By the time Mr. Aylesworth arrived in Toronto he had time to think the matter over. The Canadian Club had organised a great banquet in his honour, and I am of opinion that when he arrived at home, he was astonished at the storm he had aroused. He at once allayed the excited feelings of his audience by a most loyal, patriotic, and statesmanlike speech, and quieted the feeling to a great extent, although it is still a very sore question in Canada, and Lord Alverstone is placed on the same shelf with Mr. Oswald of the treaty of 1783, and Lord Ashburton who gave away a great part of the State of Maine; but had I been in Lord Alverstone's place, and I am an out and out Canadian, with no sympathy whatever with the United States, I should have done as he did. In the spring of 1903 a controversy arose between Mr. Joseph Chamberlain and the present Lord Salisbury in which I was able to intervene on Mr. Chamberlain's side with some effect. Mr. Chamberlain had said in a public letter that the late Lord Salisbury had favoured retaliation and closer commercial union with the colonies. The present Lord Salisbury wrote to _The Times_ saying that his father profoundly dissented from Mr. Chamberlain's fiscal policy. Several letters followed from Mr. Chamberlain and Sir Michael Hicks-Beach. I published in _The Times_ on the 18th May, 1905, the following letter: SIR, The controversy which has been lately going on in the Press in Great Britain over the question of the late Lord Salisbury's view on protection and preferential tariffs has excited considerable interest in this country. As I am in a position to throw some light upon the late Premier's opinions on these questions, I would ask your permission to say a few words.