1899: THE ESTABLISHMENT OF EMPIRE DAY
The Fourth Annual Meeting of the League in Canada was held in Ottawa
on the 6th April, 1899. In moving the adoption of the Annual Report,
I made an address which clearly outlined the policy of the League at
that time, and may therefore be worth quoting. It appears in the report
printed by order of the annual meeting as follows:
The year that has passed since we last met has been a most important
year in reference to the work of the British Empire League, and many
striking events have happened which teach us lessons that we should
carefully consider in framing our policy for the future. We have many
things upon which we can look with great satisfaction. Since we last
met the preference in our markets, which under certain conditions had
previously been open to all countries, has been restricted to our
empire. A preference has also been given to our sister colonies in
the West Indies, and this example, we are gratified to find, has in
a way been imitated by the Government of India, with the approval of
the British Government, which is another move in the direction of the
aims of our league. Almost simultaneously we see the London _Times_
discussing a duty on wheat and sugar as a means of raising revenue. As
this would not only raise revenue but help to raise wheat in Britain
as well, it would aid to that extent in strengthening the empire. In
reference to the preference to West Indian sugar, I wish to point
out that I am informed that cane sugar in the United States has a
preference through duties on beet root sugar, which, at present, is an
advantage to West Indian sugar to the extent of 27 cents per hundred
pounds, while the preference we have given in our market is only about
18 cents per hundred pounds. I may suggest that we in Canada should
increase our preference to, say, 40 per cent. of the duty, which would
give our fellow-colonists a slightly greater preference than they now
receive under the United States tariff. I need not say much about
the fast Atlantic service, for all parties are united in favour of
it, and we can only hope that it will be established at the earliest
moment, for nothing would help more to show our position as a separate
community upon this continent. We have been too backward in the past,
and we should endeavour more and more to assert ourselves among the
countries of the world.
There is one point I wish to press upon this meeting: there has been
in the last twenty-five or thirty years a revolution in the affairs of
the world in reference to national relations and methods of defence.
Germany has united, and we remember that it was accomplished under
the stress and trial of war. The German Empire was inaugurated in the
greatest palace of France, to the sound of the German cannon firing
upon the capital city of their enemy. Italy, as the result of three
wars, has been united and consolidated. The United States during the
last year have launched out into the politics of the world, have
adopted expansion as their policy, and are pressing their views on
the Filipinos with rifles, maxims, and field guns. We have discovered
this year once more by hard facts what history in all ages has
shown--that nations cannot expect to exist upon the security of their
natural moral rights, unless those rights are supported by physical
strength. Spain has been taught that might prevails, and she has
been crushed and humiliated for doing what the United States are now
obliged to do themselves in the Philippine Islands. The greatest
lesson of all, however, which this last year has taught us is that
which we learn from the impending fate of China. There is a nation of
three hundred to four hundred millions of people, honest traders, I
am told, certainly most inoffensive and unaggressive; a nation which,
from its peaceful character, industrious habits, and natural reserve,
should have been the last to have aroused hostility. It has neglected
its defences and has taken no effective steps to protect itself from
wrong, and what do we see now as the result? The nations in the
possession of navies and armies are commencing to tear it to pieces
and divide the spoils.
Do we hear of any of these nations being worried by conscientious
scruples, or complaining of the moral wrong of this partition? No; the
whole disputing is concentrated over the division of the spoils. Now
what is the lesson this thing teaches us? It is this; that nations
can only enjoy their freedom by being able to defend it, and that the
true policy for nations under present conditions is to be closely
united within themselves, to be thoroughly organised and equipped, and
to be able in case of necessity to use their whole strength to the
greatest advantage for the common safety--and to do this nations must
be self-sustaining. (Applause.)
In trade, also, we see the selfish war going on and increasing. While
England is talking about the "open door," which is a fine phrase for
theorists, she is finding other nations busily engaged in shutting
their own doors. Each nation year by year is being forced to protect
its industries by tariff regulations. France is following this policy;
Germany and Russia also, and the most prosperous of them all, the
United States, is carrying the principle to the greatest extent.
One can see that this principle is growing and will grow, for the
selfishness of nations seems, if possible, to be increasing every day.
Now, how is the British nation placed? It has the best chances of all
if it sees how to take advantage of them.
It has the largest territory, with every variety of climate and
products, with the greatest possibilities of development, with
prospects of an internal trade far beyond all other countries. It has
the best coaling stations scattered everywhere, but to secure and
retain her advantages the empire must be consolidated, both for trade
and defence, and this can be fully accomplished without the slightest
aggression. (Hear, hear.)
