tercourse and retain the friendship of persons from whom we differ. The effect of this trait showed itself occasionally in his writing. Thus, in referring to the proceeding of the Governor de Montmagny, who, on landing at Quebec in 1636, fell on his knees before a small cross erected on the road to the fort; he says: "M. de Montmagny was marked both by sense and ability, and the act itself, without explanation, must be attributed to impulse, and whatever praise it may receive from the Jesuit Fathers it cannot command universal respect.' This is surely not a gracious comment upon an act of religious devotion even though it be true that the governor was on his way to the cathedral where he was about to participate in high mass.

Perhaps it is to the characteristic here mentioned that we may attribute the treatment Dr. Kingsford received from Sir Hector Langevin, Minister of Public Works in the Macdonald Government. When Sir John Macdonald and his colleagues returned to power in 1878, Kingsford was engineer in charge of the public harbours of Ontario and Quebec. Not long afterwards the Minister dispensed with his services, an act for which he was at the time accused of political bigotry and intolerance. Kingsford had for several years held office under Alexander Mackenzie and had learned to admire the Premier's dogged industry, his sturdy honesty of purpose and a certain brusquerie of manner in uttering unwelcome truthsqualities somewhat akin to those which he possessed himself-and it has been asserted that Sir Hector was too narrow-minded to permit a person holding and expressing such views to remain in the public service and near his own person. The discharged employee felt so deeply the injustice which he considered to have been done him that he wrote a pamphlet vindicating his conduct and denouncing the Minister. But it is quite probable that the act which seemed so unwarranted was due to some indiscretion of the victim, and that had he preserved a judicious silence with regard to his

political opinions at a time when party feeling ran high, and when the expression of strong sympathy with the fallen Premier by a civil servant occupying a conspicuous position would naturally be resented, he might have retained his office for years.

To this event, which Dr. Kingsford felt at the time as a cruel blow, we in a large measure owe the "History of Canada. The subject had long been in the mind of the author who from his researches had come to the conclusion that certain critical passages in the relations of Great Britain with her dependencies in America had been steadily misrepresented. He was sixtyseven years of age when he began this great undertaking, having almost completed the span of life mentioned by the Psalmist, yet he entered upon his task with the courage and enthusiasm of youth. The preparations he made for the work were thorough and exhaustive. He had all his life, even when engaged in the active pursuit of his profession, been a diligent student of history and literature, and he began writing with an extensive fund of general and historical information. He determined at the outset to familiarize himself with the contents of all the original documents bearing upon his subject, and he laid down the lines of his work on a broad scale, aiming to give a view of the larger movements of international life, more especially those in which Great Britain, France and the United States were participants, of which the special experience of Canada was but a single phase; to show, in other words, what was passing in the world at large, and so to illumine the acts and events of Canadian history. This method has advantages, but it has also obvious disadvantages, one being that it swells the bulk of the book unduly. The number of persons who care to read ten large volumes about the history of Canada is limited.

Canadians are not, in fact, deeply interested in the history of their own land. They are so intent upon looking ahead into the future that they are

little disposed to cast their eyes behind upon their country's past. As a rule, even well-educated men and women among us are much more familiar with the history of England than with that of the Dominion. An explanation of the phenomenon may, perhaps, be found in the fact that until recently Canadian history could scarcely be said to have been written, while every era of British history had been treated by brilliant pens. Whatever the cause, the fact is undoubtedly as stated, and it may safely be said that a superficial knowledge of the struggle between France and England in the eighteenth century, of the events connected with the war of 1812-15, of the Upper and Lower Canadian Rebellion of 1837 and of the story of the Fenian Raid, constitute the sum total of the acquaintance of the average Canadian with the past life of Canada. Hence, it became apparent on the publication of the first volume that the undertaking would be a commercial failure. In the preface to the tenth volume the author tells us that he was enabled to carry on the work through the assistance of three friends. He says: "This work has exacted many year's of labour of the author's life, and some personal sacrifice on his part. Had it not been for the generous assistance of three friends, whose important aid was given in the crisis of its production, he would have failed in its completion."

