oct. 1903; 11 Nov. 1911; 16 Feb., 11, 28 Dec. 1912; 16 Aug. 1913; 6 April 1914; 15 Nov. 1918; 20 Feb. 1924. Winnipeg Free Press, 19 Feb. 1972. Winnipeg Telegram, 13 Oct., 13 Nov. 1903; 22 July 1904; 20 June, 30 July 1914; 29 Sept. 1917; 18 Nov. 1919. Winnipeg Town Topics, 10 Oct., 19 Dec. 1903; 6 Jan., 10 Nov. 1906. Winnipeg Tribune, 3 Feb., 2 July, 15 Oct., 5 Nov. 1896; 14 Oct., 17 Dec. 1903; 16 July 1914; 19 Feb. 1924. Marilyn Baker, The Winnipeg School of Art: the early years ([Winnipeg], 1984). V. G. Berry, Vistas of promise, Manitoba, 1874–1919: November 1st, 1987–January 17th, 1988 (exhibition catalogue, Winnipeg Art Gallery, 1987). George Bryce, Our Canadian prairies: being a description of the most notable plants of Manitoba . . . (Toronto, [1895]). Manitobans as we see {s-0}em, 1908 and 1909 (Winnipeg, 1909)

[The best sources for Strange{apos}s life and career are his own writings, especially his autobiography, Gunner Jingo{apos}s jubilee (London, 1893), which has been reprinted with an introduction by R. C. Macleod ([Edmonton], 1988). Strange{apos}s other publications include Artillery retrospect of the last great war, 1870, with its lessons for Canadians (Quebec, 1874); Colonial defensive organization: précis of information concerning the province of Quebec (Quebec, 1876); The military aspect of Canada: a lecture delivered at the Royal United Service Institute (London, [1879?]); and “The father of the Canadian artillery, by ‘The Bombardier,{s-1-unknown}” Canadian Defence Quarterly (Ottawa), 2 (1924–25): 5–9. During his term as inspector of artillery and warlike stores Strange also compiled the Manual for the militia artillery of Canada for the federal Department of Militia and Defence (3 pts., Quebec, 1875–78).

Strange{apos}s British army records are to be found in PRO, WO 76/368, and there is some correspondence with Henry George Hart, compiler of Hart{apos}s annual army list, in PRO, WO 211/29. His papers in NA, MG 29, E40 consist almost entirely of copies of telegrams and correspondence relating to the 1885 rebellion.   r.c.m.]. Canada Gazette, 10 Feb. 1883: 1309. Hart{apos}s annual army list . . . (London), 1880, 1882. G. W. L. Nicholson, The gunners of Canada; the history of the Royal Regiment of Canadian Artillery (2v., Toronto, 1967–72), 1

ANQ-M, CE605-S14, 14 juill. 1875, 27 janv. 1876; CE606-S24, 27 sept. 1840. Arch. de la Chancellerie de l{apos}Archevêché de Montréal, 778.867 (hôpital Saint-Jean-de-Dieu). Le Devoir, 26, 28 avril 1923. Gazette (Montreal), 25 Jan. 1876, 26 April 1923. Pierre Beullac et Édouard Fabre Surveyer, Le centenaire du barreau de Montréal, 1849–1949 (Montréal, 1949). J. D. Borthwick, History and biographical gazetteer of Montreal to the year 1892 (Montreal, 1892). Canadian annual rev., 1916, 1923. Canadian men and women of the time (Morgan; 1898 and 1912). L.-O. David, Mes contemporains (Montréal, 1894). Andrée Désilets, Hector-Louis Langevin, un Père de la Confédération canadienne (1826–1906) (Québec, 1969). DPQ. [Jacqueline] Francœur, Trente ans rue St-François-Xavier et ailleurs (Montréal, 1928). Le Jeune, Dictionnaire. P.-B. Mignault, “Louis Olivier Taillon,” Les hommes du jour: galerie de portraits contemporains, L.-H. Taché, édit. (32 sér. en 16v., Montréal, 1890–[94]), 31e sér.: 481–92. Newspaper reference book. Rumilly, Hist. de la prov. de Québec; Hist. de Montréal. George Stewart, “The premiers of Quebec since 1867,” Canadian Magazine, 8 (1896–97): 289–98

ANQ-M, CE605-S19, 28 déc. 1875. ...Arch. des Sœurs grises (Montréal), Dossier de sœur Mathilda Toupin-Fafard, notice biog. ...“À sa mémoire,” La Veilleuse (Montréal), 2 (1925), no.1: 1. ...Françoise Côté, “75e anniversaire; jalon important pour les infirmières et infirmiers,” Le Courrier médical (Montréal), 3, no.9 (26 avril 1983): 20–22. ...Yolande Cohen, “La contribution des Sœurs de la charité à la modernisation de l{apos}hôpital Notre-Dame, 1880–1940,” CHR, 77 (1996): 185–220. ...Yolande Cohen et Éric Vaillancourt, “L{apos}identité professionnelle des infirmières canadiennes-françaises à travers leurs revues (1924–1956),” RHAF, 50 (1996–97): 537–70. ...Édouard Desjardins et al., Histoire de la profession infirmière au Québec (Montréal, 1970), 231. ...Lucie Deslauriers, “Histoire de l{apos}hôpital Notre-Dame de Montréal, 1880–1924” (mémoire de ma, univ. de Montréal, 1984).

AO, RG 80-5-0-103, no.12137. Elora Municipal Cemetery (Elora, Ont.), Records. NA, RG 31, C1, 1871, Pilkington Township, Ont., div.1: 22; 1881, Peel Township, Ont., div.2: 44. Univ. of Guelph Library, Arch. and Special Coll. (Guelph, Ont.), Wellington North Land Registry copy-books, Peel Township: 297–98, 703; XR1 MS A060 (Henry Wissler papers), box 1 (d). Wellington South Land Registry Office (Guelph), Deeds, instrument nos.Y27-11616, Y28-11640, Y34-16409, Y35-16411; Pilkington Township, abstract index to deeds, concession 1, lot 3; reg. of deeds, book 3, no.24401 (27 July 1865) (mfm. at AO). Historical atlas of the county of Wellington, Ontario (Toronto, 1906; repr. as Illustrated historical atlas of Wellington County, Ontario, Belleville, Ont., 1972). Threshermen{apos}s Rev. (Detroit and St Joseph, Mich.), April, June 1911

Law Soc. of Upper Canada Arch. (Toronto), T. W. Taylor, “A sketch of the life of Sir Thomas Wardlaw Taylor by his son” (typescript; copy at PAM). ...PAM, P 2131; P 3586–607. ...UCC, Manitoba and Northwestern Ontario Conference Arch. (Winnipeg), Woman’s Foreign Missionary Society, Winnipeg Presbyterial, executive minutes, 1889; newpaper clippings. ...Manitoba Free Press, 28 Dec. 1922. ...Mrs George Bryce [Marion Samuel], “Historical sketch of the charitable institutions of Winnipeg,” Man., Hist. and Scientific Soc., Trans. (Winnipeg), no.54 (February 1899): 1–31. ...N. E. S. Griffiths, The splendid vision: centennial history of the National Council of Women of Canada, 1893–1993 (Ottawa, 1993). ...Wendy Heads, “The Local Council of Women of Winnipeg, 1894–1920: tradition and transformation” (ma thesis, Univ. of Man., Winnipeg, 1997). ...National Council of Women of Canada, Report (Ottawa; Toronto), 1899–1902, 1910–11; Retiring president{apos}s memorandum . . . (Hamilton, Ont., 1899). ...PCC, Woman’s Foreign Missionary Soc. (Western Div.), Our jubilee story, 1864–1924 ([Toronto, 1924]). ...Pioneer Winnipeg women’s work: 1883–1907 ([Winnipeg, 1929?]). ...R. L. Shaw, Proud heritage: a history of the National Council of Women of Canada (Toronto, 1957). ...V. J. Strong-Boag, The parliament of women: the National Council of Women of Canada, 1893–1929 (Ottawa, 1976).

AO, RG 8-54, boxes 6–12; RG 22-305, no.60585; RG 80-5-0-298, no.2049. ...NA, RG 13, A2, 231, Wallace to A. P. Sherwood, 22, 30 July 1918; RG 31, C1, 1901, Toronto, Ward 2, div.12: 22 (mfm. at AO). ...Globe, 26 Oct. 1928. ...Toronto Daily Star, 7–11 March 1921, 25–28 Oct. 1928. ...Canadian Police Bull. (Toronto), March 1925, March 1929. ...Chief Constables{s-1-unknown} Assoc. of Canada, Proc. of the annual convention (Toronto), 1920–30. ...Directory, Toronto, 1891–1928. ...Greg Marquis, “The early twentieth-century Toronto police institution” (phd thesis, Queen{apos}s Univ., Kingston, Ont., 1987); Policing Canada’s century: a history of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police (Toronto, 1993).

NA, RG 31, C1, Truro, N.S., 1871, 1881, 1891; 1901, Halifax, subdist.E, subdiv.4: 7. ...NSARM, Churches, St Andrew{apos}s United (Truro), reg. of marriages, 11 Jan. 1872 (mfm.); St John{apos}s Anglican (Truro), reg. of burials, 1897 (mfm.); RG 32, WB, Colchester County, no.29/1872. ...UCC-C, Fonds 513/1, 83.061C, vols.43–44. ...Halifax Herald Woman’s Extra, 10 Aug. 1895. ...Morning Chronicle (Halifax), 19, 22 March 1926. ...“‘A romance of the provinces,’ from the Christian Guardian, Toronto,” Halifax Herald , 22 Nov. 1895: 8. ...Truro Daily News, 26 Aug., 1 Nov. 1895; 20 July 1896; 25 Aug. 1897. ...Canadian men and women of the time (Morgan; 1898). ...M. B. DesBrisay, History of the county of Lunenburg (2nd ed., Toronto, 1895; repr. Belleville, Ont., 1980), advertisement, “Some well-known writers of or from the Maritime provinces and their books,” in the end-papers. ...Directories, Halifax, 1897/98: 198; 1898/99: 209; 1900–1; N.S., 1871: 376; P.E.I., 1864. ...Saturday Night (Toronto), 6 April, 22 June, 7 Dec. 1895.

Arthur Meighen{apos}s paternal grandfather, Gordon, was a Presbyterian Ulsterman who left Londonderry in 1839 for Upper Canada. Five years later he acquired a farm lot in the southwest part of the province, near St Marys, where he became the local schoolmaster. At his death in 1859 his 13-year-old son, Joseph, left school to run the farm. Marriage in 1871 and six children followed in orderly progression. The oldest boy, Arthur, showed more aptitude for book learning than farm work. Accordingly, his parents moved to the outskirts of St Marys so he could attend high school without the expense of boarding. Arthur did his share of chores on the family{apos}s dairy farm; at the same time he read voraciously, maintained first-class honours, and took part in the debating activities of the school{apos}s Literary Society. His home environment, he later recollected, instilled in him {d-0}the immeasurable value of sound education and the equally limitless and permanent importance of habits of industry and thrift.{d-1} Upon graduation in 1892, he enrolled at the University of Toronto, majoring in mathematics. Unlike his more worldly contemporary William Lyon Mackenzie King, Meighen did not cut a broad swath on campus, limiting his scope to his courses, wide reading in English, history, and science, and enthusiastic participation in the mock parliament. In 1896 he received his ba with honours in mathematics; the next year he returned to Toronto to earn teaching qualifications at the Ontario Normal College.

Having obtained an interim specialist{apos}s certificate, Meighen was hired in 1897 by the high school board of Caledonia, east of Brantford, to teach mathematics, English, and commercial subjects. The year started well, but by spring he had become embroiled in a bitter dispute with the chairman of the board, who resented his strict discipline of his daughter. Meighen resigned and moved west to Manitoba, where he found work heading the commercial department of the Winnipeg Business College. In the summer of 1899 he applied unsuccessfully for the post of principal at a high school in Lethbridge (Alta). In January 1900 the transplanted Ontarian commenced legal studies and was articled in a Winnipeg firm; by 1902 he was attached to a small law office in Portage la Prairie. On 2 Feb. 1903 he was called to the bar of Manitoba. He set up his own practice in Portage la Prairie, where he handled a mix of business, including wills, estates, real estate transactions, and minor criminal cases. About this time he met Isabel Cox from Granby, Que., who was then a schoolteacher in Birtle, and they married in June 1904. While Meighen built up his practice, he dabbled in the hot real-estate market, joined the Young Men{apos}s Conservative Club, and in 1904 was an enthusiastic worker in the unsuccessful campaign of the local Tory mp, Nathaniel Boyd.

In the federal election four years later, Meighen himself carried the Conservative colours in Portage la Prairie. His nomination was uncontested, it being assumed that the Liberal incumbent, John Crawford, was a lock to hold the constituency. Meighen jumped into the campaign with vigour, travelling to the four corners of the riding by wagon or buggy. He proved to be an effective speaker. His opponent anticipated an easy ride on the coat-tails of Prime Minister Sir Wilfrid Laurier. On polling day, 26 Oct. 1908, Meighen won by a narrow margin of 250 votes and he went to Ottawa, where he sat in the backbenches of the opposition led by Robert Laird Borden. He made but two brief speeches in his first session of parliament, though they did catch Borden{apos}s attention, and scarcely more in 1910. His one significant oration that year, in connection with a proposed railway investigation, even earned the praise of Laurier, who remarked to a colleague, {d-0}Borden has found a man at last.{d-1} In 1911 Meighen burnished his credentials as a progressive prairie Conservative with speeches advocating a reduction in tariffs on farm implements and stricter limits on business trusts. He took no part in the Conservatives{s-1-unknown} obstruction in 1911 of Laurier{apos}s reciprocity bill, but he campaigned hard for his party{apos}s traditional National Policy of protection in the general election in September. Nationally, Borden led his Conservative forces to victory; in Portage la Prairie, Meighen upped his winning margin to 675 votes.

He was not, nor did he expect to be, appointed to the new cabinet as a representative of Manitoba. Dr William James Roche*, the mp for Marquette since 1896, and Robert Rogers, the master of the province{apos}s Conservative machine and a member of Premier Rodmond Palen Roblin*{apos}s cabinet, stood ahead of him, and both became ministers. Meighen{apos}s growing command of parliamentary procedure soon found an outlet, however. When the Liberals held up the government{apos}s Naval Aid Bill, Borden turned to his young Manitoba protégé to find a way out. Meighen urged the adoption of a form of closure that was already operating in the British parliament, and suggested an ingenious ploy by which the rule could be implemented in the Canadian House of Commons without sparking an even more protracted debate. Borden introduced the motion for closure on 9 April 1913; although the enraged Liberals fought it tooth and nail, their efforts were in vain. Closure was passed after two weeks of heated debate, followed three weeks later by the bill (which was defeated in the Senate). Meighen{apos}s role behind the scenes soon became known, for it was he who explained the procedural details in the commons. Opposition mps mockingly saluted him as the {d-0}Arthur{d-1} of the rule. Borden too was impressed. On 26 June Meighen was sworn in to the vacant position of solicitor general, which was then not part of cabinet.

While still a backbencher Meighen had acquired a reputation as a progressive Conservative. Just prior to his appointment, he, Richard Bedford Bennett, William Folger Nickle, and others had voted against amendments to the Bank Act that they considered harmful to prairie farmers. In his new post, Meighen found himself defending the government from his erstwhile maverick allies. Borden assigned him the task of negotiating a financial arrangement with the Canadian Northern Railway, which was teetering on the edge of bankruptcy and threatening to bring down several provincial governments and a major chartered bank with it. After several weeks of investigation and hard bargaining, Meighen and his small team of government officials presented the cabinet with a proposal: a $45 million government guarantee of Canadian Northern bonds in return for a mortgage and a significant share of common stock. The cabinet was pleased, and Meighen was asked to pilot the resulting bill through the commons. Here, in May 1914, he encountered his fiercest opposition from his fellow western Tory, Bennett, who branded him {d-0}the gram[o]phone{d-1} of Sir William Mackenzie and Sir Donald Mann*, the entrepreneurs who had created the Canadian Northern. The bill nonetheless became law, and Meighen continued to impress Borden as a troubleshooter. On 2 Oct. 1915 the prime minister would elevate his solicitor general to cabinet rank.

Canada entered World War I united, in parliament and across the country, but the unity did not last. By 1915 partisan divisions were apparent. Chief among the contentious issues were the conduct of the war, continuing railway deficits, and the lingering question of French-language schooling. In 1912 the Ontario government under Sir James Pliny Whitney had imposed Regulation 17, which severely limited the scope of French as a language of instruction. By 1915 this issue was poisoning federal politics, pitting English against French and draining Quebec support for the war. The government preferred to leave the matter alone - it involved provincial jurisdiction - but in April 1916 three cabinet members from Quebec, Thomas Chase-Casgrain*, Esioff-Léon Patenaude*, and Pierre-Édouard Blondin*, urged Borden to refer it to the King{apos}s Privy Council in Britain. No such action was taken. Feelings in Quebec remained strong and influential politicians there may have known of Meighen{apos}s role in drafting Borden{apos}s refusal. Meanwhile, military casualties in a war of attrition were threatening the viability of Borden{apos}s commitment in 1916 that Canada would field half a million men. Meighen favoured a selective draft, and the prime minister came to support conscription after a tour of the Western Front. Meighen was given the job of drafting the Military Service Bill, which Borden introduced in June 1917, and then shepherding it through parliament. He performed brilliantly, even clashing with the revered Laurier. {d-0}We must not be afraid to lead,{d-1} the Manitoba mp declared. Victory in the commons blinded him to Patenaude{apos}s prediction that conscription would {d-0}kill . . . the party for 25 years{d-1} in Quebec.

The government{apos}s solution to the crisis over railway finance was, first, to appoint a commission of inquiry and, second, to use its ambiguous report as justification for nationalizing the Canadian Northern. The Liberals, who opposed the nationalization bill strenuously, charged the Conservatives with compensating shareholders for worthless stock, as a political payoff. Sir William Thomas White, the finance minister, led the government forces in the debate, but Meighen was prominent in fending off opposition charges of cronyism and corruption. The solicitor general took the lead in navigating an even more controversial bill through the commons in September 1917. The War-time Elections Bill was a highly partisan measure, branded a cynical gerrymander by the Liberals and defended as a noble act of patriotism by the Conservatives. This measure disenfranchised citizens of enemy alien birth who had been naturalized since 1902; at the same time it enfranchised the immediate female relatives - wives, widows, mothers, sisters, and daughters - of Canadian servicemen overseas. At one stroke, thousands of probable Liberal voters were removed from the rolls and replaced by women likely to vote Conservative. {d-0}War service should be the basis of war franchise,{d-1} Meighen declared in parliament. It was not the principle of the partial franchise for women but rather the reality of votes for the government that motivated him. He would take no part in the Borden government{apos}s extension of voting rights to all females in 1918.

Borden led a Conservative government committed to a maximum war effort, but also a party whose electoral fortunes appeared grim, based on the results of recent provincial elections. The Military Service Act not only promised a solution to lagging military enlistment, it also split the opposition, with most English-speaking Liberals favouring conscription and francophone Quebecers rallying around Laurier, who stood opposed. Partisan Tories such as Robert Rogers urged a quick election, but Borden feared two things: national disunity and Laurier{apos}s campaign magic. All through the summer of 1917, with much tense negotiation, Borden had sought a coalition with pro-conscription Liberals. Meighen was by this time one of his closest confidants. Borden made him secretary of state and minister of mines in August, and Meighen and cabinet colleague John Dowsley Reid worked closely with the prime minister on the make-up of the Union government formed in October. Both Meighen and Reid were firm on Borden continuing as leader. Meighen moved to Interior, traditionally the key western portfolio, but his status was somewhat diminished as a result of the prime minister{apos}s inclusion of three prominent western Liberals: Arthur Lewis Watkins Sifton, Thomas Alexander Crerar*, and James Alexander Calder. Meighen gained from the exclusion of his Tory rival, Rogers, but he had to share administrative and political influence with immigration minister Calder. The alternative, an anti-conscription Liberal win in the election called for December, would be worse, he decided.

Initially leery of Calder, the master of the Saskatchewan Liberal machine, Meighen was assigned by Borden to work with him to organize the Union government{apos}s campaign in the four western provinces. Meighen took charge of Manitoba, Calder had Saskatchewan, and Alberta was left to Sifton. In British Columbia, Calder saw to the organization while Meighen supplied the oratory. The two kicked off the Unionist campaign at Winnipeg on 22 October; they shared the platform with Crerar, whose background as president of the United Grain Growers was used to solidify farm support. Meighen quoted statistics to show that voluntary enlistments had fallen far below the Canadian Expeditionary Force{apos}s casualty rate. The three heavyweights reprised their pitch for bipartisan support the next night in Regina. Meighen shared several platforms with the Liberal premier of Manitoba, Tobias Crawford Norris*. He barely needed to lift a finger in his own riding of Portage la Prairie, where a farmers candidate stepped aside so he could easily defeat F. Shirtliff. On election night, Meighen was in Vancouver. {d-0}The conscience of the nation triumphed,{d-1} he declared confidently at news of the Union government{apos}s victory. He gave little thought to one ominous development: the total absence of Unionist mps from Quebec, which had voted overwhelmingly Liberal.

Borden decided to focus on two priorities: a full war effort and preparations for post-war demobilization. He had already established, in October, a coordinating committee of cabinet for each area; Meighen sat on the reconstruction and development committee. In May 1918, Borden brought Meighen and Calder with him to England to attend the Imperial War Conference, where matters of demobilization, reconstruction, and immigration were slated for discussion. Even in wartime, there was a full schedule of pomp and circumstance. Meighen found time to meet Canadian troops at the front, and at a meeting of the Royal Geographical Society he proclaimed that {d-0}Canada is British - never more British than now.{d-1} His main job in England, however, was to strike a deal with the Grand Trunk Railway, by which its assets would be brought into a national transcontinental system that included the Canadian Northern. No great fan of public ownership, he nonetheless believed there was no alternative. The head of the Grand Trunk, Alfred Waldron Smithers, held out for better terms, but within a year the Grand Trunk Pacific went into receivership. Meighen concluded the final negotiations in Ottawa in October 1919 and then piloted the Grand Trunk Railway acquisition bill through parliament.

Following the Allied victory in Europe, the government had turned its attention to the demobilization of half a million Canadian troops. Meighen oversaw one of the government{apos}s main initiatives: a program to assist financially those veterans who wished to become farmers. This measure received all-party support, but another of Meighen{apos}s high-profile actions did not. When a labour dispute in Winnipeg in May 1919 [see Mike Sokolowiski] escalated to a general strike involving more than 30,000 workers, including sympathetic postal employees, Meighen and labour minister Gideon Decker Robertson* were dispatched to the west. Their immediate objective was to restart the postal system. On 25 May an ultimatum was issued to the sympathy strikers: return to work or lose your jobs. The majority of postal workers rejected the ultimatum though, with the hiring of new workers, deliveries soon resumed. Meighen held no brief for the strikers, most of whom he considered {d-0}revolutionists{d-1} intent on overthrowing duly constituted authority. He approved the arrest of the strike leaders, and urged that any foreign-born among them be summarily deported. Shortly after the strike ended, he brought forth amendments to the Criminal Code, collectively known as section 98, to ban association with organizations deemed seditious. This section effectively inverted the normal presumption of innocence. Meighen was unrepentant; for him, preserving {d-0}the foundation of law and order{d-1} took precedence.

The government{apos}s aggressive stance at Winnipeg earned it the enmity of the more radical union members in Canada, one more addition to the growing list of groups with a grudge against it. The list included French Canadians angered over conscription, farmers irked by tariffs, Montreal businessmen alienated by railway nationalization, and citizens disenfranchised by the War-time Elections Act. Meighen was among those in cabinet who favoured a vigorous program of organization and propaganda to firm up a new unionist party that would cement the ties so recently formed between the Liberal and Conservative supporters of the coalition government. Preoccupied with national and international affairs of state, Borden deferred action on party matters until his health gave out. In early July 1920 he announced his intention to resign. Press rumours mentioned Meighen and the wartime minister of finance, Thomas White, as his likeliest successors. The caucus authorized Borden to choose. After input from over 100 mps, he ascertained that Meighen was the backbenchers{s-1-unknown} favourite, while White was preferred by the ministers. Borden first approached White, who declined, and then he anointed Meighen. The new government took office on 10 July under the name of the National Liberal and Conservative Party.

Meighen{apos}s first priority was to pull together a functioning party organization behind his government. The Unionist caucus meeting in July, besides choosing a leader and a name, had also hammered together a platform. Key planks included support for a moderately protective tariff, opposition to class-based or sectional appeals harmful to national unity, and firm support for the British connection, accompanied by full Canadian autonomy. By this time, several prominent Liberal Unionists had retired from the cabinet, but the government continued to rely on the voting support of 25 to 30 Liberal Unionist backbenchers. Meighen{apos}s challenge was to build a fighting force out of disparate elements. Such traditional Tories as Robert Rogers openly advocated a return to pre-war party lines, but Meighen refused to drop his new allies. Proud of the Union government{apos}s record, he was committed to broadening the base of the old Conservative Party, much as John A. Macdonald had done in 1854 and 1867 and Borden in 1911 and 1917. Accordingly, a national organizer (William John Black) was appointed in August 1920 and a publicity bureau was established. Meighen launched a countrywide speaking tour that summer and fall, accompanied through the western provinces by Calder, the ranking Liberal Unionist. The crowds were large and seemingly receptive. Less encouraging were his efforts to rejuvenate his party in Quebec. Its organization was weak and divided, and he himself was reviled as the architect of conscription.

In the commons Meighen faced not one but two new leaders. In addition to King, there was Thomas Crerar, the former Unionist minister of agriculture, who now headed a recently coalesced grouping of agrarian mps calling themselves the Progressive Party. This situation made for a highly competitive atmosphere during the 1921 session, though the government was able to sustain its position in key votes by margins of 20 to 30. In the debates over the throne speech and the budget, the Liberals challenged the government{apos}s right to continue holding office in the face of by-election defeats, but Meighen held fast. With an eye to the upcoming election, he made moderate but consistent tariff protection his constant theme. Significant legislation included bills to ratify a trade treaty with France and to complete the takeover of the Grand Trunk Railway. The severity of the post-war recession increased public discontent, while paradoxically convincing the government of the need for budgetary retrenchment. In April a royal commission was established to investigate the grain trade, a partial response to farmers{s-1-unknown} demands for the reinstitution of the post-war wheat board.

At the close of the session in June 1921, Meighen travelled with his wife to attend the Imperial Conference in London. Faced with the problem of reconciling the dominions{s-1-unknown} growing autonomy with the need for a common imperial foreign policy, the British government had decided to convene a {d-0}Peace Cabinet{d-1} meeting for the purposes of informing and consulting the senior colonies. Although defence and constitutional adjustments were discussed, the chief topic proved to be the Anglo-Japanese alliance. For almost 20 years a pact of understanding and assistance had linked the two empires. Westminster, strongly supported by Australia and New Zealand, favoured the retention of the treaty. Meighen feared its renewal would alienate the United States. As early as February 1921, supported by a prescient memorandum from Loring Cheney Christie* of the Department of External Affairs, Meighen (its ex officio minister) had recommended to the British government the termination of the alliance, followed by an international conference of Pacific powers. Supported in London by Jan Christiaan Smuts of South Africa, he carried the day. At the ensuing Washington Conference on disarmament, the alliance was replaced by a multilateral agreement.

Despite this success, in August Meighen returned to a deteriorating political situation in Canada. The economy languished in recession. The accumulated resentments of four divisive wartime years had not abated. Voters with a grudge against the intrusive Union government awaited the next general election. A different leader might have evaded responsibility for the Borden record, but Arthur Meighen was not that kind of man. He was proud of the Conservative and Unionist achievements, to many of which he had personally contributed. If the ship of the National Liberal and Conservative Party were to go down, it would be with all guns blazing. Meighen renewed his call for the protectionist National Policy of Macdonald and Borden, and prepared to wage war against his Liberal and Progressive adversaries. {d-0}The one unpardonable sin in politics is lack of courage,{d-1} he had written to a supporter in 1920. {d-0}As a Government we are in an impregnable position, in point both of policy and of record, and I do not propose to make apology either by act [or] word.{d-1}.

To face the electorate, Meighen needed first to reconstruct his cabinet. The government was especially vulnerable in Quebec and the prairies, precisely the areas of the country where promising ministerial recruits were scarce. The resounding western majorities of 1917 had melted away. Some Liberal Unionists had returned to King; others had followed Crerar into the Progressive Party. Arthur Sifton had died and in September 1921 James Calder left the cabinet for the Senate. Meighen did bring in his old backbench sparring partner, R. B Bennett of Calgary, to be minister of justice, but Saskatchewan was left unrepresented. Prairie weakness in cabinet was mirrored at the constituency level; in many cases there was no organization at all for the government party. If anything, the situation was bleaker in Quebec, where traditional Bleus had had to share the spotlight with the nationalists in 1911, and had vanished in the disastrous conscription election of 1917. Meighen appointed four French Canadians in the reorganization of September 1921 but not one carried any weight with the public. His sincere attempts to recruit E.-L. Patenaude, who had resigned from Borden{apos}s cabinet over conscription, were unsuccessful.

By the time Meighen had formally launched his campaign for re-election, with a major speech in London, Ont., on 1 September, political observers were unanimous. The National Liberal and Conservative Party was doomed to ignominious defeat in the contest set for December. Quebec was solidly Liberal and the Progressives were set to sweep the prairies. Ontario promised a three-way fight, with the Progressives benefiting from the friendly United Farmers government elected in 1919. Even the coastal regions seemed unpromising. Still, Meighen conceded nothing. For three months he stumped the country, travelling by rail, automobile, and boat to deliver some 250 speeches. He preached tariff protection in the west, defended conscription in Quebec, and championed public ownership of railways in the heart of Montreal, where the press, the Canadian Pacific Railway, and the Bank of Montreal were all bitterly hostile towards him. Although he lacked female candidates - few women ran altogether and only one, Agnes Campbell Macphail, a Progressive, was elected - Meighen appealed to the million-plus female voters, reminding them it was the Union government that had legislated votes for all women. He denounced King{apos}s ambiguity on the tariff and railway issues, and attacked the class basis of the Progressives. Hecklers he handled with ease, and everywhere the crowds cheered. Even L{apos}Action catholique (Québec), which opposed the government, conceded on 9 November that he was {d-0}a man of intellect and a leader.{d-1} The campaign was a personal triumph, but voting day was a disaster.

The National Liberal and Conservative Party was reduced to 50 seats, representing just three provinces (Ontario, New Brunswick, and British Columbia) and the Yukon. Meighen and nine cabinet colleagues were defeated in their own ridings. The Liberals, with 116 mps, would form the new government, though they fell just short of a parliamentary majority. The Progressives, with 65 members, earned official opposition status but declined the role. Some of them hoped to ally themselves with a reformed Liberal Party; others rejected party government on principle. Meighen moved quickly to position himself to face King{apos}s minority government and exploit the ambivalence among the Progressives. While King deliberated over cabinet selections, Meighen arranged for his return in January 1922 in Grenville, a safe seat in eastern Ontario. When parliament convened in March, he was seated across from King, ready to do battle. Knowing that some in his party would blame him for the defeat, he had called a meeting of mps, senators, and defeated candidates just prior to the session. This meeting unanimously endorsed his leadership and officially reclaimed the traditional party name of Macdonald and Sir George-Étienne Cartier: Liberal-Conservative. Thus fortified, Meighen undertook to undermine the new government and its sometime Progressive allies, while reviving his own party{apos}s fortunes.

During the session of 1922 he reviewed King{apos}s campaign promises, wondering aloud where the promised tariff reductions were. Meighen still favoured protection; he simply wished to place Liberal hypocrisy on the record. The major issue of the year blew up in September, long after parliament had recessed. A press release from the British government had invited the dominions to join it in defending the Dardanelles strait (Çanakkale Bo?azi) from possible Turkish attack. The conflict was a leftover from the post-war peace settlement between the Allies and Ottoman Turkey. A new revolutionary government in Turkey had repudiated it and now threatened British troops. King, annoyed at the lack of consultation and alarmed at the potential for national and party disunity, played for time. Parliament would decide, but parliament was not in session. In a speech in Toronto on 22 September, Meighen publicly criticized the government{apos}s inaction by quoting Laurier in 1914. {d-0}When Britain{apos}s message came,{d-1} Meighen thundered, {d-0}then Canada should have said: {s-0}Ready, aye ready; we stand by you.{s-1-unknown}{d-1} His remarks went over well in Toronto, but poorly in Quebec and the prairies.

The Çanak crisis underscored a serious political dilemma: the incompatibility of some of Meighen{apos}s deepest beliefs with the prevailing views of French-speaking Quebecers. On 9 July 1920 Henri Bourassa had condemned the new leader in Le Devoir (Montréal): {d-0}Mr. Meighen represents, in person and temperament, in his attitudes and his past declarations, the utmost that Anglo-Saxon jingoism has to offer that is most brutal, most exclusive, most anti-Canadian.{d-1} Through 1923 and 1924 there was little reason to think that Quebecers had changed their minds. The encouraging results of provincial elections and federal by-elections indicated clearly that the pendulum was swinging back to Meighen{apos}s Tories in Ontario, British Columbia, and the Maritimes, but not in Quebec. The party could not even win a by-election fought on the tariff issue in September 1924 in the once Tory riding of St Antoine, in the heart of protectionist Montreal. The Liberals retained the seat and many, including the influential Montreal Daily Star and Gazette, blamed Meighen for the debacle.

Undaunted, in parliament and on the public platform the Conservative leader continued to stress tariff protection, which he coupled with the promise of freight rate adjustments to make the package more attractive to Maritime and prairie voters. King, encouraged by a decisive Liberal win in Saskatchewan in 1922 under Charles Avery Dunning, announced a federal election for 29 Oct. 1925. The prime minister asked for a mandate to deal with four issues: the railway deficit, immigration, the tariff question, and Senate reform. Meighen immediately placed King on the defensive by demanding what solutions the Liberals proposed and by reminding voters the government had done little in four years in office. The Progressives, now led by Manitoban Robert Forke*, were a much diminished force compared to 1921, and they limited their focus to the prairies. Aided by four newly elected provincial premiers, Meighen struck a solid chord all across English Canada. In Quebec he secretly delegated control of the Conservative effort to a former colleague from pre-conscription days, E.-L. Patenaude, who campaigned at the head of a slate of Quebec Conservatives loyal to the Macdonald-Cartier tradition, but independently of the controversial Meighen. Among those in Patenaude{apos}s following was the prominent nationalist Armand La Vergne*.

The result was a stunning victory for the Conservatives, just seven seats short of a majority. In Ontario, the Maritimes, and British Columbia, they made a near sweep. Even on the prairies, where Meighen was returned in Portage la Prairie, they picked up ridings in Manitoba and urban Alberta. Quebec was a disappointment - just four anglophone Tory mps were returned - but Patenaude{apos}s presence had doubled the Conservatives{s-1-unknown} share of the popular vote. When King determined to carry on with Progressive support, despite losing his own seat, Meighen decided on a bold move to win back needed Quebec support. The death of the Liberal mp for Bagot opened a by-election there in December. The Conservative candidate was Guillaume-André Fauteux, one of Meighen{apos}s francophone ministers from 1921. To boost his candidacy, Meighen announced a dramatic shift in policy. In the event of a future war, his government would seek electoral endorsement before sending troops overseas. The venue for his speech was not Bagot, but Hamilton, Ont., though he repeated the pledge in person and in French while campaigning for Fauteux. Unfortunately, the gambit was not only insufficient to win Bagot, it also upset a number of imperialist Conservatives, notably Ontario premier George Howard Ferguson*.

To avoid censure, King decided that parliament should be dissolved and an election called. Governor General Lord Byng*, the thoroughly honourable soldier who had commanded the Canadian Corps in France, refused his request. A surprised King abruptly resigned, leaving the country without a government. When Byng offered Meighen the chance to form a ministry, he accepted, though not without misgivings. His brief administration (Canada{apos}s shortest until the 1980s) would run from 29 June to 25 September. By the rules of the day, mps who accepted cabinet appointment had to resign their seats and seek re-election. In a session where divisions were routinely decided by a handful of votes, the resignation of a dozen frontbenchers would be self-defeating. As a temporary measure, Meighen decided upon the legal, though unusual, ploy of appointing acting ministers. To become prime minister, however, he could not avoid resigning his own seat. Leadership of the Conservative forces in the commons fell to less skilled hands. The new government survived three key votes, but a motion in July by J. A. Robb, questioning the constitutional validity of Meighen{apos}s acting ministry, killed it. Citing dubious constitutional precedents, and alleging British interference, King persuaded a handful of Progressives, who only days earlier had voted to censure his government, to switch their allegiance. The Robb motion carried by a single vote, the decisive margin provided by a Progressive who broke his pairing agreement.

Meighen had no choice but to request a dissolution, and an election was set for 14 Sept. 1926. After one indecisive victory each, the rubber match between King and Meighen was finally under way. Both entered the campaign brimming with confidence. King felt sure the country would rally behind his clarion call to assert Canadian autonomy in the face of obvious collusion between a British-appointed governor general and the Tory party. Meighen was just as certain that Canadians would see through the Liberals{s-1-unknown} constitutional hue and cry, and punish them for the customs scandal. This time he would have a respected Quebec lieutenant at his side. His Hamilton speech may have ruffled imperialist feathers in Ontario, but it persuaded E.-L. Patenaude to campaign openly as a Meighen Conservative. Meanwhile the Progressives, sensing their ebb, scrambled to save their seats by arranging saw-offs with the Liberals. King used Robb{apos}s prosperity budget to good effect, and he turned the untimely death of former Liberal customs minister Georges-Henri Boivin to advantage with a symbolic pilgrimage to his grave. (Boivin, appointed to clean up the mess left by Bureau, had come under fire by the opposition.) When the votes were counted, it was King who emerged victorious. Quebec stood firm, and the Liberal-Progressive alliance produced victories in two dozen Ontario and Manitoba seats. Meighen lost his own riding.

Now in his early fifties, Meighen launched himself into a new career in the business world. It was not an entirely novel departure: years ago, in Portage la Prairie, he had branched out from law into land speculation and directorships in local companies. The business world intrigued him. Of the many offers that had come his way, he had accepted an invitation in 1926 to become a vice-president and general counsel for Canadian General Securities Limited, a Winnipeg investment brokerage firm that was looking to expand into Toronto. In November 1926 he moved with his wife and daughter to the Ontario capital - their two sons were then at university. The next September they purchased a home at 57 Castle Frank Crescent in the affluent Rosedale neighbourhood. For three years Canadian General Securities prospered, but the stock-market crash of 1929 nearly bankrupted it. Meighen suffered great anxiety, in particular because many modest investors had entrusted their funds to the company out of regard for him. Long hours and prudent management paid off and within two years the worst was over. He began to accept non-political speaking engagements in Toronto and as far away as Washington. He even took on a few legal cases. In June 1931 he was appointed to the Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario on the recommendation of Ferguson{apos}s successor as premier, George Stewart Henry.

Life in Toronto for the Meighens differed considerably from their years in Ottawa. Almost from the time he had entered Borden{apos}s cabinet in 1915, politics and government had consumed his life. It was his wife, whom he affectionately called Nan in private, and more formally referred to as Mrs Meighen in public, who had largely raised their three children: Theodore Roosevelt O{apos}Neil, Maxwell Charles Gordon, and Lillian Mary Laura. He was a loving but reserved father, given to delivering admonitions, to his sons in particular, on the virtues of thrift, perseverance, and hard work. He had never sought the social or ceremonial frills of public life, so he did not miss them when he left politics. His wife enjoyed social gatherings more than he did, but neither of them was in the least bit pretentious. In Toronto, he insisted on walking to work, a distance of some three miles from Rosedale to his Bay Street office. One advantage of his career change was that he found more time to indulge his lifelong interest in reading, as well as games of bridge and golf with close friends. And once the financial crisis of 1929 was overcome, he began to accumulate a substantial fortune from various astute investments. Meighen had largely missed his children{apos}s formative years, but he was determined to provide for them and his future grandchildren whatever material support they might need as they made their own way into responsible adulthood. In the meantime, he was avoiding involvement in partisan politics. That part of his life, it seemed, was over.

Since the convention of 1927, R. B. Bennett had completely ignored him. Meighen was not asked to help in the slightest way during the victorious Conservative campaign of 1930. The obvious snub wounded a proud man. When at last an offer came to head the federal Board of Railway Commissioners, Meighen declined, but he did not refuse Bennett{apos}s next proposal: appointment to the Senate and the position of government leader there. Meighen accepted, effective 3 Feb. 1932, on condition that he would be expected in Ottawa only while the Senate was sitting. Though technically a member of cabinet as a minister without portfolio, he did not attend meetings on a regular basis. One of his first responsibilities was to press the Conservative case in the consideration of three Liberal senators implicated in the Beauharnois Scandal. Meighen was at his eloquent best in the climactic debate, though he took little pleasure in the outcome: censure of senators Wilfrid Laurier McDougald* and Andrew Haydon. He was more at home in expediting the refinement of complex pieces of legislation. For example, in 1932 he introduced the Canadian National-Canadian Pacific Bill, to facilitate the coordination of the railways{s-1-unknown} operations, before it moved through the commons.

Meighen was himself the target of conflict-of-interest allegations by Ontario{apos}s Liberals, who charged that trust funds he administered had benefited from decisions made by the Hydro-Electric Power Commission, on which he sat. The newly elected government of Mitchell Frederick Hepburn established an inquiry in 1934 to investigate the charges, but its report was inconclusive and the issue died down. The country{apos}s attention shifted to Ottawa when Bennett, in a series of five nationwide radio broadcasts early in 1935, denounced the old order and advocated fundamental reforms, a Canadian version of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt{apos}s New Deal in the United States. Meighen was not impressed by the prime minister{apos}s radical oratory, but as chief lieutenant in the upper house, he loyally shepherded the reform legislation through the Red Chamber. Typically, the Senate would make a series of amendments to each bill, numbering 51 in the case of the Employment and Social Insurance Act. At the end of the session Meighen was satisfied with the result. Later, in the presence of Bennett himself, he would denounce {d-0}not the legislation, which was enlightened, but the [radio] speeches, which frightened.{d-1} Despite their parliamentary collaboration, Meighen declined Bennett{apos}s request to campaign in the election of 1935. He still remembered the snub of 1930.

As the two Tory titans watched their common foe, King, comfortably take back power, they finally discarded their old animosities. Meighen in the Senate and Bennett in the commons were still Canada{apos}s outstanding Conservative parliamentarians. When Bennett decided in March 1938 that his health would not permit him to carry on, he hoped Meighen would be his successor. The latter had no desire to reassume the leadership - it was clear to him that the west and Quebec would not accept him - but he did share Bennett{apos}s misgivings about the apparent front runner, Robert James Manion*. Though defeated in his riding in 1935, {d-0}Fighting Bob{d-1} had parlayed marriage to a French Canadian woman and his congenial personality into a formidable candidacy. Meighen tested the waters for Sidney Earle Smith, president of the University of Manitoba, but there was little interest, even in Winnipeg. When Bennett asked Meighen to give the keynote address to the national party convention in July 1938 and suggested Commonwealth defence as a topic, he readily agreed. With war threatening to break out in Europe, and Canada ill-prepared, it was a subject near to his heart. He delivered another barnburner reminiscent of his Winnipeg address of 1927, except this time Bennett and Ferguson applauded while the Quebec delegates sat on their hands, bitterly opposed to his call for Canadian-British solidarity. The convention confirmed the change of the party{apos}s name, from Liberal-Conservative to National Conservative. On the leadership vote, Manion won on the second ballot, but neither Meighen nor Bennett was present to congratulate him.

Although Meighen sought to avoid open conflict with the new leader, he was singularly unimpressed with Manion{apos}s performance. Where Meighen would have harassed the Liberals mercilessly for their tepid preparations for war, Manion simply echoed the government{apos}s pledge to avoid conscription in any conflict. On the question of railway deficits, Meighen reversed his long-standing opposition to the amalgamation of the Canadian National Railways and the CPR, and supported a Senate motion that advocated unified management. This volte-face angered Manion, who was publicly opposed to such a step. When the 1940 election campaign began, Meighen stayed out of the fray, as he had in 1935. He was not surprised at the drubbing administered to his party by the Liberals, though he regarded the King ministry with barely concealed contempt. When some Conservatives urged him to leave the Senate and reassume the leadership, however, he declined. Manion, who had lost his own seat, was replaced by Richard Burpee Hanson* of New Brunswick, who provided competent if unexciting parliamentary direction. The stiffest opposition criticism still came from Meighen, whose public and Senate speeches deplored government hypocrisy and inaction on preparations for war. {d-0}I cannot agree that we are doing our part,{d-1} he thundered in the Senate on 13 Nov. 1940.

Sensing the growing demand that he take the Conservative helm, in 1941 Meighen approached John Bracken*, the Liberal-Progressive premier of Manitoba, to see if he could be persuaded to come to Ottawa and take on the job. Though flattered, Bracken remained on the sidelines as the pressure on Meighen mounted. He despised King and despaired of ever seeing the Liberals mobilize a full war effort, but he still resisted the call, feeling himself too old at 68 to accept the challenge. King certainly did not want him back in the commons. Meighen{apos}s debating skills and grasp of administrative detail and parliamentary procedure were exceptional. King understandably regarded the possibility of his old foe{apos}s return with foreboding, as he revealed in his diary on 6 Nov. 1941: {d-0}I am getting past the time when I can fight in public with a man of Meighen{apos}s type who is sarcastic, vitriolic and the meanest type of politician.{d-1} At a party meeting in Ottawa that month, Meighen launched another blistering assault on the Liberal government{apos}s faltering war effort. Subsequently, the delegates voted by a margin of 37-13 to offer the vacant party leadership to Meighen. Citing the lack of unanimity and noting that the meeting was called for other purposes, he declined the honour. The delegates persisted and, in a subsequent motion, they unanimously requested that he accept. Reluctantly, Meighen agreed and he assumed control on 12 November, but on the condition that the Conservative Party would commit itself to {d-0}compulsory selective service over the whole field of war.{d-1} No longer would the party follow public opinion, as it had under Manion and Hanson. With Meighen back at the helm, the Conservatives would attempt to lead it.

Meighen could not forget his own two boys in uniform: Ted was in the Royal Canadian Artillery while Max served in the Royal Canadian Ordnance Corps. {d-0}I never knew what human longing was until separated by war from the sons I love so much,{d-1} he had written in March 1941. {d-0}I sit in my office just gazing on the folder with its two photos.{d-1} Such fatherly devotion gave a harder edge to his attacks on the Liberals. It was not just that he had warned of impending disaster through the 1930s. Now, his own kin were putting their lives on the line, yet the country was still not on a full war footing. Not surprisingly, he fought the by-election of 9 Feb. 1942 in York South on the issue of compulsory service. Occasioned by his need as party leader to obtain a seat - he had left the Senate on 19 January - the battle took on a decidedly nasty tone. The Co-operative Commonwealth Federation attacked him as yesterday{apos}s man and a tool of big financial interests. Officially, the Liberals stayed out of the contest but most of their foot soldiers supported Joseph William Noseworthy, the CCF standard-bearer. King played his part by announcing a national plebiscite on the issue of conscription, thus spiking the Conservative guns. Moreover, the CCF, in an appeal to working-class voters, called not just for a full war effort but for social justice after the war. Meighen met humiliating defeat in a traditional Tory riding.

Meighen{apos}s first instinct was to resign but he felt obligated to the party. Rather than contest another by-election, he allowed Hanson to continue as Conservative house leader. The arrangement did not work well. They clashed over tactics and policy. Meighen still believed Canada{apos}s lacklustre war effort was the central issue, while Hanson emphasized social and economic reforms. A semi-official policy conference at Port Hope, Ont., in September 1942 developed a platform significantly more progressive in tone than Meighen would have preferred. It advocated the adjustment of farm debt, a national labour relations board, federal aid for low-cost housing, comprehensive social security, and a national contributory system of health care. Meighen was wary of the state providing such a range of social services, but his attention was directed elswhere. On his initiative, an organizing committee was established that same month to arrange a leadership convention for December in Winnipeg. He worked relentlessly behind the scenes to persuade John Bracken to stand for the leadership, and he used his party contacts to advocate the Manitoba premier as the best choice to succeed him. Both Bracken and the party were reluctant, but Meighen prevailed. The party left Winnipeg with a new name (Progressive Conservative), a new leader (Bracken), and new policies (the Port Hope platform). As for Meighen, he informed the delegates he was retiring for good, leaving his words and deeds as leader {d-0}unrevised and unrepented.{d-1}.

Inevitably, Bracken{apos}s failure to defeat the weary Liberals in the election of 1945 reflected nearly as much on Meighen{apos}s judgement as it did on Bracken{apos}s modest gifts. Still, the Progressive Conservative Party was alive and would eventually triumph under another westerner, John George Diefenbaker. Meighen took little part in politics after 1945. A collection of his major speeches going back to 1911 was published as Unrevised and unrepented . . . (Toronto, 1949). To his delight it garnered favourable reviews, even from Liberals. A few years later, a recording of one of those speeches, {d-0}The greatest Englishman of history,{d-1} was made into a vinyl LP and circulated to every Canadian university and every Ontario high school, courtesy of an anonymous benefactor. This speech, a tribute to William Shakespeare, had been first delivered in 1936. Meighen{apos}s speech-making declined with his advancing years, as did his attention to his investment business in Toronto. He continued to enjoy reading, golf, bridge, and lunches at the Albany Club until well into his eighties. After a short illness, he died in his sleep on 5 Aug. 1960. He was given a state funeral in Toronto and then driven slowly across Ontario to St Marys, the town of his childhood years, for burial.

On any list of Canadian prime ministers ranked according to their achievements while in office, Arthur Meighen would not place very high. Taken together, his two stints as first minister total less than half a normal four-year term. In 1920-21 he was preoccupied with post-war reconstruction and a severe economic recession. Although his performance was competent, it was not exciting. Only at the imperial prime ministers{s-1-unknown} conference did he shine, loyally but effectively prodding Britain to transform the Anglo-Japanese alliance into a multilateral agreement that properly included the United States. In 1926 he had time only to carry out the most necessary administrative functions, while fighting the ultimately decisive campaign against King{apos}s Liberals. Therein lay the rub. In three contests between King and Meighen, the Grits won in 1921, the Tories placed first in 1925, but in the winner-take-all third match, he was beaten by his hated rival. This period in Canadian history became the Age of King, not the Age of Meighen. Tellingly, Meighen himself would not have accepted such an assessment as either fair or just. In our dominion, he stated in a farewell tribute to R. B. Bennett in January 1939, {d-0}there are times when no Prime Minister can be true to his trust to the nation he has sworn to serve, save at the temporary sacrifice of the party he is appointed to lead.{d-1} In the same speech he took aim at the indecisive ambiguity of their mutual foe, King. {d-0}Loyalty to the ballot box is not necessarily loyalty to the nation,{d-1} he pointedly declared. {d-0}Political captains in Canada must have courage to lead rather than servility to follow.{d-1}.

Arthur Meighen had courage in abundance. His instinct was to confront an issue, an opponent, or a situation. Early in his career, he benefited from this quality. Utilizing his prodigious memory, crystal-clear logic, and gift for oratory, he rose rapidly through the Conservative ranks. Once he was face to face with a master tactician like King, however, his advance faltered. From Meighen{apos}s perspective, the Liberal leader did not play fairly. He dodged issues, avoided accountability, and elevated hypocrisy to new heights. What Meighen could not see was that his own early successes as a minister in the Union government of Sir Robert Borden exacted a price on his later career. Before he even assumed prime ministerial office, he had seriously alienated French Canadians by advocating conscription, new Canadians by passing the War-time Elections Act, Montreal businessmen by nationalizing railways, labourers by suppressing the Winnipeg General Strike, and farmers by sticking to the protective tariff. Given his personality, he would not recant any of these policies. They would remain {d-0}unrevised and unrepented.{d-1}.

The record must also show Meighen{apos}s accomplishments, however. As a rising minister in the wartime government, he did much of Borden{apos}s heavy lifting, particularly after 1915. As leader of the opposition in the 1920s, he rallied Conservative forces in the House of Commons, held a vacillating Liberal government accountable for a wretched customs scandal, and came close to reclaiming power. During the 1930s he served capably as Conservative leader in the Senate, and his speeches decrying isolationism helped to rally public opinion away from a dangerous neutralism. Late in his sixties, he heeded a party draft and did what he could to lead his beloved Conservatives back from oblivion. His final act was to hand over leadership of a renewed party to a competent, if not magnetic, successor. These achievements were not all that he set out to do in 1908, but his performance in politics was certainly well above average. His most fitting epitaph came from a bitter opponent, the Liberal Manitoba Free Press. Upon his first retirement, in 1926, its legendary editor, John Wesley Dafoe*, lamented Meighen{apos}s loss to Canadian public life: {d-0}To fight his way to the charmed government ranks in six years; . . . to attain and hold against all comers the position of the first swordsman of Parliament - these are achievements which will survive the disaster of to-day.{d-1}

Any student of Meighen{apos}s life and career will be indebted to the works of Roger Graham, whose magnum opus is Arthur Meighen: a biography (3v., Toronto, 1960-65). In addition, Graham edited a volume in the Issues in Canadian Hist. series, The King-Byng affair, 1926: a question of responsible government (Toronto, 1967), penned a Canadian Hist. Assoc. booklet, Arthur Meighen ([Ottawa], 1968), and contributed a fascinating analytical chapter, {d-0}Some political ideas of Arthur Meighen,{d-1} in The political ideas of the prime ministers of Canada, ed. Marcel Hamelin (Ottawa, 1969), 107-20. Graham{apos}s approach is both scholarly and laudatory. His work needs to be read alongside the first two volumes, covering 1874-1932, of R. MacG. Dawson and H. B. Neatby, William Lyon Mackenzie King: a political biography (3v., Toronto, 1958-76).

The three relevant volumes of the Canadian Centenary Ser. are immensely useful: R. C. Brown and Ramsay Cook, Canada, 1896-1921: a nation transformed (Toronto, 1974); J. H. Thompson and Allen Seager, Canada, 1922-1939: decades of discord (Toronto, 1985); and Donald Creighton, The forked road: Canada, 1939-1957 (Toronto, 1976). Another three books provide helpful coverage of the Conservative Party: John English, The decline of politics: the Conservatives and the party system, 1901-20 (Toronto, 1977); L. A. Glassford, Reaction and reform: the politics of the Conservative Party under R. B. Bennett, 1927-1938 (Toronto, 1992); and J. L. Granatstein, The politics of survival: the Conservative Party of Canada, 1939-1945 ([Toronto], 1967). Other secondary sources of continuing value for key aspects of Meighen{apos}s career include R. C. Brown, Robert Laird Borden: a biography (2v., Toronto, 1975-80), 2, J. M. Beck, Pendulum of power: Canada{apos}s federal elections (Scarborough, Ont., 1968), W. L. Morton, The Progressive Party in Canada (Toronto, 1950), and Ramsay Cook, The politics of John W. Dafoe and the {d-0}Free Press{d-1} (Toronto and Buffalo, N.Y., 1963).

After Graham, the two biggest boosters of Arthur Meighen have been the Tory journalist Michael Grattan O{apos}Leary* in his Recollections of people, press, and politics, foreword R. L. Stanfield (Toronto, 1977) and the CCF academic Eugene Alfred Forsey* in A life on the fringe: the memoirs of Eugene Forsey (Toronto, 1990). Not so complimentary was Liberal journalist William Bruce Hutchison* in Mr. Prime Minister, 1867-1964 (Don Mills, Ont., 1964), 189-201. Recent historical judgement continues to be severe, especially in Michael Bliss{apos}s treatment of Meighen in Right honourable men: the descent of Canadian politics from Macdonald to Mulroney (Toronto, 1994) and J. L. Granatstein and Norman Hillmer{apos}s assessment in Prime ministers: ranking Canada{apos}s leaders (Toronto, 1999).

There are not many journal articles devoted to Meighen{apos}s political career. He himself contributed one, {d-0}The Canadian Senate,{d-1} Queen{apos}s Quarterly (Kingston, Ont.), 44 (1937): 152-63. Two notable works are by Roger Graham: {d-0}Arthur Meighen and the Conservative Party in Quebec: the election of 1925,{d-1} Canadian Hist. Rev. (Toronto), 36 (1955): 17-35 and {d-0}Meighen and the Montreal tycoons: railway policy in the election of 1921,{d-1} Canadian Hist. Assoc., Hist. Papers (Ottawa) (1957): 71-85. An early article by J. B. Brebner, {d-0}Canada, the Anglo-Japanese alliance and the Washington conference,{d-1} Political Science Quarterly (New York), 50 (1935): 45-58 describes Meighen{apos}s pivotal role in reorienting British imperial policy towards Japan. L. A. Glassford outlines the impact of women voters on Meighen{apos}s party in {d-0}{s-0}The presence of so many ladies{s-1-unknown}: a study of the Conservative Party{apos}s response to female suffrage in Canada, 1918-1939,{d-1} Atlantis (Halifax), 22 (1997-98), no.1: 19-30. Finally, J. L. Granatstein ably covers the electoral coup de grâce administered to Meighen by the voters in {d-0}The York South by-election of February 9, 1942: a turning point in Canadian politics,{d-1} Canadian Hist. Rev., 48 (1967): 142-58.

Born on St George{apos}s Day in the year of Queen Victoria{apos}s diamond jubilee, Lester Pearson would be brought up in a home that reflected fully the ambitions and character of Canadian Methodism in the last decade of the 19th century. Although neither the Bowleses nor the Pearsons were notably religious in Ireland before they emigrated, they became enthusiastic and prominent Methodists after their arrival in Canada, in the 1820s and 1840s respectively. Pearson{apos}s paternal grandfather, Marmaduke Louis, was a well-known Methodist minister; his mother{apos}s cousin the Reverend Richard Pinch Bowles, later the chancellor of Victoria University, Toronto, had officiated at the marriage of Annie and Edwin. Edwin Pearson stepped aside from the heated debates about the Social Gospel that marked early-20th-century Methodism. Athletic and easygoing, he was a popular pastor who moved often because he received calls from other churches.

The family{apos}s frequent changes of residence meant that Lester did not have a home town, but the values of the various places in southern Ontario where he lived were strongly defined. Alcohol was loathed, education celebrated, and the sabbath holy. Edwin was a strong imperialist whose scrapbook is filled with clippings about the royal family; his three boys shared his enthusiasm for sports and the empire. An excellent student in high school, Lester is revealed in the diary of his second year at Victoria University as a polite young man whose enthusiasm for sports exceeded his interest in his courses. He referred to his parents fondly and respectfully. His brother Marmaduke (Duke) had left university as soon as he turned 18 to fight in Europe during World War I. As the war intensified, Lester became ever more eager to volunteer. On 23 April 1915 he enlisted in the University of Toronto hospital unit and became a private in the Canadian Army Medical Corps. His younger brother, Vaughan, would soon be overseas as well.

Pearson{apos}s own war service reveals an unachieved desire for heroism. After very basic training, he had arrived at the quiet front in Salonica (Thessaloníki, Greece) on 12 Nov. 1915. Greece was neutral, but the British and French stationed troops in the region of Macedonia to minimize contact between the Bulgarians and their Austro-Hungarian allies. Almost immediately, Pearson sought transfer to the Western Front. Thanks to the intervention of the Canadian minister of militia and defence, Sir Samuel Hughes, a fellow Methodist, a transfer to Britain finally came. After arriving in England in late March 1917, Pearson went for training to Wadham College, Oxford, where his platoon commander was the famous war poet Robert von Ranke Graves. When he finished training, he and his brother Duke decided in late summer to become aviators instead of infantry officers.

In the most glamorous and dangerous of combat roles in World War I, the aviator had a life expectancy of months. Pearson joined the Royal Flying Corps in October and began his aerial training at Hendon (London). Two months later his career ended, as he later said, {d-0}ingloriously,{d-1} when a bus struck him during a London blackout. His medical and other records indicate that the accident did not disable him, but that he broke down emotionally in the hospital and during recuperation in early 1918. He was sent home to Canada on 6 April, after a medical board declared him {d-0}unfit{d-1} for flying or observer duties because of {d-0}neurasthenia.{d-1} The war changed Pearson as it did his nation. His resentment of persons in authority, especially British officers, strengthened his democratic and nationalistic instincts. His emotional breakdown probably contributed to his tendency to keep his feelings private and to deplore irrationalism in public and personal life. The war also gave him the enduring nickname of Mike.

There he began work as a clerk in the fertilizer division of the Armour empire. The anti-British tone of Chicago politics, where the Irish and the Germans held sway, offended the young imperialist and business did not attract him. He told his uncle and his parents that he wanted to go to Oxford. With the help of a fellowship from the Massey Foundation, he left for St John{apos}s College in the fall of 1921. At Oxford, he achieved a solid second, but once again impressed his tutors and fellow students more with his sporting skills and his wit. He took a two-year ma degree and returned to Toronto as a lecturer in the university{apos}s department of history in 1923. In that small unit he made lasting friends, such as the future diplomat Humphrey Hume Wrong*; he also met his wife.

The daughter of a Winnipeg doctor and nurse, Maryon Moody enrolled in Pearson{apos}s history tutorial for the fall term of 1923 in her final year at university. The attraction was immediate and within a few weeks the professor had persuaded his pretty female student to attend a party with him. On 13 March, five weeks later, Maryon wrote to a close friend, {d-0}Don{apos}t tell a soul because we aren{apos}t telling the public till after term. I am engaged.{d-1} She admitted that she had {d-0}known him really at all well [for] a little over a month{d-1} but they {d-0}loved each other more than anything else in the world.{d-1} They were married in Broadway United Church, Winnipeg. Their son, Geoffrey Arthur Holland, who would become a diplomat, was born in December 1927 and daughter Patricia Lillian arrived in March 1929.

Maryon is one of the most interesting of the Canadian prime ministerial wives. Deeply religious as an undergraduate, she became a sceptic and, privately, a non-believer. Excited about the possibility of a life as a writer, she would never work in a paying job after her marriage. Against Pearson{apos}s enemies, she was a ferocious defender of her husband. After his death, she would be bereft and resentful of her widowhood. Yet when they were together, she was known for her barbed comments directed towards her spouse, as when she famously said, {d-0}Behind every successful man there is a surprised woman.{d-1} They fought often and both had close relationships, perhaps affairs, with others. She despised politics but would take a close interest and would influence critical decisions, especially the selection of Pearson{apos}s cabinet. Her sharp and sardonic wit wounded some, but enlivened many dinner parties. She and her husband moved together along the modernist paths of the 20th century in their choices in literature, their attitudes towards religion, and even in their methods of child rearing, but they remained grounded in the traditions of Anglo-Canadian Methodism. In a later time, they might have divorced, but they would remain a couple, forming a partnership that deeply influenced their times and their country.

After their marriage the Pearsons lived close to the university and entertained young faculty in their home. Reports vary on Pearson{apos}s success as a lecturer, but all agree that he was a major figure in the athletic activities of the university and a minor contributor to the professionalization of the field of Canadian history in the 1920s. He proposed to write a book on the loyalists and spent the summer of 1926 at the Public Archives of Canada in Ottawa. At the university, he faced a choice between accepting promotion through which he would become a major figure in the athletic department or demonstrating stronger devotion to scholarship and the classroom. Both options lacked the appeal of the Department of External Affairs in Ottawa which, under Oscar Douglas Skelton*, the under-secretary of state, was hiring bright young Canadians with advanced degrees. Wrong, Pearson{apos}s closest friend in the history department, went to Washington as a junior diplomat in the spring of 1927 and Skelton expressed interest in Pearson, whom he had met in the summer of 1926. Pearson took the foreign service examination and stood first among a distinguished group of applicants. He had, at last, a métier.

Hugh Llewellyn Keenleyside*, another academic who became a foreign service officer in the late 1920s, shared an office with Pearson in Ottawa after Pearson{apos}s arrival in August 1928. Pearson, he would later write, was in {d-0}good physical shape, vigorous and alert.{d-1} He was {d-0}cheerful, amusing, keenly interested in his work, ambitious for the service and for himself.{d-1} He remained so throughout his career in the department. There would be frustrations, especially with Skelton{apos}s lack of organizational skills and the idiosyncrasies of prime ministers Richard Bedford Bennett and William Lyon Mackenzie King. Nevertheless, Pearson{apos}s intelligence, artfully concealed ambition, good looks and health, and exceptional personal charm were qualities that identified him as an extraordinarily effective public servant and diplomat.

Pearson began his European experience badly when he advised the Canadian representative to the League of Nations, Walter Alexander Riddell, to put forward a proposal to impose sanctions on Italy after it invaded Abyssinia (Ethiopia) in October 1935. King, who became prime minister later that month, angrily repudiated the Riddell initiative in December, but Pearson escaped blame. King and Skelton had both lost faith in the League of Nations and fretted about British policy towards European border tension and the Spanish Civil War that they feared would lead to confrontations, not only with Italy but, more dangerously, with Adolf Hitler{apos}s Germany. Pearson shared some of these concerns in 1936 and 1937, but his views differed from those of his political superiors as Hitler{apos}s ambitions grew. When King {d-0}rejoiced{d-1} at the Munich agreement of 1938 between Hitler and British prime minister Arthur Neville Chamberlain, Pearson dissented in a letter to Skelton. Munich was not a peace with honour, he wrote. {d-0}If I am tempted to become cynical and isolationist, I think of Hitler screeching into the microphone, Jewish women and children in ditches on the Polish border, [Hermann] G[ö]ring, the genial ape-man and [Paul Joseph] Goebbels, the evil imp, and then, whatever the British side may represent, the other does indeed stand for savagery and barbarism.{d-1} It was fine to be on the side of the {d-0}angels,{d-1} but Pearson knew that {d-0}in Germany the opposite spirits are hard at work. And I have a feeling they{apos}re going to do a lot of mischief before they are exorcised.{d-1}

The children, and then Maryon, returned to Ottawa, but Pearson stayed in England and worked ceaselessly to strengthen British-Canadian ties. Those times remained a cherished memory for him and their spirit is preserved in the diary of his colleague Charles Stewart Almon Ritchie* and the novel, The heat of the day (London, 1949), written by Ritchie{apos}s lover, Elizabeth Dorothea Cole Bowen. The death of Skelton, however, forced Pearson{apos}s return to Ottawa in the spring of 1941 and the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, in December took him to Washington as minister-counsellor in June 1942. He arrived just as the centre of wartime decision-making was shifting to Washington from London and there was no doubt that the United States would dominate in reconstructing the international system after the war. The Canadian minister to Washington, Leighton Goldie McCarthy, was weak and Pearson quickly took on the major role in representing Canada, not only to the American government but also in the numerous committees that were the birthplace of post-war international institutions. Unlike many Canadians and most Britons, he had realized as early as 1940 that power had shifted from London to Washington and that the British Commonwealth of Nations would be a secondary actor on the international stage. For Canada, the political and economic implications of these changes were enormous.

Pearson quickly captured attention, especially from the American news media. He became a minor celebrity on a radio quiz program and, significantly, a close friend of several major American journalists. His diplomatic colleagues noted his skill in presiding over committees and in July 1943 he became the chair of the United Nations Interim Commission on Food and Agriculture. The committee was to become the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN in October 1945. Pearson would decline the chance to head the new institution. From 1943 to 1946 he also chaired the important committee on supplies of the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration. On 1 Jan. 1945 he became Canada{apos}s second ambassador to the United States (earlier representatives had been ministers). He had become one of the foremost diplomats of the time and, in Canada, a public figure.

Pearson knew the United States well and admired its energy and creativity. Unlike his brother Duke, now a businessman and a Republican, he was an enthusiastic supporter of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the New Deal. He enjoyed American popular culture, especially its cinema, Broadway musicals, and, above all, baseball. Nevertheless, he thought American democracy too encumbered by major financial interests, its public life too vulgar, and its self-confidence sometimes abrasive. As Canada moved from its British past to its North American future, he anticipated many problems. Some in his department had written very negative comments on American policy, but he was always a pragmatist. In 1944 he had written: {d-0}When we are dealing with such a powerful neighbour, we have to avoid the twin dangers of subservience and truculent touchiness. We succumb to the former when we take everything lying down, and to the latter when we rush to the State Department with a note everytime some Congressman makes a stupid statement about Canada, or some documentary movie about the war forgets to mention Canada.{d-1} This advice to a junior colleague neatly defined his central approach to Canadian-American relations throughout his diplomatic and political career.

Although unhappy about the shape of the UN and, especially, the dominance of the Security Council by the great powers, Pearson did not protest as strongly as the Australians did at the San Francisco Conference, where delegates met to draw up the charter in 1945. When the new organization took form, many favoured him for the post of secretary general. He was, however, too closely identified with American interests to satisfy the Soviets. He also knew that political changes were occurring quickly in Ottawa and he did not encourage friends who wanted to promote his candidacy. King was leaving and he had already spoken with Pearson about {d-0}entering Canadian public life,{d-1} and the diplomat had the idea {d-0}very much in mind.{d-1} To assure Pearson{apos}s presence in Ottawa as King slowly took his retirement, the prime minister appointed him under-secretary of state for external affairs. Pearson returned to Ottawa in September 1946. He served under the new secretary of state for external affairs, St-Laurent. The two quickly acquired confidence in each other and shared their doubts about the weary prime minister. As a minister from the traditionally isolationist Quebec and as King{apos}s favoured successor, St-Laurent gave Pearson valuable cabinet and political support for an innovative and energetic foreign policy. He needed such backing because King was wary of Pearson{apos}s enthusiasms and his tendency to commit Canada to international agreements and institutions.

The Cold War between the Soviet Union and the west was young but fierce during Pearson{apos}s tenure as under-secretary. The Soviet use of the veto handcuffed the UN{apos}s Security Council and Soviet influence in eastern Europe became control as coalition governments in nations such as Czechoslovakia and Poland fell to Communism. Although the war{apos}s end did not bring depression as it had in 1919, the economic future was uncertain, since Canada{apos}s traditional European markets were either destroyed or, in the case of Britain, essentially bankrupt. Pearson took three major policy initiatives between 1946 and 1948. First, he continued to hope that the UN would gain strength and, much to King{apos}s despair, he backed UN involvement in the settlement of conflict in Korea and in other troubled areas such as Palestine. Secondly, he recognized the economic and political predominance of the United States. The shortage of American dollars in Canada was solved initially by a special arrangement and Pearson was willing to work out a free trade agreement with the Americans. King stopped the free trade negotiations, fearful of their political impact. Finally, Pearson tried to balance American influence by the creation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and he argued strongly for a socio-economic component to the pact. He played a major role in the discussions and persistently urged Canada{apos}s chief negotiator, Hume Wrong, to take a broad approach to the treaty. By the time the pact was finally signed in Washington in the spring of 1949, his numerous accomplishments had gained him further recognition. With the strong encouragement of King and St-Laurent, he entered politics and was appointed secretary of state for external affairs in the St-Laurent government on 10 Sept. 1948. He ran successfully for a seat in the House of Commons in a by-election in Algoma East on 25 October and retained the seat in the general election of 1949, in which St-Laurent{apos}s government won a resounding victory. He would represent the riding throughout his political career.

Pearson would remain Canada{apos}s minister of external affairs until the defeat of the Liberals in 1957. Historians have called his times the {d-0}golden years{d-1} of Canadian diplomacy. Although there are justifiable doubts about the glitter of the period, Pearson{apos}s own reputation retains its lustre. He had unusual freedom because of the consensus within the Liberal Party and the commons on the nature of the Soviet threat. His department was talented, strong, and well funded. The times were especially kind to him. He was a unilingual anglophone who had little experience outside London, Ottawa, New York, and Washington, but for a Canadian minister of external affairs in the 1950s little else mattered. He recognized that the rebirth of the European economies would make Canada a relatively less significant actor within the western alliance. He also acknowledged that Canada{apos}s relationship with the United States had become the principal concern of a Canadian foreign minister. He nonetheless retained his pre-war unease that the United States was sometimes an {d-0}intoxicated{d-1} nation and, in that state, {d-0}middle courses{d-1} were difficult to follow. Yet there was no doubt that the Canadian course in the Cold War years must follow closely behind the American juggernaut. Occasionally, a clever Canadian initiative could alter the course slightly, but Canada and the United States were on the same journey.

In the late 1940s Pearson worried that the United States would revert to pre-war isolationist tendencies and his rhetoric and policies reflected this concern. Beginning in the 1960s, critics such as Robert Dennis Cuff and Jack Lawrence Granatstein would point to Pearson{apos}s strong and, in their view, strident anti-Communist speeches and his sternly anti-Communist policies in the first years of the Cold War, a position later adopted by historian Denis Smith, political scientist Reginald Whitaker, and journalist Gary Marcuse. These revisionists would suggest that Pearson overestimated the dangers of Soviet Communism. Pearson equated Communism with Nazism. He warned, for example, that {d-0}we did not take very seriously the preposterous statements of the slightly ridiculous author of Mein Kampf. We preferred the friendly remarks of {s-0}jolly old Goering{s-1-unknown} at his hunting lodge.{d-1} Mein Kampf had been the true agenda; similarly, Soviet leader Joseph Stalin showed a gentle side to the American vice-president, Henry Agard Wallace, in 1944, but Pearson warned that the west should look at Stalin{apos}s harsh statements, {d-0}which form the basic dogma on which the policy of the USSR [Union of Soviet Socialist Republics] is inflexibly based.{d-1}

This debate about the Cold War and the threat of Communism, the so-called revisionist debate, has changed since the Cold War{apos}s end in the late 1980s. On the one hand, the opening of Soviet archives has revealed that Stalin was extraordinarily dangerous and cruel and that Soviet espionage had infiltrated Western security and foreign policy establishments more fully than revisionist historians had suggested. Pearson{apos}s evaluation of the menace was probably more accurate than his critics had thought. On the other hand, the opening of Canadian security files and greater attention to individual rights in Canadian society has drawn attention to discrimination against, and sometimes persecution of, not only political dissidents but also homosexuals in the late 1940s and early 1950s. The argument that Pearson{apos}s strident anti-Communism had contributed to the climate of fear that stifled dissent has some merit. Pearson had little patience with those who made revisionist arguments and the second volume of his memoirs is a reply to the revisionist historians of the late 1960s and early 1970s. On the question of treatment of dissidents, he would have had some sympathy because his support of Egerton Herbert Norman*, a Canadian diplomat accused by an American congressional committee of being a Communist agent, had made him very much a target of American extreme anti-Communists.

Although Pearson did not speak out publicly against the activities of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in harassing dissidents, he did annoy the Federal Bureau of Investigation and some Republican politicians, including Senator Joseph McCarthy. He refused to allow Soviet defector Igor Sergeievich Gouzenko to testify in the United States before the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee and denied that Canadian information confirmed that Harry Dexter White was guilty of espionage. (White was a senior American public servant who is now known to have been an agent of influence for the Soviets.) His refusal to dismiss Norman made John Edgar Hoover of the FBI suspicious of him. The Chicago Tribune, owned by Hoover{apos}s friend Colonel Robert Rutherford McCormick, called Pearson {d-0}the most dangerous man in the Western World{d-1} in 1953. These attacks and incidents deeply annoyed him, but they did not significantly affect his ability to work with the American administration under President Harry S. Truman and, after his taking office in 1953, under Republican president Dwight David Eisenhower.

The confidence in Pearson among senior Department of State and other American officials had come from his role in promoting the creation of the North Atlantic alliance, his support for American policy in the creation of Israel, and his encouragement of much higher Canadian defence spending after 1949. When the Korean War broke out in 1950, Canadian public opinion was not strongly in favour of Canadian participation. On 25 June, Pearson told journalists privately that he did not believe UN or American intervention would occur. Three days later, after learning that Truman had decided to intervene, he praised the United States for recognizing {d-0}a special responsibility which it discharged with admirable dispatch and decisiveness.{d-1} He, like Truman, believed that such an intervention under the leadership of the United States and the auspices of the UN - which was possible because the Soviets were boycotting the Security Council - would call the Communists{s-1-unknown} bluff and strengthen the UN, whose first years had been very disappointing. At his urging, the Canadians raised their commitment from a token naval presence to a significant involvement in the brutal ground war.

Because of the war in Korea and the perceived threat of a Communist attack on western Europe, Pearson had unusual freedom from normal political restraints. He chaired the NATO council in 1951-52 and in 1952 became the president of the UN{apos}s General Assembly. As president, he had difficulties with the Americans, for he had become a critic of their policies in Asia. Canada had followed the United States in refusing to recognize Communist China, but he had been deeply concerned about the possibility that the war in Korea would become a broad conflagration after the Chinese entered it in November 1950. When American general Douglas MacArthur, the commander of the UN forces in Korea, spoke openly about extending the war, Pearson decided that he must protest. In a famous speech to the Canadian and Empire clubs in Toronto on 10 April 1951, he said that the UN must not be the {d-0}instrument of any one country{d-1} and that others had the right to criticize American policy. He expressed his belief that {d-0}the days of relatively easy and automatic political relations with our neighbour are, I think, over.{d-1} And they were, even though Truman fired MacArthur later the same day.

While sharing the American conviction that the expansion of Communism must be halted and contained, Pearson deplored talk of {d-0}rolling back{d-1} Communism and worried about American excesses. The attack of Senator McCarthy and his allies on the Department of State was, in his view, dangerous and thoroughly irresponsible. The American policy on China especially bothered him. He told his son, soon to become a foreign service officer, that he had attempted and failed to moderate American attitudes toward China. In the winter of 1951 it seemed to him that {d-0}emotionalism has become the basis of [United States] policy.{d-1} Canada would still {d-0}follow{d-1} the Americans, but only to the extent of their strict obligations under the UN charter. The Korean War finally came to an end after Eisenhower became president. Pearson had irritated American secretary of state Dean Gooderham Acheson because of his insistence on advancing peace negotiations. Acheson{apos}s Republican successor, John Foster Dulles, was even more difficult and ideological in his approach and Pearson became more determined to find ways to end the Cold War chill, especially after the death of Stalin in 1953.

