CHAPTER XVI

That whilst the Council approve of the objects of the Imperial Federation League as set forth in their circular of November the 13th last, they are of opinion that the primary essential condition of Imperial Federation is a customs union of the Empire.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10. As anticipated in last year’s Report, a strong feeling continues to exist in Canada against the continuance in commercial treaties with foreign countries of clauses preventing the different portions of theEmpire from making such internal fiscal arrangements between themselves as they may think proper. The League in Canada at its Annual Meeting, held in January last, passed a resolution condemning such stipulations. Most of the treaties obnoxious to this view terminate in 1892, and it is expected that strong efforts will be made by the League in Canada to obtain the abrogation of such clauses where they exist, and the provision under all treaties that the favoured nation clause shall not have the effect of extending to foreign countries the advantage of any preferential arrangement between different parts of the Empire. Any action in this direction taken by the Dominion Government will have the hearty support of the Council.

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

The significance of this action of the Dominion Parliament cannot be overrated, and the League in Canada is to be congratulated upon this most satisfactory outcome of its steady and persevering work during the past three years.

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

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

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

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

You will look in vain in the report for any scheme of Imperial Federation. Those of our critics who say, “Tell me what Imperial Federation is, and I will tell you what I think about it,” will find no scheme to criticise or discuss in any corner of our Annual Report. If there were any such scheme, I should not be here to move it, because I do not believe that it is on the report of any private society that such a scheme will ever be realised. But I will say that as regards the alternative name which Mr. Parkin—and here I cannot help stating from the Presidential Chair the deep obligations under which we lie to Mr. Parkin—has given to Imperial Federation, namely, that of National Unity, that in some respects it is a preferable term. But if I might sum up our purpose in a sentence, it would be that we seek to base our Empire upon a co-operative principle. At present the Empire is carried on, it is administered successfully owing to the energies of the governing race which rules it, but in a haphazard and inconsequential manner; but each day this society has seen pass over its head has shown the way to a better state of things.

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

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

Now with reference to a scheme of Imperial Federation, I quite agree with the noble lord, our President, that we cannot go into the question of a scheme. At the same time I do not think it would be out of the way to mention here that it would be of the utmost importance to Canada that we should have some arrangement that there should be a discriminatingtariff established. (Cheers.) The effect would be to open up a better state of trade than ever between the two countries. I feel that we in Canada would be willing to give for a discriminating tariff very great advantages over foreign manufacturers with whom the trade is now divided. I think if this matter is only carefully considered, it is not impossible for the English people, for the sake of keeping the English nation together, to make this little sacrifice. I have spoken to numbers of people in England, and I find a great many would be willing to have some such arrangement made if England were assured of some corresponding advantage. They seem to think it is a question which ought to be considered; but they think that England has committed herself to another policy to which she must stand. Well, I do not think that that is the case. My opinion is that it is to the interest of the Empire, and to the interest of the Mother Country, that something should be done which would knit the Empire together. I believe the English people are open to reason as much as any people in the world. That policy would be of immense interest to us considering that the United States are our competitors. Then again look at the advantages which might be offered in the way of emigration to a country under your own flag, with your own institutions, and with those law-abiding and God-fearing principles, which we are trying to spread through the northern half of the continent; and at the same time it would be adding strength to you all here at home. I must not detain you too long, but I thought I would like to mention these one or two points to you. I speak on behalf of the great masses of the Canadian people, and I think I have shown you some of the annoyances under which they have been living up to the present, and I am quite sure that if any sacrifice can be made the Canadians will be willing to meet you half-way. But it ought not to be all one way. There ought to be give and take both ways.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We in Canada are for the British Connection. In years gone by when we thought that the British flagwas insulted, though it was not a matter in which we were concerned and happened hundreds of miles from our shores, our blood was up, and we were ready to defend the old emblem. Can you wonder, then, that we in Canada have failed to understand how your powerful British ironclads could be idle in the harbours of our Pacific coasts while British subjects were being outraged in Behring’s Sea and the old British flag insulted? No, that to us has been beyond comprehension.

