The fervour and appreciation of the large audience which assembled in the auditorium last evening to hear Colonel George T. Denison were undoubtedly due in great measure to the well-known ability of the lecturer and to the intrinsic qualities of the lecture—its wide range of fact, its high and patriotic purpose, the eloquence with which great historic truths were imparted—but its enthusiastic reception was due none the less to the fact that the lecturer struck a responsive note in the breasts of his hearers, and that he was expressing views which are the views of the ordinary Canadian, and which at this time are especially deserving of clear and emphatic enunciation.In marked contrast to the enthusiasm of this immense gathering was the small handful of disgruntled fledglings and annexationists who assembled lately in some obscure meeting place to hear the sentiments of Professor Goldwin Smith, though even there the respectable Liberal element was strong enough to utter a protest against the annexationist views of the Professor.For several years there has been afoot a determined attempt, promoted on its literary side by the writings and addresses of Professor Goldwin Smith, to undermine the national spirit, to disturb the national unity, and to arouse the latent impatience of an intensely practical people for any displays of the pride, the courage, and the patriotic sentiment of the country. By elaboratesneers at “loyalty,” at “aristocracy,” at “jingoism”; by perverting history, by appealing to the cupidity which always has temptations for a small section of every nation, this propaganda has been kept up persistently and malignantly, and it was not unfitting that Colonel Denison, who has been a foremost figure in stemming the movement by encouraging patriotic displays and honouring the memories of national heroes, should have met the enemy in the literary arena, and vindicated there, too, the righteousness and wisdom of encouraging national spirit. He has boldly met Professor Goldwin Smith’s appeal to history, and triumphantly proved his case, and presents in this lecture to all thoughtful men, to all students of the past, incontrovertible evidence that the efforts being made in Canada to stimulate national patriotism and enthusiasm are in accordance with the experience of every virile and enduring race since the beginning of the world, and in thorough harmony with the experience of every young and developing community.
The fervour and appreciation of the large audience which assembled in the auditorium last evening to hear Colonel George T. Denison were undoubtedly due in great measure to the well-known ability of the lecturer and to the intrinsic qualities of the lecture—its wide range of fact, its high and patriotic purpose, the eloquence with which great historic truths were imparted—but its enthusiastic reception was due none the less to the fact that the lecturer struck a responsive note in the breasts of his hearers, and that he was expressing views which are the views of the ordinary Canadian, and which at this time are especially deserving of clear and emphatic enunciation.
In marked contrast to the enthusiasm of this immense gathering was the small handful of disgruntled fledglings and annexationists who assembled lately in some obscure meeting place to hear the sentiments of Professor Goldwin Smith, though even there the respectable Liberal element was strong enough to utter a protest against the annexationist views of the Professor.
For several years there has been afoot a determined attempt, promoted on its literary side by the writings and addresses of Professor Goldwin Smith, to undermine the national spirit, to disturb the national unity, and to arouse the latent impatience of an intensely practical people for any displays of the pride, the courage, and the patriotic sentiment of the country. By elaboratesneers at “loyalty,” at “aristocracy,” at “jingoism”; by perverting history, by appealing to the cupidity which always has temptations for a small section of every nation, this propaganda has been kept up persistently and malignantly, and it was not unfitting that Colonel Denison, who has been a foremost figure in stemming the movement by encouraging patriotic displays and honouring the memories of national heroes, should have met the enemy in the literary arena, and vindicated there, too, the righteousness and wisdom of encouraging national spirit. He has boldly met Professor Goldwin Smith’s appeal to history, and triumphantly proved his case, and presents in this lecture to all thoughtful men, to all students of the past, incontrovertible evidence that the efforts being made in Canada to stimulate national patriotism and enthusiasm are in accordance with the experience of every virile and enduring race since the beginning of the world, and in thorough harmony with the experience of every young and developing community.
Goldwin Smith addressed a meeting at Innerkip on the 4th October, 1892. He spoke on the question of freedom of speech, in defence of Elgin Myers, who had been dismissed from his position of Crown Attorney at Orangeville by Sir Oliver Mowat for publicly advocating annexation. I answered him in a speech at the banquet of the Kent Lodge of the Sons of England on the 11th October, 1892.
On the 3rd December, 1892, theEmpirepublished the following correspondence:
Canada Life Building,Toronto, Nov. 30, 1892.Dear Sir,It is the unanimous wish of the members of the Continental Union Association of Toronto that you accept the position of honorary president of the Association. As you have for many years been an earnest advocate of the reunion of the English-speaking people on this continent, it is considered fitting that you should fill this position. I am desired to add that your acceptance would not necessarily involve your attendance at our meetings nor require you to take an active part.Yours respectfully,T. M. White.Goldwin Smith, Esq.,Toronto.
Canada Life Building,Toronto, Nov. 30, 1892.
Dear Sir,
It is the unanimous wish of the members of the Continental Union Association of Toronto that you accept the position of honorary president of the Association. As you have for many years been an earnest advocate of the reunion of the English-speaking people on this continent, it is considered fitting that you should fill this position. I am desired to add that your acceptance would not necessarily involve your attendance at our meetings nor require you to take an active part.
Yours respectfully,
T. M. White.
Goldwin Smith, Esq.,Toronto.
Toronto,Dec. 2, 1892.The Secretary of the Continental Association of Ontario.Dear Sir,As the Continental Association does me the honour to think that my name may be of use to it, I have pleasure in accepting the presidency on the terms on which it is offered, as an honorary appointment. From active participation in any political movement I have found it necessary to retire.Your object, as I understand it, is to procure by constitutional means, and with the consent of the mother country, the submission of the question of continental union to the free suffrage of the Canadian people, and to furnish the people with the information necessary to prepare them for the vote. In this there can be nothing unlawful or disloyal.That a change must come, the returns of the census, the condition of our industries, especially of our farming industry, and the exodus of the flower of our population, too clearly show. Sentiment is not to be disregarded, but genuine sentiment is never at variance with the public good. Love of the mother country can be stronger in no heart than it is in mine; but I have satisfied myself that the interest of Great Britain and that of Canada are one.Let the debate be conducted in a spirit worthy of the subject. Respect the feelings and the traditions ofthose who differ from us, while you firmly insist on the right of the Canadian people to perfect freedom of thought and speech respecting the question of its own destiny.Yours faithfully,Goldwin Smith.
Toronto,Dec. 2, 1892.
The Secretary of the Continental Association of Ontario.
Dear Sir,
As the Continental Association does me the honour to think that my name may be of use to it, I have pleasure in accepting the presidency on the terms on which it is offered, as an honorary appointment. From active participation in any political movement I have found it necessary to retire.
