DURING the American civil war, the intercourse between Great Britain and the United States was far from friendly, and at the time of the imbroglio called the "Trent affair" the situation became so ominous that it threatened war. Canada was hardly in a position to cooperate effectually with Great Britain if hostilities had broken out. It was felt then that a reorganization of the Canadian militia was an urgent necessity, and the government, with the help of a British officer, Colonel Lysons, prepared a Militia Bill which was presented to parliament at the session of 1862 by John A. Macdonald. The measure was defeated on its second reading, and Cartier, then premier, tendered his resignation. On that vote he had been left in a minority for the first time in his province, whilst his colleague, also for the first time, saw a majority of the western members standing at his side.

After confederation it was again his duty, as minister of militia, to prepare another reorganization of the defence of the country. His long experience in that part of the service, together with his strong sense of loyalty, fitted him well for the task, and when the measure came before the House in 1868, it met with hardly any opposition. It is still the law of the land. Cauchon, of the Journal de Quebec, who was never well disposed towards Cartier, praised him on his success. "The minister of militia," said he, "has succeeded where many expected to see him fall. He has nobly retrieved his fortune, and had his revenge for his defeat of 1862." La Minerve added: "All those present at the sitting of the House during which Mr. Cartier expounded his militia scheme are unanimous in saying that no other speech of his had ever carried more weight and authority. Nothing less could have been expected from the minister who is considered as master of the situation, thanks to the influence derived from his popularity in Lower Canada, and to the confidence which his integrity and honesty as a statesman give him in the other provinces."

The labour and careful study bestowed on the Militia Bill were inspired by Cartier's sense of duty to the country and strong attachment to British connection. This sentiment was the mainspring of his action where it affected the relations of Great Britain and Canada. It was in consequence of this state of mind that in 1868 and 1869 his feelings received a severe shock when a certain number of public men in England expressed the opinion that she should part with her colonies. The drift of the home government policy seemed then to set in that direction, when they decided upon withdrawing the imperial troops from Canada. Even Sir John Young, on his arrival in Canada, at a public function in Quebec expressed sentiments on the question which were interpreted as an invitation to Canada to cut loose from colonial leading strings and declare her independence. On that occasion, July 15th, 1869, Sir John Young said: "At the present moment Canada is in reality independent. It has its own destinies in its own hands, and its statesmen and people are recognized as competent to judge of their interests as to what course to pursue to conciliate those interests. England looks to them for her guidance, and whatever their decision may be, either to continue the present connection or in due time and in the maturity of their growth to exchange it for some other form of alliance."

This warning of the governor-general was not the only indication at the time of the state of public opinion in England towards the colonies. Taken in connection with the withdrawal of British troops from Canada, was it not very significant? Whilst in Canada a great uneasiness was felt with regard to our imperial connection, which the great majority of the people desired to preserve, the London Times launched a terrible arraignment of the colonial system. It came in this wise: some Australian gentlemen, being in London, had complained of the indifference and neglect shown by the government towards its dominions beyond the seas. To this complaint "The Thunderer" thus answered: "There is no ground for surprise, still less for indignation, if it be asked whether it would not be better for both Englishmen and Australians if the independence the latter have in fact should receive a name. The Dominion of Canada is in all respects independent. It is fitted to become—it has the institutions of—a great power. It is surely a fair subject for inquiry whether it might not assume its appropriate position. Although we do not forget our own warning against the use of metaphors, we must still ask whether the emancipation of the adult is not as desirable to complete the manhood of the son as it is necessary from the inability of the father to understand the peculiar circumstances of his son's life." In their complaint, these Australians, referred to in such snappish manner, spoke of England as the "mother country." This expression, which should at least have gone to the heart of the great organ, only drew ironical criticisms almost insulting to colonists. "Now," said The Times, "what is meant by speaking of England as the mother country? What is to be understood by the description of Australia, Canada, and the rest of her colonies? If all that is intended is to remind us of the historical fact that the citizens of Canada, New South Wales, and Victoria are mainly of English origin and descent, we shall not quarrel with the accuracy of the statement, although we may doubt the pertinence of the phrases. England is in this sense the mother country of Australia, and just in the same way some other land—without committing ourselves to the quarrels of ethnologists, we may say Schleswig-Holstein—is the mother country of England. Again, it may be observed that if Australia be the child of England, the United States are elder brethren of the same family. It is evident that considerations like these, though extremely interesting in their proper relations, have no necessary connection with the mutual obligations of communities, that is to say, of societies of individuals banded together for purposes of government in different parts of the world. Let us then, in the interest of truth and right conclusions, discard altogether the phrase Mother country in the discussions which are before us; let us even use with deliberation words apparently so innocent as 'England* and 'colony,' and remember that what we are called upon to weigh and determine is the proper relations of Englishmen, Australians, and Canadians." To make the meaning clearer still or to leave no doubt on the mind of the dull colonial, who only too well understood The Times' utterances, this paper added: "Incidents like these (the . withdrawal of troops and the speeches of public men), coming, too, in quick succession, showed that the executive government of the United Kingdom, acting, as must be presumed, in harmony with the imperial parliament, had resolved upon abandoning the old policy of tutelage, with its pretensions and responsibilities, and urging the colonies by gentle suasion to take up the freedom of their manhood."

Protests against such indications of the British policy came in rapid succession from Canada. Many public men took a despondent view of the situation, but not Cartier, who could never be found in a pessimistic frame of mind. Speaking at a banquet given to Hon. John Rose in Montreal, he strongly took The Times to task, and raised the hopes of his hearers. With a keen conception of the future, he predicted that this anti-colonial feeling in England, based on erroneous views of the best interests of the Empire would be of short duration, to make room for larger imperial ideas. Similar expressions were used by Cartier at several other public gatherings. To him, the interests of England and of Canada were so closely intermingled and dependent on each other that it would have been suicidal folly to have separated them. It was this feeling that actuated Cartier when in his despatch to the home government he strongly protested against the withdrawal of the British troops from Canada. Besides his great concern for the imperial prestige, there was another important motive to justify the protest—an imminent Fenian invasion of Canada. It was, he felt, a very abnormal act to order the English regiments from this land, when for the very hatred of England, the Fenians, indifferent to our affairs, had invaded Canada.

The description of public opinion in England thirty years ago placed in contrast with what it is to-day, is a subject for reflection. It shows how quickly men's minds travelled from one extreme to the other, and how unfair it is to blame current opinion, which is disagreeable to-day, but which may be acceptable to-morrow. Sentiments freely expressed in Great Britain when The Times advised the colonies to look for their independence, would sound like treasonable utterances now. Was it not also a fact worthy of notice that a French Canadian, once in arms against" colonial misrule, appeared more British than British-born statesmen, imbued with loftier ideas of what was needed to increase the power and influence of Great Britain?