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

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

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

Her Britannic Majesty’s Government have learned with great concern, from notices which have appeared in the Press, and the general accuracy of which has been confirmed by Mr. Blaine’s statements to the undersigned, that the Government of the United States have issued instructions to their revenue cruisers about to be despatched to Behring’s Sea, under which vessels of British subjects will again be exposed in the prosecution of their legitimate industry on the high seas to unlawful interference at the hands of American officers.Her Britannic Majesty’s Government are anxious to co-operate to the fullest extent of their power with the Government of the United States in such measures asmay be found expedient for the protection of the seal fisheries. They are at the present moment engaged in examining, in concert with the Government of the United States, the best method of arriving at an agreement on this point. But they cannot admit the right of the United States of their own sole motion to restrict for this purpose the freedom of navigation of Behring’s Sea, which the United States have themselves in former years convincingly and successfully vindicated, nor to enforce their municipal legislation against British vessels on the high seas beyond the limits of their territorial jurisdiction.Her Britannic Majesty’s Government is therefore unable to pass over without notice the public announcement of an intention on the part of the Government of the United States to renew the acts of interference with British vessels navigating outside the territorial waters of the United States, of which they had previously had to complain.The undersigned is in consequence instructed formally to protest against such interference, and to declare that her Britannic Majesty’s Government must hold the Government of the United States responsible for the consequences that may ensue from acts which are contrary to the established principles of International law.The undersigned has the honour to renew to Mr. Blaine the assurance of his highest consideration.Julian Pauncefote.14th June, 1890.

Her Britannic Majesty’s Government are anxious to co-operate to the fullest extent of their power with the Government of the United States in such measures asmay be found expedient for the protection of the seal fisheries. They are at the present moment engaged in examining, in concert with the Government of the United States, the best method of arriving at an agreement on this point. But they cannot admit the right of the United States of their own sole motion to restrict for this purpose the freedom of navigation of Behring’s Sea, which the United States have themselves in former years convincingly and successfully vindicated, nor to enforce their municipal legislation against British vessels on the high seas beyond the limits of their territorial jurisdiction.

Her Britannic Majesty’s Government is therefore unable to pass over without notice the public announcement of an intention on the part of the Government of the United States to renew the acts of interference with British vessels navigating outside the territorial waters of the United States, of which they had previously had to complain.

The undersigned is in consequence instructed formally to protest against such interference, and to declare that her Britannic Majesty’s Government must hold the Government of the United States responsible for the consequences that may ensue from acts which are contrary to the established principles of International law.

The undersigned has the honour to renew to Mr. Blaine the assurance of his highest consideration.

Julian Pauncefote.

14th June, 1890.

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

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

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

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

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

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

As to your remarks that I should abstain from interfering “in the discussion of questions that have become party property,” I may say that before I was appointed Police Magistrate I was a follower of Mr. Brown, Mr. Mackenzie, Mr. Blake, and Mr. Mowat. Since then I have never voted or taken part in any political meeting. Not that the law prevents it, but from my sense of what I thought right. I may say, however, on behalf of the friends with whom I used to work, that I utterly repudiate the suggestion that loyalty to Canada and her history is not equally the characteristic of both parties. There are a few, I know, who are intriguing to betray this country into annexation, but they are not the men I followed, and when the scheme is fully developed I have every confidence that Canadians of all political parties will be united on the side of Canada and the Empire. No politicians can rule Canada unless they are loyal.On any question affecting our national life I will speak out openly and fearlessly at all hazards.

On any question affecting our national life I will speak out openly and fearlessly at all hazards.

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

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

Raise the flag, our glorious banner,O’er this fair Canadian land,From the stern Atlantic oceanTo the far Pacific strand.

Chorus.

Raise the flag with shouts of gladness,’Tis the banner of the free!Brightly beaming, proudly streaming,’Tis the flag of liberty.

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

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

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

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

Shall we break the plight of youthAnd pledge us to an alien love?No! we hold our faith and truth,Trusting to the God above.Stand Canadians, firmly standRound the flag of Fatherland.

Shall we break the plight of youthAnd pledge us to an alien love?No! we hold our faith and truth,Trusting to the God above.

Stand Canadians, firmly standRound the flag of Fatherland.

