* A Distributed Proofreaders Canada eBook *

This eBook is made available at no cost and with very few restrictions. These restrictions apply only if (1) you make a change in the eBook (other than alteration for different display devices), or (2) you are making commercial use of the eBook. If either of these conditions applies, please check with an FP administrator before proceeding.

This work is in the Canadian public domain, but may be under copyright in some countries. If you live outside Canada, check your country's copyright laws. If the book is under copyright in your country, do not download or redistribute this file.

Title: The Struggle for Imperial Unity

Date of first publication: 1909

Author: Colonel George T. Denison (1839-1925)

Date first posted: Aug. 26, 2014

Date last updated: Aug. 26, 2014

Faded Page eBook #20140893

This eBook was produced by: David T. Jones, Al Haines, Ron Tolkien & the online Distributed Proofreaders Canada team at http://www.pgdpcanada.net

[i]

THE

STRUGGLE FOR IMPERIAL UNITY

[ii]

MACMILLAN AND CO., Limited
LONDON . BOMBAY . CALCUTTA
MELBOURNE

THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
NEW YORK . BOSTON . CHICAGO
ATLANTA . SAN FRANCISCO

THE MACMILLAN CO. OF CANADA, Ltd.
TORONTO

[iii]

THE STRUGGLE FOR
IMPERIAL UNITY

RECOLLECTIONS & EXPERIENCES

BY
COLONEL GEORGE T. DENISON

President of the British Empire League in Canada
Author of
“Modern Cavalry,” “A History of Cavalry,” “Soldiering in Canada,” &c.

MACMILLAN  AND  CO., LIMITED
ST.  MARTIN’S  STREET,  LONDON
THE  MACMILLAN CO.  OF  CANADA,  Ltd.,  TORONTO
THE MACMILLAN COMPANY, NEW YORK
1909

[iv]

Richard Clay and Sons, Limited,
BREAD STREET HILL, E.C., AND
BUNGAY, SUFFOLK.

[v]

PREFACE

Some fifteen years ago the late Dr. James Bain, Librarian of the Toronto Public Library, urged me to write my reminiscences. He knew that, as one of the founders of the Canada First party, as Chairman of the Organising Committee of the Imperial Federation League in Canada, then President of it, and after its reorganisation, under the name of the British Empire League in Canada, still President, I had much private information, in connection with the struggle for Imperial Unity, that would be of interest to the public. He was therefore continually urging me to put down my recollections in order that they should be preserved.

I put the matter off until the year 1899, when I was retired from the command of my regiment on reaching the age limit. I then wrote my military recollections under the title Soldiering in Canada. This was so well received by the Press and by the public that, being still urged to prepare my political reminiscences, I began some years ago to write them, [vi]and soon had them finished. In the early part of 1908 Dr. Bain read the manuscript, and then asked me not to delay, as I had intended, but to publish at once. Shortly before his death last spring, he again expressed this wish. I have consulted several of my friends, and in view of their advice now publish this book.

I have not attempted to write a history of the Imperial Unity movement, but only my personal recollections of the work which I have been doing in connection with it for so many years. I still feel, as I did when I was writing my military recollections, that I should follow the view laid down by the critic who said that reminiscences should be written just in the style in which a man would relate them to an old friend while smoking a pipe in front of a fire. I have tried to write the following pages in that spirit, and if the personal pronoun appears too often, it will be because, being recollections of work done, it can hardly be avoided.

GEORGE T. DENISON.

Heydon Villa, Toronto,
January, 1909.

[vii]

CONTENTS

[1]

INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER

A UNITED EMPIRE

The idea of a great United British Empire seems to have originated on the North American Continent. When Canada was conquered and the power of France disappeared from North America, Great Britain then possessed the thirteen States or Colonies, as well as the Provinces of Quebec and Nova Scotia.

The thirteen colonies had increased in population and wealth, and the British statesmen burdened with the heavy expenses of the French wars, which had been waged mainly for the protection of the American States, felt it only just that these Colonies should contribute something towards defraying the cost incurred in defending them. This raised the whole question of taxation without representation, and for ten years the discussion was waged vigorously between the Mother Country and the Colonists.

A large number of the Colonists felt the justice of the claim of the Mother Country for some assistance, but foresaw the danger of violent and arbitrary action [2]in enforcing taxation without the taxed having any voice in the matter. These men, the Loyalists, were afterwards known by the name United Empire Loyalists, because they advocated and struggled for the organisation of a consolidated Empire banded together for the common interest. Thomas Hutchinson, the last loyalist Governor of Massachusetts, and one of the ablest of the loyalist leaders, believed in the magnificent dream of a great Empire, to be realised by the process of natural and legal development, in full peace and amity with the Motherland, in short, by evolution.

Joseph Galloway, who shared with Thomas Hutchinson the supreme place among the American statesmen opposed to the Revolution, worked incessantly in the cause of a United Empire, and has been characterised as “The giant corypheus of the pamphleteers.” He was a member of the first continental Congress and introduced into that body, on the 28th September, 1774, his famous “Plan of a proposed union between Great Britain and the Colonies.”

In introducing this plan Galloway made some most interesting remarks, which bear their lesson through all the years to the present day. He said:

[3]

Galloway’s scheme was very nearly adopted. In the final trial it was lost by a vote of only six colonies to five. This rejection led Galloway to decline an election to the second Congress, and to appeal to the higher tribunal of public opinion. The Loyalists followed this lead, and the struggle went on for seven years, between those who fought for separation and independence and those who fought for the unity of the Empire.

The Revolution succeeded through the mismanagement of the British forces by the general in command, followed by the intervention of three great European nations, who were able to secure temporary command of the sea.

The United Empire Loyalists were driven out of the old colonies, and many found new homes in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Canada; some also went to England and the West Indies, carrying with them the cherished ideas of maintaining their allegiance to their Sovereign, of preserving their heritage as British subjects, and still endeavouring to realise the dream of a United British Empire.

For this cause they had made great sacrifices, and, despoiled of all their possessions, had been driven into exile, in what was then a wilderness. Men do not make such extraordinary sacrifices except under the influence of some overpowering sentiment, and in their case the moving sentiment was the Unity of the Empire. The greater the hardships they encountered, the greater the privations and sufferings they endured for the cause, the dearer it grew to their hearts, for men value those things most that have been obtained at the highest cost.

In the war of 1812-’14 the intense spirit of loyalty in the old exiles and their sons caused the Canadian [4]Provinces to be retained under the British flag, and when afterwards, in 1837, rebellion broke out, fomented by strangers and new settlers, the United Empire Loyalist element put it down with a promptitude and vigour that forms one of the brightest pages in our history. In Nova Scotia the agitation for responsible government was headed by Joseph Howe, a son of one of the exiled Loyalists. Suggestions of rebellion to him were impossible of consideration, and he held his province true to the Empire, and succeeded by peaceful and loyal measures in securing all he wanted.

Then Great Britain repealed her corn laws instead of amending them, and introduced free trade instead of rearranging and reducing her tariff. She deprived Canada of a small advantage which her products up to that time enjoyed in the British markets, and which was rapidly assisting in the development of what was then a poor and weak colony. This act was a severe blow to Canada, because it meant that Great Britain had embarked on the unwise and dangerous policy of treating foreign and even hostile countries as favourably as her own peoples and her own possessions.

This caused a great deal of dissatisfaction in some quarters, and in the year 1849 some hundreds of the leading business men in Montreal signed a manifesto advocating annexation to the United States. This aroused strong opposition among the United Empire Loyalist element in Upper Canada; the feeling soon manifested itself in a way which proved that no pecuniary losses could shake the deep-seated loyalty of the Canadian people. The annexation movement withered at once.

Seeing how severely the action of the Mother Country had borne upon Canada, Lord Elgin, then [5]Governor-General of Canada, was instructed to endeavour to arrange for a reciprocity treaty with the United States, or in other words to ask a foreign country to give Canada trade advantages which would recompense her for what Great Britain had taken away from her. The United States Government, either influenced by the blandishments of Lord Elgin, or by a politic desire of turning Canada’s trade in their own direction, and making her dependent for her business and the prosperity of her people upon a treaty which the United States would have the power of terminating in twelve years, consented to make the treaty.

It was concluded in 1854, and for twelve years during a most critical period, when railways and railway systems were beginning to be established, the great bulk of the trade of Canada was diverted to the United States, the lines of transportation naturally developed mainly from north to south, and the foreign handling of our products was left very much to the United States. The Crimean war broke out in 1854 and lasted till 1856, raising the price of farm produce two-fold, and adding largely to the prosperity of the Canadian people. The large railway expenditure during the same period also aided to produce an era of inflation, while during the last five years of the existence of the treaty the Civil War in the United States created an extraordinary demand, at war prices, for almost everything the Canadian people had to sell. The result was that, from reasons quite disconnected from the reciprocity treaty, during a great part of its existence the Canadian people enjoyed a most remarkable development and prosperity.

The United States Government, although the treaty is said to have been of more real value to them than [6]to Canada, at the earliest possible moment gave the two years’ notice to abrogate it, and they did so evidently in the hope that the financial distress and loss that its discontinuance would bring upon the people of Canada would create at once a demand for annexation. In a sense they were right; talk in favour of annexation was soon heard from a few, but the old sentiment of loyalty to the Empire was too strong, and the people turned to the idea of the confederation of the Provinces and the opening up of trade with the West Indies and other countries. The Confederation of Canada was the result, and the Dominion was established on the 1st of July, 1867.

My object in writing the following pages is to describe more particularly from my own recollection, and my own knowledge of the facts, the movement in favour of the Unity of the Empire which has been going on during the last forty years.

[7]

CHAPTER I

CONDITION OF AFFAIRS IN CANADA BEFORE
CONFEDERATION

The extraordinary change that has taken place in Canada, in every way, in the last fifty years cannot be appreciated except by those who are old enough to remember the condition of affairs about the middle of last century. The ideas, sentiments, aspirations, and hopes of the people have since then been revolutionised. At that time the North American Provinces were poor, sparsely settled, scattered communities, with no large towns, no wealthy classes, without a literature, with scarcely any manufactures, and with a population almost entirely composed of struggling farmers and the few traders depending upon them. The population was less than 3,500,000. The total exports and imports in 1868 were $131,027,532. The small Provincial Governments found their duties confined to narrow local limits. All the important questions were entirely in the hands of the Home Government. The defence was paid for by them. British troops occupied all the important points, and foreign affairs were left without question entirely in the hands of the British statesmen. The Provinces had no power whatever in diplomacy, and were interested only in a few disputes with the United States in reference to boundary difficulties, which were [8]generally settled without consultation with the Colonial Governments, and with very little thought for the interests or the future needs of the little British communities scattered about in North America.

The settlements were comparatively so recent that men called themselves either English, Irish, or Scotch, according to the nationality of their parents or grandparents. The national societies, St. George’s, St. Andrew’s and St. Patrick’s, may have helped to continue this feeling, so that in reference to the various Provinces there was not, and could not be, any national spirit. Another cause that led to the absence of national spirit or self-confidence was that Great Britain not only held the power of peace and war in her own hands, but, as a consequence, took upon herself the responsibility for the defence of the Provinces. British troops, as has been said, garrisoned all the important points, and all the expenses were borne by the Imperial Government. Canada had no militia except upon paper, no arms, no uniforms, no military stores or equipment of any kind. She depended solely upon the Mother Country; even the Post Office System was a branch of the English Post Office Service. One can readily imagine the lack of local national spirit. Of course the loyalty to the Mother Country and the Sovereign and the Empire was always strong, but it was not closely allied to the spirit of nationality as attached to the soil.

When the Crimean war broke out, the British troops were required for it, and Canada was called upon to raise a militia force for her own needs. This she did. Ten thousand men were organised, armed, uniformed, and equipped at her expense. They were called the Active Militia, and were drilled ten days in each year. [9]The assumption of responsibility had an effect upon the country, and when the Trent difficulty arose the force was increased by the spontaneous action of the people to about thirty-eight thousand men. Four years later the Fenian raids took place upon our frontier, and were repulsed, largely by the efforts of the Canadian Militia. All this appealed to the imagination of our youth, and as confederation was proclaimed the following year the ground was fallow for sowing seeds of a national spirit.

The effect of confederation on the Canadians was very remarkable. The small Provinces were all merged into a great Dominion. The Provincial idea was gone. Canada was now a country with immense resources and great possibilities. The idea of expansion had seized upon the people, and at once steps were taken looking to the absorption of the Hudson’s Bay Territory and union with British Columbia.

With this came visions of a great and powerful country stretching from ocean to ocean, and destined to be one of the dominant powers of the world.

[10]

CHAPTER II

CANADA FIRST PARTY AND HUDSON BAY TERRITORY

It was at the period when these conditions existed that business took me to Ottawa from the 15th April until the 20th May, 1868. Wm. A. Foster of Toronto, a barrister, afterwards a leading Queen’s Counsel, was there at the same time, and through our friend, Henry J. Morgan, we were introduced to Charles Mair, of Lanark, Ontario, and Robert J. Haliburton, of Halifax, eldest son of the celebrated author of “Sam Slick.” We were five young men of about twenty-eight years of age, except Haliburton, who was four or five years older. We very soon became warm friends, and spent most of our evenings together in Morgan’s quarters. We must have been congenial spirits, for our friendship has been close and firm all our lives. Foster and Haliburton have passed away, but their work lives.

Those meetings were the origin of the “Canada First” party. Nothing could show more clearly the hold that confederation had taken of the imagination of young Canadians than the fact that, night after [11]night, five young men should give up their time and their thoughts to discussing the higher interests of their country, and it ended in our making a solemn pledge to each other that we would do all we could to advance the interests of our native land; that we would put our country first, before all personal, or political, or party considerations; that we would change our party affiliations as often as the true interests of Canada required it. Some years afterwards we adopted, as I will explain, the name “Canada First,” meaning that the true interest of Canada was to be first in our minds on every occasion. Forty years have elapsed and I feel that every one of the five held true to the promise we then made to each other.

One point that we discussed constantly was the necessity, now that we had a great country, of encouraging in every possible way the growth of a strong national spirit. Ontario knew little of Nova Scotia or New Brunswick and they knew little of us. The name Canadian was at first bitterly objected to by the Nova Scotians, while the New Brunswickers were indifferent. This was natural, for old Canada had been an almost unknown Province to the men who lived by the sea, and whose trade relations had been mainly with the United States, the West Indies, and foreign countries.

It was apparent that until there should grow, not only a feeling of unity, but also a national pride and devotion to Canada as a Dominion, no real progress could be made towards building up a strong and powerful community. We therefore considered it to be our first duty to work in that direction and do everything possible to encourage national sentiment. History had taught us that every nation that had [12]become great, and had exercised an important influence upon the world, had invariably been noted for a strong patriotic spirit, and we believed in the sentiment of putting the country above all other considerations—the same feeling that existed in Rome

This idea we were to preach in season and out of season whenever opportunity offered. The next point that attracted our attention was the necessity of securing for the new Dominion the Hudson’s Bay Territory and the adhesion of British Columbia. At this time the Maritime Provinces were not keenly interested in either of these projects, while the province of Quebec was secretly opposed to the acquisition of the Territory, fearing that it would cost money to acquire and govern it, but principally because many of the French Canadians dreaded the growing strength in the Dominion of English speaking people, and the consequent relative diminution of their proportionate influence on the administration of affairs. The Hudson’s Bay Company were also dissatisfied at the prospect of the loss of the great monopoly they had enjoyed for nearly two hundred years. They continued the policy they had early adopted, of doing all possible to create the belief that the territory was a barren, inhospitable, frozen region, unfit for habitation, and only suitable to form a great preserve for fur-bearing animals. This general belief as to the uselessness of the country, and its remoteness and inaccessibility, which prevented any full information being gained as to its real capabilities, also had the effect of making many people doubtful as to its value and careless as to its acquisition. As [13]an illustration of the ignorance and false impressions of the value of the country, it is interesting to recall that when, in 1857, an agitation was set on foot looking to the absorption of the North-West Territories, very strong opposition came from a large portion of the Canadian Press. Some wrote simply in the interests of the Hudson’s Bay Company. Some wrote what they really believed to be true. Now that Manitoba No. 1 hard wheat has a fame all over the world, as the best and most valuable wheat that is grown, it is interesting to read the opinion of the Montreal Transcript in 1857 that the climate of the North-West “is altogether unfavourable to the growth of grain” and that the summer is so short as to make it difficult to “mature even a small potato or a cabbage.”

The Government, under the far-seeing leadership of Sir John Macdonald, were negotiating in 1868 for the purchase of the Hudson’s Bay Company’s rights, and they sent Sir George Cartier and the Hon. Wm. Macdougall to England to carry on the negotiations. Mr. Macdougall was a man of great force of character, an able debater and a keen Canadian. We knew he would do all that man could do to secure the territory for Canada, and as far as the arrangements in the old country were concerned he was successful.

In anticipation of the incorporation of the territory in the Dominion, and partly to assist the Red River Settlement by giving employment to the people, the Canadian Government sent up some officials and began building a road from Fort Garry, now Winnipeg, to the north-west angle of the Lake of the Woods. This was in the autumn of 1868. Mr. Macdougall appointed Charles Mair to the position of paymaster of this party, and at once we saw the opportunity of doing some [14]good work towards helping on the acquisition of the territory. We felt that the country was misunderstood, and it was arranged, through the Hon. George Brown, the proprietor and editor of the Toronto Globe, who had for many years been strongly in favour of securing the North-West, that Mair was to write letters to the Globe on every available opportunity, giving a true account of the capabilities of the territory as to the soil, products, climate, and suitability for settlement.

Mair soon formed a most favourable opinion, and became convinced that a populous agricultural community could be maintained, and that in time to come a large and productive addition would be made to the farming resources of Canada. He pictured the country in glowing terms, and practically preached that a crusade of Ontario men should move out and open up and cultivate its magnificent prairies. His letters attracted a great deal of attention, and were copied very extensively in the Press of Upper Canada and the Maritime Provinces. They were filled with the Canadian national spirit, and had a great effect in awakening the minds of the people to the importance of the acquisition of the country. Reports of his letters got back to Fort Garry, and caused much hostile feeling in the minds of the Hudson’s Bay officials, and the French half-breeds and their clergy. The feeling on one occasion almost led to actual violence.

Six years before this, in 1862, John C. Schultz (afterwards Sir John Schultz, K.C.M.G., Lieutenant-Governor of Manitoba) had arrived in Fort Garry. He was then a young doctor only twenty-two years of age. He at once engaged in the practice of his profession, as well as in the business of buying and selling furs, and trading with the Indians and inhabitants. He was [15]born at Amherstburg, and had grown up and been educated in the country where Brock and Tecumseh had performed their greatest exploit in defence of Canada. He was a loyal and patriotic Canadian. He had been persecuted by Hudson’s Bay officials. Once he was put in prison by them, but was soon taken out by a mob of the inhabitants. Mair soon became attached to Schultz. They were about the same age, and possessed in common a keen love for the land of their birth. Mair told him of the work of our little party, and he expressed his sympathy and desire to assist. In March, 1869, Schultz came down to Montreal on business, and when passing through Toronto brought me a letter of introduction from Mair, who had written to me once or twice before, speaking in the highest terms of Schultz, and predicting (truthfully) that in the future he would be the leading man in the North-West, and he advised that he should be enrolled in our little organisation. Haliburton happened to be in Toronto at the time and I introduced Schultz to him and to W. A. Foster, and we warmly welcomed him into our ranks. He was the sixth member. Soon afterwards we began quietly making recruits, considering very carefully each name as suggested.

Schultz went back to Fort Garry. The negotiations for the acquisition of the Hudson’s Bay Territory were brought to a successful termination, and it was arranged that it should be taken over on the 1st December, 1869. Mr. Macdougall was appointed Lieutenant-Governor of the Territory, and with a small staff of officials he started for Fort Garry.

During this time Haliburton had been lecturing in Ontario and Quebec on the question of “interprovincial trade,” showing that it should be strongly [16]encouraged, and would be a most efficient means for creating a feeling of unity among the various provinces. He also delivered a very able lecture on “The Men of the North,” showing their power and influence on history, and pointing out that the Canadians would be the “Northmen of the New World,” and in this way he endeavoured to arouse the pride of Canadians in their country, and to create a feeling of confidence in its future. This was all in the line of our common desire to foster a national spirit, which formerly, in the Canadian sense, had not existed.

[17]

CHAPTER III

THE RED RIVER REBELLION

During this year, 1869, when the negotiations in England had been agreed upon, the Canadian Government had sent out a surveying expedition under Lieut.-Colonel Dennis. This officer had taken a prominent part in the affair of the Fenian Raid at Fort Erie three years before, with no advantage to the country and considerable discredit to himself. His party began surveying the land where a hardy population of half-breeds had their farms and homes, and where they had been settled for generations. Naturally great alarm and indignation were aroused. The road that was being built from Winnipeg to the Lake of the Woods also added considerably to their anxiety.

The Hudson’s Bay officials were mainly covertly hostile. The French priests also viewed an irruption of strangers with strong aversion, and everything tended to incite an uprising against the establishment of the new Government. When Lieut.-Governor Macdougall arrived at Pembina and crossed the boundary line, he was stopped by an armed force of French half breeds, and turned back out of the country. He waited till the 1st December, when his commission was to have come into force, and then appointed Lieut.-Colonel Dennis as Lieutenant and Conservator of [18]the Peace, and sent him to Fort Garry to endeavour to organise a sufficient force among the loyal population to put down the rebellion, and re-establish the Queen’s authority.

When Lieut.-Colonel Dennis reached Fort Garry, he went straight to Dr. Schultz’ house where Mair was staying at the time, and showed them his commission. Schultz, who was an able man of great courage and strength of character, as well as sound judgment, said at once that the commission was all that was wanted, and that he would organise a force of the surveyors, Canadian roadmen, etc., who were principally Ontario men, and that they could easily seize the Fort that night by surprise, as there were only a few of the insurgents in it, and those not anticipating the slightest difficulty. This was the wisest and best course, for had the Fort been seized, it would have dominated the settlement and established a rallying point for the loyal, who formed fifty per cent. of the population.

Colonel Dennis would not agree to this. On the contrary he advised Dr. Schultz to organise all the men he could at the Fort Garry Settlement, while he himself would go down to the Stone Fort, and raise the loyal Scotch half breeds of the lower Settlements. This decision at once shut off all possibility of success. Riel, the rebel leader, had ample opportunity not only to fill Fort Garry with French half breeds, but it enabled him to cut off and besiege Dr. Schultz and the Canadians who had gathered at his house for protection.

When matters had got to this point Colonel Dennis lost heart, abandoned his levies at the Stone Fort in the night, leaving an order for them to disperse and return to their homes. He escaped to the United [19]States by making a wide détour. Schultz and his party had to surrender and were put into prison. Mair, Dr. Lynch, and Thomas Scott were among these prisoners.

When the news of these doings came to Ontario there was a good deal of dissatisfaction, but the distance was so great, and the news so scanty, and so lacking in details, that the public generally were not at first much interested. The Canada First group were of course keenly aroused by the imprisonment and dangerous position of Mair and Schultz, and at that time matters looked very serious to those of us who were so keenly anxious for the acquisition of the Hudson’s Bay Territory. Lieut.-Governor Macdougall had been driven out, his deputy had disappeared after his futile and ill-managed attempt to put down the insurrection, Mair and Schultz and the loyal men were in prison, Riel had established his government firmly, and had a large armed force and the possession of the most important stronghold in the country. An unbroken wilderness of hundreds of miles separated the district from Canada, and made a military expedition a difficult and tedious operation. These difficulties, however, we knew were not the most dangerous. There were many influences working against the true interests of Canada, and it is hard for the present generation to appreciate the gravity of the situation.

In the first place the people of Ontario were indifferent, they did not at first seem to feel or understand the great importance of the question, and this indifference was the greatest source of anxiety to us in the councils of our party. By this time Foster and I had gained a number of recruits. Dr. Canniff, J. D. Edgar, Richard Grahame, Hugh Scott, Thomas [20]Walmsley, George Kingsmill, Joseph E. McDougall, and George M. Rae had all joined the executive committee, and we had a number of other adherents ready and willing to assist. Foster and I were constantly conferring and discussing the difficulties, and meetings of the committee were often called to decide upon the best action to adopt.

Governor Macdougall had returned humiliated and baffled, blaming the Hon. Joseph Howe for having fed the dissatisfaction at Fort Garry. This charge has not been supported by any evidence, and such evidence as there is conveys a very different impression.

Governor McTavish of the Hudson’s Bay Company was believed to be in collusion with Riel, and willing to thwart the aims of Canada. Mr. Macdougall states in his pamphlet of Letters to Joseph Howe, that in September 1868 every member of the Government, except Mr. Tilley and himself, was either indifferent or hostile to the acquisition of the Territories. He also charges the French Catholic priests as being very hostile to Canada, and says that from the moment he was met with armed resistance, until his return to Canada, the policy of the Government was consistent in one direction, namely, to abandon the country.

Dr. George Bryce in his Remarkable History of the Hudson’s Bay Company points out the serious condition of affairs at this time. The Company’s Governor, McTavish, was ill, the government by the Company moribund, and the action of the Canadian authorities in sending up an irritating expedition of surveyors and roadmakers was most impolitic. The influence of mercantile interests in St. Paul was also keenly against Canada, and a number of settlers from the United States helped to foment trouble and [21]encourage a change of allegiance. Dr. Bryce states that there was a large sum of money “available in St. Paul for the purpose of securing a hold by the Americans on the fertile plains of Rupert’s Land.” Dr. Bryce sums up the dangers as follows: “Can a more terrible combination be imagined than this? A decrepit Government with the executive officer sick; a rebellious and chronically dissatisfied Metis element; a government at Ottawa far removed by distance, committing with unvarying regularity blunder after blunder; a greedy and foreign cabal planning to seize the country; and a secret Jesuitical plot to keep the Governor from action and to incite the fiery Metis to revolt.”

The Canada First organisation was at this time a strictly secret one, its strength, its aims, even its existence being unknown outside of the ranks of the members. The committee were fully aware of all these difficulties, and felt that the people generally were not impressed with the importance of the issues and were ignorant of the facts. The idea had been quietly circulated through the Government organs that the troubles had been caused mainly through the indiscreet and aggressive spirit shown by the Canadians at Fort Garry, and much aggravated through the ill-advised and hasty conduct of Lieut.-Governor Macdougall.

The result was that there was little or no sympathy with any of those who had been cast into prison, except among the ranks of the little Canada First group, who understood the question better, and had been directly affected through the imprisonment of two of their leading members.

The news came down in the early spring of 1870 that Schultz and Mair had escaped, and soon afterwards [22]came the information that Thomas Scott, a loyal Ontario man, an Orangeman, had been cruelly put to death by the Rebel Government. Up to this time it had been found difficult to excite any interest in Ontario in the fact that a number of Canadians had been thrown into prison. Foster and I, who had been consulting almost daily, were much depressed at the apathy of the public, but when we heard that Schultz and Mair, as well as Dr. Lynch, were all on the way to Ontario, and that Scott had been murdered, it was seen at once that there was an opportunity, by giving a public reception to the loyal refugees, to draw attention to the matter, and by denouncing the murder of Scott, to arouse the indignation of the people, and foment a public opinion that would force the Government to send up an armed expedition to restore order.

George Kingsmill, the editor of the Toronto Daily Telegraph, at that time was one of our committee, and on Foster’s suggestion the paper was printed in mourning with “turned rules” as a mark of respect to the memory of the murdered Scott, and Foster, who had already contributed able articles to the Westminster Review in April and October 1865, began a series of articles which were published by Kingsmill as editorials, which at once attracted attention. It was like putting a match to tinder. Foster was accustomed to discuss these articles with me, and to read them to me in manuscript, and I was delighted with the vigour and intense national spirit which breathed in them all. He met the arguments of the official Press with vehement appeals to the patriotism of his fellow countrymen. The Government organs were endeavouring to quiet public opinion, and [23]suggestions were freely made that the loyal Canadians who had taken up arms on behalf of the Queen’s authority in obedience to Governor Macdougall’s proclamation had been indiscreet, and had brought upon themselves the imprisonment and hardships they had suffered.

Mair and Schultz had escaped from prison about the same time. Schultz went to the Lower Red River which was settled by loyal English-speaking half breeds, and Mair to Portage la Prairie, where there was also a loyal settlement. They each began to organise an armed force to attack Fort Garry and release their comrades, who were still in prison there. They made a junction at Headingly, and had scaling ladders and other preparations for attacking Fort Garry. Schultz brought up about six hundred men, and Mair with the Portage la Prairie contingent, under command of Major Charles Boulton, had about sixty men. Riel became alarmed, opened a parley with the loyalists, and agreed to deliver up the prisoners, and pledge himself to leave the loyalist settlements alone if he was not attacked. The prisoners were released and Mair went back to Portage la Prairie, and Schultz to the Selkirk settlement. Almost immediately Schultz left for Canada with Joseph Monkman, by way of Rainy River to Duluth, while Mair, accompanied by J. J. Setter, started on the long march on snow shoes with dog sleighs over four hundred miles of the then uninhabited waste of Minnesota to St. Paul. This was in the winter, and the journey in both cases was made on snow shoes and with dog sleighs. Mair arrived in St. Paul a few days before Schultz.

We heard of their arrival at St. Paul by telegraph, and our committee called a meeting to consider the [24]question of a reception to the refugees. This meeting was not called by advertisement, so much did we dread the indifference of the public and the danger of our efforts being a failure. It was decided that we should invite a number to come privately, being careful to choose only those whom we considered would be sympathetic. This private meeting took place on the 2nd April, 1870. I was delayed, and did not arrive at the meeting until two or three speeches had been made. The late John Macnab, the County Attorney, was speaking when I came in; to my astonishment he was averse to taking any action whatever until further information had been obtained. His argument was that very little information had been received from Fort Garry, and that it would be wiser to wait until the refugees had gone to Ottawa, and had laid their case before the Government, and the Government had expressed their views on the matter, that these men might have been indiscreet, &c. Not knowing that previous speakers had spoken on the same line I sat listening to this, getting more angry every minute. When he sat down I was thoroughly aroused. I knew such a policy as that meant handing over the loyal men to the mercies of a hostile element. I jumped up at once, and in vehement tones denounced the speaker. I said that these refugees had risked their lives in obedience to a proclamation in the Queen’s name, calling upon them to take up arms on her behalf; that there were only a few Ontario men, seventy in number, in that remote and inaccessible region, surrounded by half savages, besieged until supplies gave out. When abandoned by the officer who had appealed to them to take up arms, they were obliged to surrender, and suffered for long months in prison. I said these Cana[25]dians did this for Canada, and were we at home to be critical as to their method of proving their devotion to our country? I went on to say that they had escaped and were coming to their own province to tell of their wrongs, to ask assistance to relieve the intolerable condition of their comrades in the Red River Settlement, and I asked, Is there any Ontario man who will not hold out a hand of welcome to these men? Any man who hesitates is no true Canadian. I repudiate him as a countryman of mine. Are we to talk about indiscretion when men have risked their lives? We have too little of that indiscretion nowadays and should hail it with enthusiasm. I soon had the whole meeting with me.

When I sat down James D. Edgar, afterwards Sir J. D. Edgar, moved that we should ask the Mayor to call a public meeting. This was at once agreed to, and a requisition made out and signed, and the Mayor was waited upon, and asked to call a meeting for the 6th. This was agreed to, Mr. Macnab coming to me and saying I was right, and that he would do all he could to help, which he loyally did.

From the 2nd until the 6th we were busily engaged in asking our friends to attend the meeting. The Mayor and Corporation were requested to make the refugees the guests of the City during their stay in Toronto, and quarters were taken for them at the Queen’s Hotel. Foster’s articles in the Telegraph were beginning to have their influence, and when Schultz, Lynch, Monkman, and Dreever arrived at the station on the evening of the 6th April, a crowd of about one thousand people met them and escorted them to the Queen’s. The meeting was to be held in the St. Lawrence Hall that evening, but when we arrived there with the party, we found the hall crowded [26]and nearly ten thousand people outside. The meeting was therefore adjourned to the Market Square, and the speakers stood on the roof of the porch of the old City Hall.

The resolutions carried covered three points. Firstly, a welcome to the refugees, and an endorsation of their action in fearlessly, and at the sacrifice of their liberty and property, resisting the usurpation of power by the murderer Riel; secondly, advocating the adoption of decisive measures to suppress the revolt, and to afford speedy protection to the loyal subjects in the North-West, and thirdly, declaring that “It would be a gross injustice to the loyal inhabitants of Red River, humiliating to our national honour, and contrary to all British traditions for our Government to receive, negotiate, or treat with the emissaries of those who have robbed, imprisoned, and murdered loyal Canadians, whose only fault was zeal for British institutions, whose only crime was devotion to the old flag.” This last resolution, which was carried with great enthusiasm, was moved by Capt. James Bennett and seconded by myself.

Foster and I had long conferences with Schultz, Mair, and Lynch that evening and next day, and it was decided that I should go to Ottawa with the party, to assist them in furthering their views before the Government. In the meantime Dr. Canniff and other members of the party had sent word to friends at Cobourg, Belleville, Prescott, etc., to organise demonstrations of welcome to the loyalists at the different points.

A large number of our friends and sympathisers gathered at the Union Station to see the party off to Ottawa, and received them with loud cheers. Mr. [27]Andrew Fleming then moved, seconded by Mr. T. H. O’Neil, the following resolution, written by Foster, which was unanimously carried:

At Cobourg, where the train stopped for twenty minutes, we were met by the municipal authorities of the town, and a great crowd of citizens, who received the party with warm enthusiasm, and with the heartiest expressions of approval. This occurred about one o’clock in the morning. The same thing was repeated at Belleville about three or four a.m., and it was considered advisable for Mr. Mair and Mr. Setter to stay over there to address a great public meeting to be held the next day. At Prescott, also, the warmest welcome was given by the citizens. Public feeling was aroused, and we then knew that we would have Ontario at our backs.

On our arrival in Ottawa we found that the Government were not at all friendly to the loyal men, and were not desirous of doing anything that we had been advocating. The first urgent matter was the expected arrival of Richot and Scott, the rebel emissaries, who were on the way down from St. Paul. I went to see [28]Sir John A. Macdonald at the earliest moment. I had been one of his supporters, and had worked hard for him and the party for the previous eight or nine years—in fact since I had been old enough to take an active part in politics; and he knew me well. I asked him at once if he intended to receive Richot and Scott, in view of the fact that since Sir John had invited Riel to send down representatives, Thomas Scott had been murdered. To my astonishment he said he would have to receive them. I urged him vehemently not to do so, to send someone to meet them and to advise them to return. I told him he had a copy of their Bill of Rights and knew exactly what they wanted, and I said he could make a most liberal settlement of the difficulties and give them everything that was reasonable, and so weaken Riel by taking away the grievances that gave him his strength. That then a relief expedition could be sent up, and the leading rebels finding their followers leaving them, would decamp, and the trouble would be over. I pointed out to him that the meetings being held all over Ontario should strengthen his hands, and those of the British section of the Cabinet, and that the French Canadians should be satisfied if full justice was done to the half-breeds, and should not humiliate our national honour. Sir John did not seem able to answer my arguments, and only repeated that he could not help himself, and that the British Government were favourable to their reception. I think Sir Stafford Northcote was at the time in Ottawa representing the Home Government, or the Hudson’s Bay Company.

Finding that Sir John was determined to receive them I said, “Well, Sir John, I have always supported you, but from the day that you receive Richot and Scott, [29]you must look upon me as a strong and vigorous opponent.” He patted me on the shoulder and said, “Oh, no, you will not oppose me, you must never do that.” I replied, “I am very sorry, Sir John. I never thought for a moment that you would humiliate us. I thought when I helped to get up that great meeting in Toronto, and carefully arranged that no hostile resolutions should be brought up against you, that I was doing the best possible work for you; but I seconded a very strong resolution and made a very decided speech before ten thousand of my fellow citizens, and now I am committed, and will have to take my stand.” Feeling much disheartened I left him, and worked against him, and did not support him again, until many years afterwards, when the leaders of the party I had been attached to foolishly began to coquette with commercial union, and some even with veiled treason, while Sir John came out boldly for the Empire, and on the side of loyalty, under the well-known cry, “A British subject I was born, a British subject I will die.”

After reporting to Schultz and Lynch we considered carefully the situation, and as Lynch had been especially requested by his fellow prisoners in Fort Garry to represent their views in Ontario, it was decided that he, on behalf of the loyal element of Fort Garry, should put their case before his Excellency the Governor-General himself, and ask for redress and protection. After careful discussion, I drafted a formal protest, which Lynch wrote out and signed, and we went together to the Government House and delivered it there to one of his Excellency’s staff. Copies of this were given to the Press, and attracted considerable attention. This protest was as follows:

[30]

I believe this was cabled by his Excellency to the Home Government. In the meantime Foster and our friends in Toronto were active in the endeavour to prevent the reception of Richot and Scott. A brother of the murdered Scott happened to be in Toronto, and on his application a warrant was issued by Alexander Macnabb, the Police Magistrate of Toronto, for the arrest of the two delegates, on the charge of aiding and abetting in the murder. This warrant was sent to the Chief of Police of Ottawa, with a request to have it [32]executed, and the prisoners sent to Toronto. Foster wrote to me and asked me to see the Chief of Police and press the matter. When I saw the Chief he denied having received it. I took him with me to the Post Office, and we asked for the letter containing it. The officials denied having it. I said at once that there was some underhand work, and that we would give the information to the Press, and that it would arouse great indignation. I was requested to be patient until further search could be made. It was soon found, and I went before the Ottawa Police Magistrate, and proved the warrant, as I knew Mr. Macnabb’s signature. Then the men were arrested. We discovered afterwards that the warrant had been taken immediately on its arrival to Sir John A. Macdonald, and by him handed to John Hillyard Cameron, Q.C., then a member of the House of Commons, and a very prominent barrister, in order that he should devise some method of meeting it. This was the cause of the Chief of Police denying that he had received it. Mr. Scott, the complainant, came down to Ottawa, and as we feared Mr. McNabb had no jurisdiction in the case, a new information was sworn out in Ottawa before the Police Magistrate of that City.

Richot and Scott were discharged on the Toronto warrant, and then arrested on the new warrant. The case was adjourned for some days, but it was impossible to get any definite evidence, as the loyal refugees had been in prison, and knew nothing of what had happened except from the popular report. Richot and Scott were therefore discharged, and were received by the Government, and many concessions granted to the rebels.

[33]

CHAPTER IV

THE RED RIVER EXPEDITION

During the spring of 1870 there had been an agitation in favour of sending an expedition of troops to the Red River Settlement, to restore the Queen’s authority, to protect the loyal people still there, and to give security to the exiles who desired to return to their homes. The Canada First group had taken an active part in this agitation, and had urged strongly that Colonel Wolseley (now Field-Marshal Viscount Wolseley) should be sent in command. We knew that under his directions the expedition would be successfully conducted, and that not only would he have no sympathy with the enemy, but that he would not be a party to any dishonest methods or underhand plotting. He had commanded the camp of cadets at La Prairie in 1865, and had gained the confidence of them all; afterwards at the camp at Thorold in August and September, 1866, he had nearly all the Ontario battalions of militia pass under his command, so that there was no man in Canada who stood out more prominently in the eyes of the people.

Popular opinion fixed upon Colonel Wolseley with unanimity for the command, and the Government, although very anxious to send Colonel Robertson Ross, Adjutant-General, could not stem the tide, particularly [34]as the Mother Country was sending a third of the expedition and paying a share of the cost, and General Lindsay, who commanded the Imperial forces in Canada, was fully aware of Colonel Wolseley’s high qualifications and fitness for the position.

The expedition was soon organised under Colonel Wolseley’s skilful leadership, and he started for Port Arthur from Toronto on the 21st May, 1870. The Hon. George Brown had asked me to go up with the expedition as correspondent for the Globe, and Colonel Wolseley had urged me strongly to accept the offer and go with him. I should have liked immensely to have taken part in the expedition, but we were doubtful of the good faith of the Government, on account of the great influence of Sir George Cartier and the French Canadian party, and the decided feeling which they had shown in favour of the rebels. We feared very much that there would be intrigues to betray or delay the expedition. I was confident that Colonel Wolseley’s real difficulty would be in his rear, and not in front of him, and therefore I was determined to remain at home to guard the rear.

From Port Arthur, the first stage of the journey was to Lake Shebandowan, some forty odd miles. This was the most difficult part of the work. The Government Road was not finished as had been expected, and Colonel Wolseley was delayed from the end of May until the 16th July, before he was able to despatch any of the troops from McNeill’s Bay on Lake Shebandowan.

It will be seen that the expedition was delayed nearly two months in getting over the first fifty miles of the six hundred and fifty by water which lay between Prince Arthur’s Landing and Fort Garry. [35]This was caused by the fact that the first fifty miles was uphill all the way, while the remainder of the journey was mainly downhill. Sir John A. Macdonald was taken with a very severe and dangerous illness, so that during this important period the control of affairs passed into the hands of Sir George Cartier and the French Canadian party. This caused great anxiety in Ontario, for we could not tell what might happen. Our committee were very watchful, and from rumours we heard, we thought it well to be prepared, and on the 13th July, Foster, Grahame and I prepared a requisition to the Mayor to call a public meeting, to protest against any amnesty being granted to the rebels; and getting it well signed by a number of the foremost men in the city, we held it over, to be ready to have the meeting called on the first sign of treachery.

About the 18th July, 1870, Haliburton was at Niagara Falls and by chance saw Lord Lisgar, the Governor-General, and in conversation with him he learned that Sir George Cartier, Bishop Taché, and Mr. Archibald (who had been chosen as Lieutenant-Governor of the new province) were to meet him there in a few days. Haliburton suspected some plot and telegraphed warning Dr. Schultz at London, Ontario, who sent word to me, and on the 19th we had a meeting of our committee, and arranged at once for the public meeting to be held on the 22nd. In the Government organ, the Leader, of the 19th July was a despatch from Ottawa dated the 18th in the following words:

On the next day the same paper had an article which, appearing in the official organ of the Government, was most significant. It concluded in the following words:

This gave us the opportunity to take decisive action. We had already been dreading some such plot which, if successful, would have been disastrous to our hopes of opening up the North-West. If the expedition had been withdrawn, what security would the loyalist leaders have had as to their safety, after the murder of Scott, [37]and the recognition and endorsation of the murderers? It was essential that the expedition should go on. On the first suspicion of difficulty, I had written to Colonel Wolseley and warned him of the danger, and urged him to push on, and not encourage any messages from the rear. Letters were written to officers on the expedition to impede and delay any messengers who might be sent up, and in case the troops were ordered home, the idea was conveyed to the Ontario men to let the regulars go back, but for them to take their boats and provisions and go on at all hazards.

Hearing on the 19th that Cartier and Taché were coming through Toronto the next night on their way to Niagara, our committee planned a hostile demonstration and were arranging to burn Cartier’s effigy at the station. Something of this leaked out and Lieutenant-Colonel Durie, District Adjutant-General commanding in Toronto, attempted to arrange for a guard of honour to meet Cartier, who was Minister of Militia, in order to protect him. Lt.-Colonel Boxall, of the 10th Royals, who was spoken to on the subject, said he had an engagement for that evening near the station, of a nature that would make it impossible for him to appear in uniform. The information was brought to me. I was at that time out of the force, but I went to Lt.-Colonel Durie, who was the Deputy-Adjutant-General, and told him I had heard of the guard of honour business, and asked him if he thought he could intimidate us and I told him if we heard any more of it, we would take possession of the armoury that night, and that we would have ten men to his one, and if anyone in Toronto wanted to fight it out, we were ready to fight it out on the streets. He told me I was threatening revolution. I said, “Yes, I [38]know I am, and we can make it one. A half continent is at stake, and it is a stake worth fighting for.”

Lt.-Colonel Durie telegraphed to Sir George Cartier not to come to Toronto by railway, and he and Bishop Taché got off the train at Kingston. Taché went to the Falls by way of the States. Cartier took the steamer for Toronto, arrived at the wharf in the morning, transferred to the Niagara boat, and crossed to the Falls. This secrecy was all we wanted.

About the same time another formal protest was prepared and Dr. Lynch presented it to his Excellency the Governor-General:—

This was also given to the Press and widely published.

The meeting for which, as has been said, a requisition had been prepared, was called for the 22nd July, and in addition to the formal posters issued by the acting Mayor on our requisition, Foster and I had prepared a series of inflammatory placards in big type on large sheets, which were posted on the fences and bill boards all over the city. There were a large number of these [42]placards; some of them read, “Is Manitoba to be reached through British Territory? Then let our volunteers find a road or make one.” “Shall French rebels rule our Dominion?” “Orangemen! is Brother Scott forgotten already?” “Shall our Queen’s Representative go a thousand miles through a foreign country, to demean himself to a thief and a murderer?” “Will the volunteers accept defeat at the hands of the Minister of Militia?” “Men of Ontario! Shall Scott’s blood cry in vain for vengeance?”

The public meeting was most enthusiastic, and St. Lawrence Hall was crowded to its utmost limit. The Hon. Wm. Macdougall moved the first resolution in a vigorous and eloquent speech; it was as follows:

Mr. Macdougall in supporting this said that:

[43]

Ex-Mayor F. H. Medcalf seconded this resolution which was unanimously carried.

The second resolution called for the prompt punishment of the rebels. It was moved by James D. Edgar (afterwards Sir James D. Edgar, K.C.M.G.) and seconded by Capt. James Bennett, both members of the Canada First group.

The third resolution read:

In moving this resolution, I said, as reported in the Toronto Telegraph:

I also pointed out how, if the expedition were recalled, we could, by grants from municipalities, &c., and by public subscription, easily organise a body of armed emigrants who could soon put down the rebels. This resolution was seconded by Mr. Andrew Fleming and carried with enthusiasm.

