THE YEARS 1888 AND 1889 THE WORK OF THE IMPERIAL FEDERATION LEAGUE
After the inauguration of the Imperial Federation branch in Toronto on
the 24th March, 1888, the members were much encouraged by the result of
the debate in the Dominion House of Commons on Sir Richard Cartwright's
motion in favour of unrestricted reciprocity with the United States.
The vote was taken at half-past four on the morning of the 7th April
after a discussion lasting for many days. The resolution was defeated
by a majority of 57 in a house of 181 members. The Commons of Canada
then sang "God Save the Queen."
The _Mail_ attacked me on the 26th April, 1888, on account of my
statement that the originators of commercial union were traitors, and
threatened that if I did not desist from acting in that way I should be
removed from the position of police magistrate. Replying the next day
in a letter to the editor I repeated:
that Commercial Union originated in treason, and that it emanated
from a traitor in New York. This view I still hold and will express
whenever and wherever I feel disposed. . . .
I went on to say:
I do not look upon this question as a political or party question. It
is one affecting our national life. It is a foreign intrigue to betray
us into the hands of a foreign people, and it behoves every Canadian
who loves his country to do his utmost to save it from annihilation.
I did not ask for the position of police magistrate; it was offered
to me by cable when I was in England. I accepted it at Mr. Mowat's
request. I feel under no obligation whatever to the country for the
office. I feel I am giving good service for every dollar I receive.
I did not want the office at the time I was appointed, and can live
without it whenever I choose to do so, and all the traitors in the
United States and Canada combined cannot make me cease to speak for
my country when occasion requires . . . on questions affecting the
national life, I shall always try to be in the front rank of those who
stand up for Canada.
On the 7th May, 1888, the Toronto branch sent a deputation to Lord
Lansdowne, Governor-General, to present a memorial praying his
Excellency to invite the Australian Governments, and the Government of
New Zealand to join the Canadian Government in a conference to devise
means for the development of reciprocal trade and commerce.
_The Imperial Federation Journal_ published this memorial and Lord
Lansdowne's reply, and spoke of the energy and _élan_ which the
Canadian branches were displaying, and then added prophetically, "They
have, if we mistake not, set a ball a-rolling that will be found ere
long too big to be described in the half dozen lines of print that is
all the great English newspapers have so far seen fit to devote to the
subject."
The organisation of new branches of the League followed rapidly the
successful meeting in Toronto. On the 2nd April, 1888, a strong branch
was formed at Brantford, Ontario. On the 16th April another was formed
at St. Thomas, another about the same time at Port Arthur, on the 4th
May another at Orillia, while a very successful meeting of the Ottawa
Branch was held on the 22nd April, to carry a resolution in favour of
discriminating tariffs between the Colonies and the Mother Country.
On the 4th June there was a rousing meeting of the branch of the League
at Halifax, Nova Scotia, at which a resolution was unanimously carried
in favour of reciprocal trade between the colonies and Great Britain.
At this meeting the late Archbishop O'Brien, one of the ablest and
most patriotic men that Canada has produced, made a most eloquent and
powerful speech against commercial union or annexation, and, speaking
of the men advocating these ideas, he said:
There are, however, others of this section less worthy of respect.
They are men who have not courage to face great national problems, but
think it wisdom to become the Cassandra of every noble undertaking.
These men have for leader and mouthpiece Goldwin Smith, the
peripatetic prophet of pessimism. Because, forsooth, his own life
has been a dismal failure, because his overweening vanity was badly
injured in its collision with Canadian common sense, because we would
not take phrases void of sense for apophthegms of wisdom, he, the
fossilised enemy of local autonomy and the last defender of worn-out
bigotry, has put his feeble curse on Canadian nationality and assumed
the leadership of the gruesome crowd of Missis Gummidges, who see no
future for Canada but vassalage to the United States. Let them, if
it so pleases, wring their hands in cowardly despair; but are we,
the descendants of mighty races, the inheritors of a vast patrimony,
the heirs of noble traditions, so poor in resources or so degenerate
as to know no form of action save the tears and handwringings of
dismal forebodings? It is an insult, and should be resented as
such, to be told that annexation is our destiny. The promoters of
Imperial Federation are called dreamers. Well, their dream is at
least an ennobling one, one that appeals to all the noble sentiments
of manhood. But what are we to say to the dreary prophets of evil,
the decriers of their country, the traitors of their magnificent
inheritance? They are not dreamers: they are the dazed victims of a
hideous nightmare, to be kindly reasoned with when sincere, to be
remorselessly thrust aside when acting the demagogue. The principle
of Canadian nationality has taken too firm a hold on our people
to permit them to merge their distinct life in that of a nation
whose institutions give no warrant of permanency, as they afford no
guarantee of real individual and religious liberty.