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

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

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

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

I am pleased to come here to celebrate the raising of the flag, because Chippawa is in the very heart of the historic ground of Canada. Here was fought out in the past the freedom of Canada from foreign aggression. Here was decided the question as to whether we should be a conquered people, or free as we are to-day, with the old flag of our fathers floating over us as a portion of the greatest empire in the world. (Applause.) In sight of this spot was fought the bloody battle which is named after this village, within three miles in the other direction lies the field of Lundy’s Lane, and a few miles beyond the Heights of Queenston. From Fort George to Fort Erie the whole country has been fought over. Under the windows of this room SirFrancis Bond Head in 1837 reviewed about three thousand loyal militia who rallied to drive the enemy from Navy Island. It is no wonder that here in old Chippawa the demonstration of raising the flag should be such a magnificent outburst of loyal feeling. . . . There is nothing more gratifying than the extraordinary development of this feeling in the last year or two. All through the land is shown this love for Queen, flag, and country. From the complaining of some few disgruntled politicians, who have been going about the country whining like a lot of sick cats about the McKinley Bill, some have thought our people were not united; but everywhere, encompassing these men, stands the silent element that doth not change, and if the necessity arise for greater effort, and the display of greater patriotism, and the making of greater sacrifices, the people of this country will rise to the occasion. (Loud applause.) The cause of this outgrowth of patriotic feeling has been the belief that a conspiracy has been on foot to betray this country into annexation. The McKinley Bill was part of the scheme. But are you, the men of Welland, the men whose fathers abandoned everything—their homes, and lands and the graves of their dead—to come here penniless, to live under the flag of their ancestors, are you likely to sell your allegiance, your flag and your country, for a few cents a bushel on grain, or a cent or two a dozen on eggs? (Loud applause.) No! the men of this country are loyal. No leader of either party can lead any important fraction of his party into disloyalty. We may have a still greater strain put upon us. If the conspirators believe that stoppage of the bonding privileges will coerce us, the bonding privileges will be stopped. If so, we must set our teeth and stiffen our sinews to face it (applause), and the more loyal we are, the more prosperous and successful we will be. Our contemptuous treatment of the McKinley Bill had, I believe, a great influence in the defeat of the Republicans, and may cause the repeal of the Bill, andthen when we get freer trade we will keep it, because our neighbours will know that we cannot be coerced into being untrue to our traditions. In whatever you do put the interest of Canada first, first before politics and everything. (Loud applause.)

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

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

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

This dastardly insult to our country is not only the work to order of a member of the staff of the New YorkWorldbut is adopted and emphasised by it with all the parade of display headings and of the black letter which we reproduce as in the original. So these plotters are contemplating the wholesale purchase of our country by the corruption of the electors on this gigantic scale, to return members ready to surrender Canada to a foreign Power. And for such insults as these we have mainly to thank the dastardly traitors who from our own land have by their secret information and encouragement to the foreign coveters of our country invited the insulting attack. By such baseness our enemies have been taught to believe that we will fall easy victims to their designs.Again, as so often before, we find the well deserved tribute to our Conservative statesmen that they are the bulwark of Canada against such assaults. Friends and enemies are fully in accord on this one point; that the opposition are not similarly true to their country is clearly indicated in this outspoken report, and it may also be observed that every individual or journal mentioned as favouring annexation is of the most pronounced grit stripe. It is, however, by no means true that the whole Liberal party is tainted with this treasonable virus. By thousands they are withdrawing from the leaders who are paltering with such a conspiracy, and are uniting themselves with the Conservatives to defend their country. Not the boasted six millions of United States dollars will tempt these loyal Canadians to sell their country. It is well, however, that Canada should thus be forewarned.

Again, as so often before, we find the well deserved tribute to our Conservative statesmen that they are the bulwark of Canada against such assaults. Friends and enemies are fully in accord on this one point; that the opposition are not similarly true to their country is clearly indicated in this outspoken report, and it may also be observed that every individual or journal mentioned as favouring annexation is of the most pronounced grit stripe. It is, however, by no means true that the whole Liberal party is tainted with this treasonable virus. By thousands they are withdrawing from the leaders who are paltering with such a conspiracy, and are uniting themselves with the Conservatives to defend their country. Not the boasted six millions of United States dollars will tempt these loyal Canadians to sell their country. It is well, however, that Canada should thus be forewarned.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back to Index Next