England during and after our Revolutionary War. They went to Canada
impoverished, but they carried there moral and intellectual qualities
of a high order, the product of the best civilization of their day,
the best materials for making a State. I confess that I never could
rid myself of the school-boy idea that the terms “British redcoat”
and “enemy” were synonymous, and that a “Tory” was the worst character
Providence had ever permitted to live. But these people, who were
deported, or went voluntarily away for an idea, were among the best
material we had in stanch moral traits, intellectual leadership, social
position, and wealth; their crime was superior attachment to England,
and utter want of sympathy with the colonial cause, the cause of
“liberty” of the hour. It is to them, at any rate, that Ontario owes its
solid basis of character, vigor, and prosperity. I do not quarrel with
the pride of their descendants in the fact that their ancestors were
U. E. (United Empire) loyalists—a designation that still has a vital
meaning to them. No doubt they inherit the idea that the revolt was a
mistake, that the English connection is better as a form of government
than the republic, and some of them may still regard the “Yankees” as
their Tory ancestors did. It does not matter. In the development of
a century in a new world they are more like us than they are like
the English, except in a certain sentiment and in traditions, and in
adherence to English governmental ideas. I think I am not wrong in
saying that this conservative element in Ontario, or this aristocratical
element which believes that it can rule a people better than they
can rule themselves, was for a long time an anti-progressive and
anti-popular force. They did not give up their power readily—power,
however, which they were never accused of using for personal profit in
the way of money. But I suppose that the “rule of the best” is only held
today as a theory under popular suffrage in a responsible government.
The population of Ontario in 1886 was estimated at 1,819,026. For the
seven years from 1872—79 the gain was 250,782. For the seven years from
1879-86 the gain was only 145,459. These figures, which I take from the
statistics of Mr. Archibald Blue, secretary of the Ontario Bureau of
Industries, become still more significant when we consider that in the
second period of seven years the Government had spent more money in
developing the railways, in promoting immigration, and raised more money
by the protective tariff for the establishing of industries, than in the
first. The increase of population in the first period was 174 per cent.;
in the second, only 8 2/3 per cent. Mr. Blue also says that but for the
accession by immigration in the seven years 1879-86 the population
of the province in 1886 would have been 62,640 less than in 1879. The
natural increase, added to the immigration reported (208,000), should
have given an increase of 442,000. There was an increase of only
145,000. What became of the 297,000? They did not go to Manitoba—the
census shows that. “The lamentable truth is that we are growing men
for the United States.” That is, the province is at the cost of raising
thousands of citizens up to a productive age only to lose them by
emigration to the United States. Comparisons are also made with Ohio
and Michigan, showing in them a proportionally greater increase in
population, in acres of land under production, in manufactured products,
and in development of mineral wealth. And yet Ontario has as great
natural advantages as these neighboring States. The observation is
also made that in the six years 1873-79, a period of intense business
stringency, the country made decidedly greater progress than in the six
years 1879-85, “a period of revival and boom, and vast expenditure of
public money.” The reader will bear in mind that the repeal (caused
mainly by the increase of Canadian duties on American products) of the
reciprocity treaty in 1866 (under which an international trade had grown
to $70,000,000 annually) discouraged any annexation sentiment that may
have existed, aided the scheme of confederation, and seemed greatly to
stimulate Canadian manufactures, and the growth of interior and exterior
commerce.
We touch here not only political questions active in Canada, but
economic problems affecting both Canada and the United States. It is the
criticism of the Liberals upon the “development” policy, the protective
tariff, the subsidy policy of the Liberal-Conservative party now in
power, that a great show of activity is made without any real progress
either in wealth or population. To put it in a word, the Liberals want
unrestricted trade with the United States, with England, or with the
world—preferably with the United States. If this caused separation from
England they would accept the consequences with composure, but they
vehemently deny that they in any way favor annexation because they
desire free-trade. Pointing to the more rapid growth of the States of
the Union their advantage is said to consist in having free exchange of
commodities with sixty millions of people, spread over a continent.
