CONGRESS OF CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE OF THE EMPIRE
In 1906 I went to England again, and once more the Toronto Board of
Trade appointed me as one of their delegates to the Sixth Congress of
Chambers of Commerce of the Empire to be held in London. I arrived in
London on the 27th June, and the next evening, at the Royal Colonial
Institute Conversazione, I met Mr. and Mrs. Chamberlain, and it was
arranged that my wife and I were to lunch with them a few days later.
Mr. Chamberlain had wished that we should be alone. After lunch the
ladies went upstairs, and Mr. Chamberlain had a quiet talk with me for
about an hour. He gave me the whole history of the difficulties he had
encountered and explained how it was that he was not able to carry out
the arrangement we had discussed in 1902, just before the conference.
He told me that Sir Michael Hicks-Beach objected to throwing off the
one shilling a quarter on wheat in favour of the colonies, because he
had put it on only a short time before as a necessary war tax to raise
funds for the South African War, that the expenses were still going on,
and that it would be inconsistent in him to agree to it at the time.
Shortly after Sir Michael Hicks-Beach resigned from the Cabinet and
Mr. C. T. Ritchie (afterwards Lord Ritchie) was appointed Chancellor
of the Exchequer. In the autumn it was considered advisable, so Mr.
Chamberlain told me, that he should pay a visit to South Africa, which
would take him away for some months, and he went on to say: "On my
return from South Africa we called at Madeira, and I found there a
cablegram from Austen saying the corn tax was to be taken off. When I
arrived in London the Budget was coming up very soon. I could not do
anything for many reasons. I did not wish to precipitate a crisis, and
I had to wait." He was evidently annoyed at the matter, and explained
it to me, because he had held out hopes to me that if Sir Wilfrid
Laurier would meet him with further preferences, he would give us the
preference in wheat. This he had been unable to do.
I asked him if he could explain why Ritchie acted as he did. He did not
seem to know. I suggested that I thought either Mr. Choate, the United
States Ambassador, or some other United States emissary, had frightened
him and he had taken off the tax to head off any movement for imperial
trade consolidation. Mr. Chamberlain asked me why I thought so, and
I drew his attention to the fact that shortly after the corn tax was
taken off Mr. Ritchie went down to Croydon to address his constituents,
and in justifying his action used the argument--apparently to his
mind the strongest--that a preferential corn tax against the United
States would be likely to arouse the hostility of that country and
be a dangerous course to pursue. The audience seemed at once to be
struck with the cowardice of the argument, and there were loud cries of
dissent, and then they rose and sang "Rule Britannia." Mr. Ritchie did
not contest Croydon in the next election, but was moved to the House
of Lords shortly before his death. Mr. Chamberlain apparently had not
thought of that influence.
Mr. Chamberlain was then looking in perfect health, and left the next
day for Birmingham, where great demonstrations were made over his 70th
birthday. He told me he was anxious to have a rest, as the burden of
leading a great movement was very heavy. I urged him strongly to take a
holiday, and I had pressed the same idea upon Mrs. Chamberlain as I sat
next to her at lunch. He took ill, however, before a week had passed.
The strain at Birmingham was very heavy.
The meeting of the Congress of Chambers of Commerce of the Empire
took place on the 10th, 11th and 13th July. We had but little hope
of doing anything to help the preferential trade policy, for the
General Elections had gone so overwhelmingly against us that it seemed
impossible that in England our Canadian delegation could carry the
resolution they had agreed upon in favour of Mr. Chamberlain's policy.
We expected to be badly defeated, but decided to make a bold fight.
After the discussion had gone on for some time, Sir Wm. Holland and
Lord Avebury, who led the free trade ranks, approached Mr. Drummond,
who had moved the Canadian resolution, and suggested that if we would
compromise by the insertion of a few words which would have destroyed
the whole effect of what we were fighting for, the resolution might
be carried unanimously. Mr. Drummond said he wished to consult his
colleagues, and he called Mr. Cockshutt, M.P., and me out of the room
and put the proposition. I said at once, "I would not compromise to the
extent of one word. Let us fight it out to the very end, let us take
a vote. We will likely be beaten, but let us take our beating like
men. We will find out our strength and our weakness, we will find out
who are our friends and who are our enemies, and know exactly where we
stand."
Mr. Cockshutt said immediately, "I entirely agree with Denison."
Drummond said, "That is exactly my view. I shall consult with no others
but will tell them we will fight it to the end."
