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 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:
Sir,
With reference to your issues of January 9th and 10th which contained the letter of Mr. Arthur Loring, Hon. Secretary of the Imperial Federation (Defence) Committee, and your leading article upon the question of colonial contributions to the Imperial Navy, I desire to send a reply from the Canadian point of view.
Mr. Loring’s proposition is practically that the Mother Country should repudiate any further responsibility for the defence of the Empire, unless the Colonies pay over cash contributions for the Navy in the way and under the terms that will suit the Imperial Federation (Defence) Committee. The British Empire League in Canada and the majority of the Canadians are as anxious for a secure Imperial Defence as is Mr. Loring, but the spirit of dictation which runs through the publications of his committee has always been a great difficulty in our way, by arousing resentment in our people, who might do willingly what they would object to be driven into. Because we hesitate to pay cash contributions we are attacked as if we had made no sacrifices for the Empire. Mr. Loring seems to forget our preference to all British goods, which has caused Germany to cut off the bulk of our exports to that country, to forget that we imposed a duty on sugar in order by preference to help the West Indies in the Imperial interest, that we helped to construct the Pacific cable for the same reason, or that numbers of our young men fought and died for the cause in South Africa. We have proved in many ways our willingness to make sacrifices for the Empire, and yet, because we will not do just exactly what Mr. Loring’s committee suggest, they wish to cut us adrift.
This is a very impolitic and dangerous suggestion. It is so important that we should understand each other, and that you in England should know how we look at this question, that I hope you will allow me to say a few words upon this subject.
The British Empire League in Canada requested me as their president to go to Great Britain last April to advocate a duty of 5 to 10 per cent. all round the Empire on all foreign goods in order to provide a fund for Imperial Defence. This proposition was approved of at a number of meetings held in various parts of Canada, and by political leaders of all shades of politics and I am certain it would have been confirmed by a large majority in our Parliament had Great Britain and the other Colonies agreed to it.
I addressed a number of meetings in England and Scotland, and discussed the question with many of the political leaders in London. I soon discovered while the audiences were receptive, and many approved of the proposition, that nevertheless it was new, contrary to their settled prejudices, and that it would take time and popular education on the subject before such an arrangement could be carried in the House of Commons. When Sir Wilfrid Laurier came over just before the Conference, knowing that I had been discussing the subject for two months, he asked me if I thought the proposition I had been advocating could be proposed at the Conference with any prospect of success. I replied that I did not think it could, that Great Britain was not ready for it, that Australia at the time was engaged in such a struggle over her revenue tariff that she could not act, and that if I was in his place I should not attempt it. He did, however, make a number of suggestions at the Conference which, if accepted by the home Government, would have gone a long way to place the Empire on a safer footing. The Mother Country would not agree to relieve Canada from the corn duty, but was quite willing to accept and ask for contributions for defence. This Sir Wilfrid refused; and a large portion of our people approve of that course, not because they do not feel that they ought to contribute, not because they are not able to contribute, but because they do not feel disposed to spend their money in what they would consider a senseless and useless way.
We feel that to save our Empire, to consolidate it, to make it strong and secure, there are several points that must be considered and that, as all these points are essential, to spend money on some and leave out others that are vital would be a useless and dangerous waste. If our Empire is to live, she must maintain her trade and commerce, she must keep up her manufactures, she must retain and preserve her resources both in capital and population for her own possessions, she must have bonds of interest as well as of sentiment, and she must have a system of defence that shall be complete at all points. An army or a navy might be perfect in equipment, in training, in weapons, in organisation, in skilled officers, &c., and yet if powder and cordite were left out all would be useless waste. If food were left out it would be worst of all, and yet Mr. Loring asks us to contribute large sums to maintain a navy, and to have that navy directed and governed by a department in which we would have little or no voice—a department under the control of an electorate who in the first war with certain Powers (one of which we at least know is not friendly) would be starving almost immediately, and would very soon insist on surrendering the fleet to which we had contributed in order to get food to feed their starving children. They might even be willing to surrender possessions as well. While you in England maintain this position, that you will not include food in your scheme of defence, do you wonder that we in Canada should endeavour to perfect our own defence in order to secure our own freedom and independence as a people, if the general smash comes, which we dread as the possible result of your obstinate persistence in a policy, which leaves you at the mercy of one or two foreign nations.