As a matter of fact it seems plain that Ontario would benefit and have
a better development by sharing in this large circulation and exchange.
Would the State of New York be injured by the prosperity of Ontario?
Is it not benefited by the prosperity of its other neighbor,
Pennsylvania?
Toronto represents Ontario. It is its monetary, intellectual,
educational centre, and I may add that here, more than anywhere else
in Canada, the visitor is conscious of the complicated energy of a very
vigorous civilization. The city itself has grown rapidly—an increase
from 86,415 in 1881 to probably 170,000 in 1888—and it is growing as
rapidly as any city on the continent, according to the indications
of building, manufacturing, railway building, and the visible stir of
enterprise. It is a very handsome and agreeable city, pleasant for one
reason, because it covers a large area, and gives space for the
display of its fine buildings. I noticed especially the effect of noble
churches, occupying a square—ample grounds that give dignity to the
house of God. It extends along the lake about six miles, and runs back
about as far, laid out with regularity, and with the general effect
of being level, but the outskirts have a good deal of irregularity and
picturesqueness. It has many broad, handsome streets and several fine
parks; High Park on the west is extensive, the University grounds (or
Queen’s Park) are beautiful—the new and imposing Parliament Buildings
are being erected in a part of its domain ceded for the purpose; and
the Island Park, the irregular strip of an island lying in front of the
city, suggests the Lido of Venice. I cannot pause upon details, but the
town has an air of elegance, of solidity, of prosperity. The well-filled
streets present an aspect of great business animation, which is seen
also in the shops, the newspapers, the clubs. It is a place of social
activity as well, of animation, of hospitality.
There are a few delightful old houses, which date back to the New
England loyalists, and give a certain flavor to the town.
If I were to make an accurate picture of Toronto it would appear as one
of the most orderly, well-governed, moral, highly civilized towns on
the continent—in fact, almost unique in the active elements of a high
Christian civilization. The notable fact is that the concentration here
of business enterprise is equalled by the concentration of religious and
educational activity.
The Christian religion is fundamental in the educational system. In this
province the public schools are Protestant, the separate schools Roman
Catholic, and the Bible has never been driven from the schools. The
result as to positive and not passive religious instruction has not
been arrived at without agitation. The mandatory regulations of the
provincial Assembly are these: Every public and high school shall be
opened daily with the Lord’s Prayer, and closed with the reading of
the Scriptures and the Lord’s Prayer, or the prayer authorized by
the Department of Education. The Scriptures shall be read daily and
systematically, without comment or explanation. No pupil shall be
required to take part in any religious exercise objected to by parent
or guardian, and an interval is given for children of Roman Catholics to
withdraw. A volume of Scripture selections made up by clergymen of the
various denominations or the Bible may be used, in the discretion of the
trustees, who may also order the repeating of the ten commandments in
the school at least once a week. Clergymen of any denomination, or
their authorized representatives, shall have the right to give religions
instruction to pupils of their denomination in the school-house at least
once a week. The historical portions of the Bible are given with more
fulness than the others. Each lesson contains a continuous selection.
The denominational rights of the pupils are respected, because the
Scripture must be read without comment or explanation. The State thus
discharges its duty without prejudice to any sect, but recognizes the
truth that ethical and religious instruction is as necessary in life as
any other.
I am not able to collate the statistics to show the effect of this upon
public morals. I can only testify to the general healthful tone. The
schools of Toronto are excellent and comprehensive; the kindergarten is
a part of the system, and the law avoids the difficulty experienced in
St. Louis about spending money on children under the school age of six
by making the kindergarten age three. There is also a school for strays
and truants, under private auspices as yet, which reinforces the public
schools in an important manner, and an industrial school of promise,
on the cottage system, for neglected boys. The heads of educational
departments whom I met were Christian men.
