CONTEST WITH GOLDWIN SMITH
Professor Goldwin Smith was the foremost, and most active, dangerous,
and persistent advocate and leader of the movement for annexation to
the United States that we have ever had in Canada. After leaving Oxford
in 1868 he went to the United States, where he lectured at Cornell
University for two or three years. Having taken part in a controversy
in the Press over the Alabama question, in which he took the side of
Great Britain, he aroused a good deal of hostility and criticism in the
United States. In 1871 he removed to Toronto where he has ever since
resided.
He had some relatives living in Toronto in the suburb then known as
Brockton. My father and I, two uncles, and a cousin then lived in that
district, in which my house is situated, and we had a small social
circle into which Mr. Goldwin Smith was warmly welcomed. He shortly
after bought a house from my father near to his place, and we soon
became close friends. In my father's lifetime Mr. Smith belonged to a
small whist club consisting of my father, my uncle Richard, Major Shaw,
and himself. After my father's death I took his place, and we played in
each other's houses for some years, until Mr. Smith married the widow
of Wm. Henry Boulton and took up his home in "The Grange." The distance
at which he lived from us was then inconvenient, and in a few months we
discontinued the club.
In 1872 Mr. Smith was the prime mover in starting the _Canadian
Monthly_ and asked me to contribute an article for the first
number, and afterwards I contributed one or two more. At one time
we contemplated writing a joint history of the American Civil War,
in which I was to write the military part and he was to write the
political. I even went to Gettysburg to examine the battlefield, and
began to gather material, when we discovered that it would be a long
and laborious work, and that under the copyright law at the time there
would be no security as to our rights in the United States, as we were
not citizens of the republic. So the project was abandoned.
For many years Goldwin Smith and I were close friends, and I formed
a very high opinion of him in many ways, and admired him for many
estimable qualities. When the Commercial Union movement began, however,
I found that I had to take a very decided stand against him, and very
soon a keen controversy arose between us and it ended in my becoming
one of the leaders in the movement against him and his designs. When he
assumed the Honorary Presidency of the Continental Union Association,
formed both in Canada and in the United States, and working in unison
to bring about the annexation of the two countries, I looked upon that
as rank treason, and ceased all association with him, and since then
we have never spoken. I regretted much the rupture of the old ties of
friendship, but felt that treason could not be handled with kid gloves.
I shall now endeavour to give an account of the contest between us,
because I am sure it had a distinct influence upon public opinion, and
helped to arouse the latent loyalty of the Canadian people, and for the
time at any rate helped to kill the annexation movement in Canada.
I have already mentioned the incident of the dinner at the National
Club where I said I would only discuss seriously annexation or
independence with my sword. I did not think at that time that Mr. Smith
was discussing the question in any other than a purely academic spirit;
subsequent developments have satisfied me that even then he cherished
designs that from my point of view were treasonable.
In the early spring of 1887, Mr. Goldwin Smith was at Washington
and went on to Old Point Comfort and became acquainted with Erastus
Wiman, who was staying at the same hotel and who showed Mr. Smith some
courtesy. Mr. Smith invited Wiman to pay him a visit in Toronto in
the latter part of May, 1887, and shortly after it was found that the
strongest supporter that Wiman had for his Commercial Union agitation
was Mr. Goldwin Smith.
As I have already said, during 1888-9-90, I was frequently addressing
public meetings and speaking at banquets of all sorts of societies and
organisations. We had also started the raising of the flags in the
schools, the decoration of monuments, the singing of patriotic songs,
&c., and generally we were waging a very active campaign against the
Commercial Union movement. In 1891, the most dangerous crisis of the
struggle, Mr. Smith commenced a series of lectures which were cleverly
intended to sap the loyalty of our people and neutralise the effect of
our work. The three lectures were delivered before the Young Men's
Liberal Club of Toronto. The first was on "Loyalty" and was delivered
on the 2nd February, 1891, and was intended to ridicule and belittle
the idea of loyalty.
In reply to this I prepared at once a lecture on the United Empire
Loyalists which I delivered at the Normal School to a meeting of school
teachers and scholars on the 27th of the same month.
On the 11th May, 1891, Goldwin Smith delivered his second lecture on
"Aristocracy."
I saw now that there was a deliberate and treasonable design in these
lectures to undermine the loyal sentiment that held Canada to the
Empire, and as there was danger at any time of open trouble, I replied
to this in another way. I delivered a lecture on the opening of the
war of 1812 to point out clearly how much the loyal men were hampered
by traitors at the opening of the war of 1812, and how they dealt with
them then, how seven had been hanged at Ancaster, many imprisoned, and
many driven out of the country, and I endeavoured to encourage our
people with the reflection that the same line of action would help us
again in the same kind of danger.
On the 17th April, 1891, this lecture was delivered before the
Birmingham Lodge of the Sons of England.
On the 9th of the following November Goldwin Smith delivered his third
lecture entitled "Jingoism." This was a direct attack on me and on what
my friends and I were doing.
This lecture aroused great indignation among the loyal people. I was
asked by the Supreme Grand Lodge of the Sons of England to deliver a
lecture in reply at a meeting to be called under their auspices, which
it was intended should be a popular demonstration against Goldwin
Smith, and a proof of the repudiation by the Toronto people of his
views. The meeting was held in Shaftesbury Hall, then the largest room
in the city for such purposes, and it was packed to the doors. My
lecture was entitled "National Spirit," and was delivered on the 17th
December, 1891. (_See_ Appendix B.)
Referring to this lecture the _Empire_ of the 18th December, 1891,
commented as follows:
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 elaborate sneers 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, the _Empire_ published 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_.
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 of those 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.
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 unite Englishmen
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 president of 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 the
_Contemporary Review_ for 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 the _Contemporary_ with 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.
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 generally that 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 the _Westminster
Review_ for September, 1895. It was received very well in Canada, many
notices and copious extracts being printed in many of our papers. The
_Week_ published 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 the _Globe_. 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 that the
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 took place 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 him far 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 soil
Fought 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
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, the President 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 of
_Le 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 the _Empire_ in 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.
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 Great Britain 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 Connection _v._ 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
secure control 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 another in 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.
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 speak
after 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.