and fairness, except perhaps in that last quarter of the eighteenth
century, when the madness of a German king and his ministers in
England forced the United States to break away from her, and form
the republic which has now become her most powerful friend.

The perpetuation of a double language within a state, an _enclave_,
undoubtedly carries with it an element of inconvenience and possibly
of danger. Yet Belgium is bilingual and Switzerland is quadrilingual.
If any tongue other than that of the central government is
to be admitted, what could be better than French--the language of
culture, which has spoken the large words, _liberte, egalite,
fraternite?_ The native dialect of French Canada is a quaint
and delightful thing--an eighteenth-century vocabulary with pepper
and salt from the speech of the woodsmen and hunters. I should be
sorry if it had to fade out. But evidently that is a question for
Canada to decide. She has been a bilingual country for a long time.
I see no reason why the experiment should not be carried on.

Quebec has been rather slow in waking up to the meaning of this war
for world-freedom. But she has been very little slower than some
of the United States, after all.

The Church? Well, the influence of the Church always has depended
and always must depend upon the quality of her ministers. In
France, in Belgium, they have not fallen short of their high duty.
The Archbishop of Saskatchewan, who came to Quebec, preached a
clear gospel of self-sacrifice for a righteous cause.

But the plain people of Quebec--the _voyageurs_, the
_habitants_, my old friends in the back districts--that is