Mr. Kenneth McKenzie, Q.C., afterwards Judge of the County Court, moved, and W. A. Foster seconded, the last resolution:

The result of this meeting, with the comments of the Ontario Press, had their influence, and Sir George Cartier was obliged to change his policy. The Governor-General, it was said, took the ground that the expedition was composed partly of Imperial troops, and was under the command of an Imperial officer, and could not be withdrawn without the consent of the Home Government. Sir George Cartier then planned another scheme by which he hoped to condone the crime which Riel had committed, and protect him and his accomplices from the punishment they deserved.

This plan, of course, we knew nothing of at the time, but it was arranged that Mr. Archibald was to follow the Red River expedition over the route they had taken, for the purpose apparently of going to Fort Garry along with the troops. It was also planned that, when Mr. Archibald arrived opposite the north-west angle of the Lake of the Woods, he was to turn aside, and land at the point where the Snow Road (so called after Mr. Snow, the engineer in charge of the work) was to strike the lake, and proceed by land to Fort Garry. Riel was to send men and horses to meet Mr. Archibald at that point, and he was to be brought into Fort Garry under the auspices of the Rebel Government, and take over the control from them before the expedition could arrive.

This is all clearly shown by two letters from Bishop Taché to Riel, which were found among Riel’s papers in Fort Garry after his hurried flight. They are as follows:

[46]

These letters prove the plot and the object of it. There was also a most compromising letter from Sir [48]George Cartier, which was taken away while Colonel Wolseley was a few minutes out of his room, attending to some urgent business. The suspicion was that it was taken by John H. McTavish, of the Hudson’s Bay Company.

It is possible that the word that had been sent to keep back any messages from the rear may have delayed and impeded Mr. Archibald’s progress, but whether that be so or not the fact remains that Mr. Archibald lost two days trying to find the point where he was to meet Riel’s emissaries, and failing to make the junction he was obliged to follow the circuitous route taken by the troops down the Winnipeg River to Lake Winnipeg, and therefore he did not arrive “among and through the people” of Bishop Taché. When he reached Fort Garry the Rebels had been driven out, Colonel Wolseley was established in possession, the British flag had been raised over the Fort, and Colonel Wolseley was able to hand over the government of the country to the Queen’s representative without the assistance of Riel or his accomplices.

The successful arrival of the expedition, the flight of the rebel leaders, and the confidence that further disorders could not be successfully started, caused numbers of new settlers from Ontario to move into the country, and the progress and development of the whole Territory have since been most remarkable. Looking at the condition of affairs now, it is hard to realise that a little indifference and carelessness thirty-eight years ago might have delayed the opening up of that great country for two or three generations, and it might easily have happened that it would have been absorbed by the United States.

[49]

CHAPTER V

NATIONAL SENTIMENT

Sir John A. Macdonald was very ill during this crisis, and was unable to take any part in public affairs, but the action of Sir George Cartier injured the Government, and in the general election of 1872 Sir George himself was beaten by a large majority in Montreal and the Government much weakened. The discovery of the Pacific Scandal followed in the summer of 1873. This gave the public the information that the Government had promised to Sir Hugh Allan and a few capitalists the contract for building the Pacific Railway, in consideration of a large contribution of between $300,000 and $400,000 towards the campaign expenses of the Conservative or Government party in the late election.

After a bitter fight over it in the House of Commons, Sir John A. Macdonald, seeing that his Government would be defeated, resigned his position, and Mr. Alexander McKenzie and the Liberals came into power. At the general election which took place in February, 1874, Mr. McKenzie secured a large majority in the House of Commons.

During the stirring times in the summer of 1870, while the expedition was on its way to Fort Garry, our committee were constantly meeting to discuss matters and often met in my office. At one meeting it was suggested that we should have a name for our party—the committee had for some time been called jocularly the “Twelve Apostles.” Several names were mentioned, [50]and someone said that Edgar had made a suggestion. I walked across the hall into Edgar’s office, and asked him what he had suggested. He seemed to have forgotten the exact words, but said, “Canada before all, or Canada First of all.” I said, “That will do: Canada First,” and went back to my room and proposed it to the others, and after some discussion it was unanimously decided that we should call ourselves the “Canada First” Party, meaning that we should put Canada first, before every other consideration.

To keep our party free from politics, and to cover our work, we decided to have an organisation, called the North-West Emigration Aid Society, which we could use to give out statements to the public, and to arrange for meetings, &c., to push on our work.

In the autumn of 1870, following the lead given by Haliburton in his lectures, I prepared a lecture on “The Duty of Canadians to Canada,” and in 1871 I delivered it at Weston, Belleville, Orillia, Bradford, New Market, Strathroy, Richmond Hill, London, Toronto, Brampton, Halifax (Nova Scotia), Niagara, Wellandport, Dunnville, Chippawa, and in 1872 at Niagara again.

This lecture was a direct appeal in favour of a Canadian National Spirit. It began by showing that the history of the world was the chronicle of the rise and fall of great nations and empires, of the wars and invasions in which the lust of conquest on the part of rising Powers, and the expiring struggles of waning empires, had been left to the arbitrament of the sword, the nations rising and falling with the changeability of a kaleidoscope. I pointed out that all the great nations possessed a strong national spirit, and lost their position and power as soon as that spirit left them, and [51]urged all Canadians to think first of their country—to put it before party or personal considerations—pointing out that this sentiment, in all dominant races, exhibited itself in the same way, in the patriotic feeling in the individual, causing him to put the interest of the country above all selfish considerations, and “to be willing to undergo hardships, privations, and want, and to risk life and even to lay down life on behalf of the State.”

After showing a number of ways in which Canadians in ordinary life could help Canada, I went on to say:

Haliburton, in his lecture on “The Men of the North,” made use of a paragraph which I quoted. It shows the spirit which animated the Canada First Party:

[52]

I urged a confidence in our future as another great necessity:

It has been sometimes said by those who knew little of the aspirations of our party that there was a feeling in favour of independence among us. The extract quoted from Haliburton’s lecture shows how true he was to the cause of a United Empire. I shall quote the concluding paragraphs of my lecture, which are very definite upon the point:

I delivered this lecture, with a few slight changes, in Halifax, Nova Scotia, on the 29th April, 1871, and the feeling then in that Province against Canada and the name Canadian was so strong, that I changed the title to that of “The Duty of our Young Men to the State.” Haliburton was then living in Halifax, and he had interested the late Principal George M. Grant, of Queen’s University, in our movement. Grant was then a young minister in charge of a Presbyterian Church in Halifax. He took an active part in getting up the meeting, which was largely attended, and my lecture was favourably received. That was my first meeting with Grant, and afterwards we were often closely associated in the movement in favour of Imperial Unity, and were warm friends as long as he lived. I shall often have to refer to him in the following pages.

Mair had been doing good work, delivering a splendid [54]lecture in Belleville in 1870. Haliburton had been delivering his lectures, and I mine; but I felt that Foster, who had done such splendid work in the editorial columns of the Telegraph, should also prepare a lecture. I kept urging him until at last he began to write one. He used to bring two or three pages at a time down and read them to me in my office. By this time we had got thirty or forty members together and had formed, as I have said, the North-West Emigration Aid Society, of which Joseph Macdougall, son of the Hon. Wm. Macdougall, was secretary. The Hon. Wm. Macdougall was then one of our members. On one occasion, when the Society had issued a paper for publication, Mr. Macdougall had induced his son to put in additional matter that had not come before the Society. This did not please Foster, who asked six members of the Society to sign a requisition calling a general meeting to consider the matter. It was then decided that any publications issued by the Society were to be brought before them first for approval.

It was not many weeks after this incident that Foster brought in the concluding pages of his lecture and read them to me. I do not believe any of the others knew anything about it. When he had read it all to me, I said to him, “What are you going to call it?” He said, “I think our motto, ‘Canada First.’”

I thought that a good idea, and he wrote “Canada First” at the head of it. I then asked him where he was going to deliver it. He was a very shy fellow and he replied, “I am not going to deliver it.” I said, “Oh yes, you must. We will call a meeting.” I knew we could get up a large public meeting, and I wanted him to agree to read it, but he positively refused. I then [55]said, “You can read it here before our Society, and then we can have it published in the papers”; and I wrote on the top of it in pencil the words “Delivered before the North-West Emigration Aid Society by Mr. W. A. Foster,” and I showed it to him and said, “That will look very well, and I am sure Mr. Brown will publish it.” Foster hesitated, but at last said, “Will you go and show it to Mr. Brown, and ask him, if I read it before the Society, whether he will publish it?” I agreed to do this.

I went to see the Hon. George Brown and explained the matter thoroughly, and told him we were to get the MS. back, and have it read before our Society, and then it would be given to him to be published. Whether Mr. Brown forgot, or whether he thought he had some good matter for his paper and wished to publish it before any other paper got wind of it or not, or whether he thought the chronological order of events was a matter of no moment, I cannot say. The result was, however, that the second or third morning after, Foster came into my office early, in a great state of excitement, and told me that the lecture was published in full in the Globe that morning, and that it had copied in large type the pencil memo, which I had written at the top, “Delivered before the North-West Emigration Aid Society by Mr. W. A. Foster.” Foster was very much troubled about it after his action about Macdougall, but our friends were so pleased with it that no one complained.

This lecture was soon after published in pamphlet form and had a very wide circulation throughout Canada. It was printed in the Memorial Volume to W. A. Foster which was published soon after his death.

[56]

CHAPTER VI

ABORTIVE POLITICAL MOVEMENT

Shortly after these events some of our committee were anxious to make a forward movement, to organise a political party to carry out our views, and to start openly a propaganda to advocate them. I opposed this strenuously, saying that the instant we did so the newspapers on both sides of politics would attack us, and that they would have something tangible to attack. The late Daniel Spry urged me very strongly that we should come out openly. I opposed the idea and refused to take any part in it, fearing that it would at the time injure the influence we were beginning to exert.

Foster and I discussed the matter at great length, and my suggestion was that we should go on as we had been going, and that if we ever wished to hold public meetings Dr. Canniff, one of the “Twelve Apostles,” and the oldest of them, the author of “The Early Settlement of Upper Canada,” would always make an excellent chairman, and not being a party man would not arouse hostility. I said, “If we organise a party and appoint a particular man to lead, we shall be responsible for everything he says,” and repeated that the party Press would attack him bitterly and injure the cause, which was all we cared for. Foster supported my views, and during 1872 and 1873 we kept quiet, [57]watching for any good opportunities of doing service to the country.

In the general election of 1872 I was requested by the Hon. George Brown and Alexander McKenzie to go up to Algoma, and either get some candidate to run or run myself in the Reform interest against Lt.-Col. Fred C. Cumberland, the sitting member for the House of Commons. I arrived at Bruce Mines on the same steamer with Col. Cumberland, and he called a meeting of the electors the same evening and asked me to attend. I did not know anyone in the place, but Mr. Brown had given me a letter to Mr. Peter Nicholson, which I presented to him and told him I was going to the meeting. He urged me not to go, but I insisted. He then said he would get a few friends, so that I would not be alone. Col. Cumberland spoke for about an hour, and then called upon me to speak, he well knowing I had come up to work against him. I asked him to introduce me to the meeting, as I did not know anyone; this he did in a very satirical manner. I then spoke for an hour, and attacked the Government very vehemently for their Red River policy and on other points. Very soon the whole meeting was with me, and after it was over the people nearly all came over to Mr. Nicholson’s store and insisted that I should contest the constituency, and, finding I could not get anyone else to run, I consented. Col. Cumberland withdrew the next day from the contest, and the Hon. John B. Robinson was brought out in his place. After a hard struggle I was defeated by a majority of eighty votes. I fully expected to be beaten; in fact, I was surprised the majority was not much greater. There was a very large amount of money spent against me; so large that there was an inquiry in the House [58]afterwards, and something like $6,000, spent by the Northern Railway Company against me, was, I believe, refunded to the company by the directors or the Conservative party. This was my only attempt to enter Parliament.

In November, 1873, I left for England and did not return until the 2nd February, 1874. Shortly after leaving an election came on, and the late Chief Justice Thomas Moss was contesting West Toronto for the House of Commons. Foster thought it would be good policy, as Moss was sympathetic with our views, to organise the “Canada First” party as a political organisation and as such to support Moss. He at once took steps to organise it, and with the old organisation and a large number of others the National Association was established. This was on the 6th January, 1874. Of our old group there were W. A. Foster, Dr. Canniff, Hugh Scott, Joseph E. Macdougall, C. E. English, G. M. Rae, Richard Grahame, James R. Roaf, Thomas Walmsley, George R. Kingsmill; and besides these a number of new associates—W. H. Howland, R. W. Elliott, J. M. Trout, Wm. Badenach, W. G. McWilliams, James Michie, Nicol Kingsmill, Hugh Blain, Jos. A. Donovan, W. B. McMurrich, G. W. Badgerow, C. W. R. Biggar, W. H. Fraser, J. G. Ridout, W. E. Cornell, W. G. Mutton, C. W. Dedrickson, J. Crickmore, Wm. Hessin, J. Ritchie, Jr., R. G. Trotter, A. S. Irving, A. Howell, R. H. Gray, and Dr. Roseburgh.

Foster did most of the work, and I have no doubt drafted the constitution and the platform. He remembered what I had said, and provided that the movement should be guided by an Executive Committee of twelve, without any president or vice-president. The platform was adopted as follows:

[59]

It will be noticed that the very first plank in the platform was “British Connection, Consolidation of the Empire, and in the meantime a voice in treaties affecting Canada.” This certainly was not favouring either Independence or Annexation, and of the other ten items nearly every point has since been carried into practice.

At the first public meeting, held on 6th December, 1873, Mr. W. H. Howland was in the chair. He knew very little of our objects or aspirations. He was the son of Sir Wm. P. Howland, who had been a citizen of the United States, and had only settled in Canada [60]some fourteen years before W. H. Howland was born. Sir Wm. Howland was a most useful and patriotic citizen, and during a very long life did great service to Canada in various capacities, but neither he nor his son had the inherited traditions of loyalty to the Empire which animated the older Canadians, and the result was that at this first meeting the chairman’s remarks struck a discordant note in the minds of the majority of the members of the National Association. “He held that there was too much toadyism to English aristocratic usages in this country. There was too much toadyism to titles. We would have no aristocracy in this country but the aristocracy of merit, no order but the order of merit, and the sooner the English Government recognised the fact that the adornment of a man in this country with the feelings they entertained was rather an insult than an honour to our people, the sooner would they appreciate our real sentiment. Many Canadians who had gone home had, he held, brought us into contempt by their toadying.”

The result of this speech was most unfortunate. I believe he did not speak for more than fifteen or twenty minutes, but in that time he had practically killed the movement as a political organisation. The committee were dissatisfied and disheartened; the political Press seized at once on the weak points, and attacked the organisation for advocating Independence, and charged it with being disloyal in its objects. Mr. Goldwin Smith then joined it and hoped to use it for the purpose of advocating the disruption of the tie which bound Canada to the Empire. The National Club was founded by this organisation at this time.

I returned to Canada shortly after the movement [61]had been launched and was at once appealed to by my old comrades to join and help to redeem the party from the taint of Independence which it had acquired through the unfortunate speech of W. H. Howland in introducing it to public notice. I declined positively, telling them that it was too late, and it would have to die a natural death. As a political party it lost strength and soon died, its demise being hastened by the fact that it gave encouragement to a few young men to come out openly in favour of Canadian Independence, supported as they were by the great social and literary status of Mr. Goldwin Smith, who has always been willing to assist any movement likely to injure the unity of the British Empire.

[62]

CHAPTER VII

THE INDEPENDENCE FLURRY

The National Club soon ceased to be a political club and the National Association gradually disappeared from public view. I joined it about a year after its foundation, and was President of it in the years 1883 and 1884, and during the existence of the Club it has been the centre of the sentiment “Canada First within the Empire,” which has been the dominant sentiment of the Canadian people for the last twenty years.

Mr. Goldwin Smith in the early years of the Club inaugurated a series of dinners among the members where fifteen or twenty of us would dine together and then discuss some public question of interest. These dinners were popular, and Foster and I were generally present. On one occasion Mr. Goldwin Smith gave out as the subject for discussion the question as to whether “Annexation or Independence would be the best future for Canada.”

Mr. Smith was in the chair at one end of the long table, at which about twenty or perhaps more were seated, and he opened the discussion by pointing out some arguments for and against each alternative, leaving it for the members to discuss as to which would [63]be the best. I was in the vice-chair at the other end of the table, and the speaking began on one side of Mr. Smith, and came down that side of the table one after the other to me. I was struck with the bad effect such a discussion would have, in encouraging Canadians to argue in favour of either Independence or Annexation, and when it came to my turn I simply said that I could not argue in favour of either Independence or Annexation, that I was vehemently opposed to both, and that if ever the time came that either should have to be seriously discussed, I would only argue it in one way, and that was on horseback with my sword. As I then commanded the cavalry in Toronto and had sworn to bear true allegiance to her Majesty, it was the natural way for me to put it. I sat down the moment I had made this statement and the discussion went on. My remarks were received as if I had spoken jocularly, but I think many of those present sympathised with my way of looking at it. Mr. Goldwin Smith saw that I had punctured the scheme, and referred to my remarks in the next issue of his Bystander for October, 1880, in the following terms, which are in his best style:

In a speech at a dinner of my regiment not long after, I spoke clearly to them on the subject—and on the same lines. My views were received with great enthusiasm.

For several years matters progressed slowly, a few young men advocating Independence, among whom were E. E. Sheppard and Charles G. D. Roberts. Mr. Norris and others were writing on the same line. Sheppard, who then edited the Evening News in Toronto, was the ablest of these advocates, and carried on his campaign with great vigour and ability. He designed a new flag and hoisted it over the News office. In 1884 the Independence agitation was probably more in evidence than at any period before or since. That year was the centennial of the arrival of the United Empire Loyalists in Upper Canada, and it was decided to hold a series of celebrations at Adolphustown, Toronto, and Niagara in commemoration of the foundation of the Province. 1884 was also the 50th Anniversary of the establishment of Toronto as a city, and the celebration of the two events was combined in meetings and festivities which lasted several days. On Dominion Day there was a great review of the Active Militia with regiments from various parts of the Province, and one from Montreal. This large force paraded through the principal streets to the Queen’s Park, where they were reviewed, and then they marched to the Exhibition Buildings, where the officers and men were entertained at dinner. At the officers’ dinner, Mayor Boswell, Lieut.-Governor John B. Robinson, and I made the principal speeches. The Toronto Mail of the 3rd July, 1884, contained the following article:

[65]

The United Empire Loyalist Centennial celebration took place in the Pavilion, Toronto, on the 3rd July—the same day that the above article appeared. It was a very successful meeting, there being representative loyalists from all over Ontario. “Dr. Wm. Canniff was in the chair. The speakers were the Hon. Senator G. W. Allan, Chief Green (a Mohawk Indian, of Tyendinaga), Lieut.-Colonel George T. Denison, and Bishop Fuller, of Niagara.”

[66]

My speech was mainly directed against the Independence movement. I showed how Canadians had always stood by British connection, and went on to say:

I was attacked very bitterly by the few Independence papers on account of this speech, and the attacks continued for nearly six weeks. I was invited to address the United Empire Loyalist Centennial celebration at Niagara, which took place on the 14th August, 1884, and then replied to some of the arguments used by them. On the question of national sentiment I said:

The result of these demonstrations so directly appealing to the sentiments and feelings of the loyal element, which formed the vast majority of the people, discouraged the disloyal element, and for a year matters were rather quiet.

In March, 1885, the whole country was aroused over the outbreak of the North-West Rebellion, and troops from all over Canada were sent to aid in putting down the rebellion and re-establishing the Queen’s authority. One regiment came from Nova Scotia. The result of the affair was to consolidate the Provinces into a Dominion, in a way that was never felt before. This put the Independence movement quite out of sight, and during 1886, and until May, 1887, matters remained dormant. Particulars of the causes of this outbreak and some of the details of the operations will be found in my “Soldiering in Canada,” chapters xx. to xxv. [69]

CHAPTER VIII

THE O’BRIEN EPISODE

In the early part of 1887 the Irish party in Ireland had been endeavouring to secure sympathy and assistance in the United States and Canada, in favour of their demand for Home Rule. There was a very large Irish population in Canada, and through their representatives in our House of Commons and in the local legislatures they pressed for resolutions in favour of the policy of Home Rule. The people of Canada were not generally favourable to the movement, but the politicians on both sides, who were anxious to obtain the Irish vote, did not hesitate to support the Home Rule resolutions; little caring for the interests of the Mother Country or the Empire, so long as their political opponents did not obtain any advantage in the matter. The resolutions were carried with remarkable unanimity. I was much annoyed, and wrote to Lord Salisbury telling him to pay no attention to the addresses of our politicians. I assured him that the silent masses of the Canadian people were on his side on that subject, but unfortunately there was no way in which the silent masses could make their views known.

The apparent unanimity of feeling in Canada, as shown by the action of Governments and Parliaments, deceived the Irish Nationalists, and to emphasise their [70]power in Canada, Mr. Wm. O’Brien, M.P., announced that he was going to Canada to drive Lord Lansdowne, our Governor-General, out of Canada, amid the hoots and execrations of the Canadian people. This was because he was an Irish landlord and had evicted some of his tenants.

This was cabled across, and a day or two after I met Colonel Gzowski (afterwards Sir Casimir Gzowski) on the street, and he told me that Lord Lansdowne was coming to Toronto in a few days, and as O’Brien was coming out, he thought we in Toronto should see that Lord Lansdowne got a friendly reception. I saw the opportunity at once. I felt the silent masses might have a chance to speak out, and said, “Leave that to me: we will give him a great reception.” Among other things it was feared that the few disaffected might resort to violence against the Governor-General.

A few days later, on the 26th April, 1887, I attended the St. George’s Society Annual Banquet, where I responded to the toast of the Army, Navy, and Volunteers. The presidents of most of the benevolent and patriotic societies of the city were guests at the dinner. The Premier, Sir Oliver Mowat, sat next to me; the Mayor was present also, and a very large number of prominent citizens. I saw what an opening there was to start a movement in favour of the Governor-General, and spoke in short as follows: I was speaking on behalf of the Army, Navy and Volunteers, and drew attention to the fact that a great deal depended upon the Volunteers—that only a few years before we had to turn out, and go to the Niagara frontier to defend our country against an invasion of Fenians from the United States. I said that the Irish of that country had subscribed large sums of money, [71]Irish servant girls giving liberally out of their savings, to provide funds to organise armed forces, to buy rifles and bayonets and swords and ammunition, to be used in attacking a peaceful and inoffensive country in order to devastate our fields, to shoot down our people, and rob us of our property. I pointed out that I and my command had been sent to Fort Erie, and that some of my comrades in the Queen’s Own and other Volunteer corps had been shot down, and many wounded, before we drove the enemy out of the country. I thanked them for proposing the toast of the “Volunteers,” but went on to say, there was one thing, however, that was very annoying and humiliating to us. The Fenians, having failed to defeat us, were still carrying on their campaign against our Empire. Money was being collected as usual in the United States in large quantities, but instead of being used in the purchase of arms and munitions of war, it was being expended in sending traitors into the British House of Commons, and in maintaining them there to destroy the Union, and make the first rift in our Empire. “Fancy, gentlemen, the feelings of those of us who went to the front, who risked our lives, who had our comrades killed in opposing these men, when we see our politicians in our Houses of Parliament, for wretched party purposes, clasping hands with the enemies of our Empire, and passing resolutions of sympathy and support to them in their efforts to injure our nation. These resolutions are an insult to our Volunteers, and a shame and disgrace to our country,” and I sat down.

This was received with uproarious applause. The people jumped to their feet and cheered and waved their table napkins, many even got upon their chairs, and shouted themselves hoarse. Sir Oliver Mowat [72](then Mr. Mowat), who had supported one of these resolutions in the local House shortly before, and was Premier, said to me when the cheering subsided and I could hear him, “That was a very powerful speech you made.” I replied, “Do you think so?” He said, “It was a very strong speech.” I answered, “Was it? I tried so hard to be moderate.” He laughed and said, “You did, did you?” He never had any more such resolutions in his House.

When the dinner was over and the guests were leaving, I stood near the door and was surrounded by men approving of my speech. I picked out the men I wanted—the Mayor, the presidents of societies, colonels of regiments, &c.—and asked them to wait as I wished to speak to them. When the group had gathered I said to them, “I did not speak as I did for nothing. Lord Lansdowne is coming here very soon. Wm. O’Brien is coming from Ireland to drive him out of Canada. We must arrange for such a reception to Lord Lansdowne as no Governor-General ever had in Toronto, and I want you all to agree to serve on a committee to organise it; and I hope the Mayor will take the chair, and send out notices for the meeting.” All at once agreed heartily.

When the meeting was held to arrange the plan for the reception, a number of those present wished a great procession to be organised of societies and the city regiments in uniform, &c. I knew that the object of the Irish Nationalists was to create the belief that the people of Canada, with the exception of the official classes, &c., were not on the side of the Governor-General, and that he would have to be guarded by police and soldiers, and insisted that not one man in uniform should be seen—that the people, as the people, [73]should take the matter into their own hands, and escort the Governor-General. It was a most difficult task to carry the committee with me, but I was determinedly persistent and at last carried my point.

A small committee was appointed to arrange details, and the reception was organised with the greatest care. The Volunteer regiments were pledged to turn out in plain clothes, with walking-sticks; the societies also agreed to be out, the Orangemen did their part, the lawyers were canvassed to be in the streets, and all were asked to act as private detectives, and watch carefully any attempt to throw stones by any disaffected parties if there were any. The citizens illuminated their houses and shops on the route from North Toronto Station through Yonge and King Streets to Government House. Members of the Toronto Hunt Club, mounted and in plain clothes, formed an escort; but, what was not known to the public, twenty-five picked men of my corps, the Governor-General’s Body Guard, in plain clothes, with Lieut.-Colonel Merritt, my adjutant, in charge, rode as members of the Hunt Club, along with them, and guarded the carriage of his Excellency. About four hundred men of the Queen’s Own, all in plain clothes, marched along the street alongside the carriage. The Orange body arranged for a torchlight procession with about a thousand torches, and the police were entirely withdrawn from the streets on which the procession marched. I do not believe anyone was ever more carefully guarded, for the people as a mass took it in hand themselves.

On the morning of the day on which his Excellency was to arrive, I learned that the General commanding had ordered a guard of honour to meet him at the [74]station. I went at once to the Mayor, and we went together to see the Governor’s military secretary, and urged him to ask his Excellency to countermand the order and dispense with the guard. This was done, and no man in uniform was to be seen. The reception was a remarkable success. The streets were filled with most enthusiastic crowds, and no Governor-General ever made such an entry into Toronto. The people took him to Government House, and the whole neighbourhood and the carriage drive were packed with cheering crowds. Lord Lansdowne stood up in his carriage at the door, and made a speech thanking the people, and he must have felt that he was among friends.

A few days later a great meeting was held in the Queen’s Park, when a number of prominent citizens made speeches condemning Mr. O’Brien’s proposed visit to Toronto and resolutions were passed in that sense. The Mayor, on behalf of the citizens, sent a telegram to O’Brien requesting him not to come to Toronto.

O’Brien and his people persisted, however, and called a public meeting in the Queen’s Park for the 17th May. There was a very large gathering, probably ten or twelve thousand people, and O’Brien and his companion, Mr. Kilbride (one of Lord Lansdowne’s evicted tenants), were carefully guarded by the police. The Irish party, who comprised probably one-tenth of the crowd, organised the meeting, and Mr. O’Brien, with several Yankee reporters around him, began to speak. The University students had planned to start singing, and the moment he began, the crowd broke out with “God Save the Queen.” Cheers were then called for Lord Lansdowne, Lord Salisbury, Lord Hartington, and [75]Joseph Chamberlain. Then the singing began again; “Rule, Britannia” was sung by the great masses. Again cheers for the four statesmen already mentioned, then alternately “God Save the Queen,” cheers, and “Rule, Britannia.” No one could hear a word of O’Brien’s speech. This went on until he ceased to attempt to speak. Mr. Kilbride then stood up. The students led the crowd in a refrain, “Pay your rint, pay your rint, pay your rint, you thief,” and the people shouted this over and over again, and he, unable to be heard, had to cease, and the meeting ended by some local man trying to say a few words.

While moving through the crowd studying the temper of the people, I saw two or three incidents which showed me that there was a very dangerous and ugly spirit among the loyalists, and I become anxious lest the mob should get beyond all control. I went to the Chief of Police, who had a large force of policemen and an escort of mounted police, to guard the carriage of the visitors, and told him he would have a difficulty in getting O’Brien away without injury. Being a Police Commissioner, I advised him to get those in charge of the meeting to put up someone to speak as soon as Kilbride finished, and to take O’Brien and Kilbride quietly off the platform to the back, hurry them into the carriage, and drive off before the crowd should discover it. This was done, and they had barely got clear when the crowd, seeing they were going, chased them and endeavoured to stone them. Fortunately they had a start, and driving rapidly escaped without injury.

I had told the Chief of Police not to allow O’Brien to go anywhere on the streets without a strong police guard, for, as I told him, “I do not want him hurt for [76]one thing, and, on the other hand, I should be very sorry that the idea should get abroad that he could walk the streets of Toronto (under the circumstances) without protection.” The following evening, O’Brien and his party of three or four friends, including one Yankee reporter, started from the hotel in the dusk to walk round a block, and would not wait for the police escort for which the police sergeant was sending. The party had not gone two hundred yards when the crowds began to gather and follow them. They were pelted with stones and eggs, the New York reporter being badly cut by a stone. They escaped with difficulty back to the hotel. In Hamilton, Kingston, and other places O’Brien was also mobbed and chased and was obliged to hide. He then left the country, while Lord Lansdowne, who remained, received a few days later a remarkable ovation on his return to Ottawa.

I left for England the day after O’Brien’s meeting (on my vacation) and a day or two after my arrival in London I was dining at Lord Salisbury’s, where I met Mr. Balfour, then Chief Secretary for Ireland. They were interested in hearing the particulars. I told Lord Salisbury that the “silent masses” had spoken out, and with no uncertain sound. Both he and Mr. Balfour said that O’Brien’s reception in Canada had helped the passage of the Coercion Bill through the House of Commons, for it proved that the statement of the Nationalists that every country in the world was on their side was not quite accurate.

[77]

CHAPTER IX

THE IMPERIAL FEDERATION LEAGUE

In 1884 a movement was begun in England, and the Imperial Federation League was formed, for the purpose of securing the Federation of the whole Empire, on somewhat the same lines as the Confederation of Canada. The Right Hon. W. E. Forster was the moving spirit, and the first President of the organisation. The objects of the League are clearly laid down in the following resolutions defining its nature and objects, which were passed at an adjourned conference held in London on the 18th November, 1884:

It will be seen that the main object of this League was to secure by Federation the permanent Unity of the Empire. The existing rights of local Parliaments as to local affairs were to be preserved, but the resources of the Empire were to be combined to maintain common interests, and to provide for an organised defence of common rights. That was the whole scheme in a nutshell, to form a Federated Parliament, which would not interfere with local affairs, but would have power to use the resources of the Empire for common defence. No other object was given to the public. It was really formed to secure colonial contributions to Imperial Defence.

The Imperial Federation League in Canada was inaugurated at a meeting held in Montreal under the leadership of the late Mr. D’Alton McCarthy, M.P., on the 9th day of May, 1885. A large number of prominent men were present, and speeches were made by Jehu Matthews, Benjamin Allen, M.P., D’Alton McCarthy, Senator Plumb, G. R. R. Cockburn, Edgar Baker, M.P., Hector Cameron, M.P., A. W. Ross, M.P., Hugh McLennan, Senator Macfarlane, Alexander McNeill, M.P., Dr. Potts, Hon. George E. Foster, M.P., and Principal G. M. Grant. The first branch of the [79]Canadian League was organised at the small town of Ingersoll in Ontario in May, 1886, principally through the exertions of Mr. J. Castell Hopkins, then a young man twenty-two years of age, and a junior clerk in the agency of the Imperial Bank of that place. Mr. M. Walsh was elected President, and Mr. Hopkins Secretary. Mr. Hopkins has ever since been an active and industrious supporter of the movement. An influential branch was inaugurated in Halifax, Nova Scotia, in December, 1886, of which his Grace Archbishop O’Brien was one of the foremost members. The next branch was established at Peterborough on the 28th April, 1887, mainly through the exertions of Mr. J. M. Long. A small branch was also started in Victoria, but in 1888 had not been affiliated to the Canadian organisation.

In 1886, Lt.-Colonel Wm. Hamilton Merritt, one of the officers of my regiment, came to me and endeavoured to enlist my sympathies in the new movement. I discussed the whole subject fully with him. He had hoped to get me to accept the presidency of the branch to be formed in Toronto. I refused to take any part in the matter, feeling that Canada was getting along very well, but that she had only just expended nearly $150,000,000 in the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and that she required some years of steady development before she could undertake any further expenditures on a large scale for Imperial defence, for I saw this was the main object of the League in England. I did not think the time had come, nor the necessity, for pressing this point, and that public opinion would not be in favour of any such movement.

It will be seen that Imperial Federation made very [80]little progress for the first two or three years. In 1885, 1886, and 1887, only three branches, and, with the exception of Halifax, very small and uninfluential ones, had been established in all Canada.

There was no branch in Toronto, the most Imperialistic and most loyal of all the cities of Canada, and up to the fall of 1887 the movement had made but little headway.

In the year 1887, however, a movement arose which changed the whole features of the case, which altered all the conditions, and made it necessary for all loyal men in Canada to consider seriously the future of their country. This movement, known as Commercial Union will be dealt with in the next chapter.

[81]

CHAPTER X

COMMERCIAL UNION

The Canadian Pacific Railway was completed at the end of 1885, and it began to prove a competitor with the railways in the United States for the through traffic across the continent. This competition affected the great financial interests of New York, for the United States railroads were subject to regulations as to the long and the short haul, while the Canadian Pacific Railway was free from them, and thereby had a very great advantage in the struggle for business. This direct present pecuniary interest, added to the belief that Canada was likely to prove a much greater factor on this continent than had ever been anticipated by the people of the United States, was the cause of the inception of the Commercial Union Movement, which attracted so much attention at the time, and has had such far-reaching influence on the affairs of the British Empire ever since.

The originator of this movement, Erastus Wiman of New York, was born at Churchville, near Toronto, and was educated and lived in Toronto for a number of years in his early life. He was connected with the Press and for a time kept a small book shop on King Street. He served a year in the Toronto City Council. He became Toronto manager of R. G. Dun and Com[82]pany’s Commercial Agency in 1860, and afterwards went to New York and became manager of it there, and a member of the firm. He was also president of the Great North Western Telegraph Company, which controlled almost all the telegraph lines in Canada. He had not taken the oath of allegiance to the United States, and he was suited in every way to lead the insidious scheme which was started under the name of Commercial Union, but was intended to bring about peacefully the annexation of Canada to the United States.

The movement was planned and launched with remarkable skill. Mr. Wiman, who was posing as a true-hearted Canadian, was, I believe, working for great financial interests in the States, headed by Jay Gould. Of course, of this there is no proof, but only the deduction that can be drawn from a close study of all the information that can be had. The first step was to establish the Canadian Club of New York, to be a home for welcoming Canadians visiting that city. The next was still more ingenious. A number of the most prominent Canadians, principally literary men, orators, &c., were invited to New York as guests of the Club, to address the members. These visitors were treated with the warmest hospitality, and no indication given that Mr. Wiman had any ulterior motives. About the same time, in 1886, Mr. Wiman gave some public baths to the citizens of Toronto, at a cost of about $6,000, as a proof of his warm feeling towards the city in which his early life had been spent.

After all this preparation he came to Canada in the spring of 1887, and aided by Goldwin Smith, Valancy Fuller, Henry W. Darling, President of the Toronto Board of Trade, and a few others, he proposed in the [83]interests of Canada a scheme of Commercial Union between Canada and the United States which he claimed would be a great boon and lasting advantage to Canada. During the whole summer of 1887 an active campaign was being conducted, meetings were held in many places, and addressed by Mr. Goldwin Smith, Mr. Wiman, Congressman Butterworth, of Ohio, and others. The members of the Canadian Parliament were furnished with circulars, articles, and reports of speeches in profusion. Mr. Wiman, as a member of the firm of Dun, Wiman and Company, had an influence over the business men of Canada that could hardly be overestimated. It would have been a serious thing for any ordinary business man in any city, town, or village in Canada, if dependent upon his credit for the profitable conduct of his business, to incur the hostility of the mercantile agency, on whose reports his credit would largely depend.

The result was that at first the plausible speeches of its advocates, and the friendly assistance of some newspapers, caused the movement to acquire a considerable amount of success. It was not thoroughly understood. It had been inaugurated as in the direct interest of Canada by a friendly and successful Canadian, and was being discussed in a friendly way, and many good men at first supported the idea, not suspecting any evil, and not fearing that it might result in annexation. I was away on a visit to England from the 19th May until the 21st August, 1887, and heard very little of what was going on, and not enough to understand the details or real facts of the scheme. After my return to Canada I asked my brother, the late Lt.-Colonel Fred C. Denison, then a member of the House of Commons for West Toronto, what it all meant. He was not at all [84]favourably impressed. He had been supplied with copies of the literature that was distributed, and I read it over, and we discussed the question very fully during some weeks. We both agreed that it was a very dangerous movement, likely to bring about the annexation of Canada to the United States, and designed for that purpose by its originators, and we considered very carefully how it could be met and defeated. I felt that, in view of the way in which it was being taken up at the time by the people, it would be hopeless to attack the scheme and endeavour to check its movement by standing in front of it and fighting it. I was afraid we might be overrun and probably beaten. I felt that the only way to defeat it was to get in front, and lead the movement in another direction. My brother agreed with me in this, and we decided to take a course of action based on those lines.

[85]

CHAPTER XI

IMPERIAL FEDERATION LEAGUE IN CANADA

The progress the Commercial Union movement was making, and the great danger arising from it, led my brother and me to discuss it with a number of loyal men, and on all sides the opinion seemed to be that active steps should be taken at once to work against it. The principal active workers at first were officers of my regiment and a few other personal friends, and small meetings were held in my brother’s office to discuss the matter, and it was decided that the best policy was to advocate a Commercial Union of the British Empire as the alternative to the proposition of a Commercial Union with the United States, and that a scheme of Imperial Federation based upon a Commercial Union of the various parts of the Empire would be the best method of advocating our views. By advocating Imperial Federation it enabled us to appeal to the old dream of the United Empire Loyalists of the Revolution. It gave the opportunity of appealing to our history, to the sacrifices of our fathers, to all the traditions of race, and the ties of blood and kindred, to the sacrifices and the victories of the war of 1812, and to the national spirit of our people, to preserve our status as a part of the British Empire. G. R. R. Cockburn, J. M. Clark, D’Alton McCarthy, [86]John Beverley Robinson, Wm. Hamilton Merritt, Lt.-Colonel Fred C. Denison, Casimir Dickson, Commander Law, John T. Small, D. R. Wilkie, John A. Worrell, Henry Wickham, and James L. Hughes were the moving spirits in organising the Toronto Branch of the Imperial Federation League, and it was accomplished during the last two or three months of 1887 and the beginning of 1888.

In October, 1887, Erastus Wiman sent a circular to the Members of the House of Commons, asking them for their views upon his scheme. Lt.-Col. F. C. Denison sent the following reply, and forwarded a copy to the newspapers:

The late Mrs. S. A. Curzon paraphrased this letter in the following lines, which appeared in the Toronto World of the 18th October, 1887:

On the 30th December, 1887, the Toronto Board of Trade gave a banquet in honour of the Rt. Hon. Joseph Chamberlain. It was a very large and influential gathering. I then fired my first public shot against Commercial Union. Colonel Otter was put down to respond to the toast of the Army, Navy, and Active Militia, but the Chairman in proposing the toast, added my name also, without having given me any intimation whatever that I would be called upon to speak. I quote the report which appeared in the World the next morning of my three minutes’ speech:

My remarks were received with great applause, and created somewhat of a sensation, for it appeared that there had been an understanding that the subject of Commercial Union was not to be referred to, and all the speakers had been warned except myself. I have had a suspicion since that I was called upon suddenly in the belief that I would speak out plainly.

The Toronto World commenting on the dinner said:

As early as October, 1887, the late Thomas Macfarlane, one of the ablest and most active members of the Imperial Federation League, wrote to the journal of the League in England a strong article pointing out that Commercial Union would mean annexation, and advocating a uniform rate of duty on all foreign imports in every country of the Empire over and above the ordinary tariff in force then. This was Mr. Hoffmeyer’s suggestion at the Colonial Conference of 1884, one made mainly as a commercial measure which would encourage trade and give a tie of interest to the various parts of the Empire. Mr. Macfarlane had supported this view from the first.

During November and December, 1887, the matter was being considered, and on the 22nd December a preliminary meeting was held in Shaftesbury Hall, and after speeches by D’Alton McCarthy, G. R. R. Cockburn and others, resolutions were passed in favour of forming a Toronto branch, and a number gave in [91]their names for membership. Mr. McNeill’s magnificent speech at Paris on the 19th January, 1888, was a most eloquent appeal in favour of Imperial Federation, and was printed and widely circulated in Ontario. He argued strongly in favour of discriminating tariffs around the Empire.

On the 1st February the Toronto branch was formally organised, with the Hon. John Beverley Robinson as President, George R. R. Cockburn, M.P., John M. Clark and Col. George T. Denison as Vice-Presidents, and Wm. Hamilton Merritt as Secretary.

It was then arranged that the Annual General Meeting of the Imperial Federation League in Canada should be held on the afternoon of the 24th March, 1888, for the transaction of business, and that in the evening there should be a large public meeting to inaugurate the Toronto branch, and to bring it prominently before the public.

It will be remembered that with those who took the most active part in the organisation of the Toronto branch the moving idea was to agitate for a commercial union of the Empire. There was nothing in the original constitution of the Imperial Federation League that would justify such a policy being advocated. It was therefore necessary to amend or alter the constitution to that extent. Consequently, at the Annual General Meeting our Secretary, Wm. Hamilton Merritt, moved, and D. R. Wilkie seconded, the following resolution:

This was unanimously carried. In the evening the public meeting was held at the Association Hall, which was crowded to its limit. Mr. Cockburn was in the chair. I moved the first resolution, which was as follows:

In moving this resolution I outlined my reasons for advocating the cause, and pointed out the necessity of doing something to counteract the scheme of Commercial Union with the United States, calling on the patriotic sons of Canada in that crisis in the affairs of the country “to rally round the old flag and frustrate the evil designs of traitors.” I stated that the Commercial Union movement was designed by traitors, that I wished “to be fair to those who believed that the movement would not destroy the national life and sentiment of Canada,” but adhered to the position that the movement originated in treason. “There was no use mincing words in the matter. Commercial Union could only be carried out by severing the ties which bound the Canadian people to the Motherland. Not only that, but it aimed at the destruction of the national life of the country, by subjecting the people to the power and dictation of a foreign country.” The report in the Empire went on to say:

[93]

Mr. J. M. Clark seconded the resolution in an eloquent speech and it was carried. Mr. Alex McNeill moved the next resolution. He said he had felt a great deal of doubt coming down from Ottawa that day, but when he was face to face with such a glorious meeting all his doubts passed away like mists before the light of the sun. The news of that meeting would be tidings of great joy all over the Empire, for it would proclaim in trumpet tones that the great British City [95]of Toronto was up and doing in the glorious work of Imperial Federation.

Mr. R. C. Weldon, M.P., from Nova Scotia, made an eloquent speech.

The meeting was most enthusiastic and spirited. At its conclusion Mr. D’Alton McCarthy invited about fifteen or twenty of the Committee and speakers to his house to supper. I remember walking over with Mr. R. C. Weldon, whose speech had been very warmly received. He was very much astonished at the enthusiasm and vigour of the audience. He told me he had never seen such a meeting before, and asked how I could account for it. I replied, “Toronto is the most loyal and imperialistic city in the Empire.” It was partly founded, as was St. John, N.B., by United Empire Loyalists, but the difference was that loyalty had come more closely home to Toronto, that since its foundation every generation of the Toronto people had seen the dead bodies of citizens who had died fighting for the cause of the Empire or the Sovereign carried through her streets for burial; that the battle of York had been fought in 1813 within the present limits of the city, the skirmish at Gallows Hill three miles north of the city in 1837; that Toronto men had fought at Detroit, Queenston Heights, and other fields in 1813-14, and at Navy Island in 1837, also in 1866 at Fort Erie; that Toronto men were the first sent from the older Provinces to the North-West Rebellion, and that all this had kept the flame of loyalty brightly burning on her altars.

Four days after this meeting, on the 28th March, 1888, Mr. D’Alton McCarthy, President of the League in Canada, placed on the order paper at Ottawa the following important notice of motion:

[96]

This was the beginning of the great scheme of preferential tariffs around the Empire, which has since attracted so much attention throughout the British possessions. Mr. McCarthy’s resolution did not carry at that time; it was not intended that it should. It was adjourned after some discussion. It was a new idea in Canadian politics, and the members had not had time to study the question in all its bearings.

The Imperial Federation Journal, representing the League in England, was not favourable to the action of the Canadian branch, and advised the Canadians to approach the other Colonies, and not disturb the Mother Country with the proposal. Within five years this cause of difference had, I believe, much to do with the disruption of the League in Great Britain.

Mr. McNeill’s reference to the importance of Toronto’s accession to the cause was well founded, for after that meeting the movement went on with increased impetus, and subsequent events proved the far-reaching effect upon the affairs of the Empire.

During the next three years a most vigorous campaign was carried on in Ontario. Toronto became [97]the headquarters of the League, a large branch was kept up, and efforts were made to educate the public mind and organise branches of the League in other places. An organising committee was appointed, of which I was elected chairman. The movement, which had been started in Montreal three years before, had languished, and it was not until the Commercial Union movement alarmed the people and proved the necessity for prompt action that the cause of Imperial Federation became a strong and effective influence upon the public opinion of Canada.