Your object, as I understand it, is to procure by constitutional means, and with the consent of the mother country, the submission of the question of continental union to the free suffrage of the Canadian people, and to furnish the people with the information necessary to prepare them for the vote. In this there can be nothing unlawful or disloyal.
That a change must come, the returns of the census, the condition of our industries, especially of our farming industry, and the exodus of the flower of our population, too clearly show. Sentiment is not to be disregarded, but genuine sentiment is never at variance with the public good. Love of the mother country can be stronger in no heart than it is in mine; but I have satisfied myself that the interest of Great Britain and that of Canada are one.
Let the debate be conducted in a spirit worthy of the subject. Respect the feelings and the traditions ofthose who differ from us, while you firmly insist on the right of the Canadian people to perfect freedom of thought and speech respecting the question of its own destiny.
Yours faithfully,
Goldwin Smith.
In March, 1893, an interesting episode in the struggle between the loyal people and Goldwin Smith occurred in connection with the St. George’s Society, a most respectable and influential organisation of Englishmen and sons of Englishmen, formed for benevolent purposes. Mr. Goldwin Smith was a life member and a very generous contributor to the charitable funds of the Society. His open and active hostility to the Empire and to Canada’s best interests, however, aroused a very bitter feeling of resentment, and in February, 1893, Mr. J. Castell Hopkins gave notice of motion of a resolution in the following words:
Resolved, that in view of his advocacy of the annexation of the Dominion of Canada to the United States, his position as President of the Continental Union Association of Toronto, and the treason to his Sovereign to England and to Canada involved in these conditions, this body of loyal Englishmen request Mr. Goldwin Smith to tender his resignation as a life member of the St. George’s Society, and hereby instruct the treasurer to return to Mr. Smith the fee previously paid for that privilege.
Resolved, that in view of his advocacy of the annexation of the Dominion of Canada to the United States, his position as President of the Continental Union Association of Toronto, and the treason to his Sovereign to England and to Canada involved in these conditions, this body of loyal Englishmen request Mr. Goldwin Smith to tender his resignation as a life member of the St. George’s Society, and hereby instruct the treasurer to return to Mr. Smith the fee previously paid for that privilege.
This notice of motion aroused much heated discussion in the Press, numbers of letters being written strongly supporting Mr. Hopkins’s resolution, one “member of the Society” writing under that name, quoted the object of the Society in its constitution “to uniteEnglishmen and their descendants in a social compact for the promotion of mutual and friendly intercourse,” and he went on to say that there could be “no mutual and friendly intercourse between a true-hearted, honest, loyal Englishman and a traitor and enemy of England’s power and position. . . . If the St. George’s Society does not speak out with no uncertain sound it will be a disgrace to the Englishmen of Toronto and be a death blow to the Society. Most Englishmen would as soon join a society for friendly intercourse that contained thieves as one that contained traitors. The thief might steal one’s money. The annexationist is striving to steal our birthright, our name, our place in history, and the lives of the thousands who would die in defence of their country and its institutions.”
A number of our Imperialists who belonged to the Society formed a committee to organise a plan of action. This committee met in my office. We were not satisfied with Mr. Hopkins’s resolution, as it asked Goldwin Smith to resign, which he could easily avoid doing and so put the Society in a false position. On the afternoon of the day of the meeting our committee decided on a resolution which it was thought could be carried as a compromise. When the meeting was held after there had been considerable discussion, all upon the proper course of action, a committee was appointed to draft a resolution as a compromise, and the one we had prepared was adopted and carried unanimously. It was in the following terms:
Whereas it has been brought to the attention of this Society that Mr. Goldwin Smith, one of its life members, has openly proclaimed himself in favour of severing Canada from the rest of the British Empire, and has also accepted the office of honorary presidentof an association having for its object the active promotion of an agitation for the union of Canada with the United States, therefore this Society desires emphatically to place on record its strong disapprobation of any such movement, and hereby expresses its extreme regret that the Society should contain in its ranks a member who is striving for an object which would cause an irreparable injury to the Dominion, would entail a loss to the motherland of a most important part of her Empire, and would deprive Canadians of their birthright as British subjects.
Whereas it has been brought to the attention of this Society that Mr. Goldwin Smith, one of its life members, has openly proclaimed himself in favour of severing Canada from the rest of the British Empire, and has also accepted the office of honorary presidentof an association having for its object the active promotion of an agitation for the union of Canada with the United States, therefore this Society desires emphatically to place on record its strong disapprobation of any such movement, and hereby expresses its extreme regret that the Society should contain in its ranks a member who is striving for an object which would cause an irreparable injury to the Dominion, would entail a loss to the motherland of a most important part of her Empire, and would deprive Canadians of their birthright as British subjects.
This was soon followed by Mr. Smith’s resignation from the Society.
In spite of Mr. Goldwin Smith’s farewells he had an article in theContemporary Reviewfor January, 1895, on the Ottawa Conference of 1894. After reflecting on the manner in which the “delegates” were appointed, he went on to say the conference confined itself to discussing trade relations and communications, and that defence “was excluded by omission.” He sneered at the French Militia who served in the North-West Rebellion, and attacked the Canadian-Pacific Railway, insinuating that it would be blocked in case of war, because part of it went through the State of Maine. He made a great deal of snow blocks also, and even said that the prediction made when the Canadian-Pacific Railway “was built, that the road would never pay for the grease on its axle wheels, though then derided as false, has, in fact, proved too true,” and he absolutely stated that “as a wheat-growing speculation, the region has failed.” The whole article was as inimical to Canada and the aspirations of the people as he with his literary ability and indifference as to facts could make it.
This article aroused a good deal of criticism and hostility all over Canada. I received many letters from various parts of Canada, some from friends, some from strangers, asking me to reply to it. Sir Oliver Mowat urged me very strongly to answer it. I therefore prepared an article and sent it to the editor of theContemporarywith a request that he should publish it. I wanted no remuneration, but claimed the right to answer many inaccuracies. I received from the editor the following letter:
11, Old Square, Lincoln’s Inn, W.C.,8th March, 1895.Dear Sir,I am afraid I cannot find a place for your article on Canada.But I do not think that you need fear misconstruction. We know Mr. Goldwin Smith as a man of great ability and cultivation, but he is not taken as a representative of the bulk of Canadian opinion.Believe me,Yours faithfully,Percy Wm. Bunting.
11, Old Square, Lincoln’s Inn, W.C.,8th March, 1895.
Dear Sir,
I am afraid I cannot find a place for your article on Canada.
But I do not think that you need fear misconstruction. We know Mr. Goldwin Smith as a man of great ability and cultivation, but he is not taken as a representative of the bulk of Canadian opinion.