Despite Pearson{apos}s disagreements with the Americans, they recognized his skill and usefulness. When, in 1952, his name had come forward for the positions of NATO{apos}s secretary-general and the UN{apos}s secretary-general, the United States had supported his candidacy. He had resisted the NATO post and the Russians, as before, had rejected him for the UN appointment. He established strong personal ties with the Scandinavian countries and in the British Commonwealth he and Canada became an influential force. The Colombo Plan, which had been drawn up in January 1950, was Canada{apos}s first major commitment to assistance for developing countries and Pearson had been one of its architects. Although he thought Jawaharlal Nehru puzzling, he fostered the notion of a special relationship between Canada and India. Canada participated in the Geneva Conference of 1954 that sought, unsuccessfully, to bring peace to French Indochina. Canada became the Western voice on the International Control Commission that, again unsuccessfully, attempted to supervise and develop a peace settlement in the region. In October 1955 he was the first Western foreign minister to visit the Soviet Union after the death of Stalin. The trip, which featured a wild night of drinking and debate with Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev in the Crimea, did not persuade Pearson that the post-Stalin Soviet Union was a more benign state.

Pearson{apos}s focus remained firmly on the Soviet threat and he believed the United States was weakening itself and its response to that menace by excessive attention to Communist China. He considered recognition of Communist China, but American warnings of retaliation quickly dissuaded him. He was furious, as were the Americans, when the British, the French, and the Israelis, angry about the Egyptian takeover of the Suez Canal, secretly planned and carried out an attack in Egypt on 29 Oct. 1956. The Soviets began to talk of sending volunteers to aid the Egyptians; the Americans, who had not been informed of the plans, moved to condemn their traditional allies in the UN. The Australians backed the British; Canada, for the first time in its history, opposed a British war. Working closely with the Americans, Pearson tried to craft a solution that would end the divisions among Western allies and would reduce the tensions of a broader war. Early on Sunday morning, 4 November, the UN supported a Canadian resolution that called for the creation of a peace force. The British and French backed down. On 14 Oct. 1957 Pearson would receive the Nobel Peace Prize.

Although Pearson gained international laurels, the Canadian position on the Suez crisis met with strong criticism in English Canada. Reluctant to abandon the British ties that had been the foundation of their identity for almost two centuries, many English Canadians linked the Liberal government and Pearson with the increasing Americanization of Canada. They complained that the Liberals had favoured the Americans and had {d-0}knifed{d-1} Britain in the crisis. The irascible Conservative Charlotte Elizabeth Hazeltyne Whitton, mayor of Ottawa, quipped: {d-0}It{apos}s too bad [Gamal Abdel] Nasser couldn{apos}t help Mike Pearson to cross Elliot Lake [in his constituency] when Mr. Pearson did so much to help him along the Suez Canal.{d-1}

The Liberals, with St-Laurent as leader, Pearson as his likely successor, and a Gallup poll forecasting another solid majority, called an election for 10 June 1957. The polls were wrong; Progressive Conservative leader John George Diefenbaker{apos}s appeal to Anglo-Canadian nationalism was effective in western Canada, the Maritimes, and British Ontario. His eloquent denunciation of the Liberal minister of trade and commerce, Clarence Decatur Howe*, and the pipeline fiasco had also persuaded electors to vote Conservative. The American-born Howe had used closure to force a bill through the commons to create an American-financed pipeline which would bring western natural gas to Ontario. The Conservatives had opposed it bitterly because of American involvement and had sung {d-0}God save the queen{d-1} to emphasize their traditional British-Canadian nationalism. The Conservatives won 112 seats with over 38 per cent of the vote and the Liberals 105 seats with over 40 per cent of the vote. After some indecision, St-Laurent resigned as prime minister and as Liberal leader. Pearson was the strong favourite in the Liberal leadership race, especially after he was awarded the Nobel Prize. He became head of the party on 16 Jan. 1958.

Pearson{apos}s victory left him foolishly confident and his first efforts in the commons were feeble. When he called upon the new government to resign, Diefenbaker, with his brilliant sense of parliamentary timing, ridiculed the motion and on 1 February asked for a general election, to be held on 31 March. The Liberals were in disarray and the campaign soon revealed how effective Diefenbaker could be on the hustings and how unprepared Pearson was. Although Pearson and Diefenbaker were of similar background and age, Diefenbaker was the more energetic and convincing campaigner. The Conservatives won the most decisive victory recorded in Canadian federal politics, 208 seats compared to only 49 for the Liberals and 8 for the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation. With characteristic black humour, Maryon Pearson remarked, {d-0}We{apos}ve lost everything. We even won our own seat.{d-1}

The election of Jean Lesage{apos}s Liberal Party in Quebec in June 1960 presented new challenges for the Conservatives, who had won in 1958 because of strong support from the Union Nationale under Maurice Le Noblet Duplessis*. Pearson began to develop new policies that would reflect the liberalism of Lesage and, to some extent, of John Fitzgerald Kennedy, who was to become president of the United States in January 1961. In September 1960, just after the Liberals moved ahead of the Conservatives in a Gallup poll, the party held a study conference in Kingston. Pearson drew upon his network of friends in journalism, the universities, business, and politics to create a debate about the future of Canadian Liberalism and to draft a platform for the next Liberal government.

Prior to the conference, two of those friends, Gordon and journalist Thomas Worrall Kent, had been wary of each other. At the conference, they worked together to draft a progressive platform, one that reflected Kennedy{apos}s New Frontier policy and the ambitious programs of the Quebec government. Pearson became increasingly concerned about Quebec and he insisted that greater recognition of the French language and of the rights of French Canadians be part of the new Liberal platform. When Diefenbaker called a general election for 18 June 1962, many expected him to lose. The Liberal members had been extremely effective in the commons and Diefenbaker{apos}s ministers had fumbled badly. Nevertheless, the final results were 116 Conservatives, 100 Liberals, 30 Social Crediters/Créditistes, and 19 New Democrats. Despite the loss, it was a triumph for Pearson. Diefenbaker{apos}s government began to crumble. When he hesitated to support the Americans in the Cuban missile crisis of October 1962, not only the Kennedy administration but also many traditional Conservatives turned against him. The confusion surrounding the acceptance of nuclear weapons caused turmoil within the Conservative Party; the minister of national defence, Douglas Scott Harkness*, was a strong proponent of acceptance and the minister of external affairs, Howard Charles Green*, a strong opponent.

Pearson had opposed nuclear weapons for Canada, but on 12 Jan. 1963 he declared that the country must accept them because it had made a commitment to its allies in 1958 to arm the Bomarc anti-aircraft missiles located in northern Ontario and Quebec with nuclear warheads. Complaints came quickly from Quebec intellectual Pierre Elliott Trudeau and, privately, from Walter Gordon and the young Liberal Norman Lloyd Axworthy. Pearson{apos}s announcement split the Conservatives and some ministers tried to secure Diefenbaker{apos}s resignation. They failed, but on 5 Feb. 1963 the government fell. Most expected Pearson to win the election, called for 8 April.

Pearson became prime minister on 22 April, but the majority government that public opinion polls had predicted and that he had craved eluded him. The Liberals had obtained 129 seats and the Conservatives 95, while the Social Crediters/Créditistes and New Democrats held the balance with 24 and 17 respectively. The following day he turned 66, an age when many Canadians had retired. His cabinet impressed Canadian journalists with its regional balance and broad experience. Paul Joseph James Martin* had served in parliament for 28 years. Newfoundland{apos}s John Whitney Pickersgill* was Diefenbaker{apos}s equal in the house. Gordon, Mitchell William Sharp*, and Charles Mills Drury* brought business experience. Guy Favreau*, the major Quebec minister, and Maurice Lamontagne* were respected in Quebec and Ottawa. The poor results in western Canada, however, meant weak representation from that region.

During the election campaign Pearson had promised {d-0}sixty days of decision,{d-1} but the first two months went badly. Gordon had supported Pearson financially since he had entered politics, had organized his leadership campaign, and had brought influential and capable friends into the Liberal Party. He expected to be minister of finance, but Pearson knew that many in the business community did not have confidence in Gordon{apos}s nationalistic views. Nevertheless, over his wife{apos}s objections, he made the appointment. Gordon turned to outside advisers to prepare the budget because he thought the Department of Finance would be unwilling to accept his nationalist policies. He presented his budget, with a withholding tax on dividends paid to non-residents and a {d-0}takeover tax{d-1} on foreign acquisitions of Canadian businesses, on 13 June 1963. Bureaucrats complained about his use of outside advisers and many in the business community expressed hostility toward his nationalism. The lack of western Canadian voices in the Liberal caucus meant that their traditional suspicion of Ontario-based nationalism was not often expressed in party debate. The president of the Montreal Stock Exchange, Eric William Kierans*, who would later become a nationalist ally of Gordon{apos}s, attacked the budget, claiming that {d-0}our friends in the western world{d-1} would realize that {d-0}we don{apos}t want them or their money and that Canadians who deal with them in even modest amounts will suffer a thirty percent expropriation of the assets involved.{d-1} The attack was unfair, but it and other criticisms led Gordon to withdraw the tax on foreign acquisitions on 19 June. The response was a call for Gordon{apos}s resignation by many major newspapers.

Gordon offered his resignation the next day; Pearson refused. Nevertheless, the distrust between the two friends grew. Pearson himself paid little heed to the details of the budget, but the appearance of a separatist movement in Quebec had captured his full attention. On 21 April 1963 a bomb placed by Quebec separatists had killed a janitor working in a Canadian army recruiting office. On 17 May dynamite had exploded in mail boxes in Montreal. Quebec journalist André Laurendeau* had recommended, in January 1962, a royal commission to investigate bilingualism and Pearson had promised to act. On 19 July 1963 he appointed Laurendeau and Arnold Davidson Dunton* co-chairs of the royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism, and the so-called Quebec issue became the major domestic concern of Pearson{apos}s years in office. The royal commission was immediately controversial, although few suggested that the question of Quebec{apos}s role in Canadian confederation could be ignored. Critics, especially in the west questioned the focus on the duality of Canada and, though the commission{apos}s terms of reference provided that other ethnic groups should be studied, argued for a broader approach that reflected the diverse origins of the country{apos}s population. The seeds of multiculturalism were born.

The Pearson government stumbled regularly between 1963 and 1965. Gordon never recovered from the budget debacle and Pearson proved no match for Diefenbaker in the cut and thrust of parliamentary debate. The most serious problem was Quebec representation in the cabinet. Pearson{apos}s support for the acceptance of nuclear weapons had weakened his position in Quebec. The nationalist Le Devoir (Montréal) attacked his stand and urged consideration of the New Democrats{s-1-unknown} stance opposing nuclear weapons; prominent francophones such as Trudeau and labour leader Jean Marchand* retreated from flirtation with the Liberals. The result was weak Quebec representation in Ottawa. The veteran Lionel Chevrier was the major Quebec minister even though he was, by origin, a Franco-Ontarian. Justice minister Favreau was able, but he was a political novice. Lamontagne, an excellent academic economist, was an uncertain politician. When, therefore, the increasingly nationalistic government of Jean Lesage in Quebec countered the federal government in domestic jurisdiction and, more troublingly, in international relations, the government response lacked force. Pearson{apos}s Quebec ministers seemed ineffectual and unable to face the challenge of a strong provincial government. The impact was immediate in the area of social policy, where the Liberal agenda was ambitious. The Quebec government anticipated a federal contributory pension scheme by presenting its own plan. It argued, with the support of other provinces concerned about federal intrusion into provincial domains, that it was within its rights. Despite strong opposition in the Liberal caucus and cabinet, Pearson agreed that the Quebec plan should be the starting point for a national program. Quebec could {d-0}opt out{d-1} of the national plan with compensation and could have its own scheme, aligned with the national one. He cleverly guided the agreement through the cabinet and the Canada and Quebec Pension plans would become a reality in 1966.

Despite its clumsy start and its minority status, the Pearson government implemented some social legislation over its two mandates, including the Canada Assistance Plan, which funded provincial welfare programs (1966), and the Guaranteed Income Supplement (1967). In addition, there was much more funding for university research and university capital expenditures. The government had created the Canada Student Loans Plan in 1964. Combined with provincial support for post-secondary education, these policies transformed the Canadian university system. Pearson was fortunate in that the Canadian economy was strong during his tenure as prime minister. Starting in 1965 and culminating with the creation of an apolitical Immigration Board in 1967, important changes were made to Canada{apos}s immigration policy. Under the leadership of the powerful Quebec minister Jean Marchand, who had been persuaded to join the Liberal Party and enter the cabinet, it was closely linked to the government{apos}s labour policy.

Although health is an area of provincial responsibility, the Liberals had promised a health care program in their platform of 1919, had dangled it before the electorate in 1945, and had made it part of the platform in 1963. The successful but very difficult creation of such a program in Saskatchewan by its socialist government in 1961 had set a standard that Pearson knew the Liberals must match, especially since the Saskatchewan premier, Thomas Clement Douglas*, had become leader of the federal New Democratic Party that year. Pearson did little to shape the Canadian Medicare program, but he did challenge the reluctant provinces, notably Ontario, to accept that Canadians must have equal access to state-provided medical services. Parliament passed the Medical Care Act in 1966 but financial exigencies postponed its operation for a year. The effect of this social legislation was to make Canada more European and less American in its approach to social welfare. There had been no counterpart to Roosevelt{apos}s New Deal, but Canada caught up quickly in the 1960s and moved well beyond the American standard.

If Canada became less American in its approach to social welfare, it became less European in its symbols. The country had no national flag and Liberals had occasionally proposed one. Despite such musings, King and St-Laurent had wisely avoided the controversial issue. Pearson, however, was determined and in 1964, against the advice of many, he insisted on pushing forward. Diefenbaker rallied British Canadians in defence of the Union Jack and the Red Ensign; Liberals told Pearson that he was creating political difficulties over a purely symbolic issue. Nevertheless, he persisted and in the commons on 15 December, with the help of the New Democrats, he managed to secure approval of a design. Liberal mp John Ross Matheson, a war veteran who championed the new flag, would later write that {d-0}the fight for a flag became a crusade for national unity, for justice to all Canadians, for Canada{apos}s dignity.{d-1} Not all Canadians agreed; many Conservative members wept and the province of British Columbia would not raise the new flag in daylight on its inaugural day. As for the French Canadians, who one might expect to have welcomed the new flag, Trudeau claimed that they did not give {d-0}a tinker{apos}s damn{d-1} about it.

This flood of legislation was broken up by a general election. The weakness of the Pearson government in the matter of Quebec representation had been made worse by scandals that left even fewer French Canadians in the cabinet. These scandals were the face of national politics that Canadians viewed in 1964 and 1965 and they did not like what they saw. There was, as journalist Peter Charles Newman would later write, a {d-0}distemper{d-1} in Canada during Pearson{apos}s time in office. Writing in 1990 about his 1968 book on the Pearson years, Newman would recall that {d-0}most of the people{d-1} he had talked with in airports, at dinner parties, and around hamburger stands were {d-0}voicing a dismay at our politics that was hardening into cynicism or despair.{d-1} The scandals were the manifestation of profound changes in the Canadian political system that occurred during the 1960s. In the case of the Mafia-linked drug dealer Lucien Rivard, ministerial assistants and even Pearson{apos}s parliamentary secretary had supported Rivard{apos}s attempt to obtain release on bail. More seriously, a ministerial assistant had tried to bribe the lawyer acting on the American request for Rivard{apos}s extradition. Justice minister Favreau was drawn into the fray when he decided not to prosecute the assistant. He told Pearson about the developing scandal in September 1964 but Pearson left the impression that he had not learned about it until November. Finally, Pearson corrected the impression in a letter to the special public inquiry, headed by justice Frédéric Dorion, which he had created to investigate the scandal. Favreau{apos}s reputation was shattered; Pearson{apos}s was damaged. Lamontagne and immigration minister René Tremblay saw their careers destroyed over their failure to pay for furniture from a bankrupt Montreal dealer. Yvon Dupuis, another Quebec minister, although later acquitted, was fired from cabinet because he faced criminal charges involving the acceptance of a bribe to accelerate the granting of a racetrack licence. In the commons, Diefenbaker{apos}s courtroom skills cut through the weak answers of the Liberal ministers and his list of French names linked with the scandals, pronounced in halting French, infuriated francophones.

Drug deals, bribes, and sleazy furniture sales were not as titillating as Canada{apos}s major political sex scandal, the so-called Munsinger affair. Gerda Munsinger had been involved with the Soviets in Germany. While living in Montreal she had had an affair with a Russian lover and, simultaneously, from 1958 to 1960 with Pierre Sévigny*, Diefenbaker{apos}s associate minister of national defence from 1959 to 1963. The relationship attracted the interest of the RCMP and wiretaps. In the heat of debate in the commons on 4 March 1966, Liberal justice minister Lucien Cardin taunted Diefenbaker about the {d-0}Monseignor case.{d-1} Rumours billowed about the involvement of a Tory minister with an apparently dead but once very sexy spy. Yet another inquiry engaged Canadians{s-1-unknown} curiosity and exposed Sévigny. Diefenbaker and Pearson had both behaved badly, the prime minister in calling for the RCMP file on Munsinger and, in Diefenbaker{apos}s view, threatening him with revelations unless the Conservative leader relented in the commons. For his part, Diefenbaker had dragged up old charges that Pearson had passed information to Communists when he was in Washington.

The scandals, the bad mood in the house, and the growing divisions in the Conservative Party persuaded Liberal organizers to call an election. The economy was strong and Oliver Quayle, the American pollster hired by Gordon, reported a Liberal upsurge in the spring of 1965. Although Quayle admitted that Pearson{apos}s image was not strongly positive and that most Canadians thought he was doing only a {d-0}fair job,{d-1} 46 per cent believed that he would be a better prime minister than Diefenbaker, favoured by 23 per cent of Canadians. Faint praise indeed and enough to cause hesitations. Pearson finally called an election for 8 November after Gordon assured him that he would win a majority and that he would resign if the Liberals failed to obtain one.

Diefenbaker once again proved to be an excellent campaigner, overcoming a large Liberal lead in the initial polls. The Liberals pointed to a remarkable list of achievements: the Canada-United States Automotive Products Agreement (Autopact), the pension legislation, student loans, a revision of the tax system, greatly expanded support for post-secondary and technical education, bilingualism and biculturalism, and a more liberal immigration policy that appealed to new Canadians. Diefenbaker shifted debate away from these issues towards Lucien Rivard{apos}s {d-0}escape{d-1} from prison, the free furniture for cabinet ministers, and Pearson{apos}s lacklustre leadership. Pearson{apos}s campaign was marred by protesters and, at the final giant rally in Toronto, the failure of the sound system. In Quebec, he had recruited three candidates to rebuild the shattered Quebec front bench: journalist and social activist Gérard Pelletier*, Marchand, and, controversially because of his criticism of the Liberals{s-1-unknown} nuclear policy, Trudeau. When the campaign ended, the Liberals had won less of the popular vote than in 1963 and, with 131 of 265 seats, were denied a majority. The Conservatives had obtained 97 seats and the NDP 21, with Créditistes, Social Crediters, and independent candidates making up the balance.

Pearson offered his resignation to cabinet; it was refused. Gordon submitted his resignation to Pearson; to his disappointment, it was accepted. The Gordon team, which included Keith Davey, Richard O{apos}Hagan, James Allan Coutts, and Kent left with him. In a study of the Liberal Party, Joseph Wearing correctly suggests that the Gordon approach concentrated on urban Canada and especially Toronto, Gordon{apos}s home. It was the achievement of the group that so-called Tory Toronto would be no more; however, the aftermath of 1965 was the shift of attention and power to Montreal and Quebec.

Quebec increasingly preoccupied the government after the election of 1965. Pelletier, Marchand, and Trudeau had entered federal politics because they feared that Quebec would drift towards separation as Lesage{apos}s Liberals became increasingly nationalist. The surprising defeat of the Liberals by the Union Nationale in 1966 created a sense of crisis. The new premier, Daniel Johnson*, spoke of {d-0}equality or independence{d-1} and the defeated Liberals, especially the highly popular René Lévesque*, began to muse about an independence platform for their party. Simultaneously, the French government under Charles de Gaulle lavished attention on visiting Quebec politicians while regularly snubbing Canadian representatives. As a diplomat who had seen how the ties of the British empire came undone so quickly, Pearson believed that the French behaviour was profoundly dangerous and that Quebec{apos}s demands for its own foreign policy bore the seeds of the disintegration of Canada. Despite these doubts, which were not fully shared by his minister of external affairs, Paul Martin, Pearson accepted the demands of de Gaulle that he begin his visit during Canada{apos}s centennial year in Quebec City and that he arrive on a French warship, the Colbert.

De Gaulle toured Quebec City on 23 July 1967 and, after some controversial statements, travelled to Montreal the following day. There, on the balcony of the Hôtel de Ville, he made his famous declaration, {d-0}Vive le Québec libre!{d-1} A furious Pearson declared the remarks {d-0}unacceptable{d-1} and de Gaulle returned to France without visiting Ottawa. Although the event did not break the buoyant spirit of centennial year, it did underline the divisions within Canada. French newspapers tended to believe that Pearson overreacted while English newspapers expressed outrage. Within the government, Trudeau and several officials (notably Allan Ezra Gotlieb, Peter Michael Pitfield, Marc Lalonde, and Marcel Cadieux) met regularly to counter what they considered the drift in the federal government{apos}s policies in the face of Quebec{apos}s initiatives. They began to formulate a strong response to French support for separatism and to the constitutional demands of Quebec. With Trudeau as justice minister, the agenda shifted to, on the one hand, a more coherent constitutional program and, on the other, a more liberal social agenda that responded to the spirit of the times. Trudeau{apos}s famous statement that the government had no place in the bedrooms of the nation signalled a revolution in its attitude toward private behaviour, one that was far from the ethos of the manse where Pearson had been born or, for that matter, the Catholic home and schools of Trudeau{apos}s early years.

Because of Pearson{apos}s own distinguished background in external affairs, he had retained responsibility for a few issues in this department, delegating responsibility for the remainder to his minister, Paul Martin, and government officials. The Commonwealth was a prime ministerial gathering and there Pearson demonstrated his extraordinary diplomatic skills in dealing with Britain and others on the difficult Rhodesian and South African issues. There was one notable exception to his diplomacy: his decision in April 1965 to speak out against American bombing of North Vietnam. Pearson had had earlier meetings with President Lyndon Baines Johnson and had become concerned about Johnson{apos}s style and determination to achieve victory in Vietnam. Like other Canadians, he gave Johnson much latitude because of the difficult circumstances of his accession to power after Kennedy{apos}s assassination and because of the apparent extremist character of Barry Morris Goldwater, who had been the Republican presidential candidate in 1964. Nevertheless, the build-up of American forces in Vietnam troubled him greatly. He feared that the United States would be drawn into a long war and that the North Atlantic alliance would be fundamentally weakened. After conversations with American friends, he decided to call for a halt to the bombing. Martin and the Department of External Affairs opposed the idea, but Pearson used the occasion of an award he was to receive from Temple University in Philadelphia on 2 April 1965 to call for {d-0}a suspension of air strikes against North Vietnam at the right time{d-1} in order to provide {d-0}Hanoi authorities with an opportunity, if they wish to take it, to inject some flexibility into their policy without appearing to do so as the direct result of military pressure.{d-1} These careful words brought an invitation to meet Johnson later that day at his Camp David retreat in Maryland. There Johnson berated and swore at Pearson and made his displeasure clear to the press. Their relationship never recovered, although later, in 1966, Pearson agreed to the use of a Canadian diplomat, Chester Alvin Ronning, as a messenger to the North Vietnamese. Canada, ironically, had benefited from the increased defence purchases that came with the Vietnam War and many Americans of draft age had migrated to Canada and contributed much to Canadian life, especially in the universities. Vietnam, the race riots in Detroit and other American cities, and the assassination of President Kennedy were causes of the surge of Canadian nationalism that occurred in English Canada during the centennial year of 1967.

Pearson called a press conference for 14 Dec. 1967 and announced he would resign in the new year. The Conservatives had a new leader, Robert Lorne Stanfield*, and were ahead in the public opinion polls. Pearson{apos}s caucus and cabinet were restless as they prepared to face an election and a possible loss. More troubling to Pearson was the issue of Canadian national unity and he began to work quietly to assure that his successor came from Quebec. His first choice was Marchand, but Marchand recommended Trudeau, whose intellect had impressed Pearson, but whose political skills had not. Pearson did not designate Trudeau his successor, as King had done with St-Laurent, but he told his closest friends that Trudeau was his choice. It was, he believed, the only bet worth taking, given the challenges from Quebec. It was a bet he won. Despite his recent re-conversion to Liberalism, Trudeau won the convention and had parliament dissolved before Pearson{apos}s colleagues and foes could pay tribute to him. The journalist and former mp Douglas Mason Fisher later recalled that in April 1968, when Pearson left office, there was an atmosphere of {d-0}indifference{d-1} and {d-0}a notable keenness by his successor to separate his government distinctly from the bad Pearson years - scandals, leaks, messy, staggering parliaments and disorganized ventures.{d-1}

In 1968 Pearson became chancellor of Carleton University in Ottawa and he lectured there in history and political science until the fall of 1972. He chaired a historic commission on international development. Its report, Partners in development: report of the Commission on International Development (New York, 1969), called for a systematic transfer of resources and attention from the rich west and north to the poor south. The so-called {d-0}Pearson Report{d-1} was the first sustained evaluation of international development assistance. It deeply influenced future debate and policy. Pearson had seldom seen Trudeau after 1968 and the new government{apos}s foreign policy review, with its criticism of post-war strategies, deeply wounded him. Still, he publicly and privately supported Trudeau in the general election of 1972. By that time he knew that he would not vote again. He told his old friend Senator Keith Davey that he would not be able to share his dismay if his beloved Toronto Maple Leafs did not make the playoffs in the spring. He had known since 1970 that cancer would soon cause his death. Despite Maryon{apos}s hopes, he would not retire. On learning of his cancer diagnosis, he rushed his memoirs to publication. The first of his three volumes appeared in 1972 and was an immediate best-seller. His elegant prose and self-deprecating wit made it the finest prime ministerial memoir. It contributed to what Fisher called the rapid {d-0}hallowing{d-1} of Pearson after his death on 28 Dec. 1972.

One of the most severe critics of Pearson was his former colleague at the University of Toronto, historian Donald Grant Creighton, whose biography of Sir John A. Macdonald* Pearson had generously praised in a personal letter to Creighton. Creighton, like Pearson, was the son of a Methodist parson, a graduate of Toronto and Oxford, and a historian by training, but in the 1950s their agreement about the character of Canadian history and nationality had dissolved. For Creighton, the loss of British identity and the post-war political and economic integration with the United States were giant steps on a path leading towards Canada{apos}s disintegration. The events of the 1960s - the rise of Quebec separatism and secular nationalism, the promotion of biculturalism and bilingualism, and the deluge of American popular media - made Canada{apos}s first century a study in decline and disappointment.

It was Pearson{apos}s experience as a politician and as a diplomat that persuaded him in the 1960s that French Canada must become more integrally part of the Canadian political and economic system or it would go its separate way. Although he knew little about French Canada or about Quebec, he made Quebec{apos}s place in Canada the focus of his government, thus slowing the momentum for separation. The bitterness of Canadian politics during the mid 1960s derived in part from the sea change that came with the integration of French Canadian politics into the policy centres of the Canadian government. Never again would a Canadian cabinet have a few francophone ministers who could not speak their own language in cabinet and whose deputies dealt with them in English. After Pearson, no Canadian prime minister was unilingual. Ottawa became a different city, Canada a different country.

If he had not become Canada{apos}s prime minister, Pearson would still be a significant figure in Canadian history as the country{apos}s only Nobel Peace laureate and the most eminent Canadian diplomat. Some may cavil, as Creighton did, about Pearson{apos}s work as a diplomat, but few deny his skill and influence. His prime ministerial tenure, however, remains controversial. During his turbulent and fairly brief years in office, his governments transformed Canada. Although Canadians did not want a more open immigration policy, his governments introduced it, transforming the face of urban Canada. Although bilingualism was controversial, the Pearson governments adopted it and set the framework for an official policy that made the federal public service so different from what it had been. Although social welfare was, constitutionally, a provincial responsibility, the Pearson governments legislated boldly in the field and made Canada a country unlike its American neighbour, which had previously been the more generous North American nation in its social policies. Later in the 20th century, social disturbances in Canadian cities, separatism in the province of Quebec, and neo-conservative philosophies made some question the achievement of the Pearson years. Yet foes and friends already recognize that Pearson was a remarkable Canadian whose life and work profoundly changed the country he served.

The major primary source for this biography is the Lester B. Pearson fonds at Library and Arch. Canada (Ottawa) (MG 26, N). It contains an abundance of public papers, Pearson{apos}s correspondence with his colleagues, and a diary that he occasionally maintained. The collection is particularly good for the period between 1935 and 1948, when his career as a foreign service officer advanced quickly.

Many other manuscript collections at Library and Arch. Canada offer extensive information on Pearson. The William Lyon Mackenzie King papers (MG 26, J) have much that is relevant to any study of Pearson and there are many comments on him and his ambitions in King{apos}s diary. The Louis St-Laurent papers (MG 26, L) are less useful, but Pearson{apos}s activities in the late 1940s and early 1950s are described well in the records of the Department of External Affairs (RG 25) and in its Documents on Canadian external relations, ed. R. A. Mackay et al. (24v. to date, Ottawa, 1967-?). Because Pearson was one of the most eminent diplomats of the time, the records of the British Foreign Office and its successor, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, held by the National Arch. (London, Eng.) and the records of the American Department of State (RG 59) at the National Arch. and Records Administration (Washington) offer many comments on him and his activities. On the whole, the British documents are a richer source.

The papers of John George Diefenbaker at the Right Honourable John G. Diefenbaker Centre for the Study of Canada, Univ. of Saskatchewan (Saskatoon), provide a sustained criticism of Pearson{apos}s political career. Before he became a minister in the Pearson government in 1967, Pierre Elliott Trudeau had also been a frequent critic of Pearson and his remarks are found in his papers at Library and Arch. Canada (MG 26, O). Other collections with Pearson material include the Arnold Danford Patrick Heeney fonds (MG 30, E144) and especially the Walter Lockhart Gordon papers (MG 32, B44), both at Library and Arch. Canada, the Tom Kent fonds at Queen{apos}s Univ. Arch. (Kingston, Ont.), and the Bruce Hutchison fonds (MsC 22) at the Univ. of Calgary Library, Special Coll.

Pearson wrote the best prime ministerial memoirs: Mike: the memoirs of the Right Honourable Lester B. Pearson, pc, cc, om, obe, ma, lld (3v., Toronto, 1972-75). The first volume, 1897-1948, is superb, although guarded in discussing personal affairs. The second, 1948-1957, edited by J. A. Munro and A. I. Inglis, is a solid academic account of Pearson{apos}s career as minister of external affairs. The last volume, 1957-1968, also edited by Munro and Inglis, regrettably was completed after his death and does not possess the voice and accuracy of the first two. As a public figure, Pearson also published numerous books of speeches and reflections. The best is Words and occasions: an anthology of speeches and articles selected from his papers (Toronto, 1970), which brings together some of his early essays and speeches. Others include: Democracy in world politics (Toronto, 1955), Diplomacy in the nuclear age (Toronto, 1959), Peace in the family of man: the Reith Lectures, 1968 (Toronto and New York, 1969), and The Commonwealth, 1970 (Cambridge, Eng., 1971).

There are several biographies of Pearson. The longest is John English, The life of Lester Pearson (2v., New York and Toronto, 1989-92), divided into two periods, Shadow of heaven, 1897-1948 and The worldly years, 1949-1972. Earlier biographies include Robert Bothwell{apos}s perceptive Pearson: his life and world, gen. ed., W. K. Lamb (Toronto, 1978), the popular J. R. Beal, The Pearson phenomenon (Toronto, 1964), W. B. Ayre, Mr. Pearson and Canada{apos}s revolution by diplomacy ([Montreal, 1966]), and Bruce Thordarson, Lester Pearson, diplomat and politician (Toronto, 1974). Another work that has Pearson as a principal player is the academic study by Joseph Levitt, Pearson and Canada{apos}s role in nuclear disarmament and arms control negotiations, 1945-1957 (Montreal, 1993), which should be read with G. A. H. Pearson{apos}s Seize the day: Lester B. Pearson and crisis diplomacy (Ottawa, 1993).

There are several contemporary works that deal with Pearson{apos}s controversial tenure as prime minister. P. C. Newman{apos}s two books Renegade in power: the Diefenbaker years (Toronto, [1963]) and The distemper of our times: Canadian politics in transition, 1963-1968 (Toronto, [1968]; repr. with new intro., 1990) are important in the history of Canadian journalism and are deeply informed, though highly critical. Similarly, some of Pearson{apos}s colleagues have been critical of his leadership, notably Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh in Memoirs of a bird in a gilded cage (Toronto, 1968) and W. L. Gordon in A political memoir (Toronto, 1977). P. [J. J.] Martin is more balanced in A very public life (2v., Ottawa, 1983-85), as are J. W. Pickersgill{apos}s Seeing Canada whole: a memoir (Markham, Ont., 1994), M. [W.] Sharp{apos}s Which reminds me . . . : a memoir (Toronto, 1994), and Trudeau{apos}s Memoirs (Toronto, 1993).

There are numerous works that touch upon the varied aspects of Pearson{apos}s career. Among the most important are Denis Smith, Rogue Tory: the life and legend of John G. Diefenbaker (Toronto, 1995), and several works by J. L. Granatstein: A man of influence: Norman A. Robertson and Canadian statecraft, 1929-68 (Ottawa, 1981), The Ottawa men: the civil service mandarins, 1935-1957 (Toronto, 1982), and Canada, 1957-1967: the years of uncertainty and innovation (Toronto, 1986). Two more specialized works also merit attention: Stephen Azzi, Walter Gordon and the rise of Canadian nationalism (Montreal, 1999), and Greg Donaghy, Tolerant allies: Canada and the United States, 1963-1968 (Montreal, 2002). Finally, the centenary of Pearson{apos}s birth brought forth an excellent compilation, Pearson: the unlikely gladiator, ed. Norman Hillmer (Montreal, 1999).

Among the other sources consulted are: Canada, House of Commons, Debates (Ottawa), 1948-68; D. G. Creighton, The forked road: Canada, 1939-1957 (Toronto, 1976); Douglas Fisher, {d-0}A personal view: the quick, unusual hallowing of Lester B. Pearson,{d-1} Executive ([Don Mills, Ont.]), 15 (1973), nos.7/8: 54; H. L. Keenleyside, Memoirs (2v., Toronto, 1981-82); J. R. Matheson, Canada{apos}s flag: a search for a country (Boston, 1980); Denis Smith, Diplomacy of fear: Canada and the Cold War, 1941-1948 (Toronto, 1988); and Reginald Whitaker and Gary Marcuse, Cold War Canada: the making of a national insecurity state, 1945-1957 (Toronto, 1994).

At the time of his birth, Compton was mainly English speaking. It and the surrounding township of Compton would become majority French at some point between 1901 and 1911. The St-Laurents{s-1-unknown} home, next to their store, served as a social centre for the village. In a political riding long dominated federally by the Conservative John Henry Pope, Jean-Baptiste was a faithful Liberal and would run in a provincial by-election in 1894. The couple{apos}s children spoke French with their father, but because of their mother they were equally at home in English. Educated in French in the local separate school, Louis had learned to read and write English first, he was exposed throughout his childhood to English literature, and he spoke the tongue with no accent. He was a talented and studious child, and his family were encouraged to seek further education for him. He left Compton in 1896 to enter the Séminaire Saint-Charles-Borromée in Sherbrooke. Attendance was an expensive proposition for the son of a country storekeeper, but Louis was buoyed by Compton{apos}s abbé, Joseph-Eugène-Édouard Choquette, who had persuaded the college authorities to waive the customary tuition fees. At the seminary, which was a bilingual institution, its staff a mixture of French and Irish priests, St-Laurent distinguished himself; he developed a writing style in both French and English and played an active role in student life. Although his parents hoped he would become a priest, he opted instead for law on graduation in 1902.

Financial and cultural considerations led him to the Université Laval at Quebec rather than McGill University in Montreal. At Laval{apos}s law school, the Liberal St-Laurent studied under some of the city{apos}s most prominent Conservative lawyers, who made up much of the faculty. Despite taking time out to assist his father in another unsuccessful run for the provincial legislature, in 1904, St-Laurent graduated at the top of his class in 1905 and won the Governor General{apos}s Medal. He was also offered Laval{apos}s first Rhodes scholarship, but refused it in order to turn to a (presumably lucrative) legal career. It started modestly. St-Laurent accepted a berth in the office of a prominent Quebec City lawyer, Louis-Philippe Pelletier, at $50 a month. He found time as well to court Jeanne Renault, the daughter of a prosperous merchant in Beauceville; they had met at a party in Quebec in 1906 and married two years later. She was accustomed to a comfortable life, and the marriage forced St-Laurent{apos}s departure from Pelletier{apos}s firm and his meagre salary there. Instead, at the beginning of 1909, he formed a partnership with Antonin Galipeault, a young lawyer with political - reliably Liberal - prospects. Galipeault found St-Laurent{apos}s easy English a distinct advantage. Equally important, St-Laurent was a notoriously hard worker, with a reputation for painstaking preparation. When Galipeault was elected to the legislature in February 1909, St-Laurent took over much of the firm{apos}s ordinary business; eventually he found himself specializing in commercial law. The firm expanded - the partners soon included Liberal senator Philippe-Auguste Choquette* - and in 1914 they moved to impressive quarters in the Imperial Bank Building on Rue Saint-Pierre. The same year St-Laurent joined his mentor, L.-P. ;Pelletier, as a professor of law at Laval. In 1915 he was made a provincial kc and received an honorary lld from Laval. By this time he was earning $10,000 a year; though comfortable, he would never be rich.

The St-Laurent family grew steadily, numbering five children by 1917. In 1913 he had built a 15-room house on the Grande Allée, Quebec City{apos}s most fashionable street. This house, servants, and an automobile (acquired in 1916) were easily within his means, which depended on his reputation for steady, reliable intelligence in his practice. By the 1920s his work extended to cases before the Supreme Court of Canada. St-Laurent, according to a contemporary at the Quebec bar, Warwick Fielding Chipman, {d-0}was solid, sound, pleasing to his courts, and established an intimacy with them. He had a human touch despite his technical detail and thoroughness.{d-1}

St-Laurent{apos}s interests diverged from those of Galipeault, whose political career took more and more of his attention. They went their separate ways, amicably, in 1923. By this time St-Laurent was being frequently retained by the governments of both Canada and Quebec, sometimes on constitutional cases. In an important test case before the Supreme Court in 1926, he argued for minority rights: the Jewish demand for representation on Montreal{apos}s Protestant Board of School Commissioners or for a separate Jewish system of schools. In the event, representation was refused but provincial authority to establish separate schools for non-Christians was recognized. It cannot be said that St-Laurent consistently took a provincial or a federal position in his cases, nor was he always successful. He was, however, successful enough to join the select and highly remunerated elite who pleaded before Canada{apos}s highest court of appeals, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London, England. As biographer Dale Cairns Thomson has observed, St-Laurent{apos}s quiet, scholarly arguments matched the style of the British law lords. In 1928 the JCPC, which rarely gave compliments, praised his illuminating and able argument on behalf of Ottawa in a conflict between the Quebec Civil Code and the federal Bankruptcy Act.

The Great Depression of the 1930s severely tried Canada{apos}s political and economic institutions. Some provinces struggled financially; only the federal government appeared to have the resources to deal with the burden of welfare and reconstruction. In 1935 the Conservatives under Richard Bedford Bennett passed New Deal legislation that included employment and social insurance and regulations governing minimum wages and hours of labour, fields that many legal authorities felt were provincial responsibilities. In January 1936 the new Liberal government of William Lyon Mackenzie King submitted this legislation to the JCPC for its opinion and hired St-Laurent as counsel. He founded his argument on section 132 of the British North America Act, which gave the federal government authority to implement imperial treaties, in this case the labour aspects of the 1919 Treaty of Versailles. It was at best a difficult proposition, and to no one{apos}s great surprise St-Laurent lost on the main issues, the labour conventions and the Employment and Social Insurance Act.

The crisis, economic and constitutional, endured and King{apos}s next expedient, in 1937, was to appoint a royal commission on dominion-provincial relations chaired by Ontario{apos}s chief justice, Newton Wesley Rowell*. James McGregor Stewart* of Halifax and St-Laurent were named commission counsel. No end of a lesson, the experience exposed St-Laurent for the first time to a Canadian reality outside the business centres of the east. It corrected his impression, based on magazine stories, that western wheat farmers enjoyed winter vacations in California and were a source of unlimited revenue. The depression-bound west, in fact, was a sink-hole of misery, with no markets for its products and no means to support its people. St-Laurent saw a need for stronger federal authority. {d-0}It seems likely that our constitution will have to be amended if Confederation is to survive,{d-1} he told a French-speaking audience in Winnipeg in January 1938. Events soon overtook the royal commission. Before it could report under its new chairman, Joseph Sirois* (Rowell having resigned due to illness), World War II broke out. In 1940 it did recommend constitutional adjustments, mainly in the direction of greater federal activity in the field of social security, but by this time Ottawa had already assumed the power to direct the war effort, subordinating provincial authority to this greater cause.

King and his Quebec lieutenant, justice minister Ernest Lapointe*, tried to appease opinion in Quebec on the volatile issue of conscription. Their promise of no conscription, first made in the spring of 1939, was repeated in the provincial election of October and again in the federal contest of March 1940. The Quebec ministers in King{apos}s cabinet, led by Lapointe, pledged to resign if conscription was imposed, but, like everyone else, King and Lapointe underestimated the problems the war would bring. When Germany defeated France in June, Britain and its empire, including Canada, were left to fight on alone. Fearing the worst, King and Lapointe agreed to impose conscription after all, but only for home defence. Canadians sent overseas would be volunteers. When Lapointe died in November 1941, a large gap opened in the prime minister{apos}s carefully balanced political structure. King consulted several Quebec notables, including those in his cabinet as well as Archbishop Jean-Marie-Rodrigue Cardinal Villeneuve*. King{apos}s first thought was to recruit Liberal premier Adélard Godbout*, but he did not wish to be translated to Ottawa. It was on the suggestion of Villeneuve and Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin*, the minister of transport, that King began to consider St-Laurent, who earlier that year had co-chaired the Victory Loans committee in Quebec. He knew him {d-0}only as a distant and rather chilly lawyer,{d-1} while St-Laurent knew King hardly at all.

On 4 December, King telephoned St-Laurent, asking him to be in Ottawa the next day. Though he did not give a reason, it was obvious. After lunch on the 5th, he proposed that St-Laurent succeed Lapointe as minister of justice and mp for Quebec East. Anticipating that St-Laurent might be reluctant to leave his home, and an income in excess of $50,000 a year, for the relatively ill-paid and insecure life of a minister and politician, King appealed to his sense of duty. The war was a national crisis, and Canada (and King) needed somebody who could {d-0}interpret the Quebec point of view{d-1} to the rest of the country. St-Laurent asked for time to consult; the answers were mixed from his family but affirmative from most of his friends, the cardinal, and the premier. On 10 December he was back in Ottawa, to be sworn in as minister of justice. Soon after, the Liberals of Quebec East adopted him as their candidate in a by-election set for 9 Feb. 1942.

St-Laurent entered the cabinet just as the war expanded to include the United States, a fact that put pressure on King to implement a policy of total war, which would include a commitment to conscription not just for home defence but also for overseas. The problem was the government{apos}s promise of 1939-40. The prime minister and his cabinet worried over this question through Christmas, and in January 1942 they agreed on a possible solution. There would be a plebiscite, in April, to ask voters to release the government from its pledge. St-Laurent was cooperative; he had made no promise and would not be bound by commitments made by others. He took this line in the by-election, running against a nationalist candidate, and won. The plebiscite was another matter. Outside Quebec, the electorate went along with King{apos}s purpose. Inside Quebec, voters opted against the government by a heavy margin. In the aftermath, in May, as King prepared to push through parliament a bill (Bill 80) that would repeal the legislative provision against conscription, Arthur Cardin quit the cabinet.

Cardin{apos}s departure confirmed St-Laurent{apos}s position as the senior Quebec minister. He had already succeeded Lapointe on cabinet{apos}s War Committee, becoming Quebec{apos}s voice in the higher direction of the conflict. St-Laurent spoke effectively on behalf of the government{apos}s conscription policy in the House of Commons on 16 June, arguing against the contention of Quebec nationalists that Canada was at war merely in the service of the British empire. The dominion was engaged in its own interests, not those of Britain, and he urged English Canadians to accept French Canadians {d-0}as full partners and full citizens.{d-1} King warmly shook St-Laurent{apos}s hand on the conclusion of the speech, and he recorded in his diary that the occasion was of great symbolic significance. With passage of Bill 80 in July, the conscription issue was defused. Conscription for overseas service was now legally possible, but it need not be implemented until the military ran short of men. With the Canadian army in England in anticipation of an eventual invasion of the European mainland, that day was not at hand. King and his colleagues fervently hoped it would never come.

In Ottawa, St-Laurent was now accepted as King{apos}s Quebec lieutenant. He gave frequent speeches there on the war effort and national unity; in addresses that October he foresaw the need for policies on social security and to consolidate the levels of employment security made possible by the war. In Quebec the church was divided on his support for social welfare. Right-wing clergy opposed it, but he was indifferent to their arguments. From time to time, as a senior minister, St-Laurent assisted King directly, including a spell as acting minister of external affairs (a post traditionally held by the prime minister) during King{apos}s visit to London in the spring of 1944. The same year St-Laurent attended the conference at Bretton Woods, N.H., that led to the creation of the International Monetary Fund, and in April-May 1945 he participated with King in the founding conference of the United Nations in San Francisco. His presence meant that Quebec{apos}s interests were represented, but St-Laurent also viewed these occasions as an affirmation of the larger national interest apart from regional or linguistic considerations. During these two years he also carried out his duties as minister of justice, including the appointment of judges and advice to his colleagues on the constitutionality of proposed legislation.

St-Laurent took a broad view of the federal spending power, which he held could justify such programs as family allowances; the legislation for family allowances emanated from his department in 1944. In March 1945 he supported a sweeping program of economic reconstruction and more social welfare, including federal-provincial cost-sharing schemes for old-age pensions and hospital and medical insurance, and the federal assumption of responsibility for the unemployed. He brushed aside warnings that these proposals would {d-0}precipitate acrimonious disputes with the provinces,{d-1} though it was over revenue-sharing differences that the program would run aground. Disagreement should not deter his colleagues from supporting good policy, the minister of justice argued. {d-0}Acrimonious dispute was inevitable with Quebec in any case,{d-1} and he did not believe the people would automatically support the provinces over Ottawa. Canadians identified with provincial programs, he reasoned, because they {d-0}were constantly made aware of the services which provincial governments render while they tended to think of the central government as one imposing burdens such as taxation and conscription.{d-1} Sound federal initiatives, including family allowances, would correct and even reverse this situation.

The principal issue confronting the government in 1944-45, however, was conscription, not social welfare. Heavy casualties suffered during the Normandy Invasion of 6 June 1944 and afterwards caused the military{apos}s pool of manpower to run dry. The minister of national defence, James Layton Ralston*, told the prime minister in October that conscript reinforcements must be sent immediately. King manoeuvred to secure the backing of colleagues who were, he knew, deeply divided on the issue. At each stage, he turned to St-Laurent, keeping him apprised and firming up his support. Content with the policy adopted in July 1942, St-Laurent saw no need for conscription with the war{apos}s end in sight and other means for securing reinforcements untried. Still, he watched King{apos}s policy sympathetically. Realizing that the prime minister had done everything in his power to avoid offending Quebec, the justice minister moved from a position on 30 October where he {d-0}could not possibly support introduction of conscription{d-1} to resigned acceptance a month later. St-Laurent{apos}s attitude was crucial to King: no other Quebec minister had as much prestige or authority. In the end, conscripts reached Europe in early 1945.

The government survived the conscription crisis but its political future was most uncertain. An election was due in 1945, and King{apos}s Liberals were beset by an assortment of Quebec nationalists, Ontario conscriptionists, and prairie socialists. As much as anything, fortune favoured the Liberals. The European phase of the war came to an end in May 1945, a month before the election. King and St-Laurent marked the occasion with radio broadcasts in English and French; the choice of St-Laurent as oratorical partner underlined his primacy among the Quebec ministers. The Liberals won the election, though narrowly. {d-0}Independent Liberals{d-1} elected in Quebec could cause trouble in the future by tending towards Quebec nationalism and the provincialist policies of Union Nationale premier Maurice Le Noblet Duplessis*. The election was, in a sense, King{apos}s last hurrah. Aged 70, he understood it was time to give thought to a successor.

Fortunately, there was one at hand, though St-Laurent{apos}s decision to run in the election had been a surprise to many. Perhaps it was based on the timing of the campaign, before the war was truly finished; perhaps he sensed that national unity, a fragile flower, demanded his continuing attention. There were problems of policy as well, not least dominion-provincial relations, which the war left unresolved. In the summer of 1945 St-Laurent participated, along with the minister of finance, James Lorimer Ilsley*, and the minister of reconstruction, Clarence Decatur Howe*, in a dominion-provincial conference on reconstruction. The federal government proposed nothing less than a redistribution of responsibilities, with Ottawa taking the lead in the comprehensive social welfare scheme that St-Laurent had supported the previous spring. Duplessis and Ontario premier George Alexander Drew objected, and their objections prevailed. Duplessis presented the episode as an ambitious power grab by Ottawa, but he could not present it in strictly ethnic terms because of St-Laurent{apos}s prominent presence in the federal delegation.

The King government had an ambitious external agenda as well, and here too St-Laurent{apos}s role was crucial. The government believed that trade should to be restored to pre-war levels. A surplus in trade with Britain had usually helped to pay for a trade deficit with the United States, but the war had devastated British commerce and it would take time for exports to recover. To help the British return to their role as purchasers of Canadian wheat, apples, and cheese, Canada proposed a loan of $1.25 billion (roughly a tenth of Canada{apos}s annual gross national product) spread over a number of years. The advance was to be made in conjunction with an American loan of $3.75 billion, the terms of which set the pattern for the Canadian loan. To Quebec nationalists it was more evidence of Canada{apos}s objectionable subordination to the empire. It was essential, then, to the political credibility of the government{apos}s case that St-Laurent accept the desirability, even the necessity, of the loan. Persuading him that it was in Canada{apos}s interest, not just Britain{apos}s, was a tall hurdle for government economists to surmount, but once convinced, St-Laurent took the lead in defending the loan in parliament in April 1946 and in Quebec against the vitriolic abuse heaped on him by the nationalists, some of them nominal Liberals.

St-Laurent{apos}s career now stood at a turning point. When King returned exhausted from a trip to Europe in August, St-Laurent, as acting prime minister, met him in Montreal. King used the occasion to raise the question of succession. St-Laurent was the logical leader and future prime minister, and King asked him to accept the possibility. He hesitated. Life as a minister had drained his savings. His law practice had suffered, and his sons, though qualified as lawyers, were too inexperienced to take his place. Eventually, however, he accepted King{apos}s proposition, and with it an immediate change in assignment. King broke with tradition and separated the office of secretary of state for external affairs from that of prime minister. St-Laurent thus became minister of external affairs on 4 Sept. 1946 as part of a major cabinet shuffle. He did not see the appointment as definitive. There was still a chance for him to return to private life, or so he assured his colleagues, but these same colleagues, especially Howe, were beginning to think of him for the longer term; it was clear that King{apos}s departure could be postponed no further. On the same day King made another important commitment: he appointed a new under-secretary for external affairs, Lester Bowles Pearson, the former Canadian ambassador in Washington. It was the beginning of a long and advantageous collaboration.

St-Laurent was aware that the international scene was not promising. The Soviet Union, the world centre of communism, was expanding its influence in eastern Europe, already occupied by the Red Army. Soviet policy alarmed the British in particular and they passed their fears on to King during his several visits to London. He hardly needed to be reminded: a Soviet spy ring had been uncovered in Ottawa in September 1945, when a defector, Igor Sergeievich Gouzenko, arrived unexpectedly at St-Laurent{apos}s office. As minister of justice, he followed the subsequent police investigation and the revelations of a royal commission on espionage. He did not need to be told the Soviet Union represented a clash of ideologies that transcended national boundaries. Yet foreign affairs were never an easy issue in Canada because of what were thought to be differing opinions on the subject between English and French Canadians - the latter were assumed to be disengaged and isolationist - and to have them re-emerge as a major question only a year after the war posed a challenge to the King government. Certainly King bore this risk in mind when he appointed a French Canadian to the portfolio.

The Department of External Affairs drew from the Canadian academic elite. Most of its officers were educated abroad, and the department tried to recruit French as well as English Canadians. It might be thought that St-Laurent, who had travelled little until well on into middle age, and the sophisticated members of the foreign service were ill-matched, but that did not prove to be the case. The diplomatic staff appreciated his logical and quick habits of thought and his powers of concentration. They appreciated him even more because they had endured King{apos}s fussiness. St-Laurent was the opposite: courteous and easy to brief, he relied on them to present him with clear recommendations that he would consider on the spot, and then accept or reject. Unlike King, he was accessible and attended his office regularly. Best of all, as senior diplomat Escott Meredith Reid* explained, St-Laurent backed up his staff when they were in difficulty. {d-0}I knew,{d-1} Reid wrote, {d-0}that here was a man who deserved loyalty because he was loyal.{d-1} In a cabinet of strong ministers, St-Laurent distinguished himself by his unusual executive capacity.

The two most important items on St-Laurent{apos}s plate were the confrontation with the Soviet Union - what was coming to be called the Cold War - and a proposal for union with the British colony of Newfoundland. On the Cold War, there was little to be done: its development was beyond Canada{apos}s control and in any case Canadians had no hesitation in taking the side of the West. It would have been impossible to do anything else. On Newfoundland, however, there was a choice. It had remained out of confederation in 1867 [see Sir Ambrose Shea], and had resisted the notion ever since. But the Island{apos}s history as an autonomous jurisdiction had been rocky, and by 1946 some Newfoundlanders, notably Joseph Roberts Smallwood*, were prepared to reconsider union. St-Laurent found the idea of completing confederation highly attractive, and early on he became Newfoundland{apos}s strongest supporter in the King cabinet. He ignored objections from the Quebec government, which had territorial claims against Newfoundland and demanded a right of veto over the admission of any new province. Once again St-Laurent advanced a strong defence of national power, holding that the federal government represented all Canadians. He headed negotiations with Newfoundland in the summer of 1947 and again in the fall of 1948. The discussions bore fruit: on 31 March 1949 it would join Canada, with St-Laurent presiding over the ceremonies in Ottawa as prime minister.

St-Laurent{apos}s main duties in 1947 lay outside the country, in explaining the world to Canadians and Canada to the world. Much of his work had been done. The experience of the war, and reflection on the slide to war in the 1930s, had convinced many that their country could take no refuge in isolation or comfort from its geography. St-Laurent searched for an occasion to define Canada{apos}s foreign policy. He took advantage of an invitation to inaugurate a lecture series at the University of Toronto in January 1947 (the first Gray Lecture) to give what was probably his most notable speech. It was drafted by one of his officers, Robert Gerald Riddell, a former teacher at the university who was familiar with what a Toronto audience would expect. But there was no doubt that St-Laurent was entirely comfortable with the ideas in the speech, which served to define the bases of Canadian foreign policy for the next generation. Not surprisingly, he placed national unity first among the principles that must underlie this policy. A disunited Canada would be powerless, he reminded his audience. The search for national unity did not mean that Canadians should avoid the subject of foreign policy as too dangerous or contentious. They agreed on other principles - political liberty, Christian values, and {d-0}the acceptance of international responsibility{d-1} - and these principles, he argued, justified an active role in international affairs. He prescribed engagement with Britain, the United States, and France, as well as commitment to {d-0}every international organization which contributes to the economic and political stability of the world.{d-1} Seen from St-Laurent{apos}s perspective, foreign policy should unite rather than divide Canadians.

Canada{apos}s response to another focal point of clashing ideologies, Korea, was complicated by King{apos}s lingering interest in the conduct of his old department. In December 1947 St-Laurent supported American attempts within the UN to establish a stable regime in South Korea through elections, and he recommended to the cabinet the appointment of a Canadian to a UN committee to study the subject. The appointment had actually been approved by J. L. Ilsley, now the minister of justice, who was interim head of the Canadian delegation at the UN in New York City at the time, but St-Laurent and his staff saw no reason to object. This minor event triggered an entirely disproportionate reaction from the prime minister, who dreaded the possibility that UN involvement in a difficult international situation might set off a third world war. King demanded that St-Laurent rescind the appointment. St-Laurent, who believed he would be abandoning his staff and another minister, refused. Only when King understood that his chosen successor, and half his cabinet, might resign did he withdraw his demand. The incident {d-0}marked a watershed in the political lives of King and St. Laurent,{d-1} in the estimate of journalist William Bruce Hutchison*.

St-Laurent was already a known quantity around the country, and his cabinet was almost the same as King{apos}s. As prime minister, however, he was very different, though it was a difference best understood in Ottawa. St-Laurent ran the cabinet in his own way. Under him, each minister had his individual responsibility, and he did not intrude unless a subject slopped over departmental boundaries or higher political direction was plainly needed. He shared, however, King{apos}s aversion to foreign travel, believing that the prime minister could ill afford time outside the country. Most trips were left to Pearson or to Martin, often as a delegate to the UN. St-Laurent spent most of his time in Ottawa or at his vacation home, bought in 1950, on the shores of the St Lawrence in Saint-Patrice, Que. He did grudgingly consent to the purchase in 1951 of an official prime-ministerial residence at 24 Sussex Drive in Ottawa, though he insisted on paying rent. It was then that Jeanne St-Laurent moved to Ottawa from their home in Quebec City. As a prime minister{apos}s wife, she was not a major figure. She would go on tour with her husband, but she refused to fly and, according to his biographer, never became reconciled to living in Ottawa.

One duty did involve travel. As party leader, St-Laurent had to show himself in all parts of the country during elections, and following his elevation as prime minister in November, one was due in 1949. The main opposition, the Progressive Conservatives, had a new leader, former Ontario premier George Drew. Handsome and energetic, he promised a change from the Liberals who, he claimed, were tainted with Red connections in the federal bureaucracy. For the public, however, the more important issue was not the Communist menace, which was being contained overseas by NATO and vigorous diplomacy, but Canada{apos}s abounding prosperity. The gross national product had been moving up significantly, unemployment was nearly at low wartime levels, and $634 million had been paid out in 1948 in veterans{s-1-unknown} benefits, health services, family allowances, and old age security. On a western tour in April 1949 St-Laurent recognized this prosperity, unassailably and with a good amount of earnestness. Though in manner he was a shy, rather stiff corporate lawyer (his secretary and later biographer, D. C. Thomson, wrote of his resistance to {d-0}light conversation and exchanges of humour{d-1}), he still had a kindly, grandfatherly appearance enhanced by his immaculate attire and white moustache. During the campaign, a journalist dubbed him Uncle Louis, and the nickname stuck. On 27 June everybody{apos}s favourite uncle led the Liberals to their greatest majority since confederation: 193 of the 262 seats in the commons and almost 50 per cent of the popular vote.

The government{apos}s policy can be summed up as {d-0}managing prosperity,{d-1} through regular budgetary surpluses and modest improvements to social welfare programs. The provinces had blocked any progress toward a comprehensive welfare state and St-Laurent had no ambition to go farther for the time being. (His government would institute universal old-age pensions in 1951.) Foreign investment, overwhelmingly from the United States, drove the economy while exports lagged. In a soft-currency world, there were many trade barriers to be overcome, but Canada did not take the lead. Under St-Laurent and his trade and commerce minister since 1948, C. D. Howe, tariffs were still high. On the other hand, taxes remained low, certainly by comparison with Britain, the rest of Europe, and the United States, which in the 1950s had a more extensive social welfare system than Canada as well as greater burdens for defence.

As prime minister, St-Laurent continued to enjoy an unusual rapport, not just with his cabinet, but also with the senior civil service. For cabinet meetings he carefully readied himself by reading every cabinet paper and consulting with the clerk of the Privy Council and cabinet secretary. {d-0}I did my best to prepare myself,{d-1} one clerk, Robert Broughton Bryce, later recalled, {d-0}but almost invariably the Prime Minister thought of matters that I had overlooked.{d-1} Depending on the same careful groundwork that had served him so well as a lawyer, St-Laurent took the lead in discussions, introducing material, giving {d-0}the pros and cons on each item on the agenda,{d-1} outlining {d-0}his own views, and [asking] for comments,{d-1} according to Mitchell William Sharp*, who as a senior bureaucrat sometimes watched from the sidelines. {d-0}As St. Laurent hated to waste time,{d-1} noted another Privy Council clerk, John Whitney Pickersgill*, {d-0}cabinet meetings were exceedingly business-like.{d-1} Another wrote admiringly that he {d-0}handled his colleagues to a consensus with sure judgment.{d-1} Some ministers received preferential treatment, though in meetings all were accorded equal consideration. The seniors at the table were St-Laurent, Howe, and agriculture minister Jimmy Gardiner. In Gardiner{apos}s opinion St-Laurent did not fully understand the west{apos}s problems, but Gardiner was a loyal minister who ran his own shop and seldom interfered with others, unlike Howe. Other outstanding ministers included Brooke Claxton* in National Health and Welfare, and the charming Douglas Charles Abbott* and then the intelligent if chilly Walter Edward Harris* in Finance. St-Laurent completely trusted Pearson in External Affairs and the confidence was mutual. On the other hand, Pickersgill recalled, {d-0}some ministers were restrained by the fear of appearing ill-informed or ineffective.{d-1} St-Laurent was fortunate that his principal English-speaking colleague, Howe, had no leadership ambitions. He admired Howe{apos}s single-minded decisiveness, and considered his services to Canada second to none. In 1951 he briefly considered making him governor general; this office was traditionally held by British aristocrats and politicians, but St-Laurent, always a positive nationalist, thought Howe had {d-0}earned{d-1} the job. Howe{apos}s lack of tact, in reality, made him a poor choice, and the following year St-Laurent chose Charles Vincent Massey*, a wealthy Torontonian with a diplomatic background.

St-Laurent had a professional interest in the Canadian constitution, and it was to be expected that he would try to reform some of its inconveniences. The constitution, as it affected federal-provincial jurisdiction, was reserved for amendment by the British parliament under the Statute of Westminster in 1931. In the throne speech of September 1949, rejecting opposition demands that provincial consent be obtained first, St-Laurent had announced the abolition of appeals to the JCPC. There was no point in asking Quebec, he told the commons, because Maurice Duplessis would pointlessly object. At the same time he announced that he would seek an amendment to the British North America Act that would allow the Canadian parliament to change the constitution as it affected federal jurisdiction only. He convened a dominion-provincial conference in January 1950 to find a way to amend it, a goal that had escaped justice minister Ernest Lapointe as far back as 1927. These bold moves expressed a clear and uncompromising view. Still, the constitution did not have to be amended to produce practical change in the balance of power between Ottawa and the provinces. War had concentrated revenues and expenditures in Ottawa, and post-war programs, for veterans for example, had kept the balance there. In 1947 most provinces had begun to {d-0}rent{d-1} their tax revenues to Ottawa in return for compensation, a complex exchange that gave rise to agreements in 1947-51 for equalization payments to some underfinanced provinces. These agreements would be renewed with adjustments in 1952. Ontario, which under Drew had abstained from tax rental, later joined the program under St-Laurent and Premier Leslie Miscampbell Frost.

Beginning in 1950 there was even more reason for Ottawa to spend, and spend heavily. The first stage of the Cold War was diplomatic and political, more about confidence than armament. In June 1950 the war became hot, when Communist North Korea invaded anti-Communist South Korea. It was the reaction of the United States that mattered most. President Harry S. Truman surprised the Canadian government - and most of the American government - by intervening in Korea and seeking authorization for his action from the UN. Led by St-Laurent and Pearson, the Canadian government welcomed Truman{apos}s action. Early on St-Laurent promised Canadian support, including military support, to the UN in Korea, and he announced that three Canadian destroyers would join its forces in the Far East. He made it clear that UN authority was a sine qua non for Canadian participation, but that said, the cabinet had to decide how much support to give and what its impact would be on national unity. In Quebec, nationalists compared St-Laurent{apos}s co-operation with the United States to Canada{apos}s old subservience to the British empire. St-Laurent paid no attention. The cabinet brushed aside fears of conscription, and authorized a larger army, an expeditionary force to Korea, a permanent garrison in Europe, and $5 billion for a rearmament program. To launch this program the government created a new department in 1951, Defence Production, and made Howe its minister. He had a reputation for imperiousness, got into trouble in parliamentary debate over the department{apos}s establishment, and had to be rescued by the prime minister, who quieted the political waters.

The program was a success. The size of Canada{apos}s military rose substantially, but otherwise the war did not impinge greatly on Canadian life. Relations with the United States (the alliance leader in Korea and Europe) remained calm. The American government, under both Democratic and Republican administrations, seems to have accepted Canada{apos}s contribution as appropriate. St-Laurent in turn accepted American leadership as desirable and in any case inevitable. As he said in a speech to an American audience in 1949, {d-0}There is only one nation with the wealth and the energy and the knowledge and the skill to give real leadership, and that nation is the United States.{d-1} He confined his contacts with its presidents to bilateral issues, and rejected even the appearance of giving advice on matters of world strategy. A reluctant participant in the Canadian-American-Mexican summit in 1956 at White Sulphur Springs, W.Va, the prime minister saw it primarily as an empty photo opportunity.

Canadian-British relations were also close. The British government, which appreciated Canadian economic aid and found that Canada{apos}s position on international matters often approximated its own, no longer tried to cast an imperial mantle over its policies. Britain was too weak to take much initiative, preferring on most matters to follow the United States and bask in the position of being its chief ally. Although St-Laurent may have been a Canadian nationalist, he was also a traditionalist; he happily hosted the visit of Princess Elizabeth in the fall of 1951 and shepherded a Canadian delegation to her coronation in June 1953. After returning home, he led the Liberals to triumphant re-election in August.

St-Laurent was 71, and he began to consider whether it might not soon be time to step down. There were loose ends to tie up, and a world tour, the first for any Canadian prime minister, beckoned. Late in 1953 he discussed his situation with Howe. They had an understanding, according to Howe, that they would both leave after a year or two in office, but {d-0}unfortunately, our leader changed his mind about retiring, which was a mistake both for him and for the party.{d-1} It did not look as if St-Laurent needed to retire. He set off on his global trip in January 1954, and he made a point of calling on India{apos}s prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, with whom he felt a special rapport. Though Canadian policy valued India as a link between East and West and the developed North and the underdeveloped South, St-Laurent made no secret of Canada{apos}s position in the Cold War, a fact some of his Indian hosts resented. A visit intended to bridge differences may not have done the trick, but he did not notice. He returned triumphantly to snowy Ottawa in March and settled down to business.

Business was not quite the same. The cabinet found St-Laurent had changed: he showed signs of fatigue and, worse, indifference. In debates in the commons, he sat mute, rousing himself only with difficulty to intervene. In the cabinet he sometimes stared out the window, and the meetings drifted. An alarmed Howe asked St-Laurent{apos}s daughter in April 1954 to take him along on a vacation in Bermuda. She did, but the improvement, if any, was temporary. An agreement between an ineffectual prime minister and Duplessis in October over taxation quickly turned to the advantage of Quebec and left Liberals there feeling abandoned. Two years later, in a meeting with American president Dwight David Eisenhower, the silent and withdrawn St-Laurent presented {d-0}an almost pathetic spectacle,{d-1} Canadian ambassador Arnold Danford Patrick Heeney wrote in his diary. There is not much doubt that he was suffering from a form of depression. What brought it on is unclear, but there were plenty of things for him to worry about, most of them personal. Another daughter was unwell, the family{apos}s finances were precarious, and there was some danger that they were spending beyond their income. The family law firm had not prospered under his sons. St-Laurent could not make up his mind what to do, and as problems were postponed, they grew.

The rush of events in 1954 masked St-Laurent{apos}s personal issues. The Canadian and American governments concluded an agreement to build a canal and power project, the St Lawrence Seaway, which contributed to the country{apos}s apparently unending prosperity. At the same time the seaway underlined St-Laurent{apos}s seeming disregard for western Canada, especially the South Saskatchewan water and hydro project, which Jimmy Gardiner had been pushing ceaselessly. Politically, two of the mainstays of St-Laurent{apos}s cabinet chose to retire in June, Douglas Abbott to the Supreme Court and Brooke Claxton to business. St-Laurent was grieved at their departures, which unquestionably affected the government{apos}s effectiveness. This change in personnel also modified expectations for the eventual succession to the prime ministership, leaving only Pearson from the cabinet{apos}s front rank to aspire to the position. (It was well known that Gardiner and Paul Martin also had ambitions in this direction, but their colleagues did not take their prospects seriously.) Suddenly the cabinet took on a patina of age, with half its members near or over 65. Matters drifted. The give-away of wheat by the United States (to subsidize American farmers) undermined exports from western Canada, St-Laurent{apos}s protests to the American government were unavailing.

St-Laurent{apos}s increasingly indifferent direction placed more of a burden on individual ministers, especially Howe, who was not in the best of health himself. The government{apos}s solidarity began to leach away, though the decline was unreflected in public opinion polls, where the Liberals continued to lead, as they had since 1944. Such public projects as the Trans-Canada Highway, the Distant Early Warning Line for air defence, and the Canso Causeway in Nova Scotia drew favourable attention, and Howe was concentrating on a project designed to bring natural gas through a transcontinental pipeline from Alberta to central Canada. It would simultaneously give the country security of energy supply and improve its balance of payments by replacing coal and gas imported from the United States. To do the job, Howe had helped design a private company, Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited, incorporated in 1951. Much of the money and most of the technology would come from the United States, but a crucial part of the funding, for the section passing through unpopulated northern Ontario, where there was no supporting market, would have to be provided by Ottawa.

In the spring of 1956 Howe introduced legislation to provide Trans-Canada with the necessary federal cash. St-Laurent had no objection, and left the matter to his colleague. This was a mistake. There was a deadline on assembling the money, in order to start construction that summer, and all the opposition had to do was delay the bill. To get it passed, the government, again with St-Laurent{apos}s acquiescence rather than his leadership, used the then unusual parliamentary device of closure to limit discussion. The move was a public-relations disaster. As debate raged in the house, St-Laurent sat abstracted, though when he finally roused himself to speak, he uttered a dignified and authoritative summary of the issue, with reasons why the government had to proceed as it did. The majority as well as the minority, he reminded members, had rights and they included the right to pass legislation. The bill passed, and the pipeline eventually snaked from west to east. The government had had its way, but at some cost to its reputation. Opinion polls held, and attempts by the Conservatives to bring on an election foundered on contradictions within their party. In condemning the pipeline, some of them raised the spectre of too close a relationship between the Liberals and the Americans, symbolized by Howe, an immigrant from Massachusetts. That need not have mattered, but in the fall of 1956 the American issue was linked to the question of Canada{apos}s traditional association with the British empire, a subject on which the prime minister now had definite views.

St-Laurent had generally maintained amicable relations with his British counterparts, including the prime minister from 1955 to 1957, the ageing Robert Anthony Eden. Eden tried to rationalize Britain{apos}s foreign commitments, to bring them more into balance with his country{apos}s reduced economic resources. In particular, he had withdrawn the large garrison around the Suez Canal on Egypt{apos}s promise to leave this piece of British property alone. In July 1956, however, the Egyptian government nationalized the canal. Eden{apos}s reaction to this intended provocation was entirely disproportionate. He immediately prepared, with the French, to invade Egypt. Objections were brushed aside and knowing that the Canadians were likely to complain, he told his staff not to inform them; the Americans too were kept in the dark as much as possible. By late October, the British and French had arranged an Israeli invasion of Egypt and, using it as an excuse, they proclaimed they were intervening to protect the canal against a war. Eden sent St-Laurent a letter asking for Canadian understanding.

Eden had deliberately deceived him and Pearson had to work to contain his chief{apos}s fury, while sharing it himself. Pearson prepared a temperate response, placing Canadian policy within the framework of the UN and declining to support the Anglo-French action. When St-Laurent and Pearson brought the issue before the cabinet, some English-speaking ministers argued that such a stand would offend traditionalist Canadian opinion. At the UN, Pearson introduced a proposal for a peacekeeping force that would replace the British and French troops around the canal and cover Israel{apos}s withdrawal. His work drew compliments from around the world, but not in Canada, where the Conservatives, now under John George Diefenbaker, a veteran Saskatchewan mp, made the government{apos}s failure to support Britain the issue. This time St-Laurent was not indifferent. Rebutting Conservative arguments, he told the house on 26 Nov. 1956 that he had been scandalized by the big powers, {d-0}who have all too frequently treated the charter of the United Nations as an instrument with which to regiment smaller nations.{d-1} In response to the derisive interjection from across the floor, asking why the big powers should not be allowed to veto action by the smaller nations, St-Laurent, according to an eyewitness, squared his shoulders defiantly, reddened, and retorted, {d-0}Because the era when the supermen of Europe could govern the whole world is coming pretty close to an end.{d-1} Nothing he said was untrue, but in the heated atmosphere of the nostalgic imperial patriotism that was sweeping through parts of English Canada, he had waved a red flag at a political bull.

The next six months were taken up with housekeeping and anticipation of an election. A Liberal gala in Quebec City to celebrate St-Laurent{apos}s 75th birthday featured an eloquent speech by Howe, who boasted that his friend stood {d-0}in the shade of no man.{d-1} This was St-Laurent{apos}s last hurrah, but no thought was being given to replacing him so close to the election, set for 10 June 1957. The Liberals were ahead in the polls, and St-Laurent was considered to be one of his party{apos}s major assets. One minister reportedly said in private that the party would go with St-Laurent if it had to run with him stuffed. The contest was Canada{apos}s first televised election. St-Laurent did not make much of an impression on the new medium, though the polls, right up to the end, indicated voters still intended to cast their ballots for the Liberals. For the campaign the party had money, but no workers; few of the ministers had much impact outside their ridings, and many stalwarts were dead. Worse, on a variety of issues the Liberals had offended the electorate, from wheat sales (or the lack of them) to the pipeline to the Suez crisis. No single issue would have been fatal, but the combination, joined to an uninspired campaign and an abstracted leader, proved indigestible. As the prime minister travelled through English Canada, hecklers yelled out {d-0}supermen,{d-1} referring not just to his remark about the supermen of Europe but sarcastically to the Liberals as the supermen of Canada. At what should have been the Liberals{s-1-unknown} climactic rally, in Toronto{apos}s Maple Leaf Gardens, St-Laurent looked and sounded out of touch. As Jack Pickersgill later wrote, {d-0}John Diefenbaker did not win the election of 1957; the Liberal party lost it.{d-1} They won more votes than the Conservatives but fewer seats. Half the cabinet was defeated, though St-Laurent comfortably took Quebec East. After a pause, while close races were decided, he determined to leave office. On 21 June the cabinet resigned, Diefenbaker took over, and St-Laurent moved into the unaccustomed job of opposition leader.

St-Laurent spent the summer at Saint-Patrice. In August, Pickersgill visited him there: {d-0}He was obviously deeply depressed, could not be drawn into conversation, and clearly had no interest in his new role.{d-1} St-Laurent{apos}s family now took a hand. They invited two former ministers, Lionel Chevrier and Pearson, to visit and try to persuade their leader that he would not be deserting the party if he resigned. The family asked Pearson to draft a statement of resignation; St-Laurent stared at it, and then gave his consent. According to Chevrier, he did so only after Pearson, whom he considered his logical successor, agreed that he would run to replace him. St-Laurent served as opposition leader for the fall session. At the Liberal convention of January 1958 Pearson was chosen leader, but Diefenbaker did not give him much time to adapt. Taking advantage of some Liberal blunders, he called a new election for 31 March, in which he trounced the Liberals. St-Laurent, who did not run, returned to Quebec and the practice of law.

He was not quite starting over, but even with his prestige he had to cope with the handicap of age. Nevertheless, for some years he practised as he once had, attempting to restore the family fortunes. Old colleagues dropped in from time to time, and among the ministers and mandarins of Ottawa his memory remained green. Apart from them, the ex-prime minister was gradually forgotten. He sometimes attended funerals, including Howe{apos}s in Montreal in January 1961, and was occasionally invited to state occasions, such as the banquet honouring the visit of French president Charles de Gaulle in Quebec in 1967. His wife died in 1966. Still, in some respects his health and mood improved after he left office. He greeted visitors equably. {d-0}I{apos}m just as bright, just as active as I ever was,{d-1} he told Pickersgill. {d-0}And you know, Jack, I{apos}m like that for an hour every day.{d-1} His firm{apos}s fortunes improved, permitting him gradually to fade into the background and let his son Renault-Stephen take the lead. Finally, after years out of the public eye, Louis St-Laurent died in July 1973.

It was St-Laurent{apos}s misfortune to stay in office too long. Afflicted by a form of depression, he was unable to make the best choices for his party or himself, although, where the country was concerned, even his most controversial policies - the pipeline and opposition over Suez - were arguably the right ones. St-Laurent{apos}s time as prime minister passed from public consciousness, remembered if at all as a comfortable era of placid prosperity. Perhaps even the worst prime minister could not have avoided the prosperity, but placidity and comfort are not a bad inheritance to pass to posterity.

The bibliography of Louis St-Laurent is lamentably brief. He is the author of The foundations of Canadian policy in world affairs ([Toronto], 1947) and a selection of his early speeches was published in The Liberal Party personalities and policies: speeches by W. L. Mackenzie King and Louis S. St. Laurent ([Ottawa, 1946?]). There is one standard biography by his former secretary, D. C. Thomson, Louis St. Laurent: Canadian (Toronto, 1967). Thomson had the great advantage of being an eyewitness of the events he described, as well as having contact with St-Laurent on a daily basis. As principal secretary in the Prime Minister{apos}s Office, Thomson presided over the files and was in charge of moving them when St-Laurent ceased to be prime minister in 1957. Those that survived the move do not present a complete record of St-Laurent{apos}s time as prime minister. The best that can be said is that they are spotty; occasionally, they are entirely lacking. They are preserved at Library and Arch. Canada (Ottawa), MG 26, L. There is a great deal of information in Thomson{apos}s biography, based on his personal familiarity with the subject, that cannot be found anywhere else.

