cently written two interesting papers upon the voyages of the Cabots, and it would be difficult to over-estimate the patience, thoroughness, and fairness displayed by him in his treatment of the obscure and perplexing problems which he seeks to solve. Possessed of a practical acquaintance with the North American seaboard, which Mr. Harrisse evidently lacks, he has thereby been able successfully to impugn more than one of that author's deductions; and while, in consequence of the paucity of data at their command, both writers are sometimes compelled to draw conclusions par les cheveux, there can be little doubt that if Dr. Dawson has not absolutely succeeded in proving his theory that the landfall was on Cape Breton, he has at least demonstrated the high improbability of its having been on Labrador. historical writer of Newfoundland, in a letter to Dr. Bourinot, puts this idea very clearly: "In virtue of Cabot's discoveries, England established her claims to the sover eignty of a large portion of these northern lands. The fish wealth of these northern seas, which Cabot was the first to make known, speedily attracted fishermen; and for the protection and development of the fisheries colonies were first planted. Other nations, such as France, profited by the great discovery. That North America is now so largely occupied by an English-speaking population, with all their vast energies and accumulated wealth, has been largely owing to the daring genius of Cabot, who opened a pathway to the northern portion of the might have monopolized discovery in new hemisphere. But for Cabot, Spain North as well as South America; English and French enterprise might have taken different directions, and the history of North America been shaped in different fashion. "The genius and courage of Cabot were second only to those of Columbus. He, too, pushed out in a little barque into the unknown waters of one of the stormiest seas in the world, braving its perils, and opened the way to new and boundless regions of natural wealth. Cartier, Mar These few references to the current literature upon the subject suffice to show that every statement in the opening lines of the preamble under review is either contrary to fact or admittedly the subject of controversy. Its unwarranted dogmatism was so palpably at variance with historic accuracy that it had scarcely seen the light of day ere it was promptly re-quette, La Salle, followed as explorers. modelled and issued from committee, shorn, at any rate, of its more amusing features. The Act, however, as it stands on the Statute Book of Ontario, discloses that the process of excision was untimely stayed; witness, for example, the statement that important benefits to this country and to civilization have followed from the discovery of the Cabots. This is but a qualified and guarded statement of what is more openly expressed elsewhere, and what, indeed, gives the key-note to the proposed celebration, namely, that we Canadians owe our British connection, and all its consequent advantages, to the fact of John and Sebastian Cabot having landed on the shore of North America. Dr. Moses Harvey, a well-known Walter Raleigh, was the first of that clus"The Old Dominion," founded by Sir ter of colonies which finally developed into the United States. Quebec was founded, and the occupation of Canada commenced. All this was the outcome of Cabot's voyage in 1497. As truly as Columbus pioneered the way in the south did Cabot open the way to a far nobler civilization in the north, the developments of which continue to expand before our eyes to-day. As Fiske has well remarked in his "Discovery of America": "The first fateful note that heralded the coming John Cabot's tiny craft sailed out from English supremacy was sounded when Bristol Channel, on a bright May morning of 1497." Ex uno disce omnes. Now, beyond the fact that there was sequence and succession in point of time between the Cabot voyage and, let us say, the founding of Quebec, as there must always be between events that are not simultaneous, it is difficult to see what connection there exists between Cabot and Champlain, or how England established her claims to North America by virtue of Cabot's discovery. It is not even by any means certain that Cabot was the first European to reach the shores of North America. Parkman, no mean authority, says of the Basques that there is some reason to believe that their cod fishery on the banks of Newfoundland existed before the days of Cabot; and Bourinot, in his interesting monograph on Cape Breton, expresses the opinion that both Basques and Bretons "anchored their clumsy vessels in the bays and harbours" of that island before 1497. As to the claim set up on behalf of England's sovereignty over North America by reason of Cabot's discovery, nothing more shadowy and unsubstantial could well be imagined. In the first place, it is not pretended that either John Cabot or his son did more than take formal possession of the country. There was no attempt at settlement or occupation. Yet, according to the well understood principles of international law, occupation is essential to the establishment of a title of discovery. Sir R. Phillimore says upon this point (Commentaries upon International Law Ed., 