[98]

CHAPTER XII

THE COMMERCIAL UNION MOVEMENT—A TREASONABLE CONSPIRACY

At the first public meeting of the Imperial Federation League in Toronto I made the charge that the Commercial Union movement was a treasonable conspiracy on the part of a few men in Canada in connection with a number of leading politicians in the United States to entrap the Canadian people into annexation with that country. It will be of interest to trace this phase of the question and its development during the three or four years in which the great struggle took place.

Ralph Waldo Emerson, in conversation with William Allingham in November, 1872, said, “Americans will not take any definite step; they feel that Canada must come into the Confederation, and will of herself. American party in Canada always at work.”—Allingham’s Diary, p. 217 (Macmillan).

It will be remembered that I said that the United States “were an aggressive and grasping people.” “They wanted Florida and they took it, Louisiana and Alaska they acquired, California and Mexico they conquered, and Texas they stole.” I went on to say that “they had conquered and stolen States in the South, and now they desired to betray Canada in the [99]North.” This speech was made on the 24th March, 1888. I was criticised by some on the ground that my remarks were extreme in their character, and was caricatured and ridiculed in the comic papers.

Six months later I was vindicated in a remarkable manner.

Senator Sherman, at that time one of the foremost statesmen of the United States, and chairman of the Senate Committee of Foreign Affairs, made a very significant speech before the Senate on the 18th September, 1888. He said:

I drew attention to this speech in a letter to the Toronto Globe on the 26th September, 1888. After quoting a number of extracts from it, I went on to say,

[102]

A few days later another incident occurred showing the active interest that was being taken in the annexation movement. Senator Sherman’s speech was delivered on the 18th September, 1888; on the 29th of the same month, Erastus Wiman sent the following telegram to a number of the Canadian newspapers:

An attempt was made by Mr. Wiman to withdraw this message, but it failed, and it was published in two or three papers.

The United States papers were for a year or two filled with articles discussing annexation, sometimes in friendly strains, sometimes in a most hostile spirit. President Cleveland’s retaliation proclamation following closely the refusal of the United States Senate to confirm a treaty which had been agreed upon between Great Britain and the United States, was a direct threat against Canada, issued to the people of the Republic at a time likely to influence the result of the approaching Presidential election.

On the 26th September, 1888, the Chicago Tribune concluded a very aggressive article with these words:

This paper about the same time had a cartoon [104]depicting “The United States in 1900,” showing Uncle Sam bestriding the whole North American continent.

The New York World, in December, 1888, also published a map of North America to show what the United States would look like after Canada came in, and depicted our country divided up into twenty-eight new States and territories, and named to suit the Yankee taste. In connection with this map the World published an interview with Senator Sherman, in which he advocated strenuously the annexation of Canada to the United States, saying that “the fisheries dispute and the question of the right of free transit of American goods over Canadian railroads are a type of the disputes that have vexed the two nations for a century, and will continue to disturb them as long as the present conditions exist. To get rid of these questions we must get rid of the frontier.”

In the descriptive article on the map everything that could help to excite the cupidity of the people of the United States was said and with great ability, and Professor Goldwin Smith was cited as declaring:

The map and the articles accompanying it were evidently published to accustom the minds of the people of the United States to the idea of expansion and aggression:

This is only an illustration of the feeling all over the United States at this period from 1888 to 1890. The newspapers and magazines were filled with articles and cartoons all pointing in the same direction. Mr. Whitney, a member of the United States Cabinet, even went so far as to say that four armies of 25,000 men each could easily conquer Canada, indicating that the question of attacking Canada had been thought of. General Benjamin F. Butler, in the North American Review, one of their most respectable magazines, speaking of annexation, said, “Is not this the fate of Canada? Peacefully, we hope; forcefully, if we must,” and in the truculent spirit of a freebooter he suggested that the invading army should be paid by dividing up our land among them. General J. H. Wilson, a prominent railway manager, presented a petition to the United States Senate in which he said:

[106]

Then came the McKinley Bill especially bearing upon the articles where Canada’s trade could be most seriously injured. It was believed that traitors in our own country assisted in arranging this part of the tariff so as to strike Canada as severely as possible. As another instance of the unprincipled manner in which these conspirators carried on their work, the following Press dispatch was sent to some of the United States papers:

As I have never been able to discover any place of that name in Ontario, and as there is no such post office in the official list, it is evident that the dispatch was a pure invention for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States.

Another important indication of the feeling is shown in an article in the New York Daily Commercial Bulletin in November, 1888, referring to certain political considerations as between Canada and the States. It states:

The New York World in the early part of 1890 “instructed its correspondents in Montreal, Toronto, and Quebec to describe impartially the political situation in Canada in regard to annexation to the United States.” The report charges Premier Mercier with being “a firm believer in annexation as the ultimate [108]destiny of the Dominion of Canada,” but he “is too shrewd a politician to openly preach annexation to his fellow countrymen under existing circumstances.” The report also quotes the Toronto Globe as saying that the Canadian people “find the Colonial yoke a galling one,” and that “the time when Canadian patriotism was synonymous with loyalty to the British connection has long since gone by.”

The concluding paragraph of the World’s article is the most suggestive and insolent:

The leading men in this conspiracy in Canada were Edward Farrer, Solomon White, Elgin Myers, E. A. Macdonald, Goldwin Smith, and John Charlton, the two latter being the only men of any prominent status or position in the movement, and after a time Charlton left it. These men were avowed annexationists, while there were a great many in favour of commercial union who did not believe that it would result in annexation, or did not care, and there were numbers who were ready to float with the stream, and quite willing to advocate annexation if they thought the movement was likely to succeed. When the Continental Union Association was formed in 1892, Goldwin Smith accepted the Honorary Presidency in Canada, for the organisation had its principal strength in New York, where a large number of prominent and wealthy men joined its ranks, Francis Wayland Glen [109]being the Secretary. Glen became angry at the defection of some Liberal leaders after they obtained office, and gave the names of the organisers in a letter to the Ottawa Evening Journal of the 13th September, 1904, as follows:

In the list we received in addition to these there were others, nearly 500 in all.

Afterwards, in 1893, I was able to get some further information as to the treasonable nature of the movement as far as the Canadian side of it was concerned. The intention of those interested in the United States was to endeavour to extend the power of that country to the Arctic Ocean, as it had been extended to Mexico and the Pacific.

The Continental Union League in New York was in close connection with the Continental Union Association of Ontario. Mr. Goldwin Smith, as I have said, accepted the position of Honorary President, John Morrison was the President, and T. M. White Secretary. The headquarters were in Toronto. We had information at the time that Mr. Goldwin Smith subscribed [110]$500 to the funds, and that this was intended to be an annual subscription.

There were two members of our League with whom I was constantly conferring on the private matters connected with our work. Upon them, more than on any others, did I depend for advice, for consultation, and for assistance, and I can never forget the obligations I am under to them. We three accidentally saw an opportunity of getting some knowledge of the working of the Continental Union League in New York. By great good fortune we were able to perfect arrangements by which one who was in the confidence of the movement in New York was induced to send us any information that could be obtained. For a considerable time we were in receipt of most interesting information, much of which was verified by independent evidence. We often heard from our agent beforehand of what was going to take place, and every time matters came to pass just as we had been forewarned. In many instances we had independent corroborative evidence that the statements were reliable.

We were informed of a written agreement, signed by a Canadian Liberal leader, to have legislation carried to handicap the Canadian Pacific Railway if the Liberal party came into power. Our agent even obtained knowledge of where and by whom it was signed, and who at the time had custody of it. We received copies of many of Glen’s letters to Mercier, Fairer, Bourke Cochrane, and others. One letter to Colonel John Hay at Washington informed him that the New York League was working in conjunction with the Ontario League. A letter to Farrer told him of a meeting held in November, 1893, in the New York [111]Sun office, at which Honore Mercier, John Morrison, Tarte, and Robidoux were present, that money was asked to aid the Liberals, but Glen objected. This information we received some months after this meeting had been held. Eleven years later, in the letter already referred to, which Glen in his anger wrote to the Ottawa Journal of the 13th September, 1904, I find the following paragraph:

This statement cannot be taken as reliable. Glen himself was not reliable, and it is not at all probable that Sir Wilfrid Laurier had anything to do with sending these men to New York, and yet some of them may have told Glen that he had, or Glen may have assumed [112]it. Certainly Sir Oliver Mowat never asked Mr. Morison to make any application of any kind. I do not believe he would have entrusted him with any mission, and I am sure Sir Oliver Mowat was as much opposed to these intrigues as I was. It is quite possible that Morison posed in New York as representing Sir Oliver Mowat, but it was an absurdity.

The letter of Glen, however, proves that there was some foundation for the information our agent sent to us.

In a letter to Mercier in February, 1894, Glen stated that John Charlton, an Ontario Liberal, had called on Dana the day before for money, and I have another letter signed by Francis W. Glen which corroborates this statement of our informant.

Mr. Goldwin Smith’s name appeared often in the correspondence, so did Erastus Wiman’s. Myers is mentioned as going over to New York to see Dana. Glen writes to Mercier on the 3rd April, 1894, to write to Farrer in reference to Goldwin Smith. On the same day he wrote to Bourke Cochrane telling him that Goldwin Smith was anxious for a resolution in Congress. A copy of the draft of the resolution referred to, which was sent to us, reads as follows:

I do not know whether this was introduced into Congress or not.

We also had information of meetings at Carnegie’s house and The Sun office, and what took place at them. All our information was conveyed to Sir John Thompson, and at a meeting in Halifax he made some reference to movements that were going on in the States, which apparently attracted attention.

Not long after this we heard from our informant that at a meeting where Carnegie, Dana, and Goldwin Smith were present, Goldwin Smith said they would have to be very careful, as he believed there was a leak somewhere.

Among other information we obtained was a copy of the subscriptions to the fund. Some of the more important were Andrew Carnegie, $600; R. P. Flower, $500; Charles A. Dana, $460; J. J. Astor, $200; O. B. Potter, $150; W. C. Whitney, $100, &c.

Outside and apart from all this information, I was shown a letter from Honore Mercier to Charles A. Dana, and a letter enclosing it to the President of the Continental Union Association of Ontario. I was able [114]to secure photographs of these letters. I forwarded one copy of these photographs to Lord Salisbury, but kept copies from which the facsimiles here published are taken.

This letter of Mercier’s is very significant. I do not understand the allusion to General Kirwin. His name was Michael Kirwin, and he is not to be confused with Capt. Michael Kirwan who served in the North-West Rebellion. I knew the latter well, he was an Irish gentleman. The General Kirwin was a Fenian, and from what I heard of him at the time I gathered that he was somewhat of a soldier of fortune. Whether Mercier was intriguing for a Fenian rising or for Fenian influence in the United States in favour of annexation I do not know, but the association with such a man had a sinister look, to my mind. The letter, however, shows Mercier’s strong support of Canadian Independence, and his desire to obtain money from foreign enemies of his country to enable him to carry out his intrigues.

The transmission of this letter to the President of the Continental Union Association of Ontario for advice as to how much money should be paid out to [116]Mercier shows how closely the two organisations were working together.

The foregoing pages show clearly the object and aim of the Commercial Union Conspiracy, the widespread influence of the movement among the foremost men of the United States, the dangers Canada had to face, with the power of a great country active and unscrupulous against her, and embarrassed by the internal treachery of disloyal men in her own borders. My main object in the following chapters will be to describe the efforts and exertions made to warn our people, and to frustrate the designs and intrigues of our enemies at home and abroad.

[117]

CHAPTER XIII

THE YEARS 1888 AND 1889 THE WORK OF THE IMPERIAL FEDERATION LEAGUE

After the inauguration of the Imperial Federation branch in Toronto on the 24th March, 1888, the members were much encouraged by the result of the debate in the Dominion House of Commons on Sir Richard Cartwright’s motion in favour of unrestricted reciprocity with the United States. The vote was taken at half-past four on the morning of the 7th April after a discussion lasting for many days. The resolution was defeated by a majority of 57 in a house of 181 members. The Commons of Canada then sang “God Save the Queen.”

The Mail attacked me on the 26th April, 1888, on account of my statement that the originators of commercial union were traitors, and threatened that if I did not desist from acting in that way I should be removed from the position of police magistrate. Replying the next day in a letter to the editor I repeated:

[118]

I went on to say:

On the 7th May, 1888, the Toronto branch sent a deputation to Lord Lansdowne, Governor-General, to present a memorial praying his Excellency to invite the Australian Governments, and the Government of New Zealand to join the Canadian Government in a conference to devise means for the development of reciprocal trade and commerce.

The Imperial Federation Journal published this memorial and Lord Lansdowne’s reply, and spoke of the energy and élan which the Canadian branches were displaying, and then added prophetically, “They have, if we mistake not, set a ball a-rolling that will be found ere long too big to be described in the half dozen lines of print that is all the great English newspapers have so far seen fit to devote to the subject.”

The organisation of new branches of the League followed rapidly the successful meeting in Toronto. [119]On the 2nd April, 1888, a strong branch was formed at Brantford, Ontario. On the 16th April another was formed at St. Thomas, another about the same time at Port Arthur, on the 4th May another at Orillia, while a very successful meeting of the Ottawa Branch was held on the 22nd April, to carry a resolution in favour of discriminating tariffs between the Colonies and the Mother Country.

On the 4th June there was a rousing meeting of the branch of the League at Halifax, Nova Scotia, at which a resolution was unanimously carried in favour of reciprocal trade between the colonies and Great Britain. At this meeting the late Archbishop O’Brien, one of the ablest and most patriotic men that Canada has produced, made a most eloquent and powerful speech against commercial union or annexation, and, speaking of the men advocating these ideas, he said:

This extract from the speech of the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Halifax indicates clearly how the Canadian feeling was being aroused by the attempts upon the national life of Canada.

In the summer of this year the United States Senate refused to endorse the Fisheries Treaty which had been agreed upon by President Cleveland and the British authorities. This was followed by a Retaliation proclamation, or at least by a message to Congress, asking for powers to retaliate upon Canada, by cancelling the bonding privileges which we have been using for very many years. The Retaliation Act was passed after a most hostile discussion against Canada. This threat was received by our people in the most unflinching spirit, and the matter was soon dropped by the United States Government.

[121]

In October, 1888, the Toronto Globe, evidently with the object of accustoming the minds of the Canadian people to the idea that the question of Annexation or Independence was a live issue, and one to be discussed and considered with as much freedom and propriety as tariff reform or temperance legislation or manhood suffrage, called for letters discussing the advantages or disadvantages of annexation or independence. It was the same scheme that Goldwin Smith had endeavoured to work in the National Club.

On the 6th October I wrote a letter to the Globe on the condition and prospects of Canada, and said:

I then went on to urge that we must forget all party differences, that we should unite in the face of the common danger, that a firm and united front might save us all the horrors of war, pointing out that “at the Trent affair if there had been treason in Canada, or the least sign of division in our ranks, we would have had war.”

A number of letters in favour of annexation appeared in the Globe, and I became much alarmed, for the writers signed their names. I felt that if the discussion went on unchecked it would in time have a certain effect upon the wobblers and the unreliable. I had studied carefully the American Revolution, and was of the opinion that the whole success of that movement was due to the fact that the loyal men, and the law-abiding men, did nothing themselves, but relied upon the constituted authorities to check a movement that in the end robbed them of their property, deprived them of all their civil rights, and drove them penniless into exile. I felt that as far as I was concerned I would leave no stone unturned to prevent such a fate befalling Canada through supineness or indifference.

At the annual dinner of the Caledonian Society of Toronto, on the 30th October, 1888, I responded to the toast of “The Army, Navy, and Volunteers.” The Empire of the 31st October reported my speech as follows:

And I went on to say we were putting their names in a list.

The Globe was evidently much put out at my action, and not daring openly to take the opposite view, relieved its feelings in a long article heaping ridicule [124]upon me and upon the Rev. Mr. Milligan, who had spoken sympathetically with me at the same dinner, and intimating that I was anxious for war with the United States. I wrote in reply to this:

One member of the Ontario Government met me on the street about this time, and took me to task for speaking so strongly on the question of Commercial Union and Unrestricted Reciprocity. I gave him an emphatic reply that I would follow my own course [126]in the matter. Another prominent gentleman, since a Senator, and now a preferential tariff supporter, also spoke to me on the street, and said, “Certainly people should be allowed to discuss annexation or independence as they liked.” I denied this vehemently, and declared they could not have either without fighting, and I told him plainly that if he meant to secure either he had better hang me on a lamp-post, or otherwise, if it became a live issue, I would hang him. I had made up my mind that if there was to be any of the work that the “Sons of Liberty” resorted to in the United States before the Revolution, we of the loyal party would follow their example and do it ourselves. Sir Oliver Mowat, then Premier and Attorney-General, once spoke to me, advising me not to be so violent in my language. My reply was that if the matter became dangerous I would resign my Police Magistracy one day, and he would find me leading a mob the next. Sir Oliver Mowat was a thorough loyalist, and at heart I think he fully sympathised with me.

Early in November, 1888, there was a large Convention of Dentists held in Syracuse, New York State, which Dr. W. George Beers, of Montreal, attended. At the banquet a toast was proposed, “Professional Annexation.” Dr. Beers replied in an eloquent, loyal, and manly speech, which voiced the Canadian feeling. It was copied into many Canadian papers, and printed in pamphlet form and circulated broadcast throughout the country.

He told them: “Just as you had and have your croakers and cowards we have ours, but Canada is not for sale. . . . Annexation as a serious subject has received its doom, and in spite of the intoxication of [127]senatorial conceit on the one side, and the croaking of malcontents and tramps on the other, Canada is loyal to the Mother Country from whose stout old loins both of us sprang.” And after describing the extent and resources of the British Empire, he said: “Sharers in such a realm, heirs to such vast and varied privileges, Canadians are not for sale.”

During December, 1888, I spoke at a large meeting at Ingersoll on the 6th with Mr. J. M. Clark, on the 11th at Lindsay with Mr. James L. Hughes, and on the 20th at a meeting of the Toronto League.

In 1889 the work went on very vigorously. Dr. George R. Parkin, one of the most eloquent and able of our members, who had been lecturing in England on behalf of the parent League, made a tour through Canada, and the Imperial Federation League arranged a series of meetings which he addressed with great eloquence and power. He was then on the way to Australia, where his energy and enthusiasm helped on the spirit of Imperialism among the people of that colony and New Zealand, and gave the movement an impetus there which has not been lost. This was helped by some speeches delivered in Australia in 1888, by Principal George M. Grant, the greatest of our members, one who never lost an opportunity of doing all he could for the cause.

It was an interesting fact that at one of Dr. Parkin’s meetings at St. Thomas he was accompanied by Mr. E. E. Sheppard, who, it will be remembered, was one of the early advocates of Independence, and who had flown an Independence flag over his office in 1884. Mr. Sheppard had been won over by the arguments of our League to advocate Imperial Federation as a practical means of becoming independent, and had [128]become a member of our Committee and a very powerful advocate of our cause.

In Canada the League was very active this year. On the 11th January, 1889, Mr. D’Alton McCarthy and I addressed a large and enthusiastic meeting at Peterboro. On the 17th January I attended a Sons of England Banquet at St. Thomas, organised as a demonstration against Annexation and in favour of Imperial Unity, where I responded to the principal toast, and made a strong appeal against Commercial Union and in favour of Imperial Consolidation. On the 9th February, A. J. Cattanach, Commander Law, J. T. Small and I went to Hamilton in Imperial Federation interests. On the 18th February, Dr. Parkin spoke at St. Thomas. On the 29th March, 1889, J. Castell Hopkins and I addressed a large meeting at Woodstock. I spoke at the St. George’s Society Banquet, Toronto, 23rd April. On the 11th May, there was a large meeting at Hamilton addressed by Principal George M. Grant. The Annual Meeting of the League took place at Hamilton the same day, and the early difficulties of the movement are well evidenced by the fact that at the Annual Meeting of the League only eleven representatives were present, viz.: D’Alton McCarthy, M.P., President, in the Chair; Thomas Macfarlane, F.R.S.C., representing Ottawa Branch; Principal G. M. Grant, President Kingston Branch; Henry Lyman, President Montreal Branch; H. H. Lyman, Treasurer; J. Castell Hopkins, one of the Hon. Secretaries; Commander Law, Secretary Toronto Branch; D. T. Symons, Lt.-Colonel George T. Denison, J. T. Small, and Senator McInnes. On the 21st May, Principal Grant delivered an address in Toronto, and another on the 16th August at Chatauqua, [129]near Niagara-on-the-Lake, both powerful appeals in support of the cause.

The Commercial Unionists made violent attacks upon the League, ridiculing it and its objects, and caricatures were often published making light of our efforts, while many Liberal newspapers, led by the Globe, attacked us at every available opportunity.

[130]

CHAPTER XIV

THE YEAR 1890

This was the most active and important year of our work for the Empire, and we began to see the result of the efforts we had made. The Commercial Union movement was as active and dangerous as ever, and the contest was carried on with great vigour all the year.

On the 6th February, 1890, I wrote to Sir John Macdonald telling him that the next election would be fought on the straight issue of loyalty. At that time he hardly agreed with me, but before the year was out my forecast was verified.

On the 13th January, 1890, I addressed a dinner of the Sons of England. On the 25th of the same month I had a letter in the Globe pointing out the dangers of the belief obtaining ground that we were divided. I knew that Mr. Mulock proposed moving a resolution in the House of Commons to show how united our people were on the question of loyalty to the Empire, and, to aid him, went on to say:

On the 29th January, 1890, Mr. Mulock moved an address to her Majesty in the following terms:

Mr. Mulock’s speech clearly explains the reasons for his action. He said:

The motion was carried by a vote of 161 yeas and no nays.

This action of the House of Commons was of the greatest possible good, and gave great encouragement to our League.

By this time the meetings of the Executive Committee of the Imperial Federation League were generally held in my office, at the old Police Court. I often occupied the chair in the absence of Mr. D’Alton McCarthy, and later of Sir Leonard Tilley, who succeeded him as President. At a meeting held on the 17th February, 1890, Mr. Henry J. Wickham read a letter which he had received from a friend in the United States, mentioning the custom of flying the Stars and Stripes over the schools in that country, and [135]suggesting that a like custom might be advantageous in Canada. The idea was seized on at once, and it was decided to organise a representative deputation with a view to waiting on the Minister of Education, and getting him to make such a regulation that the national flag would be used in all public schools in Ontario, and hoisted on certain days of the year to commemorate events of national importance. The details of the matter were left in the hands of Mr. H. J. Wickham and myself. Mr. Wickham acted as secretary, and very soon we had organised a very influential and powerful deputation of representative men to wait upon the Hon. G. W. Ross and to ask for Government recognition and authority for the movement.

On the 21st February, 1890, our deputation was received by the Minister of Education, and the objects we desired were explained to the Minister by Mr. Wickham, Mr. Somers (Chairman of the Public School Board), by myself as chairman of the deputation, and we were supported by Mayor Clarke, J. M. Clark and others.

Mr. Ross said that “it was needless to say that he sympathised deeply with the deputation in their request.” He said also that “he considered the display of the national emblem would be a fitting exhibition representing externally what was being done inside the schools. He would have no objection to make such a regulation, if it was not easy enough now, and legal if it was not so now, to display the national emblem in some such way as to impress upon the children the fact that we are a country and have a flag and a place in it.”

This was most satisfactory to us, and the movement [136]soon became general, and now in several Provinces the practice of displaying the flag is followed.

On the same night, the 21st February, I attended the annual dinner of the Sergeants’ Mess of the Queen’s Own Rifles, all of whom were Imperial Federationists. I found there, for the first time at a public dinner to my knowledge, as one of the principal toasts, “Imperial Federation,” to which I responded. Since then, at almost all public dinners in Canada, some patriotic toast of that kind has appeared on the programme—“The United Empire,” “Canada,” “Canada and the Empire” “Our Country,” and many variations of the idea.

On the 4th March, J. M. Clark and I went to Barrie and addressed a large meeting in the interests of Imperial Federation, and received a hearty support.

Our Committee about this time thought it would be well to issue a kind of manifesto that would explain our objects, and put forth the arguments in favour of our views and could be used as a kind of campaign literature to be distributed freely throughout the country. It was therefore arranged that a meeting should be held for the purpose of organising a branch of the League at Guelph, and that I should make a speech there that could be printed in separate form for general circulation. Mr. Creighton, of the Empire, agreed to send a reporter to take a shorthand report which was to be published in that paper. Mr. Alexander McNeill went to the meeting with me and made an excellent speech, one of many great efforts made by him for the cause.

The meeting was held on the 28th March, 1890, and afterwards fully reported in the Empire. The meeting was large, the hall being filled, and was as unanimous [137]and enthusiastic as the warmest advocate of Imperial Federation could have wished. The report of this meeting was reprinted and circulated in great numbers throughout the country.

The following day Dr. W. George Beers delivered an eloquent and powerful lecture in Toronto in the interests of our cause, which was well received.

[138]

CHAPTER XV

VISIT TO ENGLAND, 1890

In December, 1889, the Council of the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce passed the following resolution unanimously:

This adoption of the main point in the policy of the Canadian Branch of the League was very gratifying to us.

The Annual Meeting of the League in Canada took place on the 30th January, 1890, and there was considerable discussion on the question of preferential or discriminating tariffs around the Empire, although no formal resolution was carried, as direct action at that time was thought to be premature.

I moved a resolution: “That this League wishes to urge on the Government the importance of taking immediate steps to secure a universal rate of penny postage for the Empire.” This was seconded by Mr. McNeill, and carried.

A resolution was also carried against the German-[139]Belgian Treaties which prevented preferential tariffs within the Empire.

Lt.-Col. W. Hamilton Merritt suggested that the League should send its organisers to England, as it was there the missionary work would have to be done. Mr. McGoun supported this view, saying that “the policy of the Canadian League should be to send delegates to England to promote the gospel of commercial unity of the Empire.”

It will be seen that at this early period of the movement the Canadian Branch of the League felt that the real work would have to be done in England. We had discovered that there were clauses in two treaties with Germany and Belgium which positively forbade any special advantages in trade being given by Great Britain to any of her colonies, or by the colonies in favour of Great Britain or each other, that should not be given to Germany and Belgium. This as a necessary consequence would take in all nations entitled to the favoured nation clause.

It was essential, as the very first step towards our policy being adopted, that these two treaties made in 1862 and 1865 should be denounced. The earliest period that either of them could be denounced was on the 1st July, 1892, provided that a year’s notice had been given before the 1st July, 1891, in order to secure that result.

After full discussion in our Executive Committee, I agreed to go to England with two objects in view, first to endeavour to prepare the way for the denunciation of the treaties, and, secondly, to urge the policy of preferential tariffs around the Empire. A special resolution was adopted to authorise me to represent the Canadian Branch of the League while in England.

[140]

I arrived at Liverpool on the 27th April, 1890, and found a message requesting me to speak at a meeting at the People’s Palace, Whitechapel, the next evening. This meeting was called by the League in order that Dr. George Parkin might deliver an address on Imperial Federation. The Duke of Cambridge was in the chair, and Lord Rosebery, Sir John Colomb, and I were the other speakers. I was requested to say nothing about preferential tariffs, and consequently was obliged to refrain.

On the 13th May I happened to be at a meeting of the Royal Colonial Institute. Col. Owen read a paper on the military forces of the colonies. In the discussion which ensued Sir Charles Dilke, after complimenting other colonies, viz.: Australia, New Zealand, and Cape Colony, then proceeded to comment adversely on Canada.

I answered him in a speech which will be found in the Appendix “A.”

On the 19th May I addressed a meeting at the Mansion House, under the auspices of the London Branch of the Imperial Federation League, in favour of Australian Federation, and once more I was requested not to touch on the question of preferential tariffs.

On the 15th May I had attended the meeting of the Executive Committee of the League, and with some difficulty and considerable persistence had secured the insertion of the following clauses in the draft Annual Report:

The 13th clause of the Report contained a copy of Mr. Mulock’s loyal address to the Queen from the Dominion House of Commons. The 14th clause was as follows:

When the Council Meeting was held on the 19th May to adopt the Report for presentation to the Annual Meeting, clause after clause was read and passed without question, until the 10th clause quoted above was reached, when at once an elderly gentleman rose and objected strongly to it, and moved to have it struck out. He made a speech strongly Free Trade in its tenor, and urged that nothing should be done to aid or assist in any preferential arrangements. Seeing at once that this reference to their favourite fetish [142]appealed to the sympathies and prejudices of those present, I was sure that if not stopped other speakers would get up and endorse the view. I jumped up at once as he sat down, and made a short speech, saying, I did not know when I had heard a more illogical and inconsistent speech, that I gathered from his remarks that the gentleman was a Free Trader, that his whole speech showed that he was in favour of freedom of trade, and yet at the same time he wished to maintain treaties that were a restriction upon trade; that if we in Canada wished to give preferences to British goods, or lower our duties in her favour, or if we wished to have free trade with Great Britain, these treaties would forbid us doing so, unless Germany and Belgium and all other countries were included; that I felt Canada would give favours to Great Britain, but would positively refuse to give them to Germany, and could anything be more inconsistent than for a man declaring himself a Free Trader on principle, and yet refusing to help us in Canada who wished to move in the direction of freer trade with the Mother Country, and I begged of him to withdraw his opposition? This he did, and my clause was passed.

I found out afterwards that my opponent was Sir Wm. Farrer. Years afterwards when Canada gave the preference to Great Britain in 1897, and the treaties were denounced, the Cobden Club gave to Sir Wilfrid Laurier the Cobden gold medal.

The Annual Meeting of the Imperial Federation League was held three days later, on the 22nd May. I was announced in the cards calling the meeting as one of the principal speakers, and as the representative of the League in Canada, and was to second the adoption of the Annual Report. The day before the meet[143]ing, when in the offices of the League, a number of the Committee and the Secretary were present, I once more said that I wished to advocate preferential tariffs around the Empire. It will be remembered that this was one of the two points that I was commissioned to urge upon the parent League. I had been restrained at the People’s Palace and at the Mansion House, but being a member of the League, a Member of the Council, and of the Executive Committee, and representing the League in Canada by special resolution, I made up my mind to carry out my instructions. The moment I suggested the idea it was at once objected to, everyone present said it would be impossible. I was persistent, and said, “Gentlemen, I have been stopped twice already, but at the Annual Meeting I certainly have the right to speak.” They said that Lord Rosebery would be annoyed. I said, “What difference does that make; the more reason he should know how we feel in Canada; there was no use in my coming from Canada, learning Lord Rosebery’s views, and then repeating them. I thought he could give his own views better himself.” They then said “that it would be unpleasant for me, that the meeting would express disapproval.” I said, “The more reason they should hear my views, and I do not care what they do if they do not throw me out of an upstairs window,” finally saying, “Gentlemen, if I cannot give the message I have undertaken to deliver I shall not speak at all, and will report the whole circumstances to the League in Canada, and let them know that we are not allowed to express our views.” This they would not hear of, and agreed that I could say what I liked.

Lord Rosebery, who presided, made an excellent speech; among other things he said:

[144]

Lord Rosebery’s idea of a “co-operative principle” is not very far removed from the idea of a “Kriegsverein and a Zollverein.”

In seconding the adoption of the Report I pointed out the many difficulties we had to face in Canada through the action of the United States, and concluded my speech in the following words:

[146]

During my speech I was loudly applauded, and felt that a large majority of the meeting was with me. When I sat down, I was just behind Lord Rosebery, and to my astonishment he turned around, shook hands with me, and whispered in my ear, “I wish I could speak out as openly.” I knew then that I had neither frightened him nor the meeting. The Report was unanimously adopted.

I felt that I had succeeded in my mission as far as the Imperial Federation League was concerned, but while I was on the spot I was using every effort to urge the views of my colleagues in other directions. Believing that the two strongest men in England at the time were Lord Salisbury and the Colonial Secretary, Mr. Chamberlain, I had been at the same time endeavouring to impress our views upon them.

I had met Mr. Chamberlain in 1887 in Toronto, and had spoken at the same banquet which he there addressed. I wrote and asked him for an interview, and discussed the whole question of preferential trade, and the condition of affairs in Canada with him at great length. Our interview lasted nearly an hour. I then used with him many arguments which he has since used in his contest in England for Tariff Reform. After I had put my case as strongly as I could, I waited for his reply. He said, “I have listened with great interest to all the points you have brought forward, and I shall study the whole question thoroughly for myself, and if, after full consideration, I come to the conclusion that this policy will be in the interests of this country and of the Empire, I shall take it up and advocate it.” I said, “That is all I want; if you look into it and study it for yourself you are sure to come to the same view,” and got up to [147]leave, but he then said to me with the greatest earnestness, “Do not tell a soul that I ever said I would think of such a thing. In the present condition of opinion in England it would never do.”

The result was that, though I was greatly cheered by his action, there was not one word that I could use, or that could be used, to help us in our struggle in Canada. I always felt, however, that it was only a question of time when he would be heartily with us.

Lord Salisbury about this time invited me to an evening reception at 20 Arlington Street. When there I mentioned to him shortly what I had come over for, and told him I wished to have a long talk with him if he could spare the time. He said, “Certainly, we must have a talk,” and he fixed the following Wednesday, the 14th May.

At this time there was an acute difficulty between the United States Government and the British Government over the seizures of Canadian vessels engaged in the Behring’s Sea seal fisheries. A number of Canadian vessels had been seized by United States cruisers, their crews imprisoned, and their property confiscated. The Canadian Government had complained bitterly, and, after much discussion, two Canadian Ministers, Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper and Sir John Thompson, were in Washington engaged, with the assistance of the British Ambassador, in negotiations with the Hon. James Blaine, United States Secretary of State, endeavouring to settle the Behring’s Sea question, as well as several other matters which were in dispute.

Having watched matters very closely in the United States, I had come to the conclusion that the Washington authorities had no serious intention to settle anything finally. We had made a treaty with them [148]before in 1888, which had arranged the matters in dispute upon a fair basis, and when everything was agreed upon and settled, waiting only for the ratification by the United States Senate, that body threw it out promptly and left everything as it was. This action was at once followed by the retaliation message delivered by President Cleveland, which was a most unfriendly and insulting menace to Canada. I felt confident that they were determined to keep the disputes open for some future occasion, when Great Britain might be in difficulties, and a casus belli might be convenient.

The New York Daily Commercial Bulletin openly declared in November, 1888, that the questions of the fisheries, etc., “in all human probability will be purposely left open in order to force the greater issue (viz., political union) which, as it seems to us, none but a blind man can fail to see is already looming up with unmistakable distinctness in the future.”

At this reception at Lord Salisbury’s I was discussing the negotiations at Washington with Lord George Hamilton, then First Lord of the Admiralty, expressing my fears that they would come to nothing, and pointing out the dangers before us. He seemed somewhat impressed, and said, “I wish you would talk it over with Sir Philip Currie,” then permanent Under-Secretary of Foreign Affairs, and he took me across the room and introduced me to Sir Philip, to whom I expressed my opinion that the negotiations at Washington would fail and that the United States Government would not agree to anything. While I was talking to him I was watching him closely, and I came to the conclusion, from his expression, that he was positively certain that the matter was either settled or [149]on the very point of being settled, and I stopped suddenly and said, “I believe, Sir Philip, you think this is settled. You know all about it, and I know nothing, but I tell you now, that although you may believe it is all agreed upon, I say that it is not, and that either the Senate or the House of Representatives, or the President, or all of them put together, will at the last moment upset everything.” I do not think he liked my persistence, or felt that the conversation was becoming difficult, but he laughed good-naturedly and said, “Nobody will make me believe that the Americans are not the most friendly people possible, but I must just go and speak to Lord ——” whose name I did not catch, and he left me.

The next week I had my interview with Lord Salisbury and put my arguments from an Imperial point of view as powerfully as I could, told him of the dangers of the Commercial Union movement, of the desperate struggle I could see coming in the general election that was approaching in Canada, told him of our dread of a free expenditure of United States money in our elections, and pointed out to him that the real way to prevent any difficulty was to have a preferential tariff or commercial union arrangement with Great Britain, which would satisfy our people, and entirely checkmate the movement in favour of reciprocity with the States.

Lord Salisbury listened attentively and at last he said, “I am fast coming to the opinion that the real way to consolidate the empire would be by means of a Zollverein and a Kriegsverein.” I was delighted, “That,” I said, “gives me all my case,” and I urged him to say something publicly in that direction that we could use in Canada to inspire our loyal people, [150]and put that hope and confidence in them which would carry our elections. He did not say whether he would or not, but I knew then that at heart he was with us.

As a matter of fact, he did speak in a friendly tone at the Lord Mayor’s Banquet at the Guildhall on the 9th November following, and afterwards followed it up with a much more direct speech at Hastings on the 18th May, 1892.

I then said that nothing could be done until the German-Belgian Treaties of 1862 were denounced. He asked me why, and I told him the effect of the treaties was to bar any such arrangement. He did not know of the particular clauses and could hardly believe they existed. When told he would find I was right, he said, “That is most unfortunate, and they will have to be denounced.” I thanked him for taking that view and felt that I had a strong ally on both points. From subsequent conversations and from many letters received from him during the following ten or twelve years, I always relied upon him as a true friend who would help us at the first possible opportunity.

On this occasion I also spoke to him seriously as to my forebodings as to the failure of the negotiations at Washington and told him I believed he was under the impression that the matter was about settled, but warned him that at the last moment either the Senate or the President, or someone, would upset everything.

I had spoken very plainly at the Canada Club not long before on the Behring’s Sea business, and some of my remarks were published in several papers. On this point I said:

Before I left England my anticipations were realised, and suddenly, without any apparent reason, President Harrison broke off the negotiations just as Mr. Blaine and our representatives had come to an agreement, and he gave orders to United States vessels to proceed at once to the Behring’s Sea and capture any Canadian vessels found fishing in those waters. This was about the end of May. I sailed for home from Liverpool on the 5th June. On the Parisian I met as a fellow passenger the Rt. Hon. Staveley Hill, M.P., whom I had known before and who had taken a most active part in the House of Commons in favour of the Canadian view of the Behring’s Sea difficulty. After we had got out to sea he said to me, “I will tell you something that you must keep strictly to yourself for the present; when we reach the other side it will probably all be out,” and he went on to say that the British Government had made up their minds to fight the United States on account of President Harrison’s action. I was startled, and asked him if they were going to declare war at once. He replied, “No, not yet, but they have sent a message to the United States Government saying that if they seized another Canadian vessel it would be followed and taken from them by force from any harbour to which it would be taken.” I at once said, “That is all right; if that [152]message is delivered in earnest, so that they will know that it is in earnest, it means peace and no further interference.”

When we arrived at Quebec, to our surprise not a word had come out, and no one seemed to have the slightest suspicion that anything had happened. Some weeks elapsed and yet nothing was said, and I was under the impression that there had been some mistake, although Mr. Staveley Hill told me he had heard it directly from a Cabinet Minister.

I saw in the newspapers that large additions were made to the Atlantic and Pacific fleets, the latter being more than doubled in strength. About two months after my return a member of the House of Representatives got up in the United States Congress and drew attention to these extensive preparations, to the increase of the garrison of Bermuda, to the work going on in the fortifications of the West Indies, and asked that the House should be furnished with copies of the despatches between the two Governments. These were brought down, and Lord Salisbury’s ultimatum appeared in the following words:

This correspondence showed me that the information given Mr. Staveley Hill had been based upon a good foundation, but this was followed in Congress a few days later by a demand for a return of a verbal message which was said to have been given by the British Ambassador to the Hon. James Blaine. The answer was that a search in the records of the State Department did not discover any reference to any such [154]verbal message. I have no doubt but that some such message was given.

About a year afterwards I was discussing matters with Sir C. Hibbert Tupper, and I asked him if when they were in Washington they were not at one time quite confident that the matter was practically settled. He said, “Yes, certainly; we had been discussing matters in a most amicable way, and had been coming nearer together, and at last we agreed to what we thought was a final settlement, when President Harrison interfered and broke off the whole negotiations.”

Lord Salisbury’s bold and determined action had the desired effect, and soon an agreement was arrived at for an arbitration, which took place in Paris in 1893. In spite of the false translations and unreliable and false affidavits which appeared among the evidence produced on behalf of the United States claims, the decision on the point of International law was in our favour, and a large sum was awarded to our sealers for damages. Canada therefore came out of the dispute with credit to herself, owing to the firm and courageous stand of the Imperial Government under the leadership of that great Prime Minister, Lord Salisbury. My forecast to him of what he was likely to encounter in the negotiations was fully verified.

[155]

CHAPTER XVI

THE GREAT ELECTION OF 1891

I arrived home on the 15th June, and found that in my absence I had been vehemently abused both in a section of the Press and in the City Council, partly because I was not present to defend myself, and partly on account of the active manner in which I had been opposing the disloyal clique.

Our Committee was still working earnestly in stirring up the feeling of loyalty, and from that time until the great election of March, 1891, the struggle was energetically maintained. Arrangements were made for demonstrations in the public schools on the 13th October, 1890, the anniversary of the victory of Queenston Heights, and on that day a number of prominent men visited the schools of Toronto and made patriotic addresses to the boys. I addressed the John Street Public School, and afterwards the boys of Upper Canada College.

The Globe attacked me on account of these celebrations in their issue on 13th October, and followed it up with another article on the 14th October. I answered both articles in a letter which appeared in the Globe of the 16th October, and concluded as follows:

[156]

About the same time the Empire newspaper, to help on the movement and to advertise it, offered a flag (12 feet by 6 feet in size), the Canadian red ensign with the arms of Canada in the fly, to that school in each county which could produce the finest essay on the patriotic influence of raising the flag over the school houses. Each school was to compete within itself, and the best essay was to be chosen by the headmaster and sent to the Empire office. These essays from each county were carefully compared, and the finest essay secured the flag for the school from which it came. I read the essays and awarded the prizes for about thirty counties, and it was a pleasing and inspiring task. I was astonished at the depth of patriotic feeling shown, and was much impressed with the great influence the contest must have had in [157]stirring up the latent patriotism of the people, spreading as it did into so many houses through the children.

I was so much interested in what I read, and often found so much difficulty in deciding which was the best essay, that I felt that they all deserved prizes. I therefore decided to prepare a little volume of patriotic songs and poems, and to publish a large number and send a copy to the child in each school who had written the best essay, and a copy was also sent to the master of every school that had sent in an essay. I wrote to my friend Mr. E. G. Nelson, Secretary of the Branch of our League at St. John, New Brunswick, and told him what I was doing. I soon received from him a copy of a song, which he said my letter had inspired him to write. It was called “Raise the Flag.” I give the first verse:

Chorus.

I decided to use this as the first song and I called the little book:

” Raise the Flag,
And other Patriotic Canadian Songs and Poems.”

On the front of the stiff cardboard cover a well-executed, brightly-coloured lithograph of a school-house with a fine maple tree beside it was seen, with a large number of children, boys and girls, waving their hats and handkerchiefs and acclaiming the flag which [158]was being run up to the top of the flag-pole, the master apparently giving the signal for cheering. On the back of the cover was a pretty view of Queenston Heights, with Brock’s monument the prominent object, and over this scene a trophy of crossed flags with a medallion containing Queen Victoria’s portrait imposed on one, and a shield with the arms of Canada on the other. Over both was the motto “For Queen and Country.”

On the title page a verse of Lesperance’s beautiful poem was printed just below the title. It contained in a few words all that we were fighting for, the object we were aiming at, and the spirit we wished to inspire in the children of our country:

I asked a number of friends to assist me in the expense of getting out this book, and I feel bound to record their names here as loyal men who gave me cheerful assistance and joined me in supplying all the necessary funds at a time when we had many vigorous opponents and had to struggle against indifference and apathy:—George Gooderham, John T. Small, John Hoskin, J. K. Macdonald, J. Herbert Mason, Edward Gurney, Wm. K. McNaught, W. R. Brock, Allan McLean Howard, A. M. Cosby, Walter S. Lee, Hugh Scott, Thomas Walmsley, W. H. Beatty, A. B. Lee, John Leys, Jr., E. B. Osler, John I. Davidson, J. Ross Robertson, Hugh Blain, Hon. G. W. Allan, Henry Cawthra, Fred C. Denison, Oliver Macklem, G. R. R. [159]Cockburn, James Henderson, R. N. Bethune, Sir Casimir Gzowski, C. J. Campbell and W. B. Hamilton.

We published a good many thousand volumes and scattered them freely through the country before the election of 1891.

I gave Lord Derby, then Governor-General of Canada, about a dozen copies, and he sent one to the Queen, and some months after he received a letter from Sir Henry Ponsonby asking him at the request of the Queen to thank me for the book.

When the schools throughout the country received the flags which they had won, in many instances demonstrations were organised to raise the flag for the first time with due ceremony. I was invited to go to Chippawa to speak when their flag was first raised. There was a very large gathering of people from all over the county, and as an illustration of how the opportunity was used to stir up the patriotism of the people, I quote part of my address from the Empire of the 30th December, 1890.

I addressed a number of meetings during the fall of the year and winter, all on patriotic subjects, endeavouring to arouse the people against Reciprocity or Annexation, and urging Imperial Unity as the goal for Canadians to aim at. I spoke on the 11th September, 9th October, 5th December, 29th December, 9th January, 1891, 19th January, 27th February, and the 17th March.

I had written in February, 1890, as already mentioned, to Sir John A. Macdonald expressing my opinion that the next election would be fought on the question of loyalty as against disloyalty. All through the year I became more and more convinced of this, and foresaw that if the elections were postponed until 1892 it would give the Commercial Unionists and Annexationists more time to organise, and, what I dreaded most, give more time to our enemies in the United States to prepare the way for an election favourable to their views. I cannot do better to show the trend of affairs than copy from the Empire of the 7th February, 1890.

After referring to the disloyalty of Premier Mercier of Quebec, and quoting a statement of the Toronto Globe that the Canadian people “find the colonial yoke a galling one” and that “the time when Canadian patriotism was synonymous with loyalty to British connection has long since gone by,” the article copies the extract from the New York World in which it states that “Nobody who has studied the peculiar methods by which elections are won in Canada will [162]deny the fact that five or six million dollars judiciously expended in this country would secure the return to Parliament of a majority pledged to the annexation of Canada to the United States,” and then goes on to say:

[163]

Watching all we could learn of these movements, I became very anxious that the election should take place before another session. My brother, the member for West Toronto, agreed strongly with me on this point. Sir John Macdonald was gradually coming around to that view, but most of his colleagues differed from him. My brother happened to be in his office one day when several of the Cabinet were present, and Sir John asked him when he thought the election should come on. He replied, “As soon as possible,” and urged that view strongly. Sir John turned to his colleagues and said, “There, you see, is another.” This showed his difficulty.