The second essential book on St-Laurent is J. W. Pickersgill, My years with Louis St-Laurent: a political memoir (Toronto and Buffalo, N.Y., 1975). Pickersgill was clerk of the Privy Council and later a minister under St-Laurent, and he kept up an acquaintance with him until the latter{apos}s death. His book represents the common view among the senior civil servants in Ottawa of St-Laurent{apos}s character and achievements. {d-0}Jack thought St-Laurent was his mother,{d-1} Thomson once quipped, and certainly the portrait Pickersgill paints is affectionate, though not entirely uncritical.

St-Laurent{apos}s life is best remembered in terms of his impact on others, or in terms of its effects. Three biographies, Robert Bothwell and William Kilbourn, C. D. Howe: a biography (Toronto, 1979), D. J. Bercuson, True patriot: the life of Brooke Claxton, 1898-1960 (Toronto, 1993), and John English, The life of Lester Pearson (2v., Toronto, 1989-93), contain material bearing on St-Laurent{apos}s performance as a minister and prime minister. A more general assessment of the St-Laurent government may be found in Bothwell et al., Canada since 1945: power, politics and provincialism (rev. ed., Toronto, 1989).

In his memoirs John Diefenbaker describes his ancestors as {d-0}dispossessed Scottish Highlanders and discontented Palatine Germans.{d-1} His paternal grandfather, George M. Diefenbacker (Diefenbach or Diefenbacher), was born in the Grand Duchy of Baden (Germany). In the 1850s he immigrated to Upper Canada, where he married and worked as a wagon maker. His son William, one of seven children, was born in April 1868, attended school in Hawkesville and Berlin (Kitchener), Ont., and received a teaching certification from the Model School in Ottawa in 1891. In May 1894 he married Mary Bannerman, whose grandparents had lost their Scottish tenancies during the land clearances of 1811-12 in Sutherland. They had been members of the third party of immigrants that Lord Selkirk [Douglas*] brought to the Red River settlement (Man.), arriving via Hudson Bay in June 1814. After one harsh winter they travelled by canoe brigade to Upper Canada and finally settled in what would become Bruce County, where their granddaughter Mary was born in 1872.

William and Mary Diefenbaker were living an itinerant life when their first son, John, was born in 1895. A brother, Elmer Clive, arrived in 1897. During John{apos}s early years, the family followed William from one low-paying teaching job to another, first in Neustadt, then in Greenwood, then in Todmorden. Young John began his schooling at age four in his father{apos}s classroom. In 1903, suffering from debt and ill health, William sought a teaching post in the North-West Territories and was offered work in the Tiefengrund Public School District near the site of Fort Carlton (Sask.), halfway on the wagon route between Winnipeg and Edmonton. For two winters the Diefenbakers lived in primitive quarters attached to the rural schoolroom, supplementing their income with gifts of vegetables, sausages, and firewood from their farming neighbours. In December 1904, on payment of a $10 registration fee, William took possession of a quarter-section homestead in nearby Borden, but a lack of capital prevented him from occupying the land until the summer of 1906. In the interim, the family moved once more, to Hague for the winter of 1905-6, where William taught school and served as village secretary.

In the summer of 1906 the Diefenbakers took up their property, built a three-room frame house, a barn, and a shack, planted a garden, broke ten acres of grassland for crops, and welcomed William{apos}s bachelor brother Edward Lackner to a neighbouring homestead. The two brothers found teaching jobs at local one-room schools - William at Hoffnungsfeld and Edward at Halcyonia - and that autumn John entered grade 7 at his uncle{apos}s school. For three harsh winters the family survived on the homestead, but in 1910, after satisfying the minimal residence requirement for full title to the land, the Diefenbakers departed for Saskatoon, where William found work as a clerk in the provincial public service. In 1911 he became an inspector in the customs office, where he remained until his retirement in 1937.

John attended the Saskatoon Collegiate Institute for two years. With his mother{apos}s encouragement he entered the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon in the autumn of 1912 to study arts and law. His early university record was undistinguished. He already had a political career in mind; in later years his family recalled that his ambition to be prime minister had been expressed before he was ten. In the spring of 1914 he took up a contract teaching primary school in the Wheat Heart Public School District. In October, after teaching for five months of the seven-month contract, he made an unusual arrangement to delegate completion of the school term to his uncle Edward in order to return to university. Subsequently Diefenbaker sought payment of what he claimed was a deficiency in his salary, a claim rejected by the school board and the Department of Education.

In the spring of 1915 Diefenbaker received his ba and that autumn he returned to university for an ma in political science and economics. Meanwhile, World War I had become a contest of steady slaughter on the Western Front. In March 1916 he enlisted for officers{s-1-unknown} training and was commissioned a lieutenant in the infantry. He received his ma in absentia and, after a month of lectures and drill, he undertook three months of articling in a Saskatoon law office before requesting an overseas posting in August. He sailed for England in September as a member of the 196th (Western Universities) Battalion and spent the autumn at camps in Shorncliffe and Crowborough. After a few months he was found medically unfit for service at the front and in February 1917 he returned to Canada. He was demobilized in December and denied a pension sought on grounds of disability. The military records and his own account of this episode are contradictory and were never reconciled during his lifetime; the official records suggest that he was judged unfit because of {d-0}general weakness{d-1} without demonstration of any physical disability, while he claimed to have been injured by a falling pickaxe. During the 1920s he showed gastric symptoms consistent with a possible diagnosis of psychosomatic illness in 1916-17. Similar cases of neurasthenia, more or less intense, would be common in both world wars.

After returning to Saskatoon, Diefenbaker articled in three law firms during 1918-19 and attended classes in law at the university. He received one year{apos}s credit in law school for his undergraduate courses in law and an additional year{apos}s credit as a veteran. In May 1919 he obtained his llb. At his request, the Law Society of Saskatchewan granted him two years{s-1-unknown} exemption from articling and in June 1919 he was called to the bar. He opened his first office in Wakaw, 40 miles north of Saskatoon. Wakaw was a thriving market town of 400 in a farming district settled by immigrants from central and eastern Europe. It was on the district court circuit and had easy access by rail and road to high court sessions in Saskatoon, Prince Albert, and Humboldt. The tall, thin young man with deep blue eyes and wavy black hair, dressed soberly in a dark three-piece suit, made an immediate and striking impression in the small town.

Diefenbaker{apos}s first court case involved the defence of a client accused of careless wounding with a rifle. The assailant had immediately offered first aid and turned himself in to the police. Diefenbaker argued successfully in October 1919 that the shooting was an error committed in the fading evening light. He was soon busy with other cases and within a year he was able to move to larger offices and buy a Maxwell touring car. In the fall of 1920 he was elected to the Wakaw village council for a three-year term. In his first widely noticed case, he acted on appeal for clients from the French-speaking community in the Ethier Public School District, defending two school trustees against a charge that they had violated the province{apos}s School Act by permitting teaching in French. Although the court found that the act had indeed been violated, he won the appeal in May 1922 on the technical ground that trustees could not be held responsible for the internal operations of the school. He became known as a defender of minorities and his legal fees in the case were paid by the Association Catholique Franco-Canadienne de la Saskatchewan.

Although Diefenbaker{apos}s civil case list grew, his reputation would be founded on his record as a criminal defence lawyer. In the courtroom he discovered and honed his dramatic genius. He mastered juries with his powerful and edgy voice, his penetrating stare, his waving arm and accusatory finger, his ridicule and sarcasm, and his command of evidence and the law. He identified naturally with the dispossessed and the poor, with all those who lacked the wealth, power, and confidence of the British Canadian mainstream; and he argued his cases with passion. Saskatchewan was fertile ground for these talents. In 1924 he took on a partner, Alexander Ehman, in his Wakaw office and moved his own practice to Prince Albert. Two other partners succeeded Ehman before Diefenbaker closed the Wakaw branch in 1929.

The young lawyer{apos}s father had been a supporter of Liberal prime minister Sir Wilfrid Laurier. As a repatriated soldier, Diefenbaker had supported the Union government of Sir Robert Laird Borden in the election of 1917, although he was opposed to the War-time Elections Act, which deprived recently naturalized Canadians of the vote. In 1921 his political affiliation was uncertain. He admired Andrew Knox, the mp for Prince Albert who had successfully shifted his candidacy from the Unionists to the Progressive Party, but he kept his own political views private. He would later say that the Liberal Party, which dominated Saskatchewan politics in the 1920s, hoped to recruit him, but claimed that {d-0}I was never keen.{d-1} In 1925 his name was proposed and rejected for nomination as a Liberal in the June provincial election, but on 6 August he was acclaimed as the Conservative candidate for Prince Albert in the forthcoming federal election. {d-0}I haven{apos}t spent a lifetime with this party,{d-1} he would reflect in 1969. {d-0}I chose it because of certain basic principles and those . . . were the empire relationship of the time, the monarchy and the preservation of an independent Canada.{d-1} But he distrusted the Ontario-centred policies of the party and disagreed publicly with its leader, Arthur Meighen, who opposed completion of the Hudson Bay Railway and threatened to change the railway freight rates benefiting the movement of the prairie grain crop. On the hustings Diefenbaker campaigned feverishly and responded angrily to the insult that he was a {d-0}Hun.{d-1} Despite Conservative gains elsewhere in the election of 29 October, the party won no seats in Saskatchewan. In Prince Albert, Diefenbaker ran third and lost his deposit.

The Liberal victor in Prince Albert, Charles McDonald, almost immediately resigned his seat to make way for Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King, who had lost his own seat in York North. The Conservative Party did not nominate against him, although Diefenbaker privately encouraged the entry of an independent candidate. King won easily. In late June 1926 his government resigned in what became known as the King-Byng affair and was replaced by Meighen{apos}s Conservatives, who were defeated at once in the House of Commons. The house was dissolved for a September election. Diefenbaker stood again in Prince Albert, facing the former prime minister in a two-way contest. Once again he was at odds with his own leader, who opposed King{apos}s recently established old-age pension scheme and maintained his unpopular views on freight rates and the Hudson Bay Railway. King{apos}s Liberal Party was returned to power with an absolute majority, while the Conservatives lost all but one seat in the three prairie provinces.

Despite his electoral losses Diefenbaker was beginning to attract attention elsewhere in the country. When he made his first political journey out of Saskatchewan in 1926 to address a Conservative convention in British Columbia, he was described by the journalist William Bruce Hutchison* as {d-0}tall, lean, almost skeletal, his bodily motions jerky and spasmodic, his face pinched and white, his pallor emphasized by metallic black curls and sunken, hypnotic eyes.{d-1} Yet from this {d-0}frail, wraithlike person,{d-1} continued Hutchison, {d-0}a voice of vehement power and rude health blared like a trombone.{d-1}.

Diefenbaker attended the 1927 federal leadership convention in Winnipeg that chose Calgary millionaire Richard Bedford Bennett to replace Meighen and became Bennett{apos}s admirer as he rebuilt the national party. In Saskatchewan the Conservatives prepared to confront the entrenched provincial Liberal government, whose strength lay in its good relations with the grain growers{s-1-unknown} associations and the large, mostly Catholic, immigrant communities. The Conservatives turned elsewhere for support. From 1926 to 1928 a ragtag Canadian offshoot of the Ku Klux Klan created more than 100 local branches in the province, appealing to anti-Catholic, anti-French, and anti-immigrant sentiments. Although Diefenbaker was never a member, his party was caught up in this bigoted wave of nativism, reflecting or tolerating support for extremist views at its 1928 convention in Saskatoon and during a by-election in Arm River later that year. During the by-election campaign Diefenbaker shared the platform several times with one of the Klan{apos}s promoters, James Fraser Bryant, and at one campaign meeting he challenged Premier James Garfield Gardiner* over the {d-0}sectarian influences . . . pervading the entire education system.{d-1} The Liberal Party won by a narrow margin, but Conservatives drew the lesson that extreme claims could win votes. They carried their anti-Catholic message into the provincial election of 6 June 1929, emphasizing the issues of race, religion, language, and immigration. Diefenbaker was the Conservative candidate in Prince Albert and was promised the attorney generalship in the event of victory. He lost the contest to the sitting Liberal, Thomas Clayton Davis, but Gardiner{apos}s Liberals were replaced by a Conservative minority government dependent on Progressive support. The Klan soon disappeared from Saskatchewan.

In the summer of 1928 Diefenbaker had become engaged to Edna Brower, a vivacious Saskatoon schoolteacher. They were married three weeks after the provincial election. Edna was an immediate asset to the aspiring politician, offsetting his dour presence with her warmth and spontaneity. She was resented by Diefenbaker{apos}s mother, however, who insisted that she remain first in her son{apos}s affections. John maintained close ties with his parents, making frequent visits to Saskatoon at their call. He also played a protective and dominating role towards his brother, Elmer, who now occupied part of the Diefenbaker law office in Prince Albert as an insurance broker and minor entrepreneur. Edna was closely involved in Diefenbaker{apos}s legal life, watching and commenting on his courtroom behaviour, observing the reactions of judges and juries, and offering support and reassurance to his clients.

In the late 1920s Diefenbaker defended four men on charges of murder. In the first case, The King v. Bourdon in 1927, he appeared as junior counsel, but afterwards always acted as lead. The defendant was found not guilty. The following year, in The King v. Olson, Diefenbaker requested on appeal that a conviction for murder be quashed on the ground that the trial judge had improperly directed the jury. The judgement was sustained, but on the court{apos}s recommendation Diefenbaker petitioned for mercy, claiming that the defendant had been mentally incapable of standing trial. The federal cabinet commuted the sentence to life imprisonment. He was similarly successful in The King v. Pasowesty in having a death sentence commuted to life imprisonment. In The King v. Wysochan he defended his client by arguing that the murder had been committed by the victim{apos}s husband. The defendant was convicted, the appeal was dismissed, the federal cabinet denied a reprieve, and Alex Wysochan was hanged in the Prince Albert jail in June 1930.

As the great depression deepened on the prairies into a descending spiral of drought, crop failure, debt, and unemployment, the new provincial government lost its revenues and its sense of direction. Diefenbaker{apos}s law practice in Prince Albert contracted modestly, but he was able to maintain a comfortable income throughout the 1930s. In 1932 his law partner, William G. Elder, departed in conflict, he claimed, over finances and ethics. The following year Diefenbaker recruited John Marcel Cuelenaere as an articling student. Cuelenaere would stay on as his partner until 1957 and, as a Liberal partisan, would later serve as mayor of Prince Albert, an mla, and a provincial cabinet minister.

Meanwhile, Diefenbaker continued to admire Bennett{apos}s leadership. After the prime minister announced his New Deal in January 1935, Diefenbaker wrote that Bennett{apos}s radical proposals {d-0}have given our rank and file something to enthuse over - a new hope and a new spirit.{d-1} But the federal government was divided and demoralized by the continuing depression. In July 1935 Diefenbaker turned down an offer of the federal nomination in Prince Albert. He campaigned for the party during the October election, only to see its prospects shattered once more in a national Liberal landslide. In Saskatchewan the Conservatives elected only one member in the province{apos}s 21 seats. Bennett led the opposition for another three years while King returned to the prime ministership.

After its electoral defeat in 1934, the Saskatchewan Conservative Party had led a ghostly existence with no more than a handful of activists. In August 1935 Diefenbaker inherited the post of acting president of the provincial party. He hesitated in calling a leadership convention until October 1936. One week before the convention he presented his candidacy and on 28 October he was acclaimed party leader, promising a platform that would be {d-0}radical in the sense that the reform program of the Honourable R. B. Bennett was radical.{d-1} The Leader-Post (Regina) commented that he {d-0}thunders forth his convictions and ideas in resonant tones of purposeful youth.{d-1} For 18 months Diefenbaker ran the party from his law office while Cuelenaere carried the firm{apos}s legal work. Diefenbaker appealed fruitlessly to the national party for financial aid and travelled the province seeking potential candidates. When a general election was called for June 1938 he was nominated in Arm River and took a personal loan to pay the nomination deposits for 21 other candidates. The party{apos}s moderately progressive program called for refinancing the provincial debt, an adjustment of farm debts, a study of crop insurance or acreage payments, and a commitment in principle to public health insurance. The Conservatives were barely visible in a campaign dominated by the incumbent Liberals, the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF), and the Social Credit. The Liberal government was re-elected with 38 seats against 14 opponents, none of them Conservative. The Conservative Party{apos}s vote fell to 12 per cent, but no one blamed the leader for the result. When the party met in convention four months later, Diefenbaker{apos}s resignation was unanimously refused and he remained leader by default for two more years.

During the 1930s Diefenbaker served as defence counsel in four well-publicized murder trials. In The King v. Bajer his client, a destitute young woman with two children, was found not guilty of suffocating her newborn child. He was unsuccessful in The King v. Bohun, his client being found guilty of murdering a storekeeper. The jury{apos}s recommendation for clemency was rejected and Steve Bohun was hanged in the Prince Albert jail in March 1934. After a raucous preliminary hearing in The King v. Fouquette, the crown stayed charges through lack of evidence and the murder remained unsolved. In The King v. Harms Diefenbaker called for a verdict of manslaughter in an unwitnessed alcoholic killing. John Harms was convicted of murder, but Diefenbaker successfully appealed on the ground of an improper charge to the jury. At the second trial he presented meticulous evidence of Harms{apos}s intoxication and won conviction on the reduced charge. Harms was sentenced to a prison term of 15 years.

Diefenbaker{apos}s political ambitions remained focused on national rather than provincial politics. By the spring of 1939 he was making tentative plans for a nomination in Lake Centre, the federal counterpart of his provincial constituency. On 15 June he was acclaimed the Conservative candidate and began intensive preparations for an election the following year. When Germany invaded Poland in September, the Conservative Party declared its solidarity with the King government{apos}s declaration of war. Arrangements for the election campaign were suspended, and commenced again only when the house was dissolved in January 1940. King campaigned confidently as a wartime incumbent, while the Conservatives under Robert James Manion* were divided and disorganized. In Lake Centre, Diefenbaker called for a statutory floor price for wheat, asserted his own loyal service in World War I, and attacked the King government for its {d-0}marked tendency towards dictatorship.{d-1} The Liberal Party won an overwhelming majority on 26 March. Manion was defeated, but Diefenbaker gained a narrow victory as one of two successful Conservatives from Saskatchewan. After five successive electoral defeats, he would never suffer another.

As one of 40 Conservatives in the new house, Diefenbaker was appointed to the house committee on the defence of Canada regulations, reviewing wartime emergency measures. He made his maiden speech on this subject with a strong declaration of patriotism, supporting wartime restriction of liberty and calling for national registration of adult males. Under the War Measures Act, the cabinet governed for the next five years by decree, while the role of the house was reduced to approval of the annual budget and spending estimates and modest questioning of the war effort within the self-imposed limits of general loyalty. Diefenbaker quickly established himself as one of the opposition{apos}s most effective critics, emphasizing the need for conscription for overseas military service and criticizing the cabinet{apos}s contempt for the role of parliament.

In the autumn of 1941 a meeting of the national party association chose the former leader, Senator Arthur Meighen, as Conservative chief. Meighen declared that he would pursue a program of coalition and resigned his senatorship to run in York South. The Liberal Party did not contest the by-election, but covertly aided the CCF candidate, who emerged victorious. This defeat - and the Liberal government{apos}s political shrewdness - left the Conservatives in confusion. While Meighen pondered a leadership convention, a group of party activists met in Port Hope, Ont., in September 1942 to draft a progressive and internationalist program that might counter the growing challenge of the CCF. The conference reaffirmed the party{apos}s belief in private enterprise and individual initiative, but also called for a wide range of social benefits and limited state intervention. When the leadership convention was scheduled for December, the chief organizers of the Port Hope conference were given prominent roles. Meanwhile, Meighen set out to arrange the draft of the Liberal-Progressive premier of Manitoba, John Bracken*, as party leader. When the convention opened in Winnipeg, four western candidates, including Diefenbaker, had declared themselves. Bracken joined the race at the last possible moment and won easily on the second ballot. Diefenbaker ran a respectable third. His nomination speech had incorporated the progressive vision of the Port Hope resolutions, together with a plea for the {d-0}preservation of Canada within the British Empire{d-1} and {d-0}the security of the common man.{d-1} He came out of the meeting with his reputation and friendships enhanced. The party had adopted a socially progressive platform satisfying to him and, at Bracken{apos}s insistence, it would henceforth be known as the Progressive Conservative Party.

Bracken led the party listlessly for three more years. Meanwhile, Diefenbaker solidified his reputation as an mp, supporting progressive causes and criticizing the government for maintaining wartime regulations in peacetime and ignoring the rights of individuals. In 1946 he proposed a bill of rights {d-0}under which freedom of religion, of speech, of association . . . freedom from capricious arrest and freedom under the rule of law{d-1} would be guaranteed. He told the house that his goal was to see {d-0}an unhyphenated nation{d-1} in which citizens of many origins and religions would be regarded and treated equally. The call for a Canadian bill of rights became his leitmotif.

Despite (and partly because of) his growing public reputation, Diefenbaker remained an outsider in the Conservative caucus, regarded by other members as aloof, temperamental, and too much the showman. In Ontario, party barons viewed him as erratic and unreliable. When he contested the leadership for the second time at the convention in the autumn of 1948, it was no surprise that he lost on the first ballot to the premier of Ontario, George Alexander Drew. On 27 June 1949 the Liberal government went to the polls under its new prime minister, Louis-Stephen St-Laurent, who campaigned on a bland program of prosperity and growth. The government{apos}s majority increased and Conservative seats fell from 67 to 41, but in Saskatchewan Diefenbaker added almost 2,000 votes to his majority and remained the sole Conservative member.

During 1945-46 Edna Diefenbaker had suffered several months of illness, identified as severe depression, but she returned to good health in 1947. In the fall of 1950, however, she was diagnosed with acute leukaemia and she died in February 1951. In the House of Commons, three mps - Arthur Laing, Howard Charles Green*, and Gardiner - offered unprecedented eulogies to a colleague{apos}s wife. For months Diefenbaker was overwhelmed by this loss. Two years later he married a childhood friend, the widowed Olive Freeman Palmer, a senior civil servant in Ontario{apos}s Department of Education. For the rest of his political career, Olive gave John her loyal support, discreetly encouraging his ambitions and reinforcing his beliefs. Her regal presence on platforms at his side gave him strength and reassurance.

Diefenbaker{apos}s candidacy was taken for granted. It was boosted by support from vigorous provincial parties in Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Manitoba. Despite brief efforts to create a {d-0}Stop Diefenbaker{d-1} campaign in Ontario, he was the instant favourite over his opponents, Donald Methuen Fleming* and Edmund Davie Fulton*. In his nomination speech Diefenbaker called on the party to banish a sense of defeatism. According to his Quebec supporter Pierre Sévigny*, {d-0}As he proceeded, the magnetism of the man, the hypnotic qualities which were to entrance a whole nation came to the fore. He spoke with an obvious sincerity and an inspired fervour.{d-1} Diefenbaker won a decisive victory on the first ballot.

The Liberal government remained complacent as it prepared for an early summer election in 1957. By contrast, Diefenbaker, despite his 61 years, injected energy and ideas into his reviving party with the assistance of his policy adviser, Merril Warren Menzies. Inspired by Menzies, and in his own visionary language, Diefenbaker put forward a program of national economic development aimed primarily at growth in the Atlantic provinces, the north, and the west. For three months he led a feverish national campaign with the assistance of campaign manager Allister Grosart, advertising director Dalton Kingsley Camp*, and the efficient organization of Leslie Miscampbell Frost{apos}s Ontario Conservative Party. In Quebec the party received discreet assistance from the Union Nationale machine of Premier Maurice Le Noblet Duplessis*. With freshly enhanced funding the party was able to contribute generously to local campaigns in all provinces. Diefenbaker{apos}s message to voters was positive, even utopian, recalling the party{apos}s role in the country{apos}s foundation under Sir John A. Macdonald. {d-0}We intend to launch a National Policy of development in the Northern areas which may be called the New Frontier Policy,{d-1} he promised. {d-0}Macdonald was concerned with the opening of the West. We are concerned with developments in the Provinces . . . and in our Northern Frontier in particular. . . . The North, with all its vast resources and hidden wealth - the wonder and the challenge of the North must become our national consciousness.{d-1} The party campaigned on a personalized slogan, {d-0}It{apos}s time for a Diefenbaker government,{d-1} and the country awoke on 10 June to a surprise Conservative victory of 112 seats to the Liberals{s-1-unknown} 105; the CCF (with 25 seats) and Social Credit (with 19) held the balance of power. Diefenbaker took office on 17 June 1957 as leader of a minority government.

In his administration{apos}s early days Diefenbaker made a public commitment to divert 15 per cent of Canada{apos}s foreign trade from the United States to the United Kingdom. The promise would remain unfulfilled despite his government{apos}s continuing efforts to lessen dependence on the American market and to promote trade with the British Commonwealth. Beyond this initial misstep, the new government proceeded boldly with an ambitious legislative program of farm price supports, housing loans, aid for development projects across the country, tax reductions, and increases in old-age pensions and civil service salaries. Public opinion polls showed strong support for the new government. When the Liberal leader, Lester Bowles Pearson, moved a motion of no-confidence proposing that the Conservatives hand power back to the Liberals, Diefenbaker seized the occasion to request a dissolution of parliament for an election in March 1958.

Diefenbaker{apos}s 1958 platform was a simplified and more exuberant version of the party{apos}s 1957 program, involving a new vision of the nation both economic and spiritual. He preached a populist, secular faith. {d-0}Everywhere I go,{d-1} he declared, {d-0}I see that uplift in people{apos}s eyes that comes from raising their sights to see the Vision of Canada in days ahead.{d-1} Diefenbaker{apos}s rhetoric caught the public mood. His campaign swept the country in a wave of euphoric enthusiasm. The posters called for voters to {d-0}Follow John{d-1} and the electorate responded by granting the Conservatives an astonishing 208 of 265 seats, including 50 in Quebec. In his victory speech Diefenbaker declared that {d-0}the Conservative Party has become a truly national party composed of all the people of Canada of all races united in the concept of one Canada.{d-1} His {d-0}Vision{d-1} had raised public expectations beyond the possibility of satisfaction. He would need rare skill and good fortune to avoid a crashing descent from those heights.

The prime minister{apos}s initial decisions in foreign and defence policy, however, were taken confidently and decisively. They involved Canada{apos}s defence relationship with the United States, and were made in an atmosphere of cordiality with the American administration of President Dwight David Eisenhower - whose view of the threat from the Soviet Union during the Cold War was fully shared by Diefenbaker. The decisions grew naturally out of cooperation between the previous Liberal government and the United States and intensified Canadian absorption into the American military system. In July 1957 Diefenbaker and defence minister Pearkes - acting without consultation in cabinet - committed Canada to participation in the integrated North American Air Defence Agreement, known as NORAD. In 1958 Diefenbaker agreed with the United States to locate two short-range Bomarc anti-aircraft missile bases in northern Ontario and Quebec and to arm the missiles, once installed, with nuclear warheads. This decision at first caused little controversy.

In February 1959 (after ambiguous warnings had been delivered to the manufacturers in previous months) Diefenbaker announced the immediate cancellation of development of the Avro Arrow (CF-105), a Canadian-designed, advanced interceptor aircraft being built in Toronto. The Arrow decision raised questions about the government{apos}s style and judgement and eventually weakened Diefenbaker{apos}s confidence in his own political intuitions. In subsequent years the Arrow would become a cult symbol of mistakenly abandoned Canadian industrial and military opportunities, although in the cooler light of financial and military prudence the decision could easily be justified.

In opposition Diefenbaker had been a renowned champion of civil liberties. In 1958, as prime minister, he promised to protect rights {d-0}defined and guaranteed in precise and practical terms to all men by the law of the land.{d-1} After two years of intense discussion on the merits of a constitutional amendment binding on all levels of government versus the passage of declaratory federal legislation, he opted for an ordinary act of parliament which would not become lost in controversy over amending the constitution. The bill, he declared, would serve to educate citizens on their existing rights and would act as a restraint and a guide for federal lawmakers. Diefenbaker acknowledged - in the absence of a constitutional amendment - that his bill was only a first step for Canada, but it was nevertheless a pledge to all citizens that their rights would henceforth be respected. He told the house what this change would mean for him: {d-0}I know something of what it has meant in the past for some to regard those with names of other than British or French origin as not being that kind of Canadian that those of British or French origin could claim to be.{d-1} The bill was adopted unanimously in August 1960, and in retrospect Diefenbaker regarded it as his outstanding achievement. It contained two escape clauses, one permitting parliament to override the guarantees contained in the act, providing legislation specified that it had been adopted {d-0}notwithstanding the Canadian Bill of Rights,{d-1} and a second exemption for actions taken under the War Measures Act. The act was interpreted cautiously by the courts, but had an exemplary political importance. Under Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau, it would be transmuted into the more comprehensive Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, containing the same exemptions. In 1960 as well, parliament extended the federal franchise to Canada{apos}s aboriginal population.

The following year the Diefenbaker cabinet dealt with another issue of conscience long troubling to the prime minister. For three years after assuming power, cabinet had reviewed every criminal conviction involving the death penalty in time-consuming and anguishing detail, confirming some sentences and commuting others. Their task was eased after passage of justice minister Fulton{apos}s amendments to the Criminal Code, which created two categories of murder and limited the death penalty to a narrow range of deliberate offences.

The Diefenbaker government{apos}s first budget, in 1958, had held the line on further spending in the face of an economic slowdown, but the prime minister{apos}s preference for aid to prairie farmers and an uncoordinated program of development projects in the Atlantic provinces and the west progressively undermined the highly conservative instincts of finance minister Fleming. Annual budgets fell into deficit. Beyond his conviction that fairness required a new concern for the poor, the unemployed, the ill, and the elderly, Diefenbaker lacked any coherent economic strategy. As unemployment continued to grow in 1959, 1960, and 1961 despite infusions of fresh public spending, he was troubled by Liberal claims that {d-0}Tory times are hard times{d-1} and haunted by memories of Bennett{apos}s loss of power in 1935. Under relentless pressure from the cabinet for expansionary policies, Fleming came to share Diefenbaker{apos}s belief that the restoration of prosperity was hindered by the Bank of Canada{apos}s restrictive interest rate policy and the outspokenness of its governor, James Elliott Coyne. For five months in 1961 Diefenbaker and Fleming engaged in an unseemly public battle with the governor, as they sought his resignation. Coyne{apos}s refusal prompted the government to introduce legislation dismissing him, but that was frustrated by a Liberal majority in the Senate. On 14 July, once Coyne was allowed to make his case before a Senate committee, he offered the resignation he had previously refused. The conflict resulted in agreements between the bank and the government to avoid similar disputes in the future, but the immediate political effect was to undermine popular faith in the competence of the Diefenbaker regime.

Despite his vehement rejection of the South African policy of apartheid, Diefenbaker was hesitant to consider exclusion of South Africa from membership in the British Commonwealth on the ground that the association should not interfere in the domestic affairs of its members. Political pressure for action intensified after disorders and a police massacre of peaceful demonstrators in Sharpeville in March 1960. At a meeting of Commonwealth prime ministers in May Diefenbaker worked with Prime Minister Macmillan to avoid a split among the leaders along racial lines. They found their escape in convenient delay. The conference offered South Africa time to revise its policies by agreeing that in the event it chose to become a republic, it would have to request consent from other Commonwealth members for readmission to the association. When South Africa{apos}s whites voted that October in favour of a republic, Prime Minister Hendrik Frensch Verwoerd announced that he would seek continuing Commonwealth membership at the meeting in March 1961. Diefenbaker arrived at that meeting carrying divided counsels on South Africa, some calling for its exclusion, some for renewal of its membership coupled with a Commonwealth statement on racial equality, and others for further delay. As the conference opened he was undecided, but at the suggestion of Bryce he advocated a declaration of principles to be adopted before a decision on South Africa{apos}s readmission. The effect would be to force a choice on South Africa rather than on the other members. When Verwoerd called for additional wording which would exclude his country{apos}s practices from blame, Diefenbaker sided with the non-white leaders in rejecting the proposal. Verwoerd withdrew the South African application and left the meeting. Following South Africa{apos}s departure, the conference dropped the effort to adopt a declaration of principles, but Diefenbaker told reporters that non-discrimination was an {d-0}unwritten principle{d-1} of the association and that it was {d-0}in keeping with the course of my life.{d-1} He accepted the outcome as the least divisive one possible and received wide praise at home and abroad for his defence of the principle of non-discrimination.

As president of the United States, Eisenhower had showed constant respect and consideration toward his northern colleague. Potential points of friction in joint defence policy and other matters were handled from Washington with amicable deference or delay. As his last official act before departing office, Eisenhower invited Diefenbaker to the White House for a ceremonial signing of the contentious Columbia River Treaty on 17 Jan. 1961. The easy political relationship died when John Fitzgerald Kennedy became president. Kennedy was young, brash, wealthy, and an eastern sophisticate whose manner grated on the prime minister. To Diefenbaker{apos}s intense annoyance, Kennedy called him {d-0}Diefenbawker{d-1} when he first became president. Although their initial meeting in Washington on 20 February was superficially cordial, Kennedy told his brother Robert Francis that {d-0}I don{apos}t want to see that boring son of a bitch again,{d-1} and the American administration began almost at once to show impatience over Canada{apos}s hesitation to negotiate agreements on dual control of the nuclear warheads intended for Canadian Bomarc missiles. When Kennedy visited Ottawa in May 1961 tensions intensified. Diefenbaker explained his political difficulty in accepting possession of nuclear warheads in the face of growing anti-nuclear sentiment across the country; Kennedy responded that failure to arm the new weapons would turn Canada into a neutralist in the Cold War. When Diefenbaker accidentally discovered a confidential White House memorandum advising Kennedy {d-0}to push{d-1} Canada on a number of issues, the prime minister chose to ignore the advice of his staff to return it, instead filing it away for potential future use against the president. (It would be leaked during the 1963 election campaign.) Formal negotiations for an agreement on the warheads made no progress in this atmosphere of distrust - although at the time Kennedy made no public complaint over Canada{apos}s hesitation.

Meanwhile, the Diefenbaker government{apos}s good relations with the British government were fading. Macmillan{apos}s initial respect cooled as Diefenbaker took an unexpectedly strong and decisive position on the subject of South African membership in the Commonwealth, and effectively disappeared when Canada criticized the British application for entry into the European Economic Community, or Common Market. Diefenbaker and his high commissioner, Drew, regarded the application as a betrayal of Canada{apos}s sentiments and economic interests and acted to subvert its success in the absence of firm trading guarantees for Commonwealth members. Diefenbaker made frequent complaints about Britain{apos}s lack of consultation with its Commonwealth partners on the subject and privately took satisfaction at hints of French intransigence. (The British application would be vetoed by President de Gaulle in January 1963.) Canadian opinion on the matter was divided, but the Canadian government{apos}s reputation was undermined by comments in the press that it had been overbearing and obstructive in its reaction to British policy.

In Quebec the Quiet Revolution was transforming the province and elsewhere appeals were mounting for fairer treatment of the country{apos}s French-speaking minority. Diefenbaker, who had neglected the French-speaking members of his own caucus, was indifferent to the signs of change. He refused to consider proposals for a royal commission on French-English relations. In Ottawa the formerly admiring press gallery had grown disillusioned and hostile as the government{apos}s record revealed an ineptitude frequently traceable to the prime minister{apos}s character. Diefenbaker{apos}s disorganization and growing indecisiveness had discouraged and divided his cabinet. When the commons was dissolved for a general election to be held on 18 June 1962, reporter James Stewart of the Montreal Star described the entire parliamentary term as {d-0}sometimes aimless, often ill-tempered, and always potentially explosive.{d-1} As the election campaign began, the government faced a major monetary crisis. A lingering recession, a series of budget deficits, an unfavourable balance in the current trade account, and general uncertainty about government policy provoked a loss of confidence in the exchange market. For weeks the Bank of Canada sold foreign reserves to maintain the value of the floating Canadian dollar and in May the cabinet was forced to devalue and peg the dollar at 92.5 cents (U.S.) in order to prevent a cascading collapse of the currency. The devaluation was cruelly caricatured by the press and the opposition during the election campaign; phoney Diefendollars or Diefenbucks passed from hand to hand.

Diefenbaker campaigned defiantly in the face of vigorous opposition from the refreshed Liberal Party, from the newly formed New Democratic Party, and in rural Quebec from the Ralliement des Créditistes, which under its charismatic leader, Réal Caouette, had been allied with the Social Credit Party since 1961. The Conservative program offered no novelty. The Toronto Globe and Mail reported that {d-0}the Conservative campaign has been essentially a one-man show with Mr. Diefenbaker the man. If they fail to win, he must take the blame; if they do win he can claim the victory, no matter how many seats they lose, for his own.{d-1} For Diefenbaker, the election results were devastating. He kept his hold on the prairies, but in the Atlantic provinces, rural Quebec, urban Ontario, and British Columbia the Conservatives lost their dominance. Five ministers were defeated. Diefenbaker held 116 seats against 100 Liberals, 30 Social Crediters/Créditistes, and 19 New Democrats. Following the campaign, a new run on the dollar required the imposition of tariff surcharges, reduced government spending, and emergency borrowing from the International Monetary Fund, the United States, and the United Kingdom. Diefenbaker retreated into weeks of seclusion before reconstructing his cabinet and reconvening parliament in the autumn.

The cabinet was directionless. Up to a third of Diefenbaker{apos}s ministers speculated openly but indecisively on the prime minister{apos}s removal. In October 1962 the Cuban missile crisis diverted everyone{apos}s attention and Diefenbaker deepened his cabinet{apos}s divisions by responding hesitantly to President Kennedy{apos}s appeal for allied solidarity. In the aftermath, ministers insisted that negotiations with the United States on the acceptance of nuclear warheads should be reopened. The sudden impact of the international crisis and the prime minister{apos}s demonstrated inability to make decisions under pressure suggested that an agreement with the United States to supply the warheads had become a matter of urgency. Negotiations quickly foundered and Washington raised the stakes by accusing the Diefenbaker government of lying and neglecting its military obligations. Diefenbaker{apos}s minister of defence, Douglas Harkness, resigned. The opposition united to condemn Diefenbaker{apos}s indecision and on 5 Feb. 1963 his government was defeated in the house.

Diefenbaker entered the 1963 election campaign with a disintegrating cabinet. Harkness, Hees, Sévigny, Fleming, Fulton, and others had resigned or retired. His supporting newspapers, the Toronto Telegram, the Globe and Mail, and all but four other papers across the country, had abandoned him. The party organization had collapsed - although his chief campaigners, Grosart and Camp, maintained their loyalty. Diefenbaker set out on the campaign trail fighting {d-0}the Bay Street and St. James Street Tories,{d-1} the American government, and his Liberal challengers. As he crossed the country in a whistle-stop campaign, greeting voters at little railway stations in the bitter cold, he was inspired by American president Harry S. Truman{apos}s {d-0}Give {s-0}em hell!{d-1} election of 1948. His rural, prairie, and small town public responded enthusiastically as he derided the Liberal Party and the American Department of State. Throughout the campaign Conservative support held steady while that of the Liberals declined until, on 8 April, Diefenbaker left Pearson five seats short of a majority. Diefenbaker resigned office and Pearson took power on 22 April, once he had received an assurance of support from six Créditiste mps. In 1963 the journalist Peter Charles Newman published his vivid, best-selling account of Diefenbaker{apos}s career, Renegade in power, the first of a new Canadian genre of popular contemporary history, which romanticized the prime minister{apos}s dramatic rise and fall.

For three and a half years Diefenbaker carried on as leader of the opposition under siege from elements of his own party, but aggressive and menacing towards his Liberal opponents in the house. He ferreted out one embarrassing scandal after another - all of them involving Quebec ministers. The majority of his mps, dependent on him for their success in politics, remained faithful. For eight months in 1964 Diefenbaker and his loyalists delayed approval of a new Canadian maple leaf flag because they said it lacked any historic symbols. The resolution was eventually adopted in mid December after closure was used to cut off debate. Most of Diefenbaker{apos}s Quebec mps voted with the government. Pearson, harassed and distracted by Diefenbaker{apos}s relentless attacks in the house, called an election for 8 Nov. 1965, hoping to deliver a fatal blow to his nemesis. Old Conservative foes (including Hees and Fulton) returned to the fold in the hope of a political life after Diefenbaker, while the party leader himself dreamed of returning to power. At age 70 he conducted another vigorous national campaign. Pearson could find no clear theme beyond his call for a majority government and the final destruction of his foe, but he appeared to have little taste for the battle. Once more Diefenbaker{apos}s Conservatives deprived the Liberal Party of its desired majority. The Conservatives, with 97 seats, held two more than previously, as did the Liberals with 131. The NDP, at 21 seats, gained four, while the Créditistes and Social Crediters (now separate) suffered losses.

By this time, the political conflict between Diefenbaker and Pearson had become malignant. The 1966 parliamentary year began with Diefenbaker{apos}s renewed attacks on the government{apos}s integrity, prompting countercharges against his own administration for having failed to act on a matter of security. A judicial inquiry under Mr Justice Wishart Flett Spence, appointed to examine what became known as the Munsinger affair, was in effect an ex post facto investigation of the political discretion exercised by the Diefenbaker government. Diefenbaker, Fulton, and their lawyers withdrew in protest from the inquiry midway through the hearings. The final report found no breach of security, but censured Diefenbaker for having failed to dismiss his associate minister of defence, Pierre Sévigny, six years earlier when he had learned of his extramarital liaison with Gerda Munsinger, who had apparently been a low-level Soviet agent. The Globe and Mail called the inquiry{apos}s terms of reference {d-0}vague, vengeful, prosecutory . . . setting a precedent for endless witch-hunts as government succeeds government in Canada.{d-1}.

Diefenbaker{apos}s second battle of the year was fought within his party, where he struggled to control the party office and the national association and to hold onto his own leadership. Eruptions of discontent multiplied, but in the absence of any formal system of leadership review he took for granted that his term was unlimited. Once convinced that the leader would not take voluntary retirement, the party president, Dalton Camp, proposed a reform in the party constitution to require an automatic vote on whether to hold a leadership convention subsequent to the loss of a general election. Diefenbaker met Camp{apos}s challenge with charges of back stabbing, but failed to carry the annual meeting. It agreed on a leadership convention, to be held in 1967.

As planning for the convention proceeded, Diefenbaker refused to confirm his candidacy. Finally, he stood for re-election in opposition to a convention resolution emerging from the party{apos}s policy conference at Montmorency falls, Que., that spoke of Canada{apos}s {d-0}two founding peoples{d-1} or {d-0}deux nations.{d-1} (The draft resolution actually described a country {d-0}composed of the original inhabitants of this land and the two founding peoples [deux nations] with historic rights, who have been and continue to be joined by people from many lands.{d-1}) {d-0}That proposition,{d-1} he told reporters, {d-0}will place all Canadians who are of other racial origins than English and French in a secondary position. All through my life, one of the things I{apos}ve tried to do is to bring about in this nation citizenship not dependent on race or colour, blood counts or origin.{d-1} Diefenbaker{apos}s vision of {d-0}One Canada{d-1} meant equality for individuals and regions, but he could not accept the notion of {d-0}founding peoples{d-1} or {d-0}nations{d-1} which seemed to include some communities while excluding others. His familiar appeal to equality - always drawing on his personal experience - did not work in a period when the country had grown more complex. On the first ballot, he ran fifth behind Stanfield, Dufferin Roblin, Fulton, and Hees. He remained on the ballot through three votes. Stanfield was chosen leader on the fourth.

Through 12 more years and four more general elections, 1968, 1972, 1974, and 1979, Diefenbaker remained in the House of Commons. For a few years his prominent claque on the Conservative backbenches made life awkward for the new leader and for the rest of his life he could rivet the house{apos}s attention and embarrass ministers with his pungent and sarcastic questions. On his 30th anniversary as an mp, in 1970, he joked that he would live as long as Moses. Six years later he was named a ch in the queen{apos}s New Year{apos}s honours list and he travelled proudly to England for the presentation ceremony at Windsor Castle. In the mid 1970s he published three volumes of ghost-written memoirs. He conducted his last election campaign in ill health during the spring of 1979, returned to Ottawa, and died at home on 16 August.

Diefenbaker{apos}s state funeral was the most elaborate in Canadian history. He had planned it meticulously in consultation with the secretary of state{apos}s department. For three days the open casket lay in the parliamentary hall of honour before it was moved in a ceremonial parade to Christ Church Cathedral for an interfaith service. From Ottawa, an eight-car funeral train carried the coffin and more than 100 passengers westwards to Prince Albert and Saskatoon, with stops both scheduled and unscheduled for crowds along the way. On the high bluffs of the South Saskatchewan River, the old chief was buried beside the Right Honourable John G. Diefenbaker Centre, which had been constructed on the grounds of the University of Saskatchewan to house his papers and relics. The new Conservative prime minister, Charles Joseph (Joe) Clark, delivered the graveside eulogy, describing Diefenbaker as {d-0}the great populist of Canadian politics . . . an indomitable man, born to a minority group, raised in a minority region, leader of a minority party, who went on to change the very nature of his country and to change it permanently.{d-1} The body of his late wife Olive was moved from Ottawa to lie beside him.

Commentators and historians have not been kind to Canada{apos}s 13th prime minister. J. L. Granatstein and Norman Hillmer wrote that Diefenbaker{apos}s memoirs, {d-0}arguably the most mendacious ever written by a Canadian politician, burnished his own image and refought all the old battles with only one victor. . . . Yet the record remained, one of deliberate divisiveness, scandalmongering, and mistrust.{d-1} Historian Michael Bliss - perhaps slightly kinder - judged that {d-0}Diefenbaker{apos}s role as a prairie populist who tried to revolutionize the Conservative Party begins to loom larger than his personal idiosyncrasies. The difficulties he faced in the form of significant historical dilemmas seem less easy to resolve than Liberals and hostile journalists opined at the time. . . . But his contemporaries were also right in seeing some kind of disorder near the centre of his personality and his prime-ministership. The problems of leadership, authority, power, ego, and a mad time in history overwhelmed the prairie politician with the odd name.{d-1} For writer George Bowering, Diefenbaker was the wittiest of all the country{apos}s prime ministers, {d-0}and he was the most amazing campaigner anyone would ever see or hear.{d-1} But he got everyone - the Americans, the British, the Liberals, the economists, the Quebecers, and his own party establishment - mad at him.

Diefenbaker{apos}s entire adult life was aimed at a political career. He was moved by ambition and a sense of injustice that was both personal and regional, a determination to succeed at the centre of Canadian politics in Ottawa and in doing so confirm the equal rights of those he believed had been excluded from power and influence in Canada. His attitudes were shaped in the 1920s and 1930s, when Canadian public life was dominated by a privileged circle of Ontario and Quebec politicians in the Liberal and Conservative parties. With his personal and western preoccupations, however, he failed to sense the potential grievances of the French-speaking Canadian minority, who felt similarly excluded from a full role in national life.

Possessed of a rare determination that was reinforced rather than dulled by early slights and defeats, Diefenbaker had nurtured a dramatic and corrosive talent as a criminal defence lawyer which served him well as a member of the opposition, though less well as a member of government. He was a British Canadian with a sentimental attachment to the imperial connection and to Canada{apos}s parliamentary institutions. His convictions on welfare and employment policy were shaped in the 1940s by his experience of the great depression on the prairies and were broadly shared by colleagues in the Liberal and CCF parties. In his approach to fiscal and monetary policy, on the other hand, he remained an instinctive conservative, never fully absorbing the lessons of Keynesian economics.

The biography is based on the author{apos}s Rogue Tory: the life and legend of John G. Diefenbaker (Toronto, 1995), which contains an exhaustive list of primary and secondary sources. The Right Honourable John G. Diefenbaker Centre for the Study of Canada, Univ. of Saskatchewan (Saskatoon), holds the Diefenbaker papers along with some photographs, films, and other documents. A selection of the letters deposited at the Centre have been published: J. G. Diefenbaker et al., Personal letters of a public man: the family letters of John G. Diefenbaker, ed. Thad McIlroy (Toronto and New York, 1985). Diefenbaker{apos}s memoirs are gathered under the general title One Canada: memoirs of the Right Honourable John G. Diefenbaker (3v., Toronto, 1975-77) and are divided into three periods: [1]: The crusading years, 1895-1956; [2]: The years of achievement, 1957-1962: [3]: The tumultuous years, 1962-1967. Library and Arch. Canada holds a microfilm copy of the Diefenbaker papers along with additional documentation, in particular files concerning the Diefenbaker government and various ministries. The following list mentions some of the most useful secondary sources.

Michael Bliss, Right honourable men: the descent of Canadian politics from Macdonald to Mulroney (Toronto, 1994). George Bowering, Egotists and autocrats: the prime ministers of Canada (Toronto, 1999). D. [K.] Camp, Gentlemen, players and politicians (Toronto and Montreal, 1970). John English, The life of Lester Pearson (2v., New York and Toronto, 1989-92), 2. D. M. Fleming, So very near: the political memoirs of the Honourable Donald M. Fleming (2v., Toronto, 1985), 2. Eddie Goodman, Life of the party: the memoirs of Eddie Goodman (Toronto, 1988). J. L. Granatstein, Canada, 1957-1967: the years of uncertainty and innovation (Toronto, 1986). J. L. Granatstein and Norman Hillmer, Prime ministers: ranking Canada{apos}s leaders (Toronto, 1999). Simma Holt, The other Mrs. Diefenbaker (Toronto and New York, 1982). Knowlton Nash, Kennedy and Diefenbaker: fear and loathing across the undefended border (Toronto, 1990). P. C. Newman, Renegade in power: the Diefenbaker years ([new ed.], Toronto, 1989). Patrick Nicholson, Vision and indecision (Don Mills, Ont., 1968). H. B. Robinson, Diefenbaker{apos}s world: a populist in foreign affairs (Toronto, 1989). Pierre Sévigny, This game of politics (Toronto, 1965). Dick Spencer, Trumpets and drums: John Diefenbaker on the campaign trail (Vancouver and Toronto, 1994). Thomas Van Dusen, The chief (New York and Toronto, 1968). Garrett and Kevin Wilson, Diefenbaker for the defence (Toronto, 1988).

By 1925 Emmanuel Fougerat, the school{apos}s first director, had been replaced by Charles Maillard*, who, along with Robert Mahias and Edmond Dyonnet, were Borduas{apos}s teachers. Borduas completed his studies in 1927, graduating from it with a {d-0}first diploma.{d-1} Five years later he would be awarded the teaching diploma that qualified him to give drawing lessons in schools. Apparently he did not much enjoy the years he spent at the School of Fine Arts; the kind of training he had received from his first mentor (whom he referred to respectfully as Monsieur Leduc) was more to his liking. Moreover, he quarrelled with Maillard, a painter in the academic tradition, who taught his students to value regionalism and to despise modern art.

After a brief spell as a drawing master in Montreal primary schools - a period that came to an end when Maillard had one of Borduas{apos}s colleagues appointed to a position for which Borduas had himself already been taken on - the young artist went to Paris to complete his training. Through the generous support of Abbé Olivier Maurault*, a friend of Leduc and at that time the curé of the parish of Notre-Dame in Montreal, he was to remain in Paris from the end of 1928 until 1930. He enrolled in the Ateliers d{apos}Art Sacré, which was then under the direction of Maurice Denis and Georges Desvallières. During his stay in Paris, Borduas kept a diary in which he made notes about the courses he took, visits to exhibitions (Pascin, Renoir, Picasso), and his travels in France. His entries give the impression that he found working in the field with Pierre Dubois more congenial than the Ateliers d{apos}Art Sacré. Dubois invited Borduas to go with him to the department of Meuse, where he had church decoration projects at Rambucourt and Xivray-et-Marvoisin. Borduas was only too happy to leave behind the somewhat stuffy atmosphere of Denis{apos}s studio and join the team led by Dubois. Thereby Borduas made the acquaintance of Marie-Alain Couturier, a Dominican priest whom he would meet again in Canada. Couturier would become the editor of the Paris review L{apos}Art sacré, and advocate a rapprochement between the Roman Catholic church and modern artists (notably Le Corbusier, Henri Matisse, and Fernand Léger). This initial contact with Europe, in his youth, was crucial for Borduas. He discovered the École de Paris and was especially excited by the work of Pascin and Renoir. However, unlike his fellow painter Alfred Pellan*, who would spend 14 years in France, he had no contact at that time with the avant-guarde Cubist and Surrealist movements.

A turning point in Borduas{apos}s career was his discovery of Surrealism and, more particularly, in 1938, of a text by André Breton entitled {d-0}Le château étoilé.{d-1} The article, which was eventually published as chapter five of Breton{apos}s L{apos}amour fou (Paris, 1937), had originally appeared in the 15 June 1936 issue of Minotaure, a journal that Borduas found in the library of the École du Meuble. In this piece, Breton quotes the famous advice of Leonardo da Vinci, who had urged his pupils to look for a long time at an old wall until they saw, emerging in its cracks and stains, patterns they only had to {d-0}copy{d-1} to make original pictures; Breton found in this approach a way of resolving the opposition between the objective and the subjective, but at a higher level. From Leonardo{apos}s suggestion, Borduas concluded that the painting{apos}s support, whether paper or canvas, could be regarded as a kind of paranoiac screen, on which images from the artist{apos}s unconscious might be projected. By drawing random patterns on this screen without preconceived ideas - and in that sense, {d-0}automatically{d-1} - Borduas was, as it were, reconstituting Leonardo{apos}s old wall. All that remained to be done was to distinguish formal patterns, make them more precise, and add colour and shade to create an effect of volume.

That year, from 25 April to 2 May, Borduas exhibited 45 gouaches (described as {d-0}surrealist works{d-1}) in the Salle de l{apos}Ermitage in Montreal. The show was a resounding success financially. It was also received favourably by critics Marcel Parizeau, Robert Élie*, and Jean-Charles Doyon. The gouaches showed the influence of Alfred Pellan, who, since his return to Canada in 1940, had held a number of shows in Quebec City and Montreal, exhibiting the work he had done in Paris. In 1943 Borduas attempted to achieve in oil the effects he had obtained in his gouaches, although he made important changes. Instead of a dichotomy between drawing and colour, he introduced a tension between objects in the foreground and the infinitely receding background in front of which they were suspended, as in Viol aux confins de la matière. And whereas the gouaches, in compositional terms, had faithfully followed portrait or still life traditions, the new work, shown at the Dominion Gallery in Montreal from 2 to 13 Oct. 1943, was dominated by landscapes, which were better suited to evoking images from deep within the unconscious. However, this exhibition was not greeted by collectors with the same enthusiasm as the one presented the previous year.

In 1946 and 1947 Borduas and the Groupe Automatiste held exhibitions in a series of makeshift galleries: at 1257 Rue Amherst in Montreal (20-29 April 1946); at the house of Mme Julienne Gauvreau, the mother of Pierre and Claude*, 75 Rue Sherbrooke Ouest in Montreal (15 Feb.-1 March 1947); and in the small Galerie du Luxembourg in Paris (20 June-13 July 1947). Sous le vent de l{apos}île, which was acquired in 1953 by the National Gallery of Canada in Ottawa, was shown in the second of these exhibitions. Painted in 1947, the work represents a continent (rather than an island), above which various fragmented objects - for some critics, a band of feathered Amerindians - twirl in space. While the background is painted with broad brush strokes, the fragments are done with a palette-knife, which separates them from the background more effectively.

The activity of Borduas as an Automatiste culminated at the Librairie Tranquille in Montreal on 9 Aug. 1948 with the launching of a collection of texts entitled Refus global. The collection included some dramatic pieces by Claude Gauvreau, a lecture by Françoise Sullivan, an article by Bruno Cormier*, and a proclamation by Fernand Leduc, but the principal articles, including the manifesto of the same name, were written by Borduas himself. In the manifesto, which was countersigned by 15 members of the Groupe Automatiste, he denounced the old ideology of preservation, according to which Quebec identity lay in its attachment to Catholicism, to the French language, and to certain rural customs. {d-0}To hell with the holy water sprinkler and the tuque!{d-1} Borduas thundered in the middle of the manifesto, which called for opening up Quebec culture to the liveliest manifestations of universal thought. {d-0}Bludgeoning the present and the future to death with the past is finished!{d-1}

The manifesto caused an uproar in the press; some 100 articles, almost all of them negative, came out immediately after it was launched. Its open attacks against Catholicism and the right-wing nationalism symbolized by the Union Nationale cost Borduas his job at the École du Meuble. The painter would always regard his dismissal as a grave injustice, since it was the result of an {d-0}extra-curricular{d-1} activity and there had been no complaints about his teaching. Several members of the Groupe Automatiste, in particular Pierre and Claude Gauvreau, defended Borduas in the press, but their efforts were in vain. Henceforth, he would have to live by his painting alone. In 1949 he recalled the incident in an autobiographical pamphlet entitled Projections libérantes, in which he wrote: {d-0}At last free to paint!{d-1} But in reality, his dismissal from the school made things difficult for his family; in October 1951 his wife and children left him, which crushed him. In 1952 he sold his house on the banks of the Richelieu river in Saint-Hilaire to Dr Alphonse Campeau, who took great care of it as long as he lived; it still stands at the beginning of the 21st century.

Disheartened by the oppressive climate in his native province, Borduas thought about going into exile and wanted to move to New York. However, McCarthyism was then at its height in the United States, and the American immigration authorities made things hard for him because he had once been interviewed by Gilles Hénault*. (The interview had appeared in the 1 Feb. 1947 issue of the Montreal communist periodical, Combat). At that time, a few members of the Groupe Automatiste, including Claude Gauvreau and Jean-Paul Mousseau, had made overtures to the communist Labor-Progressive Party, but their anarchism was ill-suited to the party{apos}s revolutionary discipline, and there was no agreement about the kind of art that could reach the people. Like the Surrealists in France, the Quebec Automatistes were seen primarily as rebels, rather than true revolutionaries. In any case, Refus global has a paragraph entitled {d-0}Règlement final des comptes{d-1} which marks the Groupe Automatiste{apos}s definitive break with Canadian communism.

Borduas won his case against the Federal Bureau of Investigation and was finally able to move to the United States, initially to Provincetown, Mass., where he spent the summer of 1953 painting at the seaside. He may have met Hans Hofmann at this time, since the German painter gave summer courses in this Cape Cod town, where there was an artists{s-1-unknown} colony. In the fall Borduas settled in New York, and he remained there until September 1955. With the support of several Quebec collectors (notably Gérard Lortie) and two New York galleries (the Passedoit Gallery and the Martha Jackson Gallery), he was able to rent a large studio in Greenwich Village. This period was extremely important for the development of his art and career. The title he gave to a canvas painted in 1953, Les signes s{apos}envolent, seems to convey what was going on in his painting, as objects disintegrate (thus {d-0}signs{d-1} disappear) and the background moves closer to the surface of the painting. From then on, Borduas used only a palette-knife to apply the paint, a technique that gave greater materiality to his work. His first New York exhibition was held at the Passedoit Gallery from 5 to 23 Jan. 1954, and attracted favourable notices. On 6 February Rodolphe de Repentigny, a critic who had come to New York for the occasion, reported in the Montreal paper L{apos}Autorité du peuple that the American painter Robert Motherwell, who was present at the vernissage, had exclaimed: {d-0}He{apos}s the Courbet of the 20th century!{d-1} However, the Passedoit, which, prior to Borduas, had never exhibited non-figurative painting, was not a very prestigious gallery. Fortunately, his work would be taken up by the Martha Jackson Gallery in exhibitions organized after he had left North America (18 March-6 April 1957 and 24 March-18 April 1959). While in New York, Borduas had realized that, although he could claim to have been inspired by Surrealism, especially its concept of an art originating in the unconscious, the abstract expressionism practised by Jackson Pollock, Franz Kline, or Mark Rothko - artists whom he could meet at the Cedar Bar - was going much further in this direction than the automatism of the Montreal group in the period when he was their leader.

Hoping to receive wider recognition in France than in the United States, Borduas set sail on the Liberty on 21 Sept. 1955 with his daughter Janine. Riopelle helped him find an apartment on Rue Rousselet in Paris. Subsequently, the two men saw little of each other. In the five years remaining to him, Borduas would not find in Paris the success he had hoped for. Plans to meet the famous art critic Michel Tapié de Ceyléran did not materialize. None of the avant-guarde movements in the French capital, such as the informal art of Georges Mathieu, Jean Dubuffet{apos}s new figuration, or the {d-0}new realities{d-1} of Yves Klein, were really to his taste. Admittedly, he had exhibitions in several important European galleries, such as the Arthur Tooth and Sons Gallery in London from 8 Oct. to 2 Nov. 1957 and from 7 to 25 Oct. 1958, and the Alfred Schmela Gallery in Düsseldorf (Germany) in July 1958. And he did represent Canada at the universal exposition in Brussels in May 1958, as he had at the 3rd biennial exposition in São Paulo in July 1955. But it was not until 1959 that a Parisian gallery - the Galerie Saint-Germain - afforded him the honour of a one-man show (20 May-13 June).

Had it not been for the presence of friends such as Robert Élie, Michel Camus, and Marcelle Ferron*, and several visitors from Canada (Gisèle and Gérard Lortie, Max Stern*, Gilbert Blair Laing*), Borduas{apos}s stay in Paris would have been much harder to bear. His health had never been good. Letters written towards the end of his life reveal that he was homesick. As he confessed to Bernard Bernard, a childhood friend, in a letter dated 28 April 1959, he dreamed of {d-0}building a studio on the banks of the Richelieu, at the mouth of the little river near Saint-Mathias.{d-1}.

However, once settled in Paris, Borduas had nevertheless modified his style yet again. After a transitional phase that can be seen as extending his New York period, in which his paintings became increasingly all-over (in the sense that the viewer{apos}s eye is drawn from one area to the next, rather than to a focus on one in particular), and displayed an ever-greater use of white, he began to introduce black shapes into his paintings. These shapes were sometimes seen as rents in a white screen, but more often as patches of black against a white ground. In some cases, it is impossible to decide between one reading and the other. Borduas confessed to a Parisian journalist that he was trying to make his paintings {d-0}reversible,{d-1} so that the same work would lend itself successively to two different interpretations. In 1957 he sometimes used a very dark brown, as in his masterpiece, L{apos}étoile noire. He was now paying more and more attention to the geometric composition of his paintings. Automatism was then a thing of the past for Borduas. He himself recognized that he had been somewhat influenced by Mondrian. His last works were more calligraphic in character. In their own way, they perhaps were a testimony to the Canadian painter{apos}s final dream, never to be realized, of an ultimate exile in Japan.

The subject{apos}s personal papers and original copies of his written works are held in the Fonds Paul-Émile Borduas at the Musée d{apos}Art Contemporain de Montréal. His writings are the subject of a critical work: P.-É. Borduas, Écrits, ed. A.-G. Bourassa et al. (2v. en 3 tomes, Montréal, 1987-97). A selection of his texts, along with their English translations, has been published in P.-É. Borduas, Paul-Émile Borduas: écrits/writings, 1942-1958, ed. F.-M. Gagnon, trans. F.-M. Gagnon and Dennis Young (Halifax, 1978).

For more information about the artist and his works, the reader should consult in particular the follwing sources: A.-G. Bourassa, Surréalisme et littérature québécoise (Montréal, 1977); Ann Davis, Frontiers of our dreams: Quebec painting in the 1940{foot}s and 1950{foot}s ([Winnipeg], 1979); Robert Élie, Borduas (Montréal, 1943); Ray Ellenwood, Egregore: a history of the Montréal automatist movement (Toronto, 1992); F.-M. Gagnon, Chronique du mouvement automatiste québécois, 1941-1954 (Outremont, Qué., 1998); Paul-Émile Borduas (exhibition catalogue, Montreal Museum of Fine Arts, 1988); Paul-Émile Borduas, 1905-1960 (Ottawa, 1976); Paul-Émile Borduas (1905-1960): biographie critique et analyse de l{apos}œuvre (Montréal, 1978); Maurice Gagnon, Sur un état actuel de la peinture canadienne (Montréal, 1945); Gilles Lapointe, L{apos}envol des signes: Borduas et ses lettres (Montréal, 1996); Gilles Lapointe et F.-M. Gagnon, Saint-Hilaire et les automatistes (Mont-Saint-Hilaire, Qué., 1997); Gilles Lapointe et Raymond Montpetit, Paul-Émile Borduas, photographe: un regard sur Percé, été 1938 ([Saint-Laurent, Qué.], 1998); Paul-Émile Borduas, 1905-1960 (exhibition catalogue, Montreal Museum of Fine Arts, 1962); Guy Robert, Borduas ([Sainte-Foy, Qué., 1972]); Borduas, ou, le dilemme culturel québécois ([Montréal], 1977).

Soc. de Généalogie de Québec, Fichier Drouin, Notre-Dame (Granby, Qué.), 11 juin 1935; Saint-Hilaire (Mont-Saint-Hilaire), 5 nov. 1905 (mfm). {d-0}M. P.-É. Borduas meurt à Paris à l{apos}âge de 54 ans,{d-1} Le Soleil (Québec), 23 févr. 1960.

William Lyon Mackenzie King had a long political career. He was leader of the Liberal Party for 29 eventful years through the buoyant expansion of the 1920s, the depression of the 1930s, the shock of World War II, and then the post-war reconstruction, and for 21 of these years he was Canada{apos}s prime minister. His decisions during this time contributed significantly to the shaping of Canada and to its development as an influential middle power in world affairs. During his lifetime his achievements were sometimes obscured by a style notable for its compromises. After his death his political career was sometimes overshadowed by the revelation of his unsuspected personal idiosyncrasies.

King{apos}s father, who had spent time in Berlin as a youth, met his future wife in Toronto when he was a university student there. Isabel Mackenzie, a daughter of William Lyon Mackenzie*, was born in the United States while he was in exile, and her early years were marked by poverty and insecurity. Matters did not greatly improve after the family returned to Toronto; Mackenzie lived as a gentleman but never earned enough money to sustain his lifestyle. For Isabel, marriage to John King, who went into law, held out some promise of financial security. King, however, decided to give up his prospects in Toronto and to return to Berlin in 1869 to practise law and it was there that Willie, as he was called, spent his childhood. Willie and his two sisters and a brother had happy memories of their early years. Woodside, the home the family rented from 1886 on the outskirts of Berlin, was an attractive brick house surrounded by a large garden. As a child Willie was healthy and active, with a self-assurance that sometimes got him into trouble and a ready smile, which often minimized his punishments. He was a good student, active in debates and sports, popular among his peers, and trusted by his elders. His family was close-knit and in later years King looked back with nostalgia to memories of family games and hymn singing with his mother at the piano.

These years were less idyllic for his parents, whose serious financial problems would plague them for the rest of their lives. John King was not a success as a lawyer. He lacked the aggressiveness to build up his practice, the conflicts and scandals of one of his uncles (a local newspaperman) negatively affected the family, and the German community in Berlin patronized German-speaking lawyers. His income was not enough to pay for the servants and keep up appearances, and the family was soon in debt. He became withdrawn and Isabel became frustrated and shrewish. A move back to Toronto in 1893, after Willie had started university, changed little. A lectureship at Osgoode Hall brought in some money but John King failed to get a professorship and his practice produced little income. Willie knew nothing of this situation as a child, but he was marked by the experience. He absorbed his parents{s-1-unknown} social values and came to be embarrassed by their shabby gentility; he learned as well to sense the moods of his parents and to avoid confrontation. More significantly, his mother gradually came to think of him as the person who might be able to give her the status and security her husband could never provide. It was a burden from which the young Mackenzie King would not be able to escape.

King enrolled at the University of Toronto in 1891, taking the honours program in political science. A disciplined and well-organized student with the advantage of a good memory, he graduated with first-class honours, standing second in his class. He was not an academic grinder, however, and found time for sports, contributed to the Varsity, and spent many hours discussing the purpose of life and its moral obligations with other serious-minded students. He stood out among his classmates, was elected president of his class in his first year, and in 1895 was a leader of a student strike to protest the arbitrary dismissal of a popular professor, William Dale. He was still known as Willie to his family but at university he adopted W. L. Mackenzie King as his signature and was called Mackenzie by other students. Though the name suggests a more formal self-image, it also reflects King{apos}s closer identification with his grandfather, who even then he saw as an early champion of responsible government and political liberty. In later years a few close friends in England, including John Buchan*, called him Rex, but there would be none of this easy familiarity with his colleagues or acquaintances in Canada.

As a young man King was a practising Presbyterian and, indeed, he would attend church regularly throughout his life. His correspondence and diary from his student years refer constantly to spiritual values and his personal dedication to Christian duty. If his religious views seemed sentimental and sometimes self-justifying, they were nonetheless influential. He might have been priggish but his faith also led to good works. In addition to his student activities, he participated in a men{apos}s reading club in a working class district in Toronto and he regularly visited patients at the Hospital for Sick Children. He even made a few attempts to reform prostitutes, although on these occasions his Christian motives were likely supplemented by the prurience of a repressed young man. More noteworthy was the influence on him of Arnold Toynbee{apos}s work on the Industrial Revolution, which led King to the conclusion that industrialism was the pre-eminent challenge to Christianity at the end of the 19th century. This theory attracted him to social reform but not to socialism. He saw no distinction between his religious faith and a liberal commitment to build a better society on earth, but his emphasis was on conversion, not coercion.

King{apos}s sense of Christian obligation was combined with a strong personal ambition. He nonetheless remained undecided about what profession to pursue. His father encouraged him to become a lawyer and after completing his ba at Toronto in 1895, he did take a one-year llb there. He was not interested in practising law, however. He talked of a possible career in the church or in politics, and between 1895 and 1897 he wrote for a number of Toronto newspapers, but mas at Toronto and Harvard and fellowships in political economy at the University of Chicago and Harvard seemed more likely to lead to an academic future. After a summer stint as a journalist, writing articles for the Toronto Globe on local sweatshops, he began work at Harvard on a doctoral thesis on labour conditions in the clothing industry. This scholastic pattern was interrupted by a telegram in June 1900 from William Mulock, Canada{apos}s postmaster general who was also responsible for the newly formed Department of Labour. King had already drawn Mulock{apos}s attention to the link between sweatshops and federal contracts for postbags and Mulock now offered him the editorship of the proposed Labour Gazette. King yielded to family pressure, to the attractions of financial security, and to what he saw as an opportunity for public service, and he accepted the job. He arrived in Ottawa in late July. The following month Mulock also offered him the position of deputy minister of labour, which he formally took up on 15 September.

He joined the department at a crucial time in the development of industrial relations. In the early years of the 20th century the conflict between labour and capital seemed irrepressible. Trade unions offered some possibility of collective action by workers but employers could frustrate organizers and break strikes by forcing their way across picket lines through the use of injunctions, the police, or the militia. Violence seemed to be the only effective response. King saw the Labour Gazette as an important contribution to labour relations. It would publish tables of strikes and lockouts, summaries of court decisions, and regional accounts of working conditions, wage settlements, and costs of living. He knew the importance of earning a reputation for being non-partisan and with the help of his university friend Henry Albert Harper, whom he appointed assistant editor, the Gazette soon became a respected reference, though as early as 1901 it came under attack from the Canadian Manufacturers{s-1-unknown} Association.

King{apos}s ambitions did not stop with the Gazette. He was soon writing speeches for his minister that associated Mulock and the Liberal government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier* with a policy of fair wages for its employees; he also took the initiative to offer his services to employers and workers in the settlement of strikes and lockouts. King quickly showed a remarkable talent for conciliation. Exceptionally patient, he regularly won the confidence of leaders on both sides by listening carefully to their concerns, and he was remarkably sensitive to their unspoken hopes and fears. On many occasions he was able to devise compromises which both sides could accept. One dispute with important consequences was the coal strike in Lethbridge, Alta, in 1906 [see Frank Henry Sherman], which threatened to leave westerners vulnerable to the rigours of a prairie winter. Sent west by his new minister, Rodolphe Lemieux*, King negotiated a settlement and then went on to draft legislation to establish formal procedures to defuse similar strikes. The Industrial Disputes Investigation Act of 1907 postponed any strikes in a public utility or a mine until a conciliation board had resolved the conflict or, failing that, had published a report on the facts and suggested terms for a settlement. The act did not prohibit a strike but its original feature was to enforce a cooling-off period and to expose the disputants to the pressure of public opinion to encourage a resolution.

King{apos}s success in conciliation led the government to call on him to troubleshoot a wide range of problems. He served on royal commissions dealing with industrial conflicts in British Columbia (1903), at Bell Telephone in Toronto (1907), and in the cotton industry in Quebec (1908), and with the problem of compensation to Japanese and Chinese residents arising out of riots in Vancouver (1907-8). He even undertook a quasi-diplomatic mission to London, England, to convey the concerns of American president Theodore Roosevelt and the Canadian government on the issue of Japanese immigration to North America. These were major responsibilities for a civil servant, but King still found it frustrating not to be in a position to make political decisions. Consequently, on 21 Sept. 1908, he resigned as deputy minister to devote his talents to active politics.

He was now 33 years of age. His career in the civil service had been remarkably successful but he had also found time to lead an active social life. In Ottawa he was seen by many, including Governor General Lord Grey*, as a man to watch. He was a regular guest at the dinners and balls of Ottawa{apos}s elite. He enjoyed the company of women and expected to get married eventually - as a graduate student in Chicago he had proposed to a nurse - but his caution, his obligations to his family, and his reluctance to accept any fetters on his ambition probably account for his avoidance of the commitments of married life. He paid off his father{apos}s debts and regularly responded to his mother{apos}s appeals for money for clothes or housekeeping expenses. In the Gatineau hills of Quebec, north of Ottawa, he and Bert Harper had long walks, were enchanted by the area around Lac Kingsmere, read uplifting literature, and shared their spiritual concerns. Their friendship ended in December 1901 when Harper died trying to save a young woman from drowning. King wrote a touching memoir, The secret of heroism, but he never again gave himself over to a close friendship. Before Harper{apos}s death, he had acquired property at Kingsmere and built a small cottage as a refuge from the pressures of Ottawa. More and more, however, his career would overshadow his private life.

In the federal election of October 1908 King presented himself as the Liberal candidate in the riding of Waterloo North, which included Berlin. The riding had been held by a Conservative but King won it by a small margin. On 2 June 1909, soon after the first session of parliament had ended, Laurier appointed him minister of labour. King proceeded cautiously, aware that his senior colleagues saw him as an upstart and were dubious about his progressive views. On the labour front the new minister{apos}s intervention in 1910 in the Grand Trunk Railway strike, which led to the blacklisting of workers and the loss of pensions, hurt the government. At the same time, he introduced the Combines Investigation Act of 1910, which established machinery to investigate alleged restraints of trade or price manipulation and authorized fines for those operating contrary to the public interest. He also spoke of the need for a bill for an eight-hour day but his legislative activity was interrupted by the reciprocity agreement and the federal election of September 1911. The government was defeated and, more serious for King, he lost his seat because reciprocity proved to be unpopular among the industrialists and factory workers of Berlin.

King{apos}s defeat was a setback but he remained committed to a political career. To earn his living he gave speeches, wrote political articles and pamphlets, and ran the Liberal Party{apos}s new central information office in Ottawa, a job that included editing the Canadian Liberal Monthly. Then, in 1914, he received an unexpected offer. John Davison Rockefeller Jr had found himself harshly criticized for a bitter miners{s-1-unknown} strike in Colorado; he knew nothing about it but was blamed because the mine belonged to his family. His response was to ask King to direct a study for the Rockefeller Foundation on industrial relations. When the two men met, they were mutually impressed. King saw a man who was naive about the obligations of employers but who seemed receptive and sincerely committed to reform, while Rockefeller saw a mentor who could guide him through this industrial quagmire. King agreed to conduct the study using the Colorado strike as a test case, and he was given permission to remain politically active in Canada. He first went to Colorado to meet the management and workers and then involved the young industrialist in negotiating a settlement, which resolved the conflicts over wages and working conditions and arranged for the election of workers to grievance committees. This negotiated plan was open to the objection that it provided for a {d-0}company union{d-1} instead of an independent union that could be less easily intimidated by management. King saw the arrangement as a necessary first step, however, and he received some credit for insisting on inclusion of the miners{s-1-unknown} right to join a union and the right of organizers to campaign for members.

Published in 1918, Industry and humanity: a study in the principles underlying industrial reconstruction (Toronto) was King{apos}s report to the Rockefeller Foundation. The book had little impact because its analysis was laboured and abstract; his arguments drew on Toynbee, James Mavor at the University of Toronto, and other theorists. His thesis, however, was a serious attempt to put industrial relations in a broader social context. A reformer but not a radical, King rejected the ideas of an inevitable class struggle. Labour, management, and capital were partners, not rivals, and conflict happened when there were grievances that the other partners did not fully appreciate. Industrial peace could be restored only if the partners recognized they had common interests and if there were structures wherein interests could be explained and understood. King broadened the debate further by arguing that the community was a fourth partner and its interests must also be considered. Industry and humanity never adequately clarified how the community{apos}s voice could be expressed in negotiations but King{apos}s theory could be used to justify government intervention if the community{apos}s interests were ignored. Even if the book attracted minimal attention, it is important for the light it throws on his subsequent success as a politician. In politics, more interest groups were involved and the issues were often more complex, but for King the basic assumption of common good was the same. Leadership did not mean imposing policies or adopting ones because they were popular. It meant a cautious and incremental approach: discussions in cabinet and caucus, which could be heated and protracted, with the leader ensuring that all points of view were presented and that a consensus would be reached.

King{apos}s private life was also disrupted during these years. He had been an eligible bachelor for many years but his emotions became more and more centred on his family. The family, however, was narrowing. One of his sisters died in 1915, followed by his father the next year. His mother became more demanding, but King idealized her; he thought of her as the only person who appreciated him and believed in his political future. By this time she was an invalid; King installed her in his Ottawa apartment in late 1916 and nursed her through a series of crises. She passed away the day after his defeat in York North, before he could get back to Ottawa. With her death King felt painfully alone. Not surprisingly, he often thought of her and felt her presence. His interest in a world beyond the material world, which had its roots in his Christian faith, was heightened by this loneliness.