I wish to draw attention to the following figures, which seem to show that there is weakness and danger in your commercial affairs as well:
We see the result of this great import of foreign goods in the distress in England to-day. The cable reports tell us of unemployed farm labourers flocking into the towns, of unemployed townsmen parading the streets with organised methods of begging, of charity organisations taxed to their utmost limit to relieve want. We see the Mother Country ruining herself and enriching foreign nations by a blind adherence to a fetish, and we begin to wonder how long it can last.
Adopt the policy of a duty upon all foreign goods, bind your Empire together by bonds of interest, turn your emigration and capital into your own possessions, produce ten or twelve million quarters more of wheat in your own islands, no matter what the cost may be, and then ask us to put in our contributions towards the common defence, for then an effective defence might be made.
Yours truly,
George T. Denison.
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:
Dear Mr. Chamberlain,
There are one or two very important matters I wish to bring to your attention.
Just before the Conference I had a conversation with you and Lord Onslow in reference to Canada’s action. You considered that it would be useless at the time to attempt to carry the proposition that I had been advocating in Great Britain, of a 5 to 10 per cent. duty around the Empire for a defence fund. You told me what line you thought the most likely to succeed, and advised me that Canada should try to meet your views by further concessions to Great Britain in return for advantages for us in your markets. I urged this upon Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and I understand that he was willing to meet you, if possible, on the lines indicated. Unfortunately, nothing was done. I fancy your colleagues got frightened, for I know that you personally had a clear insight into the matter, and fully appreciated the importance of something being done.
Now I wish to tell you how matters stand out here. Our people are very much discouraged. Many of our strongest Imperialists in the past are beginning to advocate the repeal of our preference to Great Britain. The manufacturers who were in favour of the preference, provided we had a prospect of getting a reciprocal advantage in your markets, are, many of them for their personal ends, now desirous of stopping it. All the disaffected (there are not very many of them) are using the failure of the Conference to attack and ridicule the Imperial cause. This is all very serious. The gravest danger of all, however, is that the United States will never give our Empire another chance to consolidate itself if they can prevent it. They are already agitating for the reassembling of the High Joint Commission to consider, among other things, reciprocal tariffs. Only the other day a member of the Massachusetts House of Assembly declared in that house that he had assurances from Washington that the passage of a resolution in favour of reciprocity with Canada would be welcomed by the administration. We see the danger of this, and our Government have made excuses to delay the meeting of the Commission until October. Now if nothing is done in the meantime towards combining the Empire—if nothing is done to make such a start towards it as would give our people encouragement, what will happen? The United States will give us the offer of free reciprocity in natural products. What would our people be likely to do in that case? All along the frontier our farmers would find it very convenient to sell their barley, oats, hay, butter, poultry, eggs, &c., to the cities on the border. In the North West it would appeal to our western farmers, who would be glad to get their wheat in free to the mills of Minneapolis and St. Paul. Such a proposition might therefore carry in our Parliament, and would probably bind us for ten or fifteen years. This would be a dead block against any combination of the Empire for preferential trade, for then you could not give us a preference, as we would be debarred from putting a duty on United States articles coming across our border, which would be necessary if an Imperial scheme were carried out.
A proposition for reciprocity with the United States was made in 1887. At the dinner given to you in Toronto that year I fired my first shot against Commercial Union, and ever since I have been probably the leader in the movement against it. My main weapon, my strongest weapon, was an Imperial discriminating tariff around the Empire. We succeeded in getting our people and Parliament and Government to take the idea up and to do our side of it, and we have given the discriminating tariff in your favour. We hoped that you would meet us, but nothing has been done, and our people feel somewhat hurt at the result. Where will we Imperialists be this autumn when the High Joint Commission meets? The people of the United States will be almost sure to play the game to keep back our Empire, and we will be here with our guns spiked, with all our weapons gone, and in a helpless condition.