There had been some rumours of intrigues between some members of the Liberal party and the United States politicians. Sir Richard Cartwright was known to have gone down secretly to Washington to confer with Mr. Blaine, principally, it was believed, through the influence of Erastus Wiman. Honore Mercier was also believed to have been mixed up in the intrigues. In the month of November I had been able to obtain some private information in connection with these negotiations, and I went down to Ottawa on the 8th December, 1890, and had a private conference with Sir John Macdonald and gave him all the information I had gathered. I told him that Blaine and Sir Richard Cartwright had had a conference in Washington, and that Mr. Blaine had thanked Mr. Wiman for bringing Sir Richard to see him.

During the autumn of 1890, Edward Farrer, then editor of the Globe, and one of the conspirators who were working for annexation, prepared a pamphlet of a most treacherous character, pointing out how best the United States could act to encourage and force on [164]annexation. He had the pamphlet printed secretly with great care, only thirteen copies being printed for use among a few of the leading United States politicians. In Hunter, Rose and Co.’s printing office where it was being printed, there was a compositor who happened to know Mr. Farrer’s handwriting, and who set up part of the type. He was struck with the traitorous character of the production, and gave information about it to Sir C. Hibbert Tupper, then in the Government. He reported it to Sir John Macdonald, and the latter sent Col. Sherwood, the chief of the Dominion police force, to Toronto, and told him to consult with me, and that I could administer the oath to the compositor, who swore to affidavits proving the circumstances connected with the printing of the pamphlet. The printer had proof slips of two or three pages when Col. Sherwood brought him to my office, and it was arranged that any more that he could get he was to bring to me, and I would prepare the affidavits and forward them on to Col. Sherwood.

The proof sheets were watched so closely and taken back so carefully after the corrections were made, that it was impossible to get any of them, but the printer who gave us the information was able at the dinner hour to take a roller, and ink the pages of type after the printing had been finished and before the type had been distributed. The impressions were taken in the most rough and primitive way, and as he had only a few chances of doing the work without detection, he was only able to bring me about two-thirds of the pamphlet.

These portions, however, contained enough to show the drift of the whole work, and gave Sir John Macdonald quite sufficient quotations to use in a public [165]speech at Toronto in the opening of the election to prove the intrigues that were going on. The revelation had a marked influence on the election, not only in Toronto, but from one end of Canada to the other.

It was a mystery to Farrer and the printers how Sir John had obtained a copy, for they assumed he had a complete copy. They were able to trace the thirteen copies, and Mr. Rose was satisfied no more had been printed. He gave me his theory shortly after, and I was amused to see how absolutely wrong he was. He had no idea that I knew anything about it. The secret was well kept. The printer who gave them to us, Col. Sherwood, Sir Hibbert Tupper, David Creighton, Sir John Macdonald, and myself, I have heard, were the only persons in the secret until the day Sir John brought it out at the great meeting in the Princess Theatre.

In January, 1891, Sir John Macdonald came to Toronto. He was anxious to see me without attracting attention, and my brother Fred arranged for him to come to my office at an hour when the officials would be away for lunch, and we had a conference for about three-quarters of an hour. He was very anxious to get a letter to publish the substance of which I had known and which would have thrown much light upon the intrigues between two or three Liberal leaders and some of the United States politicians. I said I would do what I could to get the information, but I did not succeed. Before he left he asked me what I thought of bringing on the elections at once, or of waiting till the following year. I jumped up from my chair at the suggestion that he was in doubt, and said, “What, Sir John; in the face of all you know and all I know, can you hesi[166]tate an instant? You must bring the elections on at once. If you wait till your enemies are ready, and the pipes are laid to distribute the money which will in time be given from the States, you will incur great danger, and no one can tell where the trouble will end.” I spoke very earnestly and Sir John listened with a smile, and got up to leave, saying to me, “Keep all your muscles braced up, and your nerves all prepared, so that if the House is suddenly dissolved in about three weeks you will not receive a nervous shock, but keep absolutely silent.” He said this in a very humorous and quizzical way which was characteristic of him, and went off wagging his head from side to side as was his wont.

I knew about Farrer’s pamphlet and about other things which came out in this election, and I had two very warm friends in the Liberal Government of Ontario, Sir Oliver Mowat and the Hon. G. W. Ross. I did not wish them to be mixed up with any political scandal that might come out, nor did I wish them to commit themselves definitely to the party at Ottawa, who were advocating a policy which I was sure could not succeed, and the real meaning of which they could not support. I told them both I thought there would be unpleasant matters divulged, and begged of them to keep as far away from the election as they could. They both seemed to take what I said in good part, and they adjourned the session of the local Legislature till after the general election.

Mr. Mowat arranged that his son Arthur Mowat was to run in West Toronto, and he spoke for him in his constituency, and also for the Honourable Alexander Mackenzie in East York. He made several speeches, all most loyal and patriotic in their tone. Mr. Ross [167]spoke once in his own constituency. I told him after the election when it went against the Liberal party, that I had given him fair warning. He said, “Yes, but I only made one speech in my own constituency.” Sir Oliver Mowat’s assistance in Ontario saved the Liberal party in that Province from a most disastrous defeat, for the people had confidence in him and in his steadfast loyalty.

When the election was going on, my brother said one day to me, “I think I shall defeat Mowat by four or five hundred.” I replied, “Your majority will be nearer two thousand than one thousand.” He said, “That is absurd; there never was such a majority in the city.” I answered, “I know the feeling in Toronto,” and using a cavalry simile said, “She is up on her hind legs, pawing the air, and you will see you will have nearly two thousand.” The figure was one thousand seven hundred and sixty-nine, the largest majority in Ontario, I believe, in that election.

The election supported the Macdonald Government with a large majority in the House and practically finished the attempt to entrap Canada into annexation through the means of tariff entanglements. Although dangerous intrigues went on for several years, they were neutralised by the loyal work of Sir Oliver Mowat and the Hon. G. W. Ross.

[168]

CHAPTER XVII

CONTEST WITH GOLDWIN SMITH

Professor Goldwin Smith was the foremost, and most active, dangerous, and persistent advocate and leader of the movement for annexation to the United States that we have ever had in Canada. After leaving Oxford in 1868 he went to the United States, where he lectured at Cornell University for two or three years. Having taken part in a controversy in the Press over the Alabama question, in which he took the side of Great Britain, he aroused a good deal of hostility and criticism in the United States. In 1871 he removed to Toronto where he has ever since resided.

He had some relatives living in Toronto in the suburb then known as Brockton. My father and I, two uncles, and a cousin then lived in that district, in which my house is situated, and we had a small social circle into which Mr. Goldwin Smith was warmly welcomed. He shortly after bought a house from my father near to his place, and we soon became close friends. In my father’s lifetime Mr. Smith belonged to a small whist club consisting of my father, my uncle Richard, Major Shaw, and himself. After my father’s death I took his place, and we played in each other’s houses for some years, until Mr. Smith married the [169]widow of Wm. Henry Boulton and took up his home in “The Grange.” The distance at which he lived from us was then inconvenient, and in a few months we discontinued the club.

In 1872 Mr. Smith was the prime mover in starting the Canadian Monthly and asked me to contribute an article for the first number, and afterwards I contributed one or two more. At one time we contemplated writing a joint history of the American Civil War, in which I was to write the military part and he was to write the political. I even went to Gettysburg to examine the battlefield, and began to gather material, when we discovered that it would be a long and laborious work, and that under the copyright law at the time there would be no security as to our rights in the United States, as we were not citizens of the republic. So the project was abandoned.

For many years Goldwin Smith and I were close friends, and I formed a very high opinion of him in many ways, and admired him for many estimable qualities. When the Commercial Union movement began, however, I found that I had to take a very decided stand against him, and very soon a keen controversy arose between us and it ended in my becoming one of the leaders in the movement against him and his designs. When he assumed the Honorary Presidency of the Continental Union Association, formed both in Canada and in the United States, and working in unison to bring about the annexation of the two countries, I looked upon that as rank treason, and ceased all association with him, and since then we have never spoken. I regretted much the rupture of the old ties of friendship, but felt that treason could not be handled with kid gloves.

[170]

I shall now endeavour to give an account of the contest between us, because I am sure it had a distinct influence upon public opinion, and helped to arouse the latent loyalty of the Canadian people, and for the time at any rate helped to kill the annexation movement in Canada.

I have already mentioned the incident of the dinner at the National Club where I said I would only discuss seriously annexation or independence with my sword. I did not think at that time that Mr. Smith was discussing the question in any other than a purely academic spirit; subsequent developments have satisfied me that even then he cherished designs that from my point of view were treasonable.

In the early spring of 1887, Mr. Goldwin Smith was at Washington and went on to Old Point Comfort and became acquainted with Erastus Wiman, who was staying at the same hotel and who showed Mr. Smith some courtesy. Mr. Smith invited Wiman to pay him a visit in Toronto in the latter part of May, 1887, and shortly after it was found that the strongest supporter that Wiman had for his Commercial Union agitation was Mr. Goldwin Smith.

As I have already said, during 1888-9-90, I was frequently addressing public meetings and speaking at banquets of all sorts of societies and organisations. We had also started the raising of the flags in the schools, the decoration of monuments, the singing of patriotic songs, &c., and generally we were waging a very active campaign against the Commercial Union movement. In 1891, the most dangerous crisis of the struggle, Mr. Smith commenced a series of lectures which were cleverly intended to sap the loyalty of our people and neutralise the effect of our work. The [171]three lectures were delivered before the Young Men’s Liberal Club of Toronto. The first was on “Loyalty” and was delivered on the 2nd February, 1891, and was intended to ridicule and belittle the idea of loyalty.

In reply to this I prepared at once a lecture on the United Empire Loyalists which I delivered at the Normal School to a meeting of school teachers and scholars on the 27th of the same month.

On the 11th May, 1891, Goldwin Smith delivered his second lecture on “Aristocracy.”

I saw now that there was a deliberate and treasonable design in these lectures to undermine the loyal sentiment that held Canada to the Empire, and as there was danger at any time of open trouble, I replied to this in another way. I delivered a lecture on the opening of the war of 1812 to point out clearly how much the loyal men were hampered by traitors at the opening of the war of 1812, and how they dealt with them then, how seven had been hanged at Ancaster, many imprisoned, and many driven out of the country, and I endeavoured to encourage our people with the reflection that the same line of action would help us again in the same kind of danger.

On the 17th April, 1891, this lecture was delivered before the Birmingham Lodge of the Sons of England.

On the 9th of the following November Goldwin Smith delivered his third lecture entitled “Jingoism.” This was a direct attack on me and on what my friends and I were doing.

This lecture aroused great indignation among the loyal people. I was asked by the Supreme Grand Lodge of the Sons of England to deliver a lecture in reply at a meeting to be called under their auspices, which it was intended should be a popular demon[172]stration against Goldwin Smith, and a proof of the repudiation by the Toronto people of his views. The meeting was held in Shaftesbury Hall, then the largest room in the city for such purposes, and it was packed to the doors. My lecture was entitled “National Spirit,” and was delivered on the 17th December, 1891. (See Appendix B.)

Referring to this lecture the Empire of the 18th December, 1891, commented as follows:

Goldwin Smith addressed a meeting at Innerkip on the 4th October, 1892. He spoke on the question of freedom of speech, in defence of Elgin Myers, who had been dismissed from his position of Crown Attorney at Orangeville by Sir Oliver Mowat for publicly advocating annexation. I answered him in a speech at the banquet of the Kent Lodge of the Sons of England on the 11th October, 1892.

On the 3rd December, 1892, the Empire published the following correspondence:

In March, 1893, an interesting episode in the struggle between the loyal people and Goldwin Smith occurred in connection with the St. George’s Society, a most respectable and influential organisation of Englishmen and sons of Englishmen, formed for benevolent purposes. Mr. Goldwin Smith was a life member and a very generous contributor to the charitable funds of the Society. His open and active hostility to the Empire and to Canada’s best interests, however, aroused a very bitter feeling of resentment, and in February, 1893, Mr. J. Castell Hopkins gave notice of motion of a resolution in the following words:

This notice of motion aroused much heated discussion in the Press, numbers of letters being written strongly supporting Mr. Hopkins’s resolution, one “member of the Society” writing under that name, quoted the object of the Society in its constitution “to unite [176]Englishmen and their descendants in a social compact for the promotion of mutual and friendly intercourse,” and he went on to say that there could be “no mutual and friendly intercourse between a true-hearted, honest, loyal Englishman and a traitor and enemy of England’s power and position. . . . If the St. George’s Society does not speak out with no uncertain sound it will be a disgrace to the Englishmen of Toronto and be a death blow to the Society. Most Englishmen would as soon join a society for friendly intercourse that contained thieves as one that contained traitors. The thief might steal one’s money. The annexationist is striving to steal our birthright, our name, our place in history, and the lives of the thousands who would die in defence of their country and its institutions.”

A number of our Imperialists who belonged to the Society formed a committee to organise a plan of action. This committee met in my office. We were not satisfied with Mr. Hopkins’s resolution, as it asked Goldwin Smith to resign, which he could easily avoid doing and so put the Society in a false position. On the afternoon of the day of the meeting our committee decided on a resolution which it was thought could be carried as a compromise. When the meeting was held after there had been considerable discussion, all upon the proper course of action, a committee was appointed to draft a resolution as a compromise, and the one we had prepared was adopted and carried unanimously. It was in the following terms:

This was soon followed by Mr. Smith’s resignation from the Society.

In spite of Mr. Goldwin Smith’s farewells he had an article in the Contemporary Review for January, 1895, on the Ottawa Conference of 1894. After reflecting on the manner in which the “delegates” were appointed, he went on to say the conference confined itself to discussing trade relations and communications, and that defence “was excluded by omission.” He sneered at the French Militia who served in the North-West Rebellion, and attacked the Canadian-Pacific Railway, insinuating that it would be blocked in case of war, because part of it went through the State of Maine. He made a great deal of snow blocks also, and even said that the prediction made when the Canadian-Pacific Railway “was built, that the road would never pay for the grease on its axle wheels, though then derided as false, has, in fact, proved too true,” and he absolutely stated that “as a wheat-growing speculation, the region has failed.” The whole article was as inimical to Canada and the aspirations of the people as he with his literary ability and indifference as to facts could make it.

[178]

This article aroused a good deal of criticism and hostility all over Canada. I received many letters from various parts of Canada, some from friends, some from strangers, asking me to reply to it. Sir Oliver Mowat urged me very strongly to answer it. I therefore prepared an article and sent it to the editor of the Contemporary with a request that he should publish it. I wanted no remuneration, but claimed the right to answer many inaccuracies. I received from the editor the following letter:

With this letter came my manuscript returned to me by same mail. I replied as follows:

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:

Among the other methods of arousing the patriotic feeling of our people was the erection of monuments on our great battlefields in memory of the victories gained in the struggle to preserve the freedom of our country in 1812-’14.

The Lundy’s Lane Historical Society, one of the patriotic organisations which sprang up over the Province, had started a movement for erecting a monument on the field of Lundy’s Lane where the last important and the most hotly contested battle of the war took [182]place in July, 1814. They had collected a number of subscriptions but not sufficient for the purpose, when Goldwin Smith offered through the late Oliver A. Howland to supply the balance required, provided that he might write the inscription so as to include both armies in the commemoration on equal terms. This offer was promptly declined by the Society, which had no desire to honour invaders who had made a most unprovoked attack upon a sparse people, who had nothing whatever to do with the assumed cause of the quarrel.

Shortly after, the Canadian Government took the matter in hand, and provided the balance required for the Lundy’s Lane Monument, and the full amounts required for monuments on the fields of Chateauguay and Chrysler’s Farm.

The Lundy’s Lane Monument was finished and ready to be unveiled on the anniversary of the battle, the 25th July, 1895, and the Secretary of State, the Hon. W. H. Montague, had promised to unveil it and deliver an address. The day before Dr. Montague telegraphed to me that he could not go, and asked me to go on behalf of the Government and unveil the monument. I agreed, and he telegraphed to the President of the Society that I was coming. About two thousand people were assembled. It will be remembered that Mr. Goldwin Smith had commented severely upon the proposal to put up a monument at Lundy’s Lane, in his lecture on “Jingoism” delivered in 1891. He said, “Only let it be like that monument at Quebec, a sign at once of gratitude and of reconciliation, not of the meanness of unslaked hatred.” I replied to this in my lecture on “National Spirit” shortly after, and said that the Professor, “considering how he is always treating a country that has used him [183]far better than he ever deserved, should be a first-class authority on the meanness of unslaked and unfounded hatred.”

At the time of the unveiling of the monument, when speaking in the presence of the officers and members of the Lundy’s Lane Historical Society, I naturally felt it to be my duty to compliment them upon their work, to congratulate them on the success of their efforts, and to defend them from the only hostile criticism that I knew of being directed against them. I spoke as follows in concluding my address, as appears in the newspaper report:

The Historical Society objected strenuously to a proposed inscription for the monument, and stopped its being engraved, and asked me to urge upon the Government to put something different. This was done, and I was asked by the Minister to draft one. It was accepted, and now stands upon the monument as follows:

My speech was printed in the Toronto papers at some length, and some of Mr. Smith’s friends censured me for having defended the Lundy’s Lane Society from his attacks. A week or two later I was amused at receiving a visit from the Rev. Canon Bull, the [185]President of the Lundy’s Lane Society, who came across the Lake to see me, to lay before me a matter which had come before the Society, and of which after discussion they felt I should be made aware.

I have mentioned above Mr. Goldwin Smith’s offer made through Mr. Howland to subscribe for the monument provided he could write the inscription. This offer and its refusal the Society had kept strictly private, so that I was quite ignorant of it, and made my address in entire innocence of any knowledge in reference to it. Mr. Smith apparently jumped to the conclusion that I had been told of this offer, and that my comments had been caused by it. He wrote to Mr. Howland and asked him to put the matter right, and enclosed him a draft of a memo, which he wished Mr. Howland to send to the Society. Mr. Howland very innocently sent Mr. Smith’s letter, his draft memo., and his own comments to the President of the Society, Rev. Mr. Bull. As soon as the correspondence was read, my old friend Mr. Wm. Kirby, author of Le Chien d’Or, said, “Col. Denison knew nothing of that offer, but Mr. Smith did make an attack in his lecture on ‘Jingoism,’ and Col. Denison had answered him in his lecture on ‘National Spirit’ which was published in the Empire in 1891, and his remarks on that point at the unveiling were on the same lines.” The Society refused to act on Mr. Howland’s and Mr. Smith’s suggestion, but decided that Canon Bull should come over to Toronto and lay the whole matter before me. I thanked Canon Bull and asked him to thank the Society, and the next day wrote to him, and asked him if I might have a copy of the letters. He wrote to me promptly, saying I might as well have the originals and enclosed them. I have them now.

[186]

While Mr. Goldwin Smith was working so earnestly against the interests of the Empire, and while many were leaning towards Commercial Union, and some even ready to go farther and favour annexation, Mr. (afterwards Sir) Oliver Mowat, then Premier of Ontario, saw the danger of the way in which matters were drifting. I often discussed the subject with him, and knew that he was a thorough loyalist, and a true Canadian and Imperialist. He often spoke despondingly to me as to what the ultimate outcome might be, for, of course, the majority of the men who at the time favoured Commercial Union were among his supporters, and he would therefore hear more from that side than I would. In spite of his uneasiness, however, he was staunchly loyal. Mr. Biggar, his biographer, relates that just before the Inter-Provincial Conference in October, 1887, an active Liberal politician, referring to his opposition to Commercial Union, said to Mr. Mowat in the drawing-room of his house on St. George Street, “If you take that position, sir, you won’t have four per cent. of the party with you.” To which the reply came with unusual warmth and sharpness, “I cannot help it, if I haven’t one per cent. I won’t support a policy that will allow the Americans to have any—even the smallest—voice in the making of our laws.”

On the evening of the 18th February, 1891, in the election then coming on, Mr. Mowat spoke at a meeting in the Horticultural Pavilion, Toronto, and again his strong loyalty spoke out. He said among other things, “For myself I am a true Briton. I love the old land dearly. I am glad that I was born a British subject; a British subject I have lived for three score years and something more. I hope to live and die a British sub[187]ject. I trust and hope that my children and my grand-children who have also been born British subjects will live their lives as British subjects, and as British subjects die.” Sir Oliver Mowat’s clear and outspoken loyalty prevented the Liberals from being defeated in Ontario by a very much greater majority than they were.

During the summer of 1891, however, the annexation movement assumed a still more active form. Mr. Goldwin Smith was doing his utmost to stir up the feeling. Solomon White, who had been a Conservative, and was a member of the Ontario Legislature, induced a public meeting in Windsor, where he lived, to pass a resolution in favour of annexation. Encouraged by this, Mr. White arranged for a meeting in Woodstock in Mr. Mowat’s own constituency of South Oxford, in the hope of carrying a resolution there to the same effect.

While there was a feeling to treat the meeting with contempt, Mr. Mowat with keener political insight saw that such a course would be dangerous, not only to the country but to the Liberal party as well, and he wrote a letter on the 23rd November, 1891, to Dr. McKay, M.P.P., who represented the other riding of the county of Oxford in the House of Assembly. He wrote:

The meeting passed by twelve to one the following resolution:

Sir Oliver Mowat’s biographer states that Sir Oliver had determined in case a pro-annexation resolution should be carried at this meeting, to resign his seat for North Oxford, and appeal again to the constituency on the straight issue of British Connection v. Annexation.

The morning Sir Oliver’s letter appeared in the papers and we knew what had happened at Woodstock, I went up to his house and congratulated him warmly, and thanked him earnestly for his wise and patriotic action. I knew that as the leader of the Liberal party in Ontario he had delivered a death-blow to the annexation movement. I told him so. I said to him, “You had control of the switch and you have turned it so that the party will be turned towards loyalty and away from annexation. And when the future historian writes the history of our country, he will not understand his business if he does not point out clearly the far-reaching effect of your action in this matter.”

Sir Oliver seemed to think that I overrated the matter, but he told me that he had sent his secretary, Mr. Bastedo, to Woodstock to see his leading supporters, and to do what he could to help Dr. McKay to secure [190]control of the meeting. Many years have elapsed, and I still hold the opinion I expressed to Sir Oliver that morning, and I feel that Canada should never forget what she owes to Sir Oliver Mowat, and that his name should always be cherished in the memories of our people.

This was followed on the 12th December, 1891, by an open letter to the Hon. A. Mackenzie which was published as a sort of manifesto to the Liberal party, in which he made an exhaustive argument along the same lines.

In the early part of 1892 Mr. Elgin Myers, County Attorney of Dufferin, was writing and speaking openly and strongly in favour of annexation, and on being remonstrated with by the Government, said he had the right of free speech, and would persist. Sir Oliver dismissed him from office. This was another strong lesson, and was heartily approved by the people generally. About the same time and for the same cause E. A. Macdonald was dismissed by the Dominion Government from the Militia, in which he held the rank of Lieutenant in the 12th York Rangers.

On the 16th July, 1892, about two months after Elgin Myers’ dismissal, a great meeting of loyal Canadians was held at Niagara-on-the-Lake, the first capital of the Province, to celebrate the one hundredth anniversary of the establishment of the Province of Upper Canada by Lt.-Governor Simcoe, who issued his first proclamation on July 16th, 1792, at Kingston.

The Lt.-Governor, Sir George Kirkpatrick, made the first speech, and gave a historical sketch of the history of the Province. Sir Oliver Mowat followed him, and made a very loyal and effective speech.

He commenced by saying:

[191]

Sir Oliver’s biographer, C. R. W. Biggar, says of this speech:

While Sir Oliver was speaking I was sitting close behind him, next to Mr. Wm. Kirby, who was a staunch loyalist and keen Imperialist. He was delighted and whispered to me, “Mr. Mowat has stolen your thunder,” and again, “He is making your speech.” I replied, “Yes, there will not be any need for me to say much now.” And when I was called upon to speak [193]after him I made a speech strongly supporting him but very brief, feeling, as I did, that he had done all that was necessary in that line.

He was always impressed with the feeling of hostility in the United States. As I had been speaking upon that subject for years in unmistakable language, and was often abused for my outspoken comments, I was delighted on one occasion some years before at a Board of Trade banquet in the Horticultural Pavilion, Toronto, to hear him say positively “that the United States was a hostile nation.” Afterwards in the cloak room I congratulated him warmly upon his speech, and thanked him for speaking so plainly about the hostility of the United States. Sir John A. Macdonald was standing by, and he turned playfully towards Mr. Mowat, and, shaking him by the shoulders, said, “Yes, Denison, did he not do well, the little tyrant?” This was in reference to the opposition papers having sometimes called him “the little tyrant.” Mr. Mowat seemed highly amused, and I was much impressed by the evident kindly, almost affectionate, personal feeling between the two rival statesmen.

The decided position taken by Mr. Mowat certainly had an immense influence upon the Liberal party, and in this he was ably seconded by the Hon. G. W. Ross, who on many occasions sounded a clear note in favour of British connection and Imperial consolidation.

[194]

CHAPTER XVIII

DISSOLUTION OF THE IMPERIAL FEDERATION
LEAGUE IN ENGLAND

On the 30th January, 1891, Sir Leonard Tilley, of New Brunswick, was appointed President of the League in Canada in place of D’Alton McCarthy, mainly through the instrumentality of Principal Grant, who was of the opinion that the course taken by Mr. McCarthy in opposition to the Jesuit Estates Act and his movement in favour of Equal Rights were so unsatisfactory to the French Canadians that the prospect of the League obtaining their support would be hopeless while he remained President. Sir Leonard Tilley was one of the Fathers of Confederation, and at the time Lieutenant-Governor of New Brunswick.

A meeting of the Council of the League in Canada was held on the 18th September, 1891, Sir Leonard Tilley, President, in the chair, when after careful discussion they passed a resolution asking the League in England to help the Canadian Government to secure the denunciation of the German and Belgian treaties, and a second one urging once more the importance of a preferential trade arrangement between the Mother Country and the Colonies.

On the 30th of the same month, both Houses of the Canadian Parliament passed unanimously an address to [195]the Imperial Government, asking them to denounce the German and Belgian treaties which prevented preferential trade arrangements between the various parts of the British Empire.

The Seventh Annual General Meeting of the League in Canada was held in the Tower Room, House of Commons, Ottawa, on the 1st March, 1892, Mr. Alexander McNeill in the chair. A still further advance in the policy of the Canadian League was made in a resolution moved by Lt.-Col. W. Hamilton Merritt and carried as follows:

On the 28th April, 1892, Mr. McNeill moved in the House of Commons:

This was carried by ninety-eight votes to sixty-four.

All this was very gratifying to our League, and proved to us that the campaign we had been waging in Canada for nearly five years had convinced the majority of the people of the soundness of our policy. We had our Parliament with us both on the question of the German and Belgian treaties and preferential [196]tariffs. In Great Britain, however, our progress had been slow; with the exception of Sir Howard Vincent no prominent British politician had accepted the principle of preferential tariffs. Lord Salisbury had spoken tentatively at the Guildhall on the 9th November, 1890, and at Hastings on the 18th May, 1892, but he was, while in a sense favourable, very cautious in his remarks, as he felt public opinion in Great Britain was quite averse to any such policy on account of their obstinate adherence to the principle of Free Trade.

The majority of the Imperial Federation League in England were not at all favourable to the views of the Canadian League, and the Journal of the League showed its bias in all its articles on the subject, while Lord Knutsford on behalf of the Imperial Government in his dispatch on the 2nd April, 1892, in answer to the joint address of the Canadian Houses of Parliament declared, that for reasons given, “Her Majesty’s Government have felt themselves unable to advise Her Majesty to comply with the prayer of the address which you have transmitted for submission to Her Majesty.”

The Eighth Annual General Meeting of the League in Canada was held in Montreal on the 13th February, 1893, Mr. Alexander McNeill, Vice-President, in the chair, and a resolution was carried, asking the Government to request the Imperial Government to summon an Imperial Conference. Sir Leonard Tilley wrote to the meeting asking to be relieved of the duties of President, and advising the election of Mr. Alexander McNeill in his place. In my absence, through Mr. McNeill’s efforts, I was elected President of the League. I accepted the position, and on examination of its affairs I found that from a business point of view it was in a very bad [197]condition. The work of the Secretary was behindhand, the League was without funds and considerably in debt. I soon succeeded in placing it in a much better position. A large amount of arrears of fees was collected, and with the assistance of Mr. Herbert Mason and the late C. J. Campbell we soon secured subscriptions from a number of friends of the cause, whose names I feel should be recorded as they aided the movement for many years. The list of subscribers was as follows: George T. Denison, J. Herbert Mason, George Gooderham, A. R. Creelman, John T. Small, A. B. Lee, D’Alton McCarthy, Sir Sandford Fleming, Sir Frank Smith, Alfred Gooderham, T. G. Blackstock, D. R. Wilkie, Larratt W. Smith, E. B. Osler, A. M. Cosby, George R. R. Cockburn, Hugh Blain, Albert E. Gooderham, W. G. Gooderham, and W. H. Beatty. The debts were paid, and a balance on hand and the future expenses for some years secured. A new secretary was appointed, and everything was in good working order.

I had barely succeeded in this when I received from the secretary of the League in England a communication marked “Strictly private and confidential,” informing me that there was a proposal to dissolve the League, and close its business.

I was much astonished and alarmed at this information, and much embarrassed by the strict secrecy imposed on me, but a day or two afterwards I found by the cable dispatches in the Toronto papers that the matter had come before the Council in England and that the motion had been adjourned for six months. I concluded that the six months’ hoist meant the end of it. So I preserved the strict request for secrecy which had been made to me. I had before written privately in reply to the Secretary, Mr. A. H. Loring, [198]protesting against the proposition to dissolve the League. And I happened to mention that I personally would feel inclined to keep up the struggle. I thought the postponement had settled the matter, but as Mr. John T. Small, the Hon. Treasurer, was going to England that summer, and as he was a member of the Executive Committee of the League in England and entitled to know what was being done, I urged him very particularly to go to the head office in London, and inquire carefully as what was going on. When he returned he told me that he had twice tried to see Mr. Loring but failed, that he had asked for his address, which the clerk said he could not give him as he was away on his holidays, and Mr. Small was assured by the clerk that there was nothing going on, and that there was no information that he knew of to give him.

All this lulled me into a feeling of security. Suddenly on 25th November, 1893, the news came by cable to the Press that on the previous day a meeting had been held in London, and that the League had been dissolved. The meeting was called by a circular dated 17th November, so that there was no possibility for the Canadian members of the Council in England to have attended, even if notices had been sent to them, which was not done.

In the Journal for the 1st December, 1893 (the last issue of that publication), it is stated that discussion had been taking place in the meetings of the Executive Committee during the previous six months, to decide upon the course of action to be adopted by the League in the immediate future; and it shows that a special committee had been appointed to consider the matter. The report of this committee was signed by the Rt. Hon. Edward Stanhope, M.P., President, Lord Brassey, [199]Sir John Colomb, R. Munro-Ferguson, M.P., H. O. Arnold-Forster, M.P., S. Vaughan Morgan, the Lord Reay, and J. G. Rhodes. This committee reported “a recommendation, that the operations of the League should be brought to a close.”

“This report was discussed at several meetings of the Executive Committee, and alternative proposals were carefully considered during the autumn,” and on the 24th November, 1893, the report was adopted by a vote of 18 to 17, Mr. Loring saying he had been assured that the Canadian League would continue as heretofore.

In spite of all these discussions mentioned, Mr. Small was assured there was nothing going on, and the Canadian League were kept in ignorance of the movement until it was accomplished.

This dissolution of the League at a council meeting to which none of the thirty-five Canadian members representing the Canadian Branch were either invited or notified, caused a considerable feeling of dissatisfaction among our members, and was a severe and disheartening blow to all friends of the cause in Canada, the concealment and secrecy of the whole movement being very unsatisfactory to everyone.

I called a meeting of our Executive Committee at once for the 27th November when the matter was considered. A resolution was moved and unanimously carried that the Secretary should notify the Secretary of the Imperial Federation League to stop the paper at the end of this year, and if the journal should be continued that they should communicate direct with the Canadian subscribers.

The following resolution was also, after careful consideration, carried unanimously:

[200]

Not long afterwards we learned that a small faction, principally those who had managed to destroy the League, had formed a new organisation, had taken over the office, appropriated the records, lists of members, subscription list, &c., and adopted the same trade mark or title cover used for pamphlets. They also assumed the name “Imperial Federation (Defence) Committee,” and began circulating literature, pamphlets, fly-sheets, &c., all pointing out the shortcomings of the Colonies, and demanding cash contributions to the Army and Navy. This was done in a spirit that aroused a good deal of hostile feeling in Canada, and did much more harm than good to the cause they seemed to advocate. Had they desired to destroy the movement in Canada, they could not have taken more effective steps to secure that result.

This intrigue has been the most puzzling circumstance connected with the history of the Imperial Federation movement. I have never been able, even after the most careful inquiry, to reach with confidence the real cause of such peculiar conduct. At one time I thought that as Lord Rosebery had become Premier the existence of the League might have become [203]embarrassing to him, and that he had been in favour of doing away with it, but Dr. Parkin assured me that this could not be, as Lord Rosebery referred to the question some years after when Dr. Parkin was his guest at Mentmore, and asked him why the League was dissolved, and Lord Rosebery said that he regretted its dissolution very much and could never understand it.

My own impression, although it is, of course, not capable of proof, has always been that a few free traders on the committee were alarmed at the progress the Canadian members were making in spreading views in favour of preferential tariffs, and in reference to which Sir Charles Tupper had been rather aggressive.

The destruction of the League would have been useless unless steps were taken to prevent its revival, and to destroy, if possible, the League in Canada. Hence the adoption of the name, address, trade mark, etc., under which to flood Canada with publications tending to arouse great hostility among our people. This was the condition in which I found affairs only about ten months after I had been elected President. The outlook was most discouraging, and caused a great deal of anxious discussion among the stalwarts in Toronto. We decided to summon a meeting of our most influential men to consider the situation, and decide whether we also should dissolve, or whether we would continue the struggle.

The meeting was held on the 3rd January, 1894, and after full discussion it was decided to fight on, and with the assistance of Sir John Lubbock, who had sent a communication to us asking us to co-operate with him, to endeavour to resuscitate the League in England.

[204]

The ninth annual meeting of the Imperial Federation League in Canada was held in the Parliament Buildings, Ottawa, on the 29th May, 1894, and in the notices of motion printed in the circular calling the meeting was one by Lt.-Col. Wm. O’Brien, M.P., as follows:

And another to the same effect by Rev. Principal George M. Grant:

These notices exactly foreshadowed the policy adopted by Sir Wilfrid Laurier’s Government in 1897.

Another resolution was carried to the effect that a delegation should be elected by the Executive Committee to confer personally with the City of London Branch and similar organisations, and agree upon a common course of future action. Accordingly on the 6th June, 1894, the Executive Committee appointed “Colonel G. T. Denison President, Larratt W. Smith, Esq., Q.C., LL.D., President Toronto Branch, George E. Evans, Esq., Hon. Secretary of the League in Canada, John T. Small, Esq., Hon. Treasurer, H. J. Wickham, Esq., Chairman of the Organising Committee, J. L. Hughes, Esq., J. M. Clark, Esq., and [205]Professor Weldon, M.P., to be the delegation, with power to add to their number.” Messrs. Clark, Small, and Weldon were unable to act, and Sir Charles Tupper, then High Commissioner, Lord Strathcona, and Lt.-Col. Septimus Denison, Secretary and Treasurer of the London Ontario Branch, were added to the delegation.

This was the turning point of the movement, and led to the organisation of the British Empire League and the continuance of the struggle for Imperial consolidation. The account of this mission, its work in England, and the subsequent proceedings of the new League, and the progress of the movement for Imperial Unity during the succeeding years, will be dealt with in the following chapters.

[206]

CHAPTER XIX

ORGANISATION OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE LEAGUE

I left for England on the 27th June 1894, arrived in London on the 9th July, and at once called upon Sir John Lubbock, M.P., now Lord Avebury. I breakfasted with him on the 13th, when we thoroughly discussed the whole question. I pressed upon him the urgent need there was that we should have a head office in England, and how important the movement was in order to spread and maintain the Imperial sentiment in Canada. He was most sympathetic and friendly, and said that if it would be convenient for us he would gather a number of men favourable to the idea to meet us at his house a week later, on the 20th July. I wrote to the members of the delegation, and gathered them the day before at Lord Strathcona’s rooms on Dover Street, and secured the attendance of Sir Charles Tupper, who was then High Commissioner for Canada, and also a member of our League, and we added him to the committee. We discussed our policy at considerable length, and arranged to meet at Sir John Lubbock’s in St. James’s Square the following morning at eleven a.m.

I happened to be breakfasting at the United Service Club that morning with Lord Roberts and General Nicholson, and Lord Roberts hearing that I was going [207]to Sir John Lubbock’s, said that he had been asked to attend the meeting, but had not intended to go. I prevailed upon him to accompany me.

Sir John Lubbock had a number of gentlemen to meet us, among whom were Sir Westby Percival, Agent-General for New Zealand, the Hon. T. A. Brassey, Messrs. C. Freeman Murray, W. Culver James, W. H. Daw, W. Becket Hill, Ralph Young, H. W. Marcus, and others. Sir John Lubbock was in the chair and Mr. Freeman Murray was secretary. As chairman of our deputation, I put our case before the meeting, following the lines agreed upon at the conference at Lord Strathcona’s rooms the day before. I spoke for about forty minutes, and naturally urged very strongly the importance of preferential trading throughout the Empire, as a practical means of securing a permanent unity, and I insisted that we should make the denunciation of the German-Belgian Treaties one of the definite objects of the League.

The City of London Branch had prepared a programme of a suggested constitution, which contained nearly all the clauses afterwards agreed upon as the constitution of the British Empire League. Our Canadian delegation accepted all their suggestions, but we insisted on a clause referring to the German and Belgian Treaties. Our English friends were evidently afraid of the bogey of Free Trade, and seemed to think that any expressed intention of doing away with the German and Belgian Treaties would prevent many free traders from joining the League. I urged our view strongly, and was ably assisted by speeches from Sir Charles Tupper, Lord Strathcona, and Sir Westby Percival. Our English friends still held out against us. At last I said that we had agreed with all they had advo[208]cated, had accepted all their suggestions, but that when we asked what we considered the most important and necessary point of all, the denunciation of the German and Belgian Treaties, we were met with unyielding opposition, that there was no object in continuing the discussion, and we would go home and report to our League that, even among our best friends, we could not get any support towards relieving us of restrictions that should never have been placed upon us. Mr. Becket Hill seeing the possibility of the meeting proving abortive, suggested an adjournment for a week. Mr. Herbert Daw immediately rose, and in a few vigorous sentences changed the tone. He said that the Canadians had agreed with them in everything, and that when they urged a very reasonable request they were not listened to. He said that was an unwise course to take, and urged that an attempt should be made to meet our views.

Sir John Lubbock then said: “Perhaps I can draw up a clause which will meet the wishes of our Canadian friends,” and he wrote out the following clause:

I said at once that we would accept that clause, provided it was understood that we of the Canadian Branch should have the right to agitate for that which we thought was the best, and the only way, probably, of unifying the empire. We claimed we [209]were to have the right to work for the denunciation of the treaties with the view of securing preferential tariffs around the Empire, and that in so doing we were not to be considered as violating the constitution of the League, although the central council was not to be responsible for the views of the Canadian Branch. That settled the matter at once, and the League was formed. Difficulty was found in deciding upon a name. We wished to retain the old name, but the arguments in favour of a change were so great that we yielded to the wishes of our English brethren. A number of names were suggested, most of them long and explanatory, when Mr. James L. Hughes suggested that as the object was the maintenance of the British Empire why not call the League simply “The British Empire League.” This appealed to all, and it was at once adopted, so that Mr. Hughes was the godfather of the League.

It was then arranged that a meeting of the old City of London branch of the Imperial Federation League should be called at the London Chamber of Commerce. It was held on the 26th July, when several of us addressed the meeting, and an organising committee was formed for undertaking the work of the reconstruction of the League. It consisted of the Canadian deputation and the following gentlemen: The Earl of Derby, Earl of Jersey, Earl of Onslow, Earl of Dunraven, Field Marshal Lord Roberts of Kandahar, Lord Brassey, Lord Tennyson, Sir John Lubbock, Bart., M.P., Sir Algernon Borthwick, Bart., M.P., Sir Charles Tupper, Bart., Sir Westby Percival, Sir Fred Young, Major General Ralph Young, Lieut.-Colonel P. R. Innes, Dr. W. Culver James, Messrs. F. Faithful Begg, M.P., W. Herbert Daw, E. M. Headley, W. Becket Hill, [210]Neville Lubbock, Herman W. Marcus, John F. Taylor, and Freeman Murray.

Addressing this meeting at some length, I endeavoured to show the importance of settling the North-West, as well as other portions of Canada, with a population of British people if possible, who would grow grain to supply the wants of the mother country. I stated that a preferential tariff against the United States would keep our people in Canada, and would cause settlers from Great Britain to make their homes in that country; and that in a very little time the North-West Territories would be occupied by a large population of loyal people, who would be devoted to the Empire, and would be able to supply all the bread-stuffs that England would require. In order to impress that upon the audience, I drew their attention to the fact that if England was engaged in a war with continental countries, say, for instance, Russia and France, it would cut off the supply of wheat from the former country; and that if hostilities were also to break out between the United States and England, it would confine the mother country’s wheat supply to India, Australia, and Canada; that the distance was so great that it would take an enormous naval force to keep the sea routes open, and that these would be constantly liable to attack and interruption unless England had absolute command of the sea.

I then went on to say that I was aware that there was a strong feeling in England that there was no possibility of a war with the United States, but warned the meeting that they must not rely upon that belief, and I quoted several facts to prove my view.

Within eighteen months the Venezuelan Message of [211]President Cleveland, followed as it was by the warlike approving messages to Mr. Cleveland from 42 out of the 45 Governors of States, proved how easily trouble might arise.

Mr. James L. Hughes also addressed this meeting, and we were strongly supported by a member of the Fair Trade League, who used some powerful arguments in favour of some steps being taken to improve the position of the “Food Supply.” He was answered by Mr. Harold Cox, Secretary of the Cobden Club, who said that my proposition was one that would abolish Free Trade, and substitute Protection for it. In spite of his appeal to the intense prejudice of the British people, at that time in favour of Free Trade, the idea of an Imperial Preferential tariff seemed to have considerable weight upon those who heard it expounded.

Lord Tennyson was present at the meeting and spoke to me afterwards, approving of much of my speech, but regretting I had spoken so freely about the United States. I replied that the very fact of his criticism was a strong proof of the necessity for my speaking out, and told him I would send him some publications which would enable him the better to appreciate our view. This I did. He has been a strong supporter of the British Empire League and acted on the Executive Committee from the first.

I addressed a large meeting at Hawick, Scotland, on the 17th August, 1894, and for the first time in Scotland advocated our Canadian policy. My friend Charles John Wilson organised the meeting. I spoke in much the same strain as in London. Although my remarks were well received it was evident that free trade opinion was paramount, and that I did not have [212]any direct support in the meeting. One member of the Town Council told me at the close that, while they were all free traders, yet I had given them food for thought for some time. At the Congress of Chambers of Commerce of the Empire held in London in July, 1906, my friend Mr. Charles John Wilson, who spoke at my meeting in Hawick in 1894, was a representative of the South of Scotland Chamber of Commerce, and made a powerful speech in favour of the Canadian resolution which endorsed Mr. Chamberlain’s policy of preferential tariff, and his Chamber of Commerce voted for it.

The organising committee appointed at the London meeting took a considerable time in arranging the details. Lord Avebury told me that he had considerable difficulty in getting a prominent outstanding man as President, and that the negotiations took up a great deal of time. He wished to secure the Duke of Devonshire, and he being very busy, could not give much time, and only agreed at length to take the position on the understanding that Sir Robert Herbert who, for many years had been the Permanent Under Secretary for the Colonies, and was about to be superannuated, should undertake to act as chairman of the Executive Committee and attend to the management of the League.

When all was arranged, a large meeting was held at the Mansion House on the 27th January, 1896, the Lord Mayor in the chair, and then the British Empire League was formally inaugurated, the constitution adopted, and a resolution, moved by Lord Avebury, carried:

It may be mentioned that when our deputation reported to the League in Canada the arrangements we had agreed to, it was suggested that an addition should be made to the constitution by the insertion of what is now the second clause of it. “It shall be the primary object of the League to secure the permanent unity of the Empire.” This, of course, had been well understood, but the Canadian League desired it to be placed in the constitution in formal terms. The request was made to the committee in England, and it was at once acceded to.

A special general meeting of the Imperial Federation League in Canada was held in the Tower Room, House of Commons, Ottawa, on the 4th March, 1896, to consider the annual report of the Executive Committee, and the recommendation therein contained, that the League should change its name to that of the British Empire League in Canada, and affiliate with the British Empire League.