But the author's heart was in the project, and although not possessed of private means, he persevered in the plan he had drawn up, labouring, as he believed, in the cause of patriotism and historic truth. Weighed down by poverty, harassed by petty financial cares, addressing a narrow circle of readers, and without any recognition by the Government, he persisted through twelve weary years in spite of every discouragement, retaining his cheerfulness, courage and buoyancy until the task was accomplished.

That a poor scholar should have been allowed to suffer in this manner, dependent upon the aid of generous friends for the means of existence, is

surely little to the credit of the Government of Canada. Sir Oliver Mowat, when Premier of Ontario, took 100 copies of his book, thus materially assisting the author, but the Government of Canada took none, though Dr. Kingsford was spending his time, energy and talent in a work of national scope and significance. Admitting that the historian may have been indiscreet, and that his want of tact was possibly responsible for his retirement from the public service, surely all this might have been overlooked in view of the character of his labours.

The design marked out late in life was finally accomplished, and on May 24th, 1898, the tenth volume was published, bringing the work down to 1841, the date of the union of the Canadas. With its completion the sustaining sense of companionship which such a task often imparts, vanished, and the venerable author must have felt, like Othello, that his that his occupation was gone, and that the time had arrived when he might depart in peace. At all events he survived only four months after inscribing "Finis" on his work.

The "History of Canada" is Dr. Kingsford's monument. It is there that the man is to be found, and those who would know him must seek the knowledge not in the meagre notice of personal traits here given, but in the pages in which are written the story of this Dominion. It is no part of our purpose to give a critical study of the work, but a few words upon it may not be out of place. It has already been hinted that its pages are overloaded with detail interesting only to the specialist. There is seemingly a want of proportion in the space devoted to the different topics, especially in the earlier volumes, which mars their attractiveness to the ordinary reader. The work is an immense storehouse of information, but somewhat wanting in symmetry and in the higher qualities of style. Often the reader is apt to weary of the long drawn out tale and to feel that the fire has been smothered

under the fuel. Nevertheless, with all its manifest and manifold defects, this history stands alone and unrivalled in its own sphere as the great standard authority upon the events and times with which it deals. Not every one will agree with the author's conclusions. The views he sets forth of certain important passages in our national career will be unwelcome to many and have been sharply criticised. Thus, he staunchly defends the attitude of the home government in dealing with the Acadians in opposition to the belief which Longfellow's Evangeline has made to be almost universally accepted. Again, he corrects the one-sided versions so widely prevalent of the events which culminated in the American Revolution. Again, the Rebellion in Lower Canada in 1837 is described in a manner not at all harmonizing with the belief of many French Canadians that their ancestors wrung their liberties from the British Government by force. In all these cases, however, the critic of Dr. Kingsford will find that his conclusions were based upon an exhaustive examination of the evidence, and, whatever his prepossessions, his aim has been to state the truth and to do impartial justice.

This imperfect sketch may well be brought to a close with a characteristic incident illustrating the pride the historian felt in his English lineage, and the manliness he conceived to be typical of the English nature. The story was told years ago, and it was of an occurrence many years before that. The hearer does not guarantee names but he thinks Sherbrooke was the town named by Dr. Kingsford. A murderer, whom we will call Greene, was lying in jail under sentence of death. The prisoner was an Englishman and was or had been a soldier, and Dr. Kingsford who was

temporarily residing in Sherbrooke was interested in him through that fact. He visited Greene a good deal. The man gained his sympathy as he had gained that of the officials of the jail; apparently his guilt was the result of a moment's passion; not the outcome of an evil nature. Strong representations in his favor had been made to the Crown, and a respite or commutation was expected, upon which Greene had unfortunately been allowed to build his hopes. The day before the date fixed for the execution, word arrived that there would be no inteference with the regular course of the law. The officials shrank from breaking the news to the prisoner; so, apparently in default of a priest, Dr. Kingsford was asked to perform the disagreeable duty.

"It was a nasty task," said the Doctor, telling of it, "I cast about much in my mind for the kindest way of doing it. There seemed nothing but the ordinary commonplace, till I said to myself, He is an Englishman, and we have talked together of our country.' Then I went into his cell. He stood up to greet me. I put my hands on his shoulders and I said, 'Greene, my man, there is nothing left for it but to die with the courage of your race.' And he took it like an Englishman, and he died like one.