If we Canadians desire to be free and safe it must be in that empire
to which we are attached by every tie, and to which we must be ready
to give our strength for the common defence, if we expect the enormous
reserve force of that empire to be at our back if our life as a free
people should ever be threatened. (Applause.)
It is necessary, therefore, for the prosperity and safety of all the
parts, that the United Kingdom, India, Australasia, South Africa, and
Canada should all be firmly united so as to show a square front to
any enemies that may attack us. This is the object of our league; to
secure the permanent unity of the empire; and with the extraordinary
development of nations and of military progress in them, our empire
must also, if it desires security, be ready in every part to pay for
that security and be ready to defend it.
In past ages the wars between nations have been carried on by moderate
sized armies, while the great bulk of the people attended to their
usual business, except where interrupted in the actual theatre of war.
For a thousand years wars had been conducted upon that principle,
until the French Revolution, when in 1793, being threatened with
invasion by combined Europe, 1,300,000 men were conscripted in France
to defend her frontier. This was the first example of a nation almost
taking up arms to defend herself. It changed the organisation of
armies; but later, under Napoleon, the nation returned more nearly
to the old system of regular armies. In 1870 and since, however, the
revolution in military defence in most civilised countries except our
own has been completed. Now in France, Germany, and Russia the whole
people practically are trained for war. The war footing of the army in
France is about 4,000,000 and some thousands of field guns; in Germany
just about the same; in Russia the army on a war footing is said
to be 3,400,000; Austria has a war strength of 2,750,000. As these
forces in these countries are all organised, and arms, equipment, and
field guns ready, it will be seen that never before in history were
such enormous military preparations made. The navies have increased
almost in the same ratio, our navy fortunately being more than equal
to any two navies combined. With this outlook, with this condition of
affairs outside, it is only wisdom for the wealthiest of all nations
to consolidate its power in order to preserve its wealth, possessions,
and liberty.
And what are we in Canada doing? We are following the example of the
Chinese, and trusting to the forbearance and sense of honesty of other
nations, instead of relying upon our own strength and the strength of
the empire, to which we could better appeal if we did our own share
properly.
Thirty-eight thousand militia, drilled spasmodically, without the
necessary equipment and departments, without reserves, or even rifles
to arm them, is no contribution to the strength of the empire. This
should be changed at once. We should establish depots for training
our fishermen and sailors to supplement the royal naval reserve,
and the guns with which to train them, the barracks in which to
house them, and the permanent instructional staff necessary to drill
them, if judiciously placed in batteries in front of St. John, N.B.,
Charlottetown, Quebec, and other seaports, would be aiding the British
navy, which protects our mercantile marine, while matters could be
arranged to make them a defence for those seaports, which at present
would be at the mercy of any swift cruiser that, evading pursuit,
might approach their wharves. (Hear, hear.)
Our militia should be largely increased, and supplies of all
kinds provided, and in agreeing to do our share in developing and
strengthening the military resources of the empire, in our own
borders, we could fairly ask the mother country to remedy a danger
which at present menaces the safety of our race.
I spoke very plainly on this point of the food supply last year, but
the intervening months have produced such strong evidence in support
of my arguments that I wish to draw attention to the subject again. I
said last year that an embargo on foodstuffs in Russia and the United
States, rigidly carried out, would force the surrender of the mother
country in a very few months. I have been told by trade theorists in
England that the demand would create the supply, and that England
could purchase food through neutral countries. I argued that an
embargo by the two countries mentioned would necessarily be followed
by an embargo in all important countries at once, and in all other
countries as soon as their surplus was exported. This last year has
seen this view triumphantly vindicated. Mr. Leiter effected a corner
in wheat in Chicago, purchasers became alarmed, prices increased, and
wheat began to be picked up in other countries. What was the result?
Spain, a country which about feeds itself, put on an embargo. I
believe Italy did the same, or was on the point of doing so, while an
embargo was being discussed in France and Germany. If this could be
the result of the cornering operations of one dealer in one town in
one exporting country, what would have happened if those two countries
which control nearly nine-tenths of the wheat exports of the world
were to withhold that amount?
I have been told that no country could put on an embargo, that the
people would rebel against being prevented from selling their
produce, but I have one example which conclusively proves my argument.