As President of the League I occupied the chair. Among those present were: Sir Charles Tupper, Bart., G.C.M.G.; Sir Donald Smith, K.C.M.G.; the Hon. Arthur R. Dickey, M.P.; Senators W. J. Almon, C. A. Boulton, John Dobson, Thomas McKay, Clarence Primrose, W. D. Perley, and Josiah Wood. The following members of Parliament: W. H. Bennett, G. F. Baird, T. D. Craig, G. R. R. Cockburn, Henry Cargill, George E. Casey, F. M. Carpenter, G. E. Corbould, Dr. Hugh Cameron, Emerson Coatsworth, D. W. Davis, Eugene A. Dyer, Thomas Earle, Charles Fairburn, W. T. Hodgins, A. Haslam, Major S. Hughes, David [214]Henderson, Charles E. Kaulbach, J. B. Mills, A. C. Macdonald, J. H. Marshall, James Masson, J. A. Mara, W. F. Maclean, D’Alton McCarthy, G. V. McInerney, John McLean, H. F. McDougall, Major R. R. Maclennan, Alex. McNeill, W. B. Northrup, Lt.-Col. O’Brien, H. A. Powell, A. W. Ross, Dr. Thomas Sproule, J. Stevenson, William Smith, Lt.-Col. Tisdale, Thomas Temple, Lt.-Col. Tyrwhitt, Dr. N. W. White, R. C. Weldon, R. D. Wilmot, W. H. Hutchins, Major McGillivray, William Stubbs, J. G. Chesley, A. B. Ingram; and Messrs. S. J. Alexander, Sandford Fleming, C.M.G., N. F. Hagel, Q.C., James Johnston, Thomas Macfarlane, Archibald McGoun, C. C. McCaul, Q.C., Joseph Nelson, J. C. Pope, E. E. Sheppard, J. G. Alexander, J. Coates, Joseph Nelson, McLeod Stewart, R. W. Shannon, Major Sherwood, Major Clark, Dr. Kingsford, Dr. Beattie Nesbitt, Prof. Robertson, Dr. Rholston, Lt.-Col. Scoble, Captain Smith, George E. Evans (Hon. Secretary), and others.

I moved the adoption of the annual report, which contained a copy of the constitution of the British Empire League, and recommended that the Canadian League be affiliated with that body.

As to the question of changing the name of the League, I said:

These remarks outlined the policy that the Executive Committee had agreed upon, and foreshadowed much that has since occurred.

Mr. Alexander McNeill seconded the adoption of the report, which was carried unanimously.

Sir Charles Tupper then moved the first resolution:

In his speech he gave a short sketch of the progress of the old League, and pointed out that it was an important fact that this organisation had committed itself to the policy of removing the obstruction to preferential trade with Great Britain which existed through the treaties with Belgium and Germany.

Mr. D’Alton McCarthy seconded the resolution. He also spoke of the work of the old League which he had founded in Canada, and of which he was the first President. He said:

This last sentence shows that at that time he was contemplating the adoption of the policy of a British Preference, which I believe in the following year, with Principal Grant’s assistance, he succeeded in inducing Sir Wilfrid Laurier and his Government to adopt.

The constitution, by-laws and rules for the governance of branches were then adopted, and the work of the old Imperial Federation League in Canada has since been carried on under the name of “The British Empire League in Canada.”

[217]

I have always felt that this success of our mission to England was most important in its result, or at least that its failure would have been very unfortunate. The collapse of the Imperial Federation League had disheartened the leading Imperialists very much, and the deputation to England was an effort to overcome what was a very serious set back. Had we been obliged to come home and report that we could get no one in Great Britain sufficiently interested to work with us, it would necessarily have broken up our organisation in Canada, and the movement in favour of the organisation of the Empire, and a commercial union of its parts, would have been abandoned by the men who had done so much to arouse an Imperial sentiment. The effect of this would have been widespread. Our opponents were still at work, and many of the Liberal party were still very lukewarm on the question of Imperial unity.

Our success, on the other hand, encouraged the loyalists, and led the politicians of both sides to believe that the sentiment in favour of the unity of the Empire was an element to be reckoned with. Sir John Macdonald had made his great appeal to the loyalty of Canada in 1891, and had carried the elections, the ground having been prepared by the work of the League for years before. The general election was coming on in 1896, and it was most important that the Imperial sentiment should not be considered dead.

After Sir John’s death the Conservative party suffered several severe losses in the deaths of Sir John Abbott and Sir John Thompson, and in the revolt of a number of ministers against Sir Mackenzie Bowell, who had been appointed Prime Minister. The [218]party had been in power for about eighteen years, and was moribund, many barnacles were clinging to it. My brother, Lt.-Col. Fred Denison, M.P., was a staunch conservative, and a strong supporter of the Government, but for a year before his death, that is during the last year of the Conservative régime, he privately expressed his opinion to me that, although he could easily carry his own constituency, yet that throughout the country the Government would be defeated, and he also said he hoped they would. He was of the opinion that his party had been in long enough, and that it was time for a change; and he held that the success of the Liberals at that time with their accession to office, and the responsibilities thus created, would at once cause them to drop all their coquetting with the United States, and would naturally lead them to be thoroughly loyal to a country which they themselves were governing.

About the 1st January, 1896, President Cleveland issued his Venezuelan message in reference to a dispute between Great Britain and Venezuela. It was couched in hostile terms, and was almost insolent in its character. Among European nations it would have been accepted almost as a declaration of war. This was approved of by the United States as a whole. Nearly all the Governors of States (forty-two out of forty-five was, I believe, the proportion) telegraphed messages of approval to President Cleveland, and many of them offered the services of the militia of their States, to be used in an invasion of Canada. This aroused the feeling of our people in an extraordinary degree, and in all Canada the newspapers sounded a loyal and determined note. I was anxious about several papers which had opposed us, and had even advocated inde[219]pendence or annexation, but indignant at the absolute injustice of the proposed attack upon Canada they came out more vehemently than any. The Norfolk Reformer struck a loyal, patriotic, and manly note, while Mr. Daniel McGillicuddy of the Huron Signal, who used to attack me whenever he was short of a subject, was perhaps more decided than any. He said in his paper that he had always been friendly to the United States and always written on their behalf, but when they talked of invading the soil of Canada, they would find they would meet a loyal and determined people who would crowd to the frontier to the strains of “The Maple Leaf Forever” and would die in the last ditch, but would never surrender. Mr. McGillicuddy had served in the Fenian raid in the Militia, and all his fighting blood was aroused. This episode of the Venezuela message ended the annexation talk everywhere, and Mr. McGillicuddy has been for years a member of the Council of the British Empire League.

I had but little influence myself in political matters, but I had great confidence in Sir Oliver Mowat and the Hon. George W. Ross, and among my friends I urged that they should be induced to enter Dominion politics, as their presence among the Liberal leaders would give the people of Ontario a confidence which in 1891 had been much shaken in reference to the loyalty of the Liberal opposition. I was much pleased to find that before the election in 1896, arrangements were made that Sir Oliver Mowat was to leave the Ontario Premiership, and support Sir Wilfrid Laurier in the Senate.

In the early spring of 1896, while the Conservative Government were still in power, I wrote to Lord [220]Salisbury and told him what I thought would happen, first that the Conservatives would be defeated, and secondly that the Liberals, when they came into power, would be loyal and true to the Empire, and that he need not be uneasy, from an Imperial point of view, on account of the change of Government. I knew that with Sir Oliver Mowat in the Cabinet everything would be right, and I felt that all the others would stand by the Empire.

In 1897, during the Jubilee celebration in London, I saw Lord Salisbury, and he was much gratified at the action of the Canadian Government in establishing the British Preference, and said that they had been anxious about the attitude of the Liberal party, until Sir Wilfrid Laurier’s first speeches in the House after his accession to office. I laughingly said, “You need not have been anxious, for I wrote telling you it would be all right and not to be uneasy.” His reply was, “Yes, I know you did, but we thought you were too sanguine.”

As soon as the new Government were sworn in, we endeavoured to press our views of preferential tariffs upon them, D’Alton McCarthy and Principal George M. Grant exerting themselves on that behalf, and during the autumn of 1896 a deputation of the Cabinet consisting of the Hon. Wm. Fielding, Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright, and the Hon. Wm. Patterson travelled through the country inquiring of the Boards of Trade and business men as to their views on the question of revision of the tariff.

Our League naturally took advantage of this opportunity to press our views upon the Government, and urged Mr. Fielding and his colleagues very earnestly to take steps to secure a system of preferential tariffs. [221]A curious incident occurred on this occasion that is worth recording. While our deputation were sitting in the Board of Trade room in Toronto waiting our turn to be heard, a manufacturer was pressing the interests of his own business upon the Ministers. It was amusing to hear him explain how he wanted one duty lowered here, and another raised there, and apparently wanted the tariff system arranged solely for his own benefit. There was such a narrow, selfish spirit displayed that we listened in amazement that any man should be so callously selfish. Mr. Fielding thought he had a good subject to use against us, so he said to the man, “Suppose we lower the duty say one-third on these articles you make, how would that affect you?” “It would destroy my business and close my factory.” “Then,” said Mr. Fielding, “here is a deputation from the British Empire League waiting to give their views after you, and I am sure they will want me to give Great Britain a preference.” The man became excited at once, he closed up his papers and in vehement tones said, “If that is what you are going to do, that is right. I am an Imperial Federationist clear through. Do that, and I am satisfied.” “But what will you do?” said Mr. Fielding. “It will ruin your business.” “Never mind me,” he replied, “I can go into something else, preferential tariffs will build up our Empire and strengthen it, and I will be able to find something to do.” “I am an Imperialist,” he said with great emphasis as he went out.

I turned to someone near me and said, “I must find out who that man is, and I will guarantee he has United Empire Loyalist blood in his veins.” He proved to be a Mr. Greey, a grandson of John William Gamble, who was a member of a very distinguished United [222]Empire Loyalist family. I am sure this incident must have had some influence upon Mr. Fielding, as an illustration of the deep-seated loyalty and Imperialism of a large element of the Upper Canadian population.

The members of our League were delighted with the action of the Government in the Session of 1897, in establishing a preference in our markets in favour of British goods. It will be remembered that we had been disappointed in our hope that Lord Salisbury would have denounced the Treaties in 1892, when the thirty years for which they were fixed would expire, but five years more had elapsed and nothing had been done. I believe the plan adopted by our Government had been suggested by Mr. D’Alton McCarthy, our former President, and in order to get over the difficulty about the German and Belgian Treaties, the preference was not nominally given to Great Britain at all, but was a reduction of duty to all countries which allowed Canadian exports access to their markets on free trade terms. This of course applied at once to Great Britain and one of the Australian Colonies (New South Wales). All other nations, including Germany and Belgium, would not get the preference unless they lowered their duties to a level with the duties levied by Great Britain. The preference was first fixed at one-eighth of the duty just to test the principle.

Shortly after this was announced in our Commons, Kipling, who saw at once the force of it, published his striking poem “Our Lady of the Snows,” which emphasised the fact that Canada intended to manage her own affairs:

Another strong point was illustrated in the lines:

This poem pointed out to Great Britain that Canada had waited long enough for the denunciation of treaties which never should have been made, and which were an absolutely indefensible restriction on the great colonies.

At a meeting of the council of the British Empire League in Canada held in May a week or two after the Annual Meeting in Ottawa, a resolution was passed:

The deputation consisted of the following: The Hon. R. R. Dobell, M.P., George R. Parkin, J. M. Clark, A. McNeill, M.P., Sir Charles Tupper, Bart., John T. Small, Sir Sandford Fleming, K.C.M.G., Lieut.-Colonel George T. Denison, D’Alton McCarthy, Q.C., M.P., Lord Strathcona, H. H. Lyman and J. Herbert Mason.

[225]

CHAPTER XX

MISSION TO ENGLAND, 1897

I left for England via Montreal on the 31st May, 1897, and expected to arrive in Liverpool a day or two before Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who was to sail some days later from New York on a fast ship. We were delayed for some days by fogs, and did not arrive in Liverpool till after Sir Wilfrid Laurier had left that place. He had arrived in the old world for the first time of his life, and at once fell into the hands of the Liverpool merchants and business men, at that time generally free traders. He had not a colleague with him and naturally was affected by the atmosphere in which he found himself, and in his speech at the great banquet given by the British Empire League with the Duke of Devonshire in the chair, he made a few remarks in reference to preferential tariffs for which he was severely criticised at home. I joined the party at Glasgow two days later, and Sir Wilfrid, who seemed pleased to see me, had a long talk with me between Glasgow and Liverpool on the special train which took the party down. On the following morning the Liverpool papers had cables from Canada giving an account of the discussion in the Canadian House of Commons over the cabled reports of Sir Wilfrid’s speech. He was attacked vehemently by Alexander [226]McNeill, our champion in the House, on one point of his speech at Liverpool, and Sir Richard Cartwright and his colleagues, in defending Sir Wilfrid, did so on the ground that the reports of what he said could not be taken as correct, and asking the House to withhold comment until the full reports should be received. This was a desirable course to adopt, for cable despatches have so often conveyed inaccurate impressions.

The real secret of the trouble was that in the busy rush of his work as leader of the opposition, and then as Premier, Sir Wilfrid had not been able really to master the question, but he soon grasped the subject, and his later speeches were very effective. His reception by the British people was wonderfully favourable, and the impression he made upon them was remarkable. He stood out from all the other Premiers—and there were eleven in all—and he was everywhere the central and striking figure.

On the 5th July, 1897, a meeting of the British Empire League was held in the Merchant Taylors Hall. The Duke of Devonshire was in the chair and made an able speech welcoming the Premiers from the colonies. He was followed by Rt. Hon. R. J. Seddon, Premier of New Zealand, Sir William Whiteway, Premier of Newfoundland, Mr. G. H. Reid, Premier of New South Wales, and Sir Edward Braddon, Premier of Tasmania. Sir Wilfred Laurier had not been able to attend, and as President of the League in Canada I was called upon to speak. As to the treaties, I said:

A special meeting of the Council of the League was held on the 7th July, 1897, to meet the deputation of our League. In my address I once more dealt with the question of the German and Belgian treaties. I said, “The Canadian people have now offered, in connection with their desire regarding these treaties, to give what they propose to all nations, but with the express intention of giving an advantage to our own people. I [228]am deputed to ask you to use what influence you can on the Government and people of this country to give us that full control of our own tariff to which we contend we are entitled.”

Lord Salisbury in 1890, although favourable to the idea, was not able to secure the denunciation of the German and Belgian treaties, although I knew from his conversation with me that personally he felt that they should be denounced. In 1892 Lord Knutsford peremptorily refused a request by Canada to denounce the treaties. Lord Ripon was not quite so peremptory in 1894-’95 after the Ottawa Conference, but he refused permission to Mr. Rhodes to arrange a discriminating tariff in Matabeleland. We had been held off for six years, but the action of the Canadian Government brought matters to a head.

During June and July, 1897, in London the most profuse and large-hearted hospitality was shown on every hand to the colonial visitors, and I was fortunate enough to be invited to all the large functions. I felt the importance of taking every opportunity to press upon the leading men in England the necessity for the denunciation of the treaties, and I knew Sir Wilfrid Laurier could not urge it with the freedom or force that I could. Consequently in private conversations I talked very freely on the subject, whenever and wherever I had an opportunity.

I found that in meeting friends, almost the first remark would be an approving comment on the friendliness of the Canadian Parliament in giving the British people a preference in the markets of Canada. My reply always was that it was no more than was right, considering all that Great Britain had done for us. This was usually followed by the remark that the [229]Government were afraid, from the first impression of the law officers of the Crown, that Great Britain would not be able to accept the favour. My reply was very confidently, “Oh yes! you will accept it.” Then the remark would be made that the German and Belgian treaties would prevent it. “Then denounce the treaties,” I would say. “That would be a very serious thing, and would be hardly possible.” My reply was, “You have not fully considered the question, we have.” Then I would be asked what I meant, and would reply somewhat in these terms:

This did not usually bring out any indication that any clear decision had been arrived at by them, and then I would go on:

These arguments carried weight with all to whom I spoke, and I spoke to Ministers, Privy Councillors on the Government side, M.P.’s, and others. Once only the head of one of the great daily newspapers seemed to be annoyed at my aggressive attitude, and said, “You had better not be too sure. We might send the fleet and be very ugly with you.” My reply was, “Well, go on and send it. You lost the southern half of North America by trying to cram tea down their throats, and you may lose the northern half if you try to cram German goods down our throats. I should have hoped you had learned something from history.”

It will be seen that the plan which was, I understand, originated by D’Alton McCarthy, worked out very successfully. There could only be one result, and within a month the treaties were denounced, and I felt that the first great step of our programme had been made. The amusing feature, however, was, that this object for which we fought so hard three years before at the meeting at Lord Avebury’s, when the British Empire League was founded, and which was opposed by nearly all our English friends, was no sooner announced as accomplished, than men of all parties and views seemed to unite in praising the act, and the Cobden Club even went so far as to present the Cobden Medal to Sir Wilfrid Laurier.

Sir Wilfrid Laurier in all his speeches had upheld abstract theories of free trade, and with considerable [231]skill succeeded in allaying the hostility of the free trade element. This, I think, helped to secure the denunciation of the treaties, with the approval of all parties. On my return to Canada I was interviewed in Montreal by the representative of the Toronto Globe. Being asked by the reporter my opinion of the probable effect of the denunciation of the German and Belgian treaties, I said:

Being then asked if I had any opinions to express in regard to the Premier’s remarks in Great Britain on the question of free trade, I said:

Being asked to account for the fact that Sir Howard Vincent, of the United Empire Trade League, a strong protectionist, and the Cobden Club both united in applauding the denunciation of the treaties, I replied:

In the Conference of Premiers, held in 1897, it was not possible to secure an arrangement for mutual preferential tariffs. The other colonies were not ready for it, the Imperial Government was not ready for it, nor were the people, but as the German and Belgian Treaties were denounced to take effect the following year, in August, 1898, the path was cleared, and from that date the Canadian Preference came into force, and has since been in operation.

It will be remembered that the deputation of our British Empire League to England, in 1897, was instructed to express the great desire of the Canadian Branch that, as a guarantee of the general safety of the Empire, vigorous steps should at once be taken to provide that the British Food supply should be grown within the Empire. As chairman of the deputation I did all in my power to stir up inquiry on the subject. Being introduced to Principal Ward of Owens College, Manchester, when at that city, I talked freely with him on the point, and he suggested I should discuss it with Mr. Spencer Wilkinson, the well-known author and journalist. He gave me a letter introducing me to Mr. Wilkinson, and we had [233]several interviews. Shortly after reaching London I called to see my friend Lord Wolseley, then Commander-in-Chief. He took me with him to his house to lunch, and as we walked over, I at once broached the subject of the food supply, principally wheat and flour, and he told me that the Government had been urged to look into the matter some two or three years before, and that there had been a careful inquiry by the best experts, and the report was that the command of the sea was a sine quâ non, but if we maintained that, and paid the cost which would be much increased by war prices, the country could get all the grain they would want.

I said suppose a war with Russia and the United States, what would be done if they combined and put an embargo on bread-stuffs? How would it be got then even with full command of the sea? He did not seem himself to have understood the difficulty, or studied the figures, and said, “I cannot explain the matter. All I can say is that the Government obtained the advice of the best men in England on the subject, and that is their report.” My reply was, “I wish you would look into it yourself,” and I dropped the subject.

I met Lord Roberts shortly after and I pressed the matter upon him. He had not known of the Government report, and consequently listened to my arguments attentively and seemed impressed, for I may say that 1897 was the worst year in all our history as to the manner in which the supply of food was distributed among the nations.

Mr. Spencer Wilkinson seemed to be much interested in my talks with him, and one day he said, “I wish you could have a conversation with some great authority on the other side of the question, who would [234]understand the matter and be able to answer you.” I replied, “That is what I should like very much. Tell me the best man you have and I will tackle him. If he throws me over in the gutter in our discussion it will be a good thing, for then I shall learn something.” Mr. Wilkinson laughed at my way of putting it, and said, “If that is what you want, Sir Robert Giffen is the man for you to see.” I said I would try and get a letter of introduction to him. Mr. Wilkinson said he would give me one, and did so.

I called to see Sir Robert Giffen. He received me very kindly, and we had an interesting interview of about an hour. The moment I broached the subject of the food supply he said at once, “That question came up some two or three years ago, and I was called upon to inquire into the whole matter and report upon it, and my report in a few words was, that we must have the command of the sea, and that once that was secured, then, by paying the somewhat enhanced war prices, we could get all the grain required.” My reply was, “Then, as you have fully inquired into the question, you can tell me what you could do under certain conditions. In case of a war between Great Britain and Russia combined with the United States, followed by an embargo on food products, where and how would you get your supplies?” Sir Robert said, “We do not expect to go to war with the United States and Russia at the same time.” I said, “You were within an ace of war with the United States only a year ago over the Venezuelan difficulty, and Great Britain and Russia have been snarling at each other over the Indian Frontier for years, and if you go to war with either, you must count on having the other on your hands.”

[235]

Sir Robert then said, “But I said we must have the command of the sea.” I replied, “I will give you the complete, undoubted, absolute command of the sea, everywhere all the time, although you are not likely to have it; and then in case of an embargo on wheat and foodstuffs where are you to get your supplies?” He said, “We would get some from Canada and other countries.” I pointed out that all they sent was only a fraction. Sir Robert then said, “They could not put on an embargo, for it would ruin their trade.” I told him that I was talking about war and not about peace and trade, and said that no desire for trade induced the Germans to sell wheat to Paris during the siege of 1870. His idea had been that, in case of war with Russia or the United States, or both, holding the command of the sea, Great Britain would allow foodstuffs to be exported to neutral countries such as Belgium or Holland, and then England would import from those countries. My answer to that was, that if England had the command of the sea, the United States or Russia would have only one weapon, an embargo, and they would certainly use it. He seemed cornered in the argument, and said, “Well, if we cannot get bread we can eat meat. I eat very little bread.” I said, “The British people use about 360 lbs. per head of wheat per annum, and about 90 lbs. of meat, and a great deal of meat would be stopped too”; and I said on leaving, “I wish you would investigate this thoroughly again, and let the Government know, for I know they are depending upon your report at the War Office”; and then I left him.

When at Liverpool shortly after on my way back to Canada, I asked the manager of the Bank of Liverpool, to whom I had a letter of introduction, if he would [236]introduce me to the highest authority on the corn trade in Liverpool. He introduced me to the late Mr. Paul, ex-President of the Corn Exchange, and I had a long conversation with him on the question of the food supply. As soon as I mentioned the subject he told me that the corn trade people in Liverpool had been asked from London to make a report on the possibility of supplying grain in case of war. Mr. Paul told me that they had considered the matter (I suppose he meant the leading corn merchants), and that their report was practically that they must have the command of the sea, that was essential; but that secured, and the enhanced war prices paid, they could supply all the corn required in any contingency. I questioned him as I had Sir Robert Giffen and found the same underlying belief. The law of supply and demand would settle the question. The corn would be allowed to go in neutral ships to neutral ports, and then be transhipped to England. An embargo had not been considered or treated seriously as a possibility, and when I cornered him so that he could not answer my arguments, he said, “Well, if we could not get wheat we could live on potatoes.” I told him potatoes could not be kept over a year, that a large quantity was imported which would be stopped. I said he had better make another report. The whole thing was very disheartening to me, for I saw how the Government were depending upon peaceful traders for information how to guard against war dangers.

In 1902 when Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, proposed a small tax on wheat and flour, I was pleased to see that Sir Robert Giffen was the first prominent man to write to the Press endorsing and approving of the bread tax, as it was [237]called. It showed me that Sir Robert had carefully considered the question, and was manly enough to advocate what was not altogether a popular idea.

After my return to Canada I prepared an article for the Nineteenth Century on the “Situation in England,” and it appeared in the December number, 1897. In this I pointed out the danger of the condition of the food supply, and the article attracted a considerable amount of attention in the British Press, in comments, notices, letters, etc. Sir Michael Hicks-Beach in a speech at Bristol, in January, 1898, referred to the question, and in a way contradicted the points I had brought out in the Nineteenth Century article. My conversations the summer before with Lord Wolseley, Sir Robert Giffen, and Mr. Paul had so alarmed me at the false security in which the Government were resting, that when I saw Sir Michael Hicks-Beach relying on the same official reports, I determined, although I had never met him, to write him direct, and on the 20th January, 1898, I wrote, drawing his attention to a remark which he was reported to have made that “in any war England would have many friends ready to supply corn,” and I said, “Our League sent a deputation to England last summer to draw attention to the danger of the food supply. I was chairman of it. Since my return I published an article in the Nineteenth Century giving our views. I enclose a reprint which I wish you could read. If you have not time please give me one minute to examine the enclosed diagram (cut out of the Chicago Tribune) showing the corn export of the world. This shows that Russia and the United States control, not including the Danubian ports, nearly 95 per cent. of the world’s needs, and if they were to put an embargo on the export of food of [238]all kinds, where would be the ‘many friends ready to supply England with corn?’”

Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, now Lord St. Aldwyn, with great courtesy wrote me a personal letter, in which he thanked me for my letter, and went on to say:

[239]

On receipt of this letter I wrote to Mr. Geo. J. S. Broomhall, of Liverpool, editor of the Corn Trade News, and author of the Corn Trade Year Book, and received from him a certificate of the correct figures of corn exports. I forwarded it to Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, showing that in 1897 India and the Argentine only exported 200,000 qrs. and 740,000 qrs. respectively, and that the diagram I sent could not have been a very great way out. In 1902 Sir Michael Hicks-Beach put a tax of one shilling a quarter on imported wheat, and as I have already said, Sir Robert Giffen wrote to the Times approving of it. I was very glad to see this action on the part of both of them.

On the 4th December, 1897, the Hon. George W. Ross gave an address before the British Empire League in St George’s Hall, Toronto, in which he strongly favoured preferential tariffs and came out squarely against reciprocity with the United States. This action was a great encouragement to our cause and attracted considerable attention all over Canada.

On the 8th December, 1897, the National Club gave a complimentary banquet to his Excellency the Earl of Aberdeen, Governor-General. I attended the banquet and sat second to the left of the president of the club, Mr. McNaught. I was under the impression that Mr. Blake, who had been a few years away from Canada, and who had joined the Irish Nationalist party, would be sure to speak in a strain not acceptable to our club. I mentioned this to Dr. Parkin who sat next to me. When Mr. Blake began to speak he very soon uttered sentiments strongly opposed to all that the Canadians had been working for in the Imperial interest. I said to Parkin that as an ex-president of the club, and president of the British Empire League, [240]I would not allow his remarks to pass without comment. I leaned over and told the chairman I intended to speak a few minutes when Mr. Blake finished. He raised some objection, but I told him I must speak. He mentioned it to the Governor-General, who said he would wait for fifteen minutes. I told Dr. Parkin I would divide the time with him.

After Mr. Blake sat down, I said:

Dr. George R. Parkin followed with an eloquent and powerful speech pointing out the various arguments which showed the growth of the movement for Imperial unity.

It was thought at that time that Mr. Blake had some idea of returning to Canadian politics, but the result of this meeting and the Press comments must have put an end to any such idea if it ever existed.

[242]

CHAPTER XXI

THE WEST INDIAN PREFERENCE

In the autumn of 1897 the report of a Royal Commission on the condition of affairs in the West Indian Islands was published. Field-Marshal Sir Henry Norman disagreed with the other two members of the Commission, and put in a minority report, showing in effect that the real way to relieve the distress in the sugar industry of the West Indies, was for Great Britain to put countervailing duties on bounty favoured sugar coming into her markets. I was much impressed with Sir Henry Norman’s report as to the condition of the West Indies, and came to the conclusion that we in Canada might do something to aid on Imperial grounds.

I wrote, therefore, to Principal George M. Grant, one of our most energetic and brilliant colleagues, asking him to let me know when he would be in Toronto, as I wished to have a long conference with him. On the 29th December, 1897, we met, and I discussed the whole question with him and asked him to go to Ottawa, and urge Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Mr. Fielding to increase the sugar duty in order that Canada might be able to give a preference to West Indian Sugar. I pointed out that such action would be popular, and that I was satisfied both parties would support it. I [243]had been pressing Sir Wilfrid and the Government on many points, and thought that in this matter they had better be approached from a different angle. Grant took up the idea eagerly, and promised to go to Ottawa and do his best. On the 3rd January, 1898, he wrote me “(Private and confidential)”:

Shortly before it was announced Sir Wilfrid Laurier told me the Government were likely to give West Indian sugar a preference. And on the 5th April, 1898, Mr. Fielding introduced his Budget, and in a most eloquent and statesmanlike speech declared that Canada had her Imperial responsibilities, and that she [244]would lend “a helping hand to our sister colonies in the south.” This was received with great applause from both sides of the House, and Grant and I were not only much pleased at the success of our efforts, but still more gratified to find the universal feeling in Canada in favour of Mr. Fielding’s action. A few days after, on the 9th April, Grant wrote to me:

Some time after this the German Government put the maximum tariff against all Canadian goods, and Mr. Fielding met this by a surtax of ten per cent. on all German goods entering Canada. This changed the whole supply of sugar for Canada from Germany to the West Indies to their great advantage.

On the 10th March, 1898, the Annual Meeting of the British Empire League was held in the Private Bills Committee Room in the House of Commons. It was a most successful meeting. Four Cabinet Ministers were present, Sir Louis Davies, Sir Wm. Mulock, Hon. J. Israel Tarte, and Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick. Sir Charles Tupper and Sir Mackenzie Bowell ex Prime Ministers, and many members of the Senate and the House. Those named above addressed the meeting as well as Principal Grant and Colonel Sam Hughes.

Sir Wm. Mulock succeeded this year in securing [245]Imperial Penny Postage, which was one of the objects for which the British Empire League had been working. It was managed with great boldness and skill by Mr. Mulock. His first step was to announce that on and after a certain date some three or four months in advance, all letters stamped with the ordinary three cent domestic rate would be carried to Great Britain without further charge. He knew that objection would be raised to his action, but that it would bring the question to the forefront. The Imperial Government objected to deliver the letters, and said the matter would have to be considered at a conference. Mr. Mulock then answered that a conference should be held, which was agreed to, but he insisted it should not be a departmental affair, that he should only be asked to discuss it with men of his own rank, that is with Cabinet Ministers. This also was agreed to, and it was not long before the matter was settled. Mr. Mulock sent me a cable telling me of his success as soon as he came out of the meeting where the resolution was passed.

On the 28th August, 1898, a large deputation of the Executive Committee of the British Empire League met Mr. Mulock at the Toronto railway station on his arrival from England, to welcome him home, to congratulate him upon his success, and to invite him to a complimentary banquet to be given in his honour.

The banquet took place on the 15th September, at the National Club. Principal Grant, Alexander McNeill, and Sir Sandford Fleming all came to Toronto to attend it. It was a most successful affair.

The Lieut.-Governor Sir Oliver Mowat, who was one of our vice-presidents, attended, also Lord Herschel, Hon. Richard Herschel, Hon. Charles Russell, Sir [246]Frank Smith, Mayor Shaw, and a large and distinguished company.

I was in the chair and proposed the health of Mr. Mulock. The World of the following day, the 16th September, 1898, reported me as follows:

Lord Herschel, Sir Oliver Mowat, Mr. Mulock, Principal Grant, Alexander McNeill, Sir Sandford Fleming, Mr. George Hague of Montreal, Geo. E. Casey, and W. F. Maclean all made loyal and patriotic speeches, Alexander McNeill’s being especially eloquent and powerful.

Our League was much gratified not long afterwards at an article which appeared in the London Daily Mail of the 21st November, 1898, under the heading “Where Imperialism comes from.” After referring to many things Canada had done, preferential tariffs and preferences to the West Indies, penny postage, &c., it concluded as follows:

[248]

CHAPTER XXII

1899: THE ESTABLISHMENT OF EMPIRE DAY

The Fourth Annual Meeting of the League in Canada was held in Ottawa on the 6th April, 1899. In moving the adoption of the Annual Report, I made an address which clearly outlined the policy of the League at that time, and may therefore be worth quoting. It appears in the report printed by order of the annual meeting as follows:

Another movement which has spread over the Empire was started this year to help Imperial sentiment. Mrs. Clementine Fessenden of Hamilton wrote to the Hon. G. W. Ross suggesting the establishment of an Empire Day to be celebrated in the schools by patriotic exercises, readings, and addresses. Mr. Ross was favourably impressed with the idea and inaugurated the movement at a large meeting held in the Theatre of the Normal School, Toronto, on the 23rd May 1899, which was [257]attended by most of the school teachers of the City and many others. I was asked by Mr. Ross to address the meeting, which I did. Mr. Ross himself, Mr. N. F. Rowell and Mr. Sanford Evans were the other speakers. This idea has been taken up by Lord Meath in England, and has spread throughout the empire, but that meeting in the Normal School was the beginning of the movement.

[258]

CHAPTER XXIII

THE SOUTH AFRICAN WAR

During the summer of 1899 the relations between the British and the Boers in the Transvaal became very strained. As early as the 26th April, 1899, Mr. George Evans, Secretary of the British Empire League received the following cablegram from Kimberley, South Africa. “Twenty-one thousand British subjects, Transvaal, have petitioned Imperial Government obtain redress grievances and secure them status which their numbers, industry, stake in country, entitle them. We strongly sympathise, if you do too, would you as kindred Societies cable Imperial Government sympathetic resolution.” “Signed, South African League Congress, Kimberley, representing 10,000 enrolled members.”

At this time we knew very little of the state of affairs in South Africa, or of the merits of the dispute, and there was a hazy idea that the Boers had opened up the country and should not be disturbed, and after a conference of the principal members of the Executive Committee it was decided to forward the cable to the Head Office of the League in England leaving the matter in their hands. A cable was sent to Kimberley telling them that we had asked the Head Office to decide what to do. Principal Grant at the [259]beginning of the difficulties in South Africa, in the early summer of 1899, was in sympathy with the Boers as against the gold seeking speculators of Johannesburg, and publicly expressed his views in that way. I sympathised somewhat with his view, but advised him to keep quiet, saying we could not tell how events might shape, and we might have to take a strong stand on the other side. I felt I did not understand the question.

In the following July, Mr. J. Davis Allen, representing the South African Association, came from England to Ottawa, and explained to the Canadian authorities the situation in South Africa and urged the passing of a resolution that would strengthen the hands of the British Government, in its negotiations with Mr. Kruger and the Transvaal Government. Mr. Alexander McNeill naturally took up the cause and wrote to me asking me to go to Ottawa to help Mr. Davis Allen in his efforts. I declined to go, saying I did not sufficiently understand the question, but a few days later, on the 31st July, 1899, Sir Wilfrid Laurier introduced and Parliament unanimously adopted a resolution which concluded as follows:

This resolution, seconded by the Hon. George E. Foster, was carried unanimously, and the House rose and sang “God Save the Queen.”

[260]

Mr. Allen came to Toronto on the 10th August. Mr. McNeill had written to me saying that Mr. Allen was coming to see me, and we had several long interviews. He explained to me the whole situation, and read me some of Lord Milner’s despatches in which he pointed out clearly the dangers that were looming up. He explained that the whole trouble was a conspiracy on the part of the Boers to drive the British out of South Africa altogether. He insisted that the Orange Free State was deeply engaged in it, and that the Dutch in the Cape Colony were also involved. All that Mr. Allen told me was absolutely verified before six months had elapsed. After these explanations, and reading the despatches of Lord Milner, I took up a very decided stand against the Boers.

Colonel Sam Hughes, M.P., had as early as the 13th July called the attention of the Government to the fact that Queensland had offered a contingent, and he urged them to make an offer of one on behalf of Canada. He also offered to raise a regiment, or brigade, for service in case war should break out. Other officers in various parts of the country made similar offers. Sir Charles Tupper, about the end of September, came out boldly in favour of offering a contingent, and agreed to help the Government in Parliament in any action they might take in that direction. On the 25th September there was a small meeting of senior officers in Toronto, Lieut.-Colonel James Mason being the moving spirit. At that meeting we decided to call a meeting of the members of the Canadian Military Institute for Saturday, the 30th September, to consider the question of what Canada should do. The Globe of the 2nd October, 1899, reported me in part as follows:

[261]

This was carried unanimously.

This meeting started a strong movement of public opinion in favour of the Government making an offer. [263]On the 3rd October an article appeared in the Canadian Military Gazette which began in these words: “If war should be commenced in the Transvaal—which seems most probable—the offer of a force from the Canadian Militia for service will be made by the Canadian Government,” and it went on to give details of the composition and methods of organising the force. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, on behalf of the Government, at once disavowed it, and on the same day gave an interview to the Globe, which appeared in that paper on the 4th October. He said:

This interview proves that Sir Wilfrid Laurier at that time had no intention of sending a contingent.

On the 7th October Sir Wilfrid Laurier left for Chicago, and returned to Ottawa on the 12th. The Boer ultimatum had been given on the 9th October, was refused by Lord Milner on the 10th, and war opened on the 11th. This turned Sir Wilfrid back. He travelled on the train from Chicago with Mr. J. S. Willison, editor of the Globe, who urged him strongly to send a contingent at once. I called to see Sir Wilfrid on his way through Toronto in order to press the matter upon him. He had evidently made up his mind, for he told me he would send a contingent no matter whether it broke up his Government or not, that it was the right thing to do and he would do it. He was anxious, however, about how his own people would take it, and told me that Mr. Bourassa would resign as a protest, and he seemed very sorry [265]that it should be so. I was very much pleased at the decision and firmness he evinced, and have always been very grateful to him for his action in this matter, as in many other things in the interest of the Empire.

On the next day, the 13th October, the Order in Council was passed. It provided that a certain number of volunteers in units of 125 men each with a few officers, would be accepted to serve in the British army operating in South Africa, the moment they reached the coast, provided the expense of their equipment and transportation to South Africa was defrayed, either by themselves or by the Canadian Government, and the Government undertook to provide the equipment and transportation for 1,000 men.

I knew that it was the intention to send these eight units of 125 men each, as distinct units to be attached to eight different British regular infantry regiments, and that no officer of higher rank than a captain was to be sent. I felt that our men would be swallowed up and lost, and could gain no credit under such conditions. I therefore published in the Globe of the 14th October the following letter:

Sir Wilfrid Laurier read this letter the same evening, and wrote me at once, asking me to do nothing further on that line, but to meet him at Sir Wm. Mulock’s at ten p.m. on Monday evening, the 16th, on his arrival from Bowmanville, and he asked me to get Mr. Willison to come also.

On the Monday afternoon the evening papers published a despatch from Ottawa, saying that the British Government had agreed to change their order, and allow the contingent to go as a unit under a Canadian officer. When I met Sir Wilfrid he told me he had received a telegram at Bowmanville to that effect, but was surprised to hear that it had got into the newspapers. He then told me that he had cabled to England on the Saturday evening, the 14th, and had [268]urged strongly that our men should be sent as one corps, and that it had been agreed to. Once more I was under obligations as a Canadian to Sir Wilfrid Laurier, in his efforts to maintain the dignity of Canada. The feeling here was that the dividing up our force into companies attached to British regiments was the idea of General Hutton, who had the regular officer’s view as to the lack of capacity of colonial militia. The three years’ war which followed, with colonial forces side by side with imperial troops, pretty effectually settled the question whether the colonial levies were inferior or not to any of their comrades.

I was very much criticised by the more timid of my friends in Toronto for the action I had taken in favour of having a Canadian officer in command. The opinion was that Colonel Otter would, as senior permanent officer, get the position, and some of the militia officers did not have a high opinion of his capacity. The only regrettable incident connected with the Canadian contingents was the coming home of the bulk of Colonel Otter’s regiment (when their term of service had expired) in spite of Lord Roberts’ express request. The other contingents stood by their colonels, notably the Canadian Mounted Rifles under Col. Lessard, who three times, at his request, postponed their return after their term of service had expired, and only went home when there were very few men left to represent the corps.

The Canadians who represented Canada, on the whole, did exceedingly well, and brought great credit to our country. There were no Canadian surrenders, in a war where Arnold White says that there were 226 surrenders of British troops. At the skirmish of Lilliefontein, Capt. Cockburn, whom I had [269]recommended to represent my old regiment, and his troop of about thirty-five men, fought and would neither retreat nor surrender until all but four were either killed or wounded. Capt. Cockburn received the Victoria Cross for this affair. At the last battle of the war, Hart’s River, Lieut. Bruce Carruthers and about thirty-five Canadian mounted riflemen fought until the last man was killed or wounded. Lord Kitchener cabled to England that the battle was won principally through the brilliant gallantry of Lieut. Bruce Carruthers and his party.

There was one circumstance in connection with this fight that was very gratifying to me. It will be remembered that in 1890 I had been chairman of the deputation that had started the movement for raising the flag over the schools, and for holding patriotic exercises of various kinds. This movement had spread, and during the years 1890 to 1899 there had been a wave of Imperialism moving through the country. The boys at school in 1890 were in 1899 men of twenty to twenty-five years of age, the very men who formed our contingents. The proof of this spirit of Imperialism which animated these men was strikingly illustrated by an incident of this fight at Hart’s River. I will quote from the Globe of 19th April, 1902:

There could not be a better sermon on Imperialism than that young man’s letter to his father.

[271]

CHAPTER XXIV

1900: BRITISH EMPIRE LEAGUE BANQUET IN LONDON

The fifth Annual Meeting of the British Empire League in Canada was held at Ottawa on the 14th March, 1900. It was a very successful gathering, no less than six Cabinet Ministers and five ex-Cabinet Ministers being present besides a large number of senators and members of the House of Commons.

About the middle of April I received a cablegram from Mr. Freeman Murray, Secretary of the League in London, by order of the Council, inviting me to go to England to attend a banquet which the League was giving in London on the 30th April, and I left New York by the Campania on the 19th April. (The cablegram was urgent and I felt it a duty to go over.) I arrived in London on Saturday evening, the 28th. All offices were closed on Sunday, so I could see no one until Monday morning, the day of the banquet. I went down to the offices of the League early and saw Mr. Murray, and found that there was to be a great demonstration. There were to be three toasts besides that of the Queen. The first the “Prince of Wales and the Royal Family,” which was to be responded to by the Prince himself, now the King; the second was to [272]“Her Majesty’s Imperial Forces,” to be proposed by Lord Salisbury and responded to by me; the third “The Australian Delegates,” to be proposed by Mr. Chamberlain and responded to by Sir Edmund Barton, of Australia. I saw the diagram of the tables and found that nearly six hundred of the foremost men of the Empire were to be present, including Lord Wolseley, Commander-in-Chief, Lord Lansdowne, Secretary of State for War, and several Field Marshals and Admirals of the Fleet. Sir Robert Herbert, the chairman of the executive, was with Mr. Murray, and I demurred at once to responding to the toast of “Her Majesty’s Imperial Forces” in the presence of Lord Wolseley and the other Field Marshals and Admirals. I asked if Lord Wolseley had been spoken to about it, and the reply was that he had not, but that Lord Lansdowne had arranged that I was to do it, and it was all right, and no one would object. I decided I would go at once and see Lord Wolseley.

Before I left, Sir Robert Herbert and Mr. Murray consulted me about the Hon. Mr. Tarte, who was in Paris and had telegraphed that he was coming to the dinner, and wished to speak in order to make an important statement. They were both averse to changing their arrangements, on account of pressure of time. I urged them, however, to arrange for Mr. Tarte to speak, and the toast list was changed and an additional toast to the British Empire League was put on at the end of it, which Mr. Tarte was to propose, and to which the Duke of Devonshire, our chairman, was to respond.

I drove then at once to the War Office and saw Lord Wolseley, and told him what the arrangements were, and the instant he heard I was to reply for [273]the Imperial Forces, he said, “Oh, that is capital, I did not know whether I might not have to reply and I was thinking it over in the train on my way to town. I am so glad you are to do it.” I said, “Was there nothing said to you about it? I will not be a party to anything that does not show proper respect for you.” His answer was, “There is no one I would rather see reply than you.” I asked him if I could say I had his consent and approval. “Certainly,” he replied.

When I arrived at the Hotel Cecil that evening I was warmly greeted by many old friends. Shortly after the Prince of Wales came in, and just afterwards Lord Salisbury, who spoke to the Duke of Devonshire and the Prince of Wales, and then looking about the room he saw me and crossed over at once and shook hands with me, and chatted for a few minutes in his usual friendly manner. As soon as he moved away several of my friends came to me and expressed surprise at the very cordial greeting he had given me. I said, “Why should he not?” and then they told me that he hardly ever knew or remembered anyone, and was very exclusive. I had never thought that of him, as he had always been so kind and friendly to me.

At the table I was third to the left of the chairman, the present Prince of Wales and the Duke of Fife between us. I had a good deal of conversation with the Prince and the Duke of Fife during the dinner. Among other things, the Prince said to me, “Do you not feel nervous when you have to address a gathering like this?” I said, “Not generally, sir, but I must confess I never had to tackle an outfit like this before.” He seemed much amused at my western way of putting it.

I had not known anything of what I was wanted for [274]till that morning, so I had little time to think over what I should say. I had during the afternoon thought out the general line of a short after-dinner speech, but when I sat down at the table and looked around the room I was impressed with the fact that I had been thrust into what was a great Imperial function, and I had to vary my plan and pitch my speech in a different key.

The King, then Prince of Wales, in responding to his health, made a very fine speech, and referred to the attempt to assassinate him, which had occurred not long before in Belgium. Lord Salisbury then proposed “Her Majesty’s Imperial Forces” and in doing so paid me a compliment that I appreciated more than any that has ever been paid me. He ended his speech in these words: “I beg to couple with the toast the name of my friend, Colonel Denison, who has been one of the most earnest and industrious, as well as most successful supporters of the Empire for many years, as I have well and personally known.”

I spoke as follows:

It will be noticed that when I said that there was one regiment in which there was only one private, the audience laughed loudly and interrupted me before I finished my sentence. I turned the laugh on them to the evident delight of the present Prince of Wales, who turned to me beaming with amusement when [280]I sat down and said, “You nervous! you—why you could speak anywhere about anything.” He was evidently pleased, for when my brother, Admiral John Denison, who commanded the Niobe, which escorted him as far as Gibraltar when he left for Australia, met him at Gibraltar, he spoke to him at once about my speech at that dinner.

Lord Wolseley, who was sitting on my left, Lord Avebury and Sir Edmund Barton being between us, tore off a piece of a menu card and wrote on it, “My dear friend, Bravo! Bravo! Wolseley,” and passed it up to me. Everyone was very kind. The King came and spoke to me for a few minutes as he was going out, and said he was pleased with my speech. The Duke of Cambridge, Lord Salisbury, Lord Lansdowne, and many others spoke in friendly terms, and altogether I was well pleased that I had crossed the Atlantic to do that one piece of work for Canada and the Empire.