Believe me,
Yours faithfully,
Percy Wm. Bunting.
With this letter came my manuscript returned to me by same mail. I replied as follows:
Heydon Villa, Toronto,23rd March, 1895.Dear Sir,Many thanks for sending me word so promptly about my article and for returning the manuscript which has safely arrived.I am glad to find that you do not take Goldwin Smith as a representative of the bulk of Canadian opinion, and can only express the regret of Canadians generallythat his distorted and incorrect views about our country are so widely circulated in England. This is the more unfortunate when the bulk of Canadian opinion is refused a hearing.Yours, etc.
Heydon Villa, Toronto,23rd March, 1895.
Dear Sir,
Many thanks for sending me word so promptly about my article and for returning the manuscript which has safely arrived.
I am glad to find that you do not take Goldwin Smith as a representative of the bulk of Canadian opinion, and can only express the regret of Canadians generallythat his distorted and incorrect views about our country are so widely circulated in England. This is the more unfortunate when the bulk of Canadian opinion is refused a hearing.
Yours, etc.
I then sent the manuscript back to England to my friend Dr. George R. Parkin, and asked him to get it published in some magazine. After considerable delay, he succeeded in getting it in theWestminster Reviewfor September, 1895. It was received very well in Canada, many notices and copious extracts being printed in many of our papers. TheWeekpublished the whole article in pamphlet form as a supplement.
In the following January, the Press Association having invited Mr. Goldwin Smith to their annual banquet to respond with the Hon. G. W. Ross to the toast “Canada,” some objection was raised by Mr. Castell Hopkins to his being endorsed to that extent. Mr. Hopkins was attacked for this in theGlobe. I replied in his defence in the following letter, which explains why we of the Imperialist party followed Goldwin Smith so persistently and endeavoured to weaken his influence. It was not from ill-feeling but from an instinct of self-preservation as to our country:
Sir,I have read an article in your issue of this morning, in reference to Mr. Goldwin Smith being asked to respond to the toast of “Canada” at the coming Press Association dinner, and censuring Mr. Hopkins for objecting to such a course.You say Mr. Hopkins’s pursuit of Mr. Smith has become ridiculous, and you refer to the St. George’s Society incident. As one who was present and took part in that affair, I may say that the feeling was thatthe fact of Mr. Smith being a member of the society gave him a recognition as an Englishman that he was not entitled to, in view of his hostility to the best interests of the empire. . . .Your editorial admits that Mr. Goldwin Smith “is a sincere advocate of political union.” If so, he is a traitor to our constitution and our country. This political-union idea is no new or merely polemic discussion. It was advocated in 1775, and was crushed out by the strength of the Canadian people. It was advocated again in 1812, and again it brought war and bloodshed and misery upon our people, and by the lavish expenditure of Canadian lives our country and institutions were preserved. Again in 1837 it was advocated, and again produced bloodshed, and once more Canadian lives were lost in preventing it. Mr. Goldwin Smith knows this, or ought to, and he is the most potent element to-day in preparing the Yankee mind to take up the question of annexation. A belief in the States that we were favourable to annexation would do more than any possible cause to bring on an attempt to secure annexation by force. This belief led to the attempts in 1775 and 1812.In view of this, Goldwin Smith’s conduct is treason of the worst kind. Such persistent hostility to the national life in any other country would not be tolerated for an instant. In Russia, under like circumstances, Goldwin Smith would long since have been consigned to the mines of Siberia. In Germany or Austria he would have been imprisoned. In France he would have been consigned to the same convict settlement as the traitor Dreyfus; while in the United States he would long since have been lynched. In the British Empire alone would he be safe—for he has found here in Canada the freest constitution, and the most tolerant and law-abiding people on earth, and these British institutions, under whose protection he is working against us, our people are determined to uphold at all hazards.I would not object to Mr. Smith appearing at any public function but that I feel it gives aid to him in misrepresenting and injuring our country. In 1812 we had just such men in Willcocks, Mallory, and Marcle, members of the House of Assembly, whose intrigues did much to bring war upon us. These men, as soon as the war broke out, went over to the enemy and fought against us, and Willcocks was killed in action fighting against Canada. Goldwin Smith will not follow his prototypes so far. On the first sign of danger he will escape, and settling in some comfortable retreat, probably among the orange groves on the Riviera, or perhaps in a villa on one of the Italian lakes, he will watch the struggle from afar, while “the overwhelming majority” of the opponents of political union in this country, or in other words the Canadian people, would be engaged in a fearful struggle in the defence of their native land and all that they hold dear. Those who know Mr. Smith best will readily imagine the sardonic smile with which he would read of our losses in action, of our difficulties, and the untold miseries that war always brings upon a people.I ask the Press Association if it is fair to their fellow-Canadians to allow our bitterest and most dangerous enemy to speak on behalf of our country? Is it fair to ask a loyal man like the Hon. G. W. Ross, who believes in Canada, to be coupled with a traitor?
Sir,
I have read an article in your issue of this morning, in reference to Mr. Goldwin Smith being asked to respond to the toast of “Canada” at the coming Press Association dinner, and censuring Mr. Hopkins for objecting to such a course.
You say Mr. Hopkins’s pursuit of Mr. Smith has become ridiculous, and you refer to the St. George’s Society incident. As one who was present and took part in that affair, I may say that the feeling was thatthe fact of Mr. Smith being a member of the society gave him a recognition as an Englishman that he was not entitled to, in view of his hostility to the best interests of the empire. . . .
Your editorial admits that Mr. Goldwin Smith “is a sincere advocate of political union.” If so, he is a traitor to our constitution and our country. This political-union idea is no new or merely polemic discussion. It was advocated in 1775, and was crushed out by the strength of the Canadian people. It was advocated again in 1812, and again it brought war and bloodshed and misery upon our people, and by the lavish expenditure of Canadian lives our country and institutions were preserved. Again in 1837 it was advocated, and again produced bloodshed, and once more Canadian lives were lost in preventing it. Mr. Goldwin Smith knows this, or ought to, and he is the most potent element to-day in preparing the Yankee mind to take up the question of annexation. A belief in the States that we were favourable to annexation would do more than any possible cause to bring on an attempt to secure annexation by force. This belief led to the attempts in 1775 and 1812.
In view of this, Goldwin Smith’s conduct is treason of the worst kind. Such persistent hostility to the national life in any other country would not be tolerated for an instant. In Russia, under like circumstances, Goldwin Smith would long since have been consigned to the mines of Siberia. In Germany or Austria he would have been imprisoned. In France he would have been consigned to the same convict settlement as the traitor Dreyfus; while in the United States he would long since have been lynched. In the British Empire alone would he be safe—for he has found here in Canada the freest constitution, and the most tolerant and law-abiding people on earth, and these British institutions, under whose protection he is working against us, our people are determined to uphold at all hazards.