I feel all this very deeply and think that I should lay the whole matter before you. I do not wish to see the Empire “fall to pieces by disruption or by tolerated secession.” I do not wish to see “the disasters which will infallibly come upon us.” I wish to see our Empire “a great Empire” and not see Great Britain “a little State,” and I do urge upon you as earnestly as I can to get something done this Session that will give us a preference, no matter how small, in order that our hands may be tied before the High Joint Commission meets, so that we may escape the dangers of a reciprocity treaty, for if we are tied up with one for ten years, our Empire may have broken up before our hands are free again.
If something was done on the preference, I believe we could carry large expenditures for Imperial Defence in our Parliament. I enclose a letter to the Times which appeared while you were on the sea, which I believe pretty fairly expressed the views of most of our people.
I send my hearty congratulations on the success of your mission to South Africa, and on the magnificent work you have done there for our Empire,
Believe me,
Yours, &c.
The Right Hon Joseph Chamberlain, M.P.
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 has seldom been seen. The Toronto correspondent of the Morning Post, 17th May, 1903, said:
Canada has seldom before shown such unanimity over a proposed Imperial policy, as that which greets the project of Mr. Chamberlain for the granting of trade concessions to the British Colonies in the markets of Great Britain.
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 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, and Lord Ashburton who gave away a great part of the State of Maine; but had I been in Lord Alverstone’s place, and I am an out and out Canadian, with no sympathy whatever with the United States, I should have done as he did.
In the spring of 1903 a controversy arose between Mr. Joseph Chamberlain and the present Lord Salisbury in which I was able to intervene on Mr. Chamberlain’s side with some effect.
Mr. Chamberlain had said in a public letter that the late Lord Salisbury had favoured retaliation and closer commercial union with the colonies. The present Lord Salisbury wrote to The Times saying that his father profoundly dissented from Mr. Chamberlain’s fiscal policy. Several letters followed from Mr. Chamberlain and Sir Michael Hicks-Beach. I published in The Times on the 18th May, 1905, the following letter:
Sir,
The controversy which has been lately going on in the Press in Great Britain over the question of the late Lord Salisbury’s view on protection and preferential tariffs has excited considerable interest in this country. As I am in a position to throw some light upon the late Premier’s opinions on these questions, I would ask your permission to say a few words.
I was for some years president of the Imperial Federation League in Canada, and since it was merged in the British Empire League I have held the same position in that body. In 1890 I was appointed specially to represent the Canadian League in England for the purpose of advocating the denunciation of the German and Belgian treaties, and of urging the establishment of a system of preferential tariffs between Canada and the Mother Country. In two interviews with Lord Salisbury, I urged both points upon him as strongly as possible, and pointed out to him that our League had taken up the policy of preferential tariffs in order to counteract the movement for commercial union or unrestricted reciprocity between the United States and Canada, which at that time was a very dangerous agitation. After hearing my arguments, Lord Salisbury said that he felt that the real way to consolidate the Empire would be by a Zollverein and a Kriegsverein. This was substantially our policy, and I begged of him to say something on that line publicly, as it would be a great help to us in the struggle we were having on behalf of Imperial Unity. He did not say whether he would do so or not; but a few months later at the Lord Mayor’s banquet at the Guildhall in November, 1890, he made a speech which attracted considerable attention, and which gave us in Canada great encouragement. He spoke of the hostile tariffs and said: “Therefore it is that we are anxious above all things to conserve, to unify, to strengthen the Empire of the Queen because it is to the trade that is carried on within the Empire of the Queen that we look for the vital force of the commerce of this country. . . . The conflict which we have to fight is a conflict of tariffs.”
At Hastings on May 18th, 1892, he made another speech still more pronounced the terms of which are well known.
We carried on a correspondence for many years, and I saw him on several occasions when I visited England. We discussed the policy of preferential tariffs and the denunciation of the German and Belgian treaties, which were denounced by his Government in August, 1897. His letters to me show how strongly he was in sympathy with us; but he was a statesman of great caution and evidently would not commit himself to practical action in regard to either preference or fair trade, as long as he believed that the prejudice against any taxation on articles of the first necessity was too strong to be overcome.
The following extracts are taken from letters received by me from Lord Salisbury, and they give a clear idea of what his opinions were. In the early days of the movement I was probably the only one who was pressing on Lord Salisbury the urgent need of some action being taken, and he may not have had occasion to express his views upon the subject to many others.
