Believe me, Yours faithfully, PERCY WM. BUNTING. With this letter came my manuscript returned to me by same mail. I replied as follows: HEYDON VILLA, TORONTO, _23rd March, 1895_. DEAR SIR, Many thanks for sending me word so promptly about my article and for returning the manuscript which has safely arrived. I am glad to find that you do not take Goldwin Smith as a representative of the bulk of Canadian opinion, and can only express the regret of Canadians generally that his distorted and incorrect views about our country are so widely circulated in England. This is the more unfortunate when the bulk of Canadian opinion is refused a hearing. Yours, etc. I then sent the manuscript back to England to my friend Dr. George R. Parkin, and asked him to get it published in some magazine. After considerable delay, he succeeded in getting it in the _Westminster Review_ for September, 1895. It was received very well in Canada, many notices and copious extracts being printed in many of our papers. The _Week_ published the whole article in pamphlet form as a supplement. In the following January, the Press Association having invited Mr. Goldwin Smith to their annual banquet to respond with the Hon. G. W. Ross to the toast "Canada," some objection was raised by Mr. Castell Hopkins to his being endorsed to that extent. Mr. Hopkins was attacked for this in the _Globe_. I replied in his defence in the following letter, which explains why we of the Imperialist party followed Goldwin Smith so persistently and endeavoured to weaken his influence. It was not from ill-feeling but from an instinct of self-preservation as to our country: SIR, I have read an article in your issue of this morning, in reference to Mr. Goldwin Smith being asked to respond to the toast of "Canada" at the coming Press Association dinner, and censuring Mr. Hopkins for objecting to such a course. You say Mr. Hopkins's pursuit of Mr. Smith has become ridiculous, and you refer to the St. George's Society incident. As one who was present and took part in that affair, I may say that the feeling was that the fact of Mr. Smith being a member of the society gave him a recognition as an Englishman that he was not entitled to, in view of his hostility to the best interests of the empire. . . .