I spoke that afternoon as follows as reported in the Toronto _News_,
23rd August, 1906:
There were a few remarks, said Col. Denison, which had fallen from
previous speakers, to which he desired to call attention. In the
first place, his friend Mr. Cockshutt, said that Canada had given
England the benefit of five million dollars annually in the reduction
of duties, in order to help the English manufacturer to sell English
manufactured goods in Canada, and stated that that was a contribution
in an indirect way towards helping the defence of the Empire. Mr.
Cockshutt, however, left out one important point. If Canada had put
that tax on, collected the money, and handed over the five million
dollars to England in hard cash, what would have been the result? The
greater portion of the trade would have gone to Germany, would have
given work to German workmen, would have helped to build German ships,
and it would have taken more than the five million dollars annually
to counterbalance the loss thereby caused to this country. He felt
that every day the British people were allowing the greatest national
trade asset that any nation ever possessed, the markets of Great
Britain, to be exposed to the free attack of every rival manufacturing
nation in the world without any protection, without any possibility
of preserving those great national assets for the use of their own
people, and in his opinion such a policy was exceedingly foolish.
He had heard a gentleman from Manchester say that it was all very well
for Canada, and that Canada wanted it. He was one of the very earliest
of Canadians who advocated preferential tariffs. In 1887 he began with
a number of other men who were working with him, to educate the people
of Canada on the subject. When they first began they were laughed at;
they were told it was a fad, and it was contrary to the principles of
free trade. When he came to England years ago he could find hardly a
single man anywhere who would say anything against free trade. He was
perfectly satisfied that for years English people would have listened
much more patiently to attacks upon the Christian religion than they
would have to attacks upon free trade.
Why did they advocate the system of preferential tariffs in Canada?
Because the country was founded by the old United Empire Loyalists,
who stood loyal to this country in 1776, who abandoned all their
worldly possessions, who left the graves of their dead, and came away
from the homes where they were born into the wilderness of Canada, and
who wanted to carry their own flag with them. They wanted to be in a
country where they were in connection with the Motherland, and it was
the dream of those loyalists to have a united Empire. Canadians were
not advocating preferential tariffs for the benefit of Canada.
He said, further, that if England would not give Canada a preference,
although Canada had already given England one, at least it was
advisable that England should have some tariff reform which would
prevent the wealth which belonged to this great Empire being
dissipated among its enemies. That was the reason they were advocating
the resolution. It was said that they desired to tax the poor man's
food. He said it was of the utmost importance to have food grown in
their own country. England in the past had had no reserves of food.
Fortunately they were now in such a position that, if they kept the
command of the sea, Canada would be able to grow enough in a year or
two for the needs of the United Kingdom. Seven years ago England was
in such a position that, if a combination of two nations had put an
embargo on food, she would have been brought to her knees at once.
Australia and Canada were now growing more wheat, but everything
depended upon the navy; and if England allowed her trade and her
markets, and the profits which could be made out of the markets, to be
used by foreign and rival Powers to build navies, they were not only
helping those foreign nations to build navies at their own cost, but
at the same time the people of this country had to be taxed to build
ships to counterbalance what their enemies were doing.
Canadians felt that they were part of the Empire. They had helped as
much as their fathers did; but after all, they had only added to the
strength of the Empire, because their fathers went abroad to other
nations, carrying the flag and spreading British principles and ideas
into other countries. He therefore contended that Canadians had a
great right to urge upon the people of England to do all they could to
preserve the Empire, as Canadians were doing in their humble way.
As had been already said, Canada was giving preferences. For instance,
she was giving a preference to the West Indies, so that nearly every
dollar that was paid for sugar in Canada went to the West Indies. A
few years ago it all came from Germany, and the profits that were made
out of Canadian markets went to Germany, and, although they were not
comparable with the profits made out of the English markets, such as
they were they helped Germany. The trade gave her people employment;
gave her navy money, and enabled her still further to build rival
battleships. Was that wise? (No.) Canada asked England to remedy
that; but Canada did not want it if England did not, because England
wanted it five, ten, fifteen, or thirty times more than Canada did.