I would not object to Mr. Smith appearing at any public function but that I feel it gives aid to him in misrepresenting and injuring our country. In 1812 we had just such men in Willcocks, Mallory, and Marcle, members of the House of Assembly, whose intrigues did much to bring war upon us. These men, as soon as the war broke out, went over to the enemy and fought against us, and Willcocks was killed in action fighting against Canada. Goldwin Smith will not follow his prototypes so far. On the first sign of danger he will escape, and settling in some comfortable retreat, probably among the orange groves on the Riviera, or perhaps in a villa on one of the Italian lakes, he will watch the struggle from afar, while “the overwhelming majority” of the opponents of political union in this country, or in other words the Canadian people, would be engaged in a fearful struggle in the defence of their native land and all that they hold dear. Those who know Mr. Smith best will readily imagine the sardonic smile with which he would read of our losses in action, of our difficulties, and the untold miseries that war always brings upon a people.
I ask the Press Association if it is fair to their fellow-Canadians to allow our bitterest and most dangerous enemy to speak on behalf of our country? Is it fair to ask a loyal man like the Hon. G. W. Ross, who believes in Canada, to be coupled with a traitor?
Among the other methods of arousing the patriotic feeling of our people was the erection of monuments on our great battlefields in memory of the victories gained in the struggle to preserve the freedom of our country in 1812-’14.
The Lundy’s Lane Historical Society, one of the patriotic organisations which sprang up over the Province, had started a movement for erecting a monument on the field of Lundy’s Lane where the last important and the most hotly contested battle of the war tookplace in July, 1814. They had collected a number of subscriptions but not sufficient for the purpose, when Goldwin Smith offered through the late Oliver A. Howland to supply the balance required, provided that he might write the inscription so as to include both armies in the commemoration on equal terms. This offer was promptly declined by the Society, which had no desire to honour invaders who had made a most unprovoked attack upon a sparse people, who had nothing whatever to do with the assumed cause of the quarrel.
Shortly after, the Canadian Government took the matter in hand, and provided the balance required for the Lundy’s Lane Monument, and the full amounts required for monuments on the fields of Chateauguay and Chrysler’s Farm.
The Lundy’s Lane Monument was finished and ready to be unveiled on the anniversary of the battle, the 25th July, 1895, and the Secretary of State, the Hon. W. H. Montague, had promised to unveil it and deliver an address. The day before Dr. Montague telegraphed to me that he could not go, and asked me to go on behalf of the Government and unveil the monument. I agreed, and he telegraphed to the President of the Society that I was coming. About two thousand people were assembled. It will be remembered that Mr. Goldwin Smith had commented severely upon the proposal to put up a monument at Lundy’s Lane, in his lecture on “Jingoism” delivered in 1891. He said, “Only let it be like that monument at Quebec, a sign at once of gratitude and of reconciliation, not of the meanness of unslaked hatred.” I replied to this in my lecture on “National Spirit” shortly after, and said that the Professor, “considering how he is always treating a country that has used himfar better than he ever deserved, should be a first-class authority on the meanness of unslaked and unfounded hatred.”
At the time of the unveiling of the monument, when speaking in the presence of the officers and members of the Lundy’s Lane Historical Society, I naturally felt it to be my duty to compliment them upon their work, to congratulate them on the success of their efforts, and to defend them from the only hostile criticism that I knew of being directed against them. I spoke as follows in concluding my address, as appears in the newspaper report:
It was well, the speaker said, that they should commemorate the crowning victory, which meant that he could that day wear the maple leaf, could be a Canadian. He was aware of one peripatetic philosopher who had said that the noble gentlemen of Lundy’s Lane Historical Society, in putting up a monument to Canadians alone, were doing nothing but displaying the signs of an unslaked hatred. He would say that to show themselves afraid to honour the memory of their forefathers would be to make an exhibition of contemptible cowardice. Lieut.-Colonel Denison then argued that every great nation which has ever existed has shown itself ready to acknowledge the deeds of those who had fought for it, and he cited Assyria, Egypt, Greece, and Rome in ancient history, and Switzerland in modern times, in proof of this assertion. The erection of such monuments, he said, taught the youth of the land to venerate the memory of the past, and encouraged that sentiment of nationality which was throbbing now so strongly in Canada. (Applause.) The past ten years have witnessed a great improvement in that respect, he said. The flag can be seen flying everywhere, the maple leaf is worn, and Canadian poets celebrate in verse the finest passages of our history.The speaker concluded by expressing the thanks of all to the Government for deciding to erect monuments to commemorate Canadian battlefields. He was glad that the first had been erected on this sacred frontier; that at Chrysler’s Farm would mark the spot of a great victory, and he was glad for the thought of sympathy with their French-Canadian brothers which had led to the commemoration of the brilliant victory of Chateauguay, where, against the greatest odds of the war, 500 French-Canadians had defeated 5,000 Americans.Where France’s sons on British soilFought for their English king.They should never forget that they owed a sacred duty to the men who fought and died for the independence of their country. (Applause.)
It was well, the speaker said, that they should commemorate the crowning victory, which meant that he could that day wear the maple leaf, could be a Canadian. He was aware of one peripatetic philosopher who had said that the noble gentlemen of Lundy’s Lane Historical Society, in putting up a monument to Canadians alone, were doing nothing but displaying the signs of an unslaked hatred. He would say that to show themselves afraid to honour the memory of their forefathers would be to make an exhibition of contemptible cowardice. Lieut.-Colonel Denison then argued that every great nation which has ever existed has shown itself ready to acknowledge the deeds of those who had fought for it, and he cited Assyria, Egypt, Greece, and Rome in ancient history, and Switzerland in modern times, in proof of this assertion. The erection of such monuments, he said, taught the youth of the land to venerate the memory of the past, and encouraged that sentiment of nationality which was throbbing now so strongly in Canada. (Applause.) The past ten years have witnessed a great improvement in that respect, he said. The flag can be seen flying everywhere, the maple leaf is worn, and Canadian poets celebrate in verse the finest passages of our history.The speaker concluded by expressing the thanks of all to the Government for deciding to erect monuments to commemorate Canadian battlefields. He was glad that the first had been erected on this sacred frontier; that at Chrysler’s Farm would mark the spot of a great victory, and he was glad for the thought of sympathy with their French-Canadian brothers which had led to the commemoration of the brilliant victory of Chateauguay, where, against the greatest odds of the war, 500 French-Canadians had defeated 5,000 Americans.
