"_The politicians of the two parties and the whole servile and mercenary press have applied themselves to this revolutionary work.... For a long time past the party leaders are the tools of British Imperialism and of_ BRITISH HIGH FINANCE." And not satisfied with having thus slashed all the party leaders, all the chiefs of the State, he turns round, in an access of passionate indignation, and charges not only all the leading social classes, but even the Bishops, the worthy leaders of the Church, as the accomplices of the Imperialist revolution. He thrusts the terrible blow as follows:-- "_But what the war has produced of entirely new and most disconcerting, is the moral support and complicity which the_ "IMPERIALIST REVOLUTION" _has found in all the leading social classes_. BISHOPS, _financiers, publicists and professionals went into the movement with a unity, an ardour, a zeal which reveal the effective strength of the laborious propaganda of which Lord Grey has been the most powerful worker prior to the war_." So that there should be no mistake about its true meaning, he favoured his readers with a very clear explanation indeed of what, in his opinion, has transformed our meritorious and loyal intervention in the war into a guilty revolutionary movement. He wrote as follows:-- "_But what the Imperialists wanted, and what they have succeeded in obtaining, was to bind Canada to the fate of England, in the name of the principle of Imperial solidarity and--as we shall see in a moment--to the cause of_ 'UNIVERSAL DEMOCRACY'." Thus, in the Nationalist leader's opinion, it is a great crime to help England and her Allies to win a war the loss of which would most likely have destroyed the British Empire, involving our own ruin in the downfall of the mighty political edifice to be replaced, in the glorious shelter it gives to human freedom, by the triumphant German autocratic rule and its universal domination. It is, to say the least, an extravagant notion to pretend that the war has afforded the Imperialists the opportunity--eagerly seized--"_to tie Canada_" hand and foot, "_to the fate of England_." If I am not mistaken--and I am positively sure I am right in so saying--Canada was bound to the fate of England the very day when--by Providential decree, in that instance as well as with regard to everything earthly--she passed under British Sovereignty. The worthy leaders of our Church so considered--and have since unanimously considered--at once taking the sound Christian stand that the French Canadians were, in duty bound, to accept their new political status in good faith, and to loyally support their new mother country whenever circumstances would require their devoted help, whilst revering the old as every child must do, if he is blessed with a good heart, when separated by unforeseen events from the home of his happy youth.