talking will be the main features. The Manitoba School Question is settled, and it is not likely that any serious discussion will take place in this country until after the Ablegate sent by the Pope to investigate the merits of the Settlement shall have made his report to Rome, and the same shall have been there considered. At present the Settlement settles, and Rome's decision is the only power which is likely to bring back the School Question into the arena of party politics. Perhaps the politic course for Rome to pursue would be to give the question "the six months' hoist" as soon as the Ablegate has reported. Otherwise there will be a storm in Canada, the consequences of which would not be pleasant.

But to return to the tariff. The Toronto Globe of March 24th gives some reasons why the Liberal party has seen fit to change from a tariff reform to a protection policy. That important Liberal journal points out that to reduce the duties on goods coming into Canada from the United States without any corresponding reduction by the latter country would be a poor bargain; that several attempts have been made to induce the authorities at Washington to negotiate a new reciprocity treaty, but without success; that there is only one way to convince the United States that free-trade on the North American continent would be beneficial to them, and that is by allowing them to "obtain that conviction through the logic of events, and especially by perceiving that the more they raise the wall against us the more they throw us upon our own resources and drive external trade into another channel where it is altogether likely to remain."

The Liberals thus declare that their recent efforts to negotiate a treaty at Washington have failed, and that they as a party have reached the point where the true Britisher quits, and waits for the other person concerned to say or do something. They avow their allegiance to Canada and Canadian interests, declare that the welfare of Canada's industrial life is their first concern, and that they will not humble the pride of

this young nation before any foreign power, however great. They uphold their free-trade views, but declare that the ideal trade relations cannot be obtained so long as other countries with which Canada does the bulk of her trading declare themselves adverse. Surely, this view may be considered both reasonable and practical.

At first sight, this change of tariff policy may seem to make the Liberal and Conservative parties identical. True, they will be more alike than the two corresponding parties in the United States, but not more alike than those in Great Britain. There still remains the difference in party sentiment, in party organization, and in historical associations. These will be sufficient to keep them apart and to preserve the present system of party government. Both are alike now, in that neither has any possible ground for denying that the other does not believe in "Canada First."

SHOULD OUR LITERATURE BE

CANADIAN ?

At the recent literary banquet in Toronto, one of the speakers remarked that he was not in favour of cultivating a Canadian literature, nor a Canadian art, but he approved of the cultivation of literature and art. The meaning to be attached to this statement is, apparently, that our literature and our art should be tested, tried and proven by the standards of the world rather than by any standards which we ourselves might erect, that there should be no narrow provincialism in our literary and artistic productions, but that we should be cosmopolitan in style, quality and matter.

This idea is hardly feasible. In the first place, we have a history which differs very materially from that of any other nation. We have a share in the history of Great Britain of the early and middle ages; but since the sixteenth century we have an addendum distinctly our own. It influences our lives, our thoughts and our institutions, and, consequently, it influences the literature

produced in this country; and just so far as it does this, we have a literature which, by reason of its special character, must be designated Canadian.

In the second place, the people of Canada differ from the people of any other country in the world. The fisherman, the lumberman, and the agriculturist of the maritime Provinces, the habitan and the mill hand of Quebec, the scientist farmer of Ontario, the rough-and-ready trader and adventurer of the North West-are these duplicated in any other place in the world? Their modes of life, their standards of living, their habits and general characteristics mark them out as a separate and a peculiar people.

Again, nature presents to the people of Canada a face which is unlike the face she presents to any other of the world's nations. The pine, the maple, the beaver-are not these exclusively ours? Other nations may have flowers and trees and animals, but they are not Canadian; they may have an autumn of their own, but they can never have one similar or equal to ours; they may have rivers and lakes, but they have no Canadian rafts and Canadian canoes. If nature, then, differs in these respects, how can the Canadian representation of her and her glories be the same as the representation by the master hands of another nation?

If a Canadian travels on the trains that run through the United States he can easily select from his unknown travelling companions any individual from Canada. Even in the districts of the United States, where Canadians are often found, the residents of the United States will very quickly pick out one of these "invaders from the north." Education, history, natural conditions and mode of life have made the Canadians a peculiar people, and as a consequence the literature of that people must also be peculiar; for literature is but a reflection and a criticism of the life of the people by whom it is produced.

It is doubtful whether we have a Canadian literature as yet. We have a

number of histories, poems and pieces of fiction which could not have been written outside of Canada; but we have a still greater number of poems and novels that might have been written anywhere in the French or Englishspeaking worlds. Literature rests on tradition and on the books of past ages; consequently, for some time to come, Canada's literature must rest upon the traditions and books of France and Great Britain, and Canadian authors must continue to draw inspiration from Shakespere, Milton, Carlyle, Scott and Dickens; from Madame de Stael, Chateaubriand, Hugo, Dumas and George Sand. But as time goes on, the literature produced in this country will grow less and less like that of any other country, though still resembling all of them.