This extract from the speech of the Roman Catholic Archbishop of
Halifax indicates clearly how the Canadian feeling was being aroused by
the attempts upon the national life of Canada.
In the summer of this year the United States Senate refused to endorse
the Fisheries Treaty which had been agreed upon by President Cleveland
and the British authorities. This was followed by a Retaliation
proclamation, or at least by a message to Congress, asking for powers
to retaliate upon Canada, by cancelling the bonding privileges which
we have been using for very many years. The Retaliation Act was passed
after a most hostile discussion against Canada. This threat was
received by our people in the most unflinching spirit, and the matter
was soon dropped by the United States Government.
In October, 1888, the Toronto _Globe_, evidently with the object of
accustoming the minds of the Canadian people to the idea that the
question of Annexation or Independence was a live issue, and one to
be discussed and considered with as much freedom and propriety as
tariff reform or temperance legislation or manhood suffrage, called for
letters discussing the advantages or disadvantages of annexation or
independence. It was the same scheme that Goldwin Smith had endeavoured
to work in the National Club.
On the 6th October I wrote a letter to the _Globe_ on the condition and
prospects of Canada, and said:
Events are crowding upon us faster than we are aware. Let us look back
over the past few months. First came the Commercial Union movement,
apparently originated by a Canadian in the interests of Canada, but
which is now shown to have been a Yankee plot worked by a renegade
with the object of producing annexation. Then came the repudiation
of the Fisheries Treaty by the Republican party, followed by the
Retaliation proclamation of the Democratic President; then came the
almost unanimous passage of the Retaliation Act in the United States
House of Representatives after a long succession of speeches by
members of both political parties violently abusive and unreasonably
hostile to Canada. Then came the speech of Senator Sherman exposing
the hostile policy of a hundred years. Then the discussion of
negotiations for annexation in the Committee of Foreign Relations, and
to-day Senator Sherman's interview, in which he says, "Political union
is necessary or war is inevitable." At this moment the Presidential
election is being fought out on the question as to which party is
most hostile to England and Canada, and unless a marked change comes
over the people of the United States, it will not be many years
before we shall be fighting for our existence as a free people on this
continent. Senator Sherman's last warning is straight to the point,
and cannot be overlooked or misunderstood.
I then went on to urge that we must forget all party differences, that
we should unite in the face of the common danger, that a firm and
united front might save us all the horrors of war, pointing out that
"at the Trent affair if there had been treason in Canada, or the least
sign of division in our ranks, we would have had war."
A number of letters in favour of annexation appeared in the _Globe_,
and I became much alarmed, for the writers signed their names. I
felt that if the discussion went on unchecked it would in time have
a certain effect upon the wobblers and the unreliable. I had studied
carefully the American Revolution, and was of the opinion that the
whole success of that movement was due to the fact that the loyal men,
and the law-abiding men, did nothing themselves, but relied upon the
constituted authorities to check a movement that in the end robbed them
of their property, deprived them of all their civil rights, and drove
them penniless into exile. I felt that as far as I was concerned I
would leave no stone unturned to prevent such a fate befalling Canada
through supineness or indifference.
At the annual dinner of the Caledonian Society of Toronto, on the
30th October, 1888, I responded to the toast of "The Army, Navy, and
Volunteers." The _Empire_ of the 31st October reported my speech as
follows:
Colonel Denison launched forth a few hundred words which made the
Scots fairly jump with enthusiasm, He referred in the first place
to the achievements of Scotchmen in the British Army, and then spoke
about the Canadian Volunteers. Canada at this moment, he said, is
passing through a very critical crisis in her history. She will be
called upon to preserve her national life within the next three or
four years. (Someone ejaculated "Oh! Oh!") It's all very well to say
"Oh! Oh!" said the Colonel. I tell you things are crowding upon us
very fast. Within the past two months we have seen one thing after
another showing a most bitter and hostile feeling towards this country
on the part of the United States. Only this very evening came a
telegram from Washington, saying that Cleveland is going to issue his
retaliation proclamation immediately. Let him do it. (Cheers.) I have
every faith in Canada. We have got everything on this northern half
of this continent to make this a great country. We have the country
and the people, and we can hold our own. All that is necessary is for
us to be true to ourselves. (Cheers.) Then let us have confidence
in ourselves and in our future. I am sorry to see that a few have
not sufficient confidence in our future. I hope our volunteers will
mark these traitors in this country, and put them in the rear when
trouble comes. I do not like to see letters in our papers advocating
annexation. It is nothing but rank treason. (Cheers.) There is one
thing about it though, gentlemen, when these men come out, and put
their names to annexation papers, they can be marked. We can put "ear
marks" on them, and when trouble comes we will know who the traitors
are. (Ringing cheers.)
