upright but too dilatory public man. It is elsewhere demonstrated that there was no just ground for this opinion, and long ago all sections of the party were satisfied that the leading journal only discharged a plain duty in pointing out Mr. Baldwin's unfitness to lead in carrying out the reform policy.

He was

There was another class which sought shelter from the consequences of treachery by hiding under Baldwin's name. This class moved to the Tory camp under the name of "Baldwin Reformers.' It was insignificant in numbers and ability-too insignificant as a class to be attacked-but there were individuals in it who had some standing in the country. These men were vigorously assailed and their election opposed by Mr. Brown. In doing so he incurred some censure and subjected himself to much misrepresentation, which remained to some extent in the public mind to the last. His line at that time was, as a matter of course, strongly condemned by both these classes. characterized as a tyrant and dictator, just as he was in later times by men who vacillated between the two political camps, between free trade and protection, between British rule and annexation to the United States. The question naturally arises, what did he demand as the duty of public men when he first made known his discontent at the leaders' course? The reply must be, that after years of patient waiting for the fulfilment of pledges given, he refused, and properly refused, to defend further or wait longer, and denounced the conduct of Baldwin, Hincks and others as suicidal and calamitous morally and politically, besides being unfaithful to their promises, and to the anti-state church policy held as a sacred principle by the reform party. The strong ground taken by Mr. Brown led to such expressions of hostile opinion that he at one time spoke of himself, when replying to charges of personal ambition, as a "governmental impossibility." There can be no doubt that he assumed a grave responsibility in adopting a course which resulted in an alienation, more or less complete, of many liberals and many liberal newspapers. It must be remembered, however, that the course of the liberal ministry of 1848 was such that it made a disruption of the party inevitable, and that long before Mr. Brown turned from them, the Toronto Examiner had vigorously denounced them, and that a party had even appeared in the liberal ranks in parliament hostile to the government. When this opposition first appeared Mr. Brown vigorously attacked it, and humorously designated Caleb Hopkins and Malcolm Cameron as "Clear Grits," this being the first time the phrase, now commonly applied to the party generally, was used. He hoped at the time that the indications of discontent then apparent among ministerial supporters would have a salutary effect. When this appeared hopeless he at once determined to adhere to principle by proclaiming his views, let the consequences be what they might.

It

It is impossible to condemn such a course, if wisely conducted. would be rash to say that this was always the case; and, on the other hand, it would be unjust to say that Mr. Brown was not actuated by the best motives, and that success was not achieved at last for the principles he advocated mainly or very largely in consequence of his efforts at that early day. His course at that time, in vigorously opposing his own political friends when recreant to their principles, undoubtedly secured the complete triumph of those principles at a much earlier day than if he had allowed them to neglect these interests with impunity.

Every one will remember that he afterwards acted heartily with many public men of his own party whom he at one time opposed because they supported a policy of delay, thereby showing a proper but generous spirit, and a right appreciation of the necessities of political life. In no one thing did he sacrifice so much of his personal feeling as when he consented to serve in the same administration with Mr. John A. Macdonald: that gentleman had done him a grievous injury in making the charges he did concerning Mr. Brown's conduct while serving on the Kingston Penitentiary commission, which was never atoned for. Nothing could be more unpalatable than to have such a colleague, but Mr. Brown, at the request of his party, joined Sir E. Taché's government to carry out the confederation scheme. When he left the coalition government he resumed his former relations of nonintercourse with Mr. John A. Macdonald, though doubtless prepared at any time to accept in its right spirit any expression of regret for so unjustifiable an accusation as had been made. That expression never was uttered. It is known that Mr. Macdonald promised, when the coalition government was formed, to make a public retractation of the false charges he had brought against Mr. Brown in this matter. This promise he failed to fulfil, thereby lowering his own position, and justifying Mr. Brown in refusing any social recognition of him. Mr. Macdonald might possibly have pleaded, as many of his supporters did, that he had reason to believe the charges true when he made them; but when, with a committee of his own choosing, he failed utterly in establishing a single charge, he should at once have risen to the dignity of the occasion, and admitted he had been deceived, and apologized for the attack.

Hot words and bitter expressions are often doubtless exchanged in political warfare by most leaders, and Mr. Brown was no exception to the rule, but he never transgressed by making a purely personal attack, and many with whom he had fierce struggles in the arena of politics became afterwards his warmest friends. A man of strong feeling and warm enthusiastic disposition, he conveyed sometimes to those who met him occasionally the idea that he was intolerant of other

people's opinions, and resolved to have his own way. Those who thought so did not know him. He was often blamed by his close allies in the liberal ranks for too readily admitting into political confidence men who had shown something very like a wilful abandonment of party and principle. In council he was always disposed to listen to others' arguments, and defer much to the opinions of those in whom he had confidence. As a political leader he was always considerate to his supporters, but he would not lead on any doubtful policy, and when once a policy was adopted by his party, none was so resolute in carrying it towards a conclusion. A notable instance occurred in 1860, when he moved certain resolutions in the House of Assembly, in pursuance of the conclusions at which the Reform Convention of September, 1859, had arrived. Several powerful members, including the late J. S. Macdonald, H. M. Foley, and Dr. Connor, objected to his proceeding with the resolutions, but he resolutely adhered to the policy adopted, and the recusants were obliged to submit.

