Excellent articles in favour of greater freedom in commercial intercourse with Canada were published in all the large cities in the principal newspapers. The "Memorandum on the Commercial Relations

66

"Past and Present of the British North American Provinces with the "United States of America," published by the plenipotentiaries, was the work of Mr. Brown. It contained able summaries of the trade statistics of the two countries bearing on reciprocal trade, the figures of which were extensively published and produced a good effect. To use the official description of this paper by Sir Edward Thornton in his despatch to Lord Derby: "The greater part of this document is occupied with the history of the past fifty years of the trade relations between Canada and the United States, and shows the advantage "the United States, as well as Canada, would derive from greater "liberality in those relations." A draft treaty was ultimately agreed to by Sir Edward Thornton and Mr. Brown, also by Mr. Fish, on the part of the United States, on June 17th, and submitted by that minister to the United States senate for approval a few days afterwards. That body postponed action until the next session, for the ostensible reason that the time was too short for consideration. The United States government approved of the draft treaty, but did not exercise any of its legitimate influence in their submission of it to the senate for approval. Apart altogether from the attempt to negotiate a treaty of commerce, Mr. Brown's sojourn in Washington was highly beneficial to Canada. For reasons already stated, he was everywhere popular in the states, while he was equally well known as a devoted British American subject of Her Majesty. His presence helped materially to dissipate the feeling of irritation which existed during and after the war at the (erroneously) supposed sympathy of Canadians with southern rebels, and to produce a more kindly feeling towards Canada than had existed for many years. Mr. Brown's exposition and defence of the treaty submitted to the senate of the United States by Mr. Fish will be found in his speech delivered in the senate on the 5th of March, 1875. (See "SPEECHES.") The proposed convention received the assent of the Imperial government, though wholly negotiated under the auspices of the Canadian administration. failure necessitated proceeding with the arbitration, provided by the treaty of Washington, to ascertain the value of the Canadian fisheries to citizens of the United States. This was, with much difficulty, reached two years afterwards, when Lord Carnarvon desired to name an English gentleman as commissioner. This Mr. Mackenzie declined to assent to, and he insisted that the Canadian government should nominate the commissioner to be formally appointed by Her Majesty's government, and also control the procedure of the commission. This demand was ultimately conceded. Mr. Brown was offered

Its

the appointment, but declined it for private reasons, principally that he could not devote his whole time to the work so far from home.

Mr. Brown had, at great personal inconvenience, given four months of his time to the work at Washington, without making any charge against the government, or accepting remuneration of any kind, for the vast amount of labour he had undertaken and accomplished. Although Sir Ed. Thornton was joint plenipotentiary with Mr. Brown, the labour of preparing the tables of trade statistics, and placing the information into proper shape for publication, devolved naturally and necessarily on Mr. Brown. A sum of $10,000 was placed in the estimates to meet the necessary expenditure at Washington. Some time afterwards, when an attack was made by the opposition on the government and on Mr. Brown in connection with this vote, it transpired that the whole expenditure had only been $4,000; that all payments had been made by Sir Edward Thornton, and that the plenipotentiaries had not received one dollar of it for their own purposes or expenses. Any one who chooses can compare the Washington expenses of 1854 with those of 1874. More work was done in the latter year, but more influences (a mild term) were brought to bear in the former year.

It is not proposed to discuss here the effect this treaty, if ratified, would have had on Canadian commerce; that, of course, would be a matter of opinion. Up to a very recent period it was assumed by all that much benefit would necessarily be derived from participation in the trade of foreign countries. The wonderful development of British trade in consequence of the removal of all shackles on the intercourse with foreign nations, so far as Britain could remove them, and the retrogressive progress of the merchants of the United States, where efforts had been made for twenty years, by severe customs restrictive laws, to force business into the hands of their own citizens, seemed to be sufficient to satisfy any one of the evil effects of a system of "pro"tection," so called.

The resurrection in Canada of a system of this nature, which Cobden and Bright buried thirty years before in Britain, was however, as it turned out, imminent. The singular belief in a democratic country that it is desirable to discourage the very existence of foreign trade, in order that the wealth of the nation may be concentrated in the hands of the few at the cost of removing it from the hands of the mass of the people, is a craze which cannot last long. When the country returns to an enlightened commercial policy the efforts of Mr Brown and the late administration to promote international intercourse between the great nation on our southern border will be better understood and appreciated. Mr. Brown was a firm advocate of perfect freedom of purchase and sale, as well as of personal movements. He was the firm opponent of attempts to compel the people to purchase from and trade

with certain persons only, or classes of persons of all monopolies created for individuals-of all taxes imposed for any purpose except to meet the necessities of the state.

He had already, with others, encountered an oligarchy which monopolized political power. He was the principal opponent of an ecclesiastical oligarchy that insisted on being established as the sole guardians of the religious life of the nation. The result of the conflict in both cases was that power remains vested in the hands of the people, and that every church is equally protected by the state, and none have special privileges. If trade monopolies are of a different character they are not the less dangerous, and no one appreciated that danger more thoroughly. In neither speeches nor writings was an uncertain sound ever given on this subject, so important to a nation's welfare.

In the month of May, 1875, the Hon. John Crawford, LieutenantGovernor of Ontario, died. Mr. Brown was known to entertain very strong views of the course pursued by the conservative government in appointing Mr. Crawford after they ceased to command the confidence of parliament and they had, in fact, resigned office, and of Mr. Crawford's course in accepting that office under the circumstances. He was invited to the inaugural ceremonies at Government House, but declined to accept the invitation for the reasons given in the following letter:

TORONTO, 11th Nov., 1873.