Where France’s sons on British soilFought for their English king.
Where France’s sons on British soilFought for their English king.
They should never forget that they owed a sacred duty to the men who fought and died for the independence of their country. (Applause.)
The Historical Society objected strenuously to a proposed inscription for the monument, and stopped its being engraved, and asked me to urge upon the Government to put something different. This was done, and I was asked by the Minister to draft one. It was accepted, and now stands upon the monument as follows:
Erected by the Canadian Parliament in honour of the victory gained by the British and Canadian forces on this field on the 25th July, 1814, and in grateful remembrance of the brave men who died on that day fighting for the unity of the Empire.1895
Erected by the Canadian Parliament in honour of the victory gained by the British and Canadian forces on this field on the 25th July, 1814, and in grateful remembrance of the brave men who died on that day fighting for the unity of the Empire.
1895
My speech was printed in the Toronto papers at some length, and some of Mr. Smith’s friends censured me for having defended the Lundy’s Lane Society from his attacks. A week or two later I was amused at receiving a visit from the Rev. Canon Bull, thePresident of the Lundy’s Lane Society, who came across the Lake to see me, to lay before me a matter which had come before the Society, and of which after discussion they felt I should be made aware.
I have mentioned above Mr. Goldwin Smith’s offer made through Mr. Howland to subscribe for the monument provided he could write the inscription. This offer and its refusal the Society had kept strictly private, so that I was quite ignorant of it, and made my address in entire innocence of any knowledge in reference to it. Mr. Smith apparently jumped to the conclusion that I had been told of this offer, and that my comments had been caused by it. He wrote to Mr. Howland and asked him to put the matter right, and enclosed him a draft of a memo, which he wished Mr. Howland to send to the Society. Mr. Howland very innocently sent Mr. Smith’s letter, his draft memo., and his own comments to the President of the Society, Rev. Mr. Bull. As soon as the correspondence was read, my old friend Mr. Wm. Kirby, author ofLe Chien d’Or, said, “Col. Denison knew nothing of that offer, but Mr. Smith did make an attack in his lecture on ‘Jingoism,’ and Col. Denison had answered him in his lecture on ‘National Spirit’ which was published in theEmpirein 1891, and his remarks on that point at the unveiling were on the same lines.” The Society refused to act on Mr. Howland’s and Mr. Smith’s suggestion, but decided that Canon Bull should come over to Toronto and lay the whole matter before me. I thanked Canon Bull and asked him to thank the Society, and the next day wrote to him, and asked him if I might have a copy of the letters. He wrote to me promptly, saying I might as well have the originals and enclosed them. I have them now.
While Mr. Goldwin Smith was working so earnestly against the interests of the Empire, and while many were leaning towards Commercial Union, and some even ready to go farther and favour annexation, Mr. (afterwards Sir) Oliver Mowat, then Premier of Ontario, saw the danger of the way in which matters were drifting. I often discussed the subject with him, and knew that he was a thorough loyalist, and a true Canadian and Imperialist. He often spoke despondingly to me as to what the ultimate outcome might be, for, of course, the majority of the men who at the time favoured Commercial Union were among his supporters, and he would therefore hear more from that side than I would. In spite of his uneasiness, however, he was staunchly loyal. Mr. Biggar, his biographer, relates that just before the Inter-Provincial Conference in October, 1887, an active Liberal politician, referring to his opposition to Commercial Union, said to Mr. Mowat in the drawing-room of his house on St. George Street, “If you take that position, sir, you won’t have four per cent. of the party with you.” To which the reply came with unusual warmth and sharpness, “I cannot help it, if I haven’t one per cent. I won’t support a policy that will allow the Americans to have any—even the smallest—voice in the making of our laws.”
On the evening of the 18th February, 1891, in the election then coming on, Mr. Mowat spoke at a meeting in the Horticultural Pavilion, Toronto, and again his strong loyalty spoke out. He said among other things, “For myself I am a true Briton. I love the old land dearly. I am glad that I was born a British subject; a British subject I have lived for three score years and something more. I hope to live and die a British subject. I trust and hope that my children and my grand-children who have also been born British subjects will live their lives as British subjects, and as British subjects die.” Sir Oliver Mowat’s clear and outspoken loyalty prevented the Liberals from being defeated in Ontario by a very much greater majority than they were.
During the summer of 1891, however, the annexation movement assumed a still more active form. Mr. Goldwin Smith was doing his utmost to stir up the feeling. Solomon White, who had been a Conservative, and was a member of the Ontario Legislature, induced a public meeting in Windsor, where he lived, to pass a resolution in favour of annexation. Encouraged by this, Mr. White arranged for a meeting in Woodstock in Mr. Mowat’s own constituency of South Oxford, in the hope of carrying a resolution there to the same effect.
While there was a feeling to treat the meeting with contempt, Mr. Mowat with keener political insight saw that such a course would be dangerous, not only to the country but to the Liberal party as well, and he wrote a letter on the 23rd November, 1891, to Dr. McKay, M.P.P., who represented the other riding of the county of Oxford in the House of Assembly. He wrote:
With reference to our conversation this morning, I desire to reiterate my strong opinion that it would not be good policy for the friends of British connection and the old flag to stay away from Mr. Solomon White’s meeting at Woodstock to-morrow. By doing so and not voting at the meeting they would enable annexationists to carry a resolution in favour of their views, and to trumpet it throughout the Dominion and elsewhere as the sentiment of the community as a whole. If in the loyal town of Woodstock, thriving beyond most if not all the other towns of Ontario, the capital of the banner county of Canadian Liberalism, formerly represented by that great champion of both British connection and Liberal principles, the Hon. George Brown, and noted heretofore for its fidelity at once to the old flag and to the Liberal views, if in such a place a resolution were carried at a public meeting to which all had been invited, no subsequent explanation as to the thinness of the attendance or as to the contemptuous absence of opponents would, outside of Oxford, have any weight.There are in most counties a few annexationists—in some counties more than in others; but the aggregate number in the Dominion I am sure is very small as compared with the aggregate population. The great majority of our people, I believe and trust, are not prepared to hand over this great Dominion to a foreign nation for any present commercial consideration which may be proposed. We love our Sovereign, and we are proud of our status as British subjects. The Imperial authorities have refused nothing in the way of self-government which our representatives have asked for. Our complaints are against parliaments and governments which acquired their power from our own people. To the United States and its people we are all most friendly. We recognise the advantages which would go to both them and us from extended trade relations, and we are willing to go as far in that direction as shall not involve, now or in the future, political union; but there Canadians of every party have hitherto drawn the line.