We will then have a Canadian literature, although our standard of style, quality, excellence, must always be the standard of the world's best literary work. While thus producing something distinctively our own, it must be fully equal in quality, though different in matter, to that produced by other nations. No writing that is Canadian must be called Canadian literature unless in quality it is equal to the writings of the world's best authors. Our anxiety to have something exclusively our own must not lead us to be satisfied with anything that is second-class. And what has been said of literature must also be true of art.

But three living Canadians hold peerages of the British realm: Lord Aylmer, of Melbourne, Quebec; Rt. Hon. Lady Macdonald, of Earnscliffe, widow of the late Rt. Hon. Sir John A. Macdonald, of Earnscliffe, Ottawa, Ont.; and Lord Mount-Stephen, formerly of Montreal, now of Brockett Hall, Hartfield, Herts, England. Lord Aylmer is the seventh baron of a peerage created in 1718 in Ireland. Lady Macdonald and Lord Mount-Stephen received their honours in 1891.

There has been one "Canadian Peer" since 1880, the only Canadian hereditary title existing. This is borne by Charles Comor Grant, seventh Baron de Longueuil, who succeeded to the honour in 1879. His present residence is at Birchwood, Pitlochry, Scotland.

There are five Canadian baronets: Sir William Johnson (4th baronet) of St. Matthias, near Montreal; Sir Frederick Arnold Robinson (3rd baronet) of Toronto; Sir William Rose (2nd baronet), now living at 18 St. James' Square, London, England; Sir Charles James Stuart, son of the late Chief Justice Stuart, of Lower Canada, now resident at 98 Eaton Square, London, Eng.; and Hon. Sir Charles Tupper, of Ottawa.

Of Knights, we possess twenty-nine, of which the following is a correct list: Sir John Campbell Allen, Fredericton; Hon. Sir Mackenzie Bowell, Belleville; Sir Roderick William Cameron, Staten Island, New York; Hon. Sir John Carling, London; Sir A. P. Caron, Ottawa; Hon. Sir R. J. Cartwright, Kingston; Sir Louis E. N. Casault, Quebec; Hon. Sir J. Adolphe Chapleau, Quebec; Hon. Sir Henry P. L. Crease, Victoria; Sir J. William Dawson, Montreal; Hon. Sir Thomas Galt, Toronto; Sir James A. Grant, Ottawa; Col. Sir Casimir S. Gzowski, Toronto; Sir Arthur L. Haliburton, London, Eng.; Sir Joseph Hickson, Montreal; Sir William H. Hingston, Montreal; Sir William P. Howland, Toronto; Sir Henri G. Joly De Lotbiniere, Ottawa; Sir Alexander Lacoste, Montreal; Sir Hector L. Langevin, Quebec; Sir James M. Lemoine, Quebec; Sir William Ralph Meredith, Toronto; Hon. Sir Oliver Mowat, Toronto; Sir Donald A. Smith, Montreal; Hon. Sir Frank Smith, Toronto; Hon. Sir Samuel Henry Strong, Ottawa; Sir Joseph William Trutch, Victoria; Hon. Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper, Ottawa; Sir William C. Van Horne, Montreal.

In the Companionage, we have twenty-six persons: J. G. Bourinot, MajorGen. D. R. Cameron, Lieut. -Col. Brown Chamberlin, J. G. Colmer, Col. John Geo. Dartnell, Geo. M. Dawson, Hon. C. E. B. De Boucherville, Major H. G.

Elliot, Hector Fabre, Sandford Fleming, Lieut.-Col. John Fletcher, Hon. J. R. Gowan, W. H. Griffin, M. B. Irvine, Major-Gen. S. T. J. Jarvis, T. C. Keefer, Hon. W. McDougall, Lt.Col. A. McEachren, A. B. Milne, Surgeon-Gen. H. T. Reade, Surgeon-Major Gen. John By Cole Reade, Major-Gen. C. W. Robinson, Collingwood Schreiber, A. R. C. Selwyn and Vice-Admiral E. W. Vansittart.

Any reader desiring fuller information concerning any one of the foregoing honourable persons will find it in the "Canadian Parliamentary Companion, 1897," edited by J. A. Gemmill, and published by J. Durie & Son, Ottawa.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCILLORS.

Section 69 of the British North America Act enacts that the Legislature of Ontario shall consist of the LieutenantGovernor and of One House; there is therefore no legislative council. Prince Edward Island has an elective legislative council which it has several times tried to abolish. Manitoba abolished its legislative council in 1876, and British Columbia dispensed with a similar organization when she entered the Dominion in 1871. New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Quebec still have Crownappointed legislative councils.

On May 20th, 1896, at a meeting of the Royal Society of Canada, J. G. Bourinot, C. M. G., LL. D., read a paper on "The Constitution of the Legislative Council of Nova Scotia," which has now been published. He gives a historical review of this, the oldest legislative body in Canada, and shows the legal and constitutional conditions under which its members hold office. The work done in this direction, by Mr. Bourinot, is important, as showing that-in his view-there is but one way of abolishing the Legislative Council of Nova Scotia.

