should include a provision for separate schools.  The policy agreed upon by the government was to continue in the provincial constitutions the precise rights enjoyed by the minority under the territorial school ordinances of 1901.  There was a vigorous controversy in parliament as to whether the autonomy bills in their original form kept faith with this understanding.  Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Mr. Fitzpatrick, minister of justice, contended vehemently that they did.  Clifford Sifton, who was the western representative in the cabinet and the party most directly interested, held that they did not.  Mr. Sifton was absent in the Southern States when the bill was drafted.  He reached Ottawa on his return the day after Sir Wilfrid had introduced the bills to parliament.  He at once resigned.  Fielding, who had also been absent, was credited with sharing to a considerable extent Sifton’s view that the bill introduced did not embody the policy agreed upon.  The resulting crisis put the government in jeopardy.  A considerable number of members associated themselves with Mr. Sifton and the government was advised that their support for the measure could only be secured if clauses were substituted for the provisions in the act to which objection was taken.  To make sure that there would be no mistake that the substituted provisions should merely continue the territorial law as it stood, they insisted upon drafting the alternative clauses themselves.  Sir Wilfrid, acutely conscious that this constituted a challenge to his prestige and authority, used every artifice and expedient at his command to induce the insurgents either to accept the original clause or alternatives drafted by Mr. Fitzpatrick; for the first time the tactical suggestion that resignation would follow noncompliance was put forward.  The dissentient members stood to their guns; Sir Wilfrid yielded and the measure thus amended commanded the vote of the entire party with one Ontario dissentient.

The storm blew over but the wreckage remained.  The episode did Laurier harm in the English provinces.  It predisposed the public mind to suspicion and thus made possible the ne temere and Eucharist congress agitations which were later factors in solidifying Ontario against him.  In Quebec it gave Mr. Bourassa, whose hostility to Laurier was beginning to take an active form, an opportunity to represent Laurier as the betrayer of French Catholic interests and to put himself forward as their true champion.  “Our friend, Bourassa,” wrote Sir Wilfrid to a friend in April, 1905, “has begun in Quebec a campaign that may well cause us trouble.”  From this moment the Nationalist movement grew apace until six years later it looked as though Bourassa was destined to displace Laurier as the accepted leader of the French Canadians.  It was only the developments of the war that restored Laurier to his position of unchallenged supremacy.