The accounts in the Press were very full of the idea of the importance and success of the function.

The British Empire Review said:

On the 17th May, 1900, a meeting of the Council of the League was held, principally to hear an address from me on behalf of the Canadian Branch. The late Earl of Derby, K.G., occupied the chair. I brought before the Council the resolution with which our Executive Committee had entrusted me when I was leaving:

I pressed all these points upon the Council in a speech which is reported in the British Empire Review for June, 1900.

I had been discussing these questions and particularly the food supply with many people and found an undercurrent of feeling much stronger in that direction than on my previous visits to England, and I felt sure that if any political leader would come out and boldly advocate our policy he would get a strong support. I knew Lord Salisbury was in full sympathy with my [282]views, but the cold reception given to him in 1890 and 1892, when he tried to lead public opinion in that direction, had thoroughly discouraged him, and he refrained from further efforts, not because he did not feel the importance of the question, but he felt it was hopeless. He wrote me on 1st March, 1901:

Mr. Chamberlain still held back, but I felt that he would come to our policy as soon as he could see any hope of a successful movement. I was anxious to test the public feeling, but did not see any opportunity, until I met Sir Howard Vincent about the middle of May, and he told me he was going down to Chelmsford, to deliver a lecture on “South Africa.” The meeting was organised by Major Sir Carne Rasch, who was nursing the constituency, and intending to be a candidate in the Conservative interest at the general elections, which were to come off that autumn. Sir Howard Vincent said he would arrange that I should have half an hour to say something about Canada. I agreed to go, and decided that I would feel the pulse of the masses on the subject of food supply, but I said nothing of this to anyone, for I felt that neither Sir Howard nor Sir Carne Rasch would wish to run any risks. I began very cautiously but soon had the audience with me. I was continually cheered, and went on farther and farther, until I advocated a duty on corn, or a bounty on wheat, or a bonus to farmers to [283]keep wheat in ricks. I had been astonished at the friendliness of the audience, but when I got to that point, Sir Carne Rasch and Sir Howard Vincent evidently became nervous, and Sir Howard whispered to me that we would have to get off in order to catch the train, and I stopped instantly. On driving to the station I saw that both my friends were uneasy, and I said, “I hope I did not make any bad breaks”; Sir Carne said, “Oh, I think not.” I replied, “You can easily say that I am an ignorant colonial and did not know any better.” He laughed at this, but I could see he was a little nervous as to the result.

About four or five days after this I was in the lobby of the House of Commons, when Sir Carne Rasch came out of the House, and as soon as he saw me he came across to me at once, and said he was glad to see me, and that he was going to get my address from Sir Howard Vincent. He went on to say that the people at Chelmsford had been delighted with my speech, that letters had been written to him, and he had been asked to get me to go down to Chelmsford and repeat my speech and enlarge upon it. He said he was astonished, that the people had been discussing it ever since, and he offered to secure the largest hall in Chelmsford if I would go down, and that he would guarantee it would not hold all that would wish to come. I was leaving in three or four days for home, and had no opportunity, and so had to decline.

A day or two afterwards, in the Mafeking demonstration, I was looking at the crowds near the Piccadilly Circus, when I heard a man say to another, “Is not that Colonel Denison?” I knew I had seen him before, and I said, “Yes, it is; do you come from Toronto?” “No,” he replied, “I am from Chelmsford, and heard [284]you speak there last week,” and he introduced me to three friends from Chelmsford. One was the Mayor, another the editor of the Essex County Chronicle. They at once asked me if I was going down to Chelmsford again, and whether Major Rasch had seen me, and they urged me to go, telling me that the people were very anxious that I should speak there again, and that they were busily discussing the various points which I had raised.

I naturally watched for the return of the election in the following October, for I was very anxious that my friend Sir Carne Rasch should be elected. The return for Chelmsford was Major Rasch, 4,978, H. C. S. Henry, Lib., 1,849, a majority of 3,129. I felt then that my speech had not hurt him, or that if it had it did not matter. This incident had an important influence upon the subsequent work of our League in Canada for several years.

[285]

CHAPTER XXV

WORK IN CANADA IN 1901

I reported to the Executive Committee the details of my work in England, and in the Annual Report for 1901 the Executive Committee strongly supported the suggestion, which I had made at the banquet, that an Imperial Conference should be held during 1901, to consider many important matters affecting the safety and welfare of the Empire. The Report went on to say:

During the year 1901 I was consulting with the Executive Committee, and with individual members of it from time to time, and expressed the view that we had accomplished our work in Canada, that [286]Commercial Union had been killed, the desire for reciprocity with the States had died out, that both political parties had become alive to the importance of mutual Imperial preferential trade, and that the Canadian Government had given a preference to Great Britain and the West Indies, that penny postage had been established, Canadian contingents had been sent to fight in an Imperial quarrel, that the Pacific cable was being constructed principally through the determined action of Canada, and that I felt the whole movement in favour of Imperial Unification in the future would have to be fought out in Great Britain.

My experience in Chelmsford had convinced me that there was a strong undercurrent of feeling in Great Britain in favour of tariff reform, but that nearly everyone seemed afraid to “bell the cat” or to face the tremendous influence of the bogey of Free Trade. I found many people quite willing to admit privately the necessity of some change, but no one ready to come out and boldly advocate tariff reform, or any kind of protection. I said that if a few Canadians, good platform speakers, would go over to England, and make a campaign through the cities and towns, pleading with the people to unite with the colonies to consolidate and strengthen the Empire, the support they would receive would be very great, and might lead to securing the assistance of some prominent political leaders.

I was, and always have been, convinced that so many influences of every kind were working in our direction that in time our policy would necessarily be successful.

This was discussed from time to time, and it was finally decided that a deputation should go to England before the Imperial Conference, which we knew would [287]be held at the time of the coronation in 1902, and that the deputation should advocate a concise and definite policy, easily understood, which would contain the substance of the trade system that we felt to be so necessary for the stability of the Empire. This was crystallised into the following resolution:

Having decided upon this point, it was considered advisable that before we went to England we should first test feeling in different centres in Canada, to make sure that the policy we were advocating was one that Canadians generally would approve. I decided to go to New Brunswick and lay the question before a public meeting in St. John and discuss the matter with prominent men, and in that way test public opinion. I had a very successful meeting in St. John on the 28th November, 1901, where one senator and four members of the Commons and of the local legislature spoke approvingly of the resolution, which was carried unanimously. The Press in New Brunswick was very favourable. The St. John Sun, in its leading article the next day, said:

[288]

The article concluded in the following words:

The Morning Post, of London, and the Naval and Military Record both had long articles commenting upon this meeting and approving of the spirit shown, but not speaking hopefully of the possibilities of Great Britain accepting the principle of preferential duties.

From St. John I went to Montreal, where I addressed a successful meeting on the same subject on the 30th November, 1901. On the 24th January, 1902, I addressed a large meeting in London, Ontario, the Bishop of Huron in the chair. The same resolution was carried unanimously, and the three newspapers—the Conservative, the Liberal, and the Independent—all united in warm approval of the policy, as did the other speakers, who were chosen equally from both sides of politics.

Some time later a meeting was organised at Owen Sound, which was addressed by Mr. Alexander McNeill, Vice-President of the League, advocating the same policy, which was unanimously endorsed.

The seventh Annual Meeting of the League at [289]Ottawa, at which this policy was also endorsed, took place on the 20th February, 1902.

By this time the Executive Committee had become confident that they had the mass of the Canadian people behind them in their proposed policy, and steps were taken to have a deputation proceed to England to endeavour, by public meetings and otherwise, to bring the matter before the attention of the people, and if possible to inaugurate public discussion of the policy.

The following resolution was carried by the Executive Committee:

A copy of this resolution was sent to the head office in England, with a request that I should have an opportunity of addressing the Council of the League in April. A favourable reply was received.

[291]

CHAPTER XXVI

MISSION TO ENGLAND IN 1902

I left for England on the 10th April, 1902, and arrived in London on 21st April. The following members of the League and of the Executive Committee, staunch friends and supporters of the cause, came to the station to see me off: W. B. McMurrich, President of the Navy League, H. J. Wickham, J. M. Clark, John T. Small, George E. Evans, Fraser Lefroy, H. M. Mowat, K.C., Colonel Grasett, and J. W. Curry, K.C. I was much impressed with the tone of their conversation; they seemed to feel that I was going upon an almost hopeless errand, but let me know how strongly they sympathised with me. I can never forget the loyal support and assistance I have always received in all circumstances from the spirited and unselfish patriotism of the advocates of Imperialism in Canada. The greatest satisfaction I have is to feel that for so many years I was working in a cause which rallied around it such a splendid galaxy of upright and honourable men.

Mr. Foster was not able to go to England that year, but he went the following year, and did great work in speaking through England, and in Scotland, in support of Mr. Chamberlain’s policy of Tariff Reform, which was what we had been working for for so many years. The [292]Hon. George W. Ross came over late, being delayed by the Ontario General Elections, and he supported me by a powerful and eloquent speech at the annual meeting of the League in London. Dr. Parkin was also delayed, but he had never fully accepted our trade policy, and as negotiations opened at once between him and the Rhodes Trust to secure his services for their work, he was not able to address any meeting, so that for two months the whole burden fell upon me, and I was obliged unaided to endeavour to break the ice, and get the movement started.

To look back now it is hard to call to mind the state of affairs in England at this time. No prominent statesman had said one word, in public, in support of mutual preferential tariffs except Lord Salisbury, and he was discouraged and disheartened by the lack of support, and at that time was in such failing health that no assistance could be expected from him. I felt that I was facing a very hard proposition, and one almost hopeless in its prospects. I was afraid of being ignored or simply sponged out. I was very anxious to be attacked. I knew if I was vehemently assailed it would be a great advantage, for I felt I had the facts and arguments, and could defeat my opponents in discussion. I had been for years studying the question, reading constantly articles pro and con., and had classified, organised, and indexed my material, until I felt every confidence in my cause.

I arrived in London on the 21st April, and on that morning my first stroke of good luck occurred. The papers had just published the announcement of the Morgan combine of the Atlantic Steamship Lines. This had positively startled the British people. It shook them up and alarmed them, and caused them for [293]the first time for many years to be uneasy as to their pre-eminence in mercantile marine. They were in a mood to listen to questions as to their future prospects. I used Morgan’s action in conversation to support my view that Great Britain must follow the advice of the Prince of Wales and “wake up.”

The Daily Express sent a representative to interview me on the Morgan affair, and on the 25th April, 1902, it published an interview of over a column in length. I pointed out the widespread danger of Morgan’s combination if it succeeded, that the Canadian Pacific Railway might be secured, and then no other line of steamships could compete, for if the United States combine controlled the railways, they would control the freights, and so the vessels; and if they dominated the Atlantic and Pacific, the British Empire would be split in twain. I wound up the interview by a plan to checkmate the combine, saying, “The right method is to run a competing line, tax everything the combine vessels bring into this country and let the things that the other line brings come in free.”

On the 1st May the Express had another interview on the same question.

On the 26th April I spoke at the banquet given to the Lacrosse Team at the Hotel Cecil, and touched upon Imperial questions, but the newspapers reported nothing.

On the 28th April Sir Gilbert Parker gave a lunch for me at the Constitutional Club, and invited several editors to meet me. On the 30th April I attended the annual dinner of the Royal Colonial Institute, where I was assigned to respond to the toast of “The United Empire.” This was my first chance of speaking to a large audience, and it was composed [294]of the foremost men in England interested in the Colonial Empire. Sir George Taubman Goldie sat next to me and proposed the toast. It came last. An extra toast to the Houses of Parliament inserted to give Lord Halsbury, the Lord Chancellor, an opportunity to speak, made it very late when my turn came. Sir Taubman Goldie said it was too late and he would not speak. I felt it was too important a chance for me to allow to slip, and I said to him that I must speak for five minutes.

The next morning none of the daily papers had any report of my speech. The Times included it under the words “other toasts followed.” This was the treatment I had been most afraid of. I knew there was no chance of doing anything if I was simply ignored. It was not that my speech was not important, but it was late and I was a stranger. Mr. I. N. Ford, representative of the New York Tribune and the Toronto Globe, was present, and he at one saw the importance of the policy I propounded, and cabled to New York, and all over the States, and to Toronto a report of the dinner. His report, in view of subsequent developments, may be reproduced:

He then gave a summary of the speech and concluded:

I give the verbatim report of this speech, and it will be seen that it contains the whole principle of the Tariff Reform movement which has since made such headway:

This banquet was on the 30th April. As an indication of the interest taken in the matter in the United States, on the 5th May the Chicago Tribune had a portrait of my brother, Lieut.-Colonel Septimus Denison, which they believed was mine. Over the top were the words “Projector of plan for Union of the British Empire against the World”; at the foot of the portrait “Colonel Septimus Denison.”

On the 4th May I lunched with Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, and discussed with him the policy that I was advocating. He argued the matter with me, bringing forward any number of objections, which I answered as well as I could. I soon came to the conclusion that he was quietly taking my measure, and testing my knowledge of the question. I then warmed up in my arguments and put my views strongly and emphatically, and soon came to the conclusion, from a mischievous expression in his eye, that he was not as much opposed to me as his remarks would lead one to think. When leaving I felt that although he did not say a word in support of my plan, yet he was not altogether unfavourable.

On the 5th May I met Sir Douglas Straight, editor of the Pall Mall Gazette, and after some conversation he suggested to Mr. Sydney Low, who was with us, to interview me on behalf of the Pall Mall Gazette, and a long interview appeared on the front pages of that paper on the 12th May, in which I put our views forward clearly and strongly. After pointing out the precarious condition of Great Britain’s food supply I said that we in Canada felt that it would be a sheer waste of money for us to pay for ships, troops, and coaling stations, while taking no precautions to secure adequate supplies of food, and that a preferential tax [299]on food would help greatly to overcome the danger. I concluded with the following words:

On the 6th May there was a special meeting of the Council of the League held in a room at the House of Commons, at which Lord Avebury presided. It was called to hear my appeal for assistance in obtaining opportunities for placing the views of the Canadian Branch before the British people. There were a number of prominent men present, among others the Duke of Abercorn, Earl Egerton of Tatton, Sir Walter Butler, Sir Edward Carbutt, Rt. Hon. Sir John Cockburn, Sir Charles Fremantle, W. Herbert Daw, Sir Robert Herbert, W. H. Holland, M.P., Dr. Culver James, Sir Guilford Molesworth, Sir Charles Tupper, and Sir Fred Young. Lord Avebury introduced me and I put my case before them. After I had spoken at some length Sir Charles Tupper followed, supporting me strongly. Mr. W. H. Holland—now Sir William [300]Holland—criticised my views from the Free Trade Manchester standpoint, and was totally opposed to me. Captain Lee, M.P., was critical but not hostile. Mr. Talbot Baines was not favourable to my views, but thought I should have opportunities of putting them before the public. Sir Guilford Molesworth and Sir Fred Young supported me strongly, as did Dr. Culver James and Sir John Cockburn. I wound up the discussion, particularly replying to Sir William Holland’s remarks. Among other things Sir William Holland had said:

When I rose to reply, I said:

Sir Wm. Holland evidently was impressed with my remarks about the danger of the United States reducing their sale of cotton. It was only about a month after that the public heard of the organisation of the British Cotton Supply Association, with a subscription of £50,000 to make experiments in growing cotton under the British flag. I have always had a very high opinion of Sir Wm. Holland ever since.

It was unanimously resolved at that meeting “to give Colonel Denison every possible facility for stating his views to Chambers of Commerce and other influential bodies without committing the League to an endorsement, and it was referred to the Executive Committee to embody this decision in a formal resolution in the name of the Council.”

At a meeting of the Executive Committee held on [302]the 15th May the resolution was passed in these words:

This resolution was published in the newspapers, and the action of the Council was known to the Liberal leaders.

On the 7th May I dined at the Annual Banquet of the Newspaper Society, and responded to the toast of “The Guests,” where I had an admirable opportunity of bringing my proposition before a large number of editors of newspapers from all over Great Britain.

The Aberdeen Journal commenting upon this dinner said:—

By this time the newspapers were beginning to notice my work. Fortunately for me about the same time Mr. Seddon had been speaking on similar lines in South Africa, and Sir Wilfrid Laurier also in the Canadian House of Commons. This alarmed the Liberal party, and the Manchester Guardian began to criticise and find fault with me to my great satisfaction, for I knew I could stand anything better than being ignored.

A friend of mine in the Liberal ranks told me about this time that the leading Liberals were in a great state of anxiety at my work. They believed, he said, that Chamberlain, Seddon, and Sir Wilfrid Laurier had all agreed that the scheme was to be put through at the Imperial Conference, and that I had come over as an advance agent, to break the ice, to open the discussion, and prepare the way. I evaded making any definite reply to this suggestion, jokingly saying that I was not surprised to hear that they were anxious.

I had another hint that the Liberal party purposed arranging for a great meeting at Leeds, at which Lord Rosebery was to speak, and a direct effort made to rally the whole Liberal party together, under the banner of Free Trade, as against the proposed corn tax, and the preferential arrangements with the colonies, I thought it desirable that I should have a talk with Lord Rosebery at once, and wrote asking him for an interview. He invited me to lunch the next day, the 8th May. There was no one present but his son and his secretary, and I appealed to him earnestly, appealed [304]to his sympathy with Imperialism, and to his services to Imperial Federation, and urged him to assist me in my work. I pointed out the dangers of the precarious food supply, and the disintegrating influences that might break up the Empire, and put my case as clearly as possible. He seemed to get more and more serious as he saw all the arguments on that side, and when I was leaving I said to him; “It is too bad of me to come and unload all my gloomy forebodings upon you.” His reply was, “I share a great many of them with you.” I knew then, as I knew at the meeting in 1890, that at heart he was a warm Imperialist, but is terribly hampered and embarrassed by his party affiliations. The meeting took place at Leeds on the 30th May. In his speech he made two or three remarks which showed he was not as opposed to my policy as I expected. In reference to the corn tax he said:

Again he said:

His speech was more friendly than I expected, although some of his party objected to an “open mind.”

Before the Leeds meeting the Liberals held a meeting in Scotland, at Aberdeen, on the 20th May, where the Rt. Hon. James Bryce made a vigorous speech against the corn tax, which it was believed was being put on preparatory for the Imperial Conference.

On the 23rd May I addressed the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce under the chairmanship of its President, Sir Alfred Jones, who treated me with the most unbounded hospitality. The meeting was very large and successful, and although my views aroused criticism and were objected to by some speakers, I had a chance to reply in acknowledging a vote of thanks, and as I had the strongest arguments I had little difficulty in effectively answering objections.

The Westminster Gazette of the 21st May, the day before I went to Liverpool, had the following article:

The comment, “He dealt with its protective aspect and the part it seemed destined to play in helping on an Imperial Zollverein,” shows the alarm in the Liberal ranks. One of the speakers at the Liverpool meeting, who objected to my arguments, spoke of the marvellous prosperity of Great Britain, all due, as he said, to Free Trade. In my reply I used with great effect this extract from Mr. Bryce’s speech, and said that if about 8d. per head for a whole year meant to 30 per cent. of the population “a crushing burden, which means reduced subsistence, frequent hunger, weakness of body, susceptibility to disease,” I could not see that it could be called a prosperous country. I said I do not believe that gentleman ever saw a prosperous country. Let him come to the protectionist United States of America, or to protectionist Canada, and he will see countries where there is hardly a soul who does not spend at least 8d. a week on pleasure or amusement. This was apparently an unanswerable retort. I found this paragraph of Mr. Bryce’s very useful on more occasions than one.

I was told some five months after I had returned home, by one of the newspaper men who visited Canada at that time, that he had heard, on undoubted authority, that Mr. Joseph Chamberlain had privately asked Sir Alfred Jones to get up a meeting, and invite me to go down and address it. The result must have been satisfactory, for the meeting was much more [307]successful than I had any hope for. I think Mr. Chamberlain’s part leaked out and still further alarmed the Liberals, and still more aided me.

The Liverpool papers gave good reports of the meeting, and the editorial comments of two of them were not unfavourable, while one was opposed to me. The Courier of the 24th May said:

[308]

On the 13th May, ten days before the meeting in Liverpool, I was dining at Lord Lansdowne’s at a dinner given to Count Matsugata, formerly Prime Minister of Japan. The Premier and five Cabinet Ministers, Lord Roberts, the Duke of Abercorn, and several others were present. I was seated between Mr. Chamberlain and Lord George Hamilton. I took advantage of the opportunity to discuss our policy with Mr. Chamberlain, and pressed it as earnestly as I could put it, and we had a long conversation. I pleaded with him to help us, that I was still afraid of reciprocity with the United States, and that I felt we were drifting, drifting, and that every year made it worse. Whether my remarks had any weight on him or not I cannot say. I think he had long been privately on our side, but anyway, three days after he made a speech in Birmingham, which was the most hopeful thing that had happened in all our struggle. In that speech he said:

This was the first public utterance of Mr. Chamberlain, in which he endorsed in general terms the policy I was advocating. In the remarks I have quoted, it will be seen that he endorsed the salient points of my five minutes’ speech a fortnight before at the Royal Colonial Institute. Political jealousy, commercial rivalry, the pitiless commercial war, the ties of sentiment, the ties of interest, the keeping of British trade in British hands, etc. Nothing inspirited me so much as this speech. I had preserved as a profound secret Mr. Chamberlain’s promise to me in 1890 that he would study up the question, and, if he came to the conclusion it would be a good thing for our Empire, that he would take it up. I had kept silent waiting for [310]twelve years, until I read that speech on the morning of the 17th May, and I then told my wife the story of the interview in 1890, for I felt he had adopted the policy.

The Daily News, in two articles on the 22nd and 24th May, made an attack on Mr. Chamberlain and me, and found fault also with the British Empire League for giving me any countenance, and strongly criticised our policy. The first article was entitled “The Empire Wreckers.” I was delighted to see these articles, as well as others, in the Westminster Gazette, the Manchester Guardian, and other Liberal papers. I saw that my greatest difficulty had been overcome, and that I was not to be ignored, but that I was likely to succeed in getting the whole matter thrown into the arena for public discussion.

After quoting the proposition I was advocating in full, the Daily News went on to say:

On the 24th May, two days later, it returned to the attack on similar lines. I saw my opening and promptly seized it. I wrote the following letter to the News, which they were fair enough to publish in full with an editorial note attached. It appeared in the Daily News of the 27th May, 1902:

Lord Masham, speaking to me afterwards about this letter, laughed most heartily and said, “Just think, to get that letter before the readers of the News. That [315]is capital, how the editor must have grudged printing it.”

I spoke at the Canada Club dinner on the 8th May in response to the toast of “The Dominion of Canada,” and at the Colonial Club dinner on the 28th May in response to the toast of “The Empire.” On the 2nd June I addressed the Chamber of Commerce at Tunbridge Wells. On the 4th June I addressed a large meeting in Glasgow, the Lord Provost in the chair. On the 5th June another in Paisley, and on the 6th June I addressed a joint meeting of the Edinburgh and Leith Chambers of Commerce in Edinburgh.

On the 5th June the Glasgow Herald had an article criticising my speech. It gave me an opportunity which I used by sending them a letter which they published the next day, the 6th. The same issue of the Herald had an article referring to my letter. To my gratification it closed with these words:

I have already referred to the uneasiness and anxiety among the Liberals about my mission, and in addition to Mr. Bryce’s speech in Aberdeen a large meeting was held in Edinburgh on the 8th June, where the Rt. Hon. John Morley spoke in reply to my speeches in Scotland. Among other things he said:

And he also said that it meant the abandonment of Free Trade, and “would overthrow the very system that has placed us in the unexampled position of power and strength and wealth.”

On the 11th June I addressed the Chamber of Commerce of Bristol, and my meeting attracted considerable attention from the local newspapers. The Western Daily Press had on the morning of the meeting a long and quite friendly article, bespeaking earnest attention to my address, even if I laid down “lines of fiscal policy along which the majority may be reluctant to travel.” The Bristol Mercury gave a very full report of the meeting and of the speeches, and had a long article discussing the proposition from a strong Free Trade and hostile point of view.

On the 10th June in the House of Commons my work caused a passing notice. After I had left Canada the Executive Committee of the League in Canada published in pamphlet form a report of the Annual Meeting of the League in Canada containing my Presidential Address in moving the adoption of the Annual Report, and they had an extra quantity printed and sent a copy to every member of the House of Lords and the House of Commons.

On the discussion of the Finance Bill in the House of Commons on the 10th June, Sir W. Harcourt, after saying that the Colonies could only join the mother country on the basis of protection, went on to say: [317]“I received the other day the Manifesto of the Canadian Imperial League, which seems to be a very authoritative document, containing, as it does, the principal names in Canada, and which I would ask the committee to examine in relation to the Budget. The first article of the constitution of the League is thus laid down: ‘To advocate a trade policy between Great Britain and her Colonies, by means of which discrimination in the exchange of natural and manufactured products will be made in favour of one another and against foreign countries.’ Of course, that is the only basis on which the Colonies will deal with us. If they give up their preferential duties against us, they will expect us to institute preferential duties against other nations. In the annual report of the Executive Committee of this British Imperial League, dated February 1, 1902—months before the introduction of the present Budget—we learn that at its meeting, which was held at Toronto, the following resolution was adopted: ‘Resolved, that this meeting is of opinion that a special duty of 5 to 10 per cent. should be imposed at every port in the British possessions on all foreign goods’; and we are told, further, that the proceeds are to be devoted to Imperial defence. But I come to the speech made by the president of the League, which bears particularly on the Budget. He said:

The final meeting of my campaign was at the London Chamber of Commerce on the 13th June. Mr. Morley had spoken at Edinburgh on the 8th of June, and had said generally that the policy I was advocating was contrary to the principles of Free Trade under which England had built up her wonderful prosperity, had maintained it for years, and which was the foundation of Great Britain’s present great prosperity. I had been urged very strongly by all my friends to be very cautious not to refer directly to either Free Trade or Protection. I was told that the feeling in favour of Free Trade was so strong, that it would be unwise to refer to it in set terms, and I was [320]advised simply to argue for the war tax of 5 to 10 per cent. to raise a defence fund. Up to this time I had followed this advice, but when Mr. Morley attacked me, and raised the question, I felt that the time had arrived for me to come out boldly and in clear and unmistakable terms. I found in my movement about the country that there was much more feeling in favour of Protection than anyone believed. I therefore made up my mind to take advantage of the meeting of the London Chamber of Commerce to make a direct and vehement attack on Free Trade in order to test feeling in that centre. I carefully prepared as strong a speech as I could arrange, although I kept my own counsel as to my intentions. I decided to make my address a direct reply to the Rt. Hon. John Morley and to use his attack upon me as my excuse for criticising Free Trade in hostile terms.

The room was crowded, with a number of prominent men present. I referred to Mr. Morley’s remarks and said that I took issue with him, and that I denied that Free Trade was the cause of Great Britain’s progress. I said her position was established under a system of protection, that it was maintained by a protection of a different kind for years, and that now she was not prosperous. I gave a great many figures, and traced the trade returns at intervals from 1805 until the year 1901, and in reply to Mr. Morley’s statement of the wonderful prosperity of Great Britain I repeated the argument I used at Liverpool, and quoted again Mr. Bryce’s statement about the crushing burden the 1s. a quarter on wheat would be on about 30 per cent. of the population.

When I had finished, Lord Charles Beresford made [321]a speech that was quite friendly to my proposition, saying, “that the time had arrived when we had to do something to bind the Mother Country and the Colonies more closely together, and to do something also by which we might mutually benefit by the trade of the Empire, in view of the enormous competition directed against us by the rest of the world.”

Sir Guilford Molesworth and Mr. Ernest E. Williams then spoke strongly supporting me. They were followed by Mr. Faithfull Begg, who made a short but remarkably clever speech. He began by saying, “Is this the London Chamber of Commerce? Can I believe my eyes and ears? I have sat here and listened to what I am satisfied was the strongest attack upon Free Trade that has been heard in these walls in two generations, and in an open discussion no one has said a word in defence of the old policy. I was a Free Trader and I can no longer support the principle, but will no one say a word in defence of the old cause?” This taunt brought up a Mr. Pascoe, who used a number of stock arguments of the Cobden Club school. General Laurie, Admiral Sir Dalrymple Hay, Sir S. B. Boulton, and the Chairman, Sir Fortescue Flannery, then followed in speeches distinctly favourable to my proposition, and the meeting closed.

The effect of this meeting cannot be better shown than in the editorial comments of the Financial News of the next day, the 14th June, 1902:

This was a conclusion to my campaign far beyond my most sanguine expectations. It was a coincidence that about the time I concluded my campaign at this successful meeting, Dr. Fred W. Borden, Minister of Militia of Canada, who had lately arrived in England, in an interview with Mr. I. N. Ford, representative of the New York Tribune, stated that I represented [323]nobody’s views except my own, and pretended that he did not know of me even by name, until Mr. Ford let him understand that he was too well informed for that to be accepted. In an interview with one of the London newspapers he also spoke in a hostile manner of me and my views. As he had been quite friendly to me personally when we had met a day or two before, I was at a loss to account for his action. After consideration, I came to the conclusion that the Canadian Government had taken up some new position upon the question of preferential trade, and that I was wrong in my previous belief that I was working directly in their interests and in accordance with their views in a general way.

Mr. Ford telegraphed on the night of the meeting to his various papers across the Atlantic, the following account of my concluding words at the London Chamber of Commerce:

When I sailed for home Mr. Ford cabled:

The Annual General Meeting of the British Empire League was held on the 7th July, where the Hon. George W. Ross and I represented the Canadian Branch. I moved a resolution which Mr. Ross seconded. I spoke as follows:

Mr. Ross followed me with a very able and powerful speech in which he expressed the views of the Canadian League with great eloquence and vigour.

On the 17th June, a letter from Sir Robert Giffen appeared in the London Times severely criticising the [326]policy I was advocating. As a great statistician and Free Trader, and formerly Secretary of the Government Board of Trade, he was considered the ablest expert on the subject and his name carried great weight. His objections were in substance:

This letter was so plausible that even the Times in an article on the 19th June, said:

[327]

This attack was satisfactory to me as it gave me an opening for a reply which I made as follows:

This letter was not replied to. Lally Bernard writing from London to the Toronto Globe of the 8th July says:

[331]

Sir Wilfrid Laurier with Sir Wm. Mulock, Mr. Fielding, and Mr. Patterson, arrived in London a few days after this. I had been surprised at Dr. Borden’s attempt to weaken and destroy the effect of what little I had done to prepare public opinion, and thinking that Sir Wilfrid and the other Ministers must have sympathised with what he had done, I came to the conclusion that there was no use in me taking any further trouble in the matter. I ceased any work, and although I was constantly meeting Sir Wilfrid and his colleagues I never once spoke to them upon the question.

I had been having several conversations with Mr. Chamberlain, and knew exactly what his position was, and he had asked me to press the Canadian delegates to take a certain course. In view of Dr. Borden’s action I had not attempted to do anything on the line Mr. Chamberlain suggested. This was the condition of affairs when I had to leave for home, which was just before the meeting of the Conference. I went down to the Hotel Cecil the morning before leaving, and called on Sir Wilfrid to say good-bye. He seemed astonished when I told him why I had called, and asked when I was leaving; I told him the next day. He urged me to stay over a week or two, but I said it was impossible as my passage was taken and all my arrangements made, and I said I knew he was going to a meeting and that I would not keep him. To my great astonishment he said, “Sit down; I want to talk to you,” and then he surprised me by asking my opinion as to what could be done at the Conference. I was so astonished that I said, “You ask me what I would do in your place?” He said, “Yes. You have been here for over two months, you have been about the country addressing meetings, [332]you have been discussing the question with the leading men, and you have studied the subject for years, and I want the benefit of your opinion. Now what would you say as to moving the resolution you have been advocating?” I thought for a moment and said, “No, Sir Wilfrid, I would not do that.” He asked me why. I said, “Because it could not be carried. I have discussed it with Mr. Chamberlain and he is not ready for it. Sir Edmund Barton tells me that they are having a great fight over the tariff and could not take it up now. Sir Gordon Sprigg says they are not in a position to do it on account of the war in Cape Colony, and Mr. Seddon is so full of another scheme connected with shipping, that while he would support it, it might not be as vigorous support as would be required.”

Having the opening, however, I told him of my conversation with Mr. Chamberlain, and pressed upon him the advisability of taking up Mr. Chamberlain’s idea, which was for Canada to give Great Britain further preferences on certain articles, in fact, if possible free entry of those articles in return for the preference of the one shilling a quarter on wheat. I think this was already his view, but I pointed out all the advantages from a Canadian point of view of this plan, and expressing the hope that he would be able to see his way to it, I said good-bye and left him. I saw my friend and colleague in my work, the Hon. G. W. Ross, and told him of the conversation, and asked him to press the same view upon the Canadian Ministers, which he did.

On my arrival in Toronto the representatives of the Toronto newspapers came to interview me on my work. Among other things, I said:

[333]

Sir Michael Hicks-Beach resigned from the Cabinet while I was on my way home. I always felt that the desire of Mr. Chamberlain to give a preference to the Colonies to the extent of the one shilling a quarter on wheat had something to do with the retirement of Sir Michael Hicks-Beach. In 1906 I lunched with Mr. Chamberlain and he explained to me why he had been unable to carry out the preferential arrangement that he had outlined to me before Sir Wilfrid Laurier arrived in England in 1902. The difficulty was that Sir Michael Hicks-Beach objected to it because he had imposed the duty avowedly as a means of raising revenue for war purposes, that he had defended it and justified it as a necessity on account of the war expenses, that the war was only just being concluded, and the outlay for months to come could not be diminished. For that reason he was firmly opposed to reducing any portion of the duty for the time. This prevented Sir Wilfrid Laurier’s offers being accepted, and postponed action indefinitely, as the Conference concluded its session about the same time.

Sir Edmund Barton and Sir John Forrest went through Canada on their way home to Australia from the Conference, and they with their party dined at my house. During the day I drove Sir Edmund and Lady Barton about Toronto. I told Sir Edmund what I had been urging Sir Wilfrid to do at the Conference, and the remark he made was peculiar. He said that the proceedings of the Conference were as yet confi[335]dential and he could not speak of them, but he might say that I should be well satisfied with my Premier. I was confident then that Sir Wilfrid had taken that line which the official reports shortly afterwards corroborated. The final result was, however, that our efforts had been unsuccessful, and our movement had received a serious set-back.

We were encouraged in October, 1902, by the action of the National Union of Conservative Associations held at Manchester on the 15th of that month, when Sir Howard Vincent obtained the adoption of a resolution in favour of Imperial preferential trade. The New York Tribune, commenting on this, said: “This news is a great triumph for the Hon. Joseph Chamberlain’s views, and it also no doubt goes to show that Colonel Denison’s recent imperialistic campaign in the Motherland was not without decided educative effect.”

On the 20th October, 1902, the National Club of Toronto gave a complimentary banquet to me in recognition of the work I had done in England that summer for the Empire. Mr. J. F. Ellis, President of the Club, occupied the chair; the Hon. J. Israel Tarte and the Hon. George W. Ross were present. There was a large and influential gathering. I was very much gratified at Mr. Tarte’s presence. Although once associating with the Continental Union League, he had for years been a loyal and active member of our British Empire League. He was at the time a Cabinet Minister, and came from Ottawa to Toronto solely to attend the dinner, and it was at such a crisis in his career that he wrote out his resignation from the Government on the train while coming up. His speech is worth reproducing:

[336]

This was a satirical allusion to the fact that he was being forced out of the Cabinet, because, as Minister of Public Works, he had discussed in public meetings the question of tariff policy. He was put out of the Cabinet the next day.

[338]

CHAPTER XXVII

CORRESPONDENCE WITH MR. CHAMBERLAIN

As I have said, we felt that the result of the Conference had been a very serious set-back and discouragement to all our wishes. I therefore watched public opinion very carefully and with considerable anxiety, and I noticed two or three uncomfortable indications. In the first place a restlessness manifested itself among the manufacturing classes in Canada, particularly in the woollen trade, against the British preference which pressed upon them, while Canada received no corresponding advantage, and a discussion began as to whether the British preference should not be cut off. The next thing which alarmed me was that during the following winter a movement arose in the United States to secure the establishment of a reciprocity treaty with Canada. Suggestions were made to renew the sittings of the High Joint Commission which had adjourned in 1898 without anything being done. This was evaded by our Government, but a strong agitation was commenced in the Eastern States, and supported in Chicago, to educate the people of the United States in favour of tariff arrangements with Canada.

The more far-seeing men in the United States were uneasy about the movement for mutual preferential tariffs in the British Empire. They saw at once that [339]if successful it would consolidate and strengthen British power and wealth and would be a severe blow to the prosperity of the United States, which for fifty years had been fattening upon the free British markets, while for thirty years their own had been to a great extent closed to the foreigner and preserved for their own enrichment. I felt that the failure of the Conference would give power to our enemies in the United States and aid them to enmesh us in the trade entanglements which would preclude the possibility of our succeeding in carrying our policy into effect.

Every week I became more and more alarmed. It will be remembered that there was then no Tariff Reform movement in England. That Lord Salisbury was dying, that Mr. Chamberlain had not yet openly committed himself, and that nothing was being done, while our opponents were actively at work both in the States and in Canada. The small faction in Canada who were disloyal were once more taking heart while the loyal element were discouraged.

Still further to cause anxiety the Imperial Federation Defence Committee took this opportunity, through Mr. Arthur Loring, to make an imperious demand upon the Colonies to hand over at once large cash contributions in support of the Navy, or practically to cut us adrift. Had the desire been to smash up the Empire, the attack could not have been better timed than when everything was going against the Imperial view. I wrote a reply which appeared in The Times on the 2nd March, 1903:

I was so alarmed at the state of affairs that on the 23rd March, 1903, I wrote to Mr. Chamberlain the following letter, which shows my anxiety at the time:

On the 16th April, 1903, I received a letter from Mr. Chamberlain which was quite discouraging. I wrote to him again on the 18th April, and on the 10th May received an answer which was much more encouraging.

I was not surprised when, on the 15th May, Mr. Chamberlain made his great speech at Birmingham, which resulted soon afterwards in his resignation from the Government, and the organisation of the Tariff Reform movement, which he has since advocated with such enthusiasm, energy, and ability.

The result of this speech was like the sun coming out from behind a cloud. Instantly the whole prospect brightened, every Canadian was inspirited, and confidence was restored. Such an extraordinary change [347]has seldom been seen. The Toronto correspondent of the Morning Post, 17th May, 1903, said:

It is this hope in the ultimate triumph of Mr. Chamberlain’s policy which has caused the Canadian people to wait patiently for that result. The extraordinary defeat of the Unionist party in the elections of 1906 has not destroyed this confidence, and the Empire has yet a chance to save herself.

The 6th annual meeting of the British Empire League took place on 19th May, 1903, in the Railway Committee Room, House of Commons, Ottawa.

A very unpleasant event occurred about this time in the Alaskan Award. I had looked into the matter very closely while Sir Wilfrid Laurier was in Washington engaged in the negotiations over the dispute, and I felt confident that we had a very weak case for our contentions, in fact I thought we had none at all. I saw Chief Justice Armour, who was to be one of the Canadian Commissioners, just before he left for England. He was a friend of mine, and one of the ablest judges who ever sat in the Canadian Courts, and I told him what I thought. He evidently felt much the same. I said to him that I wished to make a remark that might be stowed away in the back of his head in case of any necessity for considering it. It was that when he had done his very best for Canada, and had done all that he could, if he found that Lord Alverstone would not hold out with him, not to have a split but if the [348]case was hopeless to join with Lord Alverstone and make the decision unanimous. I said if Lord Alverstone went against us the game was up, there was no further appeal, no remedy, and there was no use fighting against the inevitable, and it would be in more conformity with the dignity of Canada, and good feeling in the Empire, to have an award settled judicially, and by all the judges. Unfortunately the Chief Justice died, and the Government appointed a very able advocate Mr. Aylesworth, K.C., who happened to be in England at the time, to fill his place. Mr. Aylesworth had been the advocate all his life. At that time he had absolutely no knowledge of political affairs. The award was better than I expected and gave us two islands, which the United States had held for years, and on one of which a United States Post Office had been long established. Mr. Aylesworth forgetting there was no appeal, and that the matter was final, prevailed on Lt.-Governor Jetté who was with him to make a most violent protest, and a direct attack upon Lord Alverstone. Owing to this, the award created a good deal of resentment in Canada. The people were very much aroused, and believed they had been betrayed.

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, [349]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:

This was much commented on in the British Press.

The Times said:

The London Globe said:

[353]

The Outlook said:

Lord Hugh Cecil had the following letter in The Times of the 20th May, 1905.

I replied to this in the following letter to The Times, which was published in the issue of 13th June, 1905:

This closed the episode.

[356]

CHAPTER XXVIII

CONGRESS OF CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE OF THE EMPIRE

In 1906 I went to England again, and once more the Toronto Board of Trade appointed me as one of their delegates to the Sixth Congress of Chambers of Commerce of the Empire to be held in London. I arrived in London on the 27th June, and the next evening, at the Royal Colonial Institute Conversazione, I met Mr. and Mrs. Chamberlain, and it was arranged that my wife and I were to lunch with them a few days later. Mr. Chamberlain had wished that we should be alone. After lunch the ladies went upstairs, and Mr. Chamberlain had a quiet talk with me for about an hour. He gave me the whole history of the difficulties he had encountered and explained how it was that he was not able to carry out the arrangement we had discussed in 1902, just before the conference. He told me that Sir Michael Hicks-Beach objected to throwing off the one shilling a quarter on wheat in favour of the colonies, because he had put it on only a short time before as a necessary war tax to raise funds for the South African War, that the expenses were still going on, and that it would be inconsistent in him to agree to it at the time.

Shortly after Sir Michael Hicks-Beach resigned from [357]the Cabinet and Mr. C. T. Ritchie (afterwards Lord Ritchie) was appointed Chancellor of the Exchequer. In the autumn it was considered advisable, so Mr. Chamberlain told me, that he should pay a visit to South Africa, which would take him away for some months, and he went on to say: “On my return from South Africa we called at Madeira, and I found there a cablegram from Austen saying the corn tax was to be taken off. When I arrived in London the Budget was coming up very soon. I could not do anything for many reasons. I did not wish to precipitate a crisis, and I had to wait.” He was evidently annoyed at the matter, and explained it to me, because he had held out hopes to me that if Sir Wilfrid Laurier would meet him with further preferences, he would give us the preference in wheat. This he had been unable to do.

I asked him if he could explain why Ritchie acted as he did. He did not seem to know. I suggested that I thought either Mr. Choate, the United States Ambassador, or some other United States emissary, had frightened him and he had taken off the tax to head off any movement for imperial trade consolidation. Mr. Chamberlain asked me why I thought so, and I drew his attention to the fact that shortly after the corn tax was taken off Mr. Ritchie went down to Croydon to address his constituents, and in justifying his action used the argument—apparently to his mind the strongest—that a preferential corn tax against the United States would be likely to arouse the hostility of that country and be a dangerous course to pursue. The audience seemed at once to be struck with the cowardice of the argument, and there were loud cries of dissent, and then they rose and sang “Rule Britannia.” Mr. Ritchie did not contest Croydon in [358]the next election, but was moved to the House of Lords shortly before his death. Mr. Chamberlain apparently had not thought of that influence.

Mr. Chamberlain was then looking in perfect health, and left the next day for Birmingham, where great demonstrations were made over his 70th birthday. He told me he was anxious to have a rest, as the burden of leading a great movement was very heavy. I urged him strongly to take a holiday, and I had pressed the same idea upon Mrs. Chamberlain as I sat next to her at lunch. He took ill, however, before a week had passed. The strain at Birmingham was very heavy.

The meeting of the Congress of Chambers of Commerce of the Empire took place on the 10th, 11th and 13th July. We had but little hope of doing anything to help the preferential trade policy, for the General Elections had gone so overwhelmingly against us that it seemed impossible that in England our Canadian delegation could carry the resolution they had agreed upon in favour of Mr. Chamberlain’s policy. We expected to be badly defeated, but decided to make a bold fight. After the discussion had gone on for some time, Sir Wm. Holland and Lord Avebury, who led the free trade ranks, approached Mr. Drummond, who had moved the Canadian resolution, and suggested that if we would compromise by the insertion of a few words which would have destroyed the whole effect of what we were fighting for, the resolution might be carried unanimously. Mr. Drummond said he wished to consult his colleagues, and he called Mr. Cockshutt, M.P., and me out of the room and put the proposition. I said at once, “I would not compromise to the extent of one word. Let us fight it out to the very end, let us take [359]a vote. We will likely be beaten, but let us take our beating like men. We will find out our strength and our weakness, we will find out who are our friends and who are our enemies, and know exactly where we stand.”

Mr. Cockshutt said immediately, “I entirely agree with Denison.” Drummond said, “That is exactly my view. I shall consult with no others but will tell them we will fight it to the end.”

I spoke that afternoon as follows as reported in the Toronto News, 23rd August, 1906:

The vote was not taken until the next day, and when the show of hands was taken I think we had five or six to one in our favour. A demand was made for a vote by Chambers with the result that 103 voted for the resolution, 41 against it, and 21 neutral. The reason so much larger a number appeared with us on a show of hands was, I believe, because many Chambers had given cast iron instructions to their delegates to vote against it, or to vote neutral, but on a show of hands many of them voted as they personally felt after hearing the arguments.

This was a remarkable triumph that we did not expect, and must have been very gratifying to Mr. Chamberlain.

Unfortunately Mr. Chamberlain’s illness took place just as the Congress opened. It was thought at the time that he would recover in a few days, but he has not as yet been able to resume active leadership in the struggle for preferential tariffs or tariff reform. As far as the work of our organisation is concerned, although we were at first ridiculed and abused, criticised and caricatured, the force of the arguments and the innate [368]loyalty of the Canadian people, have caused the feeling in favour of imperial unity and preferential trade to become almost universal in Canada. The preference has been established, West Indian Sugar favoured, penny postage secured, the Pacific Cable constructed, assistance given in the South African War in the imperial interest, and now the whole question remains to be decided in the Mother Country. The colonies have all followed Canada’s lead.