And I went on to say we were putting their names in a list.
The _Globe_ was evidently much put out at my action, and not daring
openly to take the opposite view, relieved its feelings in a long
article heaping ridicule upon me and upon the Rev. Mr. Milligan, who
had spoken sympathetically with me at the same dinner, and intimating
that I was anxious for war with the United States. I wrote in reply to
this:
I believe the United States to be very hostile to Canada; I believe
they always have been. I believe they will endeavour to destroy our
national life by force or fraud whenever they can, with the object
of absorbing us. This has been my view for years, and I feel that
the history of the past is strong evidence of the correctness of my
opinion, if the events of the last two months are not absolute proof
of it.
I have always warned my fellow-countrymen of this danger. I have
always striven to encourage a healthy Canadian national spirit, a
confidence in ourselves and in our future. I have endeavoured to give
courage to the faint-hearted and the timid, and have always urged that
Canadians of all classes should stand shoulder to shoulder ready to
make any and every sacrifice for the State. I have felt that doubts
and misgivings, the preaching and talking of annexation, were of
all things the most likely to induce the Yankees to attack us. In
1812, the belief that we were divided, that the traitors were in the
majority among us, and that we were ripe for annexation, had much to
do with bringing on a bloody and severe war. The unanimity and courage
displayed by our people at the Trent affair, the bold and unbroken
front then shown by the Canadians saved us from war at that time.
To-day every word that is said in Canada in favour of annexation, or
that shows a want of confidence in ourselves, is being vigorously used
in the United States to create a widespread belief in that country
that we are ripe for annexation. This dangerous mistake will pave the
way to war, and this is why I so strongly resent a line of action that
is so fraught with danger to our country.
Talk of my wanting war! The idea is absurd. It is the last thing I
want. I hold that we have a free Government, that we have the fullest
political, religious, and personal liberty. Our country is one of the
most prosperous, if not the most prosperous, country in the world,
and we have every hope of a great national future. If we had war
it would cost the lives of thousands of our best. It would destroy
our property, ruin our business interests, throw back our country
twenty years in progress, burden us with an enormous debt, and if
completely victorious we could not be freer, or have greater liberty
or advantages, than we have to-day. We have no reason to go to war,
unless we are driven to defend and preserve all we hold dear. No one
appreciates this better than I do, and on that account all my efforts
have been in the direction of preserving peace.
If war comes you will probably be still carrying on the newspaper
business on King Street, your annexation correspondents will (if at
large) still be spreading fears and misgivings in the rear, if not
traitorously aiding the enemy, but I will have to be on the outpost
line, exposed to all the hardships and trials of war. I know enough
of war to hope that the Almighty may give us peace in our time, but
rather than my country should be lost, I hope when the day of trial
comes that God may give me courage to make any and every sacrifice in
the interests of my native land.
I have been abused and attacked, threatened and ridiculed by Canadians
for speaking out for Canada, but while I live nothing shall prevent me
from doing what I believe to be the duty of every true Canadian.
One member of the Ontario Government met me on the street about this
time, and took me to task for speaking so strongly on the question of
Commercial Union and Unrestricted Reciprocity. I gave him an emphatic
reply that I would follow my own course in the matter. Another
prominent gentleman, since a Senator, and now a preferential tariff
supporter, also spoke to me on the street, and said, "Certainly people
should be allowed to discuss annexation or independence as they liked."