I sat one day with the police-magistrate, and saw something of the
workings of the Police Department. The chief of police is a gentleman.
So far as I could see there was a distinct moral intention in the
administration. There are special policemen of high character,
with discretionary powers, who seek to prevent crime, to reconcile
differences, to suppress vice, to do justice on the side of the erring
as well as on the side of the law. The central prison (all offenders
sentenced for more than two years go to a Dominion penitentiary) is a
well-ordered jail, without any special reformatory features. I cannot
even mention the courts, the institutions of charity and reform, except
to say that they all show vigorous moral action and sentiment in the
community.
The city, though spread over such a large area, permits no horse-cars
to run on Sunday. There are no saloons open on Sunday; there are no
beer-gardens or places of entertainment in the suburbs, and no Sunday
newspapers. It is believed that the effect of not running the cars on
Sunday has been to scatter excellent churches all over the city, so
that every small section has good churches. Certainly they are well
distributed. They are large and fine architecturally; they are
well filled on Sunday; the clergymen are able, and the salaries
are considered liberal. If I may believe the reports and my limited
observation, the city is as active religiously as it is in matters
of education. And I do not see that this interferes with an agreeable
social life, with a marked tendency of the women to beauty and to taste
in dress. The tone of public and private life impresses a stranger as
exceptionally good. The police is free from political influence, being
under a commission of three, two of whom are life magistrates, and the
mayor.
The free-library system of the whole province is good. Toronto has an
excellent and most intelligently arranged free public library of about
50,000 volumes. The library trustees make an estimate yearly of the
money necessary, and this, under the law, must be voted by the city
council. The Dominion Government still imposes a duty on books purchased
for the library outside of Canada.
The educational work of Ontario is nobly crowned by the University
of Toronto, though it is in no sense a State institution. It is well
endowed, and has a fine estate. The central building is dignified and an
altogether noble piece of architecture, worthy to stand in its beautiful
park. It has a university organization, with a college inside of it, a
school of practical science, and affiliated divinity schools of several
denominations, including the Roman Catholic. There are fine museums and
libraries, and it is altogether well equipped and endowed, and under
the presidency of Dr. Daniel Wilson, the venerable ethnologist, it is a
great force in Canada. The students and officers wear the cap and gown,
and the establishment has altogether a scholastic air. Indeed, this
tradition and equipment—which in a sense pervades all life and politics
in Canada—has much to do with keeping up the British connection. The
conservation of the past is stronger than with us.
A hundred matters touching our relations with Canada press for mention.
I must not omit the labor organizations. These are in affiliation with
those in the United States, and most of them are international. The
plumbers, the bricklayers, the stone-masons and stone-cutters, the
Typographical Union, the Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners, the
wood-carvers, the Knights of Labor, are affiliated; there is a branch
of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers in Canada; the railway
conductors, with delegates from all our States, held their conference in
Toronto last summer. The Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and Joiners
is a British association, with headquarters in Manchester, but it has
an executive committee in New York, with which all the Canadian and
American societies communicate, and it sustains a periodical in New
York. The Society of Amalgamated Engine Builders has its office in
London, but there is an American branch, with which all the Canadian
societies work in harmony. The Cigar-makers’ Union is American, but a
strike of cigar-makers in Toronto was supported by the American; so with
the plumbers. It may be said generally that the societies each side the
line will sustain each other. The trade organizations are also taken
up by women, and these all affiliate with the United States. When a
“National” union affiliates with one on the other side, the name
is changed to “International.” This union and interchange draws the
laborers of both nations closer together. From my best information, and
notwithstanding the denial of some politicians, the Canadian unions
have love and sympathy for and with America. And this feeling must be
reckoned with in speaking of the tendency to annexation. The present
much-respected mayor of Toronto is a trade-unionist, and has a seat
in the local parliament as a Conservative; he was once arrested for
picketing, or some such trade-union performance. I should not say that
the trades-unions are in favor of annexation, but they are not afraid
to discuss it. There is in Toronto a society of a hundred young men,
the greater part of whom are of the artisan class, who meet to discuss
questions of economy and politics. One of their subjects was Canadian
independence. I am told that there is among young men a considerable
desire for independence, accompanied with a determination to be on the
best terms with the United States, and that as between a connection with
Great Britain and the United States, they would prefer the latter. In
my own observation the determination to be on good terms with the United
States is general in Canada; the desire for independence is not.
The frequency of the question, “What do you think of the future
of Canada?” shows that it is an open question. Undeniably the
confederation, which seems to me rather a creation than a growth, works
very well, and under it Canada has steadily risen in the consideration
of the world and in the development of the sentiment of nationality.
But there are many points unadjusted in the federal and provincial
relations; more power is desired on one side, more local autonomy on
the other. The federal right of disallowance of local legislation is
resisted. The stated distribution of federal money to the provinces
is an anomaly which we could not reconcile with the public spirit
and dignity of the States, nor recognize as a proper function of the
Government. The habit of the provinces of asking aid from the
central government in emergencies, and getting it, does not cultivate
self-reliance, and the grant of aid by the Federal Government, in order
to allay dissatisfaction, must be a growing embarrassment. The French
privileges in regard to laws, language, and religion make an insoluble
core in the heart of the confederacy, and form a compact mass which
can be wielded for political purposes. This element, dominant in the
province of Quebec, is aggressive. I have read many alarmist articles,
both in Canadian and English periodicals, as to the danger of this to
the rights of Protestant communities. I lay no present stress upon the
expression of the belief by intelligent men that Protestant communities
might some time be driven to the shelter of the wider toleration of the
United States. No doubt much feeling is involved. I am only reporting
a state of mind which is of public notoriety; and I will add that men
equally intelligent say that all this fear is idle; that, for instance,
the French increase in Ontario means nothing, only that the habitant can
live on the semisterile Laurentian lands that others cannot profitably
cultivate.
In estimating the idea the Canadians have of their future it will not
do to take surface indications. One can go to Canada and get almost
any opinion and tendency he is in search of. Party spirit—though the
newspapers are in every way, as a rule, less sensational than
ours—runs as high and is as deeply bitter as it is with us. Motives
are unwarrantably attributed. It is always to be remembered that the
Opposition criticises the party in power for a policy it might not
essentially change if it came in, and the party in power attributes
designs to the Opposition which it does not entertain: as, for instance,
the Opposition party is not hostile to confederation because it objects
to the “development” policy or to the increase of the federal debt, nor
is it for annexation because it may favor unrestricted trade or even
commercial union. As a general statement it may be said that the
Liberal-Conservative party is a protection party, a “development” party,
and leans to a stronger federal government; that the Liberal party
favors freer trade, would cry halt to debt for the forcing of
development, and is jealous of provincial rights. Even the two parties
are not exactly homogeneous. There are Conservatives who would like
legislative union; the Liberals of the province of Quebec are of one
sort, the Liberals of the province of Ontario are of another, and there
are Conservative-Liberals as well as Radicals.
The interests of the maritime provinces are closely associated with
those of New England; popular votes there have often pointed to
political as well as commercial union, but the controlling forces
are loyal to the confederation and to British connection. Manitoba
is different in origin, as I pointed out, and in temper. It considers
sharply the benefit to itself of the federal domination. My own
impression is that it would vote pretty solidly against any present
proposition of annexation, but under the spur of local grievances and
the impatience of a growth slower than expected there is more or less
annexation talk, and one newspaper of a town of six thousand people has
advocated it. Whether that is any more significant than the same course
taken by a Quebec newspaper recently under local irritation about
disallowance I do not know. As to unrestricted trade, Sir John Thompson,
the very able Minister of Justice in Ottawa, said in a recent speech
that Canada could not permit her financial centre to be shifted to
Washington and her tariff to be made there; and in this he not only
touched the heart of the difficulty of an arrangement, but spoke, I
believe, the prevailing sentiment of Canada.