Politics soon filled the void. Laurier died in February 1919, shortly after the war and before the Liberal Party had recovered from its split over conscription and crushing electoral defeat. In August, for the first time in Canada, a federal party opted for a leadership convention instead of allowing the caucus to select a new leader. William Stevens Fielding, Laurier{apos}s long-serving finance minister, would have been the obvious successor in spite of his 70 years, but he had supported the Unionists and many Liberals, especially French Canadian Liberals, would not forgive this disloyalty. King had the advantage of being young and energetic as well as a recognized expert on the disturbing social and industrial questions of the day. It was a close contest but King{apos}s loyalty to Laurier gave him the advantage. On 7 August he had the support of most of the Quebec bloc and enough backing from delegates from other regions to be chosen leader on the third ballot.

Politicians would also have to come to terms with an unstable world beyond Canada{apos}s borders. For most Canadians this adjustment meant redefining the country{apos}s relations with Britain. Canada had entered the Great War as a colony but its experience during the war had many convinced that a subservient colonial status was no longer acceptable. At the same time few wanted total independence. The options ranged from a more centralized British empire, in which Canada would have an influential role, to a loosely associated commonwealth of nations in which the emphasis would be on Canadian autonomy. The implications for Canada were far from clear but change was in the air.

The Liberal Party that had chosen King as its leader was itself deeply divided. King would have to win back the Liberals who had supported the Union government and conscription without alienating the French Canadians. At the same time he would have to make the party more hospitable to the new labour and farm groups, which meant reducing tariffs and giving more social assistance to the less privileged while retaining the support of the industrialists. The Liberal convention of 1919 did propose a forward-looking platform that favoured lower tariffs without opting for free trade and approved of unions, better working conditions, and public insurance for the sick, the aged, and the unemployed. This platform was more an aspiration than a commitment, however, one to be adopted {d-0}in so far as the special circumstances of the country will permit.{d-1} King too was cautious; in his acceptance speech he was careful to describe the platform as a {d-0}chart{d-1} and not a contract. The new leader needed to construct a majority party in a divided country but he clearly intended to move slowly.

King wanted to get into the House of Commons as soon as possible. He had a choice of ridings but in most cases he would have had to run against a farmers{s-1-unknown} party candidate. To avoid any confrontation he picked Prince, in Prince Edward Island, where he was acclaimed in October 1919. Once in the house he was careful to give W. S. Fielding a major role in the debates, a move that both reassured the conscriptionist Liberals and gave King time to familiarize himself with the current issues. He took the opportunity in 1920 to tour Ontario and the west, making a point of expressing sympathy for the farmers{s-1-unknown} problems and meeting with Progressive leaders to suggest some collaboration against the common Conservative enemy in the next election. The Progressives, who were riding a political crest, showed little interest. At the provincial level organized farmers won elections in Ontario (1919) and Alberta (1921), and were so strong in Manitoba and Saskatchewan that the Liberals there had to distance themselves from their federal counterparts in an effort to survive. It was revealing that after King was nominated in his old riding of York North for the next election, Ralph W. E. Burnaby, president of the United Farmers of Ontario, was nominated to run against him. It would not be easy to convince farmers that the Liberal Party had changed its ways.

The election of December 1921 - the first in which all women would vote - was a graphic illustration of how fragmented the country had become. Meighen was burdened with the unpopularity of the Union government and his role in guiding the conscription legislation through the house. His defence of the tariff was largely ignored in Quebec, where conscription was still vividly remembered, and attracted little support in the west or the Maritimes. Only 50 Conservatives were elected, 37 of them from Ontario. The Progressives were surprisingly successful, taking 38 of the 43 prairie seats and 24 in Ontario; among their number was Agnes Campbell Macphail*, Canada{apos}s first female mp. The Liberals achieved victory with 116 seats, a bare majority; enjoying representation from every province except Alberta, they could claim to be the only national party. With 65 of their seats from Quebec, however, the Liberals{s-1-unknown} dependence on French Canadian voters was a major concern. King had won the election and thus became prime minister (and ex officio secretary of state for external affairs); in due course, on 3 June 1922, he would be sworn to the British Privy Council, an honorific appointment he valued most because he felt it vindicated his grandfather{apos}s {d-0}great purpose & aim.{d-1}

King was still on trial. He would need to broaden the basis of Liberal support without alienating his own supporters and he would have little margin for error. His first decision was crucial. King knew that the Liberal Party had to retain the support of French Canada. He could read French but spoke it haltingly; the larger problem was more cultural than linguistic. To ensure that his government would not ignore the French Canadian point of view, he resolved that his closest colleague would come from Quebec. His choice was Ernest Lapointe, a backbencher and lawyer who had earned a reputation as a moderate Liberal and a champion of French Canadian rights. King called him to Ottawa immediately after the election, explained the role he would be expected to play, and offered him the justice portfolio to confirm his position. The most prominent figure among the French Canadians elected from Quebec was Sir Lomer Gouin, a former premier of the province, but King was suspicious of his liberalism because of his protectionist leanings and close ties with Montreal{apos}s business community. King eventually yielded to the political pressure to give justice to Gouin - Lapointe got marine and fisheries - but he made it clear that Lapointe was his chief lieutenant. This status was publicly corroborated in 1924 when Gouin resigned and Lapointe became minister of justice. King and Lapointe would work closely together for almost 20 years, until Lapointe{apos}s death in 1941.

The next issue for King was the cabinet representation from the west. This was important because he saw the cabinet as the central institution of government. Policy was expected to emerge from debates there, with ministers defending the interests of their region and King playing the role of mediator. In 1921 his task, as he understood it, was to consolidate the anti-Conservative forces, a seemingly simple undertaking. The Liberal and Progressive parties were both opposed to the high-tariff policies of the Conservatives and they both favoured greater autonomy in Canada{apos}s relations with Britain. If Progressive leaders entered cabinet, the farmers{s-1-unknown} point of view would be effectively presented and the emerging consensus would more adequately reflect a balanced national perspective. The difficulty was that the Liberal and Progressive parties both had deep internal divisions, which left their leaders with little room to manoeuvre. T. A. Crerar, the Progressive leader and mp for Marquette, Man., was tempted by the offer of a cabinet post; when he asked King for policy commitments on tariffs and railways, however, he got sympathy and understanding but no specific promises. The more radical Progressives made it clear that if he did enter the government he would not have their support. King eventually had to concede defeat and turn to elected Liberals to form his cabinet.

For the next few years the Progressives were never far from King{apos}s mind. The farmers{s-1-unknown} concerns continued to be his preoccupation and in cabinet he represented, as best he could, the interests of those who were absent. The Crowsnest Pass agreement, which gave preferential freight rates on grain moving eastward from the prairies on the railways and some commodities westward, had been suspended in 1919 in response to wartime inflation but it was restored by the government in 1922. The government also committed itself to creating a railway system out of the bankrupt lines it had acquired during the war [see William Costello Kennedy] and agreed to complete the Hudson Bay Railway to placate the farmers who wanted a shorter link to salt water. For most farmers, however, the real test would be tariff changes and here the government{apos}s record was ambivalent. Although King argued in cabinet for some dramatic gesture, he had little support and Fielding, once again minister of finance, included few tariff reductions in his budgets of March 1922 and May 1923. Some Progressives split with their party to support the first budget but it was a sign of the farmers{s-1-unknown} frustrations that all of the Progressives voted with the Conservatives against the second.

King{apos}s effort to unite the anti-Conservative forces fared better in international affairs. As prime minister, Meighen had continued Borden{apos}s policy of preserving the diplomatic unity of the empire, though at the Imperial Conference of 1921 he had opposed the renewal of Britain{apos}s alliance with Japan, recognizing that the United States had interests in the Pacific and wanting to maintain good Canadian-American relations. King too understood that imperial affairs abroad could have profound consequences for Canada. Within months the difficulties of maintaining imperial diplomatic unity were again exposed, dramatically, by the Çanak crisis. In September 1922 the Turkish government, in repudiation of a treaty it had signed with the allied powers, threatened to reoccupy the neutral zone of Çanak on the Dardanelles strait (Çanakkale Bo?azi). Britain was determined to block this action, by force if necessary. With no prior consultation it appealed to the prime ministers of the dominions to provide military support and then released a statement to the press. King, who had not received the official message, first heard of the crisis from a journalist. His response, after meeting with the cabinet, was to refuse any participation without the consent of parliament. This assertion of autonomy was in sharp contrast to Meighen{apos}s statement, in a speech in Toronto on 22 September, that Canada should have replied to Britain {d-0}Ready, aye ready; we stand by you.{d-1} King was careful to keep Crerar informed during the crisis and the Progressives openly supported his position. The Turks fortunately backed down, but the implications of Çanak could not be ignored. There would be no common imperial foreign policy if each dominion decided its own course of action.

The Imperial Conference of 1923 could not disregard this challenge. The British government, with support from Australia and New Zealand, hoped that the conference would approve a broad statement on foreign policy. King was convinced that any attempt to make binding decisions for the dominions would be an encroachment on their autonomy. The conference, as he envisaged it, was an important way to exchange information and foster understanding but it had no authority; decisions would have to be made by the parliaments. The conference{apos}s final report, which affirmed King{apos}s belief, marked a decisive step in the evolution of the British Commonwealth of Nations (a term that had received imperial statutory recognition in the Anglo-Irish treaty of 1921). The affirmation was an admission that there would be no centralized empire. It left undecided how the unity of the Commonwealth might be achieved or if, indeed, the Commonwealth would survive. King had no misgivings. He believed that self-governing members of the Commonwealth shared profound social and political values and so would agree on major issues if there was no coercion. His analogy was the family: the dominions, like children, would grow up but they would not be tempted to slam doors or leave home if their autonomy was acknowledged. For him the recognition of the self-governing powers of the dominions would strengthen rather than weaken Commonwealth unity.

Among the advisers who accompanied King to the 1923 conference was Oscar Douglas Skelton, a political scientist at Queen{apos}s University in Kingston and a biographer of Laurier. He attracted King{apos}s attention by his lucid comments on Canadian autonomy and, after the conference, was persuaded by King to become a departmental counsellor in 1924 and then under-secretary of state for external affairs in 1925. The appointments confirmed King{apos}s sound judgement. Skelton had a phenomenal capacity for work and a talent for organizing material and producing memoranda or speeches of remarkable brevity and clarity. He soon became King{apos}s most trusted official. Skelton did not always agree with King - he was, for example, more sceptical about the benefits to Canada of membership in the Commonwealth - but he expressed his opinions frankly and then loyally accepted King{apos}s decisions.

External affairs, however, and King{apos}s crucial role at the Imperial Conference attracted little attention in Canada. Fortunately the political situation at home was promising. It was becoming easier to make concessions to the farmers because economic conditions were improving and because the protectionist wing of the Liberal Party had been weakened by the resignations of Fielding and Gouin for health reasons. At the same time the divisions within the Progressive Party were deepening. In 1924 the government was able to reduce some tariffs and still promise the first surplus since before the war. A few high-tariff Liberals voted against the budget but, more significantly, the moderate Progressives voted for it. King was now confident that the voters would reward his efforts and he dissolved parliament the next year.

King was wrong. He had pushed his party as far as he had dared in the direction of lower tariffs and had defended Canadian autonomy within the empire, but electoral results in October 1925 constituted a major setback. The Liberals did increase their representation in the west by 18 seats; however, this gain was offset by the loss of 10 seats in Ontario and 19 in the Maritimes, where King{apos}s courting of the Progressives was resented. The Liberals ended up with 99 seats, of which 59 were from Quebec. The Conservatives, on the other hand, gained seats in every region for a total of 116, just short of a majority. The Progressives fell dramatically to 24, although they could find some consolation in the fact that they would hold the balance of power in the new parliament.

King{apos}s plans were upset by a scandal in the Department of Customs and Excise. There had been collusion between smugglers and members of the department to run goods into Canada from the United States. King had known for some time that there were problems and had moved the minister, Jacques Bureau*, to the Senate in September 1925 and appointed a successor, Georges-Henri Boivin, to reorganize the department. The Conservatives, however, were not impressed and saw the corruption there as an opportunity to defeat the Liberals, knowing that the Progressives, who had identified their party with honest government, would find it difficult to support the administration. King avoided any debate on the scandal as long as possible but in June 1926 the house had to deal with the report of a parliamentary committee on the scandal. When the Conservatives moved a vote of censure, King arranged a series of delaying amendments but it was clear that the Progressives were divided and that the government would likely be defeated on the final vote.

King{apos}s response was to avoid the vote by asking the governor general to dissolve the house and force another election. Byng refused on the grounds that Arthur Meighen should be given a chance to form a government. Meighen was prepared to try. On 27 June King speculated in his diary on his opponent{apos}s prospects. {d-0}Meighen too will fall heir to some difficult situations - Western provinces. . . . If he seeks to carry on I believe he will not go far. Our chances of winning out in a general election are good. I feel I am right, and so am happy may God guide me in every step.{d-1} The following day King resigned. Meighen succeeded in forming a government and in passing a vote of censure but his hopes of ending the session quickly were frustrated by King{apos}s refusal to cooperate. King arranged for a series of resolutions criticizing the new government. Enough Progressives, embarrassed at having to support Meighen, backed the Liberals in a vote of no-confidence on 2 July that narrowly defeated the new government. Byng then accepted Meighen{apos}s advice and dissolved parliament.

The election of September 1926 was decisive for King{apos}s career. Support for the Liberals had declined under his leadership and now the party had the additional handicap of fighting under the cloud of the customs scandal. King, however, fought an aggressive campaign, nationally and in Prince Albert. He argued that the constitution had been violated when Byng had refused him a dissolution but granted one to Meighen. In constitutional terms, Byng was right and King was wrong. Politically, however, King was the winner. He had focused attention on Byng{apos}s decision even though many Liberals doubted whether the electorate would be interested. The outcome seemed to confirm his judgement. The constitutional issue distracted voters from the customs scandal, with King posing as the champion of Canadian autonomy against an interfering governor general. The decisive factor was the cumulative effect of King{apos}s sustained efforts over five years to regain the confidence of the dissident farmers. The moderate Progressives had concluded that they preferred a Liberal to a Conservative government and in a number of ridings had agreed to nominate a Liberal-Progressive candidate. The Liberals won 116 seats and, with the support of 10 Liberal-Progressives, would have a clear majority. King himself retained his seat for Prince Albert.

The next few years were good ones to be in office. The Canadian economy expanded as post-war recovery in Europe and prosperity in the United States increased the market for Canadian cereals, minerals, and wood products and as domestic demand grew for Canadian automobiles and other manufactured goods. The federal government could cut taxes and still reduce its debt and have a modest surplus. The provincial governments wanted financial concessions but these claims were nothing new and King{apos}s skill as a negotiator would stand him in good stead. Late in the decade there were signs of economic trouble, including weakening newsprint and grain markets and excessive stock-market speculation, but optimism proved hardy. King continued to believe that his government was performing well and that the voters would show their gratitude.

The Imperial Conference of 1926 came only two weeks after King had returned to office in September. This conference was important because it attempted to define the nature of the British Commonwealth of Nations. King did not initiate the discussions. He was prepared to live with an undefined relationship with Britain, confident that he could defend Canadian autonomy when necessary. James Barry Munnik Hertzog, the prime minister of South Africa, was more impatient: he threatened to leave the Commonwealth if the conference refused to draft a declaration that would affirm the independent status of the dominions. He had the support of Ireland but not the prime ministers of Australia or New Zealand. King played an important role as a mediator. He favoured the middle ground of a declaration of autonomy but not of independence. After two weeks of negotiations the conference agreed on a definition of Britain and the dominions: {d-0}They are autonomous Communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown, and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations.{d-1}

This definition did not end the debate. Hertzog interpreted {d-0}freely associated{d-1} to mean that South Africa could leave the Commonwealth if it chose to; the British did not agree. The definition was significant, however. Equal status meant that Britain could no longer assume that its foreign policy should be the policy of the Commonwealth. It also meant that Canada, like the other dominions, could develop a diplomatic service and a foreign policy of its own. The Imperial Conference of 1926 and the Statute of Westminster of 1931, which would give this new status legal definition, confirmed that the British Commonwealth of Nations would be a voluntary association, with its strength to be determined by the decisions of its respective members. Canada{apos}s diplomatic service quickly took shape. Charles Vincent Massey*, the first representative to be appointed abroad with full diplomatic status, was named envoy to the United States in November 1926. This assignment was followed by the appointment of Philippe Roy to France in 1928 and Herbert Meredith Marler to Tokyo in 1929.

Back in Canada, King had to deal with continuing regional dissatisfaction. The Maritimes were aggrieved because they were not sharing in the prosperity of the rest of the country and were convinced that federal tariffs and railway freight rates were to blame. The prairie premiers complained that federal reluctance to relinquish control of their natural resources was discriminatory. The premiers of Ontario and Quebec objected to the limitations placed on their authority to develop hydroelectric power by federal jurisdiction over navigable streams. At the Dominion-Provincial Conference of 1927 King used his conciliatory skills and held out concessions to each region if they raised no objections to the offers made to the other regions. And so the Maritimes got higher subsidies and lower freight rates, the prairie provinces got control of their natural resources without losing a compensatory subsidy, and Ontario and Quebec got the right to distribute water power developed on navigable streams. For the moment King{apos}s approach had appeased the regional demands.

This relative political harmony was linked to the prosperity of the mid 1920s but it can also be seen as the end of a long era of nation building. The three-pronged National Policy of Canada{apos}s first prime minister, Sir John A. Macdonald, had achieved its objectives. Most of the arable land offered to homesteaders on the prairies was now occupied and for the first time in half a century the federal policy of assistance to agricultural immigrants was questioned. Railway policy was also being modified. The government-owned Canadian National Railways, under the aggressive management of Sir Henry Worth Thornton*, had spent federal funds to develop an integrated railway system. The success of this investment seemed confirmed by 1928 when the operating revenues of the system exceeded the interest payments on the railways{s-1-unknown} bonds. The third prong, the tariffs, was a major subject of political debate - farmers still deemed them too high - but they were no longer a dynamic factor in the Canadian economy.

King had no new policy to substitute for the old National Policy. He did reintroduce old-age pensions after the 1926 election but he did not follow up with other measures of social security for individuals in an increasingly urban and industrial Canada. Instead of spending the increased revenue which prosperity provided, the government used its annual surplus to reduce its debt and in 1927-28 it lowered the sales and income taxes. King saw no reason to question this frugality. By reducing taxes and so reducing the costs of production, his government, he was sure, deserved credit for Canada{apos}s economic growth and he expected to be rewarded at the polls.

The Republican victory south of the border in 1928 introduced a possible complication because President Herbert Clark Hoover was committed to raising the American tariffs on farm products. King used what influence he could to change Hoover{apos}s mind. He agreed to help American agencies enforce Prohibition by making it more difficult to smuggle Canadian liquor into the United States. He also tried to take advantage of Hoover{apos}s interest in a St Lawrence River seaway by suggesting that Canada was ready to negotiate an agreement. Hoover would not change his mind. The King government responded in the federal budget of 1930 by promising countervailing rates if the American government did increase its tariffs.

By then the good times were over, though not all Canadians realized this at the time. In Canada the onset of the world-wide depression of the 1930s differed by region and by industry. The Maritimes had already entered into severe economic decline. The overproduction of pulp and paper had meant lay-offs in northern communities as early as 1927. The price of western wheat dropped in 1928. In other regions, even in 1930, there might be some concern for the future but the factories were still operating. Richard Bedford Bennett, the leader of the opposition in parliament since 1927, argued that there was a crisis and demanded that the government do something. King was not impressed. It is revealing that there is no reference in his diary to the famous stock-market crash in October 1929; it would take two more years to push the government financially to the wall. King{apos}s own investments were in government bonds and gilt-edged securities and it was easy for him in 1929 to assume that only speculators had been hurt. He also found the talk of unemployment exaggerated - in 1930 the Dominion Bureau of Statistics was only starting to register a drop - and surely next spring would bring higher prices and more jobs. It was, King believed, a temporary recession and just patience was needed.

The prime minister spent the early part of 1930 mulling over the timing of the next election and related budgetary options. What scant attention he paid to the appointment in February of Canada{apos}s first female senator, Cairine Reay Wilson [Mackay*], was of a partisan nature. On the economic front his optimism led to an uncharacteristic slip in a debate on unemployment on 3 April 1930. The Conservatives argued that the crisis was so severe that Ottawa should offer financial assistance to the provincial governments, which were responsible for unemployment relief. King pointed out that no premier had asked for help and that, in Ontario, George Howard Ferguson had even denied his province had an unemployment problem. The federal Tories, according to King, were playing partisan politics, asking him to subsidize provincial Tory governments for no good reason, and he {d-0}would not give them a five-cent piece.{d-1} He did not often deliver such an unguarded statement and the opposition would make much of {d-0}the five-cent speech{d-1} in the election called for July.

King was still confident that voters would appreciate his frugal financial policy. In the campaign he did not ignore the economic downturn but he offered caution and sound government as the appropriate response. On the other hand, Bennett, who used radio with telling effect, talked of an economic crisis and promised dramatic measures, including the use of tariffs {d-0}to blast a way into the markets that have been closed.{d-1} On the prairies, where wheat prices had dropped sharply, and in Quebec, where dairy farmers wanted protection against New Zealand butter, Bennett{apos}s appeal swung enough votes to give the Conservatives a majority. Returned in Prince Albert, King would spend the next five years in opposition.

His lifestyle was now well established. At 55, he was a confirmed bachelor with few interests outside of politics. Laurier House, the Ottawa residence he had inherited from Lady Laurier and occupied since 1923, was a comfortable, yellow-brick abode maintained by a staff that included a valet, a cook, a chauffeur, and a gardener. Peter Charles Larkin, a loyal Liberal businessman, had collected private funds to renovate it and pay for its upkeep. An elevator was installed. It took King and sometimes his invited guests to the third-floor library, where a portrait of his mother was prominently displayed. King occasionally had people for dinner but these were usually formal occasions. He was not a gregarious man and none of his colleagues and friends would visit him without an invitation. His closest friend was Mary Joan Patteson, wife of Godfroy Barkworth Patteson, a local banker with limited interests. Joan was a discreet and sympathetic woman who listened to King with patience and understanding and who rarely intruded her own problems into the discussions. King regularly talked to her over the telephone or dropped in for a visit to recount the difficulties or good fortunes of the day. The friendship was never a secret and it was a tribute to Joan{apos}s discretion and transparent dignity that no scandalous rumours about the nature of the relationship were ever taken seriously.

King{apos}s summer residence at Kingsmere was even more of a refuge than Laurier House. He expanded the property in the 1920s and 1930s and spent his summer months there to escape the sultry heat and social pressures of Ottawa. He rented a cottage on his property to the Pattesons and sometimes entertained foreign guests for lunch, but if he saw his colleagues or secretaries there it was only because he had asked them to make the trip to conduct business. King{apos}s interest in erecting artificial ruins at Kingsmere - still one of its most fascinating features - emerged in 1934, when his grandfather{apos}s house in Toronto was threatened with demolition. The Kingsmere collection actually began the following year, with a stone window frame from the Ottawa residence of the late Simon-Napoléon Parent.

If King seemed settled in his ways, he was still a lonely man and politics was not enough to fill his life completely. He had no close family ties by this time; his surviving sibling, Janet (Jennie) Lindsey Lay, lived in Barrie, Ont., but they were not intimate. As leader of the Liberal Party he kept himself at arm{apos}s length from his colleagues, who might try to presume on his friendship and might have to be jettisoned if the political winds changed. He did continue to correspond with acquaintances outside Ottawa and to talk to Joan Patteson, but this was not enough for a man who constantly needed the reassurance that he was loved. Pat, his Irish terrier, was important because Pat showed affection without making too many demands on his time. King, however, also found emotional support in more unusual ways. In 1916, after visiting the graves of his sister Isabel Christina Grace and father in Toronto, he had noted in his diary, {d-0}To me the spiritual presence of both Bell & himself was far more real than their graves which my eyes were witnessing.{d-1} His faith that his family (especially his mother) and others were somehow still watching over him became more important as time passed; he regularly saw coincidences as a sign of their presence and interpreted his dreams as evidence of their affection and support. This faith in itself did not make King unique but the need for signs of approval from the spirit world gradually led him to seek confirmation in more eccentric ways. He was intrigued by forecasts of the future based on tea leaves and his horoscope, consulted a fortune-teller, and during his years in opposition, when he had more leisure time, tried to make contact with the spirit world through other means, including the Ouija board and sessions with a medium. King occasionally expressed scepticism about the messages he received - he justified his interest by calling it psychic research - but he was still fascinated by the apparent contacts with the departed. He did not seek their political advice; his political decisions were based as always on his own analysis of situations. The content of the messages was less important than the evidence that the spirits were present and watching over him. This reassurance gave him the strength to deal with the stresses and strains and with the isolation of politics. In a paradoxical way, his eccentric links with this other world made it more possible for him to cope with the normal pressures of a political career.

The normal pressures were intensified after the 1930 election by allegations of corruption. What became known as the Beauharnois Scandal had its roots in a scheme to divert water from the St Lawrence into the Beauharnois Canal near Montreal to develop hydroelectric power. In March 1929 the King government had authorized a diversion after confirming that it would not interfere with navigability on the river. The Beauharnois Light, Heat and Power Company, however, saw this approval as only the beginning. It looked forward to a seaway with most of the St Lawrence diverted into its canal. The potential profits were enormous. The corporation, apparently concluding that it was necessary to keep the Liberals in power, funnelled more than half a million dollars into their campaign fund in 1930. This contribution proved awkward for the party when it became public knowledge after the Liberal defeat. Even more embarrassing for King was the disclosure that he had gone on a holiday to Bermuda with Wilfrid Laurier McDougald, the chairman of the Beauharnois board, and that McDougald had paid King{apos}s hotel bill and submitted it to Beauharnois on his expense account. Between June 1931 and April 1932 committees of the commons and the Senate investigated the many related allegations.

King managed to have his name cleared. McDougald explained that he had submitted his bill by mistake; nobody seemed concerned that King{apos}s acceptance of McDougald{apos}s generosity might be interpreted as a conflict of interest. The donation to the Liberal campaign was more difficult to deal with. King could argue that his government had protected the public interest when it allowed the diversion of water and had made no further commitments to the corporation, but he knew that many Canadians would remain unconvinced. Though the scandal did no long-term damage - nor did it lead to any major reforms in the financing of the party - it put the Liberals, King conceded in parliament on 30 July 1931, {d-0}in the valley of humiliation.{d-1} His solution was to isolate himself from party finances. Liberal bagmen would continue to collect and distribute campaign funds. As leader, King would not be told who the contributors were, so his political decisions would not be affected by their identity. This solution left him with a clear conscience but it still left the party largely dependent on undisclosed donations from private corporations.

Bennett, who initially acted as his own minister of finance, had to face declining revenues as well as ever stronger demands for federal aid. He raised taxes slightly but revenues declined with the economic slowdown. Further tariff increases would have little effect because the existing structure already excluded most foreign competition. Bennett{apos}s only choice seemed to be the reduction of expenditures, especially relief costs. He tried to keep aid to the provinces to a minimum by hard bargaining; in the unemployment and farm relief acts of 1931-32 he even refused to disclose the amount of federal funds available in order to negotiate more effectively. At the same time he showed his frustration with the depression by stressing law and order, denouncing strikes and demonstrations, and insisting that his administration was doing everything possible.

After King had dealt with the Beauharnois problems, he proved to be an effective opposition leader. The depression of the 1930s was of unprecedented severity in Canada. The dependence on exports of raw materials and farm products meant that Canadian providers were especially vulnerable in a world where nations raised tariffs to protect their producers. Western farmers were doubly unfortunate because not only did prices reach historic lows, but in many regions drought, rust, and grasshoppers also meant crop failures. In cities, factories closed because consumers could no longer buy. Desperate Canadians had to turn to governments when they had no other place to turn, first for food and shelter and then for any means to restore their hope. The depression brought regions and classes into conflict and encouraged demagogues to propose radical and unorthodox policies. King seemed an unlikely leader for this troubled time. He had earned a reputation for being cautious, a man of compromises and half measures. In a world where the battle seemed to be between left and right, with communism and fascism at the extremes, King looked indecisive, even colourless. Yet within five years he would be back in office, at the head of the largest majority enjoyed by any party up to that time. He kept the Liberals together while the Conservative Party disintegrated and new political parties emerged to compete for votes. It was no mean achievement. As he had explained in 1929 to a correspondent, {d-0}The supreme effort of my leadership of the party has been to keep its aims and purposes so broad that it might be possible to unite at times of crisis under one banner those parties, which for one reason or another, have come to be separated from the Liberal party.{d-1} By 1923 most Progressives would have rejoined it. In 1931-32, however, unity seemed a distant goal: the party was torn between high and low tariff factions, and on the front benches of opposition King had few strong supporters at his side.

Like Bennett, King was slow to recognize that politics would be transformed by the depression. He had begun his years in opposition convinced that his administration had not deserved defeat. The economy had flourished, he believed, because of his government{apos}s financial caution. The recession, if it was a recession, could be blamed on the speculative excesses of businessmen and on the weather cycle. The worst mistake Canada - and the rest of the world - could make was to react by raising tariffs and restricting international trade. Bennett, from King{apos}s perspective, had won election by exaggerating the threats to the Canadian economy and by rashly promising that he could somehow use the tariff to counteract international and climatic constraints. Voters, King believed, would soon learn that they had been deceived and would come to appreciate the Liberal years of frugal administration and freer trade.

King thus saw little need to reconsider or revise his political assumptions. The Conservative government was clearly in political trouble and King was content to draw attention to its difficulties. He repeatedly reminded the house of Bennett{apos}s election promises. He denounced the federal deficits as irresponsible without suggesting how budgets could be balanced. He did not object to aid to the provinces - the need was too apparent - but he did denounce the {d-0}blank cheques{d-1} parliament was asked to approve for relief, and delayed the passage of these bills over the objections of caucus members who feared constituents might conclude that the Liberals had no sympathy for those in distress. And each year, after the throne speech and the budget, he introduced amendments that blamed the depression on Bennett{apos}s high-tariff policy.

King{apos}s response reflected his fundamental commitment to finding a consensus among {d-0}liberally-minded{d-1} Canadians. He did not expect to convert the Tories, whom he believed were wedded to big business, or the socialists, who wanted a monopoly of power for the workers. Criticism from his own caucus members, however, he took seriously. He might regret their impatience but he would not ignore them. His role was to keep the party united. By 1933 he had reluctantly concluded that traditional Liberal preconceptions were not enough. If the party was to survive, it would have to face the challenge of the depression more directly. Here his talents as a conciliator would be crucial. Although lower tariffs would be part of a new Liberal platform, the most controversial issue would be inflation. King and his more conservative followers still equated inflation with theft, but, for indebted producers especially, inflation seemed the only way to meet their financial obligations. King{apos}s compromise was a government-controlled {d-0}central bank{d-1} that could modify the money supply on the basis of {d-0}public need.{d-1} He was proposing an institution, not a policy. He succeeded because the moderates saw the bank as an agency that could protect sound money and the radicals saw it as an agency that could introduce a policy of controlled inflation. The significance of this compromise should not be minimized. It recognized that the state should play a positive role in determining fiscal policy. It certainly implied more intervention than did the Bank of Canada legislated by Bennett in 1934, which was to be an agency of the chartered banks.

This new platform was quite satisfactory to King. It placed the party in the centre of the political spectrum, more open than the Conservatives to regulating business without resorting to the socialist panacea of government ownership. It was also important to King that the platform had been approved in 1933 by both the conservatives and the radicals in the Liberal caucus. Some, among them Vincent Massey, wanted to take Liberalism in different directions, and not necessarily with King at the helm. With party unity assured, King eagerly awaited the next election. Late in the 1934 session he denounced Bennett for holding on to office when he no longer had popular support and promised that if he insisted on meeting the house for a fifth session, the Liberals would obstruct and force an election. In January 1935 the political situation changed when Bennett made five radio speeches known as the New Deal broadcasts. {d-0}The old order is gone,{d-1} he told a startled audience, and he announced that he was for radical reform through government intervention. In the next session, he promised, he would introduce appropriate legislation. There was more rhetoric than substance to these broadcasts and Bennett, in contrast to King{apos}s approach to leadership, had not consulted his colleagues. Confident that it had the jurisdictional authority, the government nonetheless passed the Employment and Social Insurance Act early in 1935. Bennett certainly won the attention of Canadians who, after five years of depression, wanted to believe that a political leader could end the crisis.

The changed strategy worked. The Liberals remained united, at least in public, but the Conservatives became deeply divided. By the end of the session the government{apos}s claim to be the party of reform was discredited and in July 1935 some dissident Conservatives led by Henry Herbert Stevens* had even formed a separate Reconstruction Party. In the federal election of October the Liberals were returned with 173 seats, the largest majority on record, with members from every province, while the Conservatives were reduced to a rump of 40 members. The popular vote, however, told a different story. The Liberals received only 45 per cent, almost unchanged from the previous election. The dramatic change was the drop for the Conservatives and the support of 20 per cent for the new parties: the CCF and its socialism, Reconstruction and its emphasis on regulating business, and Social Credit and its panacea of inflation. If the choice was between {d-0}King or chaos,{d-1} as the Liberal slogan put it, a good many Canadian voters were prepared to risk chaos.

The next four years would be a difficult time for the country. For its new prime minister it would be a stern test of his political skills. His experience and confidence showed in his cabinet. King again took on external affairs. Ernest Lapointe, still his closest colleague, returned to justice. The financially conservative Charles Avery Dunning* was persuaded to become minister of finance, and from among the new mps King appointed Clarence Decatur Howe*, who had business experience, to the newly created portfolio of transport. The cabinet was recognized as an able group, and King would give his ministers a good deal of autonomy in the administration of their departments, but King, more than ever, was in charge. He set the government{apos}s agenda and chaired the cabinet discussions. After some slow improvement in economic conditions, 1937 saw another downturn, especially on the prairies, where the summer was the driest on record. Regional grievances fed on the frustrations of deferred recovery, and the government again became a popular target. The divisions within the Liberal Party, which reflected regional rivalries, were compounded by a series of international crises that threatened to involve Canada in a European war.

The new government, as one of its first problems, had to decide on its international obligations as a member of the League of Nations. King had supported membership - it enhanced Canada{apos}s status as a nation and provided evidence that Canada favoured the peaceful settlement of international disputes - but he had shown little interest in the debates at League headquarters in Geneva. Canada{apos}s foreign policy had been mainly confined to relations with Britain and the United States, and King expected to deal with these countries directly. Shortly after the election, however, his government was faced with a request from the League to impose economic sanctions on Italy because it had invaded Ethiopia. The cabinet agreed to apply sanctions but the discussion made it clear to King that if the League went on to propose military intervention, the cabinet and the country would be deeply divided. The request for military sanctions never came because Britain and France backed away from any confrontation with Italy{apos}s Fascist leader, Benito Mussolini. King nevertheless learned an important lesson: membership in the League might have serious political consequences for Canada. He took steps to minimize the risk. Though he affirmed, in the commons and later in Geneva, his support for the League as a necessary institution for the resolution of disputes, he bluntly rejected the idea of the League as a military alliance against aggressors. Canada, he told the League{apos}s Assembly in 1936, did not support {d-0}automatic commitments to the use of force.{d-1} Editorials in much of the Canadian press applauded. King{apos}s political faith in non-intervention, and his fear of domestic division, can be seen too in his decision to distance Canada from the Spanish Civil War in 1937 and his refusal to modify Canadian immigration regulations to admit European Jewish refugees.

For King, Canada{apos}s economic problems had higher priority than international relations, but he had no simple solution to the complex challenges of the depression. Although he had shown a willingness to consider extending the role of government when party unity seemed to require it, he was still reluctant to take new initiatives. His caution meant that his government{apos}s honeymoon was brief. King{apos}s only specific election promise had been to negotiate a trade treaty with the United States. Bennett had already begun the discussions but political interests on both sides of the border had delayed matters. In November 1935, within two weeks of taking office, King was in Washington to make the best deal possible. He wisely enlisted the support of Cordell Hull, the American secretary of state and an evangelist for expanding international trade. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, however, was the key. King and Roosevelt found it easy to discuss their political concerns. Roosevelt had a talent for putting visiting heads of state at ease and King could talk knowledgeably about United States politics and politicians. In the trade details King was well prepared and he returned to Canada with a treaty, which, modest in scope, gave Canadian farm products some welcome access to the American market.

He was also encouraged by a conference with the provincial premiers, in December 1935 shortly after the election. He was confident that a change in governing style would make a difference, that his emphasis on consultation would smooth relations. The premiers faced declining revenues and higher welfare costs and needed federal grants and loans to reduce their deficits. The national government had deficits of its own and hoped that provincial demands could be limited through the elimination of extravagances or duplications of welfare payments. At the conference King pleased the premiers by increasing the federal grants until the spring of 1936; his talk of a federal commission to supervise welfare payments and the possibility of constitutional amendments affecting provincial jurisdiction over social policy did not attract much attention. He had already referred Bennett{apos}s Employment and Social Insurance Act to the courts, which would strike it down as exceeding federal jurisdiction. King{apos}s objective at this stage was a federal system in which each level of government would be able to pay for its programs out of its own tax sources. He was no more precise because he had no concrete measures in mind and assumed that any new distribution of powers would emerge from discussions with the provinces.

King, however, soon found that confrontation was unavoidable because, without more federal aid, some provinces faced bankruptcy. William Aberhart, Alberta{apos}s Social Credit premier since August 1935, was a populist with little concern for convention. In 1936 he could not refinance an issue of maturing provincial bonds without a federal guarantee of the interest payments. When C. A. Dunning suggested some federal supervision of provincial finances in return, Aberhart refused and extended the term for the bonds while halving the interest rates. Then, in 1937, under pressure from his backbenchers, he passed legislation to compel chartered banks to lend money to Albertans. When the newspapers criticized this measure Aberhart retaliated with a bill that obliged them to publish press releases giving the government{apos}s side of the story. King{apos}s response was to disallow the bank legislation and to refer the newspaper bill to the Supreme Court of Canada, which nullified it as unconstitutional.

King could claim to be standing up for civil rights in Alberta by defending the banks and the newspapers but he was less forthright in Quebec. In 1937 Maurice Le Noblet Duplessis*, the Union Nationale premier, passed the Act Respecting Communistic Propaganda (the so-called Padlock Law) to intimidate labour leaders and {d-0}agitators{d-1} by threatening to lock up their offices for any alleged communist activities. King{apos}s government, which had already repealed the section of the Criminal Code prohibiting unlawful associations, considered disallowing this act but Ernest Lapointe believed such a move would be politically disastrous for the Liberal Party in Quebec. King and his English-Canadian colleagues did not question Lapointe{apos}s political judgement and so, as King recorded in his diary in July 1938, {d-0}we were prepared to accept what really should not, in the name of liberalism, be tolerated for one moment.{d-1}

Aberhart and Duplessis might show little respect for civil rights but the rift between the federal and provincial governments had a more basic cause. The provinces, dependent as they were on revenues from direct taxes, could not provide even essential social services without subsidies or loans from Ottawa. Thomas Dufferin Pattullo*, the Liberal premier of British Columbia, whose concept of liberalism embraced the provision of work and wages, committed his government to construction projects for which it had no funds. When King refused to provide money for a bridge across the Fraser River, Pattullo was furious. Ontario{apos}s Liberal premier, Mitchell Frederick Hepburn*, was critical for quite different reasons. He objected to federal grants to western provinces to finance relief measures because most of the money came originally from Ontario taxpayers. In 1937 he announced that he was no longer a {d-0}Mackenzie King Liberal.{d-1} Other premiers might be less outspoken but all of them were facing demands for social services they could not afford. If there was to be effective coordination, the onus would have to be on Ottawa. Privately King resented Hepburn and Duplessis{apos}s narrow regionalism, but it was, he reasoned in his diary in December 1937, {d-0}just as well to have these two incipient dictators out in the open. The public will soon discover who is protecting their interests and freedom. . . . We will win in a {s-0}united Canada{s-1-unknown} cry.{d-1}

The prime minister did agree to some extension of the economic role of government when he felt the political pressures could not be safely ignored. He had objected to Bennett{apos}s Canadian Wheat Board in 1935 but had accepted its operation while it disposed of the wheat it had bought up to support prices. By 1938, however, the board had sold its holdings and King proposed a return to the open market. Western farmers were incensed. They wanted a board that would give them a guaranteed minimum price, with the federal government covering any losses, and they organized a public campaign that could not be ignored. King and agriculture minister James Garfield Gardiner* reluctantly agreed to extend the board{apos}s life and to offer a minimum price that would protect the farmers from further declines.

There was one other significant increase in federal expenditures that King agreed to with reluctance. He and Dunning had initially planned a balanced budget for 1938, sure that voters would reward a financially responsible government, but some colleagues, to King{apos}s surprise, were not convinced. They wanted to create jobs to stimulate the economy. Their argument was reinforced by the theory of influential British economist John Maynard Keynes that governments could increase employment by spending when private investment was low. King, however, was swayed more by political than by economic arguments. To placate his colleagues he agreed to budget for a deficit in 1938 and again in 1939. This acceptance of contra-cyclical financing was hesitant but for King it was a major step towards using the budget more to craft fiscal policy than to balance accounts.

Lowering trade barriers still seemed a surer way of stimulating the economy. King saw a great opportunity when Cordell Hull asked him to use the Imperial Conference of 1937 as an opportunity to encourage British prime minister Arthur Neville Chamberlain to negotiate a trade agreement with the United States. King responded with enthusiasm because he firmly believed that such an agreement would strengthen the economies of Canada{apos}s closest friends and improve their relations. But he also knew that Canada would have to be involved in any negotiations because Britain could not reduce its tariffs on such American goods as apples and lumber without asking Canada to forgo some of the preference that the 1932 Ottawa agreements had guaranteed. When talks began King insisted on compensation for Canadian concessions. He drove a hard bargain. In 1938, after prolonged triangular negotiations, a treaty was signed that had some tangible benefits for each region of Canada. Both Hull and Chamberlain learned to be more sceptical about King{apos}s altruism.

By then the economic situation, frustrating as it might be, was overshadowed by the threat of a European war. As a liberal, King still favoured resolving international disputes by negotiation and he shared the widespread hostility to the {d-0}merchants of death{d-1} who profited from the arms trade. He had tried to limit expenditures on the armed forces, but by 1937 he had decided that his government could no longer ignore its obligation to defend Canada {d-0}in a mad world.{d-1} Though the British Royal Navy and the United States{s-1-unknown} Monroe Doctrine might mean that the dominion was in no immediate danger of attack, Canadian autonomy required it to take some responsibility for its own defence. Most Canadians would recognize the duty to protect their coasts, but what of the argument that Britain was Canada{apos}s first line of defence? Many Canadians, including King, accepted it; to many French Canadians it was a reminder of the coercive behaviour of the majority in the Great War. King decided to almost double the defence budget in 1937. Some Liberals were strongly opposed but they yielded to his insistence that the additional money would be spent on the navy and air force for coastal defence and not on an expeditionary force for Europe. He was not being dishonest; he was merely keeping his options open. Coastal defence was needed but he knew that augmentation of the navy and the air force would be useful as well in a European war. In 1939, with war even more likely, he again overrode opposition in the party to double the defence estimates. Canada was still unprepared for war in September of that year but King had shown more forethought than most of his followers.

By this time he had reluctantly concluded that he could not isolate Canada from a European crisis. The League of Nations had never recovered from Ethiopia and so membership no longer threatened to involve Canada in war. Membership in the Commonwealth, however, carried risks that were not so easily dealt with. King saw the danger: the country - and the Liberal Party - might again be divided. His first response was to persuade the British government to avoid entangling alliances. Germany might provoke a war, but if Britain was not drawn in Canada would not be involved. At the Imperial Conference of 1937, therefore, King encouraged the British to resist confrontations and to resolve disputes with Germany through peaceful negotiations. Though appeasement would later be denounced as yielding to an aggressor, at the time it was seen as a legitimate response to legitimate grievances. King himself visited Adolf Hitler after the conference. He warned the Führer that Canada would be at Britain{apos}s side if Britain was drawn into war, but King was optimistic. Hitler, he reported to Chamberlain, seemed to be a reasonable man.

In 1938, however, King was forced to realize that Britain would not be able to isolate itself from events. The crucial event for him was the Munich Agreement of late September, when Chamberlain helped to negotiate the cession of Czechoslovakian territory to Germany. Had negotiations failed and war ensued, King and most of his government would have been at Britain{apos}s side, though some members would have resigned. Much relieved when the agreement ended the crisis, he nevertheless recognized that war was likely and that Britain would be engaged. He was sure that most Canadians would want to be, and should be, involved. The political problem, as he saw it, was to have this decision accepted without serious divisions. In the commons on 20 March 1939, King explained his position. His government had made no commitments. If war came, parliament would decide what to do, based on Canadian interests. Here was reassurance for those who suspected the malign influence of London, but King did not stop there. {d-0}If there were a prospect of an aggressor launching an attack on Britain, with bombers raining death on London, I have no doubt what the decision of the Canadian people and parliament would be. We would regard it as an act of aggression, menacing freedom in all parts of the British Commonwealth.{d-1} Ten days later he returned to the subject of involvement, to reiterate the understanding that his government would never introduce conscription for overseas service. French Canada acquiesced. His position convinced many other Canadians too, but it did make it difficult to plan for war. In 1936, for example, Britain had proposed a joint venture to manufacture Bren machine-guns in Canada. King procrastinated because, if Britain went to war and Canada was committed to supplying the guns, it would be considered a belligerent. King eventually yielded to British pressure, however, and the contracts were signed in 1938. A British proposal to train pilots in Canada was even more controversial. King{apos}s rejection of the project in 1936 and 1938, and then his insistence on Canadian control, meant that no decision was reached before Germany invaded Poland and war was declared. There could be no effective joint planning with its Commonwealth allies if Canada made no commitments in advance.

King{apos}s strategy also meant that Canada played no part in shaping British foreign policy. King was shocked in March 1939 when Chamberlain reversed Munich and promised to defend Poland{apos}s borders, but he expressed no objections. Again there was no consultation when Britain declared war on 3 September, though this time at least King and his government were united in their support. Canada{apos}s own declaration of war was delayed because King had to assemble parliament to keep his promise that it would decide. When the Liberal-dominated commons met in emergency session, starting on the 7th, the decision that had seemed so controversial a year before was accepted on the 9th almost unanimously. King repeated the pledge he had made in parliament in March not to introduce conscription for overseas service. His strategy had disadvantages, but it did help to bring Canada into the war without irreparable division.

Now in his mid 60s, King was conscious of his age. The pressures of the depression and the international situation had exhausted him. Politics had become an endless effort to avoid disasters; in his diary King talked of retiring after winning one more election. Then came the war, which provided an overriding sense of purpose. Leadership now meant more than staying in power. For the next five years King would face political decisions that were more demanding and in many ways more important, but there was no further talk of retirement. He might be exhausted or frustrated at times, but he never questioned the importance of what he was doing. And King was still a decisive political opportunist. In 1940, when Hepburn and Conservative leader George Alexander Drew* combined in the Ontario legislature to condemn Ottawa{apos}s war effort, he seized the occasion to call an election before any spring offensive in Europe and so renewed the Liberals{s-1-unknown} federal majority for another five years.

The Canada led by King would play a significant role in the war. Convoy duty by the Royal Canadian Navy had begun immediately, in September 1939, and in December the 1st Canadian Division of the army went overseas. Isolated after the fall of France in June 1940, Britain would depend on the industrial and military might of North America for its survival. In its darkest days, Canada was a major source of troops and supplies. The United States would provide a lend-lease arrangement for materials in 1941 and then become an active ally, but Canada, in proportion to its size, made a larger contribution. Industrial production expanded rapidly and the government{apos}s generous financial arrangements made it possible for Britain to purchase Canadian food and munitions. The effort was remarkable by any standards.

King{apos}s role should not be exaggerated. The depression meant that Canada had land, resources, and workers that were underutilized and available for an initial restructuring of its economy. Canada also had the advantage of being close to Europe but far enough away not to risk invasion. With its close cultural and economic ties to Britain, it could have been a valuable ally under a number of leaders. King{apos}s political talents and experience nonetheless gave him an influence that, directly or indirectly, would shape the wartime decisions of his government. There was nothing dramatic about his leadership. He produced no Churchillian phrases to rally Canadians and none of Roosevelt{apos}s fireside chats to involve them in the issues of the day. Initially, through its focus on coastal defence, Canada was committed only to a qualified participation in the war. Canada still felt remote from Europe in geographic terms and it still harboured deep regional and cultural divisions. King{apos}s political sensitivity, made acute by decades of experience, and his skills as a conciliator were well suited to this wartime Canada.

As minister of external affairs, King had direct responsibility for maintaining the delicate balance between Canadian autonomy and commitment as Britain{apos}s ally. After war began, for example, Canada was a logical place to train aircrew; it was safe, had space for airfields and a tradition of flying, and could draw on the industrial and technical resources of North America. But how was a Commonwealth training plan to be organized and financed? King again insisted that any training be conducted under Canadian control, and here the British government was obliged to give way, though the standards and overall policy were set by the Royal Air Force. The Canadian government eventually took over most of the costs because Britain was short of dollars. The British Commonwealth Air Training Plan, under an agreement of 17 Dec. 1939 that initially involved Canada, Britain, Australia, and New Zealand, was an unquestioned success. Most of the Commonwealth{apos}s aircrew learned their skills here, making the scheme one of Canada{apos}s distinctive contributions to the war.

Canada{apos}s relations with the United States were more anomalous, especially because the United States was not at war until the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941. King{apos}s personal relations with Roosevelt helped to circumvent some of the diplomatic barriers imposed by neutrality. In early September 1939, for instance, Canada was allowed to purchase American airplanes because King had reassured Roosevelt, in a telephone conversation, that Canada was not technically at war until parliament had approved an official declaration. After the fall of France in 1940 an invitation to King from Roosevelt led to the Ogdensburg Agreement for a joint board to study continental defence. The Hyde Park Agreement in April 1941 was initiated by a telephone call from King. He explained that Canada was facing a financial crisis because it was supplying Britain on credit and so had no cash to pay for the American imports needed by Canadian manufacturers. Roosevelt agreed to ease the crisis by including, in the lend-lease agreement, exports to Canada that could be identified as components of Canada{apos}s munitions production.

King{apos}s personal contacts with Churchill and Roosevelt were nonetheless of some importance. The British and Americans were inclined to make decisions and to expect their smaller allies to accept them. Much of the planning for the production and distribution of war supplies was done by joint Anglo-American boards. The Canadian government regularly asked to be represented on boards that allocated supplies produced by Canada. Requests for representation on the Combined Food Board, to name one, were ignored. King eventually appealed directly to both Churchill and Roosevelt, and Canada was finally given a place. For other bodies, however, his appeals were not effective.

His wartime leadership in domestic affairs is less easily assessed because, although he might question his ministers{s-1-unknown} decisions, he rarely reversed them. Much therefore depended on his relations with his cabinet. In the late 1930s he had known that some of his ministers were weak or thinking of retirement, but he had hesitated to take action until the war provided the needed incentive to strengthen his government. He lured James Layton Ralston, a prominent Nova Scotia Liberal, back into politics, first as minister of finance (to replace Dunning) and then as minister of national defence, where his presence and his concern for enlisted men, dating back to the Great War, were reassuring to Canadian servicemen. King{apos}s choice for Ralston{apos}s successor in finance was James Lorimer Ilsley*, who could be a stubborn colleague but whose integrity and determination to control expenditures shaped Canada{apos}s wartime finances. Moved from transport in 1940, C. D. Howe was the central figure in munitions and supply, where his contacts with Canadian businessmen and his aggressive reliance on tax incentives and public investment stimulated a dramatic expansion of production. And when Ernest Lapointe died in 1941, King persuaded Louis-Stephen St-Laurent, an eminent Quebec City lawyer, to become minister of justice and his new Quebec lieutenant. St-Laurent had no political experience but he did have sound judgement and a gentlemanly respect for his colleagues, even when he disagreed with them. He quickly emerged as the most influential minister in the government and King{apos}s closest associate. These and the other members of the cabinet grew accustomed, under King{apos}s leadership, to discuss issues openly and to take decisions collegially. As a wartime administration they earned a reputation for competence and efficiency.

King{apos}s authority would be most seriously tested by the issue of conscription. He was determined that the split it had caused in 1917, in his party and in the country, would never happen again. From the beginning of World War II he had promised that only voluntary recruits would be sent overseas. The other party leaders had supported this policy in the election campaign of March 1940 but the fall of France a few months later posed a threat to Britain{apos}s survival. Leading Conservatives now demanded conscription, arguing with some effect that it would be fairer and more efficient than voluntary enlistment. Few French Canadians, however, were impressed by this reasoning. King resolved the controversy, for the moment, by passing the National Resources Mobilization Act, which imposed conscription only for the defence of Canadian territory. This act placated those who favoured conscription without alienating those who objected to compulsory service overseas. King did increase the size of Canada{apos}s overseas contingent but only after his military advisers assured him that voluntary recruitment would provide the necessary strength.

The next crisis came in 1942. Allied defeats in Europe and in the Pacific, including the grievous loss of two Canadian battalions in the fall of Hong Kong, had convinced many more Canadians that a full commitment to the war required conscription for overseas service. Predictably most French Canadians believed it would be a betrayal of King{apos}s promise. He found a face-saving compromise. In January he announced a national referendum on releasing the government from its pledge. The outcome of the plebiscite, held on 27 April, was disturbing. Strong support in English Canada meant that a majority of Canadians voted yes but in Quebec over 70 per cent were opposed. On conscription Canada was a country of two distinct cultures. Nevertheless, King moved quickly to repeal, through Bill 80, the section of the NRMA that restricted conscription to home defence. The resulting policy, King explained in the commons on 10 June, {d-0}may be described as not necessarily conscription but conscription if necessary.{d-1} The bill passed third reading in July.

The referendum had a sobering effect on responsible politicians, and conscription received little attention until heavy Canadian casualties were sustained after the invasion of Normandy, France, in 1944. Defence minister J. L. Ralston then decided that only conscription could provide the needed reinforcements. King did not believe conscription was necessary to win the war and desperately tried to find a compromise. When Ralston remained obdurate, King replaced him abruptly in November with Andrew George Latta McNaughton*, a retired general who King hoped would be able to attract sufficient volunteers. Only when McNaughton admitted failure a few weeks later did King, with the support of Louis St-Laurent, decide to send overseas some of the men conscripted for home defence. An order in council signed on 23 November authorized the transfer of 16,000 NRMA men, but only 2,463 would actually be posted to the 1st Canadian Army. The deliberations within cabinet over the switch to conscription had been extremely hard on King, particularly the real possibility of ministerial resignations on the 21st. That night he wrote in his diary: {d-0}I mentioned to St. Laurent . . . how very difficult it was for me all alone at Laurier House with no one to talk to and by myself to face over too long a period the kind of situation I am faced with today. He was very helpful.{d-1}

King{apos}s response was an accelerated shift to the left. In a reversal of his court reference of 1935, in 1940 the government, with provincial approval, had introduced unemployment insurance, a move strenuously opposed by Ralston on grounds of cost in wartime. In 1945 the government{apos}s financial advisers, converts to Keynesian policies, favoured increased public expenditures to create jobs and recommended family allowances and other social measures to boost consumer demand. King had misgivings about an expanded role - he still felt uneasy about government deficits - but he was sure these measures were consistent with his concern for the less fortunate. There were partisan motives too, although the self-righteous King would never have admitted it. The political pressure on the Liberal Party to compete with the CCF for votes could not be ignored. The prime minister might worry about an interventionist government encroaching on individual liberties but a Liberal government was clearly a lesser evil than a coercive socialist one. King introduced family allowances and for the election of June 1945 he campaigned on a broad program of social security. His government was handicapped by the legacy of conscription, which for different reasons had been unpopular in many parts of the country. The social program, however, was enough to redress the electoral balance and produce a narrow Liberal victory. Defeated in Prince Albert, King was returned in a by-election in Glengarry, Ont., in August.

King did not adapt easily to the post-war world. He had attended the founding conference of the United Nations at San Francisco in April-June 1945 but played only a minor role. He realistically conceded that the major powers would dominate the UN although he did argue for a {d-0}functional principle{d-1} that would give such middle powers as Canada an influence based on their contributions to the settlement of disputes. Later that year he had to face the implications of a divided world more directly when Igor Sergeievich Gouzenko, a cipher clerk in the Soviet embassy in Ottawa, revealed Soviet spying in Canada. King was too realistic to believe that Canada could isolate itself from the Cold War, but he continued to be ill at ease with the demands made on Canada for the defence of North America and western Europe. He was also dubious about the international commitments favoured by Canadian diplomats; foreign entanglements would limit Canadian autonomy. Even closer relations with the United States left King concerned at the risk of falling into a new imperial orbit. Feeling overwhelmed with external affairs, in September 1946 he transferred the portfolio to Louis St-Laurent.

The burden of politics affected King{apos}s health. Tired out, he told St-Laurent in May 1948 that he could not face another campaign. He resigned as party leader in August and as prime minister on 15 November, to be succeeded by St-Laurent. King had planned to write his memoirs but he found it exhausting to recall the stresses of his political career. His papers were still being organized when he died at Kingsmere on 22 July 1950; he was buried in the family plot at Mount Pleasant Cemetery in Toronto.

The Canada of that year bore little resemblance to the Canada of 1919, when King had started out as Liberal leader. It had become prosperous and united, proud of its domestic stability and leadership in international affairs. King{apos}s political direction had facilitated Canada{apos}s development by avoiding or minimizing confrontations and by providing political steadiness in tumultuous times. This was no mean achievement.

W. L. Mackenzie King was essentially a party leader. He operated through cabinet and caucus, relying on his political judgement and his skills as a conciliator to shape policy. He provided national leadership by creating a Liberal Party that reflected the diverse regional, economic, and ethnic interests of the country. His modus operandi meant choosing colleagues who would represent and defend these interests while accepting collegial compromises. If some groups or regions were not adequately represented within the party, it was up to King to ensure that their interests were not overlooked. The respect for consensus required patience and produced policies that were cautious and incremental. King{apos}s form of leadership also tended to ignore grievances which had no effective political podiums - he paid little attention to the plight of aboriginals or the rights of women because in his day these groups posed no threat to the party. More positively, if King{apos}s approach meant that Liberal policies might not be popular, they were at least likely to be acceptable in all parts of the country. King was not a dynamic figure but he did have the qualities needed for this form of leadership. His liberalism, his political sensitivity, his skills as a conciliator, and his driving ambition for office had kept the party and country united during three decades of dramatic challenges. It was a credit to his leadership that, even after his retirement, his party, led by former colleagues, continued in office for almost nine more years.

The King papers, MG 26, J, at Library and Arch. Canada (Ottawa), are remarkably complete. They include King{apos}s diaries which are of special interest because they constitute a detailed guide to his daily activities and his personality. J. W. Pickersgill and D. F. Forster, The Mackenzie King record (4v., Toronto, 1960-70), is an edited version of the wartime and post-war diaries. The first volume was produced by Pickersgill alone. In 2003 Library and Arch. Canada published a digitized version of the diaries on its website.

King{apos}s official biography has been published as R. MacG. Dawson and H. B. Neatby, William Lyon Mackenzie King: a political biography (3v., Toronto, 1958-76). Dawson wrote the first volume, 1874-1923, and Neatby wrote volumes two and three, 1924-1932, The lonely heights (Toronto, 1963) and 1932-1939, The prism of unity (Toronto and Buffalo, N.Y., 1976). J. L. Granatstein{apos}s Canada{apos}s war: the politics of the Mackenzie King government, 1939-1945 (Toronto, 1975) furnishes a narrative for the war years. Michael Bliss, Right honourable men: the descent of Canadian politics from Macdonald to Mulroney (Toronto, 1994), offers a more recent assessment of King as a political leader. Other publications deal with specific aspects of his life. Charlotte Gray, Mrs. King: the life and times of Isabel Mackenzie King (Toronto, 1997), is a perceptive examination of his mother and their relationship. C. P. Stacey, A very double life: the private world of Mackenzie King (Toronto, 1976), gives a detailed but tendentious account of King{apos}s relations with women. His career as an industrial consultant is analysed in Paul Craven, {d-0}An impartial umpire{d-1}: industrial relations and the Canadian state, 1900-1911 (Toronto, 1980), and in F. A. McGregor, The fall & rise of Mackenzie King: 1911-1919 (Toronto, 1962). C. P. Stacey, Arms, men and governments: the war policies of Canada, 1939-1945 (Ottawa, 1970), covers King{apos}s wartime administration.

The Bennett family came from England to Connecticut in the early 17th century. In 1761 they migrated eastward, part of a movement of New Englanders to take up old Acadian lands in Nova Scotia [see Robert Denison; John Hicks*]. The family settled first near present-day Wolfville and then moved across the Bay of Fundy to the estuary of the Petitcodiac in southeastern New Brunswick. There Nathan Murray Bennett, Richard Bedford Bennett{apos}s grandfather, established a shipbuilding yard at Hopewell Cape. Henry Bennett, R. B.{apos}s father, was apprenticed at age 20 to a relative to learn the shipping business. By 1868 he was a partner in the Bennett firm. On 22 Sept. 1869 he married Henrietta Stiles of Hopewell Hill, some eight miles west of the Cape.

Henrietta was a staunch Wesleyan Methodist, her husband an easygoing, occasionally bibulous, Baptist. Her stern teetotal Methodism became in her family the law supreme, its emphasis on work, diligence, and self-denial. Make sure, John Wesley had said, not to waste time on {d-0}silly unprofitable diversions{d-1}: {d-0}Gain all you can. . . . Save all you can. . . . Give all you can.{d-1} Bourgeois to the core, those lessons that Henrietta urged upon her first-born inculcated a way of life austere, sober, and hard-working. Charitable to the outer world, they could be exacting to the inner person. Self-indulgence was sin.

His mother also imbued him with ambition. Her aspirations for Dick, as the family called him, came probably from hopes frustrated by her husband and the difficulties of their shipyard. There were four children born between 1870 and 1876, just at the time when it was finding trouble. With increasing competition from iron hulls and steam engines, the shipyards of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia were being outclassed. Yards like the Bennett one had to content themselves with building schooners for the coastal trade. Those schooners would be around for many a year yet, but in the depression of the 1870s Henry Bennett{apos}s shipbuilding was not enough to support his growing family; there were hints that he was an ineffective businessman. He had to turn himself into a general merchant, blacksmith, and farmer. R. B.{apos}s penury started early. In 1934 he reportedly remarked to a friend, {d-0}I{apos}ll always remember the pit from which I was [dug] & the long uphill road I had to travel. I{apos}ll never forget one step.{d-1}

A small legacy his mother received allowed him at age 16 to attend Normal School in Fredericton, and he eked out a living as teacher at Irishtown, north of Moncton. He raised his licence to first class in 1888 and that autumn was appointed at age 18 as principal of the school at Douglastown, on the north bank of the Miramichi six miles downriver from Newcastle. Alma Marjorie Russell, then a schoolgirl, described him on his arrival, six feet tall, slim, freckled, sitting bolt upright on the wagon seat under a bowler hat too large for him, looking even younger than his age. He was a good teacher, able, firm, and fair. He liked to have his students memorize poetry, as he himself did all his life. His examinations were stiff going, but he was also prepared to criticize even the school authorities. His report of June 1890 noted that in his two years at Douglastown {d-0}I have not been favoured by a visit from one of the trustees.{d-1}

In his spare time he worked at Lemuel John Tweedie{apos}s law office across the Miramichi at Chatham. By the autumn of 1890 he had saved enough to go to law school at Dalhousie University, Halifax. R. B.{apos}s notes that first term include a poem, {d-0}The crossing paths,{d-1} that seems to have been of his own making.

After graduating in 1893, Bennett was back in Chatham in the law office now called Tweedie and Bennett. About 1895 there was a new office boy, William Maxwell Aitken* (the future Lord Beaverbook), at the age of 15 getting an early start on assorted mischief. In 1896 he persuaded a hesitant Bennett to run as alderman in the new municipality of Chatham; with Max for publicity on the Bennett bicycle, Bennett squeaked in by 19 votes out of 691. He received Lougheed{apos}s invitation that same year, but he did not jump at it. Calgary was smaller than Chatham; Calgary was new, raw, untried; Alberta was not yet a province. There was the call of western opportunity to be sure, but there were also risks. In his mind, however, were (and would remain) Robert Browning{apos}s lines {d-0}Ah, but a man{apos}s reach should exceed his grasp, / Or what{apos}s a heaven for?{d-1}

Bennett, tall, lean, and 26 years old, got off the train at Calgary in late January 1897. It was not an inviting place, -40 F with a hard wind, a skiff of snow holding down the dust of unpaved streets. The station had no cabs; Bennett lugged his bags over to the Alberta Hotel a block or two away. He was something of an outsider from the very first. Never one to follow the crowd, he neither smoked nor drank and he dressed formally at all times. He could work like a horse, long hours with no play. When some years later a friend sent him, along with New Year{apos}s wishes, hopes for {d-0}a quiet mind,{d-1} Bennett replied, {d-0}Just why you should contemplate such a disaster I cannot understand.{d-1} Bennett{apos}s was not a quiet mind: if amazingly retentive, it was an intensely restless one, his thought translated into action with enormous energy and by quick decisions.

The Lougheed-Bennett practice went slowly at first but by 1900 Calgary was growing and by 1905, when Alberta became a province, growing rapidly. Bennett was now buying and selling land, and with the firm{apos}s retainer from the Canadian Pacific Railway, making a good thing of it. Calgary had become the centre of a large farming and ranching community. There were soon oil leases and oil companies as well. Bennett invested in William Stewart Herron*{apos}s Calgary Petroleum Products Company, of which he became director and solicitor. Under manager Archibald Wayne Dingman* it struck oil in the Turner valley. Bennett also became involved with Aitken in the successful promotions that produced the Alberta Pacific Grain Company, Canada Cement, and Calgary Power. His reputation grew throughout, as an honest, versatile, clever, persistent lawyer. By 1914 he had an extremely busy and profitable practice. And R.B.{apos}s teetotal principles would never obstruct legitimate legal business; among his clients was Alfred Ernest Cross*{apos}s Calgary Brewing and Malting.

He was then well into Conservative politics. He had first been elected in 1898, as the member for West Calgary in the Legislative Assembly of the North-West Territories at Regina. There he challenged the view of the premier, Frederick William Gordon Haultain, a Conservative, that party politics had no place in the territories. After Alberta{apos}s creation as a province in 1905, its capital at Edmonton, he was put forward by friends for the new Legislative Assembly. He lost, but was elected in 1909. In that contest the Liberals took 37 seats; there were 3 Conservatives and 1 Socialist. Of this unpromising opposition, Bennett was soon the spokesman, giving the government little quarter, especially in the matter of the Alberta and Great Waterways Railway contract [see Charles Wilson Cross]. He was a vigorous debater, not afraid of challenges, confident, perhaps too confident, of his own knowledge. In the subsequent litigation deriving from this issue that pitted the province against the Royal Bank of Canada [see Arthur Lewis Watkins Sifton], he acted for the bank and would ultimately be successful in 1913 on appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

Bennett was that rare being, a successful Alberta Conservative, and was elected to the House of Commons for Calgary in 1911. His leader, Prime Minister Robert Laird Borden, gave him the honour of moving the address in reply to the speech from the throne. R. B.{apos}s red Toryism was a little ahead of Borden{apos}s, embracing workmen{apos}s compensation, trade unions, government grain elevators, and government control of freight rates. As he put it in his maiden speech in the commons, 20 Nov. 1911, {d-0}The great struggle of the future will be between human rights and property interests; and it is the duty and the function of government to provide that there shall be no undue regard for the latter that limits or lessens the other.{d-1}

He had come to Ottawa feeling, however, that the party owed him more than just the address in reply. He had given up his CPR retainer of $10,000 a year the day after he was elected and there seemed to be few compensations. He could not be appointed to cabinet because Lougheed was government leader in the Senate. Three weeks after his commons speech he wrote to Aitken impatiently: {d-0}I am sick of it here. There is little or nothing to do & what there is to do is that of a party hack or departmental clerk or messenger.{d-1} But he believed in Borden{apos}s Naval Aid Bill of 1912-13 and made a four-hour speech supporting it. He thought that the self-governing nations within the empire should be federated, that there must be recognition, as he had written to Aitken in 1910, {d-0}of common interests, common traditions, & above all common responsibilities and obligations.{d-1} {d-0}I hold out to this House{d-1} he said in the commons in 1913, {d-0}the vision of a wider hope, the hope that one day this Dominion will be the dominant factor in that great federation.{d-1} The Naval Aid Bill nevertheless foundered in the Liberal-dominated Senate.

As a new mp, Bennett was a maverick, his views on Canadian railways, tariffs, and Canada{apos}s position within the empire not always conforming to party policy. His independence was starkly revealed in his opposition to the Canadian Northern Railway Guarantee Bill of 1914. His speech against his government{apos}s financial support of this line was buttressed by wide experience and knowledge of railways. His targets included not only the railway and its principals, Sir William Mackenzie and Sir Donald Mann*, but Arthur Meighen, the solicitor general. Meighen was Borden{apos}s bully boy whom the prime minister had given the job of piloting this complicated legislation. Meighen kept interrupting Bennett{apos}s speech. Bennett did not like it: he was not going to have his argument broken up by {d-0}the gram[o]phone of Mackenzie and Mann.{d-1} Borden was uneasy about Bennett{apos}s independence, but both he and Meighen recognized that Bennett{apos}s long denunciation of the Canadian Northern was condemnation in detail of the most dubious of former Liberal prime minister Sir Wilfrid Laurier{apos}s railway adventures.

When World War I came late that summer, Bennett tried to enlist, but he was turned down as not medically fit, for reasons that he never revealed. Then the sudden death of his mother, whom he had visited in New Brunswick each Christmas, supervened in October. His father had died in 1905, probably without much insurance, and it is reasonably certain that Dick supported his mother and Mildred Mariann*, the younger of his two sisters. The other sister, Evelyn Read, was about to be married to Horace Weldon Coates, a physician. They soon moved to Vancouver, where Dick bought them a house. Mildred followed them, and Dick{apos}s next Christmases, 1915-27, would be spent on the west coast.

In July 1915 Borden invited Bennett as his assistant to London, to ascertain how Canada might help British military and civilian needs. The following year he was made director general of the National Service Board, charged with determining the number of prospective recruits in Canada. The war seriously affected his practice in Calgary, enlistments taking his political organizer, George Robinson, and several others from his office. The loss of these men, he told Max in London, {d-0}leaves me absolutely without assistance and heartbroken.{d-1} He then added a strange qualification: {d-0}so far as it is possible for a man of my type & temperment [sic] to be heartbroken about anything.{d-1}

What did that signify? He had been a devoted son, a dutiful and loving brother. Benevolence was an obsession; he was giving money to deserving students, needy widows, and a host of charities, altogether ten per cent of his gross income. What then were the springs of his nature? He loved hard work for the sheer satisfaction of mastery, in finance, accounting, law. He was a wizard with legal precedents and uncanny with errors in a balance sheet. At the same time he was a sublime egotist, clever, irascible, unsparing of himself or others. Forgiveness was one of the Christian virtues he found difficult to practise. He had a volatile temper, explosive while it lasted. Wound up in the coils of his own nature he seems rarely to have considered the effects of his words and actions. His receiving antennae were weak; sometimes they did not appear even to be deployed. R. B.{apos}s limited receiving capacity was often the source of his strength and courage. His future rival William Lyon Mackenzie King{apos}s sensitive antennae made him timid, his hypocrisy more crafty as he got older. Bennett scorned hypocrisy. He had the dangerous habit of saying what he really thought. What drove Bennett was his own mind, not what others might think of him.

Bennett supported the Military Service Act of July 1917, which was guided through the house by Meighen and which brought in conscription, but he opposed Borden{apos}s idea of the Union government. He thought an alliance between Conservatives and Liberals, even for purposes of war, would end in disaster for his party. It did. Thus while in the election of December 1917 R. B. campaigned for the Conservatives, he did not run himself. In February 1918 he was further alienated by Borden{apos}s failure to honour a promise Bennett believed the prime minister had made, to appoint him to the Senate. Borden chose instead an obscure Alberta Liberal, William James Harmer, to satisfy coalition arrangements. Bennett was furious. As for being senator, Bennett needed neither position nor money; his object was to put his knowledge and experience at the service of his country. He wrote Borden an aggrieved 20-page letter. There was no reply.

By 1918 Bennett had acquired a growing commitment to the E. B. Eddy Company of Hull, Que. This had developed from his long friendship with Jennie Grahl Hunter Eddy [Shirreff*], whom he had met in New Brunswick. After her husband, Ezra Butler Eddy, died in 1906, leaving her a controlling interest in his lumber company, she called on Bennett to help her manage her financial affairs. When she herself died in 1921, her will left 500 shares to Bennett and 1,009 to her younger brother, Joseph Thompson (Harry) Shirreff. Harry died suddenly in 1926, bequeathing all his shares to Bennett. They were now being assessed at $1,500 each, a valuation that made Bennett{apos}s holdings worth $2,263,500. He thus became the principal director of the company. He kept watch on the firm but claimed an arm{apos}s-length relationship, which most of the time it was. After Bennett had been given Mrs Eddy{apos}s shares, there were rumours that there had been a romance between them. Some said that Mildred Bennett, born in 1889, was really their daughter. There was no truth in it. Bennett replied that when Mildred was born he had not even met Jennie Shirreff. As to romance, he said, Jennie was almost eight years older than he was, as if that were an impediment.

On 1 July 1920 Sir Robert Borden resigned, worn out with the war, Versailles, and politics. When the Unionist caucus chose Arthur Meighen as successor, many Liberals in it were already feeling the tug of ancient loyalties. Laurier had died in 1919 and the Liberals had chosen Mackenzie King as leader. In 1921 Meighen, with his majority crumbling, called an election for 6 December. To strengthen his government he asked Bennett to be minister of justice. Canada was in disarray socially and politically: a post-war recession, rising unemployment, continued labour unrest following upon the Winnipeg General Strike in 1919, industrial decline and discontent in the Maritimes, and an agrarian revolt on the prairies that had led to the formation at the national level in 1920 of the Progressive Party under Thomas Alexander Crerar*. Bennett decided to put his influence {d-0}on the side of law, order and constituted authority.{d-1} He was sworn in on 21 Sept. 1921. Soon enough he knew that there was little hope for the Meighen government. Bennett and his friends were also too confident of his own seat in Calgary West; the contest was so close that the outcome of a judicial recount depended on the way the X on the ballots was made. Bennett lost by 16 votes.

By March 1922 he was spending much time with the Eddy firm in Hull. He was thinking of giving up his 25-year old partnership with Lougheed. Sir James was 67 years old, was doing little work, and had been hiring juniors whose quality Bennett distrusted. He was seeing Lougheed about dissolving the partnership when a Privy Council appeal called him to England. Arrangements with Lougheed were left in suspense, but Sir James was persuaded that he could proceed with dissolution. His unilateral action set off irascible cables from Bennett, who indignantly bounced back to Canada. Thus began a messy litigation. The old Lougheed-Bennett firm split three ways, Bennett{apos}s group, Bennett, Hannah, and Sanford, retaining most of the important clients, including A. E. Cross and fellow businessmen William Charles James Roper Hull* and Patrick Burns*.

By the mid twenties Bennett was extremely well off. His total income in 1924 was $76,897. Only 25 per cent came from his legal practice. His 1924 director{apos}s fees, from E. B. Eddy and Alberta Pacific Grain mostly, totalled 7 per cent. The bulk of his income, 62 per cent, derived from dividends. Half of these came from Alberta Pacific Grain, of which he was president; he sold this firm to Spillers Milling of England late in 1924. Two other firms, E. B. Eddy and Canada Cement, represented 16 and 13 per cent of dividend income. The dividend portion kept growing. In 1930 he made $262,176, of which 85 per cent was dividends. That was the high point until 1937. Bennett was also a director of Metropolitan Life Insurance of New York and by the mid 1920s was on the board of the Royal Bank of Canada.

At the same time Bennett was being urged by Meighen to get back into politics. Going into the election of 1925 Meighen offered the justice portfolio should he be prime minister. Bennett threw himself into the campaign. He won Calgary West with a comfortable majority, and in Alberta his party gained three seats and 32 per cent of the vote. (The 1921 election had resulted in no seats and 20 per cent of the vote.) Across Canada the Conservatives took 116 seats, the Liberals 99. King was personally defeated in York North. It looked like a Liberal defeat, but King did not resign; he believed that with 24 Progressive mps he could carry on. It was dangerous going. Then came the customs scandal, an unholy mixture of rum, money, and bribery that began to unhinge King{apos}s precarious coalition.

A select committee was set up to inquire into the administration of the Department of Customs and Excise, with Bennett and Henry Herbert Stevens* as the leading Conservatives. Its report, tabled in the commons on 18 June 1926, sharply criticized the former minister, Jacques Bureau*; Stevens, dissatisfied, moved for censure of King{apos}s government. By this time Progressive loyalty to the Liberals was nearly gone. King, who had been returned to the commons at a by-election in Prince Albert, Sask., in February, managed to adjourn the house at 5:00 a.m. on 26 June by only one vote. That was when, to avoid the defeat of his government, he asked Governor General Lord Byng* for a dissolution. Byng refused, King resigned, and the King-Byng crisis was on.

Immediately upon Bennett{apos}s return to Ottawa he was sworn in to a clutch of portfolios: minister of finance, acting minister of mines, acting minister of the interior, and acting superintendent general of Indian affairs. Meighen expected to win the 1926 election with the customs scandal; King won it with an obscure constitutional issue made vital by the throb of Canadian nationalism that King put into it. Meighen was devastated. He resigned the Conservative leadership and caucus selected as temporary leader Hugh Guthrie*, a former Liberal who had joined Borden in 1917. It then called a convention to elect a new leader, to be held after the 1927 session of parliament.

One of the principal issues in 1927 was old age pensions, which Bennett strongly favoured. King had been hesitating about them for many reasons, not the least of which was the fact that existing war pensions, introduced by Borden{apos}s government in 1919, ate up over 14 per cent of government expenditure in 1926. King had tried to bring in old age pensions that year, but the legislation had been killed in the Conservative-dominated Senate. In 1927 he reintroduced it, revised but still with weaknesses that Bennett thought unfortunate. The cost was still to be shared 50-50 with the provinces, though the provinces had not been consulted about the plan. {d-0}We are imposing our will upon the provincial legislatures,{d-1} Bennett said. He thought old age pensions should be funded wholly by Ottawa. He believed as well that the pensions should, like Britain{apos}s, be contributory. Thrift in the form of pension contributions would thus earn its own reward. Those who could not afford such contributions would have them paid by Ottawa. In March, however, the bill as King presented it passed both the commons and the Senate, the upper house having apparently decided that the Canadian people had endorsed the scheme in the election.

Bennett was also an advocate of unemployment insurance and supported proposals put forward in the house that session by labour politician Abraham Albert Heaps*, though with conditions. Unemployment insurance should be funded by premiums paid by both the person concerned and the government, he argued. The subscription principle would encourage economy and industry. But Heaps{apos}s proposals were voted down. Another major debate in 1927 arose over the administration of war pensions, mainly the narrow way entitlement was being viewed by the Board of Pension Commissioners. Bennett said the Pension Act was being handled too harshly, putting on the applicant the onus of proving his case. Bennett{apos}s amendment won Progressive and Labour support; the government had to defeat it, which it did 95-78, but promised the act would be revised. Bennett{apos}s contributions to the 1927 session well illustrate the forward thrust of his mind. {d-0}Shall we be statesmen or politicians?{d-1} he asked in one debate.

The Conservative convention opened in Winnipeg on 10 Oct. 1927. Various candidates were mooted. As late as the end of August, Bennett seems not to have entirely made up his mind whether he wanted to be leader. Some friends were trying to dissuade him, one contrasting {d-0}prestige, liberty, ease . . . delights, leisure{d-1} with {d-0}abuse, ingratitude, selfishness and slavish work.{d-1} Bennett was but 57 years of age, brimming with energy and ambition. Except for Robert James Manion, he was the youngest candidate. He was not concerned about ease or delights or prestige. There was such a thing as duty. Canada had been good to him. But as late as the day of the convention he may not have been fully decided. Then on the 13th he had a plurality on the first ballot and a majority on the second, rather to his surprise. His acceptance speech was sincerity and sentiment. He admitted being rich, but stressed that he had made his money from hard work. As elected leader, he would resign his company directorships. {d-0}No man may serve you as he should if he has over his shoulder always the shadow of pecuniary obligations.{d-1} Service to Canada would be his motto; out of Mark 9:35 he would be {d-0}servant of all.{d-1}

Bennett{apos}s leadership of the party, prospective or real, induced offers to buy E. B. Eddy, all or part. Immediately after the convention he and Mildred went to New York and London. The Eddy match business, which had always been a headache, was sold to Bryant and May of London in December 1927, with a new entity called Eddy Match Company Limited established at Pembroke, Ont. Bennett retained a considerable block of Eddy Match stock. Eddy Pulp and Paper at Hull was more awkward to unload; Bennett would not accept any fire-sale price, and it was only in 1943 that it was sold to Willard Garfield Weston*. Bennett returned to Calgary late in 1927 to a flood of congratulations. He baled out of his many directorships as he had promised. {d-0}Must you?{d-1} asked Haley Fiske, president of Metropolitan Life, noting that Premier Louis-Alexandre Taschereau* of Quebec had kept his directorship in the company. Bennett insisted.

He had more pressing work now on hand. The state of the party was not promising. In Ottawa its national office was the back rooms of senior Conservative mps. It had no money; moreover, Bennett discovered that after what had happened in 1926, {d-0}it is exceedingly difficult to obtain money.{d-1} Newspaper support was unreliable. Across Canada there were only 11 dailies that could be called Conservative. Quebec Conservative papers had been devastated, as the party had been, by Borden{apos}s and Meighen{apos}s war policies. R. B. had been given authority by the Conservative convention to establish a central office in Ottawa. By February 1930, under national director Alexander Duncan McRae, there would be 27 full-time employees using modern office equipment to spread the Conservative word across the provinces. The money for this enterprise, and some provincial ones, came from Bennett and senior party members; they each put up $2,500 a month. More would be needed and by April 1929 Bennett had added a considerable chunk of his capital. By May 1930 he had contributed $500,000 since becoming party leader. About one-fifth went to Quebec.

In that province the Conservatives, French and English, were riven by faction, both communities apt to have more generals than soldiers. Bennett was urged to appoint a Quebec leader, but with so many groups he hesitated. He made a major speech in Montreal at a party banquet in October 1928, mostly in English, but with Quebec Conservative leader Arthur Sauvé, long estranged from Borden and Meighen, on the platform giving him warm praise. The party that in 1927 was described as {d-0}utterly helpless{d-1} was by the end of 1929 looking distinctly better. Some of the credit was owing to Conservative Ontario premier George Howard Ferguson{apos}s repeal of repressive rules against bilingual schools, some to Sauvé{apos}s successor, Camillien Houde*, and some to Bennett. In English-speaking Canada the situation was also fairly optimistic, with the Conservatives in power in five provinces.

The party{apos}s fortunes had also been bolstered by Bennett{apos}s considerable success as leader of the opposition. He went cautiously, Borden congratulating him on his excellent judgement and good results. After the session of 1928 ended he dutifully and energetically toured the constituencies, as he did again in 1929. He was not, however, without rueful reflections about his role: {d-0}Sometimes I wonder why I ever undertook this work at my time of life, after all my years of toil and effort.{d-1} In parliament his speeches were seldom marked with partisan venom. Bennett seemed rather to disarm enmity. The cheerfulness and charm with which the 16th parliament ended in May 1930 owed something to him. At dissolution, he and King shared a joke; mps flocked across the floor shaking hands. King remarked how pleasant it all was. And so the campaign of 1930 started.

Bennett left Ottawa at 2:10 a.m. on Sunday, 8 June 1930, in a private railway car attached to the Winnipeg train. He was glad to go; campaigning was hard work but in the capital that last week he had, as he told a friend, {d-0}been driven to death{d-1} by party demands of all kinds on the eve of a general election. Private railway cars were the way much electioneering was done. Radio was the big change from 1926. Bennett{apos}s first campaign speech, out of Winnipeg on 9 June, was heard by Mackenzie King in Ottawa and by perhaps a million others. Bennett came over well on radio, having a resonant voice that carried better than King{apos}s wheeziness. In 1926 there had been 134,000 radios in Canada; in 1930 they numbered close to half a million. Most operated by battery and did not require power lines, so the isolation of rural areas began to change. Radio also meant politicians did not need so many meetings. Nevertheless, from 9 June until 26 July Bennett travelled some 14,000 miles, delivering as many as five speeches a day.

There were not sufficient women candidates. Liberals were running women in hopeless constituencies simply to attract the female vote. Bennett wanted them in safe seats but was unable to persuade the constituencies. His sister Mildred campaigned with him. She had a remarkably deft political sense, as well as style, charm, empathy, and a sense of humour that often made up for her brother{apos}s occasionally strident bluntness. She was a political asset in her own right and party officials were well aware of it. There were plenty of issues. After some years of steadily increasing prosperity, the stock market crash of 1929 and a collapse in the price of natural products had begun to undermine the Canadian economy. Wheat prices were down from $1.75 a bushel in July 1929 to below $1 a year later, causing great hardship in western Canada where the situation was worsened by drought and crop failure. Other agricultural areas contended with a flood of New Zealand butter. The malaise spread to the transportation and construction sectors and to the manufacturing industry, which began to experience lower prices and a decline in production and investment. Unemployment was greatly on the rise, and there was no security net. King{apos}s angry assertion in April 1930 that he would not give any Tory government even a five-cent piece to help with joblessness was exploited by the Conservatives in cartoons and speeches. Bennett promised employment, through tariff protection for Canadian industries and a large program of public works. It was the issue that won him the election.

There would be a lot of cabinet meetings, proportionately almost double the number held by King. The oft-repeated story that Bennett was a tyrant in cabinet is, as Manion recalled, {d-0}just so much balderdash.{d-1} Most of Bennett{apos}s ministers handled their departments without either his direction or his interference. In caucus it was much the same. Where Bennett did fail was in thanking cabinet colleagues in parliament or in public for things well done. In 1932 Manion would say to him, {d-0}My first ambition is that some day I may make a speech that will meet with your approval.{d-1} Bennett fairly fumed at this remark. But he telephoned the next day to make amends, though not apologies. R. B. hated to apologize. He was a critical taskmaster. He knew so much and hated to see questions incompetently handled; he found it difficult to praise those who did not meet his standards.

Bennett took office with action on his mind. Action he had promised and action Canada got. A special session of parliament was called for 8 September. He believed that tariffs were necessary not only to keep Canada independent of the United States but to create markets for Canadian producers, so tariff revision, steeply upward on a range of manufactured goods, was instituted. The emergency Unemployment Relief Act, providing $20 million for public works at the federal and local levels, was also passed. Parliament prorogued in two weeks. Then it was organization for the Imperial Conference in London, which was to start on 30 September and which Bennett hoped would provide a solution to Canada{apos}s economic difficulties through the establishment of a reciprocal preference in trade. The conference was mostly a Canadian idea but Canadians would be a day late for it.

The composition of the Canadian delegation was a question in itself. Oscar Douglas Skelton, under-secretary of state for external affairs, came to Bennett about it. At first Bennett distrusted Skelton; he was too anti-British. {d-0}I{apos}m not going to have you monkeying with this business,{d-1} Bennett was reported to have said. {d-0}It is for the Prime Minister{apos}s office, not for External Affairs.{d-1} Skelton explained the role of External Affairs in imperial conferences under Borden and King, and a compromise was reached whereby John Erskine Read*, a legal adviser at External, was put on Bennett{apos}s delegation.

At the second plenary conference at the Foreign Office in London on 8 October, Bennett came to the point. {d-0}I offer to the Mother Country and to all the other parts of the Empire, a preference in the Canadian market in exchange for a like preference in theirs.{d-1} The proposal was bold, blunt, and frank. It left the British government, committed to free trade, in shock. By that weekend the British papers were full of Bennett and Canada. {d-0}Empire or not?{d-1} asked the Observer (London). When the conference ended on 14 November there was still no answer. The real response came late that month in the British House of Commons when the rough-spoken James Henry Thomas, the dominions secretary, simply said that Bennett{apos}s proposal was {d-0}humbug.{d-1} Nevertheless, when Bennett left London for Canada, Thomas was at Euston Station to bid him farewell. {d-0}On to Ottawa!{d-1} said Bennett as they shook hands. The conference would be renewed in the Canadian capital.

In the later 1920s and early 1930s the Ontario school primers had a colour picture of the Union Jack under which was printed, {d-0}One Flag, One Fleet, One Throne.{d-1} By 1931 that neat logic was no longer quite tenable. {d-0}We no longer live in a political Empire,{d-1} Bennett declared after the adoption that year of the Statute of Westminster, which gave Canada and the other dominions autonomy in external relations. But he still hoped to construct {d-0}a new economic Empire.{d-1} He knew, however, that the {d-0}Empire Free Trade{d-1} being promoted by Beaverbrook in London was a chimera. His ideal continued to be an imperial preferential trade arrangement in which Canada would {d-0}play a part of ever-increasing importance.{d-1} The Imperial Economic Conference was supposed to have been held in Ottawa in 1931, but impediments had arisen and it had been put off until July 1932. Meantime Britain introduced a general tariff of 10 per cent, a development that gave some encouragement to Bennett{apos}s hopes.

By the time of the conference Bennett had acquired much needed help in Finance. He appointed Edgar Rhodes as minister on 3 Feb. 1932. That spring he hired William Clifford Clark, professor of commerce at Queen{apos}s University in Kingston, Ont., to prepare position papers. They were so useful that in October Bennett asked Clark to be deputy minister of finance. It was a brilliant appointment; Bennett was unerring in his judgement of able financial men. Nevertheless the Canadian civil service was weak to mount such an important conference. When the British were running them, the agenda had been circulated six months ahead. The Canadian agenda was ready only on 7 July, after the antipodean delegates had already sailed. The delay was also because, as Sir William Henry Clark, the British high commissioner in Ottawa, explained, {d-0}the Prime Minister is waiting as usual until he can find time to deal with matters himself.{d-1} During the conference Arthur Neville Chamberlain, Britain{apos}s chancellor of the exchequer, would come to think {d-0}that the reason for Bennett{apos}s difficulties is really inadequate preparation on his side. He has no professional civil service & no minister whom he trusts.{d-1}

When the conference opened in the Parliament Buildings on 21 July, Bennett was chosen to chair it. His opening speech suggested that Britain might have free entry into Canada for any products that would {d-0}not injuriously affect Canadian enterprise.{d-1} Only on 4 August, however, did the British get a list of Canadian concessions and it was much less than they expected. Bennett was subjected to many political pressures: his cabinet was deeply divided; he no longer quite trusted Stevens, his minister of trade and commerce; and there was intense lobbying by Canadian industrialists on cotton, coal, iron, and steel. Bennett did not want to wreck his own conference, but he and his cabinet colleagues believed that Britain was offering very little. Among the British representatives his reputation declined sharply. Walter Runciman, the president of the Board of Trade, became so annoyed with Bennett{apos}s bullying manner that in mid August he warned him privately the conference was heading straight for failure and {d-0}the world would put the failure down to him.{d-1} Bennett had an aggressive style, he admitted it himself.

What emerged from the Ottawa conference was not any great imperial economic principle but hard-fought bilateral treaties. The British-Canadian one, as it turned out, benefited Canada more than it did Britain. Canadian wheat, apples, and other natural products got British preferences; the British got Canadian preferences for certain metal products and textiles not made in Canada. In a few years, Canadian exports to Britain were up 60 per cent; Britain{apos}s to Canada were up 5.

One of Bennett{apos}s constant advisers that summer was Major William Duncan Herridge. A lawyer and a former Liberal, he had broken with his party in 1926 and joined Bennett{apos}s election campaign in June 1930. Mildred Bennett{apos}s marriage to Herridge, now minister to Washington, took place on 14 April 1931. As she was packing up her things in the Château Laurier suite where she and R. B. had lived for nearly four years, she wrote a heartfelt note to {d-0}Dick, my dear dear brother.{d-1} It says much about them both: {d-0}If I could only say all that is in my heart but I can{apos}t . . . in the midst of my most sacred and divine love you have never for a moment been out of my mind. . . . I sometimes think that loving Bill as I do - I{apos}ve loved and valued you even more.{d-1} After Mildred had gone, R. B. seems to have become sharply aware of the huge interior space she had left vacant. {d-0}We{apos}re the bumpers on his car,{d-1} Mildred had once remarked to Bennett{apos}s long-time secretary, Alice Millar. {d-0}We save him from a lot of damage.{d-1}

On 21 Aug. 1932, as the Empress of Britain was sailing down the St Lawrence with exhausted British delegates aboard, Bennett was on his way to a restored 18th-century seigneurial house at Mascouche, Que. It was owned by Hazel Beatrice Colville of Montreal, the twice-widowed daughter of Sir Albert Edward Kemp, an old colleague of Bennett{apos}s from the 1921 cabinet. Hazel, attractive, intelligent, and wealthy, was 43 years old, and her romance with R. B. had begun in April. Bennett went to Mascouche that summer whenever he could. Perhaps it was this intimacy that J. H. Thomas meant when he described Bennett{apos}s private life as {d-0}very disreputable.{d-1}

Bennett{apos}s relations with women have a strange history. He liked them, they liked him; he was tall, well-made, and rich. Why had he not married? The problem, according to one contemporary account, was phimosis, a tight foreskin that could be very painful at erection. That may well have been corrected by surgery during one of R. B.{apos}s visits to London in 1905 or 1910. A more intractable difficulty seems to have developed by 1914, and may be the reason Canadian army doctors rejected him: Peyronie{apos}s disease, a fibrous thickening of the penile shaft creating a distinct bend and at erection discomfort. It is a rare chronic condition of middle age and is sometimes related to incipient diabetes. What the effect of this was on Bennett{apos}s affair with Hazel is guesswork. Certain it is that R. B. at age 62 was overwhelmed by the affair - {d-0}I miss you beyond all words & I am lonesome beyond cure without your presence,{d-1} he wrote. Then by 1933, certainly by 1934, it was over, ended by Hazel. She liked her life as a society woman, not least bridge, cocktails, cigarettes; Bennett disliked all three. There seemed to be lots of men; she did not need an exigent husband, however in love he might be.

Within a week Bennett proposed a special committee of the commons. Everyone agreed, he said, that the present system was unsatisfactory. Radio was of surpassing importance, essential in nation building, and with a high educational value. The special committee reported on 9 May 1932 and the bill setting up the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission, to regulate all broadcasting in Canada and establish a nationally owned radio system, was presented a week later. In Bennett{apos}s speech to the house on 18 May there was more than a touch of his red Toryism. Only public ownership could ensure to all Canadians the service of radio; no Canadian government was justified in leaving the airwaves to private exploitation. The House of Commons approved overwhelmingly the act setting up the CRBC.

The following year the country was facing even graver difficulties. Unemployment had reached 27 per cent of the workforce, as high as in the United States. On the prairies, drought, crop failures, and soil erosion continued, turning especially southern Saskatchewan into a dust bowl. The government{apos}s budgetary deficit stood at $150 million and more than a million and a half Canadians were dependent on direct relief. The work camps for unemployed single men that had been set up in 1932 under the aegis of the Department of National Defence were becoming hotbeds of discontent. Everywhere established institutions seemed to be under threat. Bennett was doing the best he could to weather the economic storm; the problem was, as he told Sir Robert Borden, {d-0}that we are subject to the play of forces which we did not create and which we cannot either regulate or control.{d-1} People demanded action, but {d-0}any action at this time except to maintain the ship of state on an even keel . . . involves possible consequences about which I hesitate even to think.{d-1}

By 4 March 1933, the day Franklin Delano Roosevelt was sworn in as president, almost every bank in the United States had locked its doors. The Canadian banking system had stood up well - there had not been a Canadian bank failure since 1923 - but there was urgent need of a central bank to regulate credit. Bennett had seen first-hand what the Bank of England could do to help Britain{apos}s depression. On 21 March 1933 E. N. Rhodes announced there would be a royal commission on banking and currency in Canada. The commission reported in September, recommending three to two in favour of a central bank, the two dissenters being Canadian bankers. The legislation passed almost unanimously in 1934 and the Bank of Canada was established the following year with Graham Ford Towers* as its first governor. The chartered banks did not like it; they had to give up their profitable issue of bank notes in favour of a national currency, and they were required to transfer their gold reserves to the Bank of Canada. For the gold, they sought a much higher price than they had paid, a demand Bennett thought iniquitous. R. B. said to James Herbert Stitt, mp Selkirk, who asked about it, {d-0}his eyebrows bristling like quills . . . {s-0}Jimmie Stitt, you quit worrying. We are going to get that gold and it is just about time for us to find out whether the banks or this government is running this country.{s-1-unknown}{d-1}

There was other legislation in 1934. The Farmers{s-1-unknown} Creditors Arrangement Act was designed to allow families to remain on their farms rather than lose them to foreclosure. The Natural Products Marketing Act established a federal board with powers to arrange more orderly marketing in the hope of obtaining better prices. The Public Works Construction Act launched a federal building program, worth $40 million, aimed at getting the unemployed back to work. A special committee (which later became a royal commission) headed by H. H. Stevens was set up to investigate mass buying by large businesses and the difference between the prices received by producers and the prices consumers were being charged. But Bennett considered the Bank of Canada his best domestic achievement.

Nevertheless, his government found the going difficult. {d-0}It may be too late,{d-1} Manion had reflected as early as 9 Dec. 1933, {d-0}to save the party from deluge.{d-1} In 1934 Conservatives lost provincial elections in both Ontario and Saskatchewan; they also lost four of five federal by-elections in September 1934. There were increasing doubts within the party that they could win a general election. Then in October the popular Stevens, having in the eyes of many in the cabinet overstepped the mark in his criticism of Canadian capitalists, was forced to resign his portfolio.

The Bennett New Deal of 1935, promising federal government intervention to achieve social and economic reform, arose from that political anguish. It was also genuine Bennett, policies he had espoused for many years, with roots in his own political instincts. He had long believed in old age pensions, unemployment insurance, and labour unions. What was new was the strong rhetoric devised by William Herridge and Bennett{apos}s executive assistant Roderick K. Finlayson and delivered by Bennett in incisive radio speeches. {d-0}The old order is gone,{d-1} Bennett announced. {d-0}If you believe things should be left as they are you and I hold irreconcilable views. I am for reform. And, in my mind, reform means Government intervention. . . . It means the end of laissez-faire.{d-1} According to Manion, the New Deal speeches had not been discussed in cabinet. The centrepiece of Bennett{apos}s program was the Employment and Social Insurance Act. It was followed by bills introducing a minimum wage, an eight-hour day, and a 48-hour work week. There were doubts about the constitutionality of these measures, but with elections due in a few months that was worth risking.

Herridge{apos}s plan seems to have been to call parliament for mid January, goad the Liberals into denouncing New Deal legislation, and then dissolve late in February and go to elections. The strategy was thwarted by two things: King{apos}s clever tactic of saying very little and, more to the point, Bennett{apos}s illness. In February it was just a bad cold, but on 7 March atrial fibrillation of the heart was diagnosed. The doctors said he needed to rest for a month. His health was excuse sufficient that, had he chosen to retire then, it might have been managed. But the party would have had to select a new leader. The temporary house leader was Sir George Halsey Perley*, 77 years old, in voice and physique wasted and feeble; the leadership would probably have then devolved on H. H. Stevens, whom Bennett would not have had at any price. In Bennett{apos}s absence more New Deal legislation was passed, especially the important Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, which set in motion a mighty enterprise that would eventually teach 100,000 farmers how to handle and restore the dust bowl in southern Saskatchewan. The house then adjourned in April.

Bennett went to England on 18 April to consult doctors and to take in George V{apos}s silver jubilee. He returned to Ottawa a month later not much invigorated. The Canadian Wheat Board Act was then passed, as was a supplementary public works bill providing another $18 million for construction projects. Legislation was also approved to implement some of the recommendations of the price spreads commission, including the establishment of the Dominion Trade and Industry Commission to regulate business activity.

Like many lawyers, Bennett distrusted public disorder. Strikes when legitimate he accepted, as disagreements inevitable over work or wages. But public law and order were to him fundamental. He hated the Communists with their too clever tactics at undermining the state. He himself was fearless and outspoken, able to face down and even convert a hostile crowd. There are many worse things in the world, Bennett would have said, than {d-0}Peace, Order, and good Government.{d-1} In his mind that was what Canada was all about.

Parliament prorogued on 5 July; Stevens, restless and dissatisfied, now quite at odds with Bennett, formed the Reconstruction Party two days later; parliament was dissolved on 15 August. Spurred by Stevens{apos}s defection, and with desperate support from mps, his sister, and Herridge, Bennett fought a stirring campaign. But he was not sanguine, believing that Stevens had {d-0}crucified{d-1} the party. Bennett was indeed defeated on 14 Oct. 1935, but in terms of the popular vote it was not a massive defeat. From 1930 to 1935 the percentage of the Liberal Party{apos}s popular vote actually decreased slightly. In 1935 the Conservatives still took 30 per cent. The Liberals really had no policy; they expected the depression would defeat Bennett and the depression did exactly that.

Seats in the House of Commons were quite another matter: the Liberals took 173, the Conservatives 40, and the other parties 32. The Reconstruction Party won only one, Stevens being elected, but their 8.7 per cent of the popular vote had cut deeply into Conservative seats. Stevens{apos}s defection owed not a little to Bennett himself. Stevens and the wide sympathy that his price spreads commission evoked ought not to have been allowed to get away. The most popular politician nationally that the Conservatives had, Stevens should have been tolerated, even cosseted. Bennett was incapable of it. The Toronto Evening Telegram remarked about Bennett the day after the election, a {d-0}great statesman [was] defeated by a poor politician.{d-1}

For the next three years Bennett was a model opposition leader; indeed, government legislation was often improved by his interventions. In 1936 he was in the house almost every day, the most faithful of his party in his duty to parliament. Ostensibly he bore no grudges; he seemed to have accepted that the Canadian people who had suffered so much in the depression would want to punish the government. But he had given so greatly of himself, his energy, his health, and his fortune to captain the Canadian ship through that storm, he was hurt that so few Canadians seemed to be cognizant of his sacrifices. His charities, which were private, had become a huge burden. The requests he received in a single week {d-0}make life almost unbearable.{d-1} He estimated that in the years 1927-37 he had spent $2.3 million. His benevolence was in fact outrunning his income.

After the abdication of Edward VIII in December 1936 ({d-0}. . . speak / Of one that lov{apos}d not wisely but too well,{d-1} Bennett quoted Othello in the House of Commons) Bennett and Mildred went to London for the coronation of George VI and then to a spa in Germany. He checked in at 228 pounds. Even for a man six feet tall, he was heavy; maple sugar and chocolates had taken their toll. His English doctor told him to lose at least 10 pounds to ease the strain on his heart. That autumn of 1937 Bennett discussed retirement, but the party persuaded him to carry on. By March 1938 he knew he could not continue. King could call an election any time and Bennett was now incapable of taking his party through it. He resigned on 6 March 1938, but stayed on until a new leader was chosen in July. There came a flood of appreciations for his work, including one from King; Bennett{apos}s replies suggested that the compliments would have meant a great deal more to him had they come three to four years earlier, when the going was really difficult.

Then suddenly, on 11 May, Mildred, who was being treated for breast cancer in a New York hospital, died. Her death devastated Bennett; he shut himself up in her old room in their Château suite, consumed with grief, reading the Book of Ruth ({d-0}aught but death shall part thee and me{d-1}). She was only 49 years old.

Bennett had decided to live in England. In Canada he could have had positions from president of a university to president of a bank, but in Canada there were huge public pressures on his time and on his purse. He did not want to live in the United States; in London he was almost as much at home as in Canada. He went to England in August 1938 and on 1 November took over Beaverbrook{apos}s option on Juniper Hill, a 94-acre property near Box Hill in Surrey. He proceeded to order those Canadian essentials, efficient plumbing and central heating. He then returned to Canada to take his leave. That proved to be much more difficult than he had imagined. His last farewell was aboard the Montclare in Halifax Harbour, on Saturday, 28 Jan. 1939. There was a luncheon aboard for 292; there were toasts and tears and Byron: {d-0}Fare thee well! and if for ever, / Still for ever, fare thee well.{d-1} He resigned his seat as mp Calgary West that day. The Montclare sailed in the evening.

Bennett came to love Juniper Hill. It was the only home he had ever had, and he acquired a devoted staff. He joined a host of organizations in England and was a popular speaker wherever he went. He seemed to be able to chair any meeting with grace and aplomb. As reward for his work as trouble-shooter at Beaverbrook{apos}s Ministry of Aircraft Production, Winston Churchill offered him a viscountcy. Thus he headed the list of birthday honours for June 1941. He enjoyed the House of Lords and faithfully attended. He had had extensive first-hand experience of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and his presence in the Lords was felt and appreciated.

Lonely he was not. Garfield Weston in 1943 reported him {d-0}happy as a clam.{d-1} Most of the evidence runs that way. Two people, Beaverbrook and Thomas Clement Douglas*, thought him lonely, but their judgements were made perhaps after R. B.{apos}s two nephews in the Canadian army were killed in Normandy in 1944. R. B. did find that hard. He was diagnosed with diabetes in 1944 too. But even in June 1947, Janice Amery had him to dinner at Eaton Square in London and declared him older {d-0}but happy and . . . so charming and interesting.{d-1}

He liked hot baths. He was warned to be careful, but late on Thursday evening, 26 June 1947, he neglected the warning; he died in his bath of a heart attack and was found there the following morning. The Mickleham church was crowded for his funeral, and there was a crowd too at the memorial service in Westminster Abbey on 4 July. He was buried in the Mickleham churchyard. Perhaps the best eulogy is the April 1938 letter from Harold Adams Innis*, professor of economics at the University of Toronto, when Bennett resigned the Conservative leadership: {d-0}Your leadership of the party especially during the years when you were Prime Minister was marked by a distinction which has not been surpassed. . . . No one has ever been asked to carry the burdens of unprecedented depression such as you assumed and no one could have shouldered them with such ability. I am confident that we shall look to those years as landmarks in Canadian history because of your energy and direction.{d-1}

Bennett lacked the common touch; he was too often in thrall to his own deeply held convictions. Although his charity was vast, his capacity for mercy was limited. Moral transgression he found difficult to forgive, whether in his brother George Horace, the ne{apos}er-do-well father of an illegitimate daughter, or in H. H. Stevens, who had in Bennett{apos}s view betrayed the Conservative Party. His inability to receive and absorb other people{apos}s opinions and ideas made him strong and self-reliant but could also make him seem overbearing and self-righteous. His sense of humour was lively enough, but it never prevented him from taking himself too seriously. He was unable to laugh at himself. Though a statesman of note, he was a poor politician. But once out of politics, in England as the squire of Juniper Hill, he rose to an elegant maturity, hard-working, well liked, and respected.

Bennett{apos}s voluminous papers are in the Univ. of N.B. Library, Arch. and Special Coll. Dept. (Fredericton); they are available on microfilm at Library and Arch. Canada (Ottawa) (MG 26, K). Other useful papers at Library and Arch. Canada include the John Erskine Read papers (MG 30, E148), especially his {d-0}Reminiscences{d-1} in vol.10; the R. J. Manion papers (MG 27, III, B7), especially {d-0}Notes and memoranda{d-1} in vol.84; the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada fonds (MG 28, IV 2); and the J. R. H. Wilbur fonds (MG 31, D19). Also important are the Beaverbrook papers at the House of Lords Record Office (London) (Hist. Coll., 184), the Neville Chamberlain papers at the Univ. of Birmingham Library (Birmingham, Eng.), the Stanley Baldwin papers (MS.Baldwin) at the Cambridge Univ. Library (Cambridge, Eng.), the Hazel Colville papers (P030) at the McCord Museum of Canadian Hist. (Montreal), the E. N. Rhodes papers (MG 2, vols.404-21C, 562-88, 1099-205, 1216-19) at N.S. Arch. & Records Management (Halifax), and the P. B. Waite papers (MS-2-718) at Dalhousie Univ. Arch. (Halifax).

Library and Arch. Canada, MG 26, J13, 6, 30 May 1930 (the diaries of William Lyon Mackenzie King are also available online at Evening Telegram (Toronto), 15 Oct. 1935. Halifax Herald, 30 Jan. 1939. Manitoba Free Press (Winnipeg), 11-13 Oct. 1927. [W. M. Aitken], Lord Beaverbrook, Friends: sixty years of intimate personal relations with Richard Bedford Bennett . . . (London and Toronto, 1959). J. M. Beck, Pendulum of power: Canada{apos}s federal elections (Scarborough, Ont., 1968). Can., House of Commons, Debates (Ottawa), 1911-21, 1926-38; Special committee on radio broadcasting, Minutes of proc. and evidence (Ottawa, 1932), 486-87. R. MacG. Dawson and H. B. Neatby, William Lyon Mackenzie King: a political biography (3v., Toronto, 1958-76). I. M. Drummond, Imperial economic policy, 1917-1939; studies in expansion and protection (London, 1974). Jacques Dumont, {d-0}Méditation pour jeunes politiques,{d-1} L{apos}Action française (Montréal), 17 (1927): 28-40. L. A. Glassford, Reaction and reform: the politics of the Conservative Party under R. B. Bennett, 1927-1938 (Toronto, 1992). Roger Graham, Arthur Meighen: a biography (3v., Toronto, 1960-65. J. H. Gray, Men against the desert ([Saskatoon], 1967 [i.e. 1970]); R. B. Bennett: the Calgary years (Toronto, 1991). John Hilliker and Donald Barry, Canada{apos}s Department of External Affairs (2v., Montreal and Kingston, Ont., 1990-95). Victor Howard, {d-0}We were the salt of the earth!{d-1}: a narrative of the On-to-Ottawa Trek and the Regina Riot (Regina, 1985). [W.] B. Hutchison, The far side of the street (Toronto, 1976). R. J. Manion, Life is an adventure (Toronto, 1936). F. W. Peers, The politics of Canadian broadcasting, 1920-1951 ([Toronto], 1969). Escott Reid, {d-0}The Canadian general election of 1935 - and after,{d-1} American Political Science Rev. (Menasha, Wis.), 30 (1936): 111-21. D. W. Smith, {d-0}The Maritime years of R. B. Bennett, 1870-1897{d-1} (ma thesis, Univ. of N.B., Fredericton, 1968). P. B. Waite, The loner: three sketches of the personal life and ideas of R. B. Bennett, 1870-1947 (Toronto, 1992). Ernest Watkins, R. B. Bennett: a biography (Toronto, 1963). John Wesley, The works of John Wesley, ed. A. C. Outler et al. (16v. to date, Nashville, Tenn., 1984-?), 2: 273, 279.

Robert Laird Borden{apos}s paternal ancestor Richard Borden left Headcorn, England, in 1638 to settle in Portsmouth, R.I. More than a century later, after the Acadians had been expelled from Nova Scotia in 1755 [see Charles Lawrence*], Richard{apos}s great-grandson Samuel Borden, a landowner and surveyor in New Bedford, Mass., was commissioned by the Nova Scotia government to survey the vacated lands and lay out plots for New Englanders intending to settle there. In 1764 Samuel received a parcel of land in Cornwallis for his work, but he returned to New Bedford. His son Perry, Robert{apos}s great-grandfather, took up the grant, beginning the establishment of Borden families in the Annapolis valley bordering on the Bay of Fundy.

The Bordens were farmers, tilling the rich tidelands rescued from the sea generations earlier by the expelled Acadians. Robert{apos}s father, Andrew, who was born in 1816, owned a substantial farm at Grand Pré. He first married Catherine Sophia Fuller, and they had a son, Thomas Andrew, and a daughter, Sophia Amelia, before her death in 1847. Three years later Andrew married Eunice Jane Laird, the daughter of John Laird, the village schoolmaster and a classical scholar and mathematician of local repute. Robert was born in 1854 and was followed by a brother, John William, a sister, Julia Rebecca, and another brother, Henry Clifford, born in 1870. John William would become a senior civil servant in the Department of Militia and Defence in Ottawa; Julia remained in Grand Pré, unmarried and living with her parents; Henry Clifford, known as Hal and Robert{apos}s favourite among the siblings, graduated from Dalhousie law school in Halifax and practised as a lawyer.

Of all the members of the family it was Eunice, Robert{apos}s mother, who had the strongest influence on his upbringing and development. He later wrote that she was of {d-0}a highly-wrought nervous temperament,{d-1} {d-0}passionate but wholly just and considerate upon reflection,{d-1} and totally devoted to the welfare of her four children. Borden admired her {d-0}very strong character, remarkable energy, high ambition and unusual ability{d-1} - traits that marked his own emerging personality. Borden{apos}s reflections on his father were much more restrained. Andrew did not take to agricultural pursuits and left management of the farm to Eunice and the children. He dabbled and failed in small business ventures and in time found a comfortable sinecure as stationmaster at Grand Pré for the Windsor and Annapolis Railway. Though {d-0}a man of good ability and excellent judgment,{d-1} Robert wrote, Andrew {d-0}lacked energy and had no great aptitude for affairs.{d-1}

Robert{apos}s education began in the village{apos}s Presbyterian Sunday school, where he was initiated into the mysteries of the Shorter Catechism, and at home, where he learned reading with his mother from the pages of John Bunyan{apos}s Pilgrim{apos}s progress. In due course, lessons with the village schoolmistress were interspersed with visits from his uncles, who introduced him to the poets Horace and Virgil. When he was nine, in 1863, his parents sent him as a day student to the local private academy, Acacia Villa School, presided over by Arthur McNutt Patterson. Patterson{apos}s mission was to {d-0}fit boys physically, morally, and intellectually, for the responsibilities of life.{d-1} Each morning began with Patterson reading a chapter of Proverbs to his charges, who then moved on to exercises in grammar, mathematics, literature, and natural philosophy. Borden excelled at Greek and Latin. Soon his instructor, James Henry Hamilton, also had him studying Hebrew. The classical poetry and literature stayed with Borden all his life. A volume in Latin or Greek, perhaps one of each, was on his bedside table until the day of his death. In 1869, when Hamilton suddenly left Acacia Villa to join a private school in New Jersey, Robert, at age 14, found himself promoted to {d-0}assistant master,{d-1} charged with taking Hamilton{apos}s place in classical studies.

The contrast with his chores at home was sharp and telling. He later recalled that he never had mastered {d-0}the mysteries of building a load of hay,{d-1} and found hoeing vegetables {d-0}extremely disagreeable{d-1} and sawing cordwood for winter fires {d-0}unpleasurable.{d-1} Even on the rich bottomlands and upland fields of {d-0}the Valley{d-1} the rewards of agriculture were hard won. He never forgot that {d-0}throughout the year labour was severe and hours long.{d-1} As attached as he was to his family, Borden resolved not to spend his life as a farmer in Grand Pré. Teaching at Acacia Villa had more than its share of routine, and his failure to complete his schooling precluded study at university. Still, teaching hinted at a better way of life. Self-education, he discovered, had its own satisfactions. One learned the value of time: {d-0}To waste it seems like wasting one{apos}s future.{d-1} Discipline, hard work, persistence, patience, and a sense of humour were common enough virtues but essential to shape the ambitions of a young man determined to succeed. Borden taught at the academy for four years and then accepted Hamilton{apos}s invitation to join him at the Glenwood Institute in Matawan, N.J.

It was the first time he had ever been away from home and he was desperately lonely in the fall of 1873. But he was not alone. A ferry ride away in the great metropolis of New York his half-brother, Thomas, a sailor, and his wife lived. Other Nova Scotia friends resided in Brooklyn and he and a fellow boarder named Horner, a public-school teacher, often went to the city on weekends to visit its parks, museums, galleries, and libraries and to listen to temperance lectures. At the Glenwood Institute, he was a 19-year-old professor of classics and mathematics. Borden found the work demanding. He kept a short-lived diary and frequently recorded entries like {d-0}I worked too hard this afternoon at reports &c. I was somewhat ill this evening about 7 o{apos}clock.{d-1} He had nine different classes, most with fewer than a dozen students, and none of them particularly challenging.

In the spring of 1874, as the school year was drawing to a close, Borden surveyed his prospects. They were not encouraging; without completion of his formal education in school and college, a career in teaching would likely mean working in second-rate academies trying to inspire dull, uninterested students. Casting about, he wrote to an uncle who was a barrister in Ontario, asking for information on studying law in that province. The reply was enough to convince him that he should give the profession a try. But his mother would have nothing to do with his going to Ontario. She told him he could do just as well at home in Nova Scotia. He applied to and was accepted by the prominent Halifax firm of Robert Linton Weatherbe and Wallace Nesbit Graham. As the fall of 1874 began, Borden, always punctilious, recorded: {d-0}Commenced the study of the law by reading a small portion of [Robert Malcolm Napier] Kerr{apos}s 1873 edition of the Student{apos}s Blackstone on Saturday evening, Sept. 19 at 8.45 o{apos}clock.{d-1}

He was apprenticed to Weatherbe and Graham as an articled clerk for four years, {d-0}entitled to be instructed in the knowledge and practice of the Law.{d-1} In truth, he learned by doing. He was expected to prepare briefs for his masters and watch over the ordinary office affairs of their clients. Formal instruction depended upon his after-hours initiative. A diversion from the routine of the office was enlisting in the 63rd (Halifax Volunteer) Battalion of Rifles. There, in three yearly terms, he earned a meagre but welcome six dollars for twelve days of service and a fifty dollar bonus when he qualified for commission. Other companions were found at the St Andrew{apos}s Lodge of British Templars and the debating society of the Young Men{apos}s Christian Association. In September 1877 he joined Charles Hibbert Tupper, who had a law degree from Harvard, and 23 others to sit the provincial bar examinations. Borden topped the class. He still had a year of apprenticeship before admittance to the bar and during the winter of 1877-78 also attended the School of Military Instruction in Halifax.

Borden and a classmate briefly had a practice in Halifax before he went to Kentville as the junior partner of Conservative lawyer John Pryor Chipman. Then, in 1882, Wallace Graham called him back to Halifax. John Sparrow David Thompson, a partner in the firm since Weatherbe{apos}s promotion to the bench in 1878, had himself been made a judge. Graham and Tupper, who had become a partner in 1881, needed help, especially so because Tupper had just been elected to the House of Commons. Borden had hardly settled in when Graham assigned him a long list of cases before the provincial Supreme Court. Other work came from the firm{apos}s Conservative friends in Sir John A. Macdonald{apos}s government in Ottawa. Borden helped prepare the government{apos}s cases in the seizure of two American fishing vessels in 1886 during the long-standing Canadian-American dispute over fishing rights in the North Atlantic. Then, early in 1888, Thompson, now Macdonald{apos}s minister of justice, invited Borden to work with him in Ottawa as deputy minister. Borden was tempted but declined, preferring to remain in practice in Halifax.

In September 1889 Robert Borden married Laura Bond, a daughter of the late Thomas Henry Bond, who had been a successful hardware merchant in Halifax. How they first met is not known, though it may have been at St Paul{apos}s Anglican Church, where she was an organist and he a regular attendant. Their courtship had begun in the summer of 1886. When they were married he was 35 and she 28. Laura was a lively, attractive, and strong-willed young woman whose interest in music and theatre complemented his in literature. Both enjoyed tennis, water sports, and especially golf. At first the Bordens rented rooms in downtown Halifax but in 1894 Borden bought a large home, Pinehurst, on Quinpool Road in the western suburbs of the city. He was now very successful in his career, and he and Laura spent several weeks in the summers of 1891 and 1893 touring in England and Europe. There were no children of the marriage but Borden{apos}s brother Hal was often with them at Pinehurst while studying at Dalhousie.

By the mid 1890s the Borden firm, now including William Bruce Almon Ritchie and others, was among the largest in the province. The Bank of Nova Scotia, Canada Atlantic Steamship, Nova Scotia Telephone, and the bread and confectionery business of William Church Moir were among its prominent clients. Most of Borden{apos}s work was on referral of appeals to the Supreme Court in Halifax or in Ottawa, and in 1893 he appeared for the first time before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London. He had several cases each year in Ottawa. While there he frequently visited Sir John Thompson, who had become prime minister, and other Nova Scotia acquaintances. His closest friends were the Tuppers, Charles Hibbert and his family. In the early nineties Borden and Tupper took up the new fad of bicycling and were often seen on the roads in and about Ottawa and Hull. At home in Halifax, Borden{apos}s reputation and influence in the bar steadily grew. He was elected vice-president of the Nova Scotia Barristers{s-1-unknown} Society in 1895 and became its president a year later. While he was serving in that office he and his colleague Charles Sidney Harrington played leading roles in organizing the founding meeting of the Canadian Bar Association in Montreal in 1896.

That spring, on 27 April, Borden was in Ottawa arguing cases and went to dinner at Sir Charles Tupper{apos}s home. It was the day that Sir Mackenzie Bowell resigned as Conservative prime minister and Tupper was about to succeed him. It was clear that there would be an election before the year was out. Tupper asked Borden to stand for Halifax with the veteran Catholic mp Thomas Edward Kenny. John Fitzwilliam Stairs, Halifax businessman and Protestant colleague of Kenny in the House of Commons, was stepping down and Tupper wanted Borden to replace him. Before Borden left the dinner party, he accepted.

It was an abrupt change in Borden{apos}s life and opponents would later charge that he had suddenly switched sides. What political interests he had had in his earlier years were certainly on the Liberal side - the Valley was a Liberal stronghold - and he had spoken once on behalf of his cousin the Liberal politician Frederick William Borden in 1882. In 1886, however, he had abandoned the Liberal cause in disagreement with Nova Scotia premier William Stevens Fielding{apos}s campaign against confederation. Several of his legal partners in Graham{apos}s firm were prominent Conservatives and when Borden took over the firm all the new associates he chose had Conservative leanings. Yet Borden himself had never before expressed any interest in running for public office. Nor was he deeply moved by the big issue in the 1896 election, the Manitoba school question [see Thomas Greenway*]. After winning the nomination he campaigned on the hardy staple of Macdonald-era Tory politics, the National Policy. This, after all, was the plank in the Conservative platform that captured the interest and support of most of his clients. On election day, 23 June, Halifax voters, for only the second time since confederation, split their ticket. Both the Conservative and the Liberal Catholic candidates were defeated. Borden and Liberal Benjamin Russell, another prominent lawyer and Protestant, were elected. Borden took his place in the commons as a member of the opposition party: Tupper and his Tory colleagues had been soundly defeated by Wilfrid Laurier*{apos}s Liberals.

For the next four years Borden was a backbencher, practising law in Halifax and politics in Ottawa. He disliked being away from Laura. {d-0}It is a miserable irregular life one has to lead,{d-1} he complained early in the 1896 session, {d-0}and I am more than sick of it, I can assure you.{d-1} As always, the duties of the backbencher revolved around attending to the wishes and complaints of his constituents and defending the interests of his riding when occasion demanded. Borden became involved in his work on house committees and, over time, grew more confident to speak on broader, national issues. As one of the few {d-0}new men{d-1} in the party, he was steadfast in his loyalty to his leader, Tupper, and distanced himself from the incessant bickering that characterized the Conservatives in opposition. By 1899 he had been moved to the front bench and had begun to be noticed as an emerging figure in the party.

On 7 Nov. 1900 the Conservatives were soundly defeated in another general election and Tupper was ready to give up the leadership at year{apos}s end. The more obvious candidates were veteran warriors such as George Eulas Foster and Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper. But they had acquired as many rivals and enemies as friends during their long careers, and their prospects of beating Laurier in a future election were dismal. The party needed a fresh face and the Tuppers, father and son, turned to Borden. He had no enemies in the caucus and had been an able and conscientious worker in parliament. Charles Hibbert approached him in mid November, well before his father{apos}s formal resignation was announced in February. {d-0}I have not either the experience or the qualifications which would enable me to successfully lead the party,{d-1} Borden replied. {d-0}It would be an absurdity for the party and madness for me.{d-1} The Tuppers persisted and when the disheartened Tory mps and senators met in February 1901, they rallied support for their candidate. On 6 February the members, many sceptically, chose Borden as their leader. Borden played out the formalities of surprise and set two conditions. He would, he said, accept for only one year and he demanded that the party appoint a committee to search for a permanent leader. The committee was quickly forgotten and the commitment to one year was never made public.

Leading his colleagues was even more challenging. They were a fractious lot in parliament and the constituencies, cursed with long-standing rivalries and deep divisions between Catholic and Protestant, French and English, and, reflecting changing times, urban and rural factions. Though ultimately the leader had the authority to decide, party organization and party policy had evolved as prerogatives of the mps, which they jealously guarded. They chafed at Borden{apos}s tendency, throughout the opposition years, to bypass them and seek advice from outsiders, Conservative provincial premiers and prominent business leaders sympathetic to the Tory cause. One veteran of party warfare, Samuel Hughes, developed a strong affection for his leader but shared his long-serving colleagues{s-1-unknown} doubts about Borden{apos}s political skills. Borden, he observed in 1911, was {d-0}a most lovely fellow; very capable, but not a very good judge of men or tactics; and is gentle hearted as a girl.{d-1} Many mps found Borden reserved, distant, and occasionally imperious. Once, in 1913, Borden had to reprimand a colleague and then regretted it. {d-0}Wrote [John Allister Currie] a consoling letter,{d-1} he wrote in his diary. {d-0}He wept. Geo[rges] Lafontaine also wept today when I spoke kindly to him.{d-1}

Borden{apos}s most difficult problem was with his French Canadian mps. Once the backbone of the Conservative Party, the Quebec membership in caucus had been reduced to a tiny rump. Borden often thought their ideas were parochial but never went out of his way to try to understand them. Following a practice of Macdonald, he chose a lieutenant from their ranks, Frederick Debartzch Monk. Monk, like Borden, was a lawyer who had first been elected in 1896 and, again like his chief, he was serious, earnest, and moody. Neither man got on easily with the other. Monk was a champion of growing nationalist sentiment in Quebec. Borden, who spoke competent French, was frequently impatient with his lieutenant and failed to grasp the significance of French Canadians{s-1-unknown} views on national issues that threatened their sense of identity. Nor was he able to curb the sometimes virulent antagonism of his more ardent Ontario Protestant colleagues to the Quebec Conservatives{s-1-unknown} aspirations. Monk, feeling isolated and unsupported by his leader, resigned his position in January 1904. A year later he and Borden clashed over the schools issue in Alberta and Saskatchewan. Monk wanted Borden to stand up for establishing separate schools in the new provinces while Borden, knowing they were opposed by local officials, backed the arguments for provincial autonomy. Monk, angered, said that his leader had set back the Conservative cause in Quebec by 15 years.

Borden was influenced by the progressive ideas about democratizing political parties and using state power in the public interest that were being debated in the United States. An example was his opposition to the extravagant plans of Laurier{apos}s government, in 1903, to support the building of two more transcontinental railways, the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Canadian Northern. Borden agreed that the rapid expansion of the prairie region required new transportation routes. But the two railways, which would run for miles within a carriage ride{apos}s distance of each other, were wasteful and irresponsible. He countered with a proposal for a government-owned and -operated transcontinental railway, controlled not by private corporations but by the people of Canada. Though the Liberals easily carried the day in parliament, Borden said that in the forthcoming general election the people would have a choice, {d-0}a government-owned railway or a railway-owned government.{d-1}

It did not work. Laurier{apos}s Liberals, at the peak of their power, humiliated the Tories in the election of November 1904. They took every seat in Nova Scotia, including Borden{apos}s, swept British Columbia, and increased their majority to 64. Borden talked of resigning. But the attractions of public life had begun to grow on him: he enjoyed the recognition a party leader received and the continual association with men of affairs that political life demanded. His confidence in his performance as leader had grown and his job was unfinished. {d-0}For a long time I more than hesitated{d-1} about staying on, he would tell his friend John Stephen Willison. But just before Christmas 1904 he decided to remain as party leader. {d-0}I have put all the hesitation and doubt behind me and I shall endeavour to do my full duty.{d-1} A vacancy was hastily found in Carleton constituency in Ontario and Laurier graciously arranged that Borden be acclaimed on 4 Feb. 1905.

Shortly after his election it was clear that Borden{apos}s commitment to national politics was complete: he told Laura on 9 February that he was house hunting in Ottawa. The couple moved into their new home, Glensmere, on Wurtemburg Street and backing onto the Rideau River, in the summer of 1906. Borden spent much of his second term as leader developing a new platform for his party. A scheme to hold a policy convention was mooted and then shelved when Quebec Conservatives declined to attend. He turned for advice to the Conservative provincial premiers, Richard McBride in British Columbia, Rodmond Palen Roblin in Manitoba, and James Pliny Whitney* in Ontario, to some of the new members of his caucus who shared his views, and to businessmen such as Joseph Wesley Flavelle and Sir Thomas George Shaughnessy*. He announced his Halifax Platform - in his words, {d-0}the most advanced and progressive policy ever put forward in Federal affairs{d-1} - in his home city on 20 Aug. 1907. It called, among other things, for reform of the Senate and the civil service, a more selective immigration policy, free rural mail delivery, and government regulation of telegraphs, telephones, and railways and eventually national ownership of telegraphs and telephones. The proposals received a cool reception from his parliamentary colleagues who had not been consulted and a mixed public reception among businessmen who were concerned by Borden{apos}s unorthodox ideas about state intervention in business affairs. Though he spent more than a year promoting the platform in speeches across the nation, the effort was not enough to prevent another victory by the Liberals in October 1908.

Borden had now lost two general elections and his party four in a row. But in 1908 the Conservatives gained 14 seats, reducing Laurier{apos}s majority to 50. Borden was more determined than ever to carry on. Many of his parliamentary colleagues had other ideas. They resented having been ignored in the planning of the Halifax Platform. They feared his ideas for developing party structures that would lessen their influence. And he had now led them to another painful defeat. They carried their discontent into the new parliament, a parliament soon dominated by two issues that challenged Canadians{s-1-unknown} views of their relationship with the United Kingdom and the United States and that triggered successive revolts against Borden{apos}s leadership within his caucus. The struggle appeared to be over Borden{apos}s determination to break the mps{s-1-unknown} dominance of party affairs by holding a national convention and establishing a counterweight of democratically controlled local organizations. But what sparked the revolts was Borden{apos}s stand on the naval question in 1909-10 and on reciprocity with the United States in 1911.

In February 1909 the Conservatives placed upon the order paper of the House of Commons notice of a resolution recommending that Canada provide for its own coastal defence, something Laurier had promised in 1902 but never acted upon. Early in March, before the resolution could be debated, a short-lived crisis in Great Britain over the relative strengths of the imperial and German navies shocked and surprised both parties. In English-speaking Canada public figures and many of the large urban dailies demanded a Canadian contribution to the sudden apparent shortfall in British Dreadnoughts. Neither Laurier nor Borden was sympathetic to this clamour. Laurier proposed an amendment to the Conservative resolution, recommending that the house approve any necessary expenditure designed to promote the organization of a Canadian naval service which would work in close cooperation with the imperial navy. It was quickly accepted by the Conservatives and the revised resolution passed unanimously at the end of March. By then, however, the demand for a contribution of Dreadnoughts had been embraced by Borden{apos}s three strongest allies, premiers McBride, Roblin, and Whitney.

In January 1910 Laurier introduced a bill to create a Canadian naval service, with ships stationed on both the Atlantic and the Pacific coasts. If required, they could be put at the service of the imperial navy in time of war. The Conservatives were deeply divided. Monk, whom Borden had reappointed as his Quebec lieutenant a year earlier, was demanding a plebiscite on the issue. Borden continued to support the concept of a Canadian naval service - though not necessarily the one proposed by the Liberals - but now also favoured immediate aid. Many other Tory members wanted a simple, outright contribution to the imperial navy. Before the session was over Laurier{apos}s proposal would be carried by his party{apos}s large majority and soon become law. In early April the Toronto Daily Star broke the story of seething discontent in the Tory caucus, claiming as many as seven different factions at war with each other. That was not true but there were three groups, the French Canadians and two small cliques of English Canadians, who were challenging Borden{apos}s authority and calling for McBride to abandon Victoria and rescue the national party in Ottawa. Borden responded by handing his resignation as party leader to the chief whip on 6 April. He had no intention of leaving. Instead, he was challenging his caucus. He addressed it for an hour on the 12th and left knowing that his allies would beat back the revolt. Shortly after noon a motion reaffirming support for him was passed by all.

In November 1910, responding to an invitation from the United States, Laurier sent his ministers of finance and customs to Washington to discuss a new Canadian-American trade arrangement. After another session there in January, the finance minister, William Fielding, announced the agreement in the house on the 26th. It was staggering in its breadth. The two nations undertook to eliminate customs duties on a long list of natural products. Then there was another long list of reduced duties on many manufactured goods. The arrangement concluded with two further lists, one Canadian and one American, of lower duties on yet more processed products of the other nation. To avoid the possibility of the agreement being defeated in the United States Senate if it was styled a treaty, it had been decided to bring it into effect by reciprocal legislation. The Conservatives, to a man, were stunned. There had never been such a challenge to their National Policy; there had never been a proposal so calculated to win the support of the vast majority of Canada{apos}s farmers, fishermen, lumbermen, and industrial workers. Laurier{apos}s party, though old, tired, and slipping badly in its organizational prowess, seemed assured of another sweeping victory; Borden{apos}s men faced a fifth deeply humiliating defeat.

It was the Tory premiers who initially rallied the troops. For them the issue was not a cheaper cost of living for ordinary Canadians, it was a betrayal by Laurier of Canada{apos}s cherished ties to the empire. Robert Rogers, Roblin{apos}s minister of public works in Winnipeg, told Borden the reciprocity agreement was a {d-0}departure from Imperialism to continentalism.{d-1} Then the manufacturers, who had prospered under the protection of National Policy tariffs sustained by both Conservative and Liberal governments since 1879, took up the cause [see Sir Byron Edmund Walker]. The Canadian Manufacturers{s-1-unknown} Association quickly developed a shadowy subordinate, the Canadian Home Market Association, to carry on a propaganda war against reciprocity. Soon important business spokesmen who had long supported Laurier{apos}s party, Zebulon Aiton Lash and Lloyd Harris, joined Clifford Sifton, a former minister in the Liberal cabinet, and John Willison, the Conservative editor of the Toronto News, to propose an alliance with Borden{apos}s party. Their delegation met him on 1 March, anticipating that the reciprocity issue would force a new election. What would Borden do if he won? They asked that he consult their spokesmen before appointing his cabinet and that its membership include {d-0}men of outstanding national reputation and influence{d-1} who would appeal to the {d-0}progressive elements{d-1} of the electorate. In short, they wanted representation of the anti-reciprocity Liberals in his cabinet. Borden quickly agreed and a curious coalition against the trade agreement began to emerge under his leadership.

A large majority of his caucus, led by its more recent members from the business class such as Herbert Brown Ames*, George Halsey Perley, and Albert Edward Kemp, supported Borden{apos}s developing strategy. But a group of veteran Tories, including Monk and his friends, were appalled by Borden{apos}s pact with Sifton and the anti-reciprocity Liberals and denounced it in a stormy March caucus. Borden again threatened to resign, triggering a petition asking him to carry on. Sixty-five members signed; twenty did not. For a second time in a year opposition in his caucus had been crushed just as the prospects for eventual electoral victory looked better than they had in 15 years. In the House of Commons the party obstructed progress on the reciprocity bill. After a two-month adjournment to allow Laurier to attend an imperial conference, the Liberals lost control of the commons, abandoned their bill, and dissolved the house on 29 July. Borden and his coalition allies campaigned across English-speaking Canada on the slogan {d-0}Canadianism or Continentalism.{d-1} Their appearances in Quebec, Laurier{apos}s fortress, were few. In a tacit understanding the fight there was left to Monk, his Nationaliste friend Henri Bourassa* (a roommate of Borden years before), and Monk{apos}s parliamentary colleagues. For them the issue was not reciprocity, it was Laurier: Laurier and his Naval Service Act, Laurier and his capitulations to English Canadian interests through the years, Laurier and his alleged corrupt dominance of politics in Quebec.

The strategy worked brilliantly. On 21 Sept. 1911 the Conservatives took all seven seats in British Columbia, eight of ten in Manitoba, and seventy-three of eighty-six in Ontario. In Quebec their representation jumped from eleven to twenty-seven. Borden{apos}s Tories had won 134 seats in the House of Commons; Laurier{apos}s Liberals were returned in 87 constituencies. Borden was the new prime minister of Canada.

Borden{apos}s cabinet mirrored the groups that had won the election under the Conservative banner. All the Conservative premiers, McBride, Roblin, Whitney, and John Douglas Hazen of New Brunswick, were offered places but only Hazen accepted, becoming minister of marine and fisheries and minister of the naval service. The other three chose to have their interests protected by surrogates. Martin Burrell, an mp and a friend of McBride, became minister of agriculture; Robert Rogers from Manitoba accepted the Department of the Interior; and Francis Cochrane* from Ontario took Railways and Canals. William Thomas White*, a talented young financier and vice-president of the National Trust Company, was the nominee of the anti-reciprocity Liberal interests. Though he had no political experience, he was appointed minister of finance and quickly became a close friend and trusted colleague of Borden. There was no shortage of veteran Tories waiting to be called. George Foster, deeply hurt that he did not get Finance, took Trade and Commerce. Sam Hughes unblushingly wrote to Borden celebrating his credentials - {d-0}I get the name of bringing success and good luck to a cause{d-1} - and was rewarded with the patronage-rich Department of Militia and Defence. John Dowsley (Doc) Reid, who had been a leader in the caucus revolts against Borden, was named minister of customs. From Quebec, Monk represented the Nationaliste forces as minister of public works and Louis-Philippe Pelletier and Wilfrid-Bruno Nantel were selected from the more traditional Bleu wing of Conservative support. English Quebec was recognized by Charles Joseph Doherty{apos}s appointment as minister of justice.

The new government began with high hopes for a mildly progressive legislative program. From the Halifax Platform, Borden promised further reform of the civil service - Laurier had begun the process with the establishment of the Civil Service Commission in 1908 - but sidestepped the more controversial ideas of government regulation or public ownership of national franchises such as the telegraph and telephone systems. The farmers, who were the principal victims of the defeat of reciprocity, needed attention. The Canada Grain Act of 1912 established a board of grain commissioners to supervise grain inspection and regulate the grain trade, and enabled the federal government to build or acquire and operate terminal elevators at key points in the grain marketing and export system. By 1916 the government would have elevators in operation at Port Arthur (Thunder Bay), Ont., Moose Jaw, Sask., Calgary, Saskatoon, and Vancouver. A second measure provided financial support to the provinces for the purpose of encouraging agriculture. Another proposal had the backing of many manufacturers and businessmen. The government introduced a bill in 1912 to establish a tariff commission, an innovation that had been mooted in the Halifax Platform; it was to apply {d-0}scientific principles{d-1} to management of the tariff, which accounted for more than 80 percent of the government{apos}s revenue, and remove it from partisan influences. Yet another measure that year called for financial assistance to the provinces to build or improve provincial highways and begin the construction of a national highway system. All of these initiatives seemed promising and a distinct departure from the Laurier era. Then, on 18 March 1912, Borden announced that he was halting the Liberals{s-1-unknown} naval program and preparing a permanent program of his own. It was a major tactical error, enraging the opposition and leaving Canada{apos}s naval service in limbo. The Liberals, who had a huge majority in the Senate, retaliated. Borden{apos}s tariff commission was rejected in 1912 and his highways bill in 1912 and again in 1913.

The same day that Borden suspended the naval plan Winston Churchill, Britain{apos}s first lord of the Admiralty, announced a new construction program for the Royal Navy to counter a growing threat from Germany. Once again the contribution-minded Tories in English-speaking Canada demanded action, and Borden, Hazen, Doherty, and Pelletier soon left for consultations in London; Monk refused to go. In the fall of 1912 Borden told his colleagues that his permanent naval plan was postponed and he was going to make a contribution of Dreadnoughts. The debate among them dragged on for some weeks, with Monk again insisting that there must first be a plebiscite. On 18 October, realizing his position was hopeless, he resigned from cabinet. On 5 December Borden introduced his Naval Aid Bill, which was to provide $35 million for the construction of three Dreadnoughts to be placed {d-0}at the disposal of His Majesty the King for the common defence of the Empire.{d-1} Borden expected something significant in return. He was convinced that support for the imperial cause had to be recognized by Canada having a voice in the determination of imperial foreign policy. Following his conversations in London he believed he had received that concession and announced to the house that {d-0}no important step in foreign policy would be undertaken without consultation with . . . a representative of Canada.{d-1}

The debate in the house also went on for weeks, becoming ever more acrimonious. After an all-night session in March, Borden recorded, {d-0}Our men angry at end and both sides wanted a physical conflict. Primeval passions.{d-1} Then, on 9 April, for the first time in the Canadian parliament, the government introduced closure and a month later the bill passed. But the {d-0}gagged{d-1} opponents had their revenge. The Senate rejected the Naval Aid Bill at the end of May [see Sir James Alexander Lougheed]. Canada{apos}s naval service was in suspension, its emergency contribution to the Royal Navy dead. The impasse would continue in June 1914, when the Senate rejected a bill, unanimously passed in the commons, to increase its numbers so as to give adequate representation to the western provinces. With partisan bitterness at a peak and good portions of its legislative program crippled, the Tories called out the battalions for a snap general election. Borden had one plank to put to the people: a pledge to amend the constitution and have an elected Senate. However, the weakness of the party in Quebec and in Manitoba, where Roblin won only the barest of majorities in July, combined with the illness of Whitney in Ontario, caused him to draw back.

On 22 June 1914 the king had awarded Borden the gcmg. Late in July, he and Laura escaped Ottawa{apos}s summer heat for a vacation in Muskoka. It was short-lived. On Friday morning, 31 July, Borden was on a train rushing for Toronto. The next day he was in his Ottawa office and on Tuesday evening, 4 Aug. 1914, at 8:55 a cable from London arrived during an emergency cabinet meeting. Canada was at war.

The war was greeted with enthusiasm. Prominent men of affairs competed for recognition of their contributions to the war effort. Robert Rogers guaranteed to support the dependants of members of the Fort Garry Horse who joined up. Clifford Sifton donated a battery of armoured cars, and Andrew Hamilton Gault* raised a battalion of ex-soldiers, the Princess Patricia{apos}s Canadian Light Infantry, that were the first Canadian troops to land in France. The Imperial Order Daughters of the Empire solicited funds for a hospital ship. And Sir Richard McBride surprised both the Admiralty and Ottawa when he used provincial funds to purchase two submarines being built for the Chilean navy in Seattle and had his operatives slip them over the border just as the United States neutrality laws were coming into effect.

In Ottawa, the government was unprepared for war. So was the nation. The only member of cabinet with any military experience, and it was chequered, was Sam Hughes. Key departments of the public service, Finance, Justice, Trade and Commerce, and Labour each had fewer than one hundred employees as late as March 1915. Small arms - the Ross rifle - were manufactured in Canada but there was no capacity, or manpower, to produce heavy armaments. A much-touted war book, quickly implemented, barely hinted at what a government at war needed to do. But by Sunday, 9 August, the basic orders in council had been proclaimed, and a war session of parliament opened just two weeks after the conflict began. Legislation was quickly passed to secure the nation{apos}s financial institutions and raise tariff duties on some high-demand consumer items. The War Measures Bill, giving the government extraordinary powers of coercion over Canadians, was rushed through three readings. Finally, the Canadian Patriotic Fund was set up to assume responsibility for assistance to the families of soldiers. With complete support from Laurier and his party, the government{apos}s war legislation was in place in just five days.

The centrepiece of the effort was recruiting the force that Canada would send to the front. Hughes abandoned a mobilization plan that had been drawn up by the chief of the general staff, Colonel Willoughby Garnons Gwatkin, and turned recruiting over to the more than 200 local militia commanders. Chaos reigned while Hughes went on to contract businessman William Price to build a training site from scratch at Valcartier, near Quebec City. In less than three weeks the camp had been established and thousands of troops had arrived. A division had been offered as Canada{apos}s contribution; many more men were at Valcartier and, while Hughes strutted and dithered, Borden decided late in September to send them all to England. The men were not trained and would spend months on Salisbury Plain in winter learning the rudiments of warfare [see Sir Edwin Alfred Hervey Alderson]. The fear in the government, and the country, was that the Canadians would not get to the front in time: it was widely anticipated that the war would be over by Christmas. On 18 Dec. 1914 Borden told the Halifax Canadian Club that {d-0}there has not been, there will not be, compulsion or conscription.{d-1}

The eagerly awaited {d-0}decisive battle{d-1} that would crush the Germans never happened. Almost immediately the Western Front settled into years of ghastly skirmishes and inconclusive trench warfare. In April 1915, when the 1st Division fought its first major battle, at second Ypres, Canadians became acquainted with the growing casualty lists that appeared in urban dailies and rural weeklies from Nova Scotia to British Columbia. Recruiting for a second division had begun as the first was crossing the Atlantic. The authorized force level of the Canadian army rose again and again: 150,000 in July 1915; 250,000 in October 1915; and finally 500,000 in January 1916. Throughout, Hughes left the responsibility decentralized in the local units and military districts: his department remained on the sidelines. The recruits, very largely from Canada{apos}s towns and cities, came by the thousands - until mid 1916. By then the war effort in factory and field was running at full capacity and labour shortages were appearing on production lines and farmsteads alike. By then, too, the reality of a war of attrition had been grasped. Potential recruits had a choice not open to many in 1914 and early 1915 when unemployment had reached serious levels: there was a very dangerous job available at $1.10 a day in France and another at unprecedented wages in the home-front war economy. By July 1916 the seemingly endless flow of recruits had become a mere trickle: 8,389 men. In April and May 1917, especially in the aftermath of Vimy Ridge, just over 11,000 men enlisted. The days of volunteerism were over.

The government{apos}s approach to the war effort at home paralleled the volunteerism of military recruiting. Worried that an already troubled economy might collapse because of {d-0}uncertain conditions,{d-1} Borden and White had opted for {d-0}business as usual.{d-1} In 1915 White rejected calls for direct taxation. It would cost too much to implement, he said, and would intrude upon a tax field traditionally used by the provinces. After the London market closed at the end of 1914, White, reluctantly and complaining about the high rates charged, turned to New York for bond issues in 1915, 1916, and 1917. He did not believe that the Canadian market was big enough to sell major issues. But a very tentative offering of $50 million in 1915, spurred by the escalating costs of the war, was doubly subscribed. Much larger issues in 1916 and 1917 were equally successful and a Victory Loan of $300 million in 1918 brought in $660 million. In the manufacturing sector Sam Hughes{apos}s hastily appointed Shell Committee vied for munitions orders from the Allied governments. The Canadian government{apos}s contracts for the many needs of its soldiers were dispersed by Militia and Defence and other departments in the partisan ways that had been practised for decades. Then minor scandals in early 1915 persuaded Borden to set up the War Purchasing Commission under Edward Kemp, now minister without portfolio. It took over the contracting for Canada{apos}s military expenditures and for all British and Allied orders for war supplies except munitions. Scandals also struck the Shell Committee, and in November 1915 it was shut down and replaced, as contractor for munitions, by the Imperial Munitions Board under the leadership of Joseph Flavelle.

These were the first manifestations of change. Others followed as war production in the factories and on the farms of Canada began to grow. In response to an urgent need for foodstuffs in Europe, Borden{apos}s government commandeered the 1915 wheat crop. In 1917 skyrocketing prices led to the establishment of the Board of Grain Supervisors of Canada under Robert Magill, which took marketing of the crops of 1917 and 1918 away from the private grain companies. It was succeeded by the Canadian Wheat Board with the same mandate for the 1919 crop. Also in 1917, a food controller, William John Hanna, was appointed to regulate the production and distribution of Canada{apos}s food supplies and a fuel controller, Charles Alexander Magrath*, was given the power to regulate the distribution and price of fuels and the wages of coalminers in Alberta and Nova Scotia. A year earlier, responding to increasing concern about war profiteering by Canada{apos}s businesses, Borden and White had reversed themselves on the tax issue and imposed the nation{apos}s first direct impost, the business profits war tax. It was politically motivated. So too was the income war tax, grudgingly introduced by White in 1917 as a companion to the Military Service Act, ostensibly to conscript the excesses of the nation{apos}s wealth to match the forced enlistment for military service. The rates were deliberately low and affected only a minority of people, and the impact of the two direct taxes on the government{apos}s revenue was insignificant. Both, as well, were temporary, intended to end with the end of the war. The profits tax expired in 1920 but was revived in World War II and the income tax would become the federal government{apos}s largest permanent source of revenue. In 1916 the deep and long-lasting problems of the new transcontinental railways were temporarily alleviated through government loans; the crisis was finally resolved the following year with the takeover of the Canadian Northern Railway [see Sir William Mackenzie; Sir Donald Mann] and the initial steps toward nationalization of the Grand Trunk-Grand Trunk Pacific system [see Edson Joseph Chamberlin]. The Canadian National Railways, government-owned and operated by an arm{apos}s-length board, would incorporate both lines with other government railways. In short, by 1917 precedent and tradition had been abandoned; business as usual had given way to remarkable government intervention in the economy.

Dramatic and unanticipated changes also took place in policy towards military manpower and in imperial relations. Borden made his first wartime visit to Britain and France in 1915. In Paris he visited President Raymond Poincaré and received the grand cross of the Legion of Honour. In London the government of Herbert Henry Asquith was welcoming and cordial but refused to concede any possibility of consultation on war policy. That was true also in 1916 as Borden wrestled with the chaotic administration of military manpower in Canada and Britain under Hughes. Eventually, in the fall of 1916, Hughes, in London, deliberately defied Borden{apos}s instructions for management of the overseas forces. Borden stripped him of his responsibilities and, in response to Hughes{apos}s bitter reaction, fired him in November. Hughes was replaced in Ottawa by Edward Kemp, and in London a new ministry of overseas military forces was established with George Perley, Canada{apos}s acting high commissioner, as its minister.

In December the new British prime minister, David Lloyd George, initiated a revolutionary change in the United Kingdom{apos}s relations with its dominions. He desperately needed more fighting men but realized that the time had come to give the dominions and India some say in the direction of the war. {d-0}They are fighting not for us,{d-1} he was reported as saying, {d-0}but with us.{d-1} In the spring of 1917 Borden, the leader of the senior dominion, attended the first imperial war cabinet and conference. Between regular visits to Canada{apos}s soldiers in military hospitals, Borden participated in war-cabinet discussions of a wide range of matters including possible peace terms. At meetings of the conference he and his brilliant young legal adviser, Loring Cheney Christie*, led the passage of Resolution IX, which called for a post-war constitutional conference to {d-0}provide effective arrangements for continuous consultation in all important matters of common Imperial concern, and for such necessary concerted action, founded on consultation, as the several Governments may determine.{d-1}

Back in Canada, Borden met his cabinet on 17 May and told them that he was ready to introduce conscription. The pressure to impose compulsory service had been building for more than a year, especially among more well-to-do English Canadians convinced that Quebeckers were slackers who refused to do their part. In 1916 the Toronto-based Bonne Entente movement, organized by John Milton Godfrey* and Arthur Hawkes, sought but failed to win Quebeckers over to a greater military contribution to the war effort. The more strident Win-the-War movement in 1917 openly agitated for conscription and a coalition government to enforce it. Quebeckers were not impressed. They were angered that Borden{apos}s government had failed to support their demands for redress of the grievance felt by Franco-Ontarians as a result of the Whitney government{apos}s imposition of Regulation 17 on their schools [see Philippe Landry]. This 1912 regulation had abolished the use of French as a language of instruction beyond form one (the first two years of instruction). In Ottawa the dispute was particularly heated as resistance to the regulation grew year by year, leading the government of William Howard Hearst* to put the Ottawa school board in trusteeship in 1915 [see Samuel McCallum Genest]. In February 1916, nearly five thousand angry French Canadians marched in protest to Borden{apos}s office and demanded federal intervention in the dispute. Borden said he would {d-0}see what could be done.{d-1} He did nothing, firmly convinced that the dispute was strictly a provincial matter. Then in April his three French Canadian ministers, Pierre-Édouard Blondin*, Thomas Chase-Casgrain, and Esioff-Léon Patenaude* pleaded to have the dispute referred to the Privy Council in Britain. He refused, calling their request {d-0}foolish.{d-1} In May Liberal mp Ernest Lapointe*{apos}s resolution in the commons recommending to the Ontario legislature {d-0}the wisdom of making it clear that the privilege of the children of French parentage of being taught in their mother tongue be not interfered with{d-1} was soundly defeated with {d-0}loud cheers{d-1} by the Tory majority. Ominously, five of Borden{apos}s members voted for the resolution and eleven of Laurier{apos}s caucus voted with the majority. Borden{apos}s view that intervention was unconstitutional was sound, but his insensitivity to French Canadians{s-1-unknown} concerns and to the pleas of his Quebec colleagues, and his adamant refusal to intervene with the Conservative government in Toronto, all but eroded what limited support his government had in Quebec. The increasingly strident clamour for conscription made matters even worse and sharpened the growing division between French and English in Canada.

For months Borden had resisted the conscription agitation, fearing large-scale unrest if it was imposed. {d-0}That might mean civil war in Quebec,{d-1} as he told one of the Bonne Ententists. In May 1917, when cabinet was informed there would be conscription, Blondin and Patenaude warned that it would {d-0}kill them politically and the party [in Quebec] for 25 years.{d-1} Borden{apos}s participation in the imperial war cabinet and his keen awareness that voluntary recruiting had fallen well behind battlefield casualties had been decisive in changing his mind. Casualties in the spring of 1917 were double the number of new recruits. Being taken into the imperial government{apos}s council, participating in discussions of war and peace policy at the centre of the empire, Borden believed, heightened Canada{apos}s responsibility to do everything possible to support its soldiers. Even more important was the bond he had established with {d-0}his boys{d-1} at the front and in the long rows of hospital beds in England. When he introduced the Military Service Bill on 11 June, he asked a hushed and sombre House of Commons, {d-0}If we do not pass this measure, if we do not provide reinforcements, if we do not keep our plighted faith, with what countenance shall we meet them on their return?{d-1}

At that same cabinet meeting in May, Borden announced that he was going to ask Laurier to join him in a coalition government to support conscription. He did so a week later. Laurier hesitated, opposed to compulsion but aware that several of his English-speaking colleagues strongly supported it. Finally, on 6 June, he refused. Several members of Borden{apos}s cabinet were vastly relieved. They abhorred the idea of cooperating with the Liberals and believed that they could easily win the forthcoming election on a conscription platform without them. But Borden persisted and worked for months to achieve a coalition of his party with conscriptionist Liberals. Along the way his men rammed through two bills to rig the franchise for the coming election. The Military Voters Act made it possible to manipulate the counting of votes at the front, and the War-time Elections Act, which finally passed in late September, disenfranchised enemy aliens who had come to Canada after 1902 and extended the vote to the immediate female relatives of soldiers. This raw display of partisan determination finally tipped the scales for coalition. Dithering conscriptionist Liberals such as Arthur Lewis Watkins Sifton, Newton Wesley Rowell*, and Frank Broadstreet Carvell knew that this was their last chance and quickly signed up. The Union government was announced on Saturday, 13 October. There were seven Liberals in the new cabinet, and one more would be added before the end of the month. Doc Reid, who like dozens in the Tory caucus had thought the coalition would never happen, reportedly quipped that he would {d-0}back Borden against Job in a patience contest.{d-1}

The angry debates that accompanied passage of the Military Service Act, the accusations and recriminations in both parties over coalition, were but preludes to the bitterness of the election campaign that began in November. The Manitoba Free Press (Winnipeg) declared that {d-0}a vote for Laurier is a vote for the Kaiser.{d-1} Sir John Willison{apos}s paper, now the Toronto Daily News, published a front-page map of Canada: English-speaking Canada was coloured in red, Quebec in black. In Quebec, Albert Sévigny*, Borden{apos}s minister of inland revenue, was driven from a platform amidst revolver shots and flying stones. After he took refuge in a hotel, the building{apos}s windows were smashed and Sévigny had to escape by sneaking out the back door. The campaign of insinuation, intimidation, and violence came to an end on voting day, 17 December. The Unionists won a huge majority of 114 Conservative and 39 Liberal members. Laurier{apos}s Liberals won 82 seats, 62 of them in Quebec and only 2 in western Canada. The disgraceful attempts to fix the vote were a price Borden had been willing to pay. So was the fact that both the great national parties had split - the Grits over conscription, the Tories over the necessity of coalition. For Borden the election of 1917 was a confirmation of {d-0}a solemn covenant and a pledge{d-1} he, and Canada, had made to the soldiers at the front.

The Union government moved quickly to implement its most important undertakings. Foremost was support for the war effort. The first men called up under the Military Service Act had been required in October to register for service, though in keeping with Borden{apos}s promise not to introduce conscription until an election had been held, they were not to be sent for training until January 1918. The continuing process resulted in hundreds of thousands of petitions across Canada for exemptions and Easter-weekend riots in Quebec City in 1918 [see François-Louis Lessard*]. In due course just under 100,000 single men, aged 20 to 22, would be conscripted. In parliament the War Appropriation Act, for a half-billion dollars, was approved. The enfranchisement of women, partially granted in 1917 as a partisan political ploy, was extended to include all eligible females for the purposes of national elections. A new Civil Service Act quickly passed to start the process of removing the outside service - federal government employees serving beyond the nation{apos}s capital - from appointment by patronage. The Dominion Bureau of Statistics was organized to provide the kinds of systematic information about the nation{apos}s population, social structure, and economy that had been so deficient during the early years of the war. The government also established daylight saving time. The parliamentary session ended in May with a heated debate, initiated by William Folger Nickle*, over the abolition of hereditary titles in Canada. Borden was in agreement: {d-0}They are very unpopular and entirely incompatible with our institutions,{d-1} he observed. In fact, a March order in council, then under consideration by the British government, had prescribed not only that hereditary titles be abolished but that, except for military distinctions, honours not be conferred on residents of Canada without the approval or the advice of the Canadian prime minister. Later, in mid July, the government belatedly announced a war labour policy which forbade strikes and lockouts for the duration while assuring employees of the right to organize and guaranteeing female workers equal pay for equal work.

In June 1918 Borden and several colleagues had returned to London for the second set of meetings of the imperial war cabinet and conference. He was angry that he had not been consulted before the Canadian Corps had suffered huge losses at Passchendaele and threatened Lloyd George that he would send no more troops to the front if such a situation arose again. More serious still, he had received reports throughout the war critical of the performance of the British high command and of British military planning, reports that reached a peak in his consultations with Lieutenant-General Sir Arthur William Currie, commander of the Canadian Corps. At the second meeting of the war cabinet Borden gave an impassioned speech detailing the faults of the high command. It resulted in appointment of a prime ministers{s-1-unknown} committee which held intensive hearings with officials and senior commanders about the war effort. Its draft report, completed in mid August, gloomily forecast that the war could go on until at least 1920, perhaps longer. It reinforced the commitment to participation by the dominions in war policy and highlighted the need for the civil authorities to exert control over their military commanders. But the report was outdated before it was discussed. Allied forces, spearheaded by Canadian and Australian troops, had attacked at Amiens, launching the final offensive that carried on as Borden returned to Canada.

On 27 October Lloyd George summoned him back to Britain to prepare for possible peace talks. Two days later Borden replied that {d-0}the press and the people of this country take it for granted that Canada will be represented at the Peace Conference.{d-1} Lloyd George was sympathetic but predicted {d-0}difficult problems.{d-1} When Borden arrived in London, he proposed that Borden, as the leader of the senior dominion, represent all the dominions at any conference that took place. Borden refused. In December it was agreed that dominion and Indian representatives would be present when questions directly relating to their interests were at stake and that one of the five members of the British delegation at the peace talks would always be from the dominions or India. A month later, after the conference had assembled at Paris, Lloyd George persuaded American president Woodrow Wilson and French premier Georges Clemenceau that Canada, Australia, South Africa, and India would have two delegates and New Zealand one at its plenary meetings. Borden recognized that these were more matters of form than substance and that representation was {d-0}largely a question of sentiment.{d-1} But, he told Laura, {d-0}Canada got nothing out of the war except recognition.{d-1} It was a point worth pressing to its logical conclusion: formal acknowledgement of Canada{apos}s international status. On 6 May 1919, as discussions on the membership of the League of Nations were drawing to a close, a memorandum by Borden argued that Canada, as a member, should have the right to be elected to the League{apos}s council. Lloyd George, Wilson, and Clemenceau agreed and added that Canada should also be eligible for election to the governing body of the International Labour Organization. Five days later he was on his way home. It was Charles J. Doherty and Arthur L. Sifton who signed the Treaty of Versailles on Canada{apos}s behalf.

His colleagues in Ottawa were in trouble. The Liberal and Conservative Unionists were squabbling over White{apos}s 1919 budget and arguing over how to deal with the Winnipeg General Strike [see Mike Sokolowiski]. The strikers were put down with force on {d-0}Bloody Saturday,{d-1} 21 June. When White{apos}s budget had come to a vote two days earlier, 12 Liberal Unionists joined the opposition. Then White, exhausted by the incessant demands of the war, resigned on 1 August. The next day Liberal Unionist Frank Carvell left. His fellow Liberal Thomas Alexander Crerar* had quit in June over the budget. Conservatives Doherty, Foster, and Burrell also talked of leaving. Other members of the coalition hoped to transform the Union government into a new political party and looked to Borden to lead them. But the prime minister had also had enough. Since 1914 he had responded to the challenges of leadership with an energy and zest that contrasted with his more detached approach to governing in the pre-war years. His soldiers, his country, and the Allied cause had been worth every ounce of effort he could summon. After seeing his government through ratification of the Treaty of Versailles in a short fall session of parliament, and after making provision for the appointment of a Canadian to deal with Canadian affairs at the British embassy in Washington, he was done. {d-0}At the end,{d-1} he recorded, {d-0}I was very tired.{d-1}

His doctors advised that he should leave politics immediately. On 16 Dec. 1919 he told his cabinet he was going to resign. Led by Newton Rowell, they pleaded with him the next day to stay in office but take a vacation for a year. Unwisely, he agreed. It did not work. Even on vacation in the south, he was, after all, the leader of the government and could not dismiss the responsibilities of his office. Nor could his colleagues leave him alone. He returned to Ottawa in May and finally announced his retirement to his caucus on Dominion Day, 1920. Caucus then asked him to choose his own successor. It was an unusual request. Both national parties had procedures for changes in leadership. The Tories were long accustomed to selecting a leader in their caucus. In the Liberal Party Laurier{apos}s death in February 1919 had led to the calling of a national convention, which elected William Lyon Mackenzie King as leader. But the Union government was of neither party and of both. It had no procedure and was as dependent on Borden in leaving as it had been upon him when he formed it. Borden asked each member to indicate to him their three choices for leader. He then recommended White, who adamantly refused. In due course Arthur Meighen, deeply troubled that he had not been the first choice, was persuaded by Borden to lead the coalition and assume the prime ministership on 10 July 1920.

Sir Robert Borden lived another 17 years. He and Laura remained at Glensmere, where they entertained friends and he took great pleasure in working in his wildflower garden on the bank of the Rideau. In season the couple regularly played golf. There were frequent dinner parties, evenings of bridge, and, in the twenties, the novelty of radio broadcasts. Laura continued her work with various volunteer associations while Borden read and wrote in his library. Two valuable constitutional studies were published: his 1921 Marfleet lectures at the University of Toronto, Canadian constitutional studies (Toronto, 1922), and his 1927 Rhodes lectures at Oxford, Canada in the Commonwealth: from conflict to cooperation (Oxford, 1929). In 1928 he began his memoirs, a manuscript that was nearly finished when he died; it would be published in a hefty two volumes by his nephew, Henry Borden, shortly after his death. Henry would also edit and publish a series of Borden{apos}s Letters to limbo (Toronto, 1971), his reflections on politics, literature, friends, and a host of other subjects which he had written in the 1930s.

Borden was very well off and the couple{apos}s life in Ottawa was as comfortable as it was quiet and understated. In 1901, when he had become party leader, he had had a substantial income from his law firm. That continued until 1905 and was the foundation for a broad range of premium securities in his portfolio. In 1922 he had assets of $800,000, a large sum for the time, and an average annual income of about $30,000; all his expenses, including considerable support for family members and annual trips to the south in late winter, were about $17,000. His fee for a 1922 arbitration of a dispute between Britain and Peru supplemented his income as did his acceptance of the presidency of the Crown Life Insurance Company and Barclays Bank (Canada) in 1928. In 1932 he became the chairman of Canada{apos}s first mutual fund, the Canadian Investment Fund. {d-0}There is nothing that oppresses me,{d-1} he reported to Lloyd George. {d-0}Books, some business avocation, my wild garden, the birds and the flowers, a little golf, and a great deal of life in the open - these together make up the fullness of my days.{d-1}

Sir Robert Laird Borden died in early Thursday morning of 10 June 1937. A thousand Great War veterans in mufti lined the procession route from Glensmere to All Saints{s-1-unknown} Church for a funeral on Saturday afternoon. He was buried in Beechwood Cemetery in Ottawa.

It was fitting that the veterans, all members of the 1st Division, played a prominent role in Borden{apos}s funeral. World War I had been his greatest political challenge. In 1896 he had been unprepared when Sir Charles Tupper had asked him to run for parliament. Once he had been elected, Tupper and his son Charles Hibbert had guided and encouraged him as he moved from the back to the front benches of opposition. In 1901 he had been unprepared for party leadership. His career as opposition leader was long and conducted against formidable odds with Sir Wilfrid Laurier at the height of his powers and veteran members of his own caucus frustrating his attempts at party reform and challenging his position. In 1911 he had been unprepared for government leadership, and his first years, as a peacetime prime minister, were marked by controversy with both the Liberal-dominated Senate and his own Nationaliste followers and cabinet colleagues from Quebec. In the middle of 1914 Borden was preparing for an election, not war.

After the initial excitement of August 1914 passed, Borden and his colleagues were worried that Canada{apos}s soldiers would not get to the front in time and hurried them to a winter of training on Salisbury Plain. At home his government proceeded with caution and reserve, attempting, as far as possible, to maintain the stance of business as usual. The War Measures Act gave the administration extraordinary powers but it used them sparingly. It tinkered with tariff rates to raise badly needed revenue; it distributed the largesse of hundreds of contracts for war supplies by the tried and true methods of patronage and favouritism; and Borden tried, and failed, to gain access to imperial war planning. What success the government had was in recruiting; young men continued to volunteer in huge numbers throughout most of 1915.

It was clear by 1916 that the war was not going to end any time soon: Canada{apos}s soldiers, now two divisions, were bogged down with their Allies in the dirty trenches of the Western Front. Their casualty rates were appalling and the first cries for conscription were heard on the home front. Borden resisted, fearing compulsion would divide the war effort there, which was producing the goods of war, from food to wagons to munitions, at an unprecedented pace. But the first steps away from business as usual had begun. The domestic market for war bonds had been tapped and had surpassed all expectations. The government introduced the first measure of direct taxation at the federal level in Canada{apos}s history. It also took the first modest steps toward resolving the long-standing fiscal problems of the new transcontinental railways.

By 1917 the last vestiges of hesitation in Borden{apos}s leadership were gone, displaced by a firm and at times stubborn resolve to commit his government and his nation to whatever contributions of men and machines were needed to win the war. In the aftermath of the Canadian victory at Vimy Ridge on Easter Monday 1917, Borden abandoned his promise of no conscription and led the effort to pass the Military Service Act. With his Quebec support nearly exhausted that spring, he sought, and failed, to persuade Sir Wilfrid Laurier to join him in a coalition to enforce conscription. He persisted, much to the dismay of a sizeable portion of his caucus, and eventually crafted a coalition of Conservatives and Liberal Unionists which crushed the Liberal Party in the bitter election of December 1917. The political cost was enormous: the Conservative Party{apos}s support in Quebec was destroyed and would not be recovered for decades to come. Moreover, Unionist support in western Canada was ephemeral and vanished at the first hints of peace.

Compulsion for overseas service was echoed by vigorous use of the powers of the state at home. The nationalization of the transcontinental railways was begun. Borden{apos}s government regulated food and fuel distribution and controlled fuel prices and miners{s-1-unknown} wages. It imposed a {d-0}temporary{d-1} direct tax on incomes, both personal and business. It forbade both strikes and lockouts. And, with the support it enjoyed from the Liberal Unionists, it reformed the federal civil service. Compared with the exercise of state power during World War II, the actions of Borden{apos}s government in World War I were almost amateurish. In the context of the time, however, they were breathtakingly bold.

Borden{apos}s most lasting contribution grew out of his deep commitment to the war effort and his long-standing belief that Canada had the capacity and was entitled to control its own external affairs in both peace and war. Dominion autonomy and the transformation of the empire into the new British Commonwealth of Nations was born of the Great War. Lloyd George provided the opportunity. Borden and his legal adviser, Loring Christie, seized it. Canada{apos}s soldiers, Borden believed, had earned it. His duty, his responsibility to them and to Canada, was to achieve it. Recognition of Canada{apos}s right to craft its own external policy, to have its own diplomatic representation in foreign capitals, to have full membership in the League of Nations, and to play a leading role in development of the Commonwealth were the rewards of Borden{apos}s persistent campaign for equal status. General Jan Christiaan Smuts of South Africa, a strong supporter in London and Paris, told Borden in 1927, {d-0}You were no doubt the main protagonist for Dominion Status.{d-1}

Sir Robert Borden had not the magnetism of Laurier, the daring flair of Macdonald. He was an uncommonly reserved person for a national political leader, a man who believed that his often stodgy public persona was the country{apos}s business but his private life belonged to his very close friends and family. He was, throughout his political career, less interested in politics than in policy. He was devoted more to his nation than to his party. His determination and commitment to lead Canada through the Great War made him the only Allied leader to stay in office throughout the conflict, an accomplishment of which he was very proud. Lloyd George called him {d-0}a sagacious and helpful counsellor{d-1} who was {d-0}always the quintessence of common sense.{d-1} Borden would have liked that.

R. C. Brown, Robert Laird Borden: a biography (2v., Toronto, 1975-80), provides a complete list of the manuscript and printed sources for the subject{apos}s life and career. Among the more important published works are Borden{apos}s Letters to limbo, ed. Henry Borden (Toronto and Buffalo, N.Y., 1971) and Robert Laird Borden: his memoirs, ed. Henry Borden (2v., Toronto, 1938), and John English{apos}s Borden: his life and world (Toronto, 1977) and The decline of politics: the Conservatives and the party system, 1901-20 (Toronto, 1977).

William Briggs was born into a Scottish-Irish family. His mother died when he was six. Around this time the family moved to Liverpool, England, where Briggs was educated at Mount Street Grammar School and Liverpool Collegiate Institute. He subsequently acquired some commercial training, but soon rejected the idea of a business career. According to the Reverend John Saltkill Carroll*, Briggs experienced {d-0}an undeniable conversion{d-1} in boyhood, and he was soon preaching in and around Liverpool. He immigrated to the Canadas in his early twenties and was introduced into the Canada Conference of the Methodist Church. Received on trial as a lay preacher at Durham (Ormstown), Lower Canada, in 1859, he was ordained into the ministry in 1863. During the next 15 years he served at churches in Toronto, Hamilton, Montreal, London, Cobourg, and Belleville.

By the late 1870s Briggs was at the height of a successful ministerial career. In 1876 he had become pastor at the centre of Canadian Methodism: Metropolitan Church in Toronto. Though little is known of his religious or social views, he was a popular preacher, by all accounts one who combined theology with humour and pragmatism. {d-0}While others have been best at first, and have gradually degenerated into mere dawdling, goody-goody talkers,{d-1} one newspaper reported, {d-0}Mr. Briggs has gone steadily forward in pulpit power, in broad mental culture, and in general excellence and influence.{d-1} His administrative abilities had been recognized with appointments as financial secretary (1874) and secretary (1876-77) of the Toronto Conference and chairman of the district (1875).

In February 1879, as part of a reorganization of the church{apos}s publishing wing in Toronto, the Methodist Book and Publishing House, Briggs was elected book steward, or business manager. The house was then a small bookstore and plant that sold bibles, hymn books, catechisms, commentaries, biographies, and Sunday school books, printed such publications as the Christian Guardian, and did a small amount - two or three titles a year - of original publishing. Under Briggs{apos}s leadership, it was to become one of the most important Canadian publishing houses by the end of the century.

As book steward, Briggs continued to concentrate on church-related material; the output of Sunday school publications, in particular, expanded greatly. However, with the house firmly established as a profitable business and ensconced in new quarters in 1889, his energies turned to the development of a secular list. The number of British and American works that it reprinted rose dramatically; non-religious works appeared under the imprint {d-0}William Briggs.{d-1} The firm also entered the school-textbook market and was active in commercial job printing.

Briggs{apos}s involvement with books did not curtail his participation in other areas of the church. He continued to preach and was a delegate to every General Conference between 1874 and 1918. As well, he was a delegate to the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States (Washington, 1882) and to ecumenical conferences in Washington (1891) and London (1901). Awarded an honorary dd in 1886 by Victoria University in Cobourg, he was a member of its board of regents in 1906-7. He also held positions outside the church: he became a member of Toronto{apos}s Board of Trade in 1898 and served terms as president of the Master Printers{s-1-unknown} and Bookbinders{s-1-unknown} Association of Toronto.

Accounts of Briggs often mentioned his blend of personal sincerity, geniality, and commercial aggressiveness. In 1880 John Carroll described him physically: medium in height and weight, {d-0}oval yet full-faced, with a noticeably well-developed head, beyond the average size.{d-1} {d-0}As a man,{d-1} Carroll continued, {d-0}he is modest without bashfulness; as a Christian, religious without cant; as a preacher, fervent and eloquent without rant; as a platform speaker, ready, pointed, and pertinent; and as a Connexional business man, capable and successful without being fussy and pretentious.{d-1}

In the last decade of Briggs{apos}s stewardship, original publishing declined. He seemed more concerned with the erection of a substantial new building in 1913-15 and the sale of foreign books (agency publishing), a valuable part of the business. The General Conference named him book steward emeritus in 1918, when he was succeeded by the Reverend Samuel Wesley Fallis, and he stepped down altogether in 1919. On 1 July of that year the Methodist Book and Publishing House was renamed Ryerson Press after its founder, Egerton Ryerson*, and in 1920 it began a fresh phase under its new editor, Lorne Albert Pierce*. At a time when religious impulses were expressing themselves more and more in secular form, Briggs had steered the house away from its earlier focus on creed and narrow denominationalism and had been instrumental in its major expansion. As the Bookseller and Stationer (Toronto) commented, during his career as steward the name of William Briggs {d-0}became a household word wherever books were read in Canada.{d-1}

Briggs died in 1922 at his son{apos}s home in Port Credit and was buried in Mount Pleasant Cemetery in Toronto. He left an estate worth more than $80,524, a personal testament to the sound business sense of a popular Methodist preacher.

ANQ-M, CE601-S109, 27 août 1868. AO, RG 22-359, no.4066. UCC-C, Fonds 513/1, 83.061C. Christian Guardian, 16 April 1919. Daily Mail and Empire, 6 Nov. 1922. Bookseller and Stationer (Toronto), 38 (1922): 62. Christina Burr, {d-0}The business development of the Methodist Book and Publishing House, 1870-1914,{d-1} OH, 85 (1993): 251-71. Canadian men and women of the time (Morgan; 1898 and 1912). J. [S.] Carroll, {d-0}The Rev. William Briggs,{d-1} Canadian Methodist Magazine (Toronto and Halifax), 12 (July-December 1880): 97-99. The chronicle of a century, 1829-1929: the record of one hundred years of progress in the publishing concerns of the Methodist, Presbyterian and Congregational churches in Canada, ed. L. A. Pierce (Toronto, 1929). Dana Garrick, {d-0}The United Church of Canada Board of Publication collection: a major resource for the history of the book in Canada,{d-1} Biblio. Soc. of Canada, Papers (Toronto), 32 (1994): 11-30. G. L. Parker, The beginnings of the book trade in Canada (Toronto, 1985). L. A. Pierce, The house of Ryerson, 1829-1954 (Toronto, 1954). The Ryerson imprint: a check-list of the books and pamphlets published by the Ryerson Press since the foundation of the house in 1829, comp. W. S. Wallace (Toronto, 1954). Judith St John, Firm foundations: a chronicle of Toronto{apos}s Metropolitan United Church and her Methodist origins, 1795-1984 (Toronto, 1988). Standard dict. of Canadian biog. (Roberts and Tunnell), vol.2.

François-Joseph Buote received his elementary education in the Tignish area, where his father was a teacher, and in St Marys Bay, N.S., where Gilbert taught from 1873 to 1877. After a year at St Dunstan{apos}s College in Charlottetown, he spent three years at the Collège Saint-Louis in Saint-Louis de Kent, N.B., founded by Marcel-François Richard*. This experience gave him a much better academic background than that acquired by most young Acadians of his time. When the Buote family moved to Maine in 1882, François-Joseph learned the trade of a printer there. Following his return to New Brunswick with his parents in 1885, he taught school in the district of Cap-Pele and studied at the Normal School in Fredericton in the summers [see Alphée Belliveau]. At some point in the late 1880s he worked as a printer for the Courrier des provinces Maritimes in Bathurst. In 1891 he started in Cap-Pele his first periodical, Buote{apos}s Monthly and Commercial Advertiser. No copy of this magazine is extant, however, nor is there any information as to its contents.

In 1893 François-Joseph returned to Tignish, one of the principal Acadian centres in the Maritime provinces; his parents had already been there for two years. Gilbert had become principal of the local school, and François-Joseph set up as a jobbing printer. Together in 1893 they founded the province{apos}s first French-language newspaper, L{apos}Impartial, Gilbert being the editor and his son the first printer and publisher. This weekly, which began with four pages, mainly covered issues of interest to Island Acadians. It promoted the French language and pride in Acadian heritage while stressing friendly cooperation with anglophones. Gilbert contributed long articles on local history and genealogy, which remain a valuable source of information, and often the only one. In addition, the paper advocated such projects as an association for Acadian teachers, cooperative cheese factories, and mutual insurance societies. L{apos}Impartial also printed some world news and covered political matters, more or less living up to its name. For the centennial celebration at Tignish in 1899, which the Buotes organized, a special illustrated number of the paper was issued; it, too, is a primary source for local history and genealogy.

The newspaper never seems to have been a money-maker; it suspended publication at least once during its 22-year history, apparently for several years. After Gilbert{apos}s death in 1904, François-Joseph{apos}s wife, a former teacher, assisted with its production. The paper{apos}s demise in 1915 may have been due as much to financial difficulties as to the shortage of newsprint occasioned by World War I. Buote, however, had apparently never been at a loss for ways to augment his income. He sold books and stationery, acted as an agent for a bicycle company and an insurance company, and continued his job printing. In August 1918 he began publishing an English-language monthly, Buote{apos}s Magazine. Only two or three numbers of this magazine exist, and it seems probable that these were the only ones printed. Buote apparently considered the journal a continuation of L{apos}Impartial, since the title page says it was a {d-0}new series{d-1} of a publication {d-0}established in 1893.{d-1}

Buote was considered to be {d-0}a speaker of the first order{d-1} in both French and English. He was invited to address Acadian groups living as far away as Lawrence, Mass. In 1908 he was named president of the Société Nationale de l{apos}Assomption. Five years later he organized the Convention Nationale des Acadiens held in Tignish and at that time relinquished the office of president to Pascal Poirier*. He was severely criticized in some quarters for his delay in holding this meeting, originally scheduled to take place in 1911, and for his failure to make sufficient preparations for it. The conference was largely unproductive, derided by J. O. Gallant, editor of L{apos}Évangéline (Moncton, N. B.), as {d-0}some sort of picnic{d-1} rather than {d-0}a working assembly.{d-1}

Locally, Buote was involved in many organizations, usually as secretary. He not only promoted the mutual benefit societies that proliferated in the late 19th and early 20th centuries but helped introduce no fewer than three of them to the district, including a branch of the Société l{apos}Assomption [see Rémi Benoît*], of which he was president for a time. Among other projects in which he participated were the local Farmers{s-1-unknown} Institute, the cooperative cheese factory, and the committee for the beautification of Tignish. Provincially, he sat on the Commission on Education, appointed in 1908.

In 1900 Buote had run unsuccessfully in the provincial election as a Conservative candidate in Prince County, 1st District. Later, however, he and his father shifted their allegiance to the Liberals. By 1914 the front page of L{apos}Impartial bore the inscription {d-0}Organ, in the French language, of the Liberal party of the Maritime provinces.{d-1} In 1919 François-Joseph successfully proposed William Lyon Mackenzie King* as the Liberal candidate in a federal by-election in Prince that year (he was elected by acclamation), and a friendship developed between the two men.

Sometime after the demise of his newspaper, Buote who had long been interested in fox ranching, then at the height of its development [see Robert Trenholm Oulton*], moved with his family to Trois-Rivières, Que., to manage a ranch there. However, a historian who knew the Buotes claims that he was on the point of reviving L{apos}Impartial, and had even bought new printing equipment, when he died suddenly in 1922.

François-Joseph Buote seems to have had an intense desire to be involved in everything that was going on. His promotion of many causes was partly an expression of this trait. Like his father, he was {d-0}sometimes impatient, demanding, and seldom conciliatory,{d-1} characteristics that made him difficult to work with and an implacable enemy. Nevertheless, he contributed much to Acadian life on Prince Edward Island and is one of the most important figures of its {d-0}renaissance{d-1} in the latter part of the 19th century.

The fullest run available for L{apos}Impartial (Tignish, Î.-P.-É.), 22 juin 1893-11 juill. 1915, is in the Centre d{apos}Études Acadiennes, Moncton, N.-B.; a less complete file is available on microfilm. The best copy of L{apos}Impartial illustré, the souvenir issue produced for the Tignish centennial in 1899, is in the possession of Mr J.-Henri Gaudet of Tignish; two incomplete copies are held by Mr Reg Porter of Charlottetown, who also holds the surviving issues of Buote{apos}s Magazine (Tignish).

A scrapbook of material relating to the family assembled around 1921 by Alma Buote is also in the possession of Mr Gaudet. Le Moniteur acadien (Shédiac, N.-B.), 1886, 1891, 1898. Georges Arsenault, Les Acadiens de l{apos}Île, 1720-1980 (Moncton, 1987). D. B. Baker, {d-0}La Convention nationale des Acadiens - Tignish, Île-du-Prince-Édouard, août, 1913,{d-1} Soc. Hist. Acadienne, Cahiers (Moncton), 15 (1984): 21-31. J.-H. Blanchard, Acadiens de l{apos}Île-du-Prince-Édouard ([Charlottetown], 1956). Yvon Léger, {d-0}Les Buote de l{apos}Île-du-Prince-Édouard,{d-1} Soc. Hist. Acadienne, Cahiers, 24 (1993): 151-82. Souvenir program of the centennial celebration of the Church of St. Simon and St. Jude, Tignish, Prince Edward Island, comp. Alma Buote (Sackville, N.B., 1960).

Bliss Carman, whose ancestors were loyalists, was educated at the Collegiate School in Fredericton, where George Robert Parkin was headmaster, and at the University of New Brunswick (ba 1881, ma 1884); he subsequently attended the University of Edinburgh (1882-83) and Harvard University (1886-87). After returning to Fredericton from Scotland in 1883, he had tried his hand at teaching, surveying, and the law, and had written reviews for the University Monthly, activities that reflected his restlessness and his journalistic bent. At Harvard, he was heavily influenced by Josiah Royce, whose spiritualistic idealism, combined with the transcendentalism of Ralph Waldo Emerson, lies centrally in the background of his first major poem, {d-0}Low tide on Grand Pré,{d-1} written in the summer and winter of 1886. After again returning briefly to the Maritimes in the late 1880s, he moved permanently to the United States, where he worked for two years (1890-92) as literary editor of the Independent (New York), the first of many similar positions on various American magazines. In 1894 he helped to found the Chap-Book (Boston), between 1895 and 1900 he wrote a weekly column for the Boston Evening Transcript, and in 1904 he published the ten volumes of The world{apos}s best poetry (Philadelphia), of which he was editor-in-chief.

Even before his permanent removal to the United States in February 1890, Carman had begun, with the help of his cousin Charles George Douglas Roberts*, to establish a reputation for himself as an accomplished and promising poet. In 1893 he published his first collection of poems, Low tide on Grand Pré: a book of lyrics, and in ensuing years his gift for lyricism resulted in over twenty more books of poetry, including the three volumes of the Vagabondia series (1894-1900) that he co-authored with the American poet and essayist Richard Hovey. Under the tutelage, first of Hovey{apos}s companion, Henrietta Russell, and then of the woman who became a major love of his life, Mary Perry King, he drew on the theories of François-Alexandre-Nicolas-Chéri Delsarte to develop a strategy of mind-body-spirit harmonization aimed at undoing the physical, psychological, and spiritual damage caused by urban modernity. By terms charmingly, orotundly, and fancifully expounded in such prose works as The kinship of nature (1903) and, with Mrs King, The making of personality (1908), his therapeutic ideas resulted in the five volumes of verse assembled in Pipes of Pan (1906), a collection that contains many superb lyrics but, overall, evinces the dangers of a soporific aesthetic. It was a combination of these concerns and the discipline of the Sapphic fragments that produced his finest volume of poetry, Sappho: one hundred lyrics (1903).

Like other members of the {d-0}confederation{d-1} group of Canadian poets (Roberts, Archibald Lampman*, William Wilfred Campbell*, Duncan Campbell Scott*, and Frederick George Scott*), Carman was lifted to fame in Canada by the wave of post-confederation nationalism and its accompanying call for a distinctive and distinguished Canadian literature. Outside the country, however, he was widely regarded not merely as a typical Canadian poet, but also as one of the most prominent American poets of the generation that was coming to maturity in the 1880s and 1890s. {d-0}I passed everywhere for a {s-0}young American writer,{s-1-unknown}{d-1} he told a correspondent after a trip to Paris in 1896; {d-0}I wept inwardly, but could not refuse the compliment.{d-1} His impact on American letters is suggested by the fact that in 1909 Wallace Stevens composed poems {d-0}to the accompaniment{d-1} of a line from Carman{apos}s {d-0}May and June{d-1} and by his appointment as editor of The Oxford book of American verse (1927). Nor was Carman{apos}s influence and reputation confined to North America: during the 1890s his work was well received by Arthur William Symons and other discerning British readers, and in 1904 Francis Thompson described him as {d-0}a Canadian poet of deserved repute this side the water, with a lusty and individualised joy in nature.{d-1}

Much of Carman{apos}s writing in poetry and prose during the decade preceding World War I is as repetitive as the title of Echoes from Vagabondia (1912) intimates, but after the war (and after a battle with tuberculosis in 1919-20), he resumed his spiritual adventurousness under the influence of theosophy and other esoteric philosophical systems. During the war Carman had worked with a group of American writers to bring the United States into the conflict and in the years that followed he renewed his ties with Canada, which rewarded his loyalty in several highly successful reading and lecturing tours (1920-29) and in various honours, including corresponding membership in the Royal Society of Canada (1925) and the society{apos}s Lorne Pierce Medal for distinguished service to Canadian literature (1928). It was during the first of his Canadian tours that he was unofficially dubbed the poet laureate of Canada. Four volumes of poems published in the 1920s, most notably Later poems (1921) and Far horizons (1925), reflect his spiritual and patriotic awakenings, as do Talks on poetry and life . . . (1926), a collection of lectures and readings delivered at the University of Toronto, and Our Canadian literature: representative verse, English and French (1935), an anthology completed after his death by Lorne Albert Pierce*. With another book of poetry (Wild garden) recently published and another (Sanctuary: Sunshine House sonnets) in preparation, Carman died of a brain haemorrhage on 8 June 1929 at New Canaan, where he had spent at least part of every year since 1897 in order to be near Mrs King. His ashes were buried in Forest Hill Cemetery, Fredericton, and a national memorial service was held at the Anglican cathedral there. Not until 13 May 1954 was he granted the wish that he had expressed in 1892 in {d-0}The grave-tree{d-1}: {d-0}Let me have a scarlet maple / For the grave-tree at my head, / With the quiet sun behind it, / In the years when I am dead.{d-1}

A major reason for the long delay in granting Carman{apos}s wish was the shift in poetic taste that began with the triumph of modernism in Canada between the wars and led to the dismissal of such phrases as {d-0}scarlet maple{d-1} and {d-0}quiet sun{d-1} as sentimental and vague. The continuing underestimation of Carman is to be regretted, for at his best he is one of the finest lyricists that Canada has produced and several aspects of his thought, not least his belief in personal harmony and his reverence for external nature, will always have much to recommend them. {d-0}I have known few poets anywhere . . . who . . . so dedicated himself to the service of poetry as Bliss Carman,{d-1} wrote Padraic Colum in the prefatory note to Sanctuary. {d-0}His life had a frugal dignity which was in itself a rare and a fine achievement. The tweeds that he wore had given him long service; they were always carefully pressed and spotless; that wide-brimmed hat he had worn for many seasons. Yet there was always something in his attire that corresponded to the gaiety and color of his mind - a bright neck-tie, a silver chain, a turquoise ornament that some Indian friend had bestowed upon him. He was a tall man. But that exceptional build was contained in a thin integument. He bled easily; he was sensitive over every part of his great frame. However, that irritability that usually goes with the thin skin was no part of his nature. Bliss Carman was above everything else a sweet-natured man. I am sure that no one ever parted from him without thinking, {s-0}I hope I shall see dear Bliss Carman again.{s-1-unknown}{d-1} {d-0}He was like an old king from a fairy story,{d-1} added Margaret Lawrence, one of several women who had been devoted to him. {d-0}He spoke his words distinctly, giving them their due, as one who loved them dearly.{d-1}

Listings of the collections in which Bliss Carman{apos}s letters are preserved are provided in Muriel Miller, Bliss Carman: quest and revolt (St John{apos}s, 1985), and Letters of Bliss Carman, ed. H. P. Gundy (Kingston, Ont., and Montreal, 1981). Gundy{apos}s edition also contains notes on the major Carman collections, which include the Bliss Carman fonds at QUA; the Bliss Carman papers at Neilson Library, Smith College (Northampton, Mass.); the Odell Shepard coll. and W. I. Morse Canadiana coll. in Harvard College Library, Houghton Library, Dept. of mss (Cambridge, Mass.); and material in the Baker/Berry Library, Dartmouth College (Hanover, N.J.) and in several collections in the Univ. of N.B. Library, Arch. and Special Coll. Dept. (Fredericton), among them MG L10 (C. G. D. Roberts fonds) and MG L32 (I. St. J. Bliss coll.). Bliss Carman{apos}s letters to Margaret Lawrence, 1927-1929, ed. D. M. R. Bentley, assisted by Margaret Maciejewski (London, Ont., 1995), contains a particularly illuminating correspondence. {d-0}A primary and secondary bibliography of Bliss Carman{apos}s work,{d-1} comp. J. R. Sorfleet, is available in Bliss Carman: a reappraisal, ed. and intro. Gerald Lynch (Ottawa, 1990), 193-204. Since the appearance of Sorfleet{apos}s bibliography, the journal Canadian Poetry (London, Ont.) has published several articles on Carman{apos}s poetry and impact.

Janet Carnochan{apos}s parents emigrated from Ayrshire, Scotland, to Stamford around 1830. Her father was a cabinetmaker and carpenter, an occupation that he continued to follow, first in Stamford and then, after the family{apos}s move in 1841, in Niagara (Niagara-on-the-Lake). With her four siblings, Carnochan spent her childhood and adolescence in Niagara, where she attended the local schools and St Andrew{apos}s Presbyterian Church. Like many young, single women in Upper Canada in the mid-19th century, she became a teacher by applying for a certificate of qualification in 1856. The following year, at age 17, she began teaching at the Niagara public school.

Carnochan pursued further qualifications in 1859 by attending the Toronto Normal School. She received a first-class provincial normal school certificate and went on to teach at Brantford Union School and then at Kingston{apos}s Wellington Street public school. She remained at this school for five years, until her mother{apos}s illness necessitated her return home to manage her parents{s-1-unknown} household. After her mother recovered, Carnochan taught for a year in a rural school near Peterborough. But when the principal{apos}s position at the Niagara public school became vacant, she applied for the job and, upon being accepted, returned home in 1872. Few sources document her years as a public school principal, but tributes later stressed her dedication to teaching and the esteem in which she was held. Two years after a new high school building in Niagara was completed in 1876, Carnochan joined its staff, and she remained there until her retirement in December 1900.

While teaching school, Janet Carnochan also channelled considerable energy into travel and voluntary work. She turned her experience of being shipwrecked off Sable Island, N.S., while en route to Britain in 1879 into a narrative that appeared in the Canadian Methodist Magazine (Toronto and Halifax) three years later. After her return to Niagara in 1872, she had become active in St Andrew{apos}s Church, teaching in its Sunday school and helping to raise funds for the church. She also sat on the board of managers from 1892 to 1895 and was secretary of the women{apos}s missionary society from 1887 until her death in 1926. In addition to her church work, Carnochan served on the board of the Niagara Public Library as secretary and treasurer and from time to time as temporary librarian. In 1893 she was chosen as one of 20 Canadian women to attend the World{apos}s Congress of Representative Women in Chicago.

Though schoolteaching occupied more than 40 years of Janet Carnochan{apos}s life, it is her informal educational work as a local and regional historian, historical preservationist, and museum director that is remembered today. She began making forays into historical writing in the 1890s with accounts of Niagara{apos}s Anglican and Presbyterian churches, and throughout the rest of her life she continued to contribute articles and deliver papers on historical subjects. She even wrote poetry on such patriotic themes as {d-0}Has Canada a history?{d-1} In 1895 Carnochan became the president of the newly established Niagara Historical Society, which she had helped to found (an earlier endeavour by Niagara resident and historian William Kirby* had been short-lived). She would be a leading figure in the society until 1925, serving as president, corresponding secretary, and editor of its reports and publications.

After her retirement from teaching in 1900, Carnochan was even more involved in historical activities. She became curator of the NHS{apos}s collections in 1901 and spearheaded its drive for the construction of Memorial Hall. Opened in 1907, it was the first building erected as a museum in Ontario. She also represented the society at the annual meetings of the Ontario Historical Society. From 1901 to 1911 she sat on the monuments committee of the OHS, and from 1914 to 1919 she was that society{apos}s vice-president. In addition to her activities with these organizations, Carnochan wrote a historical column in the local paper, the Niagara Times. Her History of Niagara . . . , printed by William Briggs in Toronto, appeared in 1914, with a foreword by Arthur Hugh Urquhart Colquhoun, deputy minister of education for Ontario, who praised it as {d-0}an example of elaborate and untiring investigation.{d-1} Carnochan also expended much energy in attempts to preserve historical landmarks in Niagara, such as Butler{apos}s Burying Ground, forts George and Mississauga, and the military reserve, or commons.

Janet Carnochan was certainly not unusual in her historical activities; her work must be placed within the larger context of provincial, national, and international movements to preserve and commemorate the past. She was a frequent correspondent with other like-minded individuals and organizations, such as the OHS{apos}s secretary and provincial archaeologist David Boyle* and the Women{apos}s Canadian Historical Society of Toronto [see Sara Mickle]. Like them, she was steadfast in her support of English-Canadian nationalism and believed in the importance of the country{apos}s ties to Britain and its membership in the empire. But unlike other imperialists active in the historical movement, such as Clementina Fessenden [Trenholme*], Carnochan was fairly liberal in her political outlook. She wrote sympathetically about the travails of transported reformer Benjamin Wait* following the rebellion of 1837-38 and portrayed his wife, Maria Smith, as a heroine for her attempts to win his pardon. She depicted the Niagara area as a refuge for fugitive slaves, partly in order to remind her contemporaries of the historical and ongoing significance of such British values as anti-slavery. There is no record of her public support for women{apos}s suffrage, but she was enthusiastic about attempts to memorialize Canadian women such as Laura Secord [Ingersoll*] and maintained that women{apos}s work in building the Canadian nation must be recognized by historians.

Carnochan believed that historical narratives played a critically important role in creating national identity, but she also was genuinely fascinated by the past and was passionately devoted to historical investigation. Unlike that of some of her contemporaries, her work was based on extensive research in written and material sources. Both during and after her lifetime, Janet Carnochan received a number of local, provincial, and national tributes to her endeavours, including having a Toronto teachers{s-1-unknown} chapter of the Imperial Order Daughters of the Empire named in her honour.

AO, F 1138, ser.F-I, minutes, 1895-1952; F 1139-3, MU 5422-29; F 1139-4, 1898-1925, MU 5440. Brock Univ. Library, Special Coll. and Arch. (St Catharines), RG 9 (Joseph Edward Masters fonds), Janet Carnochan. Niagara Hist. Soc. Museum (Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ont.), Carnochan coll. Canadian men and women of the time (Morgan; 1898 and 1912). C. M. Coates and Cecilia Morgan, Heroines and history: representations of Madeleine de Verchères and Laura Secord (Toronto, 2002). J. L. Field, Janet Carnochan (Markham, Ont., 1985). Gerald Killan, Preserving Ontario{apos}s heritage: a history of the Ontario Historical Society (Ottawa, 1976). Cecilia Morgan, {d-0}History, nation, and empire: gender and southern Ontario historical societies, 1890-1920s,{d-1} CHR, 82 (2001): 491-528. F. D. Smith, {d-0}Miss Janet Carnochan: a sketch and an appreciation,{d-1} Canadian Magazine, 38 (1912): 293-97.

By 1900 Cataline had become a legendary figure. Tall and broad set, he sported a flowing moustache and shoulder-length hair. His toughness, his resistance to cold, and his skill with a throwing knife were unequalled. When he took a drink of liquor, which he consumed in vast quantities, he would often massage the last drops into his hair. On the trail he always wore a sombrero, a frock coat, a stiff white shirt, and high leather boots in which he kept his knife. He would not take off his shirt until he reached his train{apos}s destination, where he would purchase a new one and discard the old. He had children with at least two indigenous women. Reputedly made a naturalized citizen by judge Matthew Baillie Begbie* at a chance meeting on the Cariboo road, Cataline could sign his name (as Jean Caux) but could not read or write; he depended upon others to compose his letters and telegrams. His speech was a mélange of languages. His pack-train crews were made up of men of indigenous, Chinese, European, and mixed descent. His feats as a packer, including carrying huge pieces of mining equipment over long distances in the late 1890s, were widely reported and admired. He was known for his reliability - no mine or station was too remote.

Cataline{apos}s qualities made him a legendary figure, and a poor businessman. He relied on loans from banks, but it was almost impossible to cost some shipments because of the vagaries of the weather and the condition of the trails. He accumulated no savings and about 1912 he was forced to sell his pack-train in order to meet his debts. He spent his last years at Hazelton, dependent on the charity of others, and died there in 1922. If Jean Caux was not, as sentiment would have it, {d-0}the last packer of British Columbia,{d-1} he did embody the qualities of the pack-train crews - men and women on the margin of settled society - and his withdrawal from the transportation business coincided with the close of the packing era.

BCA, E/C/B81.3; E/C/B172.2; E/E/C61; E/E/H85; E/E/M311; E/E/M963; GR-1372, F 1369, J. T. Pidwell, tolls collected at Clinton, 1869; GR-2025, 8: ff.231, 237; GR-3049, vol.1, mining licence, 19 Feb. 1859; MS-0676, 4, file 12; 9, file 19; MS-2018; VF42, frames 1197-99. LAC, RG 3, D-3, ser.6, vol.5 (mfm.). Victoria Daily Times, 27 Oct. 1922. R. J. Barman, {d-0}Packing in British Columbia: transport on a resource frontier,{d-1} Journal of Transport Hist. (Manchester, Eng.), 21 (2000): 140-67. Sperry (Dutch) Cline, {d-0}Cataline,{d-1} in Pioneer days in British Columbia: a selection of historical articles from {d-0}BC Outdoors{d-1} magazine, ed. Art Downs (4v., Surrey, B.C., 1973), 1: 98-103. Directory, Victoria, 1874: 89. Hilda Glynn-Ward [Hilda Glynn (Howard)], The glamour of British Columbia (Toronto, 1932), 116-17.

Marion Chadwick{apos}s father came to Upper Canada from Northern Ireland about 1837 and settled in Ancaster. Around 1850 the family moved to Guelph, where John Craven Chadwick served as a justice of the peace and was active in the Church of England. The extended Chadwick family were large landholders and very prominent in the Guelph area.

Marion could not have been much older than the minimum age of 16 when he began to study law in Toronto. At the time legal education was primarily a matter of apprenticeship to an established practitioner. Students were, however, given a list of readings on which they were examined by the Law Society of Upper Canada. Chadwick and a fellow student, Calvin Browne, compiled an impressive book, published in Toronto in 1862, to assist others in preparing for the society{apos}s questions. The authors pointed out that their work was to be used by the student {d-0}as an aid to the study of the books upon which he will be examined, but never to be read in lieu of them.{d-1} This was the first of many books and pamphlets that Chadwick would write, although it was to be his only {d-0}law book.{d-1}

Admitted as a solicitor in 1862, Chadwick was called to the bar the following year. In February 1863 he entered into partnership with William Henry Beatty*, who by the turn of the century would use his marital connection to the Gooderham and Worts families to make their firm the largest law firm in the country. They would be partners for almost 50 years. In 1864 Chadwick married Beatty{apos}s sister, Ellen Byrne. Regrettably, she died the following February at the age of 21, likely in childbirth.

Chadwick{apos}s legal practice focused on conveyancing and estates. Although he never applied to be made a kc, the honour eventually came to him in 1910. According to John Beverley Robinson, who joined the firm in 1918, Chadwick designed most of the forms used - deeds, powers of attorney, mortgages, and the like. He was also known for avoiding excess verbiage and ignoring punctuation, {d-0}claiming that if the words did not speak for themselves without punctuation, the deed was not properly drawn.{d-1}

Chadwick was heavily involved in the affairs of the Church of England in Toronto, favouring the high church rather than the low, evangelical branch. He was a representative to diocesan and provincial synods, and beginning in 1883 he was a key player in a significant, albeit much troubled, project - the building of the Cathedral of St Alban the Martyr just north of the then city boundaries in the area which came to be known as the Annex. Sir William Pearce Howland*, who had previously owned the land, had sold it to a syndicate headed by W. H. Beatty and his own son Oliver Aiken; the syndicate in turn sold four and a half acres to the diocese and offered Bishop Arthur Sweatman* financial encouragement to begin his cathedral, intending that it should be the centrepiece of a new residential development. When the building had progressed enough, the partially completed structure began to be used for services. Chadwick moved into a house on Howland Avenue across from St Alban{apos}s, where he acted as lay canon and treasurer. After the project ran into financial difficulty, he was criticized for his multi-faceted role in it. Not only had he done the real estate and conveyancing work for the syndicate but he had served on the building committee of the cathedral and had pushed for his son William Craven Vaux to assume the role of architect. His response was a privately published pamphlet setting out the history of the project and naively, but sincerely, explaining his selfless motives.

Chadwick was one of Canada{apos}s leading heraldists, and Ontarian families includes many coats of arms which he had researched and drawn. He was an active participant in debates about such subjects as whether there were laws that controlled the acquisition and regulation of coats of arms (he thought not). In 1901 he published Ye armiger, the first heraldic study from a Canadian perspective. He encouraged the use of Canadian flora and fauna in heraldry and was instrumental in securing the maple leaf as a Canadian national symbol. He also designed the shield for Saskatchewan (1905), the coat of arms of the General Synod of the Church of England in Canada (1908), and a new augmentation of the Ontario shield (1909).

Having grown up near the Six Nations Reserve, Chadwick had developed an interest in and sympathy for Canada{apos}s aboriginal peoples and had come to have many native friends. He was made an honorary chief of the Turtle clan of the Mohawk. The name Shagotyohgwisaks, meaning {d-0}one who seeks a gathering of the people,{d-1} was given him for his advocacy of the formation of a Six Nations militia regiment. (He himself served as an officer in the Queen{apos}s Own Rifles from 1866 to 1882, retiring with the rank of major.) He collected native regalia, now housed in the Royal Ontario Museum, and wrote The people of the longhouse (Toronto, 1897) about the Iroquois and their genealogy, symbols, and customs.

Chadwick died at his home in Toronto on 15 Dec. 1921. It was only fitting that his funeral service, presided over by Bishop James Fielding Sweeney*, was held in St Alban{apos}s, the church he had worked to build. He was buried in St James{s-1-unknown} Cemetery.

The guide for law students that Chadwick wrote with Calvin Browne was published under the title Osgoode Hall examination questions; given at the examinations for call with and without honours, and for certificates of fitness, with concise answers . . . (Toronto, 1862). His defence of the failed cathedral project was issued privately as Monograph of the Cathedral of St. Alban the Martyr, 1920-21 (Toronto, 1921; copy in Anglican Church of Canada, Diocese of Toronto). Chadwick{apos}s Ontarian families: genealogies of United-Empire-Loyalist and other pioneer families of Upper Canada (2v., Toronto, 1894-98), has been reprinted a number of times, most recently in 1972. For further details concerning the items mentioned in the text and other writings by Chadwick, see CIHM, Reg., and R. M. Black, infra.

On 22 May 1908 Chadwick donated to the government of Ontario a three-volume manuscript entitled {d-0}An ordinary of arms borne in the province of Ontario.{d-1} The original, as well as a microfiche copy, is preserved in the Ontario Legislative Library, Toronto.

Anglican Church of Canada, Diocese of Toronto Arch., St Alban-the-Martyr (Toronto), records. Fasken Martineau DuMoulin Arch. (Toronto), J. B. Robinson, memoirs; uncredited newspaper clipping pasted into the firm{apos}s copy of E. M. Chadwick, Ontarian families, on the funeral service for Chadwick: {d-0}Honored in death: Bishop Sweeney pays high tribute at service in St. Alban{apos}s.{d-1} Irish Law Soc. Arch. (Dublin), E. M. Chadwick to Violet Baker, 23 Sept. 1921 (copy in Fasken Martineau DuMoulin Arch.). Law Soc. of Upper Canada Arch. (Toronto), 1-5 (Convocation, rolls), barristers{s-1-unknown} roll, 1863, 1880. Globe, 16 Dec. 1921. Toronto Daily Star, 17 Dec. 1921. R. M. Black, {d-0}Shagotyohgwisaks: E. M. Chadwick and Canadian heraldry,{d-1} Heraldry in Canada (Ottawa), 24 (1990), no.3: 2-17.

CHAMBERLAIN, THEODORE F., doctor, politician, businessman, and civil servant; b. 6 July 1838 in Smith{apos}s Mills (Harlem), Upper Canada, son of Dr Asher (Ashern) Augustus (Augustine) Chamberlain and Eliza Ann Toffy; m. 3 July 1862 Annetta Jane Parish in Farmersville (Athens), Upper Canada, and they had five children, of whom a son and a daughter survived infancy; d. 5 March 1927 in Chaffey{apos}s Lock, Ont.

The son of American parents who had settled as children in Leeds County, Upper Canada, Theodore Chamberlain received his early education at the local school in Bastard Township, supplemented by sabbath schools and lessons in Latin at home. In 1853, after two years as a merchant{apos}s clerk in nearby Elgin, he studied dentistry in Ottawa. He then practised in the Leeds area, Pawling, N.Y. (his mother{apos}s birthplace), and New York City, but returned to Canada in 1858 at his father{apos}s behest to pursue a medical degree at Queen{apos}s College in Kingston. He graduated in 1862 and hung his shingle in Morrisburg, on the St Lawrence River. Although he styled himself a {d-0}physician, surgeon and accouchear,{d-1} he was, like many 19th-century doctors, a medical jack of all trades, running a drugstore (1866-73), teaching medical students, and acting as Morrisburg{apos}s officer of health, coroner for the United Counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (1868-79), and a consulting physician for life insurance companies.

As Chamberlain{apos}s practice prospered, he threw himself into municipal politics, becoming village councillor (1873-77, 1884-86), reeve (1877-81), and counties warden (1879-80). Additional to this activity was his superintendence of the local school board, a commission in the Leeds militia, a directorship in the Dundas Agricultural Association, and membership in the Methodist Church, masonic lodges, and temperance organizations. In provincial politics, he followed in the footsteps of his father, a Baldwinite reformer {d-0}of the old school.{d-1} In 1879 he accepted the nomination of the Reform convention of Dundas as its candidate for the Legislative Assembly. Defeated by 81 votes, he ran federally in 1882 but again lost by a narrow margin.

These rejections, though disappointing, allowed Chamberlain to devote time to his expanding business interests, where family connections proved important. In 1873 he sold his drugstore and established the first of three cheese factories in partnership with his brother-in-law W. G. Parish. In the 1870s and 1880s he travelled a great deal, with frequent trips to the United States, but it was northern Ontario that captured his enduring interest. Many summers were spent hunting, prospecting, and surveying around Lake Superior, Georgian Bay, and Lake Nipissing. The Parry Sound and Muskoka districts, which Chamberlain visited as a tourist in search of the sublime and the untamed, also provided economic opportunities. He received {d-0}a handsome competence{d-1} from the sale of timber rights in 1872 and in 1877 he became a director of the Parry Sound Lumber Company, owned by another brother-in-law, Liberal mla John Classon Miller*. In 1888 Chamberlain Township in the northerly Timiskaming district would be named in his honour.

The provincial contest of December 1886 proved a turning point in Chamberlain{apos}s political fortunes. Elected for Dundas, he kept a low profile as a new member of the government of Oliver Mowat*, voting with the majority, serving on the standing committees for railways and municipalities, and introducing a housekeeping amendment of the Municipal Act. His legislative career was cut short after only one session, when his return was contested and the ensuing by-election, in January 1888, was carried by James Pliny Whitney*. He was not forgotten by the Liberals, however. In 1890 he was named to fill the vacancy in the provincial inspectorate of asylums, prisons, and public charities (hospitals, refuges, and orphanages) caused by the death of Dr William T. O{apos}Reilly. Chamberlain, who turned over his medical practice in Morrisburg to his son, Watson Parish, and began work as inspector of prisons and charities in October, inherited a system created largely by John Woodburn Langmuir*. His 14-year tenure was characterized less by innovation than by the growth of the system. For instance, the number of hospitals receiving grants for the care of indigent patients under the Charity Aid Act ballooned from 16 to 61. Chamberlain{apos}s glowing, often platitudinous, reports satisfied his political masters, and helped the province sustain its boast that its system was second to none. Behind the reports, as his correspondence reveals, was an inspector who, committed to centralization, involved himself in the affairs of individual patients, oversaw every institutional expenditure (no matter how trivial), and held to a punishing schedule of inspectorial trips. In 1893 he displayed his detailed knowledge in a pamphlet aimed at resolving sectarian misunderstandings about the funding of Roman Catholic and Protestant charities.

Official satisfaction with the hospitals was not unexpected - most were new and Chamberlain{apos}s relationships with their administrators were cordial. As for the provincially funded prisons, concerns were occasionally raised about classification, recidivism, and rehabilitation, but few hard questions were asked so long as they continued to generate profits through work programs. The 51 county jails and lock-ups were of a different order. Most had been constructed in the Upper Canadian period, and Chamberlain was highly critical of their condition. Twice-annual inspections - usually by Chamberlain, often unannounced - were invariably followed by demands to county councils that rotting cells be repaired, kerosene lighting replaced with electricity, and connections made to municipal sewage systems. In 1892 he even ordered the jailer at Mattawa to mow the lawn. Changes were slow in coming, but, overall, material conditions in the jails improved significantly on Chamberlain{apos}s watch. Of greater concern was the use to which they were put. Throughout the 1890s over a quarter of all inmates were lunatics, paupers, and others committed under the Vagrants Act. A dismayed Chamberlain pointed in 1891 to the impossibility of properly classifying prisoners in such an environment, which he characterized as {d-0}inhuman, unchristian and unpatriotic.{d-1} Although grants were available for erecting poorhouses, parsimonious local officials preferred the cheaper, more expedient solution of housing the destitute in the jails. Chamberlain eroded these savings by instructing that paupers be supplied with civilian clothing and improved diets. It was not long before he was threatening to use the courts to force county councils to construct proper accommodations. His greatest triumph came in 1903 when legislation required each county to erect a poorhouse by 1906.

Chamberlain did not remain in office to see the full fruition of his crusade. Leaving in 1904 to contest the federal election in Dundas, he was defeated after a {d-0}hot fight,{d-1} but in 1906, at age 67, he secured another patronage plum: federal health inspector of public works. Between June 1906 and his resignation in March 1908, he monitored conditions in railway construction camps in the four western provinces, sleeping in tents and frequently travelling on foot as he enforced compliance with the Public Works Health Act. In 1909 he was hired by the Department of Indian Affairs to value the timber on the Dokis Indian Reserve near Lake Nipissing [see Migisi*]. When rights were auctioned in June 1909 - to benefit the band - Chamberlain himself paid $182,000 for a berth, which he logged to great profit.

His government service at an end, the indefatigable Chamberlain returned to Morrisburg, where he again worked as a physician, dispensed veterinary medicine, and, until 1919, ran a sanatorium out of his large residence. Widowed in July 1924, he died of pneumonia at his retirement cottage at Chaffey{apos}s Lock in 1927 and was buried in the family plot in Athens.

Charles Chaput{apos}s father was originally from L{apos}Assomption in Lower Canada; he settled in Montreal around 1832. In 1841 or 1842 he opened a retail grocery that initially also housed a tavern. The store was then situated in the West Ward on Rue des Commissaires, opposite the Sainte-Anne market. The tavern closed around 1850. About the same time, Léandre went into partnership with his brother-in-law Édouard Saint-Denis.

Charles did commercial studies in Montreal and received further instruction from a tutor in French, Pierre Garnot. In 1857, at the age of 16, he joined his father{apos}s firm as a clerk. He became a partner in 1862 and the business was renamed L. Chaput, Fils et Compagnie. When Léandre retired in 1876, Charles became head of it, with Édouard Saint-Denis. By 1896 he was in sole charge. Over the years the company had moved into wholesale business and from the 1890s this would be its only sphere of activity. At that time, food merchandising in Montreal was being spurred by improvements in rail transport, expansion in the food industry, and the rapid growth of the city{apos}s population. Several other food wholesalers set up in Montreal in the same period but L. Chaput, Fils et Compagnie Limitée (the name under which the firm was incorporated in 1912) would remain one of the leading enterprises of this kind in the city until the mid 1920s.

For many years the sale of wine and spirits constituted a substantial part of the company{apos}s business and revenues, as it also was for its major competitors. When the Quebec Liquor Commission was set up in 1921, this source of income disappeared. Despite the loss, the firm{apos}s annual turnover amounted to $5 million in 1924, and its inventory was estimated at $1 million. Specializing in the importation of tea and coffee, as well as in the sale of popular pharmaceutical products, it had some 200 employees at this time, including 35 sales representatives who travelled all over Quebec and Ontario. Its products were also marketed in the Maritimes. According to Le Devoir, the firm had a fleet of 15 trucks that delivered goods within a 50-mile radius of Montreal. It also had a large warehouse in the north of the city on Rue Atlantic, and from 1889 a store with five storeys on Rue de Brésoles. Some of the products were packaged at the latter, a number of its own brands having been launched. It appears that it was one of the first wholesalers in the province of Quebec to adopt this practice, as well as one of the first companies to use bilingual labels.

Up to this point Chaput{apos}s company had always been run by members of the family, along with several partners chosen from among former employees. The latter included Louis-Élie Geoffrion, an important member of the firm from 1884 to 1912, and Ferdinand Prud{apos}homme, a partner from 1896 and for many years the company{apos}s secretary-treasurer, a post he continued to hold in 1926. At the time of the merger, Charles Chaput was still president; his son Armand, who had been a partner since 1899, was vice-president and general manager; another son, Émile, a partner since 1909, was one of the directors. The share capital, estimated at $1 million in 1924, was also held by the Chaput family and its employees.

Success in the grocery business enabled Léandre Chaput and his son Charles to ascend the social ladder. The marriages contracted by some of the latter{apos}s children show that the family belonged to the elite in Montreal and indeed in Canada. Charles{apos}s eldest daughter, Rose-Anna, became the wife of Gabriel Marchand, a lawyer and son of Félix-Gabriel Marchand*, the premier of Quebec from 1897 to 1900; his son Émile married Rosalie Loranger, the daughter of a judge, Louis-Onésime Loranger*. Furthermore, the dignitaries present at Charles Chaput{apos}s funeral included Charles Duquette, the mayor of Montreal, senators Charles-Philippe Beaubien*, Frédéric-Ligori Béïque*, and Raoul Dandurand*, as well as Janvier-Arthur Vaillancourt, the president of the Banque Canadienne Nationale.

Although he never stood for election as the candidate of a political party, Charles Chaput nevertheless took an active part in municipal politics. He was one of the leaders of the Committee of Citizens in Montreal, which was formed in 1908 and was associated with the reform movement. Moreover, his business career was not confined to running the family firm. He was president of the Montreal Wholesale Grocers{s-1-unknown} Association, a member of the board of the Chambre de Commerce du District de Montréal (around 1894-96), a director and vice-president of the Montreal Board of Trade, and a director of the International Mercantile Agency. He served on the board of Ogilvie Flour Mills Company Limited from 1911 until his death, as well as on that of the Canada Life Assurance Company. He also took an interest in the financial sector, and was a director of the Banque d{apos}Hochelaga from 1890 until 1900. Within these circles, Chaput became known as a person of integrity, {d-0}a man who spoke little and preferred to reflect,{d-1} according to the newspaper La Presse. On his death, Le Canada (Montréal) referred to him as {d-0}one of the leading figures in the business world of the city.{d-1}

ANQ-M, CE601-S1, 23 août 1865, 21 janv. 1885; CE601-S6, 26 sept. 1894; CE601-S51, 15 avril 1839, 14 nov. 1841; TP11, S2, SS20, SSS48, vol.2 et 3-o, 19 févr. 1867, no.3880; vol.6-o, 11 mars 1876, nos.831-32; vol.11-o, 1er févr. 1884, no.227; vol.19-o, 1er févr. 1896, nos.11-12; vol.21-o, 1er févr. 1899, no.17, 23 août 1899, no.506; vol.29-o, 1er févr. 1909, no.237; vol.33-o, 1er févr. 1912, nos.119-20. Le Canada (Montréal), 2, 4 févr. 1926. Le Devoir, 23 août 1924; 2, 4 févr. 1926. La Presse, 1er févr. 1926. W. H. Atherton, Montreal, 1534-1914 (3v., Montreal, 1914), 3: 656-60. Gilles Couvrette, {d-0}L{apos}épiciers en gros de Montréal,{d-1} L{apos}Actualité économique ([Montréal]), 16 (1940-41): 118-37. Directory, Montreal, 1842-1926. Linteau, Hist. de Montréal. David Monod, Store wars: shopkeepers and the culture of mass marketing, 1890-1939 (Toronto, 1996).

William E. Cochrane, known as Billy, was a grand-nephew of the famous seaman Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald. Among his other relatives were Sir Thomas John Cochrane*, an early governor of Newfoundland, and Douglas Mackinnon Baillie Hamilton Cochrane*, who as the 12th Earl of Dundonald would become commander of the Canadian militia. Billy was one of a number of well-to-do young Britons who came to the Alberta foothills in the 1880s in search of adventure. He stayed to play an important part in the economic and social development of the region. Although the historiography of the Canadian range has tended to emphasize the role of four or five large corporate ranch companies [see Matthew Henry Cochrane*; Frederick Smith Stimson*], more recently it has been argued that numerous smaller family ranches buttressed the cattle industry with capital and contributed enormously to innovation and adaptation in ranching. Cochrane{apos}s life in Alberta epitomized the achievements of this group.

The Little Bow Cattle Company, known as the CC Ranch because of its brand, was organized in 1884 by Cochrane, his cousin Thomas Belhaven Henry Cochrane, Hugh Graham, and brothers Ted and Frank Jenkins. A foundation herd of 359 head of cattle and 12 saddle-horses was imported from Montana in September 1884. A snugly sited ranch house was built on Mosquito Creek, a few miles west of Cayley. Early setbacks encouraged Billy{apos}s partners to pursue other options and Cochrane was left the sole boss of the CC. His pride and joy was a small herd of purebred Galloway cattle. From it he raised young bulls to sell to neighbouring ranchers. They were prized for their hardihood and foraging abilities. In addition, Cochrane ran a regular range herd of about 400 cows, which yielded 220-75 calves each year. The ranch reported a total of 800 head of cattle and 40 horses in 1890.

Cochrane matured to become a conscientious and responsible rancher, always looking for ways to improve his stock and streamline production. Not only did he nurture a purebred herd on enclosed pastures, but he put up hay for calves and weak cattle from an early date. Later he pushed the stock association to keep the bulls separate from the cows until midway through the summer so that winter calving would be eliminated. Cochrane had thus brought with him attitudes towards stock rearing drawn from the British pastoral tradition. The geographer Terry G. Jordan has shown how these ideas fused with methods from the midwestern United States to ensure that ranching in the Canadian foothills differed markedly from the extensive open range methods of {d-0}the Anglo-Texan ranching complex.{d-1} Cochrane{apos}s leadership was felt far beyond the boundaries of his ranch. For several years he organized the cowboys who rode for the Mosquito Creek Wagon at the roundup, and when his neighbour Alfred Ernest Cross* was laid up after an accident Cochrane managed the A7 Ranche for him. He was a leading figure in the fight against predators, and, in 1904, it was he who built the huge dipping vat in which all the district{apos}s cattle were treated for mange.

Cochrane was one of a group of friends who provided capital for Cross{apos}s Calgary Brewing and Malting Company; he purchased $1,000 of stock in 1892 and later added another $500. Perhaps more important than his financial backing was his wholehearted personal support for his friend. When Cross was sick and beset with problems in the late 1890s, Billy wrote: {d-0}It seems hard that you should chuck up now, after bearing all the expense and trouble and considerable wear and tear. . . . I am quite willing to stay with the brewery as long as you do and as long as you control the management.{d-1} The company would continue to provide Cochrane with a modest income until his death.

There was, however, another side to Billy Cochrane. One of his friends described him as having {d-0}a kiss from the devil on his cheek.{d-1} He enjoyed the physical demands of working an isolated ranch and earned the respect of his men by his willingness to turn his hand to any chore, but he expected to play as hard as he worked. During his first years in Alberta he was a leading member of the Wolves{s-1-unknown} Den, an extremely ungentlemanly {d-0}gentlemen{apos}s club,{d-1} which met in an old boxcar by the rail tracks in Calgary. Cochrane knew the Grant family, who produced Glen Grant Scotch whisky, and was able to ensure that there was always a barrel of ten-year-old whisky on hand to nourish their storytelling and poker games. While at their ranch, Billy and his wife, Evelyn, hunted coyotes on horseback, played and supported polo, shot and fished, and entertained frequently. Once Cochrane could rely on a trusted foreman, he adopted the habit of spending the winter in Britain, where he enjoyed fox-hunting from his family home in Leicestershire and shooting grouse in Scotland and pheasants in Dorset. The couple would also spend time in London, staying at the British Hotel, dining at the Café Royal, and catching up with the latest plays. In 1909, after Evelyn{apos}s death, Cochrane sold his ranch and retired to Scotland. He continued to hunt and fish, and travelled widely, making frequent visits to Alberta. During World War I he falsified his age to join the 1st Sportsman{apos}s Battalion of the Royal Fusiliers (City of London Regiment), but he did not see action. At his death his principal residence was Ravenstone Castle, near Whithorn, Scotland. He left an estate worth $1,250,000, which took some years to wind up.

Billy Cochrane displayed many of the characteristics of the reviled {d-0}remittance man.{d-1} He had a wild streak which he made no attempt to control even when he was a middle-aged family man. He expressed his support for Calgary Brewing and Malting by sampling beer copiously wherever he happened to be and then sending reports to Cross. He also made every effort to lure the overly conscientious Cross into a night or two on the town. Cochrane was a creature of his times during which money insulated the landowning class from many of the realities of life. His story is important because it demonstrates that the cultural baggage that well-off Britons brought to Alberta - customs which seemed bizarre and risible to others - in no way precluded these privileged immigrants from making substantial contributions to the settlement of what Billy often referred to as {d-0}the bald headed{d-1} prairie.

GA, M 289; M 6552. GRO, Reg. of births, Lichfield, 8 Sept. 1858; Newcastle upon Tyne, 8 Jan. 1858; Reg. of marriages, St George Hanover Square (Middlesex), 19 Feb. 1887. D. H. Breen, The Canadian prairie west and the ranching frontier, 1874-1924 (Toronto, 1983). Burke{apos}s genealogical and heraldic history of the peerage, baronetage and knightage, ed. Peter Townend (105th ed., London, 1970). Cayley Women{apos}s Institute, Under the chinook arch: a history of Cayley and surrounding areas ([Cayley, Alta], [1967?]). S. M. Evans et al., Cowboys, ranchers and the cattle business: cross-border perspectives on ranching history (Calgary, 2000). High River Pioneers{s-1-unknown} and Old Timers{s-1-unknown} Assoc., Leaves from the Medicine Tree . . . ([Lethbridge, Alta], 1960). T. G. Jordan, North American cattle ranching frontiers: origins, diffusion, and differentiation (Albuquerque, N.Mex., 1993). Sherrill MacLaren, Braehead: three founding families in nineteenth century Canada (Toronto, 1986). Nanton and District Hist. Soc., Mosquito Creek roundup: Nanton-Parkland (Nanton, Alta, 1975).

Educated at the Church of Ireland Training College in Dublin, William Henry Collison began his career as a schoolmaster in charge of an industrial school at Cork. In November 1872 he read of the Church Missionary Society{apos}s need for recruits, and determined to apply. The following April he entered the Church Missionary College in Islington (London) for a brief period of training. The CMS decided that his qualifications made him a suitable assistant for William Duncan*, the lay missionary in charge of the North Pacific mission, centred at Metlakatla, B.C. The society, which had difficulty in placing ordained missionaries there, opted to send Collison out as a layman with a view to his later ordination, and gave him permission to marry before leaving. His wife, Marion Goodwin, was well prepared for the mission field: she was a deaconess and a trained nurse who had served in the Franco-German War and during a smallpox epidemic in Cork.

At Metlakatla, his first task was to learn the Tsimshian language. By the following summer he could conduct the greater part of church services without an interpreter. As well as preaching, his duties included visiting and teaching, and initially he was confident of success. However, the mission was in a state of tension. Duncan and Cridge, who shared a commitment to low-church evangelicalism, were friends, and consequently the Hills-Cridge dispute disordered relations between Duncan and Hills. Given Duncan{apos}s increasing hostility to ecclesiastical authority, Collison{apos}s ordination was put off. Earnest and not particularly anxious for promotion, he persevered in his missionary duties, while managing to retain Duncan{apos}s confidence. He became interested in the Haida when a group from Masset, on the Queen Charlotte Islands, visited Fort Simpson (Lax Kw{apos}alaams) in 1874 and 1875. During these visits he began to evangelize Chief Seegay, whose half-Tsimshian wife acted as translator. In June 1876 Collison was begged to minister to Seegay since he was dying of tuberculosis. Collison made the voyage to Masset, and on his return obtained permission to open a mission there. After the Collisons{s-1-unknown} move in November, William expanded his knowledge of Haida, eventually translating portions of the Bible and the Book of Common Prayer and composing hymns in this language.

While the Collisons were at Masset, Duncan and Hills{apos}s relationship deteriorated, and Hills asked the CMS to send Bishop William Carpenter Bompas* of Athabasca to intervene. He arrived at Metlakatla in November 1877 and spent the winter. The following March at Kincolith, a CMS mission among the Niska (Nisga{apos}a) at the mouth of the Nass River, Collison was ordained deacon and priest by Bompas, who also negotiated a redistribution of duties, assigning Duncan the secular affairs of Metlakatla and Collison the {d-0}spiritual charge{d-1} of Metlakatla, Kincolith, and the Queen Charlottes. Reluctantly, Collison left the Haida mission in 1879 and returned to Metlakatla, where he soon encountered more conflict. William Ridley, who had arrived with the support of the CMS to take up duties as bishop of the newly formed diocese of Caledonia, had quickly run foul of Duncan, who prohibited Communion and confirmation and resisted translation work. From London the society wrote Collison letters of encouragement that acknowledged his difficult position, and urged him to maintain calm in the face of factionalism and sporadic violence. In 1882, after Ridley had formally removed Duncan from connection with the CMS, the situation became so tense that Collison was compelled to leave Metlakatla for a time. Collison asked to be sent to another mission, and in May 1884 he and his family moved to Kincolith. He learned more Niska, and soon translated the services of Morning and Evening prayer. Marion Collison{apos}s role was equally significant. Like other missionary wives, she was responsible for teaching European domestic skills to the native women, and for modelling appropriate female behaviour. As a nurse, she helped avert a smallpox epidemic. Collison regarded her medical contributions as central to his work: {d-0}Her skill in ministering to the sick, and in dressing the wounds of those injured, tended in no small degree to bring them under the influence of the teaching of the Gospel of Salvation.{d-1}

In 1891 Collison, whose support of Ridley and the CMS was unwavering, was unanimously selected as the diocese{apos}s first archdeacon. A serious blow came in September 1893 when the church at Kincolith and three-quarters of the village were destroyed by fire. Shortly after rebuilding had begun, a fervent spiritual revival threatened to undermine the stability of the community. In response, Collison introduced a native branch of the Church Army, a strongly evangelical Anglican organization that emphasized enthusiastic worship, and promoted native leadership within the church-sponsored society.

When Ridley resigned as bishop in 1904, Collison declined to be nominated to the episcopacy, choosing to remain at Kincolith. At his death there in 1922 he was the longest serving CMS missionary in the North British Columbia mission (as North Pacific had been renamed) and he was the only remaining missionary funded directly by the CMS. His letters to the society and his autobiography, In the wake of the war canoe, reveal a moderate and conscientious man who strove to maintain {d-0}the best interests of the mission{d-1} in the face of schism. Despite Duncan{apos}s blatant failure at times to recognize his contributions, Collison was remarkably reticent in his autobiography about the difficulties at Metlakatla. He was noted for his warmth, generosity, and hospitality, and for his commitment to his work.

Collison{apos}s interaction with the native peoples was complex. He respected the converts, became fluent in Tsimshian, Haida, and Niska, and was sensitive to the importance of the clan system. (According to his son William Edwin, also an ordained missionary, he had been adopted into the Eagle clan of the Haida.) On the other hand, he fiercely opposed potlatching and traditional native medicine, and encouraged the Niska at Kincolith to accept the Indian Advancement Act of 1884, which replaced traditional hierarchies of power with a system of elected chiefs and band councils supervised by an Indian agent. Perhaps these contradictions can best be explained by Collison{apos}s own theory of missions, with its implication that the missionary was the best judge of what was appropriate for his converts: {d-0}It is incumbent on the missionary to welcome and foster whatever tends to the uplifting and improvement of the people amongst whom he labours, whilst carefully guarding against whatever tends to degrade or defeat his mission.{d-1}

[William Henry Collison{apos}s autobiography, In the wake of the war canoe . . . (London, 1915), appeared in an identical edition in Toronto the following year. An abridged version, edited and annotated by Charles Lillard, was published in Victoria in 1981, but it omits many of the details of Collison{apos}s missionary activities. None of Collison{apos}s Haida translations seem to have been printed, although they may have formed the basis of the later translation work by the Reverend Charles Harrison, CMS missionary at Masset in 1882-90, published by the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge and the British and Foreign Bible Society. G.E.]

Two letters by Collison appear in the Church Missionary Intelligencer and Record (London): {d-0}First letter from Queen Charlotte{apos}s Islands,{d-1} [3rd] ser., 2 (1877): 374-77, and {d-0}News from Queen Charlotte{apos}s Islands,{d-1} [3rd] ser., 3 (1878): 516-18. Reports by Collison, Duncan, and other British Columbia missionaries were published there as {d-0}North Pacific Mission,{d-1} [3rd] ser., 4 (1879): 557-66. LAC, MG 17, B2, C, C.1/M.9-M.10; C.2/O; G, C.1/P.3; C.2/L; C.2/O (mfm.). Daily Colonist (Victoria), 24 Jan. 1922. Alexander Anderson, {d-0}An official view of Metlakahtla,{d-1} Church Missionary Intelligencer and Record, [3rd] ser., 6 (1881): 50-52. {d-0}Bishop Ridley and the North Pacific Mission,{d-1} Church Missionary Intelligencer and Record, [3rd] ser., 9 (1884): 165-67. Church Missionary Soc., Report of the deputation to Metlakatla: (General Touch and the Rev. W. R. Blackett) ([London, 1886]). [Edward Cridge and W. J. Macdonald], The Church and the Indians: the trouble at Metlakahtla ([Victoria, 1882]). F. [H.] DuVernet, {d-0}Hagwilyaen, Shimoigit,{d-1} Across the Rockies (London), 13 (1922), no.2: 23-24. {d-0}The government commission at Metlakahtla,{d-1} Church Missionary Intelligencer and Record, [3rd] ser., 10 (1885): 340-54. Hugh McCullum and Karmel Taylor McCullum, Caledonia 100 years ahead (Toronto, 1979). Peter Murray, The devil and Mr. Duncan (Victoria, 1985). E. P. Patterson, Mission on the Nass: the evangelization of the Nishga (1860-1890) (Waterloo, Ont., 1982). F. A. Peake, The Anglican Church in British Columbia (Vancouver, 1959). [William Ridley], Senator Macdonald{apos}s misleading account of his visit to Metlakatla exposed ([Victoria], 1882). E. O. S. Scholefield and F. W. Howay, British Columbia from the earliest times to the present (4v., Vancouver, 1914), 4: 1369-70. Eugene Stock, The history of the Church Missionary Society, its environment, its men and its work (4v., London, 1899-1916). Jean Usher [Friesen], William Duncan of Metlakatla: a Victorian missionary in British Columbia (Ottawa, 1974).

Conybeare{apos}s many partners included William Alfred Galliher (1888-97) and William Carlos Ives (1901-6), who both became judges. According to local lore, he had difficulty retaining apprentices and partners until his later years because he kept three or four of his chow dogs, some of which smelled, in his office. He was the solicitor for the municipality of Lethbridge, the Bank of Montreal, the Canadian Pacific Railway, Alberta Railway and Coal, North-Western Coal and Navigation, and Canadian North-West Irrigation; other clients numbered the cattle companies of William G. Conrad. Interested in irrigation [see William Pearce], he was a member of the South Western Territorial Irrigation League in 1894. As Lethbridge{apos}s major lawyer, he handled a wide range of civil and criminal matters, including a steady flow of wills and inheritances. Assiduous in his work, he enjoyed the courtroom, where he maintained a gentlemanly presence. He was particularly adept in thorny questions involving the law of contract across jurisdictions. Among his more controversial interventions was one to support the readmission of a local solicitor disbarred for retaining clients{s-1-unknown} money. At sittings of the Supreme Court of Alberta in Lethbridge, he often acted for the CPR in cases of negligence. In the 1920s he returned to crown prosecutions. In one notable case of carnal knowledge before the Supreme Court in 1925 (The King v. Arnold Baines), he persuaded it to hear the testimonies of seven- and eight-year-old girls, which generally were non-admissible.

Conybeare was a major figure in the social, cultural, and economic life of Lethbridge. A member of the Sons of England, the Overseas Club, and the Cricket Club and the Turf Association in Lethbridge, he was a founder there of the Chinook Club and, in 1894, of the Pemmican Club, an association of territorial old-timers initiated by Dr Frank Hamilton Mewburn. In 1890 he had served on the committee that pioneered the Great Falls and Canada Railway, and he participated in the early years of the Alberta Railway and Coal and the Canadian North-West Irrigation companies. A promoter of the Bank of Winnipeg, he was involved in starting Lethbridge Brewing and Malting, British Canadian Trust in 1901, and Lethbridge Brick and Terra Cotta in 1903. He chaired the public school board in 1890-93 and served as president of the Lethbridge Board of Trade and Civic Committee in 1893 and 1907-8 as well as founding president of the Southern Alberta Boards of Trade in 1907. His wife would join him in his public endeavours in 1911, as treasurer of the newly formed Women{apos}s Civic Club of the Board of Trade. Despite his prominence, his only foray into politics was a bid for the Council of the North-West Territories in 1887, which he lost to Frederick William Gordon Haultain*.

His marriage in St Paul in 1890 had been a curious event: his fiancée, Letitia Attwood, died just before his arrival so he asked her sister, who, it was said, agreed because she {d-0}was so acutely overcome by his anguish.{d-1} Their home, Riverview (originally built by Charles Alexander Magrath*), featured stained-glass windows overlooking a courtyard and a large and famous library. The Conybeares also developed a seven-acre garden; its lawns and English-style maze were considered exceptional. Charles started all the trees, hedges, and shrubs from seeds and slips obtained from England.

An avid patron of the arts, Conybeare belonged to the Knights of Pythias - he was its chancellor as well - and the Dramatic Order of the Knights of Khorassan. In addition to producing libretti for unidentified musical comedies performed in Lethbridge and throughout the west, he wrote two books of poetry: Vahnfried (London, 1903) and Lyrics from the west (Toronto, 1907). The latter reveals his staunch attachment to both Canada and the British empire. {d-0}Canada{apos}s flag,{d-1} for example, asks

In {d-0}Britons all to-day{d-1} he was equally prosaic about Canadian support for the empire in the South African War: {d-0}Unfurl the Union banner, - let it wave across the seas; . . . Britons all to-day - linked across the sea, / Pealing out with joyous shout the chorus of the free.{d-1} His romantic side is revealed in {d-0}For my wife,{d-1} which ends {d-0}My heart-strings throb with a joy that reveals / The songs that can never be sung.{d-1} He would receive honorary dcls from Bishop{apos}s College in Lennoxville, Que., in 1907 and the University of Alberta in 1908 (ad eundem gradum). A stalwart of the Church of England, he had paid half the cost of building St Augustine{apos}s Church in Lethbridge in 1886-87. Archdeacon Cecil Swanson later considered him the rock of the parish. Appointed solicitor of the diocese of Calgary in 1900, he became its first chancellor in 1904, a position he would maintain until 1916. As a member of synod, he never missed a meeting, and he sat on the committee that edited a new hymnal in 1908. In matters of temperance, he did not take a hard line. Elected president of the Moderation League of Alberta in 1919 and 1923, he headed efforts to urge the province to repeal its Prohibition legislation and assume full control of liquor sales.

Charles Frederick Pringle Conybeare{apos}s major reported cases appear in Alberta Law Reports (Toronto), 1908-20. Photographs of him in his law office (with one of his chows) (P19694784000) and of his home (Riverview) (P19841005002) are in the Sir Alexander Galt Museum and Arch. (Lethbridge, Alta). The GA holds a headshot of Conybeare (NA-4082-3).

GA, M 1931. GRO, Reg. of births, Chiswick (London), 19 May 1860. Legal Arch. Soc. of Alta (Calgary), fonds 5, vol.60, file 923-vol.68, file 946 (Law Soc. of Alta, minutes of convocation, 1907-27); fonds 30 (Conybeare, Church, McArthur, and Davidson coll.). PAA, GR1978.235. Lethbridge Herald, 31 July 1927, 18 June 1985. Lethbridge News, 11 Dec. 1885; 8, 29 Dec. 1886; 30 March, 5, 13 April, 24 Aug., 19 Oct. 1887; 18 June, 2, 16 July 1890; 5 April, 12 Dec. 1894; 17 March 1897; 26 Jan. 1899. Canadian annual rev., 1921: 830. Canadian men and women of the time (Morgan; 1898 and 1912). Alex Johnston, Lethbridge, from coal town to commercial centre: a business history, ed. Irma Dogterom and L. G. Ellis (Lethbridge, 1997). L. A. Knafla, {d-0}From oral to written memory: the common law tradition in western Canada,{d-1} in Law & justice in a new land: essays in western Canadian legal history, ed. L. A. Knafla (Toronto, 1986), 31-77; {d-0}Report on the legal careers of Conybeare, Macleod and Scott{d-1} (paper prepared for Alta Culture, Historic Sites Service, Edmonton, 1985). M.-L. Loescher, {d-0}Dr. C. F. P. Conybeare, Lethbridge{apos}s pioneer lawyer,{d-1} Whoop-Up Country Chapter, Hist. Soc. of Alta, Newsletter (Lethbridge), no.1 (January 1990): [3-4]; {d-0}Dr. Conybeare {s-0}was the church{s-1-unknown}{d-1} (1966) (copy in the Sir Alexander Galt Museum and Arch.). A. O. MacRae, History of the province of Alberta (2v., [Calgary], 1912). The record of old Westminsters: a biographical list . . . , comp. G. F. R. Barker and A. H. Stenning (London, 1928). Who{apos}s who and why, 1919/20. Who was who . . . : a companion to {d-0}Who{apos}s who,{d-1} containing the biographies of those who died during the period [1897-2000] (10v. and an index to date, London, 1920-?), 2 (1916-28).

Born most likely in the region of Calabria, Antonio Cordasco arrived in Canada in 1886, when the first contingents of seasonal Italian labourers appeared in the industrial landscape. His early association with railway construction, and no doubt his ambition, allowed him to move up the ranks of the Canadian Pacific Railway{apos}s work crews from labourer to foreman. It was probably as a foreman that he became active in recruiting labourers. In 1901, faced with a major labour conflict, the CPR turned to him for help, offering to pay him a dollar for each strike-breaker he delivered. He was able to meet the challenge by availing himself of contacts with labour-recruiting agencies in a number of northeastern American cities and supplied the CPR with about 2,000 men. As a result, that year he became the CPR{apos}s exclusive recruiter of Italian workers.

During the early 1900s, when the CPR undertook a major expansion of its rail system and developed natural-resource industries along its lines, it was Canada{apos}s leading employer of migrant labourers - most of them unskilled seasonal workers needed for the construction and the maintenance of rail lines. In a typical year several thousand Italian labourers were in its employ, along with several thousand belonging to a variety of other nationalities. The system of recruiting migrant labour had become known throughout North America as the padrone system. Though severely restrained in the United States by federal legislation starting in 1885, the system had been allowed to persist in Canada. Labour recruitment would become subject to strict government regulation only after 1905. During the brief period - in the late 19th and early 20th centuries - when the padrone system was most in vogue in Canada, Cordasco emerged as its leading entrepreneur, largely because of the privileged relations he had established with the CPR.

Besides satisfying the workers{s-1-unknown} need for jobs, Cordasco provided them with other services. By 1903 he had gone into banking. As a banchista (the term employed at the time for a private banker), he arranged for the transfer of earnings to families in Italy. The Corriere del Canada, a Montreal-based newspaper controlled by Cordasco early in the decade, served more as a tool for his recruiting than as a bona fide community paper. Cordasco, in fact, proved capable of launching particularly aggressive publicity campaigns in order to stave off competition from other Montreal padroni and employment agencies. In one case, on 27 Jan. 1904, he mounted a public event in which some 60 foremen and 2,000 workers marched through Montreal. At the height of the ceremony, his faithful assistants solemnly placed on his head a crown that was a replica of the one worn by the king of Italy, calling him {d-0}The King of Italian Labourers.{d-1}

In the spring of 1904 thousands of Italian labourers flocked to Montreal in response to advertisements by Cordasco and other padroni. When a late thaw delayed the beginning of the work season, the unemployed men were forced to rely on public charity. At the request of civic authorities, a federal royal commission was appointed to inquire into the immigration of Italian labourers to Montreal and the alleged fraudulent practices of employment agencies. Although several agents in the city testified, Cordasco was a prime target. The proceedings of the inquiry, headed by judge John Winchester, constitute probably the richest documentation on the workings of the padrone system. As a result of the investigation, Cordasco{apos}s reputation suffered significantly. He was drawn into a number of court battles over fees he had exacted and wages he had not paid. The inquiry also led to the termination of his relations with the CPR. Despite the collapse of his recruiting empire, he managed to pursue his activities as a banchista and he acted as a steamship agent. He had become a naturalized British subject in 1902. At his death in 1921, his private banking business was still operating; it was taken over by his son Thomas Antonio (Anthony). Another son, Charles M., had served as a lieutenant in the Royal Flying Corps during World War I and was a prominent foreign exchange broker in Montreal.

One of the most important sources of information on Antonio Cordasco{apos}s activities is Can., Royal commission to inquire into the immigration of Italian labourers to Montreal and the alleged fraudulent practices of employment agencies, Report of commissioner and evidence (Ottawa, 1905), which was published both separately and in Can., Parl., Sessional papers, 1905, no.36b. The French report has been republished as {d-0}Document: Rapport de la Commission royale sur l{apos}immigration des journaliers italiens et des procédés frauduleux des bureaux de placement,{d-1} introd. Bernard Dansereau, RCHTQ [Regroupement des Chercheurs-Chercheuses en Hist. des Travailleurs et Travailleuses du Québec], Bull. (Montréal), 22 (1996), no.1: 3-39.

BCM-G, RBMS, Notre-Dame de Montréal, 16 avril 1891; Saint-Jacques-le-Majeur (Montréal), 21 avril 1921 (mfm.). LAC, RG 31, C1, 1901, Montreal, Saint-Antoine Ward, sub-dist. A-3: 11. Directory, Montreal, 1906-21. R. F. Harney, {d-0}Montreal{apos}s king of Italian labour: a case of padronism,{d-1} Labour (Halifax), 4 (1979): 57-84. Gunther Peck, {d-0}Reinventing free labor: immigrant padrones and contract laborers in North America, 1885-1925,{d-1} Journal of American Hist. (Bloomington, Ind.), 83 (1996-97): 848-71. Bruno Ramirez, Les premiers Italiens de Montréal: l{apos}origine de la Petite Italie du Québec (Montréal, 1984). Paul Tana, Caffè Italia (video recording in French and in Italian with French subtitles, Montreal, 1985).

Taking advantage of the demand for practising veterinarians, Couture found the support necessary to establish the first francophone school of veterinary medicine in Canada, the École Vétérinaire de Québec, in 1885. The provincial Department of Agriculture and Public Works gave financial assistance (an annual grant of $2,000), and affiliation with the Université Laval at Quebec provided for medical training, institutional recognition, and the conferring of diplomas. Located on Rue des Jardins, the school took as its model the Montreal Veterinary College: high admission standards ({d-0}the equivalent of a good and complete commercial or industrial course,{d-1} according to the university{apos}s calendar), a three-year course of studies, and full medical and veterinary training split between a specialized school and a school of advanced studies. The program included general pathology, veterinary medical and surgical pathology, veterinary materia medica, chemistry, histology, botany, practical anatomy, comparative anatomy of domestic animals, rudiments of entozoology, physiology, and veterinary clinical practice. In addition, a small hospital for horses, which was in an annex to the school, served both as a clinic for the students and as a horse treatment centre for the Upper Town. In 1887 Ernest F. J. MacKay, who had earlier completed a year of studies at the francophone section of the Montreal Veterinary College, received the first diploma granted by the École Vétérinaire de Québec.

For nine years Couture would keep the institution at arm{apos}s length. As early as 1889 financial misunderstandings with the administration of the Université Laval occasioned friction. The small enrolment (only 13 graduates from its founding to 1894) touched off a debate between Couture and his associates (the provincial department and the university). Unfortunately these discussions made no mention of the high quality of instruction provided by Couture and his assistants, Dr Peter H. Cummins and Dr John Duncan DuChene; for example, they boldly included courses in hygiene, the inspection of milk and meat, and even microbiology in a regular curriculum in itself marked by the use of the anatomical and clinical method. The government withdrew its grant in 1893 and chose instead to concentrate its financial assistance on the new École de Médecine Comparée et de Science Vétérinaire de Montréal. This institution had resulted from the merger of the École de Médecine Vétérinaire Française de Montréal (founded in 1885 by Daubigny and Bruneau and affiliated with the Montreal School of Medicine and Surgery) and the École Vétérinaire Française de Montréal (founded in 1886 by Daubigny and others and affiliated with the Université Laval). The new school would move to the Institut Agricole d{apos}Oka in 1928 and to Saint-Hyacinthe in 1947; in 1969 it would become the faculty of veterinary medicine of the Université de Montréal. Couture assumed the operating costs for a year before closing his school in 1894.

As the official veterinarian, Couture also emphasized the importance of actively combating contagious animal diseases. He advocated sanitary policing measures to prevent the spread of infections and tried to persuade the public authorities to support these measures financially. In 1889, after assessing various epidemics, he called for the adoption of {d-0}laws ordering the destruction of animals found [to be] contaminated and contagious,{d-1} but without success. In one of his reports to the government, published that year, he wrote of having examined a horse with glanders owned by a dairy farmer who {d-0}travelled daily through the busiest parts of Quebec and Lévis and spread contagion.{d-1} In 1890, inspired by Pasteur{apos}s work on anthrax, Couture proposed that animals be vaccinated with samples of a mild anthrax virus, which he himself ordered from the Institut Pasteur in Paris and experimented with at the clinic of the École Vétérinaire de Québec. In 1893 he suggested setting up a {d-0}laboratory-warehouse{d-1} where various preventive inoculations would be made available to veterinarians. Unfortunately no systematic inoculation program would be in effect until the 1920s.

In 1885 Couture served as secretary to a commission (which also included Édouard-André Barnard*, an agronomist, and Siméon Le Sage*, a civil servant) that was appointed at the request of the Council of Agriculture of the Province of Quebec to study the {d-0}Canadian cow.{d-1} At a time when the dairy industry was becoming the focus of agriculture, much consideration was devoted to this topic. While recognizing the morphological weaknesses of this breed of cattle, including its small size, Couture took a stand, as the official government veterinarian, against the members of the Council of Agriculture, who were powerful promoters of imported dairy breeds from England and Holland, such as Ayrshires and Holsteins. He spelled out the main physical characteristics of the breed, which had probably come from France in the 17th century. It was hardy, black and tawny in colour, and easy to feed. It required little care and came from the same stock as the Jersey and Guernsey breeds. In 1886 the commission opened a genealogical book (the herd-book or register of the best animals available for breeding). Couture also conducted studies on milk productivity which showed that the very low cost of production and the high fat and protein content of milk from the Canadian cow might prove beneficial to the rapidly growing butter industry. In this debate Couture took the position that it was better to improve an existing breed (through reproduction, selection, appropriate maintenance and care, and sometimes even cross-breeding) than to advance risk capital for the purchase of a new herd. In spite of opposition, Couture and his allies succeeded in putting across their point of view: {d-0}Noireaude,{d-1} the Canadian cow, would graze in a large proportion of Quebec meadows until the mid 20th century, and it was still found at the beginning of the 21st century in some parts of the province.

In 1884 Couture began the same kind of crusade in favour of the {d-0}Canadian horse.{d-1} After discovering, in his capacity as official government veterinarian, that the breed was nearly extinct - through cross-breeding and sales to the United States after the Civil War of the 1860s - he obtained backing from promoters interested in ensuring its survival. Once again, he spelled out the specific characteristics, collected some animals suitable for breeding, and obtained government recognition of the genealogical book (the stud-book). In 1895 he was one of the principal founders of the Société Générale des Éleveurs d{apos}Animaux de Race Pure de la Province de Québec, and he would serve as its secretary for the rest of his life. An affiliated society, the Société des Éleveurs de Chevaux Canadiens, ensured into the 21st century the survival of this small, sturdy, multi-purpose horse, which is well adapted to cold climates.

Couture also contributed to the literature on animal husbandry and animal pathology. In 1882 he published at Quebec Traité sur l{apos}élevage et les maladies des bestiaux. Reissued two years later, this volume seems to have been the first work in French Canada directly related to these topics. Between 1890 and 1895 Couture wrote several popular scientific articles useful to farmers for Le Journal d{apos}agriculture illustré, a periodical published in Montreal; these writings, which were sometimes awkward in style, dealt with the health of animals. From 1882 to 1900 Couture was also agriculture editor of Le Progrès du Saguenay (Chicoutimi). For the members of the Industrial Dairy Society of the Province of Quebec, he provided some ten scientific papers on ways of raising dairy cattle. During the 1890s he regularly participated in lecture tours organized by agronomists in the Department of Agriculture and Public Works for parish farm clubs. At the end of the 19th century Couture belonged to a new group, consisting of specialists on agrarian questions whose views were moderately nationalistic, progressive, and open to the world, and who wanted to modernize the way farming practices were shaped. Their method of disseminating information, which was intended for large producers as well as small farmers, was both elitist and popular.

Couture had quickly become one of the prominent citizens of Quebec and he took an active part in the city{apos}s social life. A friend and colleague of Édouard-André Barnard and Jules-Paul Tardivel*, he wrote several columns, under the pseudonym Jérôme Aubry, for the newspaper La Vérité, in which, in particular, he supported the anti-imperialist campaign then being conducted. He also participated in discussions organized by the Institut Canadien de Québec. In 1892 he was one of the founders, along with Abbé Théophile Montminy*, Jean-Charles Chapais, and Barnard, of the Syndicat des Cultivateurs, and he served as its first secretary. This was the first attempt to bring together the farmers who belonged to the province{apos}s farm clubs. He was also a shareholder (1897-1914) and director (1900-14) of the Chicoutimi Pulp Company [see Joseph-Dominique Guay].

Joseph-Alphonse Couture is also the author of Choix des vaches laitières d{apos}après le système Guenon (Québec, 1884), Précis de médecine vétérinaire à l{apos}usage des cultivateurs (Québec, 1895), and Le bétail canadien (Québec, [1900?]). In addition to contributing to several periodicals, as mentioned in the text, Couture gave three lectures: {d-0}Physiologie de la digestion,{d-1} {d-0}Physiologie de la lactation et production du lait,{d-1} and {d-0}La race bovine canadienne.{d-1} These were published in the reports of the Industrial Dairy Society of the Province of Quebec, respectively in 1888, 1890, and 1893.

The following sources provide the most information: Le Soleil, 22 juin 1901, 13 mars 1922; Can., Parl., Sessional papers, reports of the minister of agriculture, 1874-1910; Que., Parl., Sessional papers, reports of the commissioner of agriculture and public works (commissioner of agriculture and colonization; commissioner of agriculture), 1872-1904; Soc. d{apos}Industrie Laitière de la Prov. de Québec, Rapport (Québec), 1882-1906. ANQ-M, CE601-S1, 12 août 1873. ANQ-Q, CE306-S6, 15 déc. 1850. L{apos}Action catholique (Québec), 14 mars 1922. Le Devoir, 14, 16, 27 mars 1922. Denis Goulet et André Paradis, Trois siècles d{apos}histoire médicale au Québec; chronologie des institutions et des pratiques (1639-1939) (Montréal, 1992). René Hardy, Les Zouaves: une stratégie du clergé québécois au XIXe siècle (Montréal, 1980). Bruno Jean, Les idéologies éducatives agricoles (1860-1890) et l{apos}origine de l{apos}agronomie québécoise (Québec, 1977). Firmin Létourneau, Histoire de l{apos}agriculture (Canada français) ([Montréal], 1950). Michel Pepin, Histoire et petites histoires des vétérinaires du Québec ([Montréal], 1986). M.-A. Perron, Un grand éducateur agricole: Édouard-A. Barnard, 1835-1898; étude historique sur l{apos}agriculture de 1760 à 1900 ([Montréal], 1955). J. F. Smithcors, The veterinarian in America, 1625-1975 (Santa Barbara, Calif., 1975). P. M. Teigen, {d-0}The establishment of the Montreal Veterinary College, 1866/67-1874/75,{d-1} Canadian Veterinary Journal (Ottawa), 29 (1988): 185-89.

COWPERTHWAITE, HUMPHREY PICKARD, Methodist clergyman and administrator; b. 30 Nov. 1838 near Sheffield, N.B., son of Hugh Cowperthwaite, a farmer, and Elizabeth Ann Hunter; m. 19 July 1867 Annie A. S. Buchanan in Jacksontown, N.B., and they had at least three sons and two daughters; d. 26 Dec. 1924 in St John{apos}s.

Cowperthwaite began work in Newfoundland in August 1890 and would continue there for three decades until severe debilitation ended his labours. During this period he served on circuits in St John{apos}s (Gower Street, 1890-93, 1899-1903; George Street, 1893-96; Cochrane Street, 1903-7) and at churches in Carbonear (1896-99) and Harbour Grace (1907-8). The historian of Gower Street offers the following portrait of Cowperthwaite: {d-0}A man of striking appearance, somewhat on the portly side, adorned with a trim Prince of Wales . . . beard, and possessed of a strong yet affable personality, he was also a man of considerable scholarship, widely read and highly articulate, an accomplished orator, in fact.{d-1} His appeal in urban Newfoundland rested on his combination of patriotic values and a progressive version of Methodist spirituality rooted in revivalism and personal holiness. During the South African War and World War I this loyalist descendant rallied Methodists around the flag and the empire. (His paternal grandfather had left New Jersey in 1783 for pioneer life in New Brunswick.) Theologically, he felt that the proclamation of the kingdom was a spiritual leaven capable of changing society by individual example and collective action. Such stimulation, he thought, would produce a moral revolution with tangible, ameliorative effects, including the removal of dishonesty in business, the prohibition of alcohol, and the elimination of gambling and other social vices. In deciding moral issues he was guided by biblical precept and personal experience, as is evident in his rejection of bazaars as an unscriptural means of fund-raising.

In his ministry in St John{apos}s, Cowperthwaite had confronted two crises: the fire of 1892 [see Moses Monroe*] and the bank crash of 1894 [see James Goodfellow*]. The former destroyed the Gower Street Church; the latter nearly bankrupted the country. Cowperthwaite rebuilt the church within months as a temporary structure called the {d-0}Tabernacle{d-1} at the intersection of Parade Street and Harvey Road. The victims of the bank crash he treated pastorally and through benevolence where needed. Recognized for his administrative skills, he was chosen as president of the Newfoundland Conference in 1896 and as chairman of the St John{apos}s and Carbonear districts. Granted a dd by Mount Allison in 1903, he retired on 15 Nov. 1908, the year his wife died. He was called out, however, to supply at Gower Street for two more terms, 1910-11 and 1913-14. Such supernumerary work, which was considerable, ended only when he became paralysed and housebound in 1921, at age 83. The {d-0}grand old man{d-1} of Newfoundland Methodism, as he is occasionally depicted, died three years later and was buried in the General Protestant Cemetery; he was survived by a daughter and two sons.

Today, a street in St John{apos}s reminds people of his existence, but hardly anyone remembers the man for whom it is named.

The UCC, Newfoundland Conference Arch. (St John{apos}s), holds a typescript copy of Humphrey Pickard Cowperthwaite{apos}s {d-0}Gower Street Methodist Church{d-1} (n.d.). He also wrote {d-0}Bazaars or straight giving, which?{d-1} Methodist Monthly Greeting (St John{apos}s), October 1894: 157-58; November 1894: 174-75; December 1894: 178-79, and {d-0}Cochrane Street Methodist Church,{d-1} Newfoundland Quarterly (St John{apos}s), 5 (1905-6), no.1: 6-7. The Methodist Monthly Greeting, the official publication of the Methodist Church in Newfoundland, contains numerous entries on Cowperthwaite{apos}s life and work from 1890 until his death in 1924, and has been a major source in the preparation of this article. Of particular interest are Mark Fenwick, {d-0}The late Rev. H. P. Coperthwaite, m.a., d.d.,{d-1} January 1925: 3; {d-0}Mrs. (Dr.) Cowperthwaite passes away,{d-1} September 1908: 9; and {d-0}Rev. Dr. Cowperthwaite,{d-1} December 1923: 8-9.

Daily Globe (St John{apos}s), 27, 29 Dec. 1924. Daily News (St John{apos}s), 27 Dec. 1924. Evening Advocate (St John{apos}s), 30 Nov. 1918. Evening Telegram (St John{apos}s), 28 July 1890; 27, 29 Dec. 1924. {d-0}Mrs. A. B. Cowperthwaite,{d-1} Free Press (St John{apos}s), 25 Aug. 1908. Provincial Wesleyan (Halifax), 10 July 1867. A century of Methodism in St. John{apos}s, Newfoundland, 1815-1915, ed. J. W. Nichols (St John{apos}s, [1915]), 27-28, 30. G. H. Cornish, Cyclopædia of Methodism in Canada . . . (2v., Toronto and Halifax, 1881-1903), 1: 382, 777; 2: 50, 71. Encyclopedia of Nfld (Smallwood et al.), 1: 553. D. G. Pitt, Windows of agates; the life and times of Gower Street United (formerly Methodist) Church in St John{apos}s, Newfoundland: 1815-1990 (2nd ed., St John{apos}s, 1990). Vital statistics from N.B. newspapers (Johnson), 25, no.1229; 44, no.44; 54, no.2028; 64, no.3069. When was that? (Mosdell), 26-27.

Thomas Crawford Brown was one of the most renowned churchmen of his day in Toronto. From a humble birth he achieved an education which exceeded that of most of his peers. After attending the public school in Richmond and the collegiate school in Almonte, he enrolled in arts at Queen{apos}s College in Kingston, where he also completed the course in theology; he obtained a ba in 1903 and an ma in 1904. An outstanding scholastic record at Queen{apos}s was highlighted by his winning the double gold medal in philosophy, the gold medal in political science, and the Sir John A. Macdonald prize. These awards, and the recommendation of Principal Daniel Miner Gordon, led to postgraduate work in arts and theology at the University of Edinburgh (1904-5). In Edinburgh, Crawford Brown was ordained a deacon and served as first assistant minister at St Giles{s-1-unknown} Cathedral.

Crawford Brown{apos}s desire for the ministry drew him back to Canada, where he received a call to St Andrew{apos}s Presbyterian Church, Toronto. He was ordained and inducted as minister on 16 Nov. 1905. It was virtually unprecedented for a new graduate to be called to a large metropolitan congregation, but at first glance there was much to commend him as a clergyman. With strong features, exceptional good looks, and a frame over six feet in height, he brought a commanding presence to the pulpit. Initially, however, the position at St Andrew{apos}s seemed more than he could handle. Lacking self-confidence, he failed to provide leadership and dreaded the pressures of weekly preaching. Dr Thomas Eakin came to his rescue and acted as his mentor and pulpit assistant. Crawford Brown also rallied within himself, drawing upon his education and experiences at St Giles{s-1-unknown}, to confront the personal and ministerial battles that awaited him.

Believing that worship at St Andrew{apos}s lacked proper decorum and reverence, Crawford Brown changed the order of service to reflect the liturgy of St Giles{s-1-unknown}; he also had the interior remodelled to provide for a chancel and a central aisle. He championed the drive for a new organ at St Andrew{apos}s, and by 1908 the church had a second instrument, completely constructed by Casavant Frères within its confines. Crawford Brown fought tirelessly against church union, and his efforts were not in vain. In 1912 the first congregational vote on the matter showed 47 members for union and 182 against. A similar poll on 22 Dec. 1924 recorded 19 votes in favour and 733 opposed. St Andrew{apos}s stayed out of the United Church of Canada and continued with the ongoing Presbyterian Church in Canada.

In August 1908, at age 34, Crawford Brown had become sick with an unknown illness that required a seven-month leave of absence. Poor health would continue to plague his ministry and force him to resign from St Andrew{apos}s in May 1915. The minutes of the kirk session record the elders{s-1-unknown} dismay at losing him and their appreciation for {d-0}his high standard of personal character, his loyalty to the forms and service of the Church, his declaration of a free Gospel, and the consoling power of his ministrations in the house of mourning.{d-1} Crawford Brown had been determined that illness would not deprive him of personal happiness and charitable endeavour. On 16 June 1909, at St Andrew{apos}s, he had married Eallien Necora Melvin-Jones, a union that produced two children. Despite a young family and an active ministry he found time to participate in many organizations: the House of Industry, the provincial council of the Victorian Order of Nurses, the dominion council of the British and Foreign Sailors{s-1-unknown} Society, the Navy League of Canada, the masonic order, the St Andrew{apos}s Society, the Canadian Club, the Empire Club of Canada, the Victoria Club, the Toronto Skating Club, the Canadian Military Institute, and the Canadian Institute.

When World War I broke out Crawford Brown fully expected to proceed overseas with the 48th Highlanders, the regiment which had appointed him chaplain in 1907, but on 23 Aug. 1914 he was informed that because of continuing bad health he would not accompany his unit to England. His chaplaincy work continued at the military barracks in Exhibition Park, Toronto. In 1917 he became, in addition, a chaplain at the Royal Flying Corps{s-1-unknown} No.4 School of Military Aeronautics, University of Toronto, and at other RFC stations in the Toronto area. The following year, his health evidently improved, he would be seconded to the chaplain service of the Canadian Expeditionary Force, but he did not go overseas. An honorary major, he was demobilized in 1919. Crawford Brown had been an ardent supporter of voluntary enlistment and later conscription; he served as the president and chairman of the Ministerial Patriotic League of Canada and honorary secretary of the Speakers{s-1-unknown} Patriotic League.

In November 1918 Crawford Brown{apos}s health was again compromised by a severe attack of influenza leading to broncopneumonia. Unable to resume full-time ministry, he became a popular supply minister, preaching in hundreds of churches over the next 11 years. He also continued his duties as padre to the 48th Highlanders, officiating at the presentation of the regiment{apos}s second stand of colours on 24 May 1925 and participating in its celebration of the tenth anniversary of peace on 11 Nov. 1928. He worked tirelessly in favour of his most cherished causes, especially as Canadian representative of the British Settlement Society. Returning in 1929 from a voyage to England in connection with this organization he became seriously ill with an embolism on board ship. After his arrival home the family believed that his recovery was certain; however, the blood clot intensified and he died on 9 July. Even though his ministry at St Andrew{apos}s had ended 14 years before, he was deeply mourned by the people there. {d-0}St. Andrew{apos}s felt,{d-1} the congregation{apos}s historian remarked, {d-0}that it had suffered infinite loss. . . . rich and poor, gathering about his grave, felt that a gracious personality had passed out of their lives, leaving only a memory behind, but an inspiring memory.{d-1}

AO, RG 22-305, no.63082; RG 80-5-0-388, no.2932. 48th Highlanders Museum (Toronto), Regimental records, 1907, 1914, 1925, 1928. LAC, RG 150, Acc. 1992-93/166, box 1180-16. QUA, Queen{apos}s Hist. coll., Deceased alumni ser., locator no.3599. St Andrew{apos}s Presbyterian Church (Toronto), Minutes of the kirk session, 1905-29. Globe, 3 March 1915: 11; 10 July 1929: 13. Mail and Empire (Toronto), 3 March 1915, 10 July 1929. Kim Beattie, Dileas: history of the 48th Highlanders of Canada, 1929-1956 ([Toronto, 1957]). Can., Dept. of Militia and Defence, Militia list (Ottawa), 1907-22. Duff Crerar, Padres in no man{apos}s land: Canadian chaplains and the Great War (Montreal and Kingston, 1995). Middleton, Municipality of Toronto. National encyclopedia of Canadian biography, ed. J. E. Middleton and W. S. Downs (2v., Toronto, 1935-37), 1: 24-25. S. C. Parker, The book of St. Andrew{apos}s: a short history of St. Andrew{apos}s Presbyterian Church, Toronto (Toronto, 1930). Presbyterian Record (Toronto), 54 (1929). Queen{apos}s College and Univ., Calendar (Kingston), 1897/98-1905/6. {d-0}Rev. T. Crawford Brown, ma,{d-1} Presbyterian Church in Canada, General Assembly, Acts and proc. (Toronto), 1930, app.: 303. Standard dict. of Canadian biog. (Roberts and Tunnell), vol.1: 128-29.

Hyman Meyer Crestohl received an extensive education in the literary sources of Orthodox Judaism in his native Poland and obtained his rabbinical ordination from eminent authorities there. He also was exposed in his youth to an informal education in contemporary European literature and thought, in a manner which was not uncommon among rabbinical students at the time. After his ordination he served as rabbi in Siedlce. He was a Zionist by conviction and became an early member of Mizrachi, the religious faction of the Zionist movement. An activist and a propagandist for Zionism, he was in contact with many of the movement{apos}s political leaders in Europe, such as Chaim Weizmann, Nahum Sokolow, and rabbis Samuel Mohilewer and Isaac Jacob Reines.

In 1904 Crestohl went to New York as an emissary of Mizrachi and he stayed there until 1911. During this period he probably visited Canada in connection with his promotion of the Mizrachi movement. It is likely that the contacts he made led to his immigration to Canada in 1911 and to his nomination as rabbi of Ohev Sholom synagogue in Quebec City that year. He found in Quebec City a small Jewish community of approximately 400 persons. Most had come from eastern Europe in the 1890s and were engaged in commerce. The congregation was the city{apos}s second and it had been founded only a year before his arrival. Crestohl{apos}s activities were hardly limited to his congregation. During his eight years as rabbi, he maintained ties with the Zionist movement in Canada, founding and acting as first president of the Dorshei Zion Society of Quebec City and serving on the council of the Federation of Zionist Societies of Canada [see Clarence Isaac de Sola*]. During World War I he was also active in ministering to the religious needs of Jewish soldiers training at Valcartier.

In 1919 Crestohl moved to Montreal, where he served from 1920 to 1928 as rabbi of the Hadrath Kodesh congregation, founded by immigrants from Russian Poland. His own Polish origins had no doubt helped him obtain the post. Almost all synagogues founded by eastern European immigrants were unable to furnish rabbis with an adequate income, so Crestohl also functioned as a shohet (ritual slaughterer) in Montreal{apos}s kosher meat industry. In 1920 he became first president of the Mizrachi Organization of Canada.

Canadian Jewish Congress National Arch. (Montreal), H. M. Crestohl file. LAC, MG 30 D216. {d-0}Ha-rov Hayyim Meyer Crestohl shtarbt plutzling{d-1} [Rabbi Hayyim Meyer Crestohl dies suddenly], Keneder Odler [Eagle] (New York), 6 May 1928. {d-0}Revered scholar passes,{d-1} Canadian Jewish Chronicle (Montreal), 11 May 1928. Archival sources for the study of Canadian Jewry, comp. L. F. Tapper (2nd ed., Ottawa, 1978).

Under Davis{apos}s direction, this company established a virtual monopoly of tobacco, buying up firms that made a wide range of tobacco products and extending its geographical base beyond the confines of Montreal. In 1898, for instance, it purchased the Empire Tobacco Company in Granby, and in 1903 the B. Houde Company Limited at Quebec. At that time, with its subsidiaries, it controlled 80 per cent of the Canadian cigarette market and 60 per cent of the market in chewing tobacco, pipe tobacco, and snuff. Its imposing factory in the Saint-Henri district of Montreal, which was also the head office, was built in 1907.

Inspired by the practices of the American Tobacco Company and the cigar company founded by his father, Davis combined consolidation of production with a marketing strategy that was both skilful and ruthless. He attempted to control the distribution networks for tobacco products by requiring wholesalers to sign exclusive contracts. Imperial Tobacco even set up its own network of tobacco retailers at the beginning of the 1920s. The firm counted on advertising and promotional campaigns to boost its brand names and win customer loyalty. The financial power of the industrial empire presided over by Davis earned him the title of {d-0}Tobacco King,{d-1} but he had to share it with his great rival, Montreal businessman Sir William Christopher Macdonald*.

Davis was also the driving force behind the consolidation of the Canadian cigar industry, which was severely shaken by World War I and by increasing competition from cigarettes. In 1916 he had bought out the family firm (then in the hands of his brothers Maurice Edward and Melvin Henry and being liquidated), and he had become the principal shareholder and president of the reorganized company, known since 1908 as S. Davis and Sons Limited. To restore its finances and reduce the costs of cigar production, Davis turned to subcontracting, signing numerous contracts in 1919 with small cigar manufacturers in Montreal. He also moved part of his production to Port Hope, in Ontario. Such a strategy was clearly designed to reduce fixed costs, but also undoubtedly to bypass the powerful trade union of cigar makers. In 1920 Davis coordinated the formation of the General Cigar Company, which would merge his company and his major rivals into a large cigar trust. In addition to acquiring S. Davis and Sons Limited in July 1920, General Cigar had absorbed the Brener Company Limited of Farnham on 30 June, and would take over Vallens and Company Limited of London, Ont., on 4 October. Davis was chairman of the corporation{apos}s board of directors and its majority owner. In keeping with his policy of concentration, he persuaded the shareholders of Imperial Tobacco to buy up a majority of the shares of General Cigar in July 1921. Davis remained at the head of Imperial Tobacco until 1926, when he was succeeded by a long-time business associate, David Patterson.

While the tobacco industry in all its forms remained Davis{apos}s main sphere of activity, his interests extended to other fields that promised substantial profits. In 1905 he had invested in spirits and incorporated, with some other businessmen, the H. Corby Distillery Company Limited in order to purchase the Corby distillery, a firm near Belleville, Ont., that had been founded by Henry Corby*. He served as president from 1907 to 1922. He seems to have been involved also in organizing the Canadian Industrial Alcohol Company Limited, which was incorporated in 1918 to produce industrial alcohol; he was its president and then chairman between 1918 and 1924. He also had interests in mining, being part of the senior management of the Nova Scotia Silver Cobalt Mining Company and the Consolidated Asbestos Mining Company, and he owned shares in mines in the gold-rich region near Porcupine, Ont.

Like most of the upper class of his generation, Davis adopted a way of life in keeping with his great personal wealth. He took up residence in the Square Mile in Montreal, as his father had done, and he built an immense and luxurious residence on Avenue des Pins in the neoclassical style, which was finished in 1907. There Davis and his wife hosted fashionable receptions and numerous balls. He associated with the Duke of Connaught, the governor general of Canada, and he belonged to the most exclusive private clubs. Horticulture was one of his great passions and he took part in the activities and exhibitions of the Montreal Horticultural Society and Fruit Growers{s-1-unknown} Association of the Province of Quebec. While his wife collected works of art, Davis acquired a full stable of racehorses. He also owned an imposing country home, Belvoir, in Sainte-Agathe-des-Monts, and during the last years of his life spent more and more time at Les Glaïeuls, his villa in Cannes.

In November 1919 Davis summed up in the Canadian Jewish Chronicle the principles guiding his philanthropic activities: {d-0}Every man of means owes a duty to his fellow-men. Every Jew owes a duty to his fellow-Jew.{d-1} His generosity extended to a variety of causes and institutions in the province of Quebec and the rest of Canada. Especially affected by the fate of his co-religionists, he was one of the most important philanthropists in the history of the Canadian Jewish community. He held leadership positions in a number of associations and chaired fund-raising campaigns. He was interested mainly in charities promoting public welfare and health in Montreal: the Baron de Hirsch Institute and Hebrew Benevolent Society of Montreal, of which he was a benefactor and the president in 1908 and 1910; the Mount Sinai Sanatorium in Sainte-Agathe-de-Monts, of which he was a principal sponsor; and the Young Men{apos}s Hebrew Association, to which he donated $400,000 in 1926 for the construction of a community and sports centre. He gave particular support to efforts at rationalizing social services and their financing. When the Federation of Jewish Philanthropies of Montreal was established in 1916, he was named honorary president.

In a letter to William Lyon Mackenzie King* in 1916, Montreal lawyer Samuel William Jacobs* described Davis as {d-0}the leading Jew in Canada.{d-1} In recognition of his success in business, his philanthropic activities, and his status in the Canadian Jewish community, he was knighted by King George V that year, becoming the first Canadian-born Jew to receive such an honour.

The lack of family archives makes it impossible to do a thorough analysis of Davis{apos}s private life. In 1898 he married Henriette Marie Meyer, a young woman from a well-to-do San Francisco family. They had a son, Mortimer Davis, who was born in 1901. A second child apparently died at birth. In the years that followed, they adopted her nephew Philip, who took the name Philip Meyer Davis. At the beginning of the 1920s, when he was in his fifties, Davis is believed to have fallen in love with a beautiful young woman of very modest background, Eleanor Curran. He decided to seek a divorce, which led to lengthy negotiations and a settlement requiring him to pay his wife more than $1 million. According to some sources, in order to enhance the social standing of his beloved, he arranged for a brief marriage between her and an Italian count. After they were both divorced, Davis was then able to marry the Countess Moroni in 1924. Thereafter he seems to have devoted himself to worldly pleasures on the French Riviera, but not for long, since he died suddenly, of a heart attack, at the age of 62. On 12 April 1928, thousands of people came out to watch the funeral procession from his residence on Avenue des Pins to the Temple Emanu-El in Westmount.

Sir Mortimer Barnett Davis is remembered as a competent and determined man who was bold and energetic, but also as a fighter who brooked no opposition. At the time of his death, his personal fortune was estimated to be at least $50 million. His will provided for numerous bequests to relatives and friends, as well as a sum of $400,000 to be divided among four Montreal institutions: the Montreal General Hospital, the Notre-Dame Hospital, the Federation of Jewish Philanthropies, and the Young Men{apos}s Hebrew Association. His principal heirs, however, were his son and his widow, who shared the income from his estate. The will stipulated that at the end of 50 years the capital should be paid to Davis{apos}s children and their offspring. By 1978 his few descendants had long since died, his son in 1940 and his adopted son during World War II. Davis had, however, anticipated such an eventuality: the will provided that his fortune should then be used for philanthropic purposes and that three-quarters of it should go to finance a hospital in Montreal. He wanted the hospital to bear his name and serve the needs of all the people in the city, but be run by a board of directors on which the majority would be Jewish. In 1978 it was decided to give $10 million to the Jewish General Hospital in Montreal, which had opened in 1934. Thereafter, this institution would be known as the Sir Mortimer B. Davis Jewish General Hospital.

ANQ-M, CE601-S97, 14 févr. 1866; TP11, S2, SS20, SSS48, vol.13-o, 11 mai 1888, no.1158. LAC, MG 26, G: 116039-40; H, 327: 193229-32; J1, 32: 28228-808; RG 95, ser.1, 1356. Janice Arnold, {d-0}Historian collects memorabilia on businessman,{d-1} Canadian Jewish News (Montreal), 30 April 1998. Le Devoir, 18 avril 1928. Gazette (Montreal), 2 Dec. 1895, 27 March 1930. Jewish Times (Montreal), 20 Dec. 1897; continued as Canadian Jewish Chronicle, 22 Oct. 1915; 1 Sept. 1916; 20 April, 18 May 1917; 7 Nov. 1919; 4 March, April 1921. Montreal Daily Star, 10 April 1928. {d-0}Noted humanitarian Lady Davis, cbe, dies,{d-1} Montreal Star, 23 Dec. 1963. Noel Wright, {d-0}Jewish General gets windfall,{d-1} Montreal Star, 6 May 1978. W. H. Atherton, Montreal, 1534-1914 (3v., Montreal, 1914), 3: 375. S. [I.] Belkin, Through narrow gates; a review of Jewish immigration, colonization and immigrant aid work in Canada (1840-1940) ([Montreal, 1966]), 49. Canadian men and women of the time (Morgan; 1912). Canadian who{apos}s who (1910). Directory, Montreal, 1869-71, 1874-78, 1884-95. Encyclopedia Canadiana, ed. K. H. Pearson et al. ([rev. ed.], 10v., Toronto, 1975). The Jew in Canada: a complete record of Canadian Jewry from the days of the French régime to the present time, ed. A. D. Hart (Toronto and Montreal, 1926), 305, 309, 337. J.-L.-K. Laflamme, Le centenaire Cartier, 1814-1914; compte rendu des assemblées, manifestations, articles de journaux, conférences, etc., qui ont marqué la célébration du centenaire de la naissance de sir George-Étienne Cartier et l{apos}érection de monuments à la mémoire de ce grand homme d{apos}État canadien (Montréal, 1927), 48-50. R. D. Lewis, {d-0}Productive and spatial strategies in the Montreal tobacco industry, 1850-1918,{d-1} Economic Geography (Worcester, Mass.), 70 (1994): 370-89. Montreal illustrated, 1894 . . . (Montreal, [1894]), 324. P. C. Newman, The Canadian establishment (2v., Toronto, 1975), 1: 262. Prominent people of the province of Quebec, 1923-1924 (Montreal, n.d.). S. A. Thomas, {d-0}Three Montreal residences by the architect Robert Findlay{d-1} (ma student paper, McGill Univ., Montreal, 1976). Gladys Wilson, Memoirs of a Canadian duchess (Montreal, [1986]), 25-26. H[irsch] Wolofsky, Journey of my life: a book of memories, trans. A. M. Klein (Montreal, 1945), 54, 68-71.

Thanks to De Lamarre{apos}s energetic efforts, the promotion of the veneration of St Anthony grew spectacularly in the 1880s and 1890s. In 1894 he founded an orphanage for girls which was known as the Orphelinat Saint-Antoine. The Augustines de la Miséricorde de Jésus (Augustinian nuns) agreed to take charge of it at the Hôtel-Dieu Saint-Vallier in Chicoutimi. He immediately linked it with the Œuvre du Pain de Saint Antoine, whose purpose was to ensure financial support for the orphanage. In the same year he brought out in Chicoutimi La dévotion à saint Antoine de Padoue, which went through several editions including an English one by 1895. In June 1895 he and Abbé Victor-Alphonse Huard launched Le Messager de Saint-Antoine, of which he would be the guiding spirit for 30 years. In a general way, the magazine sought to educate readers in prayer and reliance on God in daily life, as well as to develop the practice of Christian virtues. More specifically, its aim was to promote the devotion to St Anthony and to support De Lamarre{apos}s charitable works. Each monthly issue contained an editorial that for the most part dealt with religious matters, articles reprinted from other magazines, an episode from the life of St Anthony, news about the church, personal witnessing, lists of favours sought and obtained, accounts of miracles, and announcements. It also progressively became an instrument for promoting devotion to the Virgin Mary. With more than 10,000 copies printed for each issue during the first decade of the 20th century, there were readers in Canada and the eastern United States. In January 1896 De Lamarre launched St Anthony{apos}s Canadian Messenger, an English version of Le Messager, which was published until December 1903. While he was superior, De Lamarre in 1904 founded a religious community for women, the Sœurs de Saint-Antoine de Padoue, which was made responsible for the maintenance of the Séminaire de Chicoutimi. He also drafted the first constitution and rules for this congregation, which would adopt the name of Sœurs Antoniennes de Marie, Reine du Clergé, in 1929.

In 1907 De Lamarre bought a property on Lac Bouchette, south of Lac Saint-Jean, and had a house and chapel built there, where he could relax. (The chapel would be decorated by his cousin, the painter Charles Huot.) The Ermitage San{apos}Tonio, as he called it, soon became a regional centre for pilgrimages to Notre-Dame de Lourdes. One day while out walking, De Lamarre had discovered a cave similar to the one at Lourdes, in France, and he had a statue of the Virgin Mary set up in it. People from the surrounding area went there to pray; after testimonies were given about favours received as a result of visiting the site, the number of visitors continued to increase. In 1922 a 50-room inn was built to accommodate the pilgrims.

Like many priests of his day, De Lamarre took great pleasure in writing, a pleasure manifest in his religious writings, of course, but also in other forms. In 1892, for instance, he was one of the founders of L{apos}Oiseau-mouche, the college newspaper of the Petit Séminaire de Chicoutimi, for which he wrote under the pseudonym of Livius. In 1924, under the name of C. de La Roche, he brought out at Quebec a work about his nephew Victor De Lamarre*, Victor De Lamarre, le roi de l{apos}haltère. He was also the author of Ad limina apostolorum, a symphonic ode composed in 1883 to welcome Bishop Dominique Racine* of Chicoutimi on his return from Rome. It was set to music by Abbé David-Odilon Dufresne.

A man of many talents, Abbé Elzéar De Lamarre seems to have been rather unassuming and conciliatory by nature. The records show only one case where he was at odds with the diocesan authorities. The difference of opinion occurred near the end of his life, with Bishop Michel-Thomas Labrecque*, on the question of transferring the sanctuary at Lac Bouchette to the Capuchins rather than to the diocesan church in Chicoutimi. The priest had had difficulty finding a religious congregation willing to carry on his work, probably because of the sanctuary{apos}s burden of debt. The bishop of Chicoutimi finally gave in to De Lamarre{apos}s last wishes, and on 21 Oct. 1925 the Capuchins became the owners of the sanctuary and of Le Messager de Saint-Antoine. Both of these endeavours are thriving today, as are the Œuvre du Pain and the Sœurs Antoniennes de Marie; all of them keep alive the memory of a priest considered a {d-0}holy man.{d-1}

ANQ-Q, CE301-S27, 10 sept. 1854. Le Progrès du Saguenay (Chicoutimi), 23 avril 1925. Antonio Dragon, L{apos}abbé Delamarre, fondateur des Sœurs antoniennes de Marie et des pèlerinages du Lac Bouchette ([Chicoutimi], 1974). Évocations et témoignages: centenaire du diocèse de Chicoutimi, 1878–1978 (Chicoutimi, 1978). Louise Gagnon-Arguin, {d-0}La dévotion à Saint-Antoine à travers le Messager de Saint-Antoine; essai d{apos}analyse d{apos}une dévotion populaire{d-1} (mémoire de ma, univ. Laval, Québec, 1978). André Simard, Les évêques et les prêtres séculiers au diocèse de Chicoutimi, 1878–1968; notices biographiques (Chicoutimi, 1969), 93–95. Laurent Tremblay, Au service du royaume; spiritualité de l{apos}abbé De Lamarre (Chicoutimi, 1979).

After leaving school, General had worked as a lumberjack in the Allegheny Mountains in western New York and Pennsylvania. An accident forced him to return and he began to farm near Millpond, in the vicinity of Ohsweken on the Six Nations Reserve. Enos T. Montour, a Delaware, recalled that {d-0}he had a good home and family, stockyard animals, and a sprinkling of cats and dogs.{d-1} He married the daughter of a Cayuga mother and a non-Indian father. His first language was Cayuga, and he participated actively in Longhouse ceremonies.

By World War I divisions were evident within council. The moderate, largely Christian element favoured continued cooperation with the Indian department and a degree of local autonomy, while the traditionalist group held to the system of hereditary chiefs and wanted more autonomy, based on the Six Nations{s-1-unknown} historical claim to a special political status under a proclamation of Frederick Haldimand*, governor of Quebec, in 1784. A third faction, outside council and composed mainly of Iroquois soldiers in France, petitioned Ottawa in 1917 for an elected council.

That same year Louise Miller, the matron of the Young Bear clan of the Cayuga, installed General as its new hereditary chief, or deskaheh, on the Confederacy Council. A powerful orator, he would advance quickly: deputy speaker of council in 1918 and speaker in 1922. During the war the federal government had introduced military registration and conscription and after the armistice it had set land aside on the reserve for Iroquois veterans and granted them mortgages. Deskaheh and the majority of chiefs challenged both conscription and the suppression of council{apos}s right to control land as intrusions on Iroquois sovereignty. Then, in 1920, the government amended the Indian Act to allow for compulsory enfranchisement and the removal (without consent) of an individual{apos}s Indian status. This perceived infringement of civil liberty generated resentment and drew support to Deskaheh{apos}s increasingly radical position.

Deskaheh pressured the government to review the Six Nations{s-1-unknown} historical status, specifically their right to recognition as allies, not subjects, of the British crown, and hence to immunity from federal control. When council{apos}s Canadian lawyers failed to obtain Ottawa{apos}s agreement to such an investigation, in 1921 council hired George Palmer Decker, an American lawyer who had worked on legal issues for the Oneida in New York State. With funds raised by a finance committee of council, Deskaheh and Decker made a special trip to England that year. Deskaheh had come only a distant third in the popular vote held by council to select an Iroquois delegate to accompany the lawyer: he obtained 107 votes compared to 293 for Iroquois medical doctor J. A. Miller and 252 for David S. Hill, secretary of the Six Nation Agricultural Society. Yet, as Hill explained to Decker, council chose Deskaheh since the Longhouse people {d-0}are so suspicious of any person not of their faith, we thought it better to give way to one of them.{d-1} In England, Deskaheh and Decker learned that the Colonial Office considered the Six Nations to be British subjects, a decision later reinforced by Ontario{apos}s courts. Hope for a federal investigation, however, was renewed following the election in December 1921 of William Lyon Mackenzie King* and the Liberals.

Deskaheh moved to strengthen his position. The upheaval on the Six Nations Reserve was reflected in the {d-0}small riot{d-1} that broke out there in April 1922. Although the King government reversed several policies of the previous, Conservative administration, including compulsory enfranchisement, the measures it introduced were no more palatable. In response to grievances voiced by both moderates and radicals at Six Nations – the government{apos}s reduction of a native trust fund, introduction of laws {d-0}with a view to the dissolution of the Six Nations,{d-1} ignorance of council{apos}s wishes to {d-0}improve education,{d-1} and mortgaging of reserve land – Charles Stewart*, the superintendent general of Indian affairs, offered in June to form a royal commission. After much difficult negotiation, including Iroquois threats to take the status issue to the newly formed League of Nations in Switzerland, the proposal was accepted, but the Department of Indian Affairs and council, now dominated by the radicals, both continued to press. In September, Deskaheh brought together the Longhouse chiefs, the pro-sovereignty Christian chiefs, and the Mohawk Workers Association, which sought total sovereignty. In December, without requesting council approval, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police raided the Six Nations territory to investigate reports of liquor manufacturing.

Not everyone in the Six Nations community supported Deskaheh and the radicals. Some resented the anti-British nature of their campaign. In July 1922 council secretary Asa R. Hill described the Cayuga chief as {d-0}an agitator of the worst type with no desire to come to any understanding. I am afraid that his actions will mean the breaking up of the confederacy.{d-1} Frederick Ogilvie Loft* of Toronto, a Mohawk chief and founder of the League of Indians of Canada, the country{apos}s first pan-Indian political organization, also had doubts about Deskaheh{apos}s confrontational approach. In a letter to Prime Minister King in December, he claimed that General, as council{apos}s speaker, had been acting as a {d-0}dictator,{d-1} one who {d-0}occupies no position superior to any other Chief of the Six Nations. . . . He holds no mandate from the people of the Six nations to warrant his actions; indeed, contrary to the spirit of our Confederacy.{d-1} But by 1923 Deskaheh and his supporters had control of council; some moderates, irritated by the government{apos}s actions, had joined them and others – like Hill, who was deposed as secretary – had been replaced.

After the RCMP raid, Deskaheh, convinced that the government was insincere, resolved to take the Six Nations{s-1-unknown} case to the League of Nations. When deputy superintendent general Duncan Campbell Scott* learned of this move, he persuaded Stewart to locate a permanent RCMP detachment at Ohsweken. Negotiations then broke down, and Stewart set up a one-man inquiry instead. Andrew Thorburn Thompson, a lawyer and former officer who had commanded Iroquois soldiers, was selected in March 1923 to head it.

Deskaheh and G. P. Decker arrived in London in August en route to Geneva. They lobbied for international recognition of the Six Nations as an independent state, under article 17 of the League{apos}s covenant. Ties with Ottawa would be cut, the Indian Act would no longer control local government, the Six Nations would have their own laws, the chiefs would be in charge of funds, and council would hire its own employees and police. Decker remained only briefly in Geneva, where it proved difficult to obtain access to the League, but Deskaheh stayed for over a year, financially supported by a Swiss group, the Bureau International pour la Défense des Indigènes. One of Deskaheh{apos}s great allies was René Claparède, a Swiss writer who championed the rights of indigenous peoples around the globe. Deskaheh{apos}s efforts at the League proved fruitless. Although some countries appeared willing to discuss the issue, British objections to a review of what it regarded as a domestic Canadian matter were decisive.

During Deskaheh{apos}s absence, his supporters at home boycotted Thompson{apos}s hearings. Ready in November 1923 but not released for another nine months, Thompson{apos}s report recommended the establishment of an elected council. Without consultation, the government deposed the hereditary council and, though voter participation was slight, a new council was elected in October 1924. Its existence deprived Deskaheh of his right to speak for the Six Nations.

Disillusioned and in poor health, he returned to North America in early 1925. At Six Nations, he had told George Decker, he expected to receive the same treatment as Gandhi in India, who was jailed but was eventually released {d-0}because his people had the power stronger then the British colonies, so they had to discharged him.{d-1} Deskaheh remained briefly with Decker in Rochester, and then moved to stay with his friend Chief Clinton Rickard on the Tuscarora Reservation in western New York, where he died. He was buried in the Upper Cayuga Longhouse cemetery at Six Nations. The speeches given on that occasion, in Iroquoian languages, urged those in attendance to continue Deskaheh{apos}s work. The RCMP report of the event noted that, unless new leaders came forward, the agitation he had started would wither. The status issue resurfaced again at the League of Nations in 1929-30 but without effect. Deskaheh{apos}s trip to the League of Nations in 1923-24 nonetheless marks the first attempt by North American First Nations to take their claims for sovereignty to an international forum.

The author wishes to thank Germaine General-Myke for genealogical information on the family of Levi General. As Deskaheh, General is the author of The redman{apos}s appeal for justice, August 6, 1923 (London, 1923). Canadian Museum of Civilization, Information management services (Hull, Que.), Acc. 89/55 (Sally M. Weaver coll.), box 468, file 30 ({d-0}Iroquois politics, 1847-1940,{d-1} 1975). LAC, RG 10, 2285, file 57169-1B, pt.3; RG 31, C1, 1871, 1881, 1901, Tuscarora Township, Ont. St John Fisher College, Lavery Library (Rochester, N.Y.), G. P. Decker papers. Ville de Genève, Suisse, Dép. municipal des affaires culturelles, Bibliothèque publique et universitaire, ms. fr. 3993 (Affaire {d-0}Six Nations{d-1}); ms. var. 1/15 (Les Six Nations iroquoises). Canadian annual rev., 1922: 267-68. Carl Carmer, Dark trees to the wind: a cycle of York State years (New York, 1949), 105-17. Deskaheh: Iroquois statesman and patriot ([Rooseveltown, N.Y., 1978?]). {d-0}Documents: introduction to documents one through five; nationalism, the League of Nations and the Six Nations of Grand River,{d-1} ed. Laurie Meijer Drees, Native Studies Rev. ([Saskatoon]), 10 (1995): 75-88. D. M. Johnston, {d-0}The quest of the Six Nations Confederacy for self-determination,{d-1} Univ. of Toronto, Faculty of law, Rev., 44 (1986): 1-32. Nellie Ketchukian, {d-0}Chief Deskaheh, George Decker and the Six Nations vs. the Government of Canada,{d-1} Iroquoian (Rochester), no.11 (fall 1985): 12-18; {d-0}The Decker papers II: Decker and Chief Deskaheh in Geneva, 1923,{d-1} Iroquoian, no.12 (spring 1986): 79-83. E. T. Montour, The feathered U.E.L.{apos}s: an account of the life and times of certain Canadian native people (Toronto, 1973), 125-29. René Naville, Amérindiens et anciennes cultures précolombiennes (Genève, 1973), 144-49. Clinton Rickard, Fighting Tuscarora: the autobiography of Chief Clinton Rickard, ed. Barbara Graymont (Syracuse, N.Y., 1973), 58-68. Joëlle Rostkowski, {d-0}Deskaheh{apos}s shadow: Indians on the international scene,{d-1} European Rev. of Native American Studies (Budapest), 9 (1995), no.2: 1-4; {d-0}The redman{apos}s appeal for justice: Deskaheh and the League of Nations,{d-1} in Indians and Europe: an interdisciplinary collection of essays, ed. C. F. Feest (Aachen, Netherlands, 1987), 435-53. Annemarie Shimony, {d-0}Alexander General, {s-0}Deskahe,{s-1-unknown} Cayuga-Oneida, 1889-1965,{d-1} in American Indian intellectuals; 1976 proceedings of the American Ethnological Society, ed. Margot Liberty (St Paul, Minn., 1978), 158-75. E. B. Titley, A narrow vision: Duncan Campbell Scott and the administration of Indian affairs in Canada (Vancouver, 1986). S. R. Trevithick, {d-0}Conflicting outlooks: the background to the 1924 deposing of the Six Nations Hereditary Council{d-1} (ma thesis, Univ. of Calgary, 1998). Richard Veatch, Canadian foreign policy and the League of Nations, 1919-1939 (Toronto, 1975), 91-100, 201-2. Sally Weaver, {d-0}The Iroquois: the Grand River reserve in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, 1875-1945,{d-1} in Aboriginal Ontario: historical perspectives on the First Nations, ed. E. S. Rogers and D. B. Smith (Toronto, 1994), 182-212.

Alfred Dickie was educated in the public schools of Upper Stewiacke and at Dalhousie University in Halifax (ba 1879, ma 1883). He started his lumbering career in Stewiacke in 1890 in partnership with Avard Black, whom he bought out after six months, forming the Alfred Dickie Lumber Company. In 1896 he acquired a property and sawmill at Tusket in Yarmouth County, where T. N. McGrath, his assistant at Stewiacke, moved as manager and half owner. The following year he purchased properties at Ship Harbour and Liscomb, and in 1904 an area on the Sherbrooke River. By 1897 his firms constituted the leading lumber exporter in Nova Scotia next to the operations of Thomas Gotobed McMullen of Truro; Dickie and McGrath held 18,000 acres in the western part of the province and Alfred Dickie Lumber had 65,000 in Colchester, Pictou, Halifax, and Guysborough counties. The produce of Dickie{apos}s Stewiacke mill was transported on the Intercolonial Railway to Halifax; lumber from the Tusket mill was sent by steamship – he owned several – and later by the Halifax and South Western Railway. In 1900 Dickie formed, and became president of, the Grand River Pulp and Lumber Company, which cut pulpwood in Labrador and held 500 square miles of timber limits around Hamilton Inlet. It was these lands that sparked the ownership dispute over Labrador between Quebec and Newfoundland, with Quebec officials intervening by stamping Dickie{apos}s pulpwood as crown wood belonging to their province.

Beneath the veneer of prosperity, however, Dickie{apos}s business ventures suffered from the natural calamities that often struck forest and sawmilling operations and from the uncertain and volatile business cycles that plagued the lumber industry. His steam mills were seriously affected by fires; by 1897 Dickie had endured at least four that destroyed or damaged his facilities. Forest operations were heavily dependent on manpower, horses, and water and snow conditions. A dearth of water or an over-abundance or lack of snow could prove disastrous. With the rapid expansion of his business, these problems clearly contributed to Dickie overextending himself. By 1904 the manager of the Royal Bank of Canada in Nova Scotia, who financed his operations, was {d-0}taken severely to task{d-1} by his superior in Montreal for allowing Dickie{apos}s loans to reach the {d-0}enormous{d-1} figure of $634,040.39 without security. Dickie himself was criticized for not having incorporated his business and for carrying too little insurance on his stationary mills and none on his lumber shipments. Two years later all Dickie{apos}s assets were transferred to the Royal Bank, though he did retain one share to qualify as a director. He was appointed manager at a salary of $833 per month.

From 1904 Dickie continued to act as a prominent Nova Scotian lumber baron. He posed as an owner, continued to manage his old properties, and was the frontman in seeking to sell them. In the prospectus of sale, it was stated that, according to conservative estimates, his properties were capable of producing and exporting 50–60 million board feet per year, and that the extent of his forest lands in Nova Scotia was between 350,000 and 400,000 acres. In 1904 Dickie was instrumental, with other Nova Scotian lumbermen and the provincial government, in sponsoring a report on Nova Scotia{apos}s pulpwood lands by Robert Mason of New York and Joseph Bureau of Quebec. Two years later his Nova Scotia and Labrador properties were offered for sale by the Forest Exploration and Lumber Company of Montreal, the latter at the price of $1,000,000. On 30–31 May 1907 Dickie and McGrath played a leading role in the annual meeting in Yarmouth of the Lumbermen{apos}s Association of Western Nova Scotia; the whole group was photographed during a visit to their mill in Tusket. In 1908 there were prospects of selling the Nova Scotia properties to the Traubridge Syndicate of London, England, and Dickie requested that the Royal Bank underwrite the bonds or stocks of the syndicate to the extent of $100,000. In the end, however, the effort failed.

In October 1911 Dickie and McGrath Limited had to cancel orders because their logs had been stranded all summer as a result of drought and the cold season was about to set in. The following year Dickie lost an entire winter{apos}s output of logs in Labrador. Then, in 1913, he and the Royal Bank finally managed to dispose of most of his forest lands. An American firm, the S. D. Warren Company, purchased the Tusket lands. Archibald Fraser*, of the Fraser Pulp and Lumber Company Limited in Plaster Rock, N.B., bought 247,815 acres of Dickie{apos}s remaining lands.

Dickie nonetheless managed to reconstitute Dickie Lumber as the Canadian Lumber Company Limited in Stewiacke. Although he retired and moved to Halifax in 1912, he continued to serve as president of this company and have an interest in it until his death. His son Rufus Edward, a one-time president of the Canadian Lumbermen{apos}s Association, was its general manager. Despite his crash, Alfred Dickie succeeded in building up his holdings once more. He certainly thought highly of his part in Nova Scotia{apos}s lumber industry. In testimony in Halifax before the federal royal commission on pulpwood in 1923, he confidently stated that {d-0}my operations and experience, I think, are larger . . . than any other individual ever has had in Canada.{d-1} At the time, he held 25,000 acres of forest lands in Nova Scotia and considerable lands in Labrador, and both tracts were for sale. In 1914 he negotiated with Walker Brothers in Boston and William Whitmer and Sons in Philadelphia for the sale of his Nova Scotia holdings but the deliberations came to naught. In the 1920s he continued to pay $160 to Newfoundland{apos}s minister of agriculture and mines for the lease of 80 square miles of timber limits in Labrador.

Throughout his career Dickie was heavily involved in public affairs. In the provincial elections of 1894 and 1897 he unsuccessfully contested the riding of Colchester, in which Stewiacke was located. He was a school commissioner for Colchester, the first mayor of the town of Stewiacke from 1906 to 1911, the president of the local branch of the Canadian Manufacturers{s-1-unknown} Association, and an elder in his Presbyterian church. In Halifax he served as school commissioner in 1921–23, and president of the North British Society. He was involved there as well in the Halifax Association for Improving the Condition of the Poor, and was an elder of Fort Massey Presbyterian (United) Church.

Dalhousie Univ. Arch. (Halifax), MS 4-64 (Alfred Dickie fonds, 1860–1929); MS 4-123 (Forest Exploration Lumber Company). LAC, RG 39, 593. Halifax Herald, 7, 9 Sept. 1929. {d-0}Alfred Dickie joins great majority,{d-1} Canada Lumberman (Toronto), 49 (1929), no.19: 40. Canadian men and women of the time (Morgan; 1912). A. W. H. Eaton, History of King{apos}s County . . . (Salem, Mass., 1910; repr. Belleville, Ont., 1972). R. S. Johnson, Forests of Nova Scotia: a history (Halifax, 1986). Mike Parker, Woodchips and beans: life in the early lumber woods of Nova Scotia (Halifax, 1992). B. R. Robertson, Sawpower: making lumber in the sawmills of Nova Scotia (Halifax, 1986). Trouble in the woods: forest policy and social conflict in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, ed. L. A. Sandberg (Fredericton, 1992).

In 1865 Dionne went to Quebec; obtaining a routine job (as a handyman) at the Séminaire de Québec, he immediately came to the attention of his employers and in 1866 he was promoted to the position of attendant in the faculty of law at the Université Laval. This post gave him access to the university library and to books on natural history not previously available to him. He was now able to continue his personal education through reading and attending evening classes, with the encouragement of the priests at the seminary. Strongly motivated and possessed of an astonishing capacity for work, Dionne acquired a good knowledge of natural science, English, and Latin. He began studying taxidermy, which he would master within a few years; it would lead him to assemble collections of natural history specimens. From 1867 he took a keen interest in entomology (Abbé Léon Provancher* would recognize Dionne{apos}s competence in 1879 by naming a new species in his honour – tryphon dionnei). By 1887 his entomological collection contained some 1,525 species. Always meticulous, Dionne noted his findings about the anatomy, diet, and economic importance of the animals he mounted or observed, and about plant life. He would later use this material in his publications.

After his humble beginnings at the Séminaire de Québec and several years as assistant librarian, Dionne{apos}s personal and intellectual merits, as well as his store of knowledge, which he kept up to date, were acknowledged by his superiors there. In 1882, on the death of François-Xavier Bélanger*, he was appointed curator of the Musée Zoologique at the Université Laval with an annual salary of $350. As curator, he was instrumental in developing the university{apos}s natural history collections and in displaying the fauna of Quebec to the students and the public by means of mounted specimens. The university would recognize the value of his work by granting him an ma in September 1902 and an honorary doctorate in science a few days before his death.

In 1893 Dionne was made an elective member of the American Ornithologists{s-1-unknown} Union, in recognition of his competence as a North American ornithologist. It was mainly through his publications that he had become known to the public and to naturalists in Quebec, the rest of Canada, and the United States. In 1883 he had published at Quebec Les oiseaux du Canada, which had been favourably received in French-speaking circles, although the English-speaking critics had been harsher in their assessment of its worth. His Catalogue des oiseaux de la province de Québec, avec des notes sur leur distribution géographique was brought out at Quebec in 1889. It was a new edition of his first work, with information not relating to Quebec deleted and appropriate data added from the Check-list of North American birds, which had been published in New York by the American Ornithologists{s-1-unknown} Union in 1886. Les mammifères de la province de Québec came out at Quebec in 1902 and met with immediate success throughout the province. Here, for the first time, information was available in French about the mammals of Quebec. His major work, Les oiseaux de la province de Québec, was published at Quebec in 1906. This volume of more than 400 pages presented every species of bird that had been recorded in Quebec. One of its great virtues was that, for the first time in Canada, French terminology for the anatomy of birds was given, as well as consistent French names for all the species included. The information it contained combined various observations that Dionne had made with a synthesis of ornithological knowledge either provided by the best writers of the time, among them Elliott Coues and Robert Ridgway, or taken from sources such as the 1895 Check-list of North American birds. The details about the geographical distribution of species in Quebec were based on notes that Dionne had accumulated throughout his career, especially in the Quebec and Saint-Denis regions. He also relied on the works of Napoléon-Alexandre Comeau for the Godbout and Côte-Nord region and of Ernest Douglas Wintle for the Montreal region (The birds of Montreal, published in Montreal in 1896). For a long time Les oiseaux de la province de Québec was the only book dealing exclusively with the birds of the province, and it helped make them better known to the French-speaking community. Dionne also had a number of articles dealing with the distribution of birds in Quebec in prominent scientific journals such as the Auk (the American Ornithologists{s-1-unknown} Union) and Le Naturaliste canadien. It was in the latter journal also that his long article on spiders, {d-0}Nos araignées: mœurs et description,{d-1} appeared in 1910; the result of meticulous observations, it was brought out in pamphlet form at Quebec that same year.

Apart from local excursions, a few visits to Saint-Denis, and an expedition to collect fish in the estuary and Gulf of St Lawrence and the Baie des Chaleurs in 1882, a trip to Trois-Rivières, Montreal, and Ottawa in 1907, a cruise on the Saguenay in 1914, and another trip to Montreal in 1916–17, Dionne travelled little, especially outside the province of Quebec. He did, however, visit the Field Museum of Natural History and the Columbian exposition in Chicago in 1893, as well as the American Museum of Natural History and the zoos at New York in 1911. He spent some weeks in Europe in 1912, travelling around several regions of Italy, Switzerland, France, and England. Among the places he visited in Paris were the Muséum National d{apos}Histoire Naturelle and the Jardin des Plantes. In London he went to the British Museum.

ANQ-BSLGIM, CE104-S15, 21 juill. 1846. ANQ-Q, CE301-S22, 6 mai 1879. MCQ-FSQ, SME 1/MS-34.6, 16 sept. 1902; MS-34.10, 13 mai 1918; MS-34.11, 25 janv. 1925; Séminaire, 561, no.18; SME, 1er juill. 1873, 19 juin 1877, 7 oct. 1907, 19 janv. 1925. La Presse, 8 sept. 1937. D. A. D. [D.-A. Déry], {d-0}In memoriam: Charles Eusebe Dionne, born July 11, 1845, died January 25, 1925,{d-1} Canadian Field-Naturalist (Ottawa), 39 (1925): 61–63. {d-0}Feu C.-E. Dionne,{d-1} Le Naturaliste canadien (Québec), 52 (1925): 171–75. Victor Gaboriault, Charles-Eusèbe Dionne, naturaliste, né à Saint-Denis-de-la-Bouteillerie (La Pocatière, Qué., 1974). H. F. L[ewis], {d-0}Dr. Charles Eusebe Dionne,{d-1} Auk: a Quarterly Journal of Ornithology (Lancaster, Pa), 42 (1925): 308–9.

After his elementary schooling in Bathurst, Stanislas-Joseph Doucet studied at St Michael{apos}s Academy in Chatham, and in September 1868 enrolled in the Grand Séminaire in Montreal. He was ordained to the priesthood for the diocese of Chatham on 31 July 1870 in Charlottetown. Since Bishop James Rogers* of Chatham was attending the first Vatican Council, which proclaimed papal infallibility, the ordination was conferred by the bishop of Charlottetown, Peter McIntyre*. Doucet was immediately appointed curate in Tracadie, N.B. In 1871 he became a curé, and he held this status for the rest of his life. He served at the following places: Shippagan, with responsibility for the islands of Lamèque and Miscou, in 1871–72; Saint-Charles, in Kent County, with responsibility for Richibucto, from 1872 to 1877; Pokemouche from 1877 to 1887; Shippagan from 1888 to 1898; and Grande-Anse from 1898 to 1925. In 1900 Rogers appointed him vicar general, a post he held until the bishop{apos}s death in 1902. When Bishop Thomas Francis Barry of Chatham got him an appointment from Rome as domestic prelate in November 1916, Abbé Doucet assumed the title of monsignor. In 1920 Patrice-Alexandre Chiasson became the first Acadian bishop of Chatham and he also made Doucet vicar general.

Considered a great patriot by his contemporaries, Doucet was one of the moving spirits behind the {d-0}Acadian renaissance.{d-1} He played a prominent role at five of the Conventions Nationales des Acadiens held between 1881 and 1921, putting forward his ideas on the major topics of Acadian nationalism, including the choice of a date for a national holiday (1881) and of a flag (1884) [see Marcel-François Richard*]. At the meetings in 1905 he took stock of Acadian achievements in various fields. Three years later he was a member of the commission on relations between the Acadians of the Maritime provinces and those of the United States. In the 1921 convention he declared himself in favour of protecting historic sites (the fortress of Louisbourg and Fort Beauséjour).

Abbé Doucet had played an active role in founding the Courrier des provinces Maritimes in Bathurst in 1885. Subsequently, between 1890 and 1915, he used the press on many occasions to make known his views on important matters, such as the language question. He gave a lecture on this subject at the University of New Brunswick in Fredericton in 1896, and he published the text that year in Saint John under the title Dual language in Canada: its advantages and disadvantages. . . . With his friend and colleague Abbé Marcel-François Richard, he also waged a campaign for the appointment of the first Acadian bishop in the Maritimes. At the time the Acadians formed a majority in the Catholic community, but all the positions of authority in the church were held by Irish Catholics. When Édouard-Alfred Le Blanc* was named bishop of Saint John in 1912, Abbé Doucet described the happy event as a {d-0}grand arrangement,{d-1} undoubtedly an allusion to {d-0}grand dérangement,{d-1} a term used to describe the expulsion of 1755 [see Charles Lawrence*]. That year he took part in the Congrès de la Langue Française at Quebec.

In order to broaden his knowledge, Doucet made three trips to Europe and the Holy Land (in 1886, 1900, and 1922) and one to the Columbian exposition in Chicago in 1893. He also read widely. It was as a homeopath that he showed the greatest skill and was most highly regarded. During his time as curé in Pokemouche, the lack of a doctor in the region had prompted him to take an interest in this approach to therapy, which he would practise for the rest of his life. His medical library contained some 60 recent books, and he subscribed to a journal that specialized in homeopathy. He sent to Philadelphia for the medicines he needed to treat his patients, who lived up to 40 miles away. Others obtained by mail the little white pills for which he was famous. To simplify his consultations, he numbered his medicines, thereby enabling patients to renew their prescriptions without having to memorize the scientific names. Nicknamed the {d-0}miracle man{d-1} by some of them, in the end he irritated the physicians who were slowly coming to set up practice in the region, by taking away their clientele. In 1916 Dr L. G. Pinault of Campbellton complained to the bishop that the homeopath had made a wrong diagnosis for two of his patients.

An inquiring and scholarly man, Abbé Doucet also carried out experiments with electricity. In 1891 he had obtained a patent in the United States and Canada for an electric signal system for railways, to prevent collisions on tracks. The invention appears to have been used by a company in Philadelphia. In 1895 he proposed that {d-0}a tunnel for electric vehicles{d-1} be built between New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. A self-educated man, Doucet also gave a number of lectures as an amateur astronomer. He made a small-scale model of the solar system and displayed it in his presbytery. In order to explain the rotation of the earth, he installed a pendulum in the bell tower of the church in Grande-Anse. He was, incidentally, the prime mover of this church, for which he drew up the plans and built the model. He also raised some of the money for its erection through monthly collections, various activities on the work site (demonstrations using electrical apparatus of his own design, for example), and picnics. Construction of the building went on from 1902 to 1912.

In 1905 the Shediac newspaper Le Moniteur acadien published the only poem that Abbé Doucet ever wrote in French, {d-0}Les anges de la terre.{d-1} He published two poems in English, as pamphlets, in Saint John: The soul: a philosophic poem in 1917 (of which a second edition, brought out in 1923, contained about 100 additional lines) and Emmanuel, the living bread in 1922. In 1912 he had composed, to the tune of La Marseillaise, the words of a patriotic song, En avant!, which was very popular with Acadians at the beginning of the 20th century. He also played the violin, piano, and organ.

Acadia lost a remarkable man when Mgr Stanislas-Joseph Doucet died. His friends and fellow workers had a high regard for the {d-0}thoughtful diplomacy{d-1} he displayed in everything he undertook. His contemporaries were impressed with his learning and his various skills.

[A detailed list of the works used to study the life of Stanislas-Joseph Doucet may be found in the author{apos}s Mgr Stanislas-J. Doucet (Shippagan, N.-B., 1977). Several archives hold documents that were consulted during the preparation of this book: the Arch. des Pères Eudistes (Charlesbourg, Qué.), the Arch. du Diocèse de Bathurst, N.-B., the archives of the parishes where Mgr Doucet was priest, and the Centre d{apos}Études Acadiennes, Univ. de Moncton, N.-B., which holds the Fonds S.-J. Doucet, as well as archival collections for many of Doucet{apos}s contemporaries. The PANB has a microfilm copy of the subject{apos}s baptismal certificate (MC290, F1456, 8 juill. 1847).

The three Acadian newspapers of the time are useful for studying the subject{apos}s career: Courrier des provinces Maritimes (Bathurst), L{apos}Évangéline (Moncton), especially 25 oct. 1923, and Le Moniteur acadien (Shédiac, N.-B.), especially 10 déc. 1925. é.dEg.]

Fernow had secured a job in 1878 or 1879 managing the Pennsylvania woodlot and charcoal furnace of Cooper, Hewitt and Company, iron manufacturers. In April 1882 he attended the first American Forestry Congress, in Cincinnati, Ohio. Thanks to the interest of groups such as the Quebec Limitholders{s-1-unknown} Association and the Fruit Growers{s-1-unknown} Association of Ontario, the second meeting was held in Montreal the following August [see James Little*; George Bryson*]. The congress gave Fernow a valuable platform to advance his views on the need to introduce German ideas about scientific forestry into North America. He quickly gained attention as a rising star; in Quebec he found an ally in politician Henri-Gustave Joly*. Fernow{apos}s experience with private woodlands and state forestry in Europe meshed well with Progressive Era ideas about government and forest resources. He had a clear preference for vigorous public policy to ensure their rational development: conservation meant efficient usage and long-term viability, overseen by specially trained personnel. In 1886 he became the first professional forester to head the forestry division of the United States Department of Agriculture.

Awarded an honorary lld by the University of Wisconsin in 1896, Fernow left the federal service two years later to assume the directorship of the recently established New York State College of Forestry at Cornell University in Ithaca. A popular and stimulating teacher, he enjoyed social gatherings with his students, and he impressed many with his abilities as a dancer, pianist, and horseman. In June 1903, however, the functions of the college were suspended amid controversy over the management of its experimental forest tract. For the next four years Fernow worked as a consulting forest engineer and taught, notably at Yale University in New Haven, Conn., where his lectures became the basis of a book on the history of forestry. He was editor of Forest Quarterly (Ithaca) from 1903 to 1916, and then of its successor, the Journal of Forestry (Washington), to 1922. In January 1903 he had given a series of impressive lectures in Kingston, Ont., at Queen{apos}s College, which granted him an lld later that year. Both Queen{apos}s, with its associated School of Mining and Agriculture, and the University of Toronto had an interest in establishing a forestry program. The provincial royal commission on the University of Toronto, which consulted with Fernow during its work in 1905-6, recommended a school of forestry there.

Fernow had provisionally agreed to establish a program at Pennsylvania State College when, in 1907, he accepted Toronto{apos}s offer to become its dean of forestry. Established on 28 March, the faculty became the first such academic unit in Canada. As its head until 1919, Fernow would stamp its curriculum with his ideas about forestry and train a generation of professional foresters. Argumentative and often tactless, he held firm views about the management and conservation of forests that did not always agree with political estimates. He took exception to the extractive, revenue-oriented forest policies of Ontario and its overly optimistic estimates of usable forests and northern lands. Clashes with successive ministers of lands, forests, and mines (Francis Cochrane* and William Howard Hearst*, both northerners), deputy minister Aubrey White*, and commercial lumbermen resulted. A frequent consultant, Fernow was the founding president of the Canadian Society of Forest Engineers in 1908 and he served on the federal Commission of Conservation from 1910 to 1923. His surveys for this commission of the Trent Canal watershed in Ontario and Nova Scotia{apos}s timber resources are especially notable pieces of work. He played no role, however, in the creation of the Forest Products Laboratories, established within the Department of the Interior in 1913 and situated at McGill University in Montreal. Though an active teacher, prolific writer, and assiduous administrator, by World War I he was not on the cutting edge of ideas about reforestation, fire prevention, or the exploitation of specific species.

Accused during the war of not encouraging students to volunteer for service and badgered over his German origins, Fernow took pains to address his students about their patriotic duties. Still an American citizen, he avoided getting caught up in 1915 in the {d-0}German professors issue,{d-1} which saw three university members forced out of their positions. Nevertheless, and though his sons had enlisted in the American forces, his wife was forced to stop teaching German to forestry students who needed it for the fourth-year seminar on German silvicultural literature. On 22 June 1918 university president Sir Robert Alexander Falconer* told her husband that German must be only an option.

Though certainly not the founder of professional forestry in North America, Fernow, more than any other individual, played a formative role in its development in two countries. Indeed, his career illustrates the important scientific dimension to the North American struggle for the benefits of national forest resources. MacMillan{apos}s observation in a letter to Howe, that Fernow {d-0}was, and will remain the most outstanding Forester in Canada for many years,{d-1} has not lost its force.

The April 1923 issue of the Journal of Forestry (Washington) contains a long section devoted to Fernow{apos}s death (vol.21, pp.305-48), which also provides a chronology of his life and a bibliography of his writings. Fernow{apos}s books include Economics of forestry: a reference book for students of political economy and professional and lay students of forestry (New York, 1902; repr. 1972); A brief history of forestry in Europe, the United States and other countries (New Haven, Conn., 1907), based on his lectures at Yale (a revised edition was published in Toronto in 1911); and The care of trees, in lawn, street, and park: with a list of trees and shrubs for decorative use (New York, 1910). His surveys for the Commission of Conservation appeared as Forest conditions of Nova Scotia (Ottawa, 1912) and Committee on Forests, Trent watershed survey; a reconnaissance (Toronto, 1913).

AO, RG 22-305, no.50692; RG 80-8-0-909, no.1868. UTA, A1967-0007; A1972-0018; A1972-0025; A1973-0026/101(53); A1976-0006; A1979-0015. American forests: nature, culture, and politics, ed. Char Miller (Lawrence, Kans., 1997). Biographical dictionary of American and Canadian naturalists and environmentalists, ed. K. B. Sterling et al. (Westport, Conn., 1997). Canadian annual rev., 1907-15. Forest and wildlife science in America: a history, ed. H. K. Steen ([Durham, N.C.], 1999). R. P. Gillis and T. R. Roach, Lost initiatives: Canada{apos}s forest industries, forest policy and forest conservation (Westport, 1986). L. H. Gulick, American forest policy, a study of government administration and economic control (New York, 1951). C. D. Howe, {d-0}Bernhard Eduard Fernow - an appreciation,{d-1} Illustrated Canadian Forestry Magazine (Ottawa), 19 (1923): 168-69. H. V. Nelles, The politics of development: forests, mines & hydro-electric power in Ontario, 1849-1941 (Toronto, 1974). Peter Oliver, G. Howard Ferguson: Ontario Tory (Toronto, 1977). Ont., Royal commission on the University of Toronto, Report (Toronto, 1906). A. D. Rodgers, Bernhard Eduard Fernow, a story of North American forestry (Princeton, N.J., 1951; repr., Durham, 1991). J. W. B. Sisam, Forestry education at Toronto (Toronto, 1961). H. K. Steen, The U.S. Forest Service: a history (Seattle, 1976).

GRIMES, GEORGE FREDERICK ARTHUR, businessman, labour activist, and politician; b. 29 June 1877 in Channel (Channel–Port aux Basques), Nfld, son of William Grimes and Amelia White; m. 28 Aug. 1900 Annie Clarke in St John{apos}s, and they had seven daughters; d. there 10 Aug. 1929.

George F. A. Grimes{apos}s father was an outport policeman, who in 1878 was posted to his home town of Brigus, where he became a sergeant. When George was 12, the family moved to St John{apos}s for William to take up a posting as head constable (he would eventually rise to the rank of superintendent). George left school around this time. In 1890 he was an apprentice clerk in a dry-goods establishment. He would remain with this business until 1902, when he secured a much more favourable berth as manager of the book and stationery department for George Knowling Limited, one of the largest general retailers in St John{apos}s. Grimes continued his education through private reading. He was active in the Cochrane Street Methodist congregation, as well as the Methodist College Literary Institute, a mainstay of the intellectual life of St John{apos}s. His practical faith led him to a lifelong advocacy of temperance and also, it would seem, to socialism.

It is not known when Grimes began to identify with socialism. At his death contemporaries would note a long-standing interest in the {d-0}labour question,{d-1} which may date from the unionization of the St John{apos}s waterfront in his young manhood. The Truckmen{apos}s Protective Union was founded in 1900 and the Longshoremen{apos}s Protective Union in 1903. It was a period of labour activism in the city, including the {d-0}great sealers{s-1-unknown} strike{d-1} of 1902 [see Simeon Kelloway*]. Meanwhile, political philosophy and current events were common topics at the MCLI. Grimes{apos}s known associates at this time include Julia Salter* (subsequently Julia Salter Earle, a labour and social activist). In 1906 Grimes was a founding member of the Newfoundland Socialist Society, and in 1908 he was financial secretary of the St John{apos}s Trades and Labour Council, newly formed by the mayor, labour lawyer Michael Patrick Gibbs*.

As one with both an intellectual and a practical interest in labour matters, Grimes must have followed keenly the formation of the Fishermen{apos}s Protective Union in 1908 by William Ford Coaker*. By 1911 the FPU had 12,500 members in 116 local councils and was a force to be reckoned with. Bent on reforming the system of supply to fishermen as the crucial first step in social change, Coaker incorporated the Fishermen{apos}s Union Trading Company, commonly known as the Union Trading Company, to supply {d-0}cash stores{d-1} in the outports. Grimes{apos}s first known association with the FPU came in 1912. In March he spoke at a mass meeting it held in the capital, and when the UTC began operating from St John{apos}s premises in May, he was manager of the dry-goods department. He attended the annual convention that December where the FPU unveiled its Bonavista Platform and made plans for Union candidates to contest the coming general election.

The FPU had solid support in northern Newfoundland, yet the closest local council to St John{apos}s was at Grimes{apos}s boyhood home of Brigus, in the district of Port de Grave. Early in 1913 Grimes was selected as the Union candidate in this district, where his local connection helped him secure election in October. He was one of eight Unionists elected in alliance with Sir Robert Bond{apos}s Liberal party, and he soon came to be regarded as one of his party{apos}s most effective spokesmen in the opposition.

It was shortly after his election that the incident occurred which, perhaps more than any other, has secured Grimes a place in Newfoundland history: his {d-0}conversion{d-1} of the young Joseph Roberts Smallwood* to socialism. Smallwood relates that this came about as a result of a chance meeting at a dentist{apos}s office, probably early in 1914. The schoolboy ingenuously blurted to the politician that he was a socialist; Grimes asked a few questions and afterwards supplied young Smallwood with pamphlets. (Grimes{apos}s depiction in Wayne Johnston{apos}s historical novel The colony of unrequited dreams (1998) – persistent in the cause yet mild-mannered to a fault – is consistent with personal recollections of him. However, the Smallwood character{apos}s disenchantment with his mentor is not consistent with Smallwood{apos}s lifelong respect for Grimes, whom he considered a true intellectual, gentleman, and socialist.)

Grimes{apos}s earnest, inoffensive air generally deflected criticism of his proclaimed ideology. His years with Knowling{apos}s book department had bolstered his natural inclinations to make him one of the best-read residents of the capital. He was no revolutionary, being known in St John{apos}s as a man of solid family and a pillar of his church. Among those who were prepared to overlook Grimes{apos}s ideological idiosyncrasy was Coaker, who had publicly dissociated himself and the FPU from socialism.

In St John{apos}s, as elsewhere, the Great War saw an increased interest in labour politics. Grimes helped form the Newfoundland Socialist League in 1914 and in 1917 he was a frequent speaker at meetings which resulted in the formation of the Newfoundland Industrial Workers{s-1-unknown} Association [see Philip Bennett]. The sole point of contact between city unions and the FPU, which also rejected any affiliation with the labour movement, Grimes helped organize an NIWA cooperative. He was a regular speaker in the House of Assembly, particularly in the debate over Prohibition in 1915–17. He had been a long-time advocate of women{apos}s suffrage (no doubt he knew well his former employer{apos}s daughter Fannie McNeil [Knowling]), in part because, as he said, {d-0}Prohibition would have been world-wide long ago, if women had a vote on it.{d-1} In labour matters his voice was one of conciliation, favouring {d-0}machinery to prevent strikes{d-1} and, above all, {d-0}learning to know each others difficulties and becoming less suspicious.{d-1}

Meanwhile the FPU was building a model town on the northeast coast, a centre for its various businesses. When the UTC moved its headquarters to Port Union in February 1918, Grimes went too, along with his wife and daughters. As in 1913, when his experience in debate had been crucial in establishing the credibility of the Union party, Grimes{apos}s knowledge of business and community affairs contributed to the success of both the UTC (which had 40 branch stores by 1918) and Port Union. In November 1919 Grimes ran for re-election, as part of a Union alliance with the Liberal Reform party of Richard Anderson Squires*. Although the Squires–Coaker combination carried the day, Grimes was defeated in Port de Grave by Sir John Chalker Crosbie*. Three weeks later he was selected secretary-treasurer of the Supreme Council of the FPU.

Out of public life during 1919–23, Grimes was able to devote his energies to the UTC at a time when its two principals, Coaker and Halfyard, had responsibilities in cabinet. By 1922, however, the {d-0}Coaker regulations,{d-1} introduced when Coaker became minister of marine and fisheries to reform the marketing of fish, had been undermined and the whole Union agenda was in danger. Disillusioned, Grimes moved back to St John{apos}s, where he established a modest agency and wholesale business. He also resumed his leading place in the Cochrane Street congregation, and was elected secretary of the East End Methodist School Board and president of the MCLI.

As a general election came due in May 1923, Coaker determined that the FPU would stick with Squires. Grimes was returned as a member for Fogo – unlike Port de Grave, an area with deep Union support. Though he had stood as a Liberal, he was clearly pledged to Coaker. Squires was soon compelled to resign in the face of evidence of systematic misuse of public funds. William Robertson Warren then formed an administration, with Union support. Grimes was Warren{apos}s minister of marine and fisheries, outside cabinet, from 29 July 1923 to 2 May 1924, when the government collapsed as its Unionist faction pushed for the prosecution of Squires.

The following summer Grimes died of an {d-0}apoplectic attack,{d-1} while at work in his office on a Saturday night. He had contributed a great deal to the FPU movement in Newfoundland, including a grasp of parliamentary procedure, a respected intellect, and a St John{apos}s perspective. In return the FPU raised the bookish floorwalker to be a man of affairs. Looking back on the achievements of the FPU, Coaker identified Grimes as one of those men of {d-0}common sense and hidden ability{d-1} which the Union had brought into public life to the profit of the country.

PANL, GN 30, 97; Parish records coll., Methodist/United Church, St John{apos}s, Cochrane Street. W. F. Coaker, {d-0}The passing of George Grimes{d-1} and {d-0}Past, present and future,{d-1} Fishermen{apos}s Advocate (Port Union, Nfld), 16 Aug. 1929 and 27 July 1932. Evening Telegram (St John{apos}s), 12 Aug. 1929, 7 April 1933. Arthur Fox, {d-0}M.C.L.I. is one of North America{apos}s oldest debating clubs,{d-1} in The book of Newfoundland, ed. J. R. Smallwood et al. (6v., St John{apos}s, 1937–75), 5: 400–3. I. D. H. McDonald, {d-0}To each his own{d-1}: William Coaker and the Fishermen{apos}s Protective Union in Newfoundland politics, 1908–1925, ed. J. K. Hiller (St John{apos}s, 1987). Nfld, General Assembly, Proc., 1914–30. J. R. Smallwood, I chose Canada: the memoirs of the Honourable Joseph R. {d-0}Joey{d-1} Smallwood (Toronto, 1973). G. H. Tucker, {d-0}The old N.I.W.A.,{d-1} in The book of Newfoundland, 1: 279–81. Who{apos}s who in and from Newfoundland (St John{apos}s), 1927.

Educated in England, James Hawthornthwaite went to British Columbia in the late 1880s. His early employers included the American consulate in Victoria, for which he worked as a secretary, and more important, the London-based New Vancouver Coal Mining and Land Company Limited, which operated collieries in Nanaimo. His position as real estate agent with the NVCMLC introduced him to the intricacies of settlers{s-1-unknown} rights and competing mineral claims on Vancouver Island; a huge swath of the island had been ceded in 1886 to a coal-mining enterprise headed by Robert Dunsmuir*. Hawthornthwaite became a very public opponent of the Dunsmuir family.

The NVCMLC{apos}s long-time manager, Samuel Robins, was a dogged rival of the Dunsmuirs and one of a number of interesting local personalities who were Hawthornthwaite{apos}s political mentors. Robins enjoyed cordial relations with the Miners{s-1-unknown} and Mine Laborers{s-1-unknown} Protective Association, whose general secretary from the early 1890s, Ralph Smith*, also influenced Hawthornthwaite. Another mentor, Mark Bate, was a business associate of Robins and a former mayor of Nanaimo. In 1890 Hawthornthwaite cemented his alliance with Bate by marrying his daughter Elizabeth. Last, but not least, was Eugene Thornton Kingsley, whose doctrinaire socialist preachings would have a wide impact on the political life of the west coast.

In the depressed circumstances of the mid to late 1890s Hawthornthwaite was kept on for a time at the NVCMLC as night watchman. The Hawthornthwaites had a large and growing family; eight children would be born before the break-up of the marriage around 1912. A political opponent charged in 1908 that they were clothed {d-0}by charity,{d-1} and that Hawthornthwaite was {d-0}no man at all.{d-1} Whatever the truth of the matter, Hawthornthwaite{apos}s uncertain status within the Nanaimo elite helped push him into more radical positions. He had been first acclaimed to the Legislative Assembly as an independent Labour candidate for Nanaimo City in a by-election held on 18 Feb. 1901. In a Labour Day speech in Victoria that year he reportedly stated that the remedy to be applied to social ills {d-0}was socialism, pure and simple.{d-1}

West coast socialism was, of course, neither pure nor simple. A populist campaign against the Dunsmuirs was its driving electoral force, as Vancouver Island became the nerve centre of the fledgling Socialist Party of British Columbia, founded in the summer of 1901, and later of the Vancouver-based Socialist Party of Canada. Hawthornthwaite and Kingsley were founding members of the SPC in 1904. James Dunsmuir*, who managed the family{apos}s coal-mining assets with an iron fist between 1889 and 1910, served as premier in 1900–2 and he continued in the limelight as lieutenant governor between 1906 and 1909. His arrogant assertion of managerial rights before the royal commission on industrial disputes in 1903 and his transparent conflicts of interest made him a convenient political target. Hawthornthwaite and another representative of the Nanaimo coalfields, Parker Williams, were returned in the provincial elections of 1903, 1907, and 1909 as revolutionary socialists committed to the anti-Dunsmuir cause. During the sessions of 1908 and 1909 they were joined by the mainland miners{s-1-unknown} representative, John McInnis. Unlike Hawthornthwaite and Williams, McInnis had not been elected on a SPC platform, but he deferred to Hawthornthwaite{apos}s parliamentary leadership as part of a province-wide and, indeed, nation-wide strategy to link the SPC with the miners{s-1-unknown} movement.

Hawthornthwaite{apos}s contributions were far more constructive than revolutionary and had included rudimentary farm security legislation in 1901 and a workmen{apos}s compensation act in 1902. When Conservative premier Richard McBride* took office in June 1903, he had only a small majority so he turned to Hawthornthwaite for support. Thus, Hawthornthwaite was able to push for additional legislation, including improved safety standards and labour reforms in the mining industry. The premier used members of the socialist caucus to sound out the opinion of the popular class on a narrow range of issues. In return, Hawthornthwaite and his associates eschewed detailed criticism of McBride{apos}s policies of development. There were limits to such arrangements. For example, McBride allowed members of the socialist caucus to lead the fight for women{apos}s suffrage, but applied no party discipline to bring it about, though he personally supported enfranchisement of women as part of his {d-0}white B.C.{d-1} policy. In addition, administration of labour legislation sometimes made a mockery of the reforms enacted during McBride{apos}s premiership. Hawthornthwaite{apos}s correspondence shows that the enforcement by government officials of different parts of the Coal Mines Regulation Act depended on his persistent efforts and those of other elected officials. Nevertheless, and although accumulated grievances in the Vancouver Island coalfield would later boil over into violent confrontation, for a time the socialist alternative of a {d-0}strike at the ballot box,{d-1} the slogan of the socialist Western Clarion (Vancouver), had unexampled success.

Their local base seemingly secured, SPC activists on Vancouver Island pulled out all the stops in a campaign from 1904 to 1908 to defeat Smith, who had abandoned his independent stance as a Labour mp to join the federal Liberal caucus of Sir Wilfrid Laurier*, and elect one of their own. The popular Hawthornthwaite resigned his provincial seat in 1908 to join the anti-Smith campaign. Some historians have suggested that the SPC{apos}s pacifist stance was the cause of his narrow defeat in Nanaimo in the federal general elections of that October. The riding included the naval base at Esquimalt, which would soon be transferred from Britain to the federal government. Hawthornthwaite regained his provincial seat in a by-election held on 12 Jan. 1909.

Hawthornthwaite, who had referred to himself as a {d-0}free miner{d-1} in 1908, turned his attention in 1911 to speculative enterprises such as a prospective pulp and paper mill at Cowichan Lake. It was an attempt, as he explained to Kingsley, his partner in the business, to {d-0}square us up with the world.{d-1} His divided personal agenda became intolerable to some SPC members. In an internal fight that coincided with wider ideological schisms between purist and revisionist factions, he was expelled from the party in 1912. The Nanaimo local of the SPC went over as a body to the more moderate Social Democratic Party of Canada, but Hawthornthwaite did not represent it in the provincial elections of that year.

His business activities – and, very likely, his personal relationship with McBride, who was frequently in England – enabled Hawthornthwaite to travel to London and Europe on the eve of World War I. During the war he kept a low profile at his residence, Burleith House, in Victoria, acting in a potentially controversial role as a representative of German investors in British Columbia. He would later claim to have met the exiled Bolshevik leader Lenin during his travels and though this claim cannot be verified, the Bolshevik revolution in Russia evidently rekindled his political fires. The wartime break-up of what remained of the SPC coalition on Vancouver Island presented him with an opportunity to regain a seat in the provincial legislature; he was successful in a by-election held in Newcastle in January 1918. Hawthornthwaite{apos}s campaign was part of a movement in support of the Federated Labour Party, a new coalition supported by former SPC stalwarts such as Kingsley. The FLP movement was clearly a lightning rod for anti-war sentiment and general social unrest, full of rhetorical solidarity with Lenin and Bolshevism. Hawthornthwaite{apos}s third stint in the legislature was, not surprisingly, barren of personal achievement. He had no allies in the assembly and the Liberals under premiers Harlan Carey Brewster* and John Oliver had no need of his support and no desire to let him influence legislation as he had in the pre-war years. Hawthornthwaite{apos}s problematic claim to represent Vancouver Island{apos}s {d-0}wage slaves{d-1} was successfully challenged by a working miner, Samuel Guthrie, in the general elections of October 1920. He continued to dabble in socialist politics as a sideline to business, but his effectiveness had come to an end with his defeat at the polls. The Canadian annual review of 1918 had described Hawthornthwaite as {d-0}a Miners{s-1-unknown} representative of the most radical type.{d-1} By the time of his death in 1926, he was probably better known for his boosting of gold-mining properties in the Cassiar district, investments he had been promoting for a few years.

James Hurst Hawthornthwaite{apos}s legacies are hotly debated by historians. The pioneering socialists of British Columbia, of whom he was one of the most prominent, are viewed by some as a collection of charlatans who exploited class consciousness for personal gain, by others as architects of regional political identity, and by still others as prophets of social democratic values now widely accepted as part of the Canadian ethos. Even the briefest consideration of his multi-faceted career illuminates all of these arguments and helps anchor discussion in the history of ongoing struggles for western lands and resources.

John Frederic Herbin{apos}s professional life was influenced by his Huguenot father, who, in the early 1850s, immigrated to Nova Scotia from Cambrai, France, allegedly because of political difficulties. Herbin{apos}s father was a watchmaker in Bedford and then in Windsor until 1870, when he moved with his family to Halifax to establish himself as a goldsmith. John Frederic had left school to assist in the family trades, reputedly making his first gold wedding band at age nine. The family returned to Windsor in 1877, where both father and son were watchmakers. In December 1882 Herbin followed his father to Colorado and New Mexico. After teaching school there until April 1884, he moved to Wolfville, N.S., where in 1885 he established Herbin Jewellers, a family business that would mark its 120th anniversary in 2005. He continued his studies, earning a ba degree at Acadia College in Wolfville from 1886 to 1890 and graduating with honours. In addition to running his business, he began teaching shorthand in 1891 and, after placing first in his class during a brief course at the Ontario Optical Institute in Toronto in 1896, added optometry to his professional ventures. Always public spirited, he served as a town councillor of Wolfville and in 1902–3 as its mayor.

It was as an author and public advocate of Acadian history and nationalism that Herbin best caught the imagination of his time. While at Acadia he had already begun publishing poetry and prose in the college paper, the Acadia Athenæum, and in local newspapers. Reputedly influenced by his Acadian mother{apos}s stories of her people{apos}s exile and return after the deportation of 1755 [see Charles Lawrence*], he began to make it his {d-0}mission to work and write,{d-1} as he would explain to a Boston reporter in 1905, {d-0}to preserve for the interested the name and memory of my people, the terribly wronged Acadians.{d-1} {d-0}I imagine,{d-1} he noted, {d-0}the anguish of my great-great-grandfather as he was made to leave . . . and go away to a strange land. I can almost hear the crying of the mothers separated from their children, and I realize . . . the injustice and the awfulness of it all.{d-1}

Canada, and other poems (Windsor, 1891), Herbin{apos}s first volume of poetry, struck a note of Canadian nationalism characteristic of other post-confederation poets. That year the literary editor of the New York Independent, poet William Bliss Carman, included Herbin{apos}s work in his periodical and wished {d-0}that every man in [Canada{apos}s] far borders should be as sturdy and loyal a son as you are.{d-1} The marshlands: a souvenir in song of the land of Evangeline, which first appeared in Windsor in 1893, focused more intimately on the dykelands, seasonal rhythms, and Acadian iconography of the region. Subsequent editions, bound with Herbin{apos}s The trail of the tide, would be published by William Briggs of Toronto in 1899 and 1909.

Poets Charles George Douglas Roberts*, Theodore Harding Rand*, and Carman praised Herbin{apos}s handling of the sonnet form. American philosopher William James discerningly wrote from Cambridge, Mass., in 1897, {d-0}I don{apos}t know that I have ever met so complete a marriage of a man{apos}s soul with the land which he inhabits.{d-1} Herbin most effectively translated to a wide reading public his personal research on Acadian genealogy, archaeological sites, roadways, aboiteau (dyke) systems, and artefacts through a series of local histories such as Grand-Pré: a sketch of the Acadian occupation of the shores of the basin of Minas (Toronto and Montreal, 1898), The history of Grand-Pré: the home of Longfellow{apos}s {d-0}Evangeline{d-1} (Toronto, 1900), and The land of Evangeline: the authentic story of her country and her people (Toronto, 1921). Publishing records for Briggs reveal 500 copies (400 paper, 100 cloth) of The marshlands for distribution in 1900 and runs of 1,000 copies of The history of Grand-Pré for the first edition in 1900 and the third in 1907. The land of Evangeline, bound with a copy of Longfellow{apos}s Evangeline and brought out by the Musson Book Company Limited, went through five editions and sold 15,000 copies in 1921. Herbin{apos}s romantic fiction, The heir to Grand-Pré, had a more modest run of 500 copies when published with Briggs in 1907 and the account was closed in 1914. His novel Jen of the marshes, which appeared in Boston in 1921, echoed his earlier local colour fiction by reconceptualizing the Evangeline figure as a modern heroine firmly rooted in the pastoral heritage of latter-day Grand Pré. Herbin{apos}s star-crossed English-French lovers are symbolically united at the conclusion of both novels, but his more obvious intention was to exploit romance so as to highlight the memory of his dispossessed ancestors.

By far the most enduring of Herbin{apos}s contributions to preserving the memory of pre-deportation Acadian culture was his success in 1907 in securing 14 acres of land on which the original Grand Pré community had stood and in spearheading the movement to establish a memorial park. Included among the list of projects which he had drawn up the previous year for the proposed park were the enclosing of the grounds, the erection of memorials to Longfellow, the Acadians, and Evangeline, the rebuilding of the Acadian church on its original site, the restoration of the priest{apos}s house, the Acadian well, and {d-0}the burying ground,{d-1} the protection of the original Acadian willows, and the erection of bronze description plates. In a letter to Prime Minister Sir Wilfrid Laurier* on 25 June 1906, Herbin had explained that {d-0}international interest,{d-1} {d-0}amity between our two leading Canadian peoples,{d-1} and {d-0}pride and gratification{d-1} were the catalysts for the proposed $50,000 project and he invited Laurier to be a patron (with politicians Robert Laird Borden* and Sir Frederick William Borden*, both from the Minas Basin deportation area). Although F. W. Borden acknowledged Herbin to be a {d-0}thoroughly honest and honorable{d-1} man, he advised Laurier to withhold his patronage until he could assess the degree to which the restoration scheme was directed at attracting American tourists.

In November 1917, having also failed {d-0}to get the Acadians interested in the project,{d-1} and concerned about potential desecration of the site, Herbin sold the land for $1,650 to the Dominion Atlantic Railway (leased to the Canadian Pacific Railway) for the creation of a park, stipulating that the location of the original Saint-Charles-des-Mines church be deeded to the Acadians for the erection of a memorial to their past. On 28 May 1919 the Société l{apos}Assomption [see David-Vital Landry] took possession of the church site. The DAR, which as early as the 1890s had exploited the anti-modernism of the Evangeline myth for purposes of tourism, unveiled a statue of Evangeline (conceived by Louis-Philippe Hébert*) in the park in 1920. Herbin{apos}s poetic tribute to his ancestors, {d-0}The returned Acadian,{d-1} had become the signature promotional poem of the DAR under the title {d-0}Evangeline{apos}s return.{d-1} Before his sudden death in 1923 Herbin had an opportunity to witness the evolution of his dream when construction of the memorial church began (on completion it would include his collection of Acadian artefacts in its museum).

Perhaps because of his Protestant English-speaking background (he read French, but did not speak it) Herbin had difficulty throughout his life attracting Acadian support for his endeavours. He was finally recognized in an article published in L{apos}Évangéline (Moncton) in 1924 and by a plaque added in 1925 to the commemorative stone cross that he had placed in the park in 1909. His promotion of the Grand Pré area (including postcards that he had produced commercially) continued to inform the marketing of tourism in the region as late as the 1930s, but it is as a torch keeper of the Acadian past through his literary work and his endeavours to promote a park at Grand Pré that he most effectively contributed to the nation-building spirit of both Acadians and Canadians during his lifetime.

Acadia Univ., Vaughan Memorial Library, Esther Clark Wright Arch. (Wolfville, N.S.), John Frederic Herbin fonds. Centre d{apos}Études Acadiennes, Univ. de Moncton, N.-B., Fonds Placide Gaudet, 1.70-8. LAC, MG 26, G: 111544–48. UCC-C, Fonds 513/1, 83.061c, file 43-1os. {d-0}Dette de reconnaissance,{d-1} L{apos}Évangéline (Moncton), 7 mai 1925. L{apos}Évangéline, 3 janv. 1924. Sunday Herald (Boston), 20 Aug. 1905. Blodwen Davies, {d-0}Wanted: a literary executor,{d-1} New Outlook (Toronto), 30 Nov. 1927. Barbara Le Blanc, Postcards from Acadie: Grand-Pré, Evangeline & the Acadian identity (Kentville, N.S., 2003). Ian McKay, The quest of the folk: antimodernism and cultural selection in twentieth-century Nova Scotia (Montreal and Kingston, Ont., 1994). Harry Piers and D. C. Mackay, Master goldsmiths and silversmiths of Nova Scotia and their marks, ed. U. B. Thomson and A. M. Strachan (Halifax, 1948). L. D. Storr, {d-0}John Frederic Herbin: the re-creation of the past{d-1} (ma thesis, Acadia Univ., 1995).

John Idington{apos}s parents were among the Scottish pioneers of Puslinch, south of Guelph. The family moved to a farm in Waterloo County near Fisher{apos}s Mills in 1853. An able student, John received a thorough education at William Tassie*{apos}s school in Galt (Cambridge). In 1864 he graduated from the University of Toronto with an llb, was called to the bar, and started practice in Stratford with Robert MacFarlane, the mla for Perth and a fellow Liberal. MacFarlane{apos}s death in 1872 left Idington with a large practice in a community that was expanding rapidly, partly as a result of the location there of the Grand Trunk Railway shops in 1871. He was created a provincial qc in 1876 and a dominion qc in 1885. In 1879, the year he became crown attorney and clerk of the peace for Perth County, he began construction of a substantial brick office building, a sure sign of his success.

A key supporter of Stratford{apos}s incorporation as a city in March 1885, Idington delivered the main oration at a great banquet celebrating the event on 22 July. By this time he had also gained notoriety for his attempt, as a parent and school trustee, to discredit the principal who had set one of his sons back a grade. Other trustees distanced themselves, but Idington persisted, to the point of involving the minister of education, George William Ross*. The vendetta revealed Idington{apos}s stubborn determination and willingness to stand alone. On 18 Jan. 1886 he became the city{apos}s solicitor, a post he would hold until his appointment to the bench; the following year he was elected first president of the Perth County Law Society. From 1891 to 1904 he was a bencher of the Law Society of Upper Canada, and in 1894-95 he was president of the Western Bar Association. Among the benchers, Idington was an early supporter of Clara Brett Martin; his motion of 13 Sept. 1892 would have led to her admission as the first female member of the society but it was rejected by a vote of 9 to 4.

As city solicitor and crown attorney, Idington gained wide experience. In 1891 ratepayers from Stratford{apos}s Romeo Ward presented him with a gold-headed cane as thanks for obtaining the conviction of a woman who ran a brothel. He prosecuted as well in a number of notable murder trials, including that in 1894 of Amédée (Almeda) Chattelle, who had brutally slain and carved up a young girl. Over the years Idington had a number of partners in private practice but each moved on, indicating perhaps that he was difficult to work with.

In March 1904 the Liberal government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier* appointed Idington to the provincial High Court of Justice in Toronto. Less than 11 months later, on 10 Feb. 1905, he was elevated to the Supreme Court of Canada. Lawyers have been appointed directly from practice, but no sitting judge has received such quick promotion. An excellent judicial record could hardly be the explanation - Idington had had little time to prove himself. The Canada Law Journal (Toronto) probably reflected the true reason: {d-0}Having so recently severed his connection with his former place of abode at Stratford, he naturally would have less hesitation in going to Ottawa than many others.{d-1} This explanation suggests that the court did not enjoy sufficient prestige to compensate for the inconvenience of a move to the national capital. At the time the court was not, in fact, {d-0}supreme{d-1}: its judgements could be appealed to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in England; important cases could go straight there from provincial appellate courts, some of which were felt to be as strong as the Supreme Court; and it was experiencing a high turnover of justices. Moreover, in 1905 Ottawa lacked a large legal fraternity and the amenities of bigger cities.

On the bench Idington displayed industry and marked individuality, and became known for his wit. He rendered dissenting opinions in a great many cases - more than any other judge to the present time. Although legal scholar Ian Bushnell regards him simply as a renegade whose judgements had a {d-0}discordant quality,{d-1} several of his dissents have merit as important interpretations of fundamental functions and rights in law and government. In 1910, for instance, the Laurier government asked the Supreme Court to determine whether the parliament of Canada could impose on the court the duty to answer reference questions not related to actual or intended federal legislation. The majority of judges said parliament could do so; dissenting, Idington addressed a core issue, the imposition of political function: {d-0}If we degrade this court by imposing upon it duties that cannot be held judicial but merely advisory . . . , we destroy a fundamental principle of our government.{d-1} Moreover, since provincial and private rights could be affected by a reference, he contended that it amounted to taking away rights without the due process of law.

In Quong-Wing v. the King (1914) the court tested the validity of a Saskatchewan statute that prohibited the employment of white females in businesses owned or managed by an {d-0}Oriental person.{d-1} Born in China but a naturalized British subject, Quong Wing operated a restaurant in Moose Jaw and employed two white waitresses. His conviction was appealed to the Supreme Court, which, as precedents, had to consider conflicting decisions of the JCPC. In Union Colliery Company of British Columbia v. Bryden (1899) it had held invalid a British Columbia statute prohibiting the employment of Chinese in coalmines because the law infringed federal power over aliens and naturalized citizens [see John Bryden*]. In Cunningham v. Tomey Homma (1903), however, it upheld British Columbia{apos}s Provincial Elections Act, which prohibited any {d-0}Chinaman, Japanese, or Indian{d-1} from voting. The majority of the Supreme Court followed Tomey Homma. Incensed by the discriminatory legislation, Idington disagreed, stating that {d-0}equal freedom and equal opportunity before the law . . . are not to be impaired by the whims of a legislature{d-1} and that the {d-0}legislation is but a piece of the product of the mode of thought that begot and maintained slavery.{d-1} From parliament{apos}s jurisdiction over aliens and naturalization, Idington inferred the power to guarantee equality for naturalized subjects. Historian James W. St G. Walker has written that {d-0}if Idington{apos}s implied Bill of Rights was too radical, Bryden was available to squelch a law that was openly discriminatory.{d-1} Few judges have their dissenting judgements favourably commended as progressive after the lapse of more than 80 years.

In 1917, during wartime, the Military Service Act instituted conscription and established exemptions, one being for farm workers. As the need for troops increased, the cabinet, acting under the War Measures Act, passed orders in council in April 1918 purporting to cancel these exemptions. George Edwin Gray, a northern Ontario farmer, refused to report for duty; when arrested, he brought a writ of habeas corpus. The issue, as it came before the Supreme Court in July, was whether the government could amend a statute through order in council under the War Measures Act. Four of the six judges upheld such delegation of legislative power. In objecting, Idington stated that {d-0}a wholesale surrender of the will of the people to any autocratic power is exactly what we are fighting against.{d-1} His opinion is echoed in the work of modern-day constitutional expert Peter W. Hogg: if the War Measures Act is not {d-0}unconstitutional abdication . . . it is not easy to imagine the kind of delegation that would be unconstitutional.{d-1}

In many constitutional cases Idington tended to take a strong provincialist position. In Re Board of Commerce (1920) the court split on the validity of federal legislation to control prices, with the issue being whether such control fell within federal competence under the {d-0}trade and commerce{d-1} power of the British North America Act or within provincial competence under {d-0}property and civil rights.{d-1} Idington, who along with Lyman Poore Duff* and Louis-Philippe Brodeur held the legislation invalid, said: {d-0}Our Confederation Act was not intended to be a mere sham, but an instrument of government intended to assign to the provincial legislatures some absolute rights, and of these none were supposed to be more precious than those over property and civil rights.{d-1} In his dislike of many forms of regulation, he revealed himself as a laissez-faire liberal. Duff later remarked on his passion for justice; jurist Eugene Lafleur, who frequently appeared before Idington in court, noted that the depth of his convictions made him almost a terrifying figure to counsel who supported what he believed to be the weaker cause.

With the appointment of Sir Louis Henry Davies as chief justice on 23 Oct. 1918, Idington became the senior puisne judge. On 11 Aug. 1921, with the chief in Britain, he administered the oath of office to Governor General Lord Byng*. After trying to persuade Lafleur to accept the chief justiceship following Davies{apos}s death in 1924, Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King* appointed Francis Alexander Anglin*, passing over the more senior Idington and Duff. In his diary King wrote that {d-0}Idington will be disappointed not being made C.J. but he is 86 years of age and senile.{d-1} He was, in fact, approaching 84; whether he was disappointed or not, Duff certainly was.

In 1926 Minister of Justice Ernest Lapointe* asked for Idington{apos}s resignation since he had been absent from the court for extended periods in 1925 and 1926. Whatever his reply, he clung to office. The Liberal government had been considering mandatory retirement for judges of the Supreme and Exchequer courts, and Idington{apos}s refusal to go provided the catalyst. Legislation was enacted, effective 31 March 1927, requiring retirement at age 75. Idington was thus forced to step down that day. On 5 October his wife passed away and four months later he died, leaving a modest estate of $41,842. Survived by four sons and four daughters, he was buried in Avondale Cemetery in Stratford.

AO, RG 80-27-2, 79: 183. Beacon Herald (Stratford, Ont.), 14 April 1956, 3 July 1971, 26 Aug. 1978, 17 July 1982. Globe, 6 Oct. 1927, 8 Feb. 1928. Guelph Mercury (Guelph, Ont.), 11 Oct. 1866. Ian Bushnell, The captive court: a study of the Supreme Court of Canada (Montreal and Kingston, Ont., 1992). Canada Law Journal (Toronto), 40 (1904): 209; 41 (1905): 206-7. Canadian Bar Rev. (Toronto), 6 (1928): 142-43. Canadian Law Times (Toronto), 24 (1904): 114-15; 25 (1905): 164. Canadian men and women of the time (Morgan; 1898 and 1912). W. A. Craik, {d-0}Canada{apos}s Supreme Court at work,{d-1} Maclean{apos}s (Toronto), 27 (1913-14), no.5: 13-16, 137-38. Cunningham v. Tomey Homma, [1903] Law Reports, Appeal Cases (London): 151-57 (Privy Council). J. G. Hodgins, The Stratford case: Idington vs. McBride; report of the commissioner . . . (Toronto, 1887). P. W. Hogg, Constitutional law of Canada (4th ed., Scarborough [Toronto], 1997). William Johnston, History of the county of Perth from 1825 to 1902 (Stratford, 1903; repr. 1976). W. L. M. King, The Mackenzie King diaries, 1893-1931 (microfiche ed., Toronto, 1973), 12 Sept. 1924. Adelaide Leitch, Floodtides of fortune: the story of Stratford and the progress of the city through two centuries (Stratford, 1980). Quong-Wing v. the King (1914), Canada Supreme Court Reports, 49: 440-69; Re George Edwin Gray (1918), 57: 150-83. Re Board of Commerce (1920), Canada Supreme Court Reports (Ottawa), 60: 456-522; Re marriage laws (1912), 46: 132-456; Re references by the governor-general in council (1910), 43: 536-94. Saturday Night, 18 Feb. 1928: 2. J. G. Snell and Frederick Vaughan, The Supreme Court of Canada: history of the institution ([Toronto], 1985). Union Colliery Company of British Columbia v. Bryden, [1899] Law Reports, Appeal Cases: 580-88. J. W. St G. Walker, {d-0}Race,{d-1} rights and the law in the Supreme Court of Canada: historical case studies ([Toronto and Waterloo, Ont.], 1997). Waterloo Hist. Soc., Annual report (Kitchener, Ont.), 1 (1913): 38.

Educated in public schools in Springfield, Mass., and at Goldthwaites Academy, a private school in Longmeadow, Phelps Johnson began his engineering career in March 1867 with the R. F. Hawkins Iron Works in Springfield. He started as a draftsman and later he became an assistant engineer. From 1879 to 1881 he was an assistant engineer with the Wrought Iron Bridge Company of Canton, Ohio. The firm{apos}s vice-president, Job Abbott*, left in 1880 to become president and chief engineer of the Toronto Bridge Company and in February 1882 Johnson joined the Toronto firm. That same year Abbott, Johnson, and others obtained a federal charter to establish the Dominion Bridge Company Limited, a firm with much wider powers than Toronto Bridge. In May 1883, after Dominion Bridge had purchased Toronto Bridge, Johnson was appointed manager and engineer of the Toronto works. When the Toronto operations closed five years later, Johnson moved to the company{apos}s main office near Lachine, Que., as chief engineer. While Dominion Bridge developed into the largest steel construction firm in Canada, he held the posts of general manager (1892-1904), director (1903-26), general manager and chief engineer (1904-19), managing director (1910-13), and president (1913-19). After his retirement in January 1919, he remained a member of the firm{apos}s executive committee until his death.

Johnson{apos}s greatest achievement was the rebuilding of the Quebec Bridge. The first attempt to span the St Lawrence near Quebec City, to permit the crossing of the main line of the National Transcontinental Railway, had ended tragically on 29 Aug. 1907. The bridge, nearly completed by the Phoenix Bridge Company of Phoenixville, Pa, for the Quebec Bridge and Railway Company [see Simon-Napoléon Parent*], collapsed, killing 75 of the 85 men working on the structure. It was one of the world{apos}s most spectacular engineering disasters. A royal commission, established two days later, blamed the accident on faulty design and inadequate supervision. The federal government nationalized the project and appointed a board of engineers to oversee the rebuilding. After extensive consultations with experts, including Johnson, the board produced a new set of specifications.

The St Lawrence Bridge Company, a partnership between Dominion Bridge and the Canadian Bridge Company, was formed in 1911 with Johnson at its head, to pool the resources of the two firms and to keep the project Canadian. On 4 April 1911 St Lawrence Bridge was awarded the contract, based on one of several designs by Johnson which the firm had submitted. With its heavy 1,800-foot span, the new bridge presented unprecedented engineering problems, which he solved with an innovative K-truss bracing system. Working under Johnson{apos}s direction, chief engineer George Herrick Duggan built the structure, but not without serious mishap. On 11 Sept. 1916, as the 640-foot, 5,000-ton centre span was being hoisted into place, a hydraulic jack slipped and the span fell into the river, killing 13 men. A new piece was made and was secured in place the following year. Fully completed on 21 Aug. 1918, the bridge, the largest in Canada and the longest cantilever span in the world, was officially opened on 22 Aug. 1919 by the Prince of Wales. According to the Canadian Engineer, it was {d-0}the most remarkable steel structure ever built.{d-1} The entire enterprise cost approximately $35,000,000.

Johnson was not only a leading engineer, he was also a leader of his profession. Elected a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers in 1891 and of the Canadian Society of Civil Engineers in 1893, he served as one of the Canadian society{apos}s councillors from 1904 to 1906 and from 1910 to 1912, as vice-president in 1907, and as president in 1913. In his presidential address of 1914, he explained that the status of engineers could best be improved by raising the standards of their practice through the exchange of professional knowledge. He staunchly opposed the use of collective action to coerce employers or to restrict competitions to Canadian engineers, actions which he thought would bring the profession into public disrepute.

Although a member of the St James, Engineers{s-1-unknown}, and Royal St Lawrence Yacht clubs - some of Montreal{apos}s most important English-speaking clubs - Johnson, a bachelor, participated little in Montreal{apos}s active social life, dedicating himself instead to his business and professional interests. In recognition of his achievements, particularly his role in building the Quebec Bridge, McGill University conferred an honorary lld on him in 1921.

For more than a quarter century, Phelps Johnson occupied an important position in business and engineering. As a management engineer, he helped to make the Dominion Bridge Company profitable; at the same time, he directed the construction of crucial rail and highway bridges that bound Canada together. He was honoured throughout North America for his original solutions to difficult steel construction problems. When he died, the Engineering News-Record of New York praised him as {d-0}the most widely known and respected engineer in the Dominion.{d-1}

Although he was an important figure in Canadian engineering history, there is comparatively little source material on Phelps Johnson. His application for membership in the Canadian Soc. of Civil Engineers is missing from the papers of the Engineering Institute of Canada (Montreal). Johnson{apos}s presidential address to the Canadian Soc. of Civil Engineers appears in its Trans. (Montreal), 28 (1914): 102-6.

American Soc. of Civil Engineers, Trans. (New York), 90 (1927): 1176-78. Canadian men and women of the time (Morgan; 1912). Canadian Railway and Marine World (Toronto), October 1917: 400-2; March 1926: 135. G. H. Duggan, The Quebec Bridge: notes on the work of the St. Lawrence Bridge Company, in preparing the accepted design for the construction of the superstructure ([Quebec?, 1918?]). Engineering Journal (Montreal), 9 (1926): 168; 20 (1937): 288. Engineering News-Record (New York), 96 (January-June 1926): 376-77. J. W. Leonard, Who{apos}s who in engineering: a biographical dictionary of contemporaries, 1925 (2nd ed., 2v., New York, 1925). W. D. Middleton, The bridge at Québec (Bloomington, Ind., 2001). J. R. Millard, The master spirit of the age: Canadian engineers and the politics of professionalism, 1887-1922 (Toronto, 1988). {d-0}The Quebec Bridge,{d-1} Canadian Engineer (Toronto), 33 (July-December 1917): 264-66. The Quebec Bridge over the St. Lawrence River near the city of Quebec on the line of the Canadian National Railways: report of the government board of engineers (2v., Ottawa, 1919). C. R. Young, {d-0}Bridge building,{d-1} Engineering Journal, 20: 486.

Kilpatrick{apos}s first published work appeared in Essays in philosophical criticism (London, 1883), which featured a new generation of philosophers educated by Caird and Thomas Hill Green of Oxford. The writers sought to apply idealist thinking to the most pressing problems in science, ethics, and religion. Kilpatrick{apos}s essay dealt with the pessimism created by contemporary, individualistic philosophies that left people feeling alone, separated from God, nature, and each other. The task of religion was to proclaim the hope provided by the supreme principle of love. This principle, in Kilpatrick{apos}s estimation, reached its ultimate expression in Christianity. Throughout his career he sought to promote this interpretation in the classroom, print, parish life, and church committees.

In 1899 Kilpatrick received an honorary doctorate from the Free Church College and accepted the invitation of Manitoba College to become professor of systematic theology and apologetics and a joint lecturer in philosophy. During his tenure there an influential group of Protestant ministers, including Principal William Patrick (who had followed Kilpatrick from Scotland in 1900) and Charles William Gordon*, promoted the idea of uniting Protestantism in Canada to ensure the continuing influence of Christianity in a rapidly changing dominion, especially in the cities and in the west. Kilpatrick{apos}s enthusiastic support for church union rested on his belief that the context of a new country offered possibilities to create a synthesis of the best of the past through historical evolution guided by the spirit of God. In his view, the best was distinctly moral and Protestant. During debates over the Prohibition referendum in Manitoba in 1902, he publicly supported the Dominion Alliance for the Total Suppression of the Liquor Trade. The church had a duty to help purify politics, he later maintained. In his promotion in 1904 of a grand design for education in Canada, he was forced reluctantly to recognize the constitutional reality of separate schools. In a discussion in 1907 about Mormon immigration, he stated that {d-0}the greatest grief in Alberta is the Mormon settlement.{d-1}

In 1905 Kilpatrick had carried his vision of church unity to the University of Toronto{apos}s Knox College, where he had been appointed professor of systematic theology. He and Principal Alfred Gandier formed the continuing core of Knox{apos}s faculty over the time it took Canadian Presbyterians, Methodists, and Congregationalists to work through the details and the battles involved in creating the United Church of Canada in 1925. At the same time Kilpatrick continued to venture opinions on public matters and write popular theology. For a series of dictionaries and encyclopedias edited by James Hastings, he authored articles on conscience, philosophy, the character of Christ, the Incarnation, the anger of God, benevolence, salvation, soteriology, and suffering. In addition, he published New Testament evangelism (Toronto, 1911), a set of lectures he gave to the Knox alumni conference of 1910, with appendices by John George Shearer, secretary of the Board of Social Service and Evangelism of the Presbyterian Church in Canada. This book was designed to advance the church{apos}s program for liberal evangelism, which combined traditional evangelistic appeal with the promotion of progressive social reform. Kilpatrick{apos}s social ethic embraced Victorian middle-class values as applied to the new conditions of immigration, industrialization, and urbanization in Canada. He was an influential member of Shearer{apos}s board for many years, participated in a number of evangelistic campaigns, and taught the course on evangelism at Knox. In recognition of his work, he was made a doctor of sacred theology in 1910 by the Hartford Theological Seminary in Connecticut.

Kilpatrick believed that his ideal of an integrated and unified nation required a united Protestantism. Separation should cease, he argued, unless the maintenance of some vital element of Christian salvation was at issue. He sat on the joint committee on church union from 1906 to 1925, and was an influential member of the committee that drafted the doctrinal section of the Basis of Union. In 1919 he wrote that the church needed to consolidate its resources to serve God, not as a machine, but as {d-0}an organic whole, a living organism, a spiritual community, whose creative centre is Christ, whose vital power is the Divine spirit, whose members are held together by one faith and love.{d-1} Especially in the aftermath of World War I, he believed, the ideals of the church needed strong and unified promotion. {d-0}War-devastated, distracted by animosities, misled by statesmen, disillusioned as to democracy, rendered desperate by failure of schemes and plans, treaties and conventions, alliances and leagues, the world needs that God . . . who is Love,{d-1} he would write in 1928.

With the creation of the United Church, Kilpatrick and his professorial colleagues left Knox and moved to the college of the new church, eventually named Emmanuel College. Ill health, however, led to his retirement in 1926. He died four years later at his home at 134 St George Street, near the university, from which all three of his children had graduated. Elizabeth Margaret Ritchie, after service overseas as a nurse in 1918-19, taught at Branksome Hall girls{s-1-unknown} school in Toronto; Dorothy Hamilton, following several years as a missionary in India, became a dean of women at the university; and George Gordon Dinwiddie, a chaplain during the war, later served as principal of the United Theological College in Montreal.

Thomas Buchanan Kilpatrick{apos}s publications include {d-0}Pessimism and the religious consciousness,{d-1} in Essays in philosophical criticism, ed. Andrew Seth [Pringle-Pattison] and R. B. Haldane (London, 1883), 246-77; Counsels to a young missioner (Toronto, 1909); The Kootenay campaign: evangelism and moral reform, April and May, 1909, co-written with J. G. Shearer (Toronto, 1910); {d-0}William Patrick: 1852-1911; an appreciation,{d-1} Presbyterian (Toronto), new ser., 19 (July-December 1911): 359-60; {d-0}The end of a long ministry,{d-1} Presbyterian, new ser., 25 (July-December 1914): 175; {d-0}The church in the twentieth century,{d-1} Constructive Quarterly (New York), 7 (1919): 400-33; and Our common faith; with a brief history of the church union movement in Canada by Kenneth H. Cousland (Toronto, 1928). In addition, he edited Joseph Butler, Sermons: sermons I, II, III, upon human nature, or man considered as a moral agent (Edinburgh, [1888]), and contributed a number of entries to the following theological reference works edited by James Hastings: A dictionary of Christ and the Gospels (2v., Edinburgh, 1906-8), 1: 281-91, 796-813; A dictionary of the Bible; dealing with its language, literature, and contents, including the biblical theology (5v., Edinburgh, 1906), 1: 468-75; 3: 848-54; Encyclopædia of religion and ethics (13v., Edinburgh, 1908-26), 1: 477-82; 2: 474-79; 11: 110-31, 694-725; 12: 1-10.

AO, RG 22-305, no.65419. General Register Office for Scotland (Edinburgh), Blythswood (Glasgow), reg. of births, 27 Sept. 1857; Newington (Edinburgh), reg. of marriages, 21 April 1885; St Andrew (Edinburgh), reg. of marriages, 27 June 1899. UTA, A1973-0026/201(38)-(40). Globe, 22 March 1930. Canadian annual rev., 1902, 1907. Canadian men and women of the time (Morgan; 1912). B. J. Fraser, {d-0}Christianizing the social order: T. B. Kilpatrick{apos}s theological vision of the United Church of Canada,{d-1} Toronto Journal of Theology, 12 (1996): 189-200; Church, college, and clergy: a history of theological education at Knox College, Toronto, 1844-1994 (Montreal and Kingston, Ont., 1995); The social uplifters: Presbyterian progressives and the Social Gospel in Canada, 1875-1915 (Waterloo, Ont., 1988). Standard dict. of Canadian biog. (Roberts and Tunnell). Univ. of Toronto Monthly, 30 (1929-30): 376.

The son and grandson of Hudson{apos}s Bay Company men, John A. Mackay eschewed a career in the fur trade in favour of mission work. He received his initial training as a catechist under the Reverend John Horden* at Mistassini and then continued his studies in the late 1850s at St John{apos}s College in Red River. His ordination as a priest on 29 May 1862 was part of the mid-19th-century attempt of the Church Missionary Society to create an indigenous native clergy in Rupert{apos}s Land [see James Settee*; Thomas Vincent*].

In the fall of 1876 Dr John McLean*, the first Anglican bishop of Saskatchewan, invited Mackay to accompany him on a tour of the new diocese from Prince Albert to Fort Edmonton (Alta); the pair conducted the first Anglican service in Battleford in the local telegraph office on New Year{apos}s Day 1877. Thereafter, Mackay worked briefly in the Fort Carlton (Sask.) and Nepowewin (Nipawin) districts before being sent back to Battleford by McLean in September 1877 to build a church there. Mackay worked largely with the local native population for the next two years and established a mission on the Red Pheasant Indian Reserve.

Bishop McLean had sent Mackay to Battleford apparently as part of a larger scheme to found a divinity college in the new capital of the North-West Territories. But in November 1879 McLean decided to open Emmanuel College in Prince Albert to train native missionaries and catechists for work in the territories. Mackay was one of the original staff members and taught Cree grammar and composition – an unprecedented educational experiment. In 1882 Mackay was named archdeacon and two years later he left the college for The Pas to supervise CMS activities in the Cumberland district. He returned to Battleford in the fall of 1885. Early the next year the Department of Indian Affairs appointed him its agent there. The department was worried about Indian behaviour in the aftermath of the North-West rebellion – there were ten reserves in the immediate Battleford area – and believed that Mackay would have a calming influence on the situation. This assignment lasted until 1887 when Mackay assumed a new role at Emmanuel. McLean{apos}s successor, Bishop William Cyprian Pinkham, believed that the college, which had secured university status in 1883, was best suited as an Indian boarding school and called on Mackay to serve as the new principal. Indian Affairs, however, used Mackay one more time, in February 1889 when as translator he persuaded the Montreal Lake and Lac la Ronge Cree to sign an adhesion to Treaty No.6.

During his 13 years at Emmanuel, Mackay continued to serve as Cree tutor. He translated the Bible, the Book of Common Prayer, and the hymn book into Cree, as well as prepared revised editions of the prayer book translated by James Hunter* and his wife, Jean Ross, and Horden{apos}s grammar in the Plains Cree dialect. He also vigorously pursued his evangelical work. Indeed, he could be rather territorial. When Mackay learned, for example, that the Oblates of Mary Immaculate wanted to re-establish a school on the Thunderchild Indian Reserve in 1891 [see Peyasiw-awasis], he reminded the Indian commissioner that the Anglicans had been there first and had always faithfully served the interests of the department. This uncompromising zeal ultimately led to his appointment as superintendent of Indian missions for the diocese of Saskatchewan in 1900. In this capacity, he supervised the building of churches and schools and hired staff; he also undertook gruelling annual inspection trips through northern Saskatchewan, even when he was well past retirement age.

Perhaps the best example of his determination to further the work of the church was his rescue of the abandoned day school on the Little Pine Indian Reserve. In 1921 he struck a deal with the deputy superintendent general of Indian affairs, Duncan Campbell Scott*. He offered to rebuild the school and provide the operating funds out of his own pocket; if after one year the school was considered a success, then Indian Affairs would take it over. It was Mackay{apos}s last challenge and last victory. He died in Battleford in November 1923 while working on a Cree dictionary. The Reverend Edward Ahenakew* remembered him as {d-0}a father to our race, not indulgent, but kindly and wise . . . a true and honest man. When need arose for determined action, he was far from wanting.{d-1}

John Alexander Mackay{apos}s publications are listed in Biblio. of the prairie prov. (Peel). His diary for 1870–72 has been published as {d-0}The journal of the Reverend J. A. Mackay, Stanley Mission, 1870–72,{d-1} Saskatchewan Hist. (Saskatoon), 16 (1963): 95–113.

Saskatchewan Arch. Board (Saskatoon), S-A113 V (Campbell Innes fonds, J. A. Mackay papers). Edward Ahenakew, {d-0}Little Pine: an Indian day school,{d-1} ed. R. M. Buck, Saskatchewan Hist., 18 (1965): 55–62; Voices of the Plains Cree, ed. R. M. Buck (Regina, 1995). Arlean McPherson, The Battlefords: a history (Battleford and North Battleford, Sask., 1967). J. E. Murray, {d-0}The early history of Emmanuel College,{d-1} Saskatchewan Hist., 9 (1956): 81–101. Eleanor Shepphird Matheson, {d-0}The journal of Eleanor Shepphird Matheson, 1920,{d-1} ed. R. M. Buck, Saskatchewan Hist., 22 (1969): 66–72, 109–17.

In 1880, after his ordination on 6 June and his wedding four days later, Maclean and his wife left for a new Methodist mission near Fort Macleod (Alta). They spent nine years among the Blood Indians, the North-West Mounted Police, and settlers; Maclean{apos}s circuit comprised almost all of what is now southern Alberta. There, he learned the languages of many native groups of the foothills. Settlement and the drive to create Indian reserves and industrial schools in the west during the last quarter of the 19th century spawned competition among missionaries. Maclean plunged into an unpleasant rivalry with Samuel Trivett of the Church Missionary Society which lasted until his departure in 1889. At the mission Maclean experienced mixed reactions from the Blood, who welcomed his offerings of food, clothing, and education, but who sometimes destroyed his property.

Along with a small group of unconventional missionaries such as Silas Tertius Rand*, Émile Petitot*, and Adrien-Gabriel Morice*, Maclean had a keen interest in Indian culture and ethnology. He corresponded with such early ethnologists as Horatio Emmons Hale*, Franz Boas*, and James Constantine Pilling, with the British Association on North-West Indian Tribes from 1882 to 1888, and for many years with the bureau of ethnology of the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C., on the languages and literature of the native peoples of the west. His contemporaries thought him well informed on the languages, culture, and social and political life of the Plains Indians. At his death three of his books, The Indians: their manners and customs (Toronto, 1889), The Blackfoot language ([Toronto?, 1896?]), and Canadian savage folk: the native tribes of Canada (Toronto, 1896), were considered the best on their subjects. Besides his many works on native peoples and missionaries, some of which were published under the pseudonym Robin Rustler, he published numerous ethnological pamphlets and he was a regular contributor to the Hudson{apos}s Bay Company{apos}s magazine Beaver (Winnipeg) from 1924 to 1927.

Although Maclean clearly adhered to contemporary theories about the vanishing Indian and was later criticized for superficial fieldwork, he treated native peoples as humans who were capable of spiritual depth and sincerity. On 10 April 1889, for example, he wrote to his wife: {d-0}Listening to the song and story of my dusky friends my heart is bounding with delight. . . . Like innocent children they asked me whether or not I had seen any buffalo. . . . The shadows are falling over their pathway. . . . And they bow to the inevitable lot imposed upon them by the white race . . . [they] await the time when the Great Spirit shall call [them] away.{d-1}

Maclean subsequently served at Port Arthur (Thunder Bay, Ont.) (1892–95), Neepawa, Man. (1896–1900), and Carman, Man. (1901–2). During those years he wrote a series of religious tracts. In 1902 he moved to Halifax, where he was editor of the Wesleyan for four years; he then returned west and was stationed at Morden, Man., until 1911. That year Maclean was sent to the small, struggling Bethel mission in Winnipeg. There, he and Sarah worked until 1919 among Winnipeg{apos}s English-speaking poor, providing social, legal, medical, and other relief services. At Bethel, which was renamed the Maclean mission in 1918, the couple established a Sunday school and built a community centre, where an orchestra played a free concert every Saturday night.

The 1920s were difficult for Maclean. The Winnipeg General Strike of 1919 had upset him greatly; he feared it to be the start of a revolution that was contemplated for the whole dominion. He was especially critical of the Social Gospel movement, believing that James Shaver Woodsworth* was supporting {d-0}Bolsheviks.{d-1} As the 1920s went on, despite his optimism over church union, he was pessimistic about what he viewed as the decline of Methodism. After his death in 1928 John Maclean was warmly remembered as a committed and passionate man who devoted himself completely to scholarship, especially on native languages and culture, and to the church.

Marie-Louise Marmette, the only surviving child of the four born to her parents, came from a literary family. The historian François-Xavier Garneau* was her maternal grandfather; her father was a prolific writer who, in 1884, helped found the Cercle des Dix, an Ottawa literary society. Indeed, it was the title of one of the latter{apos}s novels, François de Bienville, published in Quebec the year she was born, that inspired Marie-Louise to adopt the pen-name she would use most frequently, Louyse de Bienville. In later life she recalled that, when she was still a child, her father had taken her with him to several Quebec literary salons.

Schooled by the Ursulines in Quebec from 1880 to 1882, Marie-Louise was then taught by the nuns of the Congregation of Notre-Dame in Ottawa. She is also thought to have studied literature in Paris, where her family was obliged to make several stays on account of her father{apos}s position as an archivist for the federal government. According to her daughter Marguerite, Marie-Louise spent four years in all in the City of Light and thus developed a fondness for French culture. In the summer of 1892, in Ottawa, she married Donat Brodeur, a lawyer. They would subsequently settle in Montreal and have eight children.

Marie-Louise pursued a literary career that is still little known in detail. Between 1902 and 1909 she wrote articles for the Journal de Françoise, a Montreal newspaper founded by Robertine Barry*, who was known as Françoise; they were probably among her earliest contributions to periodicals. This association with the women{apos}s press in Montreal continued between 1913 and 1915 in the pages of Pour vous mesdames, a magazine founded and run by Georgine Bélanger*, who wrote under the name Gaétane de Montreuil. From 1913 to 1916 Brodeur also published articles in La Bonne Parole, the organ of the Fédération Nationale Saint-Jean-Baptiste, in which she was active. In particular she gave lectures at the monthly meetings of the Association Professionnelle des Employées de Manufactures and the Association Professionnelle des Employées de Magasins [see Marie-Anne Laporte], organizations that were sponsored by the federation. In 1920 and 1924 two pieces she wrote appeared in La Revue moderne, the journal whose editor was Anne-Marie Gleason*, known as Madeleine. At the same time, Brodeur published articles in newspapers of more general interest, including Le Temps of Ottawa, the Montreal paper Le Pays, Le Courrier de Montmagny, and Quebec{apos}s Le Soleil. But she would never publish a book.

Brodeur tried her hand at various literary genres, including newspaper columns on current affairs and literature, biography, novellas, short stories, and poetry. While fascinated by the great figures of the past (from Joan of Arc to her ancestor François-Xavier Garneau), she also occasionally wrote about the state of Canadian literature, as well as about the advent of feminism, which was {d-0}one of the developments – the most important – that do honour to humanity,{d-1} as she noted in Pour vous mesdames in October 1913. Always an avid follower of current affairs, she was interested in World War I, partly, of course, as a mother – her three sons having enlisted – but also as a journalist who published several {d-0}Pages de guerre{d-1} in Pour vous mesdames in October 1914 and La Bonne Parole in February, March, May, and June 1916. Filled with admiration for the courage shown by the women of France during this struggle, she declared in June 1916 that {d-0}a nation made more glorious by such women will never be conquered.{d-1} When a daily column in La Presse invited opinions on the issue of female suffrage, on 18 Jan. 1919 Brodeur unequivocally demanded that women be accorded the right to vote, as well as {d-0}its liberal use.{d-1}

ANQ-Q, CE301-S1, 29 mars 1870. Le Devoir, 3 mai 1928, 21 mai 1932. BCF, 1923: 243. Georges Bellerive, Brèves apologies de nos auteurs féminins (Québec, 1920). DOLQ, 2: 493–94. Madeleine [A.-M.] Gleason-Huguenin, Portraits de femmes ([Montréal], 1938), 65. Hamel et al., DALFAN, 946–47. J. Hamelin et al., La presse québécoise, 4: 347. Roger Le Moine, Joseph Marmette, sa vie, son œuvre, suivi de {d-0}À travers la vie, roman de mœurs canadiennes{d-1} de Joseph Marmette (Québec, 1968). Mariages de la paroisse Sacré-Cœur, Ottawa (1889–1975), Julien Hamelin, compil. (Ottawa, s.d.), 24. Gaétane de Montreuil [Georgine Bélanger], {d-0}Mme Donat Brodeur,{d-1} Pour vous mesdames, 1 (1913–14): 202–3. M.-E. Vézina, {d-0}In memoriam,{d-1} La Rev. moderne, 9 (1928), no. 6: 17.

Edmond-Joseph Massicotte took commercial courses and had his first lessons in drawing and painting with the Brothers of the Christian Schools in Sainte-Cunégonde. He then studied with Edmond Dyonnet at the Council of Arts and Manufactures of the Province of Quebec in Montreal from 1892 to about 1895, and finally with William Brymner at the school run by the Art Association of Montreal. On 15 Oct. 1892 the Montreal magazine Le Monde illustré published his first illustration, which accompanied a poem entitled {d-0}Le glaneur{d-1} that had been written by his brother, Édouard-Zotique*. Thus began, on the theme of the land, the close collaboration between the Massicotte brothers. Before confining himself to the role of portraying habitants, however, Edmond-Joseph would become the spearhead of a particular kind of modernism.

The international style known as art nouveau, in which sinuous lines convey the sensuous charms of human figures, would strongly influence Edmond-Joseph{apos}s early work. His rapid conversion was probably due to Édouard-Zotique, who was then described as a {d-0}young barbarian{d-1} because of his attachment to the European symbolist movement. The decorated title and allegorical figure the illustrator drew around 1895 for the cover of L{apos}Écho des jeunes, a magazine launched in Sainte-Cunégonde in 1891 (to which Édouard-Zotique contributed), seemed the emblem of the direction that the visual arts would take, alongside the new Quebec literature, with its {d-0}decadent{d-1} inspiration. Although Édouard-Zotique{apos}s literary revolt was of short duration, Edmond-Joseph would spend another dozen years in mastering a modernism that would be useful in his work as an illustrator.

The success of art nouveau in Montreal was the more remarkable given that Massicotte{apos}s eye and hand provided only sporadic support to the cause. His main ambition lay elsewhere. On 3 March 1900 he made a point of listing in Le Passe-Temps the illustrators whom he admired: first, the Americans Charles Dana Gibson, a prolific artist, and Charles Stanley Reinhart; among the French, Gustave-Henri Marchetti and Jean-André Castaigne as well as Alfons Mucha (a Czech by birth); and lastly his compatriot Julien.

Except for Mucha, the illustrators Massicotte so admired were not part of the art nouveau movement, but rather fashionable graphic artists of their times. They were witty and even daring, and their concept of style had more to do with their subject than with the actual drawing. What they all had in common was technical virtuosity, and their favourite milieu was high society. Massicotte{apos}s pencil was guided as well by the pursuit of virtuosity and social elegance. The bourgeois types he sketched – mostly friends or family members – were reminiscent of Gibson{apos}s. These elegant figures, hundreds of whom can be found in the artist{apos}s sketch books, were often used in designing advertisements. Nevertheless, a set of working-class and rural themes also evolved in his portfolio. Before adopting Julien{apos}s traditionalist realism, then, Massicotte was torn between Mucha{apos}s austerity and symmetry and Gibson{apos}s modern elegance.

Massicotte was prolific. By the beginning of the 20th century, some 1,000 of his designs and compositions graced publications in Montreal. In addition to illustrating newspapers, literary works, and promotional materials, he did amusing drawings, especially for Le Canard, a humorous Montreal newspaper, from 1896 to 1898. During his ten years at Le Monde illustré, from 1892 to 1902, he published 237 drawings, including several caricatures. The spectacular title pages Massicotte created for it from the fall of 1900 to Easter 1901 – at least three of which were directly inspired by Mucha – seemed to proclaim that the magazine (under the editorship of Édouard-Zotique) had adopted the modernism of the new century. This series marked the high point of the art nouveau style in the artist{apos}s work, but it was also the catalyst of the movement – which he himself would soon abandon – in illustrated publications in Quebec. To judge from his less daring use of art nouveau, his voluptuous human forms probably offended public sensibilities. From 1895 to 1910 Massicotte contributed occasionally to Le Passe-Temps, producing portraits, illustrations, and impressions of theatrical performances, sketched on the spot and referred to as {d-0}illustrated theatre.{d-1} He abandoned the latter in 1902, just as he was beginning a series of {d-0}Canadian types{d-1} in Le Passe-Temps.

By that year Massicotte{apos}s venture into utterly pure art nouveau had come to an end. He would henceforth strive for synthesis, a desire to reconcile the new and the old which would remain with him until 1908. Some of the drawings he did for the Montreal magazine L{apos}Album universel (the name adopted by Le Monde illustré in 1902), where he worked until 1910, reveal an attempt to combine modernist style and traditional design. One example is the cover page of the 18 April 1903 issue of Les Sucres, a composition marked by a strong graphic statement whose flattened perspective is similar to the American poster style.

Massicotte{apos}s fame rests primarily on the 12 plates he published in Montreal in 1923 under the title Nos Canadiens d{apos}autrefois. Most of them had already appeared in the Almanach du peuple, and they were now supplemented by commentaries from such prominent writers as Albert Ferland*, Lionel Groulx*, and Marius Barbeau*. Five others, intended for a second volume that had not been completed at the time of Massicotte{apos}s death, were added to them. The title of any one of them suffices to evoke a familiar picture, for example La bénédiction du jour de l{apos}An and Le retour de la messe de minuit. Massicotte achieved the elegant simplicity of these plates by purging his artistic vocabulary of modernistic fantasy. He was indebted to modernism, however, for their incisive graphic expression, which brought about such a fine marriage of line and motif.

An inventory of Edmond-Joseph Massicotte{apos}s promotional illustrations has yet to be compiled. It is known, for instance, that between 1906 and 1908 he prepared numerous advertisements for the Merchants Awning Company Limited.

Massicotte illustrated several books apart from his brother Édouard-Zotique{apos}s La cité de Sainte-Cunégonde de Montréal: notes et souvenirs (Montréal, 1893). The first was Wenceslas-Eugène Dick{apos}s Un drame au Labrador (Montréal, [1897?]), where his style is reminiscent of late European realism. In 1899 in Montréal, Édouard-Zotique{apos}s Monographies de plantes canadiennes, suivies de croquis champêtres et d{apos}un calendrier de la flore de la province de Québec was published, illustrated by Edmond-Joseph with quasi-scientific precision in mind. In the same vein were Massicotte{apos}s drawings for his brother{apos}s book Cent fleurs de mon herbier: études sur le monde végétal à la portée de tous, suivies d{apos}un calendrier de la flore de la province de Québec (Montréal, 1906); here he republished the illustrations that had originally appeared in the series Nos fleurs canadiennes in Le Monde illustré (Montréal) between 30 July 1893 and 22 June 1901. In addition, he prepared four drawings for Pamphile Le May*{apos}s Contes vrais (2e éd., Montréal, 1907), drew 16 pen portraits for his brother{apos}s book Conteurs canadiens-français du XIXe siècle (Montréal, 1902), provided for publication a set of illustrations for a novel by Laure Conan [Félicité Angers], À l{apos}œuvre et à l{apos}épreuve (3e éd., Montréal, 1914), created 22 illustrations for Auguste Tressol, named Brother Théodule, Mes premières leçons de rédaction (Montréal, 1914), and illustrated Récits laurentiens (Montréal, 1919) and Croquis laurentiens (Montréal, 1920) by Brother Marie-Victorin [Conrad Kirouac*] and Constant Doyon{apos}s Au régime de l{apos}eau (Québec, 1919).

Massicotte also contributed to the Almanach Rolland agricole, commercial et des familles de la compagnie J.-B. Rolland & fils (Montréal), 1915–28, the Almanach de l{apos}Action sociale catholique (Québec), 1918–24, and the Annuaire Granger pour la jeunesse (Montréal), 1926–29.

The publication of Bernard Genest{apos}s study Massicotte et son temps (Montréal, 1979) attests to renewed interest in the traditional aspect of Massicotte{apos}s work, and the awareness of his contribution to modernism is evidenced in Pierre Landry, {d-0}L