With reference to our conversation this morning, I desire to reiterate my strong opinion that it would not be good policy for the friends of British connection and the old flag to stay away from Mr. Solomon White’s meeting at Woodstock to-morrow. By doing so and not voting at the meeting they would enable annexationists to carry a resolution in favour of their views, and to trumpet it throughout the Dominion and elsewhere as the sentiment of the community as a whole. If in the loyal town of Woodstock, thriving beyond most if not all the other towns of Ontario, the capital of the banner county of Canadian Liberalism, formerly represented by that great champion of both British connection and Liberal principles, the Hon. George Brown, and noted heretofore for its fidelity at once to the old flag and to the Liberal views, if in such a place a resolution were carried at a public meeting to which all had been invited, no subsequent explanation as to the thinness of the attendance or as to the contemptuous absence of opponents would, outside of Oxford, have any weight.
There are in most counties a few annexationists—in some counties more than in others; but the aggregate number in the Dominion I am sure is very small as compared with the aggregate population. The great majority of our people, I believe and trust, are not prepared to hand over this great Dominion to a foreign nation for any present commercial consideration which may be proposed. We love our Sovereign, and we are proud of our status as British subjects. The Imperial authorities have refused nothing in the way of self-government which our representatives have asked for. Our complaints are against parliaments and governments which acquired their power from our own people. To the United States and its people we are all most friendly. We recognise the advantages which would go to both them and us from extended trade relations, and we are willing to go as far in that direction as shall not involve, now or in the future, political union; but there Canadians of every party have hitherto drawn the line.
The meeting passed by twelve to one the following resolution:
That the people of Oxford of all parties are deeply attached to their beloved Sovereign, the Queen of GreatBritain and Ireland; that they proudly recognise the whole British Empire as their country, and rejoice that Canada is part of that Empire; that Canadians have the most friendly feelings toward the people of the United States, and desire the extension of their trade relations with them; that while differing among themselves as to the extent of the reciprocity to be desired or agreed to, we repudiate any suggestion that in order to accomplish this object Canadians should change their allegiance or consent to the surrender of the Dominion to any foreign Power by annexation, political union, or otherwise.
That the people of Oxford of all parties are deeply attached to their beloved Sovereign, the Queen of GreatBritain and Ireland; that they proudly recognise the whole British Empire as their country, and rejoice that Canada is part of that Empire; that Canadians have the most friendly feelings toward the people of the United States, and desire the extension of their trade relations with them; that while differing among themselves as to the extent of the reciprocity to be desired or agreed to, we repudiate any suggestion that in order to accomplish this object Canadians should change their allegiance or consent to the surrender of the Dominion to any foreign Power by annexation, political union, or otherwise.
Sir Oliver Mowat’s biographer states that Sir Oliver had determined in case a pro-annexation resolution should be carried at this meeting, to resign his seat for North Oxford, and appeal again to the constituency on the straight issue of British Connectionv.Annexation.
The morning Sir Oliver’s letter appeared in the papers and we knew what had happened at Woodstock, I went up to his house and congratulated him warmly, and thanked him earnestly for his wise and patriotic action. I knew that as the leader of the Liberal party in Ontario he had delivered a death-blow to the annexation movement. I told him so. I said to him, “You had control of the switch and you have turned it so that the party will be turned towards loyalty and away from annexation. And when the future historian writes the history of our country, he will not understand his business if he does not point out clearly the far-reaching effect of your action in this matter.”
Sir Oliver seemed to think that I overrated the matter, but he told me that he had sent his secretary, Mr. Bastedo, to Woodstock to see his leading supporters, and to do what he could to help Dr. McKay to securecontrol of the meeting. Many years have elapsed, and I still hold the opinion I expressed to Sir Oliver that morning, and I feel that Canada should never forget what she owes to Sir Oliver Mowat, and that his name should always be cherished in the memories of our people.
This was followed on the 12th December, 1891, by an open letter to the Hon. A. Mackenzie which was published as a sort of manifesto to the Liberal party, in which he made an exhaustive argument along the same lines.
In the early part of 1892 Mr. Elgin Myers, County Attorney of Dufferin, was writing and speaking openly and strongly in favour of annexation, and on being remonstrated with by the Government, said he had the right of free speech, and would persist. Sir Oliver dismissed him from office. This was another strong lesson, and was heartily approved by the people generally. About the same time and for the same cause E. A. Macdonald was dismissed by the Dominion Government from the Militia, in which he held the rank of Lieutenant in the 12th York Rangers.
On the 16th July, 1892, about two months after Elgin Myers’ dismissal, a great meeting of loyal Canadians was held at Niagara-on-the-Lake, the first capital of the Province, to celebrate the one hundredth anniversary of the establishment of the Province of Upper Canada by Lt.-Governor Simcoe, who issued his first proclamation on July 16th, 1792, at Kingston.
The Lt.-Governor, Sir George Kirkpatrick, made the first speech, and gave a historical sketch of the history of the Province. Sir Oliver Mowat followed him, and made a very loyal and effective speech.
He commenced by saying:
At this great gathering of Reformers and Conservatives in which both are equally active, I may be permitted to express at the outset a hope that there will be no attempt in any quarter to make party capital out of this historic event, or out of anything which may be said or left unsaid either in my own case or that of any other of the speakers. . . . As the Dominion grows in population and wealth, changes are inevitable and must be faced. What are they to be? Some of you hope for Imperial Federation. Failing that, what then? Shall we give away our great country to the United States as some—I hope not many—are saying just now? (Cries of “Never.”) Or when the time comes for some important change, shall we go for the only other alternative, the creation of Canada into an independent nation? I believe that the great mass of our people would prefer independence to political union with any other people. And so would I. As a Canadian I am not willing that Canada should cease to be. Fellow Canadians, are you? (Cries of “No.”) I am not willing that Canada should commit national suicide. Are you? (Cries of “No.”) I am not willing that Canada should be absorbed into the United States. Are you? (Cries of “No.”) I am not willing that both our British connection and our hope of a Canadian nationality shall be for ever destroyed. (Cheers.) Annexation necessarily means all that. It means, too, the abolition of all that is to us preferable in Canadian character and institutions as contrasted with what in these respects our neighbours prefer. . . . But I don’t want to belong to them. I don’t want to give up my allegiance on their account or for any advantage they may offer. . . . I cannot bring myself to forget the hatred which so many of our neighbours cherish towards the nation we love and to which we are proud to belong. I cannot forget the influence which that hatred exerts in their public affairs. I don’t want to belong to a nation in which both political parties have for party purposes to vie with one anotherin exhibiting this hatred. I don’t want to belong to a nation in which a suspicion that a politician has a friendly feeling towards the great nation which gave him birth is enough to ensure his defeat at the polls. . . . No, I do not want annexation. I prefer the ills I suffer to the ills that annexation would involve. I love my nation, the nation of our fathers, and shall not willingly join any nation which hates her. I love Canada, and I want to perform my part, whatever it may be, in maintaining her existence as a distinct political or national organisation. I believe this to be on the whole and in the long run the best thing for Canadians and the best thing for the whole American continent. I hope that when another century has been added to the age of Canada, it may still be Canada, and that its second century shall, like its first, be celebrated by Canadians unabsorbed, numerous, prosperous, powerful, and at peace. For myself I should prefer to die in that hope than to die President of the United States. (Cheers and applause.)