The conference of 1907 was futile. Sir Wilfrid Laurier took the dignified course of repeating his offers made in 1902, and saying that the question now rested in the hands of the British people. The British Government declined to do anything, which in view of the elections of the previous year was only to be expected, but a good deal of ill feeling was unnecessarily created by the action of one member of the Government, who offensively boasted that they had slammed, banged, and barred the door in the face of the colonies. We still feel however that this view will not represent the sober second thought of the British people. If it does, of course our hopes of maintaining the permanent unity of the Empire may not be realised.

From the Canadian standpoint I feel that enough has been said in the foregoing pages, to show that there was a widespread movement, participated in by people of both sides of the boundary line, which would soon have become a serious menace to Canada’s connection with the Empire, had it not been for the vigorous efforts of the loyalist element to counteract it. To the active share in which I took part in these efforts, I shall ever look back with satisfaction. Not many years have passed, but the change in the last twenty years, has been a remarkable one, the movement then making [369]such headway towards commercial union or annexation being now to all seeming completely dead. Nor should it be forgotten that it is to the Liberal party, a great many of whose leading members took part in the agitation for Unrestricted Reciprocity, that we owe, since they came into power, the tariff preference to the Mother Country, and the other movements which I have mentioned above, which tend to draw closer the bonds of Empire.

It would be difficult now to find in Canada any Canadians who are in favour of continental union, many of those who formerly favoured it, being now outspoken advocates of British connection, looking back with wonder as to how they then were carried away by such an ill-judged movement. Nevertheless the lesson taught by this period of danger is clear. We must not forget, that with a powerful neighbour alongside of Canada, speaking the same language, and with necessarily intimate commercial intercourse, an agitation for closer relations, leading to ultimate absorption, is easy to kindle, and being so plausible, might spread with dangerous rapidity. This is a danger that those both in Canada and Great Britain, who are concerned in the future of the British Empire, would do well to take to heart, and by strengthening the bonds of Empire avert such dangers for the future.

[370]
[371]

APPENDIX A

I am very glad to have the opportunity of saying a few words this evening. I have listened to the discussion and I find there is a feeling that of all the Colonies Canada is the only one which is not doing her duty. I have heard the doubt expressed as to whether Canada would, in case of serious trouble, stand by the Empire in the defence of her own frontiers. In support of this view I have heard an opinion quoted of an Englishman who was dissatisfied with this country and left it for the United States; dissatisfied there also he went to Canada, where he is now equally dissatisfied and is agitating to break up this Empire. I utterly repudiate his opinions. He is no Canadian and does not express the views of my countrymen. You have generally large numbers of Australians, New Zealanders and Cape Colonists at these meetings, but it is not always that you have Canadians present, and I do not think that we have altogether had fair play in this matter. It seems to be popular to compliment the other Colonies, while the doubt is expressed as to whether the Canadian people would fight to keep Canada in the Empire. I am astonished to hear such a reflection upon my country. Our whole history is a standing protest against any such insinuation. Let me recall a few facts in our past history, facts which show whether Canadians have not been true [372]to this country. Why our very foundation was based upon loyalty to the Empire. Our fathers fought for a united Empire in the revolution of 1776. They fought to retain the southern half of North America under the monarchy. Bereft of everything, bleeding from the wounds of seven long years of war, carrying with them nothing but their loyalty, they went to Canada and settled in the wilderness. Thirty years later, in 1812, in a quarrel caused by acts of British vessels on the high seas far from Canada—a quarrel in which they had no interest—the Canadian people (every able-bodied man) fought for three long years by the side of the British troops, and all along our frontier are dotted the battlefields in which lie buried large numbers of Canadians, who died fighting to retain the northern half of the continent in our Empire. And yet I come here to London and hear it said that my countrymen won’t stand true to the Empire. (Cheers.) Again, in 1837, a dissatisfied Scotchman raised a rebellion, but the Canadian people rose at once and crushed it out of sight before it could come to a head. The people poured into Toronto in such numbers to support the Queen’s authority, that Sir Francis Head, the Governor, had to issue a proclamation telling the people to stay at their homes, as they were gathering in such numbers they could not be fed. (Cheers.) In the Trent affair—no quarrel of ours; an event which occurred a thousand miles from our shores—every able-bodied man was ready to fight; our country was like an armed camp, the young and the old men drilling, no man complaining that it was not our quarrel, and the determined and loyal spirit of the Canadian people saved this country then from war. (Cheers.) So also in the Fenian Raid; again no quarrel of ours, for surely we have had nothing to do with the government of Ireland, and were not responsible in any way. Yet it was our militia that bore the brunt of that trouble. The lives lost in that affair were the lives of Canadian volunteers who died fighting in an Imperial quarrel. This affair cost us millions of dollars, and did we ever ask you to recoup us? And I, a Canadian volunteer, [373]come here to London to hear the doubt expressed as to whether my countrymen would stand true to the Empire. (Cheers.) It is not fair, gentlemen; it is not right. For the spirit of our people is the same to-day. (Cheers.) I have also heard the statement made this evening that there were no proper arrangements for the Nova Scotia militia to help in the defence of Halifax, as if there might be a doubt whether they would assist the Imperial troops to defend Halifax. This is not fair to my comrades of the sister Province of Nova Scotia. Let me recall an incident in the history of that Province at the time of the Maine boundary difficulty. I allude to the occasion—many of you will remember it—when an English diplomatist, being humbugged with a false map, allowed the Yankees to swindle us out of half the State of Maine. Well, at that time, Governor Fairfield, of the State of Maine, ordered out all the militia of that State to invade New Brunswick. The Nova Scotian Legislature at once passed a resolution placing every dollar of their revenue, and every able-bodied man in the country, at the disposal of their sister Province of New Brunswick. This vote was carried unanimously with three cheers for the Queen; and their bold and determined stand once more saved the Empire from war—(cheers)—and yet I, an Ontario man, come here to England, to hear the doubt expressed as to whether the militia of our sister Province of Nova Scotia would help to defend their own capital city in case of attack. It is not fair, gentlemen, and I am glad to be here to-night to speak for my sister Province. (Cheers.) However, I cannot blame you for not understanding all these things. You have not all been in Canada and even if any of you were to come to the Niagara Falls and cross from the States to look at them from the Canadian side, you would not return to the States knowing all about Canada. It would not qualify you to be an authority on Canadian affairs. (Laughter and applause.) Now our position is peculiar. We have a new country with illimitable territory—you can have no conception of the enormous extent—a territory forty times the size of Great Britain, and fifteen times the size of the [374]German Empire, and we have only a small population. We are opening up this country for settlement, developing its resources, and thereby adding to the power of the Empire. Our burdens are enormous for our population and our wealth. What have we done quite lately? We have spent something like $150,000,000—£30,000,000—in constructing a railway across the continent and giving you an alternative route to the East. Many people thought this would be too great a burden—more than our country could stand—but our Government and the majority of our people took this view, that this scheme would supply a great alternative route to the East, bring trade to the country, add strength to the Empire, and make us more than ever a necessity and a benefit to the Empire. And remember, all the time we are developing our country, all the time we are spending these enormous sums, we do not live in the luxury you do here, and while we are perfectly willing to do a great deal, we cannot do everything all at once. With you everything is reversed. You have had nearly 2,000 years start, with your little bit of country, and your large population, and by this time I must say you have got it pretty well fixed up. (Laughter.) The other day I was travelling through Kent and I was reminded of the remark of the Yankee who said of it: “It appears to me this country is cultivated with a pair of scissors and a fine comb.” We have not had the time or the population to do this, and we cannot afford a standing army. It is not fair to find fault with us because we do not keep up a standing army. It is absolutely necessary we should not take away from productive labour too large a number of men to idle about garrison towns. The Canadian people know that as things stand at present, they cannot be attacked by any nation except the United States. We would not be afraid of facing any European or distant Power, simply because the difficulties of sending a distant maritime expedition are recognised to be so tremendous. Suppose war should unfortunately break out with the United States—and that, as I say, is the only contingency we need seriously consider—in that case, [375]what are we to do? It would be useless we know to attempt to defend our country with a small standing army. We know that every able-bodied man would have to fight. We know that our men are able and willing to fight, and what we are trying to do is to educate officers. Our military college, kept up at large expense, is one of the finest in the world. Then we have permanent schools for military purposes, men drafted from our corps being drilled there and sent back to instruct. We keep up about 38,000 active militia, and the country has numbers of drilled men who could be relied on. As an illustration of our system, I may mention that in 1866 there was a sudden alarm of a Fenian invasion. The Adjutant-General received orders at 4 o’clock in the afternoon to turn out 10,000 men. At eleven the next day the returns came in, and to his utter astonishment he found there were 14,000 under arms. The reason was that the old men who had gone through the corps had put on their old uniforms, taken down their rifles, and turned out with their comrades, and there they were ready to march. Instead of the militia force going down, it is, I think, slightly increasing. Our force could be easily expanded in case of trouble. If there were danger of war, and the Government were to say to me to-morrow: “Increase your regiment of cavalry and double it,” I believe it could be done in twenty-four hours. I cannot tell you how many stand of arms we have in the country, but I believe there are three or four times as many rifles as would arm the present militia force, and therefore there would be no difficulty on that score. In case of a great war, it would, of course, be necessary to get assistance from England. We certainly should want that assistance in arms and ammunition. We have already established an ammunition factory, which is capable of great extension. We have a great many more field guns that we are absolutely using. It would be an easy thing to double the field batteries with retired men. Further, there is a good deal of voluntary drill, and I may say, speaking from my experience in the North-West campaign, that I would just as [376]soon have good volunteer regiments as permanent forces. They may not be quite so well drilled, but they possess greater intelligence and greater zeal and enthusiasm. If any trouble should come, I am quite satisfied you will not find any backwardness on the part of the Canadian people in doing their full duty. At the present time, considering the enormous expense of developing the country and of, in other ways, making it great and powerful, it would, I think, be a pity to waste more than is absolutely necessary in keeping up a large military force. The training of officers, the providing of an organisation and machinery, the encouragement of a confident spirit in the people, and a feeling of loyalty to the Empire—these are, I venture to say, the principal things, of more importance than a small standing army. (Applause.)

The Chairman (the Right Hon. Hugh C. Childers).—You will all, I think, agree that it is rather fortunate the few remarks by previous speakers have elicited so eloquent and powerful an address as that we have just listened to. (Cheers.)

[377]

APPENDIX B

Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen,

The history of the world is the history of the rise and fall of nations. The record of the dim past, so great is the distance from which we look and so scanty the materials of history, seems almost a kaleidoscope, in which one dominant race rises into greatness and strength upon the ruins of another, each in turn luxuriating in affluence and power, each in turn going to ruin and decay.

In the earliest period, when Europe was peopled by barbarians, we read of Egypt, of its power, its wealth, and its civilisation. Travellers to-day, standing in the ruins of Thebes and Memphis, view with amazement the architectural wonders of the gigantic ruins, and draw comparisons between what the race of ancient Egyptians must have been, and the poor Arab peasants who live in wretched huts among the debris of former grandeur. The Assyrian empire has also left a record of its greatness and civilisation. Their sculptures show a race of sturdy heroes, with haughty looks and proud mien, evidently the leaders of a dominant race. The luxuriant costumes, the proud processions, the ceremonious cortège of the Assyrian monarchs, all find their place in the sculptures of Nineveh, [378]while their colossal dimensions indicate the magnificence of the halls and galleries in which they were placed. These broken stones, dug from the desert, are all that is left to tell us of a great and dominant race for ever passed away. The Persian empire came afterwards into prominence, and was a mighty power when in its prime. The Phœnicians, by their maritime enterprise and their roving and energetic spirit, acquired great power. Their influence was felt as far as England. Their chief cities, Tyre and Sidon, were at one time the most wealthy and powerful cities in the world, excelling in all the arts and sciences. To-day ruin and desolation mark their sites, and testify to the truth of the awful prophecy of Ezekiel the prophet.

The Greeks and Romans were also dominant races, but the small republics of Greece frittered away in dissension and petty civil wars the energy and daring that might have made Athens the mistress of the world. Rome, on the other hand, was more practical. The Roman was filled with a desire for national supremacy. He determined that Rome should be the mistress of the world, and the desire worked out its fulfilment. The Carthaginians rose and fell, victims to the greater vigour and energy of their indomitable rivals the Romans. After the fall of the Roman Empire of the East, the Mohammedan power, restless, warlike, and fanatical, quickly overran Asia Minor and Turkey, and threatened at one time the conquest of all Europe.

Three hundred years ago Spain was the all-powerful country. Her ships whitened every sea, her language was spoken in every clime, her coins were the only money used by traders beyond the equator. England, which was at that time the sole home of English-speaking people, was only a fifth or sixth-rate Power. To-day the British Empire is the greatest empire the world has ever seen, with 11,214,000 square miles of territory, a population of 361,276,000, a revenue of £212,800,000, total imports and exports of £1,174,000,000, and she owns nearly one-half of the shipping of the world.

In considering the causes which lead to the rise and [379]fall of nations, we find that the first requisite to ensure national greatness is a national sentiment—that is, a patriotic feeling in the individual, and a general confidence of all in the future of the State. This national spirit generally exhibits itself in military prowess, in a determination of placing the country first, self afterwards; of being willing to undergo hardships, privation, and want; and to risk life, and even to lay down life, on behalf of the State. I can find no record in history of any nation obliterating itself, and giving up its nationality for the sake of making a few cents a dozen on its eggs, or a few cents a bushel on its grain.

The Egyptians commemorated the deeds of their great men, erected the greatest monuments of antiquity, and taught the people respect for their ancestors, holding the doctrine, “accursed is he who holds not the ashes of his fathers sacred, and forgets what is due from the living to the dead.” The Assyrians on their return from a successful war paraded the spoils and trophies of victory through their capital. They also recorded their warlike triumphs in inscriptions and sculptures that have commemorated the events and preserved the knowledge of them to us to this present day. The national spirit of the Greeks was of the highest type. When invaded by an army of 120,000 Persians in B.C.490, the Athenians without hesitation boldly faced their enemies. Every man who could bear arms was enlisted, and 10,000 free men on the plains of Marathon completely routed the enormous horde of invaders. This victory was celebrated by the Greeks in every possible way. Pictures were painted, and poems were written about it. One hundred and ninety-two Athenians who fell in action were buried under a lofty mound which may still be seen, and their names were inscribed on ten pillars, one for each tribe. Six hundred years after the battle, Pausanias the historian was able to read on the pillars the names of the dead heroes. The anniversary of the battle was commemorated by an annual ceremony down to the time of Plutarch. After the death of Miltiades, who commanded the Greeks, [380]an imposing monument was erected in his honour on the battlefield, remains of which can still be traced.

This victory and the honour paid both the living and the dead who took part in it, had a great influence on the Greeks, and increased the national spirit and confidence of the people in their country. The heavy strain came upon them ten years later, when Xerxes invaded Greece with what is supposed to have been the greatest army that ever was gathered together. Such an immense host could not fail to cause alarm among the Greeks, but they had no thought of submission. The national spirit of a race never shone out more brightly. Leonidas, with only 4,000 troops all told, defended the pass at Thermopylæ for three days against this immense host, and when, through the treachery of a Greek named Ephialtes, the Persians threatened his retreat, Leonidas and his Spartans would not fly, but sending away most of their allies, he remained there and died with his people for the honour of the country. They were buried on the spot, and a monument erected with the inscription:

Six hundred years after, Pausanias read on a pillar erected to their memory in their native city, the names of 300 Spartans who died at Thermopylæ. A stone lion was erected in the pass to the memory of Leonidas, and a monument to the dead of the allies with this inscription: “Four thousand from the Peloponnesus once fought on this spot with three millions.” Another monument bore the inscription: “This is the monument of the illustrious Megistias whom the Medes, having passed the river Sperchius, slew—a prophet who, at the time, well knowing the impending fate, would not abandon the leaders of Sparta.” The Athenians were compelled to abandon their homes and take refuge on the island of Salamis, where the great battle was fought the following October, between 380 Greek vessels and a Persian fleet of 2,000 vessels. This action was brought on by a [381]stratagem of Themistocles, whom no odds seemed to discourage. This ended in a great victory for the Greeks, and practically decided the fate of the war. Themistocles and Eurybiades were presented with olive crowns, and other honours were heaped upon them. Ten months after this Mardonius a second time took possession of the city, and the Athenians were again fugitives on the island of Salamis; even then the Athenians would not lose hope. Only one man in the council dared to propose that they should yield; when he had left the council-chamber the people stoned him to death. Mardonius, who had an army of 300,000 men and the power of the Persian empire at his back, offered them most favourable terms, but the national spirit of the Greeks saved them when the outlook was practically hopeless. The Athenians replied that they would never yield while the sun continued in its course, but trusting in their gods and in their heroes, they would go out and oppose him. Shortly after the Greeks did go out, and a brilliant victory was won at Platæa, where Mardonius and nearly all his army were killed. The Mantineans and the Elians arrived too late to take part in the action with the other Greeks, and were so mortified at the delay that they banished their generals on account of it. Thus ended the Persian invasions of Greece. The national spirit of the Greeks inspired them to the greatest sacrifices and the greatest heroism, and was the foundation of the confidence and hope that never failed them in the darkest hour. There were a few traitors such as Ephialtes, who betrayed the pass, and a few pessimists like Lycidas, who lost hope and was stoned to death for speaking of surrender. The lesson is taught, however, that the existence in a community of a few emasculated traitors and pessimists is no proof that the mass of the citizens may not be filled with the highest and purest national spirit.

The history of Rome teaches us the same great lesson. As Rome was once mistress of the world, as no race or nationality ever before wielded the power or attained the towering position of Rome, so we find that just as in [382]proportion she rose to a higher altitude than any other community, so does her early history teem with the records of a purer national sentiment, a more perfect patriotism, a greater confidence in the State on the part of her citizens, and a more enduring self-sacrificing heroism on the part of her young men. Early Roman history is a romance filled with instances of patriotic devotion to the State that have made Roman virtues a proverb even to this day. Many of the stories are, no doubt, mere legends, but they are woven into the history of the nation, and were evidently taught to the children to create and stimulate a strong patriotic sentiment in their breasts. When we read the old legend of Horatius at the bridge; when we read of Quintus Curtius, clad in complete armour and mounted on his horse, plunging into the yawning gulf in the Forum to save the State from impending destruction; when we read of Mutius Scævola, of Regulus, urging his countrymen to continue the war with Carthage, and then returning to the death which was threatened him if he did not succeed in effecting a peace, we can form some idea of the spirit which animated this people, and can no longer wonder at such a race securing such a world-wide supremacy. The Romans took every means to encourage this feeling and to reward services to the State. Horatius Cocles was crowned on his return, his statue erected in the temple of Vulcan, and a large tract of the public land given him. Rome was filled with the statues, and columns, and triumphal arches, erected in honour of great services performed for the State. Many of these monuments are still standing. Varro, after the terrible defeat of Cannæ, received the thanks of the Senate because, although defeated and a fugitive, he had not despaired of the future of the State. The Romans, like the English, never knew when they were beaten, and disaster rarely inclined them to make peace. They did not look upon Carthage, their neighbour to the south, as their natural market, not at least to the extent of inducing them to give up their nationality in the hope of getting rich by trading with that community, and yet history leads [383]us to believe that Carthage was at one time very wealthy and prosperous. No, the national sentiment was the dominant idea.

Even the Romans, however, had traitors, for we read that Brutus ordered the execution of his own sons for treason. Catiline also conspired against the State; of course his character was not good; he was said to be guilty of almost every crime in the calendar, but when you are picking out specimen traitors it is difficult to be fastidious about their personal character. The national spirit of the race, however, easily overcame all the bad influences of the disloyal, and it was only when this sentiment died out, and luxury, selfishness, and poltroonery took its place, that Rome was overthrown.

The experience of the ancients has been repeated in later times. The national spirit of the Swiss has carried Switzerland through the greatest trials, and preserved her freedom and independence in the heart of Europe for hundreds of years. No principle of continental unity has been able to destroy her freedom. The Swiss confederation took its origin in the oath on the Rutli in 1307, and eight years later at Morgarten, the Marathon of Switzerland, 1,300 Swiss peasants defeated an army of 20,000 Austrians. This inspired the whole people, and commenced the series of brilliant victories which for two centuries improved the military skill, stimulated the national spirit, and secured the continued freedom of the Swiss nation. In 1386 another great victory was won at Sempach, through the devotion of Arnold of Winkelried, whose story of self-sacrifice is a household word taught to the children, and indelibly written on grateful Swiss hearts. The memory of Winkelried will ever remain to them as an inspiration whenever danger threatens the fatherland. A chapel marks the site of the battle, the anniversary is [384]celebrated every year, while at Stanz a beautiful monument commemorates Winkelried’s noble deed. In 1886 the five hundredth anniversary of Sempach was celebrated by the foundation of the Winkelried Institution for poor soldiers and the relatives of those killed in action. In 1388 a small army of Swiss, at Naefels, completely defeated, with fearful loss, ten times their number of Austrians, and secured finally the freedom of Switzerland. A history published last year says:

A magnificent monument at Basle commemorates the bloody fight of St. Jacques. The national spirit of the Swiss, nurtured and evidenced in this manner, has held together for hundreds of years a people professing different religions, and actually speaking four different languages. In 1856 King Frederick William IV. of Prussia threatened them with war. The whole people rose; grey-haired old men and mere boys offered their services, fellow-countrymen abroad sent large sums of money, and even the school children offered up their savings, and there was no intruding traitor to object that the children should not be allowed to interfere on the pretext that it was a party question. Catholic and Protestant, French, German, Italian, and Romansch, all stood shoulder to shoulder, [385]animated by the same spirit, determined to brave any danger in defence of the honour and independence of their country. The noble bearing of the Swiss aroused the sympathy and commanded the respect of all Europe, and really caused the preservation of peace. They have been free for 500 years, and will be free and respected so long as they retain the national spirit they have hitherto possessed. It is interesting to note that the Swiss teach the boys in the schools military drill, furnishing them with small guns and small cannon that they may be thoroughly trained.

Russia has grown from a comparatively small principality to an enormous empire, and as it has constantly risen in the scale of nations, so has it also been marked by a strong sentiment of nationality. Alexander, Prince of Novgorod, in 1240 and 1242 won two great victories, one at the Neva and the other at Lake Peipus, and so saved Russia from her enemies. He received the honourable title of “Nefsky,” or of the Neva, and the anniversaries of his victories were celebrated for hundreds of years. The great Alexander Nefsky monastery in St. Petersburg was built in his honour by Peter the Great. Dimitry, in 1380, won a great victory over the Tartars. Over 500 years have elapsed, but still the name of Dimitry Donskoi lives in the memory and in the songs of the Russian people, and still on “Dimitry’s Saturday,” the anniversary of the battle, solemn prayers are offered up in memory of the brave men who fell on that day in defence of the fatherland. It is hardly necessary to refer to the magnificent display of patriotism and self-sacrifice shown by the whole Russian people, from Czar to serf, in the defence of Russia in 1812, against armed Europe led by the greatest general of modern times. The spirit of the Russians rose with their sacrifices. The destruction of Moscow by its own people is one of the most striking instances of patriotic devotion in history. The Governor of Moscow, Count Rostopchin, burned his own country palace near Moscow when the French approached, and affixed to the gates this inscription: “During eight years [386]I have embellished this country house, and lived happily in it in the bosom of my family. The inhabitants of this estate—7,000—quit at your approach. You find nothing but ashes.” The city was abandoned and burnt. Nothing remained but the remembrance of its glories and the thirst for a vengeance, which was terrible and swift. Kutusof, the Russian general, announced the loss, and said “that the people are the soul of the empire, and that where they are there is Moscow and the empire of Russia.” The magnificent column to Alexander I. in the square in front of the Winter Palace in St. Petersburg is a striking memorial of the victor of this great war. A visitor to St. Petersburg cannot fail to notice the strong pride in their country that animates the people. Now turning to England we find numberless proofs of the same sentiment that has built up all great nations. The brilliant victories of Cressy, Poitiers, and Agincourt, won by Englishmen against overwhelming odds, had no doubt exercised an important influence upon the people. The Reformation and the discovery of the New World exercised the popular mind, and a spirit of adventure seized most of the European countries. English sailors were most active and bold in their seafaring enterprises. They waged private war on their own account against the Spaniards in the West Indies and in the southern seas, and attacked and fought Spanish vessels with the most reckless indifference as to odds. The Armada set a spark to the smouldering patriotism of the people, the whole nation sprang to arms, the City of London equipped double the number of war vessels they were called upon to furnish. Catholics and Protestants vied with each other in animating the people to the most vehement resistance. To excite the martial spirit of the nation Queen Elizabeth rode on horseback through her army, exhorting them to remember their duty to their country.

“I am come amongst you,” she said, “being resolved in the midst and heat of the battle to live and die amongst you all, to lay down, for my God, and for my kingdom, and for my people, my honour, and my blood [387]even in the dust. I know I have the body of a weak and feeble woman, but I have the heart of a king, and a king of England, too, and think foul scorn that Parma, Spain, or any prince of Europe should dare to invade the borders of my realms.”

These noble sentiments show the feeling that animated the race, for no woman could speak in such a strain who had not lived and breathed in an atmosphere of brave and true patriotism. Elizabeth voiced the feeling of her people, and this strong national spirit carried England through the greatest danger that ever menaced her. The poems of Shakespeare ring with the same loyal sentiment:

Henry V. is as much a song of triumph as the Persæ of Æschylus, but here again history repeats itself, and Shakespeare has to refer to the treasonable conspiracy of Grey, Scroop, and Cambridge, who

The three hundredth anniversary of the defeat of the Armada was celebrated at Plymouth three years ago, and a magnificent monument erected on the Hoe, close to the statue of the brave old English sailor, Sir Francis Drake, who did so much to secure the victory. The great poets of England have voiced the patriotic feeling of the country in every age. Macaulay’s “Armada,” Tennyson’s “Revenge,” and “The Light Brigade”; the songs of Campbell and Dibdin are household words in our empire, and I never heard of any objection being made to their being read by children.

[388]

The confidence of England in herself carried her through the terrible struggle with the French, Spaniards, and Dutch, in which she lost the American Colonies. Her patriotic determination also carried her through the desperate struggle with Napoleon, who at one time had subdued nearly every other European country to his will. While the English people are animated by the spirit of Drake and Frobisher, of Havelock and Gordon, of Grenville and Nelson, of the men who fought at Rorke’s Drift, or those who rode into the valley of death, there need be no fear as to her safety. Our own short Canadian history gives us many bright pages to look back upon. The exodus of the United Empire Loyalists was an instance of patriotic devotion to the national idea that is almost unique in its way. The manly and vigorous way in which about 300,000 Canadians in 1812 defended their country against the attacks of a nation of 8,000,000, with only slight assistance from England, then engaged in a desperate war, is too well known to require more than the merest reference. It is well to notice, however, how the experience of all nations has been repeated in our own country. We were hampered and endangered in 1812 by the intrigues of traitors, some of whom in Parliament did all they could to embarrass and destroy the country, and then deserted to the enemy and fought against us. General Brock’s address to the Canadian people, however, shows the same national confidence that has carried all great nations through their greatest trials. “We are engaged,” said he, “in an awful and eventful contest. By unanimity and despatch in our councils and by vigour in our operations we may teach the enemy this lesson, that a country defended by free men enthusiastically devoted to the cause of their king and constitution can never be conquered.”

The memory of our victories at Queenston Heights and Chateauguay are as dear to the hearts of the Canadian people as Marathon and Salamis were to the Greeks, or Morgarten and Sempach are to the Swiss. Why then should we be asked to conceal the knowledge of these victories won on our own soil, by our own people, in [389]defence of our own freedom? Confederation united the scattered provinces, extended our borders from ocean to ocean, gave us a country and a name, filled the minds of our youth with dreams of national greatness and hopes of an extending commerce spreading from our Atlantic and Pacific coasts to every corner in the world. The completion of the Canadian Pacific Railway consolidated the country more than ever, brought the provinces into closer union, and inspired the hope that a great portion of the trade between the East and the West would pulsate through our territory. All these causes have created a strong national spirit. This feeling was dormant until the people became uneasy about an insidious movement commenced four years ago in New York, which, while apparently advocated in the interest of Canada, would have resulted in the loss of our fiscal independence and possibly our national existence. This was followed by President Cleveland’s retaliation proclamation, a blow intended to embarrass our affairs, and so to force us into subserviency. Afterwards came Senator Sherman’s speech, strongly advocating annexation; and Mr. Whitney, the Secretary of the Navy, threatened us with an invasion, describing how four armies of 25,000 men each could easily take Canada.

The newspapers in the States were filled with articles on the subject, and maps were published showing our country divided up into states, and its very name obliterated. As an instance of the newspaper articles I quote the following from the New York Commercial Bulletin, published in November, 1888, commenting on the speeches of Senator Sherman and Mr. Whitney. The Bulletin says:

The North American Review, one of the most respectable of their magazines, actually published an article by General Benjamin F. Butler, in which, speaking of annexation, he said: “Is not this the fate of Canada? Peacefully we hope, forcefully if we must,” and in the truculent spirit of a freebooter, he suggested that the invading army should be paid by dividing up our land among them. This was followed by the McKinley Bill, aimed of course at all countries, but especially bearing upon the articles where Canada’s trade could be seriously injured. This portion of the bill is generally believed to have been prepared with the assistance and advice of traitors in our own country.

In face of all this a lecturer in this city a few weeks ago made the following statement:

Among the people of antiquity there was a race that inhabited Mysia, a portion of Asia Minor, lying next to the Hellespont. This race was said to have been once [391]warlike, but they soon degenerated, and acquired the reputation of being the meanest of all people, Mysorum ultimus or last of the Mysians being used as a most contemptuous epithet. The ancients generally hired them to attend their funerals as mourners because they were naturally melancholy and inclined to shed tears. I think that the last lingering remnant of that bygone race must have wandered into this country, and, unable to obtain employment in their natural vocation, mourn and wail over the fate of Canada, urge our people to commit national suicide, and use every effort to destroy that hope and confidence which a young country like our own should always possess. This small clique is working in collusion with our enemies in the States, the design being to entrap us into annexation by force or fraud. This threat upon our country’s life, and the intrigues of these conspirators have had the effect that similar attempts have had upon all nations that have possessed the slightest elements of manliness. The patriotic feeling at once became aroused, the clergy in their pulpits preached loyalty and patriotism, the people burst out into song, and patriotic poems of greater or less merit appeared in the local press everywhere. The Stars and Stripes, often before draped in friendly folds with the Union Jack, disappeared from sight, while our own flag was hoisted all over the land. Battle anniversaries were celebrated, military monuments decorated, and in all public gatherings the loyal sentiment of the people showed itself, not in hostility to the people of the United States, but in bitter contempt for the disloyal among ourselves, who were intriguing to betray the country. This manifestation of the popular feeling killed the commercial union movement. No party in Canadian politics would touch it, and the Commercial Union Club in this city is, I believe, defunct. Its chairman, however, has not given up his designs against Canada. Coming to Canada about twenty years ago, his first mission was to teach the Canadians those high principles of honour of which he wished them to believe he was the living embodiment. His writings and his influence have never been on the side [392]of the continued connection between Canada and the Empire, but it is only within the last year or two that he has thrown off the mask, and taking advantage of the movements in the States to coerce us into annexation has come out openly in favour of the idea under the name of Continental Unity. In his last lecture on “Jingoism,” given a few weeks ago, he made his political farewell. If I placed the slightest confidence in his statement that he had concluded his attacks on Canada, I would not have troubled to answer this, his latest vindictive effusion. But he has already made so many farewells that he calls to mind the numerous farewell performances of antiquated ballet dancers, who usually continue repeating them till they are hissed off the stage. Before three weeks had elapsed he once more appeared before the public, with a letter announcing once more his departure from the stage, and arguing at length in favour of annexation for the purpose of influencing Mr. Solomon White’s Woodstock meeting. Mr. White’s speech and his letter were the only words heard in favour of that view, in a meeting which by an overwhelming majority of both parties in politics, voted against the idea. He will write again and lecture again if he sees any opportunity of doing Canada any injury.

This Oxford Professor has been most systematic in his efforts to carry out his treasonable ideas. He sees several obstacles in his way. The prosperity of the people, their loyalty to their sovereign, their love for the motherland, the idea of imperial unity, the memory of what we owe to the dead who have died for Canada’s freedom, and the martial instinct of our young men which would lead them to fight to maintain the independence of their country. He sees all these influences in his way, while the only inducement he can hold out to us in support of his view is the delusive hope that annexation would make us more prosperous and wealthy. How getting a market among our competitors, who produce everything we sell and are our rivals everywhere, would enrich us is a difficult point to maintain, and as his forte [393]is destruction and not construction, his main efforts are devoted to attacking all that stands in his way. Without the same ability, he seems desirous of playing the part of a second Tom Paine in a new revolution, hoping to stab the mother country, and rob her empire of half a continent, as did that other renegade whose example he tries to imitate. He never loses an opportunity to make Canadians dissatisfied with their lot, trying to make us believe that we are in a hopeless state, while in reality we are exceedingly prosperous. In England he poses as a Liberal Unionist, which gives him a standpoint in that country from which he can attack Canada to the greatest advantage. His book on the Canadian question was evidently written for the purpose of damaging this country in England. One of his very few sympathisers said to me with a chuckle, “It will stop emigration to Canada for five years.” I need not devote time to this, however. Principal Grant has exposed its inaccuracies and unfairness, and proved that this prophet of honour has been guilty of misrepresentations that would shame a fourth-rate Yankee politician.

In the London Anti-Jacobin this summer he tells the English people to turn their attention to Africa, to India, and to Egypt, that there they have fields for achievement, and that other fields may be opened when the Turkish empire passes away, and asks the English people why they should cling to a merely nominal dominion. He evidently longs to see Englishmen, and English treasure and English enterprise given to assist and develop India, Africa, Egypt, or Turkey, anywhere except Canada, which has given him a home and treated him with a forbearance and courtesy unparalleled. The vindictive malignancy of this suggestion to the Anti-Jacobin is manifest. He sees that emigration to the magnificent wheat fields of our North-West will help and strengthen Canada, and so he decries Canada in his book and writes to English journals endeavouring to divert English enterprise and capital to countries inhabited by alien races about whose affairs and possibilities he knows nothing. These are instances of his systematic [394]intrigues against the prosperity of Canada. In February last, to attack the innate loyalty of the people, he delivered to an organisation of young men in this city a lecture on “Loyalty.” The whole aim of the lecture was to throw ridicule upon the very idea. A few men of bad character, who had claimed to be loyal, were quoted to insinuate that loyalty was synonymous with vice. As I have in my lecture on the “United Empire Loyalists” sufficiently answered him on this point, I will pass on to the next which was on “Aristocracy.” The object of this lecture was to discredit aristocracy, to show that the aristocracy belong to England and to the Empire, and to try to arouse the democratic instincts of a democratic country like ours against British connection. To weaken, if possible, the natural feeling of the people towards the land of their ancestors. His last lecture, on “Jingoism,” is the one I principally wish to deal with, as it is aimed at the other influences, which this Mysian desires to weaken in furtherance of his traitorous plans. The main object is to strike at our national spirit, at the evidences of it, and at the causes which increase and nourish this sentiment. He combines in a few words what he objects to: “Hoisting of flags, chanting martial songs, celebration of battle anniversaries, erection of military monuments, decoration of patriotic graves, arming and reviewing the very children in our public schools.” In his elegant way he says: “If Jingoism finds itself in need of all these stimulants, we shall begin to think it must be sick.” As a matter of fact, it is these manifestations of a Canadian national spirit that make him sick, to use his own elegant phrase. He says, “Jingoism” originated in the music halls of London. No feeling could have originated in that way in Canada. We have neither the music halls nor the class of population he refers to. With his usual inaccuracy and want of appreciation of historical teaching he fails to see that the national spirit in Canada has shown itself in exactly the same way as the same feeling has been exhibited in all great nations in all ages, and has been evoked by the same cause, viz. [395]national danger. He speaks of protectionism coming back to us from the tomb of mediæval ignorance, forgetting that he helped to resurrect it in 1878 and gave the influence of his pen and voice to put that principle in power. The volunteer movement, that embodiment of the martial instinct of our race, the outcome of the manly feeling of our youth to be willing to fight for the freedom and autonomy of their native land is another great element that stands in the way of the little gang of conspirators, and so our lecturer attacks the whole force. As we have no standing army, he praises the regular soldiers, so as by innuendo the more forcibly to insult our volunteers; insinuates that it is something feminine in the character of our people that induces them to flirt with the scarlet and coquette with the steel. This historian says the volunteer movement in England was no pastime, it was a serious effort to meet a threatened danger; but, unfortunately for his argument, the danger never came to anything. And yet he ought to know that volunteers in England have never seen a shot fired in anger for over two hundred years, and that he was speaking to the citizens of a city, that have seen in every generation since it was founded dead comrades brought home for burial who had died in action for their country. The loss of life and the hardships of the North-west campaign, the exposure to the bitter cold of winter storms, and the other sufferings of our Toronto lads on the north shore trip, of course, were only pastime, while the parading in the parks and commons of England, in the long summer evenings, has been a serious effort. The erection of a monument at Lundy’s Lane, unless it included honouring the aggressors who fought against us and tried to wrest from us our country, is described as “the meanness of unslaked hatred.” Are the monuments all over England, France, Germany, Russia, Switzerland, Rome, Greece and the United States all evidences of “the meanness of unslaked hatred”? They have never hitherto been looked at in that light. The professor, however, considering how he is always treating a country that has used him far better than he ever [396]deserved, should be a first-class authority on the meanness of unslaked and unfounded hatred. After twenty-five years the people of Toronto decorated the monument in honour of their dead volunteers, who died in defence of Canada in 1866. There was not one word of swagger or fanfaronade, simply an honouring of the memory of the dead, and pointing out the lesson it taught to the living to be true to their country. This is the cause of a sneer from this man, who seems to forget that those who fell in 1866 died for Canada. What more could man do than give up his life in defence of his country? And yet we, the people of Toronto, have to submit to these insults to the memory of our dead fellow-citizens. An earnest protest is also made against teaching patriotism to our children in the public schools, making them nurseries, as he says, of party passion. Of all the many instances of the false arguments and barefaced impertinence of this stranger, this is the worst. What party in this country is disloyal? What party is not interested in Canadian patriotism? A few strangers, some like the Athenian Eschines, believed to be in the pay of the enemy, some actuated only by natural malignity, are trying to destroy Canada, and find the patriotic spirit of our people in the way. These men have tried to hang on to the outskirts of a great and loyal party, and by the ill odour which attaches to them have injured the party, which longs to be quit of them. When Goldwin Smith’s letter was read at the Woodstock meeting another letter from the foremost Liberal leader in Canada was there advising the Liberal party to be true to its fidelity to the old flag, to vote down the resolutions of the conspirators, and to show that we were prepared to sacrifice something to retain the allegiance of this great Dominion to the sovereign we love. I have never referred to this question without vouching for the loyalty of the great body of the Liberal party, and especially for the loyalty of my old leaders, the Hon. George Brown, Mr. Mackenzie, Mr. Blake and Mr. Mowat. And Mr. Mowat voiced the feeling of all true Canadians, for, thank God, this has not yet become [397]a party question. As is done in Switzerland, and as is universally done in the United States—and all honour to them for it—all parties will unite to teach our children to honour our own flag, to sing our own songs, to celebrate the anniversaries of our own battles, to learn our own history, and will endeavour to inspire them with a national spirit and a confidence in our future. In all this, remember that we do not want war. It is the last thing anyone wants. These intrigues between traitors here and enemies in the States may betray us into war, but if it comes, it will not be the fault of the Canadian people, or the great mass of the right-thinking people of the United States. We only want to be let alone. We have everything a nation requires, we have an immense territory and resources, we are as free as air, with as good institutions as any country in the world. We do not wish to lose our nationality or to join a country for mere mercenary considerations where, in addition to a thousand other disadvantages, we would have to pay more as our share of the pension fund alone than the whole interest on our present national debt. We have nothing whatever to fight for; we don’t even require their market unless we can get it on equal and honourable terms. We do not intend, as some advise, to kneel down in the gutter in front of our neighbour’s place of business, and put up our hands and blubber and beg him to trade with us. Such a course would be humiliating to the self-respect of a professional tramp. A war could do us no good—could give us no advantage we do not now possess, save that it would rid us of our traitors. It would be a fearful struggle, and, no matter how successful we might be, would bring untold loss and suffering upon our people. This professor of history, who asks if we want war, ought to know that every attempt in the past to carry out his views has resulted in bloodshed. In 1775 our people fought against the idea. In 1812 they fought again in the same cause. In 1837, in spite of real grievances, all was forgotten in the loyalty of the Canadians, and once more by bloodshed the feeling of the people was manifested. On the 27th [398]October, 1874, the Globe editorially told him that what he was advocating simply meant revolution, and yet this man who is taking a course that he knows leads in the direction of war and bloodshed has the impudence to charge loyal men who are working in the opposite direction with wanting war.

The Swiss have for 500 years celebrated their battle anniversaries and honoured their flag and taught patriotism and military drill to their children. Their whole male population is drilled, and yet no one charges them with being an aggressive or “jingo” race; no one ever dreams that they desire war. It is a fallacious and childish argument to say that this kind of national spirit in itself indicates an aggressive feeling. If so, the United States must be a most aggressive race, for no country waves her flag more persistently with cause or without; no country more generally decorates the graves of her dead soldiers, and no country is erecting so many military monuments, and I respect them for it. By all means let us live on friendly terms with our neighbours, but certainly no people would despise us as much as they would were all Canadians so cowardly and contemptible as some sojourners here wish us to be.

The census returns seem to cause great satisfaction to our enemies. The progress has not been as fast as some could wish, and the exodus of our people is much talked of. The only trouble I find is that the exodus is not as extensive as it should be. The man who cannot get on here, or who is dissatisfied with Canada or her institutions, is right to go to the country he likes best. It does not cost much to go, and, if he wishes, by all means let him go. The man to be despised is he who, dissatisfied here, remains here, and, using the vantage ground of residence in the country, exerts every effort to injure and destroy it. If a few of this class would join the exodus, instead of doing all they can to increase it, it would be a blessing, and in the end increase materially both our population and our prosperity. Strength does not consist so much in numbers as in quality. When Hannibal was crossing into [399]Italy he called for volunteers to stay behind to garrison some posts; not that he required them, but because he desired to rid himself of the half-hearted. Some thousands volunteered to remain. He then considered his army much stronger than when it was more numerous, because the weak element was gone. Shakespeare, that great master of human nature, puts the same idea in Henry V.’s mouth on the eve of Agincourt, when in the face of fearful danger:

It is this very exodus of the dissatisfied from Canada that makes our people more united and determined. We have about 5,000,000 of people anyway, about equal to the population of England when she faced Spain, about equal to the population of Prussia when, under Frederick the Great, she waged a triumphant war against a combination of Powers of about 100,000,000.

The remarks about the copyright law are really too funny. The professor says that the anti-British feeling in the States is dying out, “and its death will be hastened by the International Copyright Law, because hitherto the unfair competition to which American writers were exposed with pirated English works has helped to embitter them against England.” Their hatred is not against their own countrymen, who, with the consent of the nation, have pirated English books, and sold them in competition against their native writings, but it is vented against the poor, innocent English author, whose property has been taken from him, much against his will and to his great loss. There is not a man in all the United States who would imagine so mean an idea. Space will not admit of answering one-half the misrepresentations and false arguments in this lecture on “Jingoism.” The utter indiffer[400]ence to facts and to the teachings of history, when they do not aid his arguments, gives this lecturer an advantage from which a more scrupulous writer is debarred. Take for instance his reference to the calmness and freedom in the States during the civil war. His statement that “civil law prevailed, personal liberty was enjoyed, the press was free, and criticised without reserve the acts of the Government and the conduct of the war” seems strange to any who remember the history of the time when Seward’s “little bell” could put any citizen in the northern states in prison without warrant or trial; when Fort Lafayette in New York harbour, the old capitol at Washington, Fort McHenry at Baltimore, and Fort Warren at Boston were filled to overflowing with political prisoners; when newspapers were suspended and editors imprisoned, when Clement Vallandigham, one of the foremost men in the United States, was imprisoned and then banished for criticising the policy of the Government.

He speaks of his sympathy with the “Canada First” movement, of which I was one of the originators and for which I chose the motto “Canada First,” the idea being that we were to put our country first, before all personal or party considerations. We began our work by endeavouring to stir up and foster a national spirit. Charles Mair wrote a series of letters from Fort Garry to the Globe in 1869, before the North-West territories became part of Canada, advocating the opening of that country. His letters were filled with the loyal Canadian spirit. Robert G. Haliburton a year or two after went through the country lecturing on “Intercolonial Trade,” and “The Men of the North,” and teaching the same lesson. W. A. Foster about the same time wrote his lecture on “Canada First,” a magnificent appeal to Canadian patriotism, while I lectured in different parts of the Dominion on “The Duty of Canadians to Canada,” urging the necessity of encouraging a strong national spirit in the people. The professor says he gave the movement his sympathy and such assistance as he could with his pen. He hoped, as did one or two others who injured us by their support, to [401]turn it into an independence movement and make a sort of political party out of it, and it melted into thin air, but the work of the originators was not all lost, as Mair says in his lines in memory of our friend Foster:

The professor has in the same way been giving his sympathy and support to the Reform party, advocating trade arrangements somewhat as they do, and tacking on annexation, which they do not. His assistance is blasting to the Reform party, and nothing but Mr. Mowat’s manly repudiation of his ideas could save the party from the injury and damage that so unwelcome a guest could not fail to bring upon it. For I have no doubt he is as unwelcome in the ranks of the Reform party as his presence in Canada is a source of regret to the whole population. The last words of his lecture are as follows:

With this last sneer, with this final insulting menace, this stranger bids us farewell, and only does so, partly because he thinks that in his book and in his lectures he has done all that he possibly can to injure our prosperity, to destroy our national spirit, to weaken our confidence in ourselves and in our country; and partly also to disarm criticism and somewhat allay the bitter feeling his disloyal enmity to Canada has aroused. But we need not lose hope.