In a letter dated March 21st, 1891, in reply to one from me telling him of the danger of reciprocity or commercial union with the United States, he wrote:
“I agree with you that the situation is full of danger, and that the prospect before us is not inviting. The difficulties with which we shall have to struggle will tax all the wisdom and all the energy of both English and Canadian statesmen during the next five or ten years. I should be very glad if I saw any immediate hope of our being able to assist you by a modification of our tariff arrangements. The main difficulty I think, lies in the great aversion felt by our people here to the imposition of any duties on articles of the first necessity. It is very difficult to bring home to the constituency the feeling that the maintenance of our Empire in its integrity may depend upon fiscal legislation. It is not that they do not value the tie which unites us to the colonies; on the contrary, it is valued more and more in this country, but they do not give much thought to political questions and they are led away by the more unreasoning and uncompromising advocates of free trade. There is a movement of opinion in this country, and I only hope it may be rapid enough to meet the necessities of our time.”
In another letter, dated November 22nd, 1892, he wrote:
“I wish there were more prospect of some fiscal arrangements which would meet the respective exigencies of England and Canada, but that appears still to be in the far distance.”
“In another letter written nine years later, dated March 1st, 1901, a little over a year before his final retirement from office, referring to a report of the speeches at the annual meeting of our League in Canada, which I had sent to him, he wrote:
“It is very interesting to read Mr. Ross’s address about the error into which free trade may run, for I am old enough to remember the rise of free trade, and the contempt with which the apprehensions of the protectionists of that day were received. But a generation must pass before the fallacies then proclaimed will be unlearnt. There are too many people whose minds were formed under their influence, and until those men have died out no change of policy can be expected.”
“These extracts show very clearly Lord Salisbury’s views, and prove that personally he would have favoured preferential tariffs in order to save and preserve a great Empire.”
Yours,
George T. Denison.
This was much commented on in the British Press.
The Times said:
The extraordinarily interesting letter which we publish from Colonel Denison, the president of the British Empire League in Canada, shows how deeply sensible was the late Lord Salisbury of the obstacles which prejudice and tradition offer to the adoption of a genuine policy of tariff reform, and how conscious he was of the difficulties to a practical statesman of overcoming them.
The London Globe said:
Few more remarkable contributions have been made recently to the controversy over fiscal reform than the letters of the late Marquis of Salisbury, which Colonel Denison, of Toronto, has communicated to The Times.
The Outlook said:
The invaluable letter in The Times from Colonel G. T. Denison, of Toronto, has disposed once for all of Lord Hugh Cecil’s theory that the system of free imports ought to be regarded as a Conservative institution. Passages cited by Colonel Denison from unpublished letters and forgotten speeches prove that the late Lord Salisbury’s agreement with the principles of Mr. Chamberlain’s policy was complete.
Lord Hugh Cecil had the following letter in The Times of the 20th May, 1905.
Sir,
I have no desire to enter into any controversy with Colonel Denison as to Lord Salisbury’s opinion in 1891 or 1892. The extracts from the letters published by Colonel Denison do not seem to me to have any bearing on Lord Salisbury’s attitude towards any question that is now before the public.
I myself think that it is undesirable to quote the opinions of the dead, however eminent, in reference to a living controversy. But since the attempt continues to be made by tariff reformers to claim Lord Salisbury’s authority in support of their views, it is right to say that I have no more doubt than have any of my brothers that Lord Salisbury profoundly dissented from Mr. Chamberlain’s proposals so far as they were developed during his lifetime. Not only did he repeatedly express that dissent to us, and to others who had been in official relations with him, but he caused a letter to be written in that sense to one of my brothers.
In conclusion, may I point out that it would have been more courteous in Colonel Denison, if he had at least consulted Lord Salisbury’s personal representatives before publishing extracts from Lord Salisbury’s private correspondence?
Yours obediently,
Robert Cecil.
19th May.
I replied to this in the following letter to The Times, which was published in the issue of 13th June, 1905:
Sir,
I have seen to-day, in The Times of the 20th inst., Lord Robert Cecil’s letter in reply to mine, which appeared on the 18th inst. As his letter contains a reflection on my action in publishing extracts from the late Lord Salisbury’s letters to me, I hope you will allow me to make an explanation.