The southern States had the bulk of the cotton supply of the world
when the Civil war broke out in 1860. Their main industry was growing
cotton, their capital, labour, and business were mainly involved in
the production and sale of it. To force Great Britain to recognise
and assist them, in other words, to bring pressure to bear upon a
neutral power, the southern Government placed an embargo on the export
of cotton. At Great Britain's request the northern Government agreed
to give permits to let it go to England. So that it was not the
blockade alone which prevented its export. The southern Government
maintained a strict embargo. When their troops were forced back
the stores of cotton were seized and paid for by the Confederate
Government by receipts and Government bonds, and the cotton was
burned. Mrs. Jefferson Davis, in her memoirs, says that her husband
grudged every pound that got out. Now let us see what was the result
of this embargo, and how far it was possible to enforce it. In 1860,
England imported from the United States 1,115,890,608 pounds; in 1861,
England imported from the United States, 819,500,528 pounds; in 1862,
England imported from the United States 13,524,224 pounds; in 1863,
England imported from the United States 6,394,080 pounds; in 1864,
England imported from the United States 14,198,688 pounds. The drop
from 1,115,890,608 to 6,394,080 pounds, about one-half of one per
cent, shows how complete this embargo was. The cotton famine has not
been forgotten. The loss to the English people has been computed at
£65,000,000, and yet this only affected one industry in one section of
one kingdom. (Hear, hear.)
Nine-tenths of the population were able to help; the tenth affected,
and there was abundance of food for all. But extend that pressure,
and let it be in food, which no one can do without, and let it extend
over the whole ten-tenths (as would be the case in the event of a
stoppage of food) and try to imagine the misery that would follow.
Food would have to be rationed to rich and poor alike, for the
starving masses would not allow all there was to be monopolised by
the wealthy. Under such conditions, what heart could the Government
be expected to display in the conduct of the struggle? Russia and the
United States could control the export of 40,000,000 quarters out of
45,375,000 quarters exported by all nations in 1897. The late war
between the United States and Spain is said to have cost the States
nearly $500,000,000. If the Government of Russia and the United States
bought the full surplus from their people of 320,000,000 bushels at
the present market price, it would only cost them about $225,000,000,
while even at $1 a bushel it would only be $320,000,000--the cheapest
and most effective war measure that could be adopted. And this could
be done by these countries without their having one war vessel. I
repeat, therefore, that this is the weak point of our empire; our food
should be grown under our own flag, or there should be large stores
in England, and a preference which would increase the growth of wheat
to the extent of 10,000,000 quarters additional in the British Isles
would be the best spent money for defence that could be expended, and
a preference to the colonies would soon produce the balance within the
Empire. (Hear, hear.)
We should urge this upon the mother country, not because it would help
us enormously, though that is no reason why we should not urge it, but
because danger to the mother country is danger to us all.
These are the two points for us to look forward to, a thorough
organisation of our own forces in Canada, with a liberal assistance
from us toward the royal naval reserve and other defences of the
empire, and a provision, for the food supply of the empire being
made safe. These should go together, for there is not much use in
our sending our sailors, well trained, to man war vessels, to defend
our empire, unless it is understood that a ship without food is as
useless as one without guns, or powder or coal or men. A number of
requisites are absolutely necessary to make an effective navy, or an
effective defence, and the want of one makes all the others useless,
and food is one of these indispensable requisites. We cannot press
this too earnestly upon the mother country, but we cannot talk to
them about their duties or necessities until we first attend to ours,
and show our willingness to take up our share of the common burden.
The answer to my argument from the English point of view is that my
suggestion to secure a safe supply of food might be a great material
advantage to Canada. This should not be considered. A preference to
the British farmer would increase the growth of wheat to sixteen or
seventeen million quarters in the United Kingdom. This would do us no
good financially, but would be a great service to us, because it would
make our empire more secure.
If large stores of grain were accumulated in England, it would be no
advantage to us pecuniarily, but it would strengthen the whole empire,
and I for one would be delighted to see either plan adopted, for at
present none of us are safe. No nation or power can be independent
that is not self-dependent. The lesson taught us by the course of
events is to consolidate and unite our empire, both for trade and
defence. (Applause.)
Another movement which has spread over the Empire was started this
year to help Imperial sentiment. Mrs. Clementine Fessenden of Hamilton
wrote to the Hon. G. W. Ross suggesting the establishment of an Empire
Day to be celebrated in the schools by patriotic exercises, readings,
and addresses. Mr. Ross was favourably impressed with the idea and
inaugurated the movement at a large meeting held in the Theatre of the
Normal School, Toronto, on the 23rd May 1899, which was attended by
most of the school teachers of the City and many others. I was asked by
Mr. Ross to address the meeting, which I did. Mr. Ross himself, Mr. N.
F. Rowell and Mr. Sanford Evans were the other speakers. This idea has
been taken up by Lord Meath in England, and has spread throughout the
empire, but that meeting in the Normal School was the beginning of the
movement.