As to the future, I believe the choice of a strict conservatism would
be, first, the government as it is; second, independence; third,
imperial federation: annexation never. But imperial federation is
generally regarded as a wholly impracticable scheme. The Liberal would
choose, first, the framework as it is, with modifications; second,
independence, with freer trade; third, trust in Providence, without
fear. It will be noted in all these varieties of predilection
that separation from England is calmly contemplated as a definite
possibility, and I have no doubt that it would be preferred rather than
submission to the least loss of the present autonomy. And I must express
the belief that, underlying all other thought, unexpressed, or, if
expressed, vehemently repudiated, is the idea, widely prevalent, that
some time, not now, in the dim future, the destiny of Canada and the
United States will be one. And if one will let his imagination run a
little, he cannot but feel an exultation in the contemplation of the
majestic power and consequence in the world such a nation would be,
bounded by three oceans and the Gulf, united under a restricted federal
head, with free play for the individuality of every State. If this ever
comes to pass, the tendency to it will not be advanced by threats, by
unfriendly legislation, by attempts at conquest. The Canadians are as
high-spirited as we are. Any sort of union that is of the least value
could only come by free action of the Canadian people, in a growth of
business interests undisturbed by hostile sentiment. And there could
be no greater calamity to Canada, to the United States, to the
English-speaking interest in the world, than a collision. Nothing is
to be more dreaded for its effect upon the morals of the people of the
United States than any war with any taint of conquest in it.
There is, no doubt, with many, an honest preference for the colonial
condition. I have heard this said:
“We have the best government in the world, a responsible government,
with entire local freedom. England exercises no sort of control; we are
as free as a nation can he. We have in the representative of the Crown a
certain conservative tradition, and it only costs us ten thousand pounds
a year. We are free, we have little expense, and if we get into any
difficulty there is the mighty power of Great Britain behind us!” It
is as if one should say in life, I have no responsibilities; I have a
protector. Perhaps as a “rebel,” I am unable to enter into the colonial
state of mind. But the boy is never a man so long as he is dependent.
There was never a nation great until it came to the knowledge that it
had nowhere in the world to go for help.
In Canada to-dav there is a growing feeling for independence; very
little, taking the whole mass, for annexation. Put squarely to a popular
vote, it would make little show in the returns. Among the minor causes
of reluctance to a union are distrust of the Government of the United
States, coupled with the undoubted belief that Canada has the better
government; dislike of our quadrennial elections; the want of a
system of civil service, with all the turmoil of our constant official
overturning; dislike of our sensational and irresponsible journalism,
tending so often to recklessness; and dislike also, very likely, of
the very assertive spirit which has made us so rapidly subdue our
continental possessions.
But if one would forecast the future of Canada, he needs to take a wider
view than personal preferences or the agitations of local parties. The
railway development, the Canadian Pacific alone, has changed within five
years the prospects of the political situation. It has brought together
the widely separated provinces, and has given a new impulse to the
sentiment of nationality. It has produced a sort of unity which no Act
of Parliament could ever create. But it has done more than this: it has
changed the relation of England to Canada. The Dominion is felt to be
a much more important part of the British Empire than it was ten
years ago, and in England within less than ten years there has been a
revolution in colonial policy. With a line of fast steamers from the
British Islands to Halifax, with lines of fast steamers from Vancouver
to Yokohama, Hong-Kong, and Australia, with an all rail transit, within
British limits, through an empire of magnificent capacities, offering
homes for any possible British overflow, will England regard Canada as
a weakness? It is true that on this continent the day of dynasties is
over, and that the people will determine their own place. But there
are great commercial forces at work that cannot be ignored, which seem
strong enough to keep Canada for a long time on her present line of
development in a British connection.
THE END.