Mr. Chamberlain had claimed that the late Lord Salisbury had approved of his policy of preferential tariffs, while the present Lord Salisbury held that his father “had profoundly dissented from Mr. Chamberlain’s fiscal policy.”
As Lord Salisbury and his brothers had published their father’s private opinions, which may have referred more to the time and method and details of Mr. Chamberlain’s action than to the general principle of preferential tariffs, I had no reason to think that there could be any objection to publishing the late Premier’s own written words on the subject. The letters from which I quoted, although not intended for publication at the time, contained his views on a great public question, and did not relate to any person, or any private matter, and as he was not here to speak for himself, I felt that it was desirable to publish the extracts in order to show clearly what his views were.
Lord Robert Cecil says that it would have been more courteous in me to have consulted with his father’s representatives before publishing, but in view of their own action in publishing his oral, private opinions, it would seem discourteous to assume that they could, under the circumstances, desire to suppress positive evidence on a matter of grave public importance to our Empire.
Yours, etc.,
George T. Denison.
Toronto, Canada, 31st May, 1905.
This closed the episode.
[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 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 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 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:
There were a few remarks, said Col. Denison, which had fallen from previous speakers, to which he desired to call attention. In the first place, his friend Mr. Cockshutt, said that Canada had given England the benefit of five million dollars annually in the reduction of duties, in order to help the English manufacturer to sell English manufactured goods in Canada, and stated that that was a contribution in an indirect way towards helping the defence of the Empire. Mr. Cockshutt, however, left out one important point. If Canada had put that tax on, collected the money, and handed over the five million dollars to England in hard cash, what would have been the result? The greater portion of the trade would have gone to Germany, would have given work to German workmen, would have helped to build German ships, and it would have taken more than the five million dollars annually to counterbalance the loss thereby caused to this country. He felt that every day the British people were allowing the greatest national trade asset that any nation ever possessed, the markets of Great Britain, to be exposed to the free attack of every rival manufacturing nation in the world without any protection, without any possibility of preserving those great national assets for the use of their own people, and in his opinion such a policy was exceedingly foolish.
He had heard a gentleman from Manchester say that it was all very well for Canada, and that Canada wanted it. He was one of the very earliest of Canadians who advocated preferential tariffs. In 1887 he began with a number of other men who were working with him, to educate the people of Canada on the subject. When they first began they were laughed at; they were told it was a fad, and it was contrary to the principles of free trade. When he came to England years ago he could find hardly a single man anywhere who would say anything against free trade. He was perfectly satisfied that for years English people would have listened much more patiently to attacks upon the Christian religion than they would have to attacks upon free trade.
Why did they advocate the system of preferential tariffs in Canada? Because the country was founded by the old United Empire Loyalists, who stood loyal to this country in 1776, who abandoned all their worldly possessions, who left the graves of their dead, and came away from the homes where they were born into the wilderness of Canada, and who wanted to carry their own flag with them. They wanted to be in a country where they were in connection with the Motherland, and it was the dream of those loyalists to have a united Empire. Canadians were not advocating preferential tariffs for the benefit of Canada.
He said, further, that if England would not give Canada a preference, although Canada had already given England one, at least it was advisable that England should have some tariff reform which would prevent the wealth which belonged to this great Empire being dissipated among its enemies. That was the reason they were advocating the resolution. It was said that they desired to tax the poor man’s food. He said it was of the utmost importance to have food grown in their own country. England in the past had had no reserves of food. Fortunately they were now in such a position that, if they kept the command of the sea, Canada would be able to grow enough in a year or two for the needs of the United Kingdom. Seven years ago England was in such a position that, if a combination of two nations had put an embargo on food, she would have been brought to her knees at once. Australia and Canada were now growing more wheat, but everything depended upon the navy; and if England allowed her trade and her markets, and the profits which could be made out of the markets, to be used by foreign and rival Powers to build navies, they were not only helping those foreign nations to build navies at their own cost, but at the same time the people of this country had to be taxed to build ships to counterbalance what their enemies were doing.