Free trade at one time existed in Canada. When he was a very young
man he was a free trader, but he was now older and wiser. What was
the condition of the country then? It was a country with the greatest
natural resources in the world, with the most magnificent agricultural
prospects, with mineral and every other resource, such as he believed
had not been paralleled anywhere else on the globe. Yet, for twenty
years, when they had only a revenue tariff, what happened? The Yankees
in 1871 put on a large protective duty, and commenced to build up
their manufactures. The result to Canada was that in a few years, in
1875, 1876, and 1877, the Americans not only made for themselves but
introduced their goods into Canadian markets. The result was that
Canadian manufactories were closed up, the streets of the cities were
filled with unemployed, and during that early period of their history
nearly one million Canadians left the country. It was so well known
that it was called "the exodus." People used to wonder what was the
matter, and enquired whether there was a plague in the country. They
used to enquire how it was that Canadians could not succeed, and how
it was there were so many people starving in the streets.
An agitation was started for a national policy--a protective
agitation. Canadians decided that they must protect their own
manufactures, and they had done so since 1878, with the result that
there were now no starving people in the streets, no want in the
country, no submerged tenth, and no thirteen million people on the
verge of starvation. The exodus had ceased from Canada to the States,
and Canadians were now coming back in their tens and twenties of
thousands. Canada was now prosperous. A great deal had been done in
the last twenty years. For instance, Canada had to come to England
to get an English company to build the Grand Trunk Railway. They
did not do it wonderfully well, but still they did it, and it was
now a fine railroad. But what had Canadians done? They had built
the Canadian Pacific Railway to the other side; two gentlemen in
Toronto were building another trans-continental railroad right across
the continent, and the Government were assisting a third project,
the Grand Trunk Pacific. The Canadian Pacific Railroad, a Canadian
institution, managed in Canada, had its vessels on the western coast
at Vancouver, carrying goods and passengers through to Japan, to the
Far East, and Australia and New Zealand. All that had been done since
Canada took up the policy which enabled it to prevent the enemy from
bleeding it to death.
He hoped he had made the point clear. Surely England would desire to
follow the example of Canada in that respect. "The exodus" was now
taking place. The Right Hon. John Morley, in reply to a speech that
he (Col. Denison) made, referred to the wonderful prosperity of Great
Britain, which depended on free trade. Now he would tell the delegates
the other side. The Right Hon. James Bryce went to Aberdeen just at
the time the Government put the tax of a shilling a quarter on wheat.
The Right Hon. James Bryce, who was a very able and clever man, made
a powerful and eloquent speech, but he had not lived long enough in
Canada. He said that the tax of a shilling a quarter on wheat would
make a difference of 7½_d._ per annum to each person in the United
Kingdom, and that it would be a great burden upon the ordinary working
man of the country: but when they thought of the lowest class of the
people, about 30 per cent. of the population, or 13 millions, as Sir
Henry Campbell-Bannerman had said, who were living upon the very verge
of want, then he said it would mean reduced subsistence, frequent
hunger, weakness of body, and susceptibility to disease. Was that
not an awful fact for a prosperous country? Was it not an awful fact
to think that 8_d_ in a whole year would mean reduced subsistence,
frequent hunger, weakness of body and susceptibility to disease to
13 million of English people? That was the condition of England. The
exodus was taking place; the people were going to Canada, where they
enjoyed sane conditions under which people could live. They were going
to Canada, instead of going to hostile countries, as they had done in
the past.
Canada was getting a good many of such people, but not half enough;
and if she had preferential tariffs in that sense, it would keep the
blood and bone and muscle in this country under the common flag: it
would keep them from helping to build up hostile nations, and would in
that way be a source of strength to the Empire. He hoped that would
be considered an answer to his friends from Manchester, on the point
that there would be give and take, and not as had been said, simply
"take" on the part of the colonies. He thought that was a most unfair
statement to make; but he had now presented the Canadian side of the
question.
Another extraordinary thing had happened. A gentleman whom the people
of England had appointed to take control of English affairs with
reference to the colonies, had lately declared that the colonies ought
to make a treaty among themselves, leaving Great Britain out. That
was rather a flippant way to meet offers of friendship, sympathy,
and loyalty. Two hundred and seventy-four members of Parliament, he
believed, had written requesting that no preference should be given.
He desired to ask what had Great Britain done to those men that they
should want to prevent England getting an advantage? Why should they
object? Why should they interfere? What had Great Britain ever done to
them?