He finds three well-defined periods in the constitutional history of Nova Scotia :

1. From 1719 to 1758, when the governor and council, with executive

and legislative powers, alone carried on the government.

2. From 1758 until 1838, when the government was in the hands of a governor, a council with legislative and executive functions, and an assembly elected by the people.

3. From 1838 to 1867, when the government was entrusted to a governor, an executive council, a legislative council and an assembly; and the province obtained the concession of responsible government.

During the first two periods, the members of the legislative council could not be dismissed or suspended arbitrarily or without cause. The Crown, through the governors, kept the right of the councillors intact, and they held office during the pleasure of the Crown. The power of suspension or dismissal was in reserve, though seldom exercised.

During the third period, the theory was, at first, practically the same, but "there had grown up a sentiment in the maritime provinces, with the desire for responsible and self-government, that legislative councils should have such guarantees of stability as had been given by statute to the members of the councils in Canada." That is, the legislative councillors should hold office for life (ie., good behaviour), and not at the sovereign's pleasure. New Brunswick Legislative Council had asked for the same privilege in 1844, and Lord Stanley had replied on 23rd of August, 1844, to the effect that Her Majesty had not seen fit to accede to the request. Nova Scotia asked for the privilege in 1845, and it was practically granted by the Colonial Secretary of the day, Lord Stanley-afterwards the Earl of Derby, Premier of England. -in a despatch to Lord Falkland. He concluded his communication by saying: "We think that the same or similar rules ought to be introduced into Nova Scotia, as a necessary accompaniment of the proposed alteration in the tenure of the office of a legislative councillor. On these terms your lordship will understand that Her Majesty would be prepared to accede

to the suggested change in that ten

ure."

This change was duly acknowledged by the Nova Scotia Legislative Council in an address to the Lieutenant-Governor in 1846, and from that date a legislative councillor held his office for life, subject to the rules laid down with respect to disqualification for bankruptcy, crime, and non-attendance.

Mr. Bourinot thus reaches the conclusion that as, since the B. N. A. Act of 1867, the Nova Scotia Legislature. (lieutenant-governor, council and assembly), is the only power that can alter the constitution of that province (sec. 92, sub-sec. 1, and Hodge vs. The Queen, Appeal Cases 117), it alone has the power to abolish the legislative council of the province; and that even the Crown cannot, under existing law, accomplish the abolition. Under these circumstances, it would seem that the Nova Scotia Legislative Council will remain in existence until such time as it may see fit to abolish itself.

EXCESSIVE NEWSPAPER AND NOVEL READING.

A man of great intellectual vigour declared not long ago that he had foresworn newspaper and novel reading and taken up the stiffest kind of metaphysics, because he found he was losing the habit of prolonged attention. Too much newspaper and novel reading had begun to show their evil effects, writes Hamilton M. Mabie in Current Literature. It is a serious question whether the ability to hold the mind to one line of thought has not been diminished by the inconsequence and frivolity of too much of the matter which appears in the average newspaper. As a rule, men who do serious intellectual work give a very limited amount of time to the newspaper, and read novels-apart, of course, from the masterpieces-as a recreation. Brightness, cleverness and quickness are very entertaining when one is dealing in a discursive fashion with a variety of unrelated subjects; but when it comes to real grappling

Nothing which goes below the surface of the mind awakens any response in them, because they have never developed the power of attention; or, if they have possessed it, they have lost it by too much desultory and discursive reading. Such readers have lost the faculty of following a line of thought.

The newspaper disperses attention, so to speak, over a wide field by presenting a great number of subjects on the same plane of interest; the average novel relieves the mind of any necessity of co-operating with the writer; it asks the reader to be entirely passive; to sit on a cushioned seat at the stern while another rows the boat. No wise man will leave his newspaper unread; and no man who cares for literature or who needs diversion will put the novel out of his library. The trouble with the newspaper is that

with any question or subject one ounce of concentration is worth a pound of versatility.

This is one reason why so few people relatively read the great books. With With such uncalculated resources within reach it seems strange that the halfdozen of books of the first class should remain closed to an innumerable company who have only to put out their hands to possess them. The explanation lies in the fact that these great books make certain demands on their readers, and that the great majority of those who read are not willing to put forth any energy. They do not expect to co-operate with a writer; they expect to be diverted or carried along by him.

and the trouble with the novel is that it is generally without literary quality, and that we read it too often. The great novels, being literature, cannot be read too frequently; they demand something of the reader; they do not pauperize him intellectually by giving without exacting a return. Readers who have accustomed themselves to habitual reading of inferior stories find Henry Esmond dull, and The Cloister and the Hearth prolix. To such readers, Wilhelm Meister and On the Heights are stretches of arid sand. They care for nothing which they cannot possess by merely glancing at the page.

John A. Cooper.