I denied this vehemently, and declared they could not have either
without fighting, and I told him plainly that if he meant to secure
either he had better hang me on a lamp-post, or otherwise, if it became
a live issue, I would hang him. I had made up my mind that if there was
to be any of the work that the "Sons of Liberty" resorted to in the
United States before the Revolution, we of the loyal party would follow
their example and do it ourselves. Sir Oliver Mowat, then Premier and
Attorney-General, once spoke to me, advising me not to be so violent in
my language. My reply was that if the matter became dangerous I would
resign my Police Magistracy one day, and he would find me leading a
mob the next. Sir Oliver Mowat was a thorough loyalist, and at heart I
think he fully sympathised with me.
Early in November, 1888, there was a large Convention of Dentists
held in Syracuse, New York State, which Dr. W. George Beers, of
Montreal, attended. At the banquet a toast was proposed, "Professional
Annexation." Dr. Beers replied in an eloquent, loyal, and manly
speech, which voiced the Canadian feeling. It was copied into many
Canadian papers, and printed in pamphlet form and circulated broadcast
throughout the country.
He told them: "Just as you had and have your croakers and cowards we
have ours, but Canada is not for sale. . . . Annexation as a serious
subject has received its doom, and in spite of the intoxication of
senatorial conceit on the one side, and the croaking of malcontents and
tramps on the other, Canada is loyal to the Mother Country from whose
stout old loins both of us sprang." And after describing the extent and
resources of the British Empire, he said: "Sharers in such a realm,
heirs to such vast and varied privileges, Canadians are not for sale."
During December, 1888, I spoke at a large meeting at Ingersoll on the
6th with Mr. J. M. Clark, on the 11th at Lindsay with Mr. James L.
Hughes, and on the 20th at a meeting of the Toronto League.
In 1889 the work went on very vigorously. Dr. George R. Parkin, one of
the most eloquent and able of our members, who had been lecturing in
England on behalf of the parent League, made a tour through Canada,
and the Imperial Federation League arranged a series of meetings which
he addressed with great eloquence and power. He was then on the way
to Australia, where his energy and enthusiasm helped on the spirit of
Imperialism among the people of that colony and New Zealand, and gave
the movement an impetus there which has not been lost. This was helped
by some speeches delivered in Australia in 1888, by Principal George M.
Grant, the greatest of our members, one who never lost an opportunity
of doing all he could for the cause.
It was an interesting fact that at one of Dr. Parkin's meetings at
St. Thomas he was accompanied by Mr. E. E. Sheppard, who, it will be
remembered, was one of the early advocates of Independence, and who
had flown an Independence flag over his office in 1884. Mr. Sheppard
had been won over by the arguments of our League to advocate Imperial
Federation as a practical means of becoming independent, and had
become a member of our Committee and a very powerful advocate of our
cause.
In Canada the League was very active this year. On the 11th January,
1889, Mr. D'Alton McCarthy and I addressed a large and enthusiastic
meeting at Peterboro. On the 17th January I attended a Sons of
England Banquet at St. Thomas, organised as a demonstration against
Annexation and in favour of Imperial Unity, where I responded to the
principal toast, and made a strong appeal against Commercial Union
and in favour of Imperial Consolidation. On the 9th February, A.
J. Cattanach, Commander Law, J. T. Small and I went to Hamilton in
Imperial Federation interests. On the 18th February, Dr. Parkin spoke
at St. Thomas. On the 29th March, 1889, J. Castell Hopkins and I
addressed a large meeting at Woodstock. I spoke at the St. George's
Society Banquet, Toronto, 23rd April. On the 11th May, there was a
large meeting at Hamilton addressed by Principal George M. Grant. The
Annual Meeting of the League took place at Hamilton the same day, and
the early difficulties of the movement are well evidenced by the fact
that at the Annual Meeting of the League only eleven representatives
were present, viz.: D'Alton McCarthy, M.P., President, in the Chair;
Thomas Macfarlane, F.R.S.C., representing Ottawa Branch; Principal G.
M. Grant, President Kingston Branch; Henry Lyman, President Montreal
Branch; H. H. Lyman, Treasurer; J. Castell Hopkins, one of the Hon.
Secretaries; Commander Law, Secretary Toronto Branch; D. T. Symons,
Lt.-Colonel George T. Denison, J. T. Small, and Senator McInnes. On the
21st May, Principal Grant delivered an address in Toronto, and another
on the 16th August at Chatauqua, near Niagara-on-the-Lake, both
powerful appeals in support of the cause.
The Commercial Unionists made violent attacks upon the League,
ridiculing it and its objects, and caricatures were often published
making light of our efforts, while many Liberal newspapers, led by the
_Globe_, attacked us at every available opportunity.