His friend, Mr. Wilson, had told the delegates of the French
manufacturer who said, 'Why do you not come over and build your
factories in France?' British factories were already being built on
the Continent to-day. British factories, with British money, British
brains, British enterprise, and British intellect, were now being
built in the United States; but while that was the experience of
England, Canada, on the other hand, was able to say that United States
capital was being utilised in Canada and giving work to Canadian
workmen. That was where Canada was reaping the advantage; and it was
not to be wondered at that the Canadian delegates came to England and
asked the English people to look about them.
When he was a young man he used to boat a good deal upon the Niagara
River, a mile above the Falls. Two people always rowed together and
always had a spare pair of oars. They had to row at an angle of 45
degrees, and row hard to get across without being carried into the
rapids. They could not depend on their course by watching the river or
watching their own boat; they had to take a point on the shore, and
another point away beyond it, and keep them in line. The instant they
stopped rowing, although the boat might appear to be perfectly calm
and safe, it was quietly drifting to destruction. The Canadian people
were on the shore and were watching the British people in the stream.
The people of this country had their eyes on the oars and on the boat,
but were not watching the landmarks and outside currents. They were
not watching what Germany or the United States were doing; they were
not watching how other nations were progressing. In fact England was
going backwards. If he were standing on the shore of the Niagara River
and saw a man stop rowing, he would shout to him to look out, and that
was what he was doing now.
Two gentlemen had spoken on behalf of the poor people in India, but
he would like to know whether those gentlemen were not much more
interested in the exchange of commerce between England and India than
they were in the internal comfort and happiness of the natives. He
would also like to ask who put on and took off the duty in India?
Was it not done through the influence of the English Government? Why
was such a large duty placed on tea, and why was it not taken off tea
and put on wheat? If the duty were taken off tea, it would not cost
the working man a farthing more, and the result would be that the
Indian farmers and agriculturists would probably obtain some slight
advantage, but the Indian tea worker would get a direct and positive
advantage. Both parties would be helped by it, and it would also help
at the same time the whole Empire.
An extract had been read from a speech by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the
Prime Minister of Canada. Sir Wilfrid seven or eight years ago might
have made a remark of that kind, and it so happened that he was in
very bad company at the time, because the remarks were made at the
Cobden Club. In Canada, prominent men such as Sir Wilfrid Laurier were
able to understand and listen to good arguments, to assimilate them
and to change their minds. But Sir Wilfrid at the last conference made
a plain and distinct offer, which he had repeated in public, and yet
he (the speaker) heard political partisans in this country in their
newspapers making the statement that Canada had made no offer. It was
not true! The offers were in the report of the Imperial Conference
of 1902; that he would give the present preference and a further
preference on a certain list of selected articles, if the English
people would meet him. The long list of articles was not mentioned
because it would be improper to do so, as it would have the effect of
making the business of Canada unsettled in reference to those things.
But that the offer was made was an undoubted fact, and people in this
country had no right to make statements to the contrary.
He desired to make one final appeal to Englishmen to look at the
matter broadly; and when they found that the security and unity of the
whole Empire might depend upon closer federation with the colonies, he
appealed to English people not to make such flippant remarks as that
the colonies should make an agreement among themselves leaving out the
Mother Country, because if that were done, and a preferential tariff
instituted among the colonies, the Mother Country would very soon find
out the difference. He appealed to Englishmen as a Canadian, the whole
history of whose country was filled with records of devotion to the
Empire, not to think that they were acting in any way for themselves,
or for their personal interests, but only in the interests of their
great Empire, which their fathers helped to build, and which they,
the children, desired to hand down unimpaired and stronger to their
children and children's children.
The vote was not taken until the next day, and when the show of hands
was taken I think we had five or six to one in our favour. A demand
was made for a vote by Chambers with the result that 103 voted for the
resolution, 41 against it, and 21 neutral. The reason so much larger a
number appeared with us on a show of hands was, I believe, because many
Chambers had given cast iron instructions to their delegates to vote
against it, or to vote neutral, but on a show of hands many of them
voted as they personally felt after hearing the arguments.
This was a remarkable triumph that we did not expect, and must have
been very gratifying to Mr. Chamberlain.
Unfortunately Mr. Chamberlain's illness took place just as the Congress
opened. It was thought at the time that he would recover in a few days,
but he has not as yet been able to resume active leadership in the
struggle for preferential tariffs or tariff reform. As far as the work
of our organisation is concerned, although we were at first ridiculed
and abused, criticised and caricatured, the force of the arguments and
the innate loyalty of the Canadian people, have caused the feeling
in favour of imperial unity and preferential trade to become almost
universal in Canada. The preference has been