At this great gathering of Reformers and Conservatives in which both are equally active, I may be permitted to express at the outset a hope that there will be no attempt in any quarter to make party capital out of this historic event, or out of anything which may be said or left unsaid either in my own case or that of any other of the speakers. . . . As the Dominion grows in population and wealth, changes are inevitable and must be faced. What are they to be? Some of you hope for Imperial Federation. Failing that, what then? Shall we give away our great country to the United States as some—I hope not many—are saying just now? (Cries of “Never.”) Or when the time comes for some important change, shall we go for the only other alternative, the creation of Canada into an independent nation? I believe that the great mass of our people would prefer independence to political union with any other people. And so would I. As a Canadian I am not willing that Canada should cease to be. Fellow Canadians, are you? (Cries of “No.”) I am not willing that Canada should commit national suicide. Are you? (Cries of “No.”) I am not willing that Canada should be absorbed into the United States. Are you? (Cries of “No.”) I am not willing that both our British connection and our hope of a Canadian nationality shall be for ever destroyed. (Cheers.) Annexation necessarily means all that. It means, too, the abolition of all that is to us preferable in Canadian character and institutions as contrasted with what in these respects our neighbours prefer. . . . But I don’t want to belong to them. I don’t want to give up my allegiance on their account or for any advantage they may offer. . . . I cannot bring myself to forget the hatred which so many of our neighbours cherish towards the nation we love and to which we are proud to belong. I cannot forget the influence which that hatred exerts in their public affairs. I don’t want to belong to a nation in which both political parties have for party purposes to vie with one anotherin exhibiting this hatred. I don’t want to belong to a nation in which a suspicion that a politician has a friendly feeling towards the great nation which gave him birth is enough to ensure his defeat at the polls. . . . No, I do not want annexation. I prefer the ills I suffer to the ills that annexation would involve. I love my nation, the nation of our fathers, and shall not willingly join any nation which hates her. I love Canada, and I want to perform my part, whatever it may be, in maintaining her existence as a distinct political or national organisation. I believe this to be on the whole and in the long run the best thing for Canadians and the best thing for the whole American continent. I hope that when another century has been added to the age of Canada, it may still be Canada, and that its second century shall, like its first, be celebrated by Canadians unabsorbed, numerous, prosperous, powerful, and at peace. For myself I should prefer to die in that hope than to die President of the United States. (Cheers and applause.)
Sir Oliver’s biographer, C. R. W. Biggar, says of this speech:
Quoted and discussed by almost every newspaper in Canada from Halifax to Vancouver, and also by the leading journals of Britain and the United States, Sir Oliver Mowat’s speech at the Niagara Centennial Celebration sounded the death-knell of the annexation movement in Ontario.
Quoted and discussed by almost every newspaper in Canada from Halifax to Vancouver, and also by the leading journals of Britain and the United States, Sir Oliver Mowat’s speech at the Niagara Centennial Celebration sounded the death-knell of the annexation movement in Ontario.
While Sir Oliver was speaking I was sitting close behind him, next to Mr. Wm. Kirby, who was a staunch loyalist and keen Imperialist. He was delighted and whispered to me, “Mr. Mowat has stolen your thunder,” and again, “He is making your speech.” I replied, “Yes, there will not be any need for me to say much now.” And when I was called upon to speakafter him I made a speech strongly supporting him but very brief, feeling, as I did, that he had done all that was necessary in that line.
He was always impressed with the feeling of hostility in the United States. As I had been speaking upon that subject for years in unmistakable language, and was often abused for my outspoken comments, I was delighted on one occasion some years before at a Board of Trade banquet in the Horticultural Pavilion, Toronto, to hear him say positively “that the United States was a hostile nation.” Afterwards in the cloak room I congratulated him warmly upon his speech, and thanked him for speaking so plainly about the hostility of the United States. Sir John A. Macdonald was standing by, and he turned playfully towards Mr. Mowat, and, shaking him by the shoulders, said, “Yes, Denison, did he not do well, the little tyrant?” This was in reference to the opposition papers having sometimes called him “the little tyrant.” Mr. Mowat seemed highly amused, and I was much impressed by the evident kindly, almost affectionate, personal feeling between the two rival statesmen.
The decided position taken by Mr. Mowat certainly had an immense influence upon the Liberal party, and in this he was ably seconded by the Hon. G. W. Ross, who on many occasions sounded a clear note in favour of British connection and Imperial consolidation.
On the 30th January, 1891, Sir Leonard Tilley, of New Brunswick, was appointed President of the League in Canada in place of D’Alton McCarthy, mainly through the instrumentality of Principal Grant, who was of the opinion that the course taken by Mr. McCarthy in opposition to the Jesuit Estates Act and his movement in favour of Equal Rights were so unsatisfactory to the French Canadians that the prospect of the League obtaining their support would be hopeless while he remained President. Sir Leonard Tilley was one of the Fathers of Confederation, and at the time Lieutenant-Governor of New Brunswick.
A meeting of the Council of the League in Canada was held on the 18th September, 1891, Sir Leonard Tilley, President, in the chair, when after careful discussion they passed a resolution asking the League in England to help the Canadian Government to secure the denunciation of the German and Belgian treaties, and a second one urging once more the importance of a preferential trade arrangement between the Mother Country and the Colonies.
On the 30th of the same month, both Houses of the Canadian Parliament passed unanimously an address tothe Imperial Government, asking them to denounce the German and Belgian treaties which prevented preferential trade arrangements between the various parts of the British Empire.
The Seventh Annual General Meeting of the League in Canada was held in the Tower Room, House of Commons, Ottawa, on the 1st March, 1892, Mr. Alexander McNeill in the chair. A still further advance in the policy of the Canadian League was made in a resolution moved by Lt.-Col. W. Hamilton Merritt and carried as follows:
That in the event of preferential inter Imperial trade relations being adopted in the British Empire, it is the opinion of this League that Canada will be found ready and willing to bear her share in a just and reasonable proportion of Imperial responsibilities.