Canadians felt that they were part of the Empire. They had helped as much as their fathers did; but after all, they had only added to the strength of the Empire, because their fathers went abroad to other nations, carrying the flag and spreading British principles and ideas into other countries. He therefore contended that Canadians had a great right to urge upon the people of England to do all they could to preserve the Empire, as Canadians were doing in their humble way.
As had been already said, Canada was giving preferences. For instance, she was giving a preference to the West Indies, so that nearly every dollar that was paid for sugar in Canada went to the West Indies. A few years ago it all came from Germany, and the profits that were made out of Canadian markets went to Germany, and, although they were not comparable with the profits made out of the English markets, such as they were they helped Germany. The trade gave her people employment; gave her navy money, and enabled her still further to build rival battleships. Was that wise? (No.) Canada asked England to remedy that; but Canada did not want it if England did not, because England wanted it five, ten, fifteen, or thirty times more than Canada did. Free trade at one time existed in Canada. When he was a very young man he was a free trader, but he was now older and wiser. What was the condition of the country then? It was a country with the greatest natural resources in the world, with the most magnificent agricultural prospects, with mineral and every other resource, such as he believed had not been paralleled anywhere else on the globe. Yet, for twenty years, when they had only a revenue tariff, what happened? The Yankees in 1871 put on a large protective duty, and commenced to build up their manufactures. The result to Canada was that in a few years, in 1875, 1876, and 1877, the Americans not only made for themselves but introduced their goods into Canadian markets. The result was that Canadian manufactories were closed up, the streets of the cities were filled with unemployed, and during that early period of their history nearly one million Canadians left the country. It was so well known that it was called “the exodus.” People used to wonder what was the matter, and enquired whether there was a plague in the country. They used to enquire how it was that Canadians could not succeed, and how it was there were so many people starving in the streets.
An agitation was started for a national policy—a protective agitation. Canadians decided that they must protect their own manufactures, and they had done so since 1878, with the result that there were now no starving people in the streets, no want in the country, no submerged tenth, and no thirteen million people on the verge of starvation. The exodus had ceased from Canada to the States, and Canadians were now coming back in their tens and twenties of thousands. Canada was now prosperous. A great deal had been done in the last twenty years. For instance, Canada had to come to England to get an English company to build the Grand Trunk Railway. They did not do it wonderfully well, but still they did it, and it was now a fine railroad. But what had Canadians done? They had built the Canadian Pacific Railway to the other side; two gentlemen in Toronto were building another trans-continental railroad right across the continent, and the Government were assisting a third project, the Grand Trunk Pacific. The Canadian Pacific Railroad, a Canadian institution, managed in Canada, had its vessels on the western coast at Vancouver, carrying goods and passengers through to Japan, to the Far East, and Australia and New Zealand. All that had been done since Canada took up the policy which enabled it to prevent the enemy from bleeding it to death.
He hoped he had made the point clear. Surely England would desire to follow the example of Canada in that respect. “The exodus” was now taking place. The Right Hon. John Morley, in reply to a speech that he (Col. Denison) made, referred to the wonderful prosperity of Great Britain, which depended on free trade. Now he would tell the delegates the other side. The Right Hon. James Bryce went to Aberdeen just at the time the Government put the tax of a shilling a quarter on wheat. The Right Hon. James Bryce, who was a very able and clever man, made a powerful and eloquent speech, but he had not lived long enough in Canada. He said that the tax of a shilling a quarter on wheat would make a difference of 7½d. per annum to each person in the United Kingdom, and that it would be a great burden upon the ordinary working man of the country: but when they thought of the lowest class of the people, about 30 per cent. of the population, or 13 millions, as Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman had said, who were living upon the very verge of want, then he said it would mean reduced subsistence, frequent hunger, weakness of body, and susceptibility to disease. Was that not an awful fact for a prosperous country? Was it not an awful fact to think that 8d in a whole year would mean reduced subsistence, frequent hunger, weakness of body and susceptibility to disease to 13 million of English people? That was the condition of England. The exodus was taking place; the people were going to Canada, where they enjoyed sane conditions under which people could live. They were going to Canada, instead of going to hostile countries, as they had done in the past.