1879. Vol. 1, p. 333): "Indeed, writers on International Law agree that Use and Settlement, or, in other words, continuous use, are indispensable elements of occupation properly so called. The mere erection of crosses, landmarks, and inscriptions is ineffectual for acquiring or maintaining an exclusive title to a country of which no real use is made." Two hundred years after Cabot, Dongan, Governor of New York, thus ridiculed the French claims to the Iroquois country, based on discovery: "Pardon me if I say itt is a mistake, except you will affirme that a few loose fellowes rambling amongst Indians to keep themselves from starving gives the French a right to the Countrey." And of the claim based on geographical divisions: "Your reason is that some rivers the great river of Canada. O, just God ! or rivoletts of this country run out into what new, farr-fetched, and unheard-of The French King may have as good a prepretence is this for a title to a country. tence to all those Countrys that drink clarett and brandy." If the English Governor thus scoffed at claims which Parkman holds were clearly well founded, where can we suppose he would have found sarcasm with which to express his opinion of the validity of pretensions based on a discovery such as Cabot's? Then, again assuming the scanty information concerning the ceremony which we possess at second hand to be absolutely true, so little did John Cabot dream of enriching the Crown of England with exclusive dominion, i. e., sovereignty over his new founde isle," that side by side with the banner of St. George he planted the lion of St. Mark, in order that equal rights might accrue to Venice with England; and so little importance did Henry VII. attach to the discovery, that he considered Cabot's services requited by the munificent gift of £10 from the privy purse. The sixteenth century ushered in a period of great maritime activity. Within seven years from the date of Cabot's first voyage, French fishermen were plying their calling in numbers upon the coast of Newfoundland. Eight years later two adventurous Frenchmen, Denys of Honfleur and Aubert of Dieppe, explored the Gulf of St. Lawrence. The succeeding decade witnessed the ill-starred venture of Baron de Lery, who was followed all of whom essayed to plant colonies by Cartier, Roberval and LaRoche, under the French flag. Their efforts, though unsuccessful as regards their immediate object, served, nevertheless, to preserve the continuity of national purpose, until, under the patient care of Samuel de Champlain, the seed at length took root. During all this time England gave no indication that she viewed these attempts on the part of France as any interference with her interests. Is it probable that Henry VIII or his masculine daughter would have quietly submitted to such infringement of their rights if they felt they possessed any? Is it not more reasonable to infer from England's silence that Cabot's expedition was regarded as possessing no national national significance whatever; that it was a mere fact without effect which, when over, straightway ceased to be? A hundred years passed away, and at length the English spirit of adventure, which had long lain dormant, awoke. Inspired by the wonderful tales which came from across the sea, her subjects began to follow in the wake of their more enterprising neighbours, and to press upon the French settlements in the new world. In the early years of the seventeenth century France held Canada and Acadia by the right of original occupation and settlement, uncontested from the beginning. At a somewhat later period we find England occupying, by a similar tenure, what is to-day known as the Eastern United States. As was inevitable, the traditional enmities between these hereditary foes broke out in the New World. Each disputed the other's claim. They fought, and England won; but candour compels us to admit that she owes her victory less to the strength of her arguments than to her power of enforcing them. The claim to Acadia based on Cabot's discovery, then heard for the first time, seems to have been nothing more than a convenient pretext for extending to the New World that old-time feud between France and England, to which their contests in North America were generally incidental and subordinate. Now that it has long served the purpose for which it was invoked, there does not seem to be any good reason for attempting to invest it with the attributes of reality. The underlying motive for doing so is no doubt a laudable desire to exalt the English name. But surely Englishmen, of all people, need not to draw upon their imaginations or wander off into the cloudland of tradition for legitimate causes of pride. What can be at once more true and more gratifying to the national sentiment than to say openly that England's title to Canada is by the sword? Why should we vainly strive to pierce the gloom which shrouds the name of Cabot, when we can point to Wolfe, or, rather, to that long doubtful conflict which, beginning with the seizure of Quebec in 1629, was destined, a hundred and thirty years later, to close in triumph on the Heights of Abraham? Dr. Dawson, in his latest paper upon the Cabots, naïvely expresses his surprise at the "singular misconception which has