That in the event of preferential inter Imperial trade relations being adopted in the British Empire, it is the opinion of this League that Canada will be found ready and willing to bear her share in a just and reasonable proportion of Imperial responsibilities.
On the 28th April, 1892, Mr. McNeill moved in the House of Commons:
That if and when the Parliament of Great Britain and Ireland admits Canadian products to the markets of the United Kingdom upon more favourable terms than it accords to the products of foreign countries, the Parliament of Canada will be prepared to accord corresponding advantages by a substantial reduction in the duties it imposes upon British manufactured goods.
That if and when the Parliament of Great Britain and Ireland admits Canadian products to the markets of the United Kingdom upon more favourable terms than it accords to the products of foreign countries, the Parliament of Canada will be prepared to accord corresponding advantages by a substantial reduction in the duties it imposes upon British manufactured goods.
This was carried by ninety-eight votes to sixty-four.
All this was very gratifying to our League, and proved to us that the campaign we had been waging in Canada for nearly five years had convinced the majority of the people of the soundness of our policy. We had our Parliament with us both on the question of the German and Belgian treaties and preferentialtariffs. In Great Britain, however, our progress had been slow; with the exception of Sir Howard Vincent no prominent British politician had accepted the principle of preferential tariffs. Lord Salisbury had spoken tentatively at the Guildhall on the 9th November, 1890, and at Hastings on the 18th May, 1892, but he was, while in a sense favourable, very cautious in his remarks, as he felt public opinion in Great Britain was quite averse to any such policy on account of their obstinate adherence to the principle of Free Trade.
The majority of the Imperial Federation League in England were not at all favourable to the views of the Canadian League, and the Journal of the League showed its bias in all its articles on the subject, while Lord Knutsford on behalf of the Imperial Government in his dispatch on the 2nd April, 1892, in answer to the joint address of the Canadian Houses of Parliament declared, that for reasons given, “Her Majesty’s Government have felt themselves unable to advise Her Majesty to comply with the prayer of the address which you have transmitted for submission to Her Majesty.”
The Eighth Annual General Meeting of the League in Canada was held in Montreal on the 13th February, 1893, Mr. Alexander McNeill, Vice-President, in the chair, and a resolution was carried, asking the Government to request the Imperial Government to summon an Imperial Conference. Sir Leonard Tilley wrote to the meeting asking to be relieved of the duties of President, and advising the election of Mr. Alexander McNeill in his place. In my absence, through Mr. McNeill’s efforts, I was elected President of the League. I accepted the position, and on examination of its affairs I found that from a business point of view it was in a very badcondition. The work of the Secretary was behindhand, the League was without funds and considerably in debt. I soon succeeded in placing it in a much better position. A large amount of arrears of fees was collected, and with the assistance of Mr. Herbert Mason and the late C. J. Campbell we soon secured subscriptions from a number of friends of the cause, whose names I feel should be recorded as they aided the movement for many years. The list of subscribers was as follows: George T. Denison, J. Herbert Mason, George Gooderham, A. R. Creelman, John T. Small, A. B. Lee, D’Alton McCarthy, Sir Sandford Fleming, Sir Frank Smith, Alfred Gooderham, T. G. Blackstock, D. R. Wilkie, Larratt W. Smith, E. B. Osler, A. M. Cosby, George R. R. Cockburn, Hugh Blain, Albert E. Gooderham, W. G. Gooderham, and W. H. Beatty. The debts were paid, and a balance on hand and the future expenses for some years secured. A new secretary was appointed, and everything was in good working order.
I had barely succeeded in this when I received from the secretary of the League in England a communication marked “Strictly private and confidential,” informing me that there was a proposal to dissolve the League, and close its business.
I was much astonished and alarmed at this information, and much embarrassed by the strict secrecy imposed on me, but a day or two afterwards I found by the cable dispatches in the Toronto papers that the matter had come before the Council in England and that the motion had been adjourned for six months. I concluded that the six months’ hoist meant the end of it. So I preserved the strict request for secrecy which had been made to me. I had before written privately in reply to the Secretary, Mr. A. H. Loring,protesting against the proposition to dissolve the League. And I happened to mention that I personally would feel inclined to keep up the struggle. I thought the postponement had settled the matter, but as Mr. John T. Small, the Hon. Treasurer, was going to England that summer, and as he was a member of the Executive Committee of the League in England and entitled to know what was being done, I urged him very particularly to go to the head office in London, and inquire carefully as what was going on. When he returned he told me that he had twice tried to see Mr. Loring but failed, that he had asked for his address, which the clerk said he could not give him as he was away on his holidays, and Mr. Small was assured by the clerk that there was nothing going on, and that there was no information that he knew of to give him.
All this lulled me into a feeling of security. Suddenly on 25th November, 1893, the news came by cable to the Press that on the previous day a meeting had been held in London, and that the League had been dissolved. The meeting was called by a circular dated 17th November, so that there was no possibility for the Canadian members of the Council in England to have attended, even if notices had been sent to them, which was not done.
In the Journal for the 1st December, 1893 (the last issue of that publication), it is stated that discussion had been taking place in the meetings of the Executive Committee during the previous six months, to decide upon the course of action to be adopted by the League in the immediate future; and it shows that a special committee had been appointed to consider the matter. The report of this committee was signed by the Rt. Hon. Edward Stanhope, M.P., President, Lord Brassey,Sir John Colomb, R. Munro-Ferguson, M.P., H. O. Arnold-Forster, M.P., S. Vaughan Morgan, the Lord Reay, and J. G. Rhodes. This committee reported “a recommendation, that the operations of the League should be brought to a close.”
“This report was discussed at several meetings of the Executive Committee, and alternative proposals were carefully considered during the autumn,” and on the 24th November, 1893, the report was adopted by a vote of 18 to 17, Mr. Loring saying he had been assured that the Canadian League would continue as heretofore.
In spite of all these discussions mentioned, Mr. Small was assured there was nothing going on, and the Canadian League were kept in ignorance of the movement until it was accomplished.
This dissolution of the League at a council meeting to which none of the thirty-five Canadian members representing the Canadian Branch were either invited or notified, caused a considerable feeling of dissatisfaction among our members, and was a severe and disheartening blow to all friends of the cause in Canada, the concealment and secrecy of the whole movement being very unsatisfactory to everyone.
I called a meeting of our Executive Committee at once for the 27th November when the matter was considered. A resolution was moved and unanimously carried that the Secretary should notify the Secretary of the Imperial Federation League to stop the paper at the end of this year, and if the journal should be continued that they should communicate direct with the Canadian subscribers.
The following resolution was also, after careful consideration, carried unanimously: