along led to a morass. They wanted a go-as-you please policy by
which each section of the party could make its own appeal to local
feeling. Laurier was never more indecisive than in the war councils
in which these questions of party policy were fought over. And with
good reason. His sympathy and his judgment were with Tarte but he
feared to declare himself too pronouncedly. The foundation stone of
Tarte's policy was a belief in the overwhelming potency of Laurier's
name in Quebec; Laurier was naturally somewhat reluctant to put his
own stock so high. He had not yet come to believe implicitly in his
star. Within forty-eight hours of the time when Laurier made his
speech moving the six months' hoist to the Remedial bill, a group of
Liberal sub-chiefs from the English provinces made a resolute
attempt to vary the policy determined upon. Their bright idea was
that Clarke Wallace, the seceding cabinet minister and Orange
leader, should move the six months' hoist; this would enable the
Liberals to divide, some voting for it and some against it. But the
bold idea won. With Laurier's speech of March 3, 1896, the death-blow
was given to the Conservative administration and the door to
office and power opened to the Liberals.

The campaign absolutely vindicated the tactical foresight of Tarte.
A good deal might be said about that campaign if space were
available. But one or two features of it may be noted. In the
English provinces great play was made with Father Lacombe's minatory
letter to Laurier, sent while the issue was trembling in the balance
in parliament: "If the government . . is beaten . . I inform you
with regret that the episcopacy, like one man, united with the
clergy, will rise to support those who may have fallen in defending
us." In his Reminiscences, Sir John Willison speculates as to how
this letter, so detrimental to the government in Ontario, got itself
published. Professor Skelton says boldly that it was "made public
through ecclesiastical channels." It would be interesting to know
his authority for this statement. The writer of this article says it
was published as the result of a calculated indiscretion by the
Liberal board of strategy. As it was through his agency that
publication of the letter was sought and secured, it will be agreed
that he speaks with knowledge. It does not, of course, follow that
Laurier was a party to its publication.

The campaign of 1896 was on both sides lively, violent and
uns