The debate in the House of Commons on Mr. Hocken's motion: "That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that measures should be adopted to encourage the publication of Canadian Magazines and periodicals," evoked from the members taking part in it so fine an expression of enlightened patriotism and so just an appreciation of the national value of a good native literature that we are bound to regard the event as a memorable one in the history of the Canadian Parliament. We wish that the Hansard of March 5th, 1923, were in the hands of all our people. It would convince them that our public men have given them the lead towards that desirable time when, as Sir Henry Newbolt says, any nation will have a great literature, namely, when that nation "cannot rest satisfied until it does secure it." Mr. Hocken's motion was agreed to by the House. In introducing his motion Mr. Hocken expressed an opinion which is in entire accord with the motive of the Canadian Bar Association in establishing the REVIEW. He said:

"The periodical press of a country is an educational institution, and in every country where there has been established and developed a good periodical press, there you will find the national ideals more firmly established and the unity of the people brought about in the most harmonious manner Canadian periodicals, which are all too few

C.B.R.-VOL. 1.-14

in number and have circulations all too small, have the ability to interpret the sentiment of one province to the other-the sentiment of the Maritime Provinces to British Columbia, to Alberta, Saskatchewan or Ontario, and the sentiment of those provinces, then, to the east. No daily newspaper can do that; no daily newspaper has a circulation covering the different provinces. . . . This service, therefore, can be rendered only by a virile, profitable and successful magazine press. To bring the east and the west together for their mutual understanding on great national issues would be a patriotic service of no small moment, but it can be performed only by publications having, as I say, a nation-wide circulation."

Space will not permit us to quote as we would like from other speakers, and we must be content with making one short extract from the speech of the Honourable Charles Marcil (Bonaventure). He said:

"Canadians must come to understand each other better and cease to be divided by provincial lines. Those who came before us may have divided this country for the purpose of administration on provincial lines, but surely the day is not far distant when a Canadian will realize that the whole of Canada is his country, and that he is not peculiarly a citizen of any one province. This national spirit can best be created, fostered and encouraged by publications in Canada, which are filled with Canadian ideas and Canadian ideals."

In the debate there was a pretty general agreement that the greatest obstacle to the success of a native periodical literature at the present time is the fact that Canada is being flooded by American publications -some admirable, and others detrimental both to our national spirit and the moral and intellectual behoof of their individual readers.

True, nothing was done by the House to implement this fine acknowledgment of the constructive part played by periodical literature in the national life. But

with the seed of appreciation so finely sowed, we shall see its tangible fruit in the garden of the commonwealth ere long. The people of Athens had been taught to love Literature and Art before Pericles made that love creative at the expense of the public funds. And we should not forget that the Dominion Parliament, even in these days of financial stress, pursues the gracious habit of subsidizing the graphic arts.

The opinion expressed in former issues. of the REVIEW as to the present need of a better understanding by the Canadian people of those flexible and regenerative qualities in our laws and institutions which enable them to take care of all the complexities of modern social life, finds countenance and support in the proposal of the American Bar Association Journal to publish a series of articles explanatory of the American principles of government for the benefit of those who are content to enjoy the privileges of citizenship in the United States without recognizing their concomitant obligations. Our contemporary declares that:

"With the immense increase of the electorate in this country comes an imperative need for a more intelligent understanding of American principles of government, if the lessons of experience are to be heeded and dangers and disasters are to be avoided. The idea of the Constitution and the plans and principles it embodies must not be allowed to remain a vague abstraction to great numbers of our people, as it is at present. . . The younger generation and the millions of enfranchised women, who for the most part lack the political background which the men have, need this specific recurrence to first principles."

The plan is to publish a series of articles under the title of "The New Federalist," written by specialists, but "adapted to the fair intelligence of both native and foreign-born citizens." It is believed that rep

resentative newspapers throughout the country will reprint the articles, and that in any event civic and political clubs and patriotic organizations will see that they reach the constituency for which they are intended. This is constructive patriotism indeed, and shows that our brethren across the border are maintaining in a very handsome way the traditions of the Bar as a pillar of the State.

It is true that the spirit of lawlessness is much more prevalent in the United States than in Canada. That point was frankly conceded by Nicholas Murray Butler, President of Columbia University, in an address to the Ohio State Bar Association, delivered on the 26th January last, and published in the American Bar Association Journal for February. But that the Canadian people are losing more and more of the fine respect for law that characterized them in the past is apparent, not only from the proceedings of the criminal Courts, but from the daily conversation of men and women in all walks of life. In short we are confronted by a very widespread revolt against the restraints of law, which is not wholly attributable to the influences of the War. There appears to be a feeling in the community that the whole body of the people is in the grip of a militant propagandism that is striving to bring about a dispensation of neo-puritanism whereby souls will be saved by statute whether they wish to be saved or not, and the New Jerusalem set up on political foundations. It is claimed that already we have legislation, not supported by public opinion in any real sense, which places undue restraint upon individual freedom and is not essential to the welfare of the community. In stating this criticism we do not wish to be understood as sharing in it or conceding that it is well founded. What we do say without hesitation is that while laws are in force they must be obeyed; and it is the peculiar duty of the Bar to make this plain to all manner of men. Systematic defi

ance of laws of a disciplinary character may appeal to some people as good sport, but it isn't playing the game in the British way. On the other hand we desire to point out that it is a fundamental mistake to confuse the provinces of law and ethic in movements for social reform. Law envisages only those rights and duties which are the elements of social life. Both in ethos and function it is mundane. It will become a withered tree if the sap of sound public opinion does not circulate through it. There can be no free community where there is no individual liberty. The case was well put by a member of the Canadian House of Commons in a recent debate:

"I am not one of those who believe that we can legislate ourselves into Heaven, or legislate the people of this country into Heaven. Probably we would have a better chance to succeed hereafter if we faced at least some of the trials which beset us rather than attempt to wipe them all out. I do not think you can strengthen a child's back, for example, by putting a corset on it from its babyhood; and that is what is too often attempted in legislation."

Beyond peradventure civilized men must be allowed to possess their own souls. J. S. Mill sums up the philosophy of the whole matter when he says:

A

"The worth of a State in the long run, is the worth of the individuals composing it State which dwarfs its men in order that they may be more docile instruments in its hands even for beneficial purposes-will find that with small men no great thing can really be accomplished."