arisen in the minds of some of our French fellow-countrymen as to the scope and purpose of this celebration. He disavows any intention in honouring Cabot of derogating aught from Cartier's fame. As far as Dr. Dawson personally is concerned, there can be no doubt of this. At the same time, in view of Mr. Howland's article; of the Bill submitted to the Legislature of Ontario, and to the Parliament of Canada; and of the many recorded expressions of English opinion, the French-Canadians may well be pardoned for offering a word of protest. Why, Dr. Dawson himself is so carried away by his patriotic impulses, as to speak of the fragmentary evidences which we possess at secondhand of Cabot's voyages as our title deeds to this continent!" If the word "our" be not employed here in the national, i.e., British, sense, this expression has no application, and if it is so employed, what becomes of Cartier and Champlain? The writer of these lines yields to no man in his attachment to England, and in his appreciation of any movement tending to emphasize and strengthen Canada's association with the Mother-land. To one so constituted it would, no doubt, be gratifying to believe that, first of white men, John Cabot circumnavigated the Gulf of St. Lawrence, ascended our great river, established his dwelling-place at Quebec, and surveyed the gleaming Ottawa from the summit of Mount Royal. Truth, however, compels us to acknowledge that the man who did these things was not English, or rather Italian, but French. He was not named Cabot, but Cartier. We know all about him. There is no question as to the main features of his discoveries. We can trace his adventurous course day by day along our coasts, many points of which retain to this hour the names which he bestowed. That John Cabot was a brave and skilful navigator we may well believe. That he was the first European of whom we have certain knowledge to touch the coast of North America is undoubted. We would fain know more about him-why he did so much and no more-just where he landed-how long he remained-whether he made any attempt at colonization-and why his enterprise came to naught. Unhappily, all this is oblivion. Viewed, nevertheless, simply as an isolated fact, Cabot's discovery is unquestionably a highly interesting historical achievement. The proposal to mark the four hundredth anniversary of its accomplishment is both opportune and fitting. At the same time, those charged with the celebration would do well to bear in mind that it adds to no man's dignity to ascribe to him unjust and unfounded pretensions. Joseph Pope. MILADY. Lips, as cool as mountain dew; Breath, like rose-scent filtered through JOHN STUART THOMSON. NEW YORK. While the blessing of Sabbath observance rests upon divine appointment, and the command, "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy," enjoins a religious duty, the rest-day enjoyed at the intervals provided by the fourth commandment is in keeping with the requirements of nature; and the respective periods assigned for labour and for rest are exactly in accordance with the needs of man. Civil enactments protect the life of the citizen and provide the punishment for the crime of murder, and for unlawful attempts upon life. The same authority protects the citizen in his rights of property; provides the punishment for robbery, theft, swindling and fraud; shields the citizen from the attempt to deprive him of life, liberty, or possessions through falsehood and perjury; punishes the false witness; throws the shield of its protection around the innocent and unsuspecting, and punishes the ravisher and the seducer. All of these provisions for securing to the citizen life, liberty, security and good government, are provisions for securing civil rights. None of these enactments can be characterized as an interference with the rights of conscience, as mere portions or appurtenances of a creed, or as enactments of a religious character, and only binding upon Chris E tians; and yet each one of the list the Creator, as revealed to man through the medium of his commands contained in the decalogue. Man is doomed to labour, or rather labour is a condition of man's existence. In the far-away ages, when the morning of his existence had barely dawned, came the words from a Lawgiver whose authority could not be questioned, and whose laws could not be repealed: "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread." This sentence was mitigated and its burden lightened by the beneficent command to abstain from labour on the seventh day. This rest-day thus provided is the toiler's heritage. Moreover, its privilege is no mere religious observance. On the contrary, its enjoyment is in the highest sense a human, a civil right. It is a physical boon; it is a mental boon; and to the toiler its loss is a calamity measureless and dire. The individual, the corporation, or the community that forces Sunday labour upon the bread-earner is the foe of humanity. The centuries are rich with the accumulating fruits of progress, all acquired by the labour of man. Empires have risen and fallen. Men have laboured as slaves under the lash, as ignorant vassals, and as freemen conscious of labour's rights and dignity. But whether slave or free, the achieve(165) |