The Times has been guilty of the mistake of vindicating
its own consistency. In the debate on Canadian defences Mr. W. E. Forster, the member for Bradford, said, "A few days since there was a leader in the most influential organ of public opinion in this country, the Times, in which, in the strongest language, it was asserted that there could be no question but that the Feclerals would go to war with us whenever a prospect of success presented itself." The Times was scandalized at this "amiable gentleman's" inaccuracy, and read him quite a little sermon last Wednesday on its immorality, and says positively it never made any such asser- tion. Facts, however, are stubborn and, as a celebrated charac- ter remarks, "not easy drove." Type is type, and is not changed by disavowal. In the Times of Wednesday, March 8, the asser- tion was made in the following words :—" As the Federal Govern- ment maintains that it has a quarrel with us in the shape of claims which we do not acknowledge, and it has a great deal to gain by a successful war with us, the question to which we have to address ourselves is simply whether they can go to war with us with a fair prospect of success. If they can they certainly will !" In practice the Times is absolutely indifferent to consistency even for two days together, and it is dangerous and weakening to have a theory of duty completely at variance with your position:
