Meanwhile Mr Laurier had been obliged to face the same difficult issue.
He was a sincere Catholic. He sympathized with the desire of his fellow-religionists for schools in which their faith would be cherished, and believed that at the creation of the province all parties had understood that such schools were a.s.sured. He knew, too, the power of the Church in Quebec, and the fierceness of the storm that {163} would beat upon him if he opposed its will. Yet he kept a close grip on fact. He saw clearly that any attempt by the Dominion to set up a separate school system, which would have to be operated by a sullen and hostile province, was doomed to failure. He condemned the Government"s bludgeoning policy and urged investigation and conciliation by minor amendments. Further than this, in the earlier stages of the agitation, he would not go. In spite of entreaties and threats and taunts from the opposite camps, he remained, like Wellington, "within the lines of Torres Vedras."
At the session of 1896 the Government introduced its Remedial Bill, providing for the organization and maintenance of distinctly separate schools in Manitoba. The Catholic authorities accepted the bill as in full compliance with their demands, and bent all their energies to secure its adoption. A _mandement_ was issued by all the bishops urging electors to support only candidates who would pledge themselves to restore separate schools. And in January Mr Laurier received a letter written by Father Lacombe in the name of the bishops and published in the newspapers throughout Canada. This letter besought the Liberal leader to support the bill, and warned him that {164} "if, which may G.o.d not grant, you do not believe it to be your duty to accede to our just demands, and if the government which is anxious to give us the promised law is beaten and overthrown while persisting in its policy to the end, I inform you with regret that the episcopacy, like one man, united to the clergy, will rise to support those who may have fallen to defend us."
Mr Laurier met the challenge squarely. In one of his strongest speeches he reviewed the whole tangled issue. He admitted the legal power of Canada to pa.s.s and enforce the bill, but denied that the judgment of the Privy Council made such action automatically necessary.
It was still the Government"s duty to investigate and seek a compromise, not to force through a bill framed in darkness and obstinacy. The minority itself would be more effectually and more permanently benefited by amendments made voluntarily by the province as the result of reasonable compromise. Then he turned to the threats of ecclesiastical hostility:
Not many weeks ago I was told from high quarters in the Church to which I belong, that unless I supported the School Bill which was then being prepared by the government, and which we have now before us, {165} I would incur the hostility of a great and powerful body. Sir, this is too grave a phase of this question for me to pa.s.s it by in silence. I have only this to say, that even though I have threats held over me, coming, as I am told, from high dignitaries in the Church to which I belong, no word of bitterness shall ever pa.s.s my lips as against that Church. I respect it and I love it. Sir, I am not of that school which has been long dominant in France and other countries of Continental Europe, which refuses ecclesiastics the privilege of having a voice in public affairs. No, I am a Liberal of the English school, which has all along claimed that it is the privilege of all subjects, whether high or low, whether rich or poor, whether ecclesiastic or layman, to partic.i.p.ate in the administration of public affairs, to discuss, to influence, to persuade, to convince, but which has always denied, even to the highest, the right to dictate even to the lowest.
I am here representing not Roman Catholics alone but Protestants as well, and I must give an account of my stewardship to all cla.s.ses.
Here am I, a Roman Catholic of French extraction, entrusted with the confidence of the men who sit around me, with great and important duties under our const.i.tutional system of government. Am I to be told--I, occupying such a position--that I am to be dictated to as to the course I am to take in this House by reasons that can appeal to the consciences of my fellow-Catholic members, but which do not appeal as well to the consciences of my Protestant colleagues? No! So long as I have a seat in this House, so long {166} as I occupy the position I do now, whenever it shall become my duty to take a stand upon any question whatever, that stand I will take, not from the point of view of Roman Catholicism, not from the point of view of Protestantism, but from a point of view which can appeal to the consciences of all men, irrespective of their particular faith, upon grounds which can be occupied by all men who love justice, freedom, and toleration.
Mr Laurier concluded by moving, not an equivocal amendment, as had been expected by the Government, but the six months" hoist, or straight negative. A few Catholic Liberals supported the Government, but the party as a whole, aided by a strong band of erstwhile ministerialists, obstructed the measure so vigorously that the Government was compelled to abandon it, in view of the hastening end of the legal term of parliament. Sir Charles Tupper dissolved parliament, reorganized his Cabinet, and carried the question to the country.
A strenuous campaign followed. Mr Laurier took, in Ontario and Quebec alike, the firm, moderate position he had taken in the House of Commons. The issue, in his view, was not whether the const.i.tutional rights of the Catholics of Manitoba had been violated; {167} for he believed that they had been. The issue was, Could these rights be restored by coercion? The Conservatives and the Church said Yes. True to his political faith, Mr Laurier said No. Up and down the province of Quebec he was denounced by the ultramontane leaders. Here was sheer, stark Liberalism of the brand the Church had condemned. Bishop Lafleche declared that no Catholic could without sin vote for the chief of a party who had formulated publicly such an error, and Archbishop Langevin called upon every true son of the Church to stand by those who stood by it. In Ontario and the other English-speaking provinces, on the contrary, the welkin rang with denunciations of hierarchical presumption. Sir Charles Tupper fought with the wonderful vigour and fearlessness that had always marked him, but fought in vain. His forces, disorganized by internal strife, weakened by long years of office, weighted down by an impossible policy, were no match for the Liberals, strong in their leader and in a cause which stirred the enthusiasm of a united party. The election resulted in a decisive victory for the Liberals. Strange to say, Manitoba went with the Conservatives and Ontario gave the Liberals only {168} forty-four out of ninety-two seats, though seven fell to independents opposed to the Remedial Bill, while Quebec gave forty-eight seats out of its sixty-five to the party which its spiritual leaders had denounced.
{169}
CHAPTER IX
NEW MEN AT THE HELM
The school settlement--The new tariff
The long night of opposition was over. The critics were to be given the opportunity to do constructive work. Under the leader who had served so fitting an apprenticeship they were to guide the political destinies of Canada for over fifteen years. These were to be years of change and progress, years which would bridge the gulf between the stagnant colony of yesterday and the progressive nation of to-day.
[Ill.u.s.tration: The Liberal Government formed by Mr. Laurier in 1896.]
Mr Laurier gathered round him the ablest group of administrators ever united in a single Canadian Ministry. To augment his already powerful parliamentary following he called from the provincial administrations four of the strongest men[1] and took them into his Cabinet. The prime minister himself, warned by the experiences of Mackenzie and Macdonald, did not burden himself with a department, but wisely decided to save his strength {170} and time for the general oversight and guidance of the Government.
The first task of the new Ministry was to seek a peaceful settlement of the Manitoba school question. A compromise was {171} doubtless facilitated by the fact that the same party now ruled both in Ottawa and in Winnipeg. The province would not restore the system of state-aided separate schools, but amendments to the provincial law were effected which removed the more serious grievances of the minority.
Provision was made for religious teaching in the last half-hour of the school day, when authorized by the trustees or requested by the parents of a specified minimum of pupils. Any religious denomination might provide such teaching, upon days to be arranged. Where the attendance of Roman Catholic children reached twenty-five in rural and forty in urban schools, a Catholic teacher should be engaged upon pet.i.tion, and equally a non-Catholic teacher should be engaged for a Protestant minority similarly situated. Where ten pupils spoke French or any other language than English as their native tongue, bi-lingual teaching should be provided. In the ordinary work of the school the children were not to be divided on denominational lines, and the schools were to remain public schools in every sense.
The settlement was accepted generally in the country as a reasonable ending of the strife--as the best that could be done in the {172} circ.u.mstances. Edward Blake, counsel for the Catholic minority, declared it more advantageous than any legislation which could have been secured by coercion. Speaking in the House of Commons (March 1897) in defence of the settlement, Mr Laurier again declared his doctrine, "that the smallest measure of conciliation was far preferable to any measure of coercion." The settlement, he continued, was not as advantageous to the minority as he would have desired; "still, after six long years of agitation, when the pa.s.sions of men had been roused to the highest pitch, it was not possible to obtain more, nor for the Government of Manitoba to concede more, under present circ.u.mstances."
By the Catholic authorities, however, the compromise was not accepted.
They denounced it as sanctioning a system of mixed and neutral schools which the Church had condemned, and as sacrificing to fanaticism the sacred rights of the minority. Archbishop Langevin vigorously attacked the settlement and all the parties to it, and some of his brother ecclesiastics in Quebec agreed with him. Voters in by-elections were told that they had to choose between Christ and Satan, between bishop and erring politician. The {173} leading Liberal newspaper of Quebec City, _L"Electeur_, was formally interdicted--every son of the Church was forbidden to subscribe to it, sell it, or read it, "under penalty of grievous sin and denial of the sacraments." So the war went on, until finally a number of Catholic Liberals, in their private capacity, appealed to Rome, and a papal envoy, Mgr Merry del Val, came to Canada to look into the matter. This step brought to an end a campaign as dangerous to the permanent welfare of the Church itself as it was to political freedom and to national unity.
The other issue which had figured in the general elections was the tariff. At the approach of power the fiscal policy of the Liberals had moderated, and it was to moderate still further under the mellowing and conservative influences of power itself. The Liberal platform of 1893 had declared war to the knife upon protection. In 1896, however, it was made plain that changes would not be effected hastily or without regard to established interests. In correspondence with Mr G. H.
Bertram of Toronto, published before the election, Mr Laurier stated that absolute free trade was out of the question, and that the policy of his party was a revenue tariff, {174} which would bring stability and permanence, and would be more satisfactory in the end to all manufacturers except monopolists. He added prophetically that "the advent of the Liberals to power would place political parties in Canada in the same position as political parties in England, who have no tariff issue distracting the country every general election."
The new Government lost no time in grappling with the problem. A tariff commission was appointed which sat at different centres and heard the views of representative citizens. Then in April 1897 Mr Fielding brought down the new tariff. It was at once recognized as a well-considered measure, an honest and a long first step in redeeming platform promises. In the revision of the old tariff beneficent changes were effected, such as abolition of the duties on binder twine, barbed wire, and Indian corn, substantial reductions on flour and sugar, the subst.i.tution of _ad valorem_ for specific duties, and a provision for reducing the duty on goods controlled by trusts or combines. The duties on iron and steel were reduced, but increased bounties were given on their production in Canada. More important, however, than such specific changes was the adoption of the principle of a minimum and maximum tariff. {175} A flat reduction of twelve and a half per cent, to be increased later to twenty-five per cent, on all goods except wines and liquors, was granted to countries which on the whole admitted Canadian products on terms as favourable as Canada offered. This, although not so nominated in the bond, amounted in intention to the British preference which the Liberal party had urged as early as 1892, for, except New South Wales and possibly one or two low-tariff states like Holland, Great Britain was believed to be the only country ent.i.tled to the minimum rate. But the Belgian and German treaties, already mentioned,[2] by which Great Britain had bound her colonies, stood in the way. While those treaties remained in force, so the law-officers of the Crown advised, Germany and Belgium would be ent.i.tled to the lower rates, and automatically France, Spain, and other favoured nations. It Canada was to be free to carry out her policy of tariff reform and imperial consolidation, it became essential to end the treaties in question. Sir Charles Tupper, now leading the Opposition, declared that this could not be done.
[1] These were: Sir Oliver Mowat, William Stevens Fielding, Andrew G.
Blair--prime ministers respectively of Ontario, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick--and Clifford Sifton, attorney-general of Manitoba, who joined the Ottawa Ministry a few months later.
Mr Laurier"s administration was formed as follows:
Prime Minister and President of the Council, WILFRID LAURIER.
Minister of Finance, WILLIAM S. FIELDING, of Nova Scotia.
Minister of Justice, SIR OLIVER MOWAT, of Ontario.
Minister of Trade and Commerce, SIR RICHARD CARTWRIGHT, of Ontario.
Secretary of State, RICHARD W. SCOTT, of Ontario.
Minister of Public Works, J. ISRAEL TARTE, of Quebec.
Minister of Railways and Ca.n.a.ls, ANDREW G. BLAIR, of New Brunswick.
Postmaster-General, WILLIAM MULOCK, of Ontario.
Minister of Agriculture, SYDNEY A. FISHER, of Quebec.
Minister of Marine and Fisheries, LOUIS H. DAVIES, of Prince Edward Island.
Minister of Militia and Defence, FREDERICK W. BORDEN, of Nova Scotia.
Minister of the Interior, CLIFFORD SIFTON, of Manitoba.
Minister of Customs, WILLIAM PATERSON, of Ontario.
Minister of Inland Revenue, H. G. JOLY DE LOTBINIeRE, of Quebec.
Ministers without Portfolio ( CHRISTOPHE A. GEOFFRION, ( RICHARD R. DOBELL, of Quebec.
Solicitor-General, CHARLES FITZPATRICK, of Quebec.
[2] See p. 134.
{176}
CHAPTER X
CANADA"S NEW PLACE IN THE WORLD
Laurier in England--Laurier in France--The South African War--The elections of 1900--The conference of 1902--The Alaskan boundary