it was admitted—­Sir Wilfrid being in agreement—­that disallowance was not possible.  Yet Sir Wilfrid brought the issue into the Dominion parliament.  If he had done this merely for the purpose of making his own attitude of sympathy with his compatriots in Ontario clear, the course would have been of doubtful political wisdom, in view of his responsibilities to the party he led.  But he insisted upon a formal resolution being submitted.  Professor Skelton, in the passages dealing with this episode, shows him whipping up a reluctant party and compelling it, by every influence he could command, to follow him.  The writer, arriving in Ottawa when this situation was developing, was informed by a leading Liberal member of parliament that the “old man” had thought out a wonderful stroke of tactics by which he was going to strengthen himself in Quebec and at the same time do no harm in Ontario—­a feat beside which squaring the circle would be child’s play.  Very brief enquiry revealed the situation.  Sir Wilfrid was determined to have a resolution and a vote.  The western Liberals were in revolt; the Ontario Liberals were reluctant but were prepared to be coerced; most of the maritime province Liberals were obedient, but there was a minority strongly opposed.  Theoretically the formula that there was to be no coercion, each member voting as his conscience directed, was honored; but Sir Wilfrid had found it necessary to indicate that if in the outcome it should be found that any considerable number of his supporters were not in agreement with him, he would be obliged to interpret this as indicating that the party no longer had confidence in him.  Professor Skelton supplies the evidence that Sir Wilfrid pressed the threat to resign almost to the breaking point.  He actually wrote out something which was supposed to be a resignation before the Ontario Liberals capitulated.  The western Liberals were of sterner stuff; they stood to their guns.  No resignation followed.  “The defection of the western Liberals,” says Professor Skelton, “forced from Sir Wilfrid a rare outbreak of anger.”  The use of the word “defection” is enlightening, as showing Professor Skelton’s attitude towards the Liberals who in those trying times adhered to their convictions against the party whip.  He is a thorough-going partisan, which, in an official biographer, is perhaps the right thing.

The writer’s activities in encouraging opposition to these party tactics led to a long interview with Sir Wilfrid, in which there was considerable frank language used on both sides.  Sir Wilfrid gave every indication that he was profoundly moved by what he called “the plight of the French-Canadians of Ontario.”  They were, he said, politically powerless and leaderless; the provincial Liberal leaders, who should have been their champions, had abandoned them; the obligation rested upon him to come to their rescue.  The suggestion that, while he might be within his rights in thus expressing his individual