Listening to the slow, deep voice of the big old man, with his strong eyes glowing over the words, "die with the courage of your race," one could understand that he might inspire courage in any breast whether that of an Englishman or of a Hottentot. His own thought was that an Englishman needed only to be reminded of his country to die like a man, but the thought the recital inspired in the hearer was of the sterling and lofty simplicity of Dr. Kingsford's own character.

In

the British Empire, but one would not be led to make this deduction from the trade statistics. In 1868 we imported from Great Britain goods to the value of 361⁄2 millions. 1883 this had grown to 52 millions. By 1897 it had fallen to 291⁄2 millions, or to compare it in a table, we have the following:

Imports from Great Britain :-
361⁄2 millions.

1868

1883

1897

The Lest

This does not look as if we were really a vital part of the Empire. figures are against such a view. any one should say that our total trade with Great Britain has declined, and that while we have bought less from her, she has bought less from us, I hasten to give the figures.

In 1868 we exported to Great Britain goods to the value of $13,253,906; by 1883 this had increased to $39,672,104; by 1897 it had grown to $69,533,852. Expressed tabularly, this is the result:

Exports to Great Britain :-
134 millions.

1868 1883 1897

* Of course,

66

That is, while our buyings from Great Britain declined twenty per cent. between 1868 and 1897, our sales to Great Britain increased four hundred and twenty-five per cent. Great Britain has been using us well, but we have been treating her shabbily. Our buying does not follow our loyalty; that is quite evident.

In the same period our purchases in the United States increased from 26 millions to 61 millions, or 135 per cent.; and our purchases in other countries from 9 millions to 20 millions, or 125 per cent. The only inference one can draw is that we prefer foreign goods to British.

How have the other countries treated us in return? Have our sales to them increased in proportion ?

Our sales to the United States have increased from 26 millions to 44 millions, or less than 70 per cent. Our sales to other foreign countries have increased from four millions to ten millions, or, accurately, 140 per cent. It was pointed out above that our sales to Great Britain had increased 425 per cent.

Collecting all the percentages we

In other words, the United States has gained more than it should; other foreign countries have been treated squarely; and Great Britain has been given the cold shoulder.

There is, perhaps, a partial reason for this preference shown United States goods in the fact that what we buy from Great Britain may be roughly classified under manufactures of (1) wool, (2) cotton, (3) silk, (4) iron and steel, (5) flax, hemp and jute-but almost wholly manufactures. The amount of raw material we import from Great Britain is not great. On the

economists claim that all prices have declined during the past thirty years. But this does not affect the compari

son which is aimed at in this article.

other hand, our imports from the United States may be generally classed as follows: (1) coal, (2) iron and steel and manufactures of, (3) cotton and manufactures of, (4) metals and manufactures of, (5) crude rubber, (6) hides, (7) raw tobacco, (8) lumber, (9) settlers' effects. While these items show that raw materials predominate in our United States purchases, they, nevertheless, show also that we buy large quantities of goods which are manufactured in that country to the exclusion of similar British goods,

Further than this, we have prevented Great Britain's selling in this country by refusing to improve our insolvency laws. The creditor who is close at hand-in Toronto, Montreal, or New York-gobbles everything before the British creditor hears of the failure. For this state of affairs we have to thank our bank managers, those clever individuals who draw neat salaries

varying from $10,000 to $25,000 a year, and who represent the largest financial combination in this country.

Lest this analysis of Canadian loyalty be thought partial and prejudiced, there are two matters which must be mentioned as showing that our loyalty is shame-faced at times. We have given British products the entree to our market at twenty-five per cent. less duty than that collected on goods from the United States and other foreign countries. This has been the case since August, 1st, 1898. We have also allowed Canadian merchants to send a letter to Great Britain from any post office in Canada for two cents; whereas the rate previous to December 25th, 1898, was five cents. These measures are certainly in the right direction. If followed up with a Dominion Insolvency law they may mean much for British connection.

John Canuck.

ILL

W. J. Holt Murison.