Canada was getting a good many of such people, but not half enough; and if she had preferential tariffs in that sense, it would keep the blood and bone and muscle in this country under the common flag: it would keep them from helping to build up hostile nations, and would in that way be a source of strength to the Empire. He hoped that would be considered an answer to his friends from Manchester, on the point that there would be give and take, and not as had been said, simply “take” on the part of the colonies. He thought that was a most unfair statement to make; but he had now presented the Canadian side of the question.
Another extraordinary thing had happened. A gentleman whom the people of England had appointed to take control of English affairs with reference to the colonies, had lately declared that the colonies ought to make a treaty among themselves, leaving Great Britain out. That was rather a flippant way to meet offers of friendship, sympathy, and loyalty. Two hundred and seventy-four members of Parliament, he believed, had written requesting that no preference should be given. He desired to ask what had Great Britain done to those men that they should want to prevent England getting an advantage? Why should they object? Why should they interfere? What had Great Britain ever done to them?
His friend, Mr. Wilson, had told the delegates of the French manufacturer who said, ‘Why do you not come over and build your factories in France?’ British factories were already being built on the Continent to-day. British factories, with British money, British brains, British enterprise, and British intellect, were now being built in the United States; but while that was the experience of England, Canada, on the other hand, was able to say that United States capital was being utilised in Canada and giving work to Canadian workmen. That was where Canada was reaping the advantage; and it was not to be wondered at that the Canadian delegates came to England and asked the English people to look about them.
When he was a young man he used to boat a good deal upon the Niagara River, a mile above the Falls. Two people always rowed together and always had a spare pair of oars. They had to row at an angle of 45 degrees, and row hard to get across without being carried into the rapids. They could not depend on their course by watching the river or watching their own boat; they had to take a point on the shore, and another point away beyond it, and keep them in line. The instant they stopped rowing, although the boat might appear to be perfectly calm and safe, it was quietly drifting to destruction. The Canadian people were on the shore and were watching the British people in the stream. The people of this country had their eyes on the oars and on the boat, but were not watching the landmarks and outside currents. They were not watching what Germany or the United States were doing; they were not watching how other nations were progressing. In fact England was going backwards. If he were standing on the shore of the Niagara River and saw a man stop rowing, he would shout to him to look out, and that was what he was doing now.
Two gentlemen had spoken on behalf of the poor people in India, but he would like to know whether those gentlemen were not much more interested in the exchange of commerce between England and India than they were in the internal comfort and happiness of the natives. He would also like to ask who put on and took off the duty in India? Was it not done through the influence of the English Government? Why was such a large duty placed on tea, and why was it not taken off tea and put on wheat? If the duty were taken off tea, it would not cost the working man a farthing more, and the result would be that the Indian farmers and agriculturists would probably obtain some slight advantage, but the Indian tea worker would get a direct and positive advantage. Both parties would be helped by it, and it would also help at the same time the whole Empire.
An extract had been read from a speech by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the Prime Minister of Canada. Sir Wilfrid seven or eight years ago might have made a remark of that kind, and it so happened that he was in very bad company at the time, because the remarks were made at the Cobden Club. In Canada, prominent men such as Sir Wilfrid Laurier were able to understand and listen to good arguments, to assimilate them and to change their minds. But Sir Wilfrid at the last conference made a plain and distinct offer, which he had repeated in public, and yet he (the speaker) heard political partisans in this country in their newspapers making the statement that Canada had made no offer. It was not true! The offers were in the report of the Imperial Conference of 1902; that he would give the present preference and a further preference on a certain list of selected articles, if the English people would meet him. The long list of articles was not mentioned because it would be improper to do so, as it would have the effect of making the business of Canada unsettled in reference to those things. But that the offer was made was an undoubted fact, and people in this country had no right to make statements to the contrary.
He desired to make one final appeal to Englishmen to look at the matter broadly; and when they found that the security and unity of the whole Empire might depend upon closer federation with the colonies, he appealed to English people not to make such flippant remarks as that the colonies should make an agreement among themselves leaving out the Mother Country, because if that were done, and a preferential tariff instituted among the colonies, the Mother Country would very soon find out the difference. He appealed to Englishmen as a Canadian, the whole history of whose country was filled with records of devotion to the Empire, not to think that they were acting in any way for themselves, or for their personal interests, but only in the interests of their great Empire, which their fathers helped to build, and which they, the children, desired to hand down unimpaired and stronger to their children and children’s children.