MY DEAR MR. CRAWFORD,--A note has been sent me requesting my attendance at Government House to-morrow on the occasion of your being sworn in as Lieutenant-Governor.

It would have afforded me great pleasure to be present on the occasion, could I have done so consistently with my views of the manner of your appointment. I hold that the Lieutenant-Governor should be regarded by all parties from a non-political stand-point, without reference to the side of the political arena on which he was ranged before his appointment; and there is no member of the conservative party whose appointment by his own political friends to the office would have been more agreeable to me than your own. But the circumstances attending your appointment appear to me so unconstitutional, so much to be deprecated, that it would be worse than inconsistent were I to attend the ceremony to-morrow.

While I feel thus in regard to the official ceremony of your inauguration, I trust you will believe that no change has occurred in our personal relations, and that when you are duly installed in your high office, no political feeling will stand in the way of those marks of respect and consideration to which you will be entitled socially and in public.

I am, my Dear Sir, yours faithfully,

JOHN CRAWFORD, ESQ., Toronto.

GEORGE BROWN.

The position was at once offered to Mr. Brown, and he was urged by many friends to accept it. While the offer of the chief office under the Crown in his own province was peculiarly gratifying to him, he declined the honour after one day's consideration, but without assigning any reason for his determination. There is, however, no reason

to doubt that he felt he could not, with his strict notions of propriety, be the principal proprietor, and, nominally at least, editor-in-chief of the leading political journal, and at the same time LieutenantGovernor of the province. It was, however, as gratifying to his friends everywhere as it could be to himself, that his political friends at Ottawa had given him the offer of the highest place in the province for which he had done so much. Chiefly to his long labours was it due that it was possible to have such a position to place at his disposal, and there can be no doubt that had he accepted it the appointment would have been acceptable to all classes of the population. With this offer he had either received, or might have received, all the honours his fellow-countrymen could bestow. He had been many years in parliament as one of Ontario's representatives; he was Prime Minister of old Canada, and a senator of the Dominion; the Queen had already honoured him by appointing him a joint plenipotentiary at Washington; and a year afterwards he might have been elevated to the rank of knighthood as a K. C. M. G., had he consented to accept that honour.

There was no more attached adherent of the British monarchyno more devoted admirer of Her Majesty as Queen of Britain-than Mr. Brown, and he was not disposed to regard with indifference the honours dispensed by the Crown, however much he might blame ministers for their distribution. Under appropriate circumstances he might, and no doubt would, have accepted a title of honour. In 1879 he was again proffered a title as K. C. M. G. For some reason it was then fully expected that he would accept it, and his name was actually gazetted on that assumption. His Excellency the Governor-General was commissioned by Her Majesty to confer the title, and he appointed a meeting at Montreal for the purpose of formally investing Mr. Brown and some others with the insignia of the order. He went to Montreal to meet His Excellency, but only to thank him in person for the offer and to give a formal declinature in writing. It was known that Mr. Brown was strongly urged by many liberals of the most pronounced character, such as the late Mr. Holton, to accept this second offer, but these influences failed to convince him that the circumstances would justify him in accepting the title which some men are so anxious to obtain and honour so little.

CHAPTER XXIV.

MR. BROWN'S ASSASSINATION. --UNIVERSAL SYMPATHY AND SORROW,THE FUNERAL OBSEQUIES.

On the 25th of March, 1880, George Bennett, an employé in the Globe office, who had just been discharged by the foreman for habitual tippling and gross neglect of his duties, went to Mr. Brown's office to demand a certificate of character.

When Bennett was invited by Mr. Brown to come in he did so, and proceeded to shut the door behind him. Mr. Brown thinking his movements singular, stopped him and asked what he wanted. The man seemed to hesitate, but at last presented a paper and asked Mr. Brown to sign it, remarking that it was a statement that he had been employed in the Globe office for five years. Mr. Brown said he should apply to the head of his department for the certificate, as he (Mr. Brown) was not aware of the length of his services. Bennett replied that the head of the department would not give it to him. Mr. Brown then told him to apply to Mr. Henning, the treasurer of the company, who had the books, and could tell how long he had been employed. Bennett made no reply, but insisted upon Mr. Brown siguing his paper with much vehemence.

On Mr. Brown continuing to refuse, Bennett began fumbling apparently at his pistol pocket, whereupon it passed through Mr. Brown's mind, as he himself said, "that the little wretch might be meaning "to shoot me." He got his pistol out, however, and then Mr. Brown seized him by the wrist and turned his hand downward. He had got the weapon cocked befored his hand was seized, and at once pulled the trigger, the muzzle being pointed downwards. The ball struck Mr. Brown on the outer side of the left thigh, taking a slanting direction, and passing through four inches below and towards the back of the leg. Mr. Brown, to prevent more firing, closed with his assailant, and in the struggle they got outside the door of the office on the stair landing. Mr. Brown got Bennett firmly pressed against the partition wall of the waiting room and called for assistance. By this time the alarm was given in the office, and a number of employés rushed to Mr. Brown's aid and seized the assassin. It would appear that Mr. Brown himself took the pistol from him, while Mr. A. Thompson and Mr. Ewan held him fast. Mr. Brown walked back into the office, carrying the weapon, apparently not seriously hurt. There is little