It must be admitted that many of the objections to his thorough system in political life between 1850 and 1865 were based on the belief that it would keep the liberal party out of power. He cared chiefly for a straight advocacy of essential principles, with the belief that every struggle brought them nearer his reach. He saw no special benefit in having a government called by the name of reform, composed of men who called themselves reformers, if they were either unable or unwilling to give effect to reform measures and principles. His principal opponent in the reform ranks, on the other hand, did not hesitate to say openly in parliament that he was prepared to join any combination of parties which would prevent any disturbance of the then existing union, even so far as to grant representation by population. This policy doubtless kept Mr. Hincks in power for some years, and so far kept in the background reforms which were inevitable, and which an honest perseverance in pursuing a liberal policy on his part might have anticipated by some years. The one gravitated naturally to the Tory camp on the (political) broad road, and after many years he became a minister again after the reforms had been accomplished which he had determinately resolved to prevent by "any combina"tions." The other had the proud satisfaction of knowing that to his efforts mainly was his party and his province indebted for the final triumph of the principles he had so long contended for. Long before he passed away there was no vestige of state-churchism in the land; all churches stood equal in the eye of the law. A just system of parliamentary representation had taken the place of one partial and unjust; and in addition to this, his long cherished hope of living to see a powerful British nationality in America was realized in connection with the reforms he had advocated. The some joint authority"

of the modest convention resolutions in 1859 had developed into a powerful federal government, exercising supreme authority from Cape Breton to Vancouver, within the bounds of the "federative" system quietly suggested by Mr. Brown in his report from the House committee in 1864, already referred to.

Mr. Brown often remarked in his speeches, when replying to charges of being ambitious, that few men who devoted themselves to a pressing advocacy of reform and change lived to benefit personally by them, and that assuredly he did not expect to be any exception. This in his case was literally true. He was for eighteen months a member of a coalition government formed to carry out his programme of political changes, but left that government as soon as the proposed reforms were safe. If being a member of a government be a political reward, his was a poor one-a minister for eighteen months out of thirty-six years of continuous service. He had, however, an honourable pride in contemplating his achievements, and his name will ever be associated with the federal union of the British provinces and the obtainment of justice for his own province.

In the early years of his journalistic life, when heading the assault against the endowment by the state of any church, he was looked upon as the enemy of the favoured sects. Every person now knows that a church does not prosper necessarily because the state aids it. In Canada it was shown that those churches prospered most which did not touch the money or lands of the state; while the churches that did receive a share of the clergy reserve lands did not prosper so much. The sympathy of the masses was withheld, from college and church alike, as long as the injustice continued, and it was only after the lapse of years had sufficed to induce forgetfulness of the past that all the churches shared in the full sympathy and support of the people. Perhaps in nothing else did Mr. Brown rejoice so much in the latter years of his life as the settled state of public opinion as to the permanent nature of the relations of Canada and Great Britain. Twenty. five years before there was at least an uneasy feeling abroad; once or twice this feeling found expression in several parts of Canada; its existence was referred to in despatches from Canada to the Imperial government. Some classes of British politicians seemed disposed to look upon the colonial possessions of the empire as a clog and hindrance-a source of danger and expense. This latter class seemed to have only one consideration before their political vision, "Will it pay?" One Governor-General at least went so far as to tell Canadians that they might cut the connection as soon as they pleased, so far as Great Britain was concerned. The school of commercial politicians had obtained so strong a footing in Britain that they felt able to instruct or influence the Queen's representative in Canada to make

such a public declaration. Mr. Brown always maintained that perfect liberty and independence of action in everything of local concern was compatible with the colonial state of political existence. He felt an honest pride in the glory of the British empire, and he also felt that the cause of freedom over the world would be seriously injured by its disintegration, even so far as to sever any of its great colonies. It was with him both a matter of sound public policy and sentiment to remain a member of the great Anglo-Saxon power, to share in its growth and successes, and, if need be, to bear a share of its reverses.

Mr. Brown and the Globe did much to cultivate a national feeling, national in the broadest sense of the term, embracing Great Britain and all her colonies. He was, however, a true cosmopolitan in this sense, that he was a warm friend of the United States, Britain's child but also commercial rival, and of all other countries where the arm of the oppressor was broken. During the existence of the slave power in the United States there was no more outspoken friend of the poor slave than George Brown; no more eloquent defender of the fugitive than he when the slave-driver dared to pursue his human chattel into Canada.

True to his Scottish instincts, he was a strong friend of Sabbath observance. Though a strong voluntary in principle, he deemed a public recognition of the Sabbath by individuals and governmental departments as a sacred duty-an essential one in the maintenance of public morality.

The cause of temperance and every moral reform found in Mr. Brown a warm friend and courageous advocate. The Globe, under the management of the brothers George and Gordon, had therefore a firm footing with the better classes of the Canadian people, as all felt that, whether its political preferences were at all times acceptable or not, it was the consistent friend of public morality.

Mr. Brown was a member of the presbyterian church, devotedly attached to what was, before the union, the Free Church section of that body. Had he lived in the time of the Stuart persecutions he would have been, from his nature, among the first to sign the Solemn League and Covenant-among the first to repudiate allegiance to an untruthful and persecuting monarch. As it was, he was a devoted admirer of the noble men who fought for religious liberty in Scotland and secured the same blessing for England.

As to his domestic relations, the biographer may have no right to do more than say that they were singularly happy. Whatever clouds might cross his path outside, he carried the utmost cheerfulness and geniality to his home; a chief trait of character was his intense love of home. His meetings with wife and children, when the exacting day's duties and vexations were over, were perfect illustrations of