Unfortunately, when it came time to publish Laurier’s answers, the reporter’s questions were not provided. Despite this fact Laurier’s answers are fascinating reading even today.  Laurier, for example, discussed the issue of voting rights in Canada and other countries.

“Let the franchise be easily gained, but let some effort, however slight, be made before the franchise is obtained,” Laurier said in the coverage of his interview published by the London Times. “I do not think the right to vote ought to be inherent merely in the fact of birth. Those who enjoy this right should have won it. Then they may be trusted to use the right wisely, because of the effort they have made to obtain it. “

You can read Laurier’s comments in their entirety below.

Prime Minister Sir Wilfrid Laurier: I shall speak tonight at the Chamber of Commerce banquet in French. In the first place, for us Canadians, this language is not so very unfamiliar, even to those of us who are of English blood. Out of the seven provinces of Canada there are certain of them, like Quebec for instance, where you may spend an entire day without hearing a word of English, and I, as a lawyer, know that a man of my profession could not do business unless he knew both languages equally well. Our judges also are bound to know both languages. Our laws are a mixture of French and English, and we often have to consult the Napoleonic Code as well as the English law. Witnesses give evidence now in French, now in English, and a characteristic of us Canadians is our complete toleration, our enjoyment of a liberty untrammelled save by the law, and our unreserved freedom as regards the independence of man – freedom of utterance and liberty of conscience.

But tonight, I wish to speak in French because I desire my former compatriots to know that I am always proud of my extraction and that my present countrymen not only do not resent this but would esteem me less if I tried, not to conceal my French extraction, but to excuse it. I am aware that people here cannot or will not understand this. They do not take account of the transformation produced by centuries in the sentiments of men living at a great distance from their original country and enjoying the benefits accorded by their new country, or of the sincere fidelity with which they are attached to one without renouncing or forgetting the other.

My own election, moreover, is a justification of the devotion which we profess for our fellow countrymen and for the great English nation. Out of 213 members of the House of Commons 53 of us are French race, and without any sacrifice of my opinions or love for my French extraction I have become Prime Minister. Those who raised me to this post, my colleagues of English as well as of French race, were quite aware that I should fulfil the duties of my position, as far as I could, with the aim of promoting with equal loyalty the interests of Canada and Great Britain.

The theory which I have always professed which triumphs in my person and will, I hope, be more and more triumphant throughout the Dominion, is that we men of French race should no longer places ourselves in opposition to our countrymen of English race, but alongside them. We should for, not opposed, but juxtaposed races, marching side by side and leaning on each other with loyal hearts towards the one goal, the grandeur and glory of the British Empire. What, indeed, would become of us if, instead of such loyal cooperation, we had a different goal from that of the strong Angl0-Saxon race, which now well knows the benefit of our mingled activity to the common country?

Were we to act otherwise, that strong tenacious race against which we, a minority foredoomed to defeat, should embark on a struggle would not rest till it had reduced us to a kind of subjection, making us hewers of wood and drawers of water. For the Anglo-Saxons are the only race which possess a really political spirit, knowing whither it wants to go and never halting on the way. But since we have proved ourselves to be sincere fellow countrymen, since our cooperation has happily been shown to be conducive to the common aim, they have sought to labour not against us but with us, just as we on our ide, with rare exceptions, have laboured for the common work, the common prosperity. Thus, the theory which I have always maintained is happily being realized more and more, so that Canada is increasing in strength for itself and for the British Empire.

Since coming here to Paris I have been struck by the bitterness (aigreur) towards England, and you can understand how deeply it grieves me. It probably arises from the fact that the English are in Egypt and the French are not. Yet the French refused to accompany the English in spite of the counsels of Gambetta, who, at least when in office, urged it. It was a great political idea, and I know not why this temper afterwards changed, nor do I undertake to explain how this question has become so complicated as to appear insoluble.

I am also struck by the revival of the colonizing spirit, which is so manifestly inconsistent with the slow increase of population. When you want colonies, you must have a surplus population to send to them. Large families are what make good colonies. Perhaps the French reckon on the foreign element to people and utilize their colonies, but then these elements must be well selected. I do not think that Maltese or Italians would realize their plans, and they must consequently have recourse to the Anglo-Saxon or German element. The Anglo-Saxons, however, have their own colonies, and the Germans are scarcely the auxiliaries whom the French would choose, while as to the Slav element it has not yet shown its colonizing capabilities. I see no races in Europe who could make up for the scarcity of French hands in the colonies. The French nation is so ingenious, however, that when resolved on anything it effects.

I shall perhaps be led into saying something tonight on the federal idea now occupying English minds. As for us, we are quite satisfied with our present situation. We are gaining in prosperity and strength. We feel ourselves independent, and we cling all the more to the mother country because we seem to be acting quite freely.

Perhaps one day, in five or ten or twenty years, when we 12 are or 15 millions, we may be hampered by our present situation. Then the federal idea will present itself quite naturally. And then, I am convinced, the best way of realizing this idea will be found. A Parliament will perhaps be created, in which both the colonies and the mother country will be proportionately and equitably represented, and in which common interests will be discussed with full respect for the interests for the interests of each, But, for the moment, we have brought to the mother country an incontestable demonstration of our loyalty, and the whole world must have been the witness of it.

We judge the situation in the United States with complete impartiality. The United States have committed two blunders. The first is that after the war the Republican Party obtained excessive power. It had defended human liberty against the theory of slavery, and the spirit of Liberalism breathing all over the world was with it. Victory, accordingly, gave it such absorbing force that the resistance to it went the length of socialism.

Happy for the United States, this socialism took the clumsy shape at the last Presidential election and this caused the defeat of Mr. Bryan’s party, which might otherwise have been dangerous. But this should serve a lesson to the Republican Party and induce moderation, toleration, and prudence.

The second blunder is the too absolute application of universal suffrage. Let the franchise be easily gained, but let some effort, however slight, be made before the franchise is obtained. I do not think the right to vote ought to be inherent merely in the fact of birth. Those who enjoy this right should have won it. Then they may be trusted to use the right wisely, because of the effort they have made to obtain it.

In the United States the right to vote was first accorded to its own citizens, then to the Italians, then to all, as one after another they presented themselves, without any concern as to whether they were acquainted with the needs and essential characteristics of the United States. Thereby and thereupon ensured the indifference on the part of the upper and educated classes, who abandoned politics to professional politicians and politics thus became a profession like any other – though this depends on the profession to which you compare it.

On the contrary, what makes the strength and grandeur and dignity of England is that the greatest aristocrats, the men in the highest position by birth and fortune, are the most industrious. Conscious of their rights and duties they take an active part in politics. Men … who might travel in ease and luxury on the continent, remain in England, intent, not on their rank and fortune, but on their obligations to the country, to their tenacity, and also to the poor.

When, moreover, a man becomes eminent by his attainments and character, when he personifies some national force or quality, he is raised to the peerage and he enters the House of Lords. This new blood invigorates these old institutions and saves them from decay. Seeing all these things make me delighted with my journey, and I shall go home with the conviction that I am serving a great cause and that I am connected with a great nation.Arthur Milnes is an accomplished public historian and award-winning journalist.  He was research assistant on The Rt. Hon. Brian Mulroney’s best-selling Memoirs and also served as a speechwriter to then-Prime Minister Stephen Harper and as a Fellow of the Queen’s Centre for the Study of Democracy under the leadership of Tom Axworthy.  A resident of Kingston, Ontario, Milnes serves as the in-house historian at the 175 year-old Frontenac Club Hotel.