The instances I have given from the history of the past show that the very spirit that has carried great nations through great trials has manifested itself in all ages, just as the patriotic feeling of the Canadian people has burst out under the stress of foreign threats and foreign aggression, and under the indignation aroused by internal [402]intrigue and treachery. This feeling cannot be quenched. Our flag will be hoisted as often as we will, and I am glad to notice that our judges are seeing that what is a general custom shall be a universal custom, and that where the Queen’s courts are held there her flag shall float overhead. All parties will unite in encouraging a national spirit, for no party can ever attain power in this country unless it is loyal. Mr. Mowat shows this clearly in a second letter which has just been published in the Globe. We will remember the deeds of our ancestors and strive to emulate their example. Our volunteers will do their duty in spite of sneers, whether that duty be pastime or a serious effort. We will strive to be good friends with our neighbours, and trade with them if they will, putting above all, however, the honour and independence of our country. In Mr. Mowat’s words:

If all this is “Jingoism,” the Canadians will be “Jingoes,” as that loyal Canadian, Dr. Beers, said in his magnificent lecture at Windsor. We would rather be loyal Jingoes than disloyal poltroons. If history teaches us anything, it teaches us that a sound national spirit alone can bring our native land to a prominent position among the nations of the earth; and if thus animated, what a strength this country will be to the British Empire, of which, I hope, we may ever form a part. Let us then do everything to encourage this spirit. Let all true Canadians think of Canada first, putting the country above all party or personal or pecuniary considerations, ever remembering that no matter what the dangers, or trials, or difficulties, or losses may be, we must never lose faith in Canada. I will conclude with a few lines from one of “The Khan’s” poems, which appeared not long since in one of our city papers, as they indicate the feeling that exists generally among native Canadians:

[403]

THE END

[404]

INDEX

A

Abbott, Sir John, 217

Abercorn, the Duke of, 299

Aberdeen Journal on Newspaper Society’s dinner, 302

Aberdeen, Lord, at National Club dinner, 239

Aberdeen, Mr. James Bryce’s meeting at, 305

Abortive political movement, 56-61

Adams, Charles Francis, 109

Address, House of Commons to the Queen, 131

Adolphustown, meeting at, 64

Alaska acquired by United States, 98

Alaskan Award, 347

Algoma, contest constituency, 57

Allan, Hon. G. W., 65, 158

Allen, Benjamin, 78

Allen, J. Davis, visits Canada, 259;
visits Toronto, 260

Allen, Ethan, 109

Alverstone, Lord, on Alaskan Arbitration, 348

American Continental Congress, 2

Ames, Oliver, 109

Amnesty meeting, 41-45

Annexation letters to Globe, 121

Annexation manifesto of 1849, 4

Annual meeting, Imperial Federation League in Canada, 1888, 91;
1889, 128;
1890, 138;
1892, 195;
1893, 196;
1894, 204;
1896, 213

Annual meeting, Imperial Federation League (England), 1890, 142

Annual meeting, British Empire League in Canada, 1897, 223;
1898, 244;
1899, 248;
1900, 271;
1901, 285;
1902, 288, 289;
1903, 347

Annual meeting, British Empire League (England), 1902, 324

Appendix A, 369

Appendix B, 375

Archibald, Lt.-Governor, visits Niagara Falls, 36;
plot to forestall expedition, 45-47;
fails to meet Riel’s emissaries, 48

Argentine export of wheat, 1897, 238, 239

Armour, Chief Justice, 347

Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hon. H. O., 199

Ashburton, Lord, 349

[405]Atlantic and Pacific Fleets increased, 152

Atlantic Steamship Combine, 292

Avebury, Lord (Sir John Lubbock), 203, 206;
presides at conference, 207;
member of organising committee, 209;
British Empire League inaugurated, 212;
meeting at his house, 230;
at British Empire banquet, 280;
presides at Council meeting, 1902, 299;
at Congress, 358

Aylesworth, Hon. Mr., Alaskan Arbitration, 348


B

Badenach, Wm., 58

Badgerow, G. W., 58

Baines, Talbot, 300

Baker, Edgar, 78

Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J., 76

Banquet, British Empire League in London, 1900, 271-280

Barrie, meeting at, 136

Barton, Sir Edmund, 280, 332, 334

Bastedo, S. T., 189

Beach, Sir Michael Hicks-, on food supply, 236, 334, 356

Beatty, W. H., 158, 197

Beers, Dr. W. Geo., speech at Syracuse, 126;
speech at Toronto, 137

Begg, Faithfull, M.P., 321, 322

Behring Sea fisheries, 147, 150, 151

Belleville welcomes Schultz, 27

Bennett, Capt. James, 26, 43

Beresford, Lord Charles, 320

Bernard, Lally, letter to Globe, 330

Bethune, R. N., 159

Biggar, C. W. R., 58;
on Sir Oliver Mowat, 186, 192

Birmingham Chamber of Commerce, 138

Blackstock, T. G., 197

Blain, Hugh, 58, 158, 197

Blaine, Hon. James, Behring Sea difficulty, 147, 151, 153;
re Commercial Union, 163

Blake, Edward, at National Club, 239

Bliss, Cornelius N., 109

Board of Trade banquet, 1887, 88

Board of Trade banquet, Sir Oliver Mowat’s speech, 193

Body Guard, Governor-General’s, escort Lord Lansdowne, 73

Boer ultimatum, 264

Borden, Sir Fred, in England, 1902, 322, 331, 333, 334

Borthwick, Sir Algernon, 209

Boswell, Mayor, 64, 65

Boulton, Major Charles, 23

Boulton, Sir S. B., 321

Bourassa, Henri, 264

Bowell, Sir Mackenzie, 217, 244

Braddon, Sir Edward, 226

Brantford branch formed, 119

Brassey, Hon. T. A., 207

Brassey, Lord, 198, 209

Bristol Chamber of Commerce meeting, 316

British Columbia, union with Canada, 9

Brock, Sir Isaac, 15

Brock, W. R., 158

Brock’s Monument, 158

Broomhall, G. S., 239

Brown, Hon. G., letters of Mair to Globe, 14;
Red River expedition, 34;
publishes Foster’s lecture, 55;
Algoma election, 57

Bruce Mines, meeting at, 57

[406]Bryce, Dr. George, 20

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James, at Aberdeen, 306, 315

Bull, Rev. Canon, 185, 186

Bulletin, New York Commercial, 106, 148

Bunting, Percy Wm., correspondence with, 178

Butler, General Benjamin F., 105

Butler, Sir Walter, 299


C

Caledonian Society dinner, 1888, 122

California absorbed by United States, 98

Cambridge, the Duke of, 140

Cameron, Hector, 78

Cameron, Hon. John Hillyard, 32

Campbell, C. J., 159

Canada, condition of, before Confederation, 7

Canada Club dinner, 1902, 315

Canada Club, speech at, 1890, 150

“Canada First” party, origin of and meaning of, 9
group aroused, 19
a secret organisation, 21
name chosen, 50
Foster’s lecture, 54

Canadian Club, dinner to Mr. Aylesworth, 348

Canadian Club of New York, 82

Canadian Monthly started, 169

Canadian Mounted Rifles, 269

Canadian Pacific Railway, cause of Commercial Union movement, 81

Canadian Pacific Railway, plot to injure it, 110

Canniff, Dr. Wm., 19, 26, 56, 58, 65

Carbutt, Sir Edward, 299

Carnegie, Andrew, member of Continental Union League, 109;
at meeting in Sun office, 111;
subscription to Continental Union League, 113

Carruthers, Bruce, at Hart’s River action, 269

Cartier, Sir George, in Hudson Bay negotiations, 13;
Red River expedition, 34;
visits Niagara Falls with Bishop Taché, 35-37;
his early disloyalty, 44;
changes his policy re Red River, 45;
letter to Riel, 48;
defeated in Montreal, 49

Cartoon, United States in 1900, 104

Cartwright, Sir Richard, resolution on reciprocity, 117;
meeting with Hon. James Blaine, 163;
on tariff inquiry, 220;
defends Sir Wilfrid Laurier, 226

Casey, George E., M.P., 246

Cattanach, A. J., 128

Cawthra, Henry, 158

Cecil, Lord Robert, letter to Times, 353

Centennial of United Empire Loyalists, 64, 65

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Austen, 318

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Joseph, 75;
at Board of Trade banquet, 1887, 88;
interview with, 1890, 146;
at British Empire League banquet, 1900, 272;
on preferential tariffs, 282;
luncheon with, 1902, 298;
Liverpool meeting, 1902, 306;
at Lord Lansdowne’s, 308;
speech at Birmingham, May, 1902, 308;
Daily News attacks, 310;
correspondence with, 338;
letter to him, 343-346;
[407]speech at Birmingham, May, 1903, 346;
controversy with Lord Salisbury, 349;
luncheon with, 1906, 356;
illness of, 358, 366

Charlton, John, M.P., in Continental Union Association, 108
asks Glen for money, 112

Chelmsford, meeting at, in 1900, 282;
effect of this meeting, 286

Chicago Tribune, 103;
on speech, 1902, 297

Chippawa, “Raising the Flag,” 159

Civil War in United States, 5

Clafflin, John, 109

Clark, J. M., 85, 91;
seconds resolution, 1888, 94;
at Ingersoll, 205;
on deputations, 136, 204, 224

Clarke, Mayor, 135

Cleveland, President, message to Congress, 103, 120;
Venezuela message, 210, 218

Cobden Club give Sir W. Laurier Gold Medal, 142

Coburg, reception of Schultz and Mair, 28

Cochrane, Bourke, 109, 112

Cockburn, Capt. Churchill, at action of Lilliefontein, 268

Cockburn, George R. R., 78, 85, 91;
occupies chair at First Imperial Federation meeting, 92, 159, 197, 200

Cockburn, Sir John, 299

Cockshutt, W. F., M.P., at Congress of Chambers of Commerce, 358

Colomb, Sir John, 140, 199

Colonial Club dinner, 1902, 315

Commercial Union, origin of, 80-82;
a treasonable conspiracy, 82-96

Commons, resolution on Preference, 195

Condition of Canada before Confederation, 7, 8

Confederation of Canada, 6

Conference of 1907 futile, 366

Congress, the American, 2

Congress of Chambers of Commerce, 1906, 212, 356, 359

Constitution of Imperial Federation League, 77

Constitution of National Association, 59

Contemporary Review, Goldwin Smith in, 177

Continental Union Association, 108, 109;
Goldwin Smith Honorary President, 169;
Goldwin Smith’s letter to, 174

Contingent to South Africa, letter on, 265, 266

Cornell, W. E., 58

Corn laws, repeal of, 4

Cosby, A. M., 158, 197

Cotton, growth of, in Empire, 300, 301

Council Meeting of Imperial Federation League in 1890, 141

Courier, Liverpool, extract from, 307

Cox, Harold, 211

Creelman, A. R., 197

Creighton, David, 136, 165

Crickmore, J., 58

Crimean War, raised prices, 5

Cumberland, Lt.-Col. Fred W., 57

Currie, Sir Philip, Behring Sea question, 148

Curry, J. W., K.C., 291

Curzon, Mrs. S. A., poem, 87


D

Dana, Chas. A., Continental Union League, 109;
at meeting in Sun office, 111;
[408]Myers visits, 112;
Mercier’s letter to, 114;
letter to Morison, 115

Darling, Henry W., 82

Davidson, Lt.-Col. John I., 158

Davies, Sir Louis, 244

Daw, W. Herbert, at Conference in 1894, 207, 208

Dedrickson, C. W., 58

Denison, Colonel George T., one of Canada First Group, 10;
welcomes refugees from Fort Garry, 24, 25;
goes to Ottawa with refugees, 26;
drafts protest, 29;
interview with Lt.-Col. Durie, 37;
moves resolution at meeting, 1870, 43;
lecture on Duty of Canadians, 50;
advocates Imperial Confederation, 1870, 53;
speech at National Club against independence, 63;
speech at United Empire Loyalists’ Centennial, 66, 67;
O’Brien episode, 69;
opposes Commercial Union, 83, 84;
speech at Board of Trade banquet, 1887, 88;
at organisation of Imperial Federation League, Toronto, 91, 92, 93;
letter to Globe, 1888, 121;
at Caledonian Society dinner, 122;
threatens Annexationists, 123, 126;
at Ingersoll, Lindsay, and St. Thomas, 127;
at Peterborough and Woodstock, 128;
chairman of flag-raising deputation, 135;
appointed president Imperial Federation League, 196;
on deputation to England, 1894, 204;
at conference, Sir John Lubbock’s, 1894, 207;
organisation of British Empire League, 213;
deputation to Hon. Wm. Fielding and Mr. Patterson, 220;
mission to England, 1897, 225;
on denunciation of German treaties, 228, 229, 230;
interviewed in Toronto, 1897, 231;
on food supply, 232-236;
on West Indian preference, 242, 243;
speech at annual meeting, 1899, 248;
South African War, at Military Institute, 260, 261;
letter to Globe on Volunteer contingent, 265;
at British Empire League banquet in England, 1900, 271-280;
speech at Chelmsford, 1900, 282;
speaks at St. John, N.B., and Montreal and London, Ont., 287, 288;
mission to England, 1902, 291;
speech at Royal Colonial Institute, 1902, 293;
at Council meeting, British Empire League, 299;
interview with Lord Rosebery, 303;
addresses Liverpool Chamber of Commerce, 305;
dines at Lord Lansdowne’s, 308;
letter to Daily News, 311;
discussion in House of Commons, 316;
addresses London Chamber of Commerce, 319, 320;
controversy with Sir Robert Giffen, 326-331;
returns to Toronto and interview, 332, 333;
banqueted by National Club, Toronto, 335;
writes to Mr. Chamberlain, 23rd March, 1903, 343;
writes to Times on Lord Salisbury’s views, 349-352;
writes to Times in reply to Lord Robert Cecil, 354;
speech at Congress of Chambers of Commerce, 359

[409]Denison, Lt.-Col. Fred C., writes to Wiman, 86, 87, 158, 165, 218.

Denison, Rear-Admiral, 280

Denison, Lt.-Col. Robert B., 65

Denison, Lt.-Col. Septimus, 205

Dennis, Lt.-Col. J. Stoughton, 17, 18

Depew, Chauncey M., 109

Deputation to England, 1894, 204;
1897, 223, 224;
1902, 286, 287

Derby, Earl of, sends book to the Queen, 159;
on British Empire League committee, 208, 281

Detroit, 95

Devonshire, the Duke of, president British Empire League, 212, 272, 273;
at Liverpool, 225, 226

Dickson, Casimir, 86

Dilke, Sir Charles, at Royal Colonial Institute, 140

Dissolution of Imperial Federation League, 194-198

Dobell, Hon. R. R., 224

Dodge, Granville W., 109

Donovan, J. A., 58

Drummond, George, 358

Dunraven, Lord, 209

Dun Winian & Co., influence of, 83

Durie, Lt.-Col., guard of honour for Cartier, 37

“Duty of Canadians to Canada,” lecture on, 50, 51


E

Edgar, Sir James D., 19, 25, 43

Edinburgh, Lord Morley’s speech at, 315

Edinburgh Chamber of Commerce meeting, 315

Egerton of Tatton, Earl, 299

Election of 1891, 156

Elgin, Lord, negotiates Reciprocity Treaty, 5

Elliott, R. W., 58

Ellis, J. F., presides at National Club dinner, 335

Emerson, Ralph Waldo, 98

Empire, article in, 1890, 162;
comments on national spirit, 172;
flags given to schools, 156

Empire Day inaugurated, 256

English, C. E., 58

Equal rights movement, 194

Evans, Charles Napier, at Hart’s River, 269

Evans, George E., on deputation, 204;
receives cable from Africa, 258, 291

Evans, Sanford, 257

Executive committee, resolution, 1902, 289

Expedition, Red River, withdrawal proposed, 36, 42

Express, The Daily, interview in, 293


F

Fair Trade League, 211

Farrer, Edward, in Commercial Union, 108;
Glen’s letters to, 110, 111, 112;
pamphlet, 163, 164

Farrer, Sir William, 142

Fenian influence, 115

Fenian raid, Lt.-Col. J. S. Dennis at, 17

Fenian raids, 9, 70, 240

Ferguson, R. Munro, 199

Fessenden, Mrs. Clementine, suggests Empire Day, 256

Fielding, Hon. W. S., on Trade Inquiry, 220, 221;
West Indian preference, 242, 243;
speech in House, 243;
in London in 1902, 331

[410]Fife, the Duke of, 273

Financial News on London meeting, 321

Fisheries Treaty defeated in United States Senate, 120

Fitzpatrick, Hon. Charles, 244

Flag raising over schools, 134, 135

Flag over schools, effect of, 269

Flannery, Sir Fortescue, 321

Fleming, Andrew, 27, 44

Fleming, Sir Sandford, 197, 224, 245, 246

Florida acquired by United States, 100

Flower, Roswell P., 109, 113

Food supply, correspondence on, 237

Foraker, John B., 109

Ford, I. N., report of Royal Colonial Institute dinner, 1902, 294

Ford, I. N., 322, 323

Forrest, Sir John, 334

Fort Garry, 17;
seized by Riel, 18;
projected attack upon, 23

Foster, Hon. George E., at First Imperial Federation League meeting, 78;
mission to England, 1902, 290, 291

Foster, W. A., in “Canada First” group, 10, 15;
articles in Daily Telegraph, 22;
gets warrant against Richot and Scott, 31;
calls public meeting, 1870, 35;
at amnesty meeting, 1870, 44;
writes lecture, 54;
organises National Association, 56, 57, 58, 59

Fraser, W. H., 58

Free Trade, attack upon, at London Chamber of Commerce, 320

Free Trade bogey, 286

Fremantle, Sir Charles, 299

French wars, expense of, 1

Fuller, Bishop of Niagara, 65

Fuller, Valancy, 82


G

Gallinger, Jacob, 109

Galloway, Joseph, 2

Gallows Hill, 95

Gamble, John W., 221

German goods taxed in Canada, 229

German and Belgian Treaties prevented preference, 139;
mission against them, 150;
resolution against, 194;
discussion on, 207, 208;
efforts against, in 1897, 228;
denounced, 230

Giffen, Sir Robert, interview with, 234;
supports Corn Tax, 239;
letter against me to Times, 325;
reply, 327

Glasgow, meeting at, 1902, 315

Glen, Francis W., organises Continental Union League, 108;
letters of, 109, 110, 111, 112

Globe, the London, comments, 352

Globe, Toronto, 14;
letter to, in 1888, 101;
attacks and reply, 122, 124;
interview in 1897, 231

Gooderham, Albert E., 197

Gooderham, Alfred, 197

Gooderham, George, 158, 197

Gooderham, Wm. G., 197

Governor-General Lord Lisgar, 45

Governors of States endorse Cleveland, 211, 218

Grahame, Richard, of Canada First Group, 19, 35, 58

Grant, Rev., Principal George M., met him in Halifax, 53;
at First League meeting, 78;
in Australia, 127;
[411]at Hamilton, 128;
on preferential trade, 204, 216;
urges West Indian preference, 242;
letters from, 243, 244;
speaks at Mulock banquet, 1898, 246;
sympathises at first with Boers, 259

Grasett, Lt.-Col., 291

Gray, R. H., 58

Green, Mohawk Chief, 65

Grey, Mr., United Empire Loyalist, 221

Guelph, meeting at, 136

Gurney, Edward, 158

Gzowski, Sir Casimir, 70, 159


H

Hague, George, 246

Haliburton, R. J., 10, 15, 16;
at Niagara Falls, 35;
lectures, 16, 51, 52, 53

Halifax, lecture at, 53

Halifax branch, annual meeting of, 119

Hamilton, annual meeting at, 128

Hamilton, Lord George, 148, 308

Hamilton, Wm. B., 159

Hamilton, Wm. O’Brien at, 76

Harcourt, Sir Wm. Vernon, speech in House of Commons, 316

Harrison, President, breaks off negotiations, 151

Hartington, Lord, 74

Harts River, Bruce Carruthers, at action of, 268, 269

Hawick, meeting at, in 1894, 211

Hay, Admiral Sir Dalrymple, 321

Hay, Col. John, 109, 110

Headley, E. M., 210

Henderson, James, 159

Herbert, Sir Robert, chairman of executive, 212, 272, 299

Herschel, Lord, at Mulock banquet, 245, 246

Herschel, Hon. Richard, 245

Hessin, Wm., 58

Hill, Rt. Hon. Staveley, Behring Sea negotiations, 151, 163

Hill, W. Becket, 207, 208, 209

Hoffmeyer proposal, 90

Holland, Sir W. H., 299, 300, 301, 358

Home Rule resolutions, 69, 70

Hopkins, J. Castell, Woodstock meeting, 128;
at Ingersoll, 79;
St. George’s Society, 175

Hoskin, John, 158

House of Commons address, 1891, 195, 196

Howard, Allan McLean, 158

Howe, Hon. Joseph, 4, 20

Howell, A., 58

Howland, O. A., 182

Howland, W. H., chairman at Canada First meeting, 59, 60

Howland, Sir Wm. P., 59

Hudson’s Bay officials, hostile, 17

Hudson’s Bay Company, their policy, 12

Hudson’s Bay Territory, 9, 12;
acquired, 15

Hughes, James L., 86;
meeting at Lindsay, 127;
on deputation to England, 1894, 205, 209, 211

Hughes, Colonel Sam, at annual meeting, 1898, 244;
offers to raise contingent for South Africa, 260

Hunter, Rose & Co. print Farrer’s pamphlet, 164

Huron, Bishop of, 288

[412]Huron signal, 219

Hutchinson, Thomas, 1

Hutton, Major-General, 268


I

Imperial Conference, 1902, 286, 287, 303, 305, 331, 332

Imperial defence, letter to Times, 339

Imperial Federation (Defence) Committee, 339

Imperial Federation foreshadowed in lecture in 1870, 53

Imperial Federation Journal, comments of, 96, 118

Imperial Federation League started, 77;
in Canada, 85;
annual meeting, 1888, 91;
work of, 117-126;
dissolved, 197, 198;
resolution on dissolution, 199, 200

Imperial preferential duty, 287

Independence flag hoisted, 64

Independence flurry, 62-68

Independence movement, Globe’s action, 121

India, export of wheat, 1897, 238, 239

Ingersoll, branch formed at, 79;
meeting at, 127

Innerkip, Meeting at, 173

Innes, Lt.-Col. P. R., 209

Interprovincial trade, Haliburton’s lecture on, 15

Irving, A. S., 58


J

James, Dr. W. Culver, 207, 209, 299

Jersey, Lord, 209

Jesuit Estates Act, 194

Jones, Sir Alfred, organises meeting at Liverpool, 305

Jetté, Lt.-Governor, Alaska Commission, 348

Jones, John P., 109


K

Kilbride, Mr., evicted tenant, 74, 75

Kimberley, cable from, 258

King, the, at British Empire League banquet, 1900, 273, 274, 280

Kingsmill, George R., 20, 22, 58

Kingsmill, Nicol, 58

Kipling, Rudyard, poem, 222

Kirby, Wm., 185, 192

Kirkpatrick, Lt.-Governor Sir George, 190

Kitchener, Lord, on Hart’s River action, 269

Kirwan, Capt. Michael, 114

Kirwin, General, 114

Knutsford, Lord, refuses to denounce treaties, 196, 228


L

Lacrosse Club banquet, London, 1902, 293

Lady of the Snows, 222

Langelier, Mr., at New York, 111

Lansdowne, Lord, visit to Toronto, 70, 71, 73, 74;
interviewed by Imperial Federation League, 118;
British Empire League banquet, 1900, 272, 280;
dinner at, 308

La Prairie Camp, 33

Laurie, General, 321

Laurier, Sir Wilfrid, 111;
British preference, 216;
election of 1896, 219;
Lord Salisbury refers to, 220;
[413]in Liverpool, 1897, 225;
on Free Trade, 231;
West Indian preference, 242, 243;
resolution about Transvaal, 259;
on contingent, 263, 264;
returns from Chicago, 264;
decides to send contingent, 264;
at Sir William Mulock’s, 267;
speech in House, 1902, 303;
interview with, at Hotel Cecil, 331;
at conference, 1902, 333, 334;
at conference, 1907, 366

Lauterbach, Edward, 109

Law, Fred, Commander, 86, 128

Leader article on Red River Expedition, 36

Lecture on “Duty of Canadians,” 50, 51

Lecture on “National Spirit,” Appendix A, 371

Lee, A. B., 158

Lee, Capt., M.P., 300

Lee, Walter S., 158

Leeds, Lord Rosebery’s meeting at, 1902, 304

Lefroy, Fraser, 291

Leith Chamber of Commerce, 315

Letter to Globe, 26th September, 1888, 101

Letter to Globe on wanting war, 124;
on contingent, 265

Lesperance, John Talon, poem, 158

Lessard, Col. C. B., 268

Leys, John, Jr., 158

Liberty, Sons of, reference to, 126

Lilliefontein, fight at, 268

Lindsay, meeting at, 127

Lisgar, Lord, at Niagara Falls, 35, 45

Liverpool, arrived at, 1890, 140;
in 1897, 225

Liverpool Chamber of Commerce, 1902, 305, 307

Liverpool papers, comments on meeting, 307

London Chamber of Commerce meeting, 1902, 319, 320

London, Ontario, meeting at, 1901, 288

Long, J. M., 79

Loring, A. H., 197, 198, 199;
letter to Times in reply, 339

Louisiana purchased, 98

Low, Seth, 109

Low, Sydney, writes interview for Pall Mall Gazette, 298

Loyal address from House to the Queen, 131

Loyalists of the Revolution, 1

Lubbock, Sir John: see Avebury, Lord

Lubbock, Neville, 210

Lundy’s Lane Monument, 181, 182

Lyman, Henry, 128

Lyman, H. H., 128, 224

Lynch, Dr., taken prisoner, 19;
arrives from Fort Garry, 25;
first protest, 30, 31;
second protest, 38, 39


M

Mafeking demonstration, 283

Mail, London Daily, on Canadian Imperialism, 246

Mail, the Toronto, 117

Mair, Charles, 10;
writes letters from Fort Garry, 14;
introduces Schultz, 15;
made prisoner, 19;
escapes from Fort Garry, 21;
raises loyal men at Portage la Prairie, 23;
lectures at Belleville, 53, 54

Manchester Guardian, 303, 310

[414]Manitoba No. 1, hard wheat, 13

Mansion House, meeting at, 140;
meeting in 1896, 212

Map of North America in New York World, 104

Marcus, Herman W., 207, 210

Masham, Lord, 314

Mason, Lt.-Col. James, 260

Mason, J. Herbert, 158, 197, 224

Matabeleland, proposed preference, 228

Matsugata, Count, at Lord Lansdowne’s dinner, 308

Matthews, Jehu, 78

Macdonald, E. A., 108, 190

Macdonald, Sir John A., Hudson’s Bay acquisition, 13;
Red River rebellion, 28;
interview with, 29;
illness of, 35, 41;
letter to, 130, 161;
election in 1891, 163, 164, 165, 166;
his death, 217

Macdonald, J. K., 128

Macdougall, Hon. Wm., sent to England re Hudson’s Bay, 13;
appoints Mair to surveying party Fort Garry, 13;
Lt.-Governor of North-West Territory, 15;
arrives at Pembina, 17;
returns to Ottawa, 20;
at amnesty meeting, 42;
member North-West Emigration Society, 54

Macdougall, Joseph E., 20, 54, 58

Macfarlane, Senator, 78

Macfarlane, Thomas, letter to League Journal, 90;
at Hamilton meeting, 128

Mackenzie, Alexander, becomes Premier, 49, 57

Macklem, Oliver, 158

Maclean, W. F., M.P., 246

MacNab, John, County Attorney, 24, 25

MacNabb, Alexander, Police Magistrate, 31

McCarthy, Dulton, president Imperial Federation League, 78;
Toronto branch, 85, 90;
at Toronto meeting, 1888, 95, 96;
at Peterborough, 12;
at Hamilton, 128;
Sir Leonard Tilley replaces him as president, 194;
subscribes to fund, 197;
at annual meeting, 1896, 216;
suggests preference to England, 222;
on deputation, 224

McGillicuddy, Daniel, 219

McGoun, Archibald, 139

McGuire, John C., 109

McInnes, Senator, 128

McKay, Dr., Sir Oliver Mowat writes to him, 187

McKenzie, Kenneth, Q.C., 44

McLennan, Hugh, 78

McMurrich, W. B., 58, 291

McNaught, W. K., 158, 240

McNeill, Alexander, 78;
speech at Paris, 91;
at Toronto meeting, 94;
at Guelph, 112;
moves resolution in House of Commons, 195;
in the chair at annual meeting, 1893, 196;
at meeting of League at Ottawa, 1896, 214, 215;
on deputation to England, 224;
attacks Sir W. Laurier, 1897, 226;
speaks at Mulock banquet, 245, 246;
introduces J. Davis Allen, 260;
on South African War, 276;
at Owen Sound, 1901, 288

McTavish, Governor, 20

McTavish, John H., 48

McWilliams, W. G., 58

Meath, Lord, takes up Empire Day, 257

Medcalfe, Mayor, F. H., 43

[415]Meeting of Imperial Federation League in Toronto, 1888, 91

Meeting to welcome Schultz, Mair, etc., 24, 25, 26

Mercier, Honore, New York World’s comment, 107;
in Continental Union League, 110;
at meeting in New York, 111;
Glen writes to, 112;
writes to Dana, 113;
copy of letter, 114

Mercury, the Bristol, 316

Merritt, Lt.-Col. W. Hamilton, helps to escort Lord Lansdowne, 73;
helps to organise Toronto branch Imperial Federation League, 79, 86;
secretary Toronto branch Imperial Federation League, 91;
moves resolution for preferential tariffs, 91, 195;
advocates deputation to England, 139

Michie, James, 58

Military Gazette on South African War, 263

Military Institute, meeting at, 260, 261

Militia, the, 8

Miller, Warner, 109

Milligan, Rev. Mr., 124

Milner, Lord, 260, 261, 264

Mission to England, 1897, 225;
1902, 223-258

Molesworth, Sir Guilford, 299, 300

Monkman, Joseph, 23

Montague, Hon. W. H., 182

Montreal meeting, 1901, 288

Montreal Transcript, 13

Morgan Combine, 292

Morison, John, president Continental Union Association, 109, 111, 112

Morley, Lord, at Edinburgh, 1902, 315

Morning Post on St. John meeting, 1902, 288;
comments, 1903, 347

Moss, Chief Justice Thomas, 58

Mowat, Arthur, contests West Toronto, 166

Mowat, H. M., K.C., 291

Mowat, Sir Oliver, at St. George’s Society, 70;
F. W. Glen’s reference to, 111, 112;
assists Laurier, 1891, 166, 167;
his views on annexation, 178, 186, 187;
letter to Dr. McKay, M.P., 187;
action about Woodstock meeting, 189;
speech at Niagara, 1892, 190, 191;
joins Sir Wilfrid Laurier’s Government, 219;
attends Mulock banquet, 245

Mulock, Sir William, moves address to the Queen, 130, 131, 132;
penny postage, 244, 245;
banquet to, 245, 246;
a conference of, 1902, 331

Murray, C. Freeman, secretary of meeting, 1894, 207;
member of organising committee British Empire League, 210;
cable from, 271

Mutton, W. G., 58

Myers, Elgin, in annexation conspiracy, 108;
dismissed from office, 190;
visits C. A. Dana, 112


N

National Association, constitution, 59

National Club founded, 60;
dinners at, 62;
banquet to Lord Aberdeen, 239;
dinner, 1902, 335

National sentiment, efforts to encourage, 11, 50

[416]National Societies, 8

“National Spirit,” lecture on, 50, 172;
Appendix B, 377

National spirit lacking before Confederation, 8

National Union of Conservative Associations, England, 335

Naval reserve, 223

Navy Island, 1837, 95

Nelson, E. G., writes Raise the Flag, 157

Nelson, Knute, 109

New Brunswick, 11

News, The Daily, London, attacks, 310;
letter to, 311

Newspaper Society dinner, 1902, 302

Niagara-on-the-Lake, Centennial meeting, 190;
United Empire Loyalist meeting, 64, 66

Nicholson, General Sir Wm., 206

Nicholson, Peter, 57

Norfolk Reformer, 219

Norman, Field-Marshal Sir Henry, 242

Norris, W. E., on Independence, 64

Northcote, Sir Stafford, 28

Northern Railway in Algoma Election, 58

“Northmen of the New World,” lecture by Haliburton, 16

North-West Emigration Aid Society, 50

North-West rebellion, 68, 95

North-West Territories, 13

Nova Scotia, 11


O

O’Brien, Archbishop, 79;
speech at Halifax, 119

O’Brien, Dennis, 109

O’Brien, Wm., visit to Toronto, 70;
meeting at Toronto, 74

O’Donohue, Joseph John, 109

Onslow, Lord, 209, 343

“Opening of the War of 1812,” lecture, 171

Orillia, branch formed at, 119

Osler, E. B., 158, 197

Oswald, Mr., 348

Ottawa, branch meeting at, 119

Ottawa welcomes Lord Lansdowne, 76

Ottendorfer, Oswald, 109

Otter, Colonel, 268

Outlook comments on letter to Times, 353

Owen, Colonel, at Royal Colonial Institute, 140

Owen Sound meeting, 1901, 288


P

Pacific cable, 286

Paisley, meeting at, 1902, 315

Pall Mall Gazette prints interview, 298

Papineau, Louis Joseph, 111

Parker, Sir Gilbert, M.P., lunch at Constitutional Club, 293

Parkin, Dr. George R., C.M.G., tour in Australia, 105;
lecture at Whitechapel, 140;
at Imperial Federation meeting, 144;
on dissolution of League, 203;
on deputation, 204;
at National Club dinner, 239;
answers Edward Blake, 241;
on deputation to England, 1902, 290, 292

Patterson, Hon. Wm., 220;
at conference of 1902, 331

Paul, Mr., at Liverpool, 236

[417]Pauncefote, Sir Julian, dispatch to United States Government, 152, 153

Pembina, Hon. Wm. Macdougall arrives at, 17

Percival, Sir Westby, 207, 209

Peterborough, branch formed at, 79

Phelps, Walter, 109

Plan of Union of Empire by Galloway, 2

Plumb, Senator, 78

Portage la Prairie contingent, 23

Port Arthur, base of Red River Expedition, 34;
branch formed at, 119

Porter, Horace, 109

Post Office service in Canada, at first British, 8

Potter, O. B., 109, 113

Potts, Rev. Dr. John, 78

Preference granted to Great Britain, 222

Prescott, Schultz welcomed at, 27

President of the League, 1893, 196

Press Association and Goldwin Smith, 179, 180

Prince of Wales at banquet, 1900, 273, 279;
his advice to Great Britain, 293

Princess Theatre, political meeting in, 1891, 164, 165

Protest to Governor-General by Dr. Lynch, 30, 31

Protest, Lynch’s, against amnesty, 38, 39


Q

Queen, the, on Raise the Flag, 159

Queen’s Own welcomes Lord Lansdowne, 73;
Sergeants’ Mess on Imperial Federation 136

Queenston Heights, 80;
anniversary of, 155;
view of, on book, 158


R

Rae, G. M., 20

Raise the Flag, song and book, 157, 158, 159

Rasch, Sir Carne, 282, 283

Reay, Lord, 199

Rebellion of 1837, 4

Reciprocity, discussion in 1902, 338;
dangers of, in 1903, 344

Reciprocity treaty, 5

Red River Expedition, 33, 34;
proposed withdrawal, 36, 43

Red River Rebellion, 17

Red River Settlement, 13

Reid, Hon. G. H., 226

Report of Imperial Federation League in England, 1890, 140, 141

Resolution at Toronto Station, 1870, 27

Resolution on withdrawal of Red River Expedition, 43

Resolution in Commons on preference, 195

Retaliation Act in Congress, 120

Review in Toronto in 1884, 64, 65

Rhodes, Cecil, on preference, 228

Rhodes, J. G., 199

Richot, Father, delegate from Riel, 27, 28

Richot and Scott arrested and discharged, 32

Ridout, John G., 58

Riel, seizes Fort Garry, 18;
parleys with loyalists, 23;
to send to meet Archibald, 45;
letters from Bishop Taché, 46, 47

[418]Ripon, Lord, 228

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T., 356, 357

Ritchie, J., Jr., 58

Roaf, James R., 58

Roberts, C. G. D., favours independence, 64

Roberts, Field-Marshal Lord, at United Service Club, 206;
attends conference at Lord Avebury’s, 207;
on food supply, 233;
at Lord Lansdowne’s, 308

Robertson, J. Ross, 158

Robidoux, Mr., 111

Robinson, Hon. John Beverley, contests Algoma, 57;
at military dinner 1884, 65;
President Toronto branch Imperial Federation League, 86, 91

Roosevelt, Theodore, 109

Root, Elihu, 109

Rosebery, Lord, at Whitechapel meeting, 1890, 140;
at annual meeting, 1890, 143, 144, 146;
dissolution of League, 200, 202, 203;
at Leeds meeting, 304

Rosebrugh, Dr., 58

Ross, A. W., 78

Ross, Col. Robertson, 33

Ross, Hon. George W., supports flag raising over schools, 135;
election of 1891, 166, 167;
Press Association, 179, 181;
his loyalty, 156;
speech at St. George’s Hall, 1897, 239;
establishes Empire Day, 256;
on deputation, 1902, 292, 324;
speech at annual meeting in London, 1902, 325;
at conference, 1902, 332;
at National Club banquet, 1902, 335

Rowell, N. F., speech on Empire Day, 257

Royal Colonial Institute meeting 1890, 140;
conversazione, 1906, 356;
dinner, 1902, 293-298

Russell, Hon. Charles, 245


S

Salisbury, Lord, 74;
dinner with, in 1887, 76;
views on preference, 149, 150;
speech at Guildhall, 150, 196;
ultimatum to United States, 152;
on Canadian preference, 220;
delayed denouncing treaties, 222;
at British Empire League banquet, 1900, 272, 273, 274;
discouraged, 281, 282;
not supported, 292;
fails in health, 339;
letter to Times on his views, 349

Salisbury, the present Lord, writes to Times, 1903, 349

Schultz, Sir John, at Fort Garry, 1862, 14;
meets Mair, 15;
advises Dennis, 18;
taken prisoner, 19;
escapes, 21;
secures release of prisoners, 23;
welcomed at Toronto, 25, 26;
goes to Ottawa, 27, 28;
sends me warning, 35

Scott, Hugh, 19, 68, 158

Scott, Riel’s delegate, 28;
arrested and discharged, 32

Scott, Thomas, taken prisoner by Riel, 19;
put to death, 22

Seddon, Rt. Hon. R. J., at British Empire League meeting, 1897, 226;
speaks in South Africa, 303;
a conference, 1902, 332

Sergeants’ Mess Queen’s Own Rifles, 136

Setter, J. J., 23

[419]Shaw, Mayor, at Mulock banquet, 246

Shebandowan, Lake, 34

Sheppard, E. E., favours independence, 64;
at St. Thomas, 127

Sherman, Senator, advocates annexation, 99, 100, 101, 102;
interview in New York World, 104;
quoted by Lord Rosebery, 200

Sherwood, Lt.-Col., 164

Simcoe, Lt.-Governor, first Lt.-Governor of Ontario, 190

Slocum, General Henry W., 109

Small, J. T., at organisation of Imperial Federation League, Toronto, 86;
at Hamilton, 1889, 128, 158;
subscribes to special fund, 197;
visits England, 198;
proposition to dissolve league, 198;
on deputation to England in 1897, 224, 291

Smith, Goldwin, joins National Association, 60;
organises club dinners, 62;
Bystander comments, 63;
advocates Commercial Union, 82, 83;
foresees annexation, 104;
joins Annexationists, 108, 109;
honorary president Continental Union Association, 109;
name appears in Glen’s correspondence, 112;
Archbishop O’Brien denounces him, 119, 120;
contest with, 168-193;
lectures on “Loyalty,” “Aristocracy,” and “Jingoism,” 171;
lectures in reply, “United Empire Loyalists,” “War of 1812,” and “National Sentiment,” 171, 172

Smith, Larratt W., 197;
on deputation in 1894, 204

Smith, Sir Frank, 197, 246

Snow Road, 45

Somers, Mr., 136

South African War, 258, 259;
contingents for, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264

Speech by G. T. Denison at banquet, 1887, 88;
British Empire League dinner, 1900, 274, 275

Speech of Senator Sherman, 99

Spencer, Samuel, 109

Sprigg, Sir Gordon, 332

Spry, Daniel, 56

Stanhope, Rt. Hon. Edward, 198

St. George’s Society censures Goldwin Smith, 175, 176;
dinner, 1887, 70

Stimpson, Ont., false telegram report, 106

St. John meeting, 1901, 287

Stone Fort, Lt.-Col. Dennis at, 18

St. Paul, hostile influence in, 21

Straight, Sir Douglas, 298

Strathcona, Lord, on deputation to England, 1894, 205, 206, 207;
on deputation to England, 1897, 224

Straus, Nathan, 109

St. Thomas branch formed, 119;
meetings at, 127, 128

Symons, D. T., 128


T

Taché, Bishop, 36, 44;
letters to Riel, 46, 47

Tariff Reform, 291;
movement started, 346

Tarte, J. Israel, 111, 244;
in London, 1900, 272;
speech at National Club dinner, 1902, 335, 336

[420]Taxation in American colonies, 1

Taylor, J. F., 210

Tecumseh, 15

Tennyson, Lord, 209, 211

Texas acquired by United States, 98

Thompson, Sir John, 113;
at Washington, 147;
his death, 217

Thorold Camp, 33

Tiffany, Charles L., 109

Tilley, Sir Leonard, 20;
president of Imperial Federation League, 134, 194;
resigns presidency, 196

Times, The, on Royal Colonial Institute dinner, 1902, 294;
comments on Sir R. Giffen’s letter, 326;
letter in reply to Sir R. Giffen, 325, 326, 327;
letter to, in 1903, 339;
on Chamberlain-Salisbury question, 349-352

Toronto branch Imperial Federation League, 80, 91
Imperialistic city, 95
United Empire Loyalist meeting, 65

Transcript, Montreal, on North-West, 13

Transvaal, 258

Treaties, German and Belgian, 139;
denounced, 230

Trent affair, 240

Tribune, New York, comments, 1902, 335

Troops, British, in Canada, 8

Trotter, R. G., 58

Trout, J. M., 58

Tunbridge Wells Chamber of Commerce, 315

Tupper, Sir Charles, 215;
on deputation, 1897, 224;
annual meeting, 1898, 244;
on contingent, 260;
at League council meeting, 1902, 299;
organisation of British Empire League, 205, 206, 207, 209

Tupper, Sir Hibbert, at Washington negotiations, 147, 154;
Farrer pamphlet, 164, 165

“Twelve Apostles,” 49


U

United Empire, idea started in America, 1

United Empire Loyalists, 1;
lecture on, 171

United Empire Trade League luncheon, 1902, 333

Unrestricted Reciprocity defeated in Commons, 117

Unrestricted Reciprocity, 367

“United States in 1900,” cartoon, 104

United States Senate throw out treaty, 120

United States discussing reciprocity, 1902, 338, 339

Upper Canada College, meeting at, 155


V

Venezuelan affair, Message, 210, 211, 218, 240

Victoria, B.C., branch at, 79

Vincent, Sir Howard, 196, 232;
meeting at Chelmsford, 282, 283;
at Manchester, 1902, 335


W

Wales, Prince of (now the King), at banquet, 1900, 271, 274, 280

Walmsley, Thomas, 19, 58, 158

Walsh, M., 79

Ward, Principal, Owens College, 232

[421]War of 1812-’14, 3

Warrant issued for Richot and Scott, 31

Washington, negotiations at, 1890, 150, 151, 152

Weldon, Professor, 95, 204

West Indian preference, 242, 243, 244

Western Daily Press, article, 316

Westminster Gazette, 305, 310

Westminster Review, article in, 179

White, Arnold, on the Army, 268

White, Solomon, advocates annexation, 108, 187

White, T. M., secretary Continental Union Association, 109;
letter to Goldwin Smith, 173

Whiteway, Sir Wm., 226

Whitney, W. C., threatening war, 105, 109, 113

Wilkie, D. R., 86;
seconds resolution for preferential tariff, 91;
subscribes to fund, 197

Wickham, H. J., 86;
starts flag movement, 134, 135;
seconds resolution, 200;
on deputation, 1894, 204, 291

Wilkinson, Spenser, on food supply, 232, 233

Williams, E. E., at London Chamber of Commerce, 321

Willison, J. S., 264, 267

Wilson, General James H., 105, 109

Wilson, Charles John, Hawick meeting, 211, 212

Wiman, Erastus, starts Commercial Union, 81, 82;
Lt.-Col. Fred C. Denison, letter to, 86;
telegram to Press, 102;
in Glen’s letters, 112;
and Sir R. Cartwright, 163;
meets Goldwin Smith, 170

Winnipeg, 13

Wolseley, Field-Marshal Lord, commands Red River Expedition, 33;
warn him, 37, 44;
at Fort Garry, 48;
success of, 48;
food supply, 233;
British Empire League banquet, 1900, 272, 273, 280

Woodstock meeting, 187

Woollen trade in Canada, 338

Worrell, John A., 86

World, Toronto, comments, 89, 90

World, New York, 107;
map of North America, 1900, 104


Y

Young, Sir Frederick, 209, 299, 300

Young, Major-General Ralph, 207, 209

[422]

Richard Clay and Sons, Limited,
BREAD STREET HILL, E.C., AND
BUNGAY, SUFFOLK.

FOOTNOTE:

[The end of The Struggle for Imperial Unity by Colonel George T. Denison]