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 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 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.
[APPENDIX A]
Speech Delivered at the Royal Colonial Institute on the 13th May, 1890, in reply to Sir Charles Dilke.
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 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, 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 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, 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 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.)
[APPENDIX B]
Lecture Delivered at the Shaftesbury Hall, Toronto, on the 17th December, 1891, on “National Spirit,” by Colonel George T. Denison.
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, 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 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, 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:
| Go, stranger, and to Lacedæmon tell That here, obedient to her laws, we fell. |
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 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 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 us to believe that Carthage was at one time very wealthy and prosperous. No, the national sentiment was the dominant idea.
| For Romans in Rome’s quarrel Spared neither land nor gold, Nor son, nor wife, nor limb, nor life, In the brave days of old. |
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 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:
“Year after year the people of Glarus, rich and poor alike, Protestant and Catholic, still commemorate this great victory. On the first Thursday in April, in solemn procession, they revisit the battlefield, and on the spot the Landammann tells the fine old story of their deliverance from foreign rule, while priest and minister offer thanksgiving. The 5th April, 1888, was a memorable date in the annals of the canton, being the five hundredth anniversary of the day on which the people achieved freedom. From all parts of Switzerland people flocked to Naefels to participate in the patriotic and religious ceremonies. A right stirring scene it was when the Landammann presented to the vast assembly the banner of St. Fridolin, the same which Ambuhl had raised high, and thousands of voices joined in the national anthem.”
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, 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 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 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:
| This England never did (nor never shall) Lie at the proud foot of a conqueror, But when it first did help to wound itself Now these her princes have come home again, Come the three corners of the world in arms. And we shall shock them: Nought shall make us rue If England to itself do rest but true. |
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
| Hath for a few light crowns lightly conspired And sworn unto the practices of France To kill us here in Hampton. |
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.
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 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:
“Both are inimical to commercial union unless it also be complemented by political union, or, to phrase it more plainly, they insist that annexation of Canada to the United States can afford the only effective guarantee of satisfactory relations between the two countries, if these are to be permanent. These prominent men, representing each of the great parties that have alternately the administration of this Government in their hands, we are persuaded did not put forth these views at random, but that they voiced the views of other political leaders, their associates, who are aiming at making Canadian annexation the leading issue at the next Presidential election. As if speaking for the Republicans, Senator Sherman, as has already been shown, thinks the country now ready for the question, while Secretary Whitney, as if speaking for the other political party, is not less eager to bring the country face to face with it, even at the risk of war with England.”
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:
“Let me say once more, that I have been going among the Americans now for more than twenty years. I have held intercourse with people of all classes, parties, professions, characters, and ages, including the youth of a university who are sure to speak as they feel. I never heard the slightest expression of a wish to aggress on Canada, or to force her into the union.”
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 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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:
| Oh, do not wish one more; Rather proclaim it, Westmoreland, through my host That he who hath no stomach to this fight Let him depart; his passport shall be made And crowns for convoy put into his purse: We would not die in that man’s company That fears his fellowship to die with us. |
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 indifference 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 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 seed they sowed has sprung at last, And grows and blossoms through the land. |
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:
“But at last the inevitable will come. It will come, and when it does come it will not be an equal and honourable union. It will be annexation indeed.”
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 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:
“We will stand firm in our allegiance to the sovereign we love, and will not forget the dear old land from which our fathers have come.”
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:
| Shall the mothers that bore us bow the head And blush for degenerate sons? Are the patriot fires gone out and dead? Ho! brothers, stand to the guns, Let the flag be nailed to the mast Defying the coming blast, For Canada’s sons are true as steel, Their mettle is muscle and bone. The Southerner never shall place his heel On the men of the Northern Zone. Oh, shall we shatter our ancient name, And lower our patriot crest, And leave a heritage dark with shame To the infant upon the breast? Nay, nay, and the answer blent With a chorus is southward sent: “Ye claim to be free, and so are we; Let your fellow-freemen alone, For a Southerner never shall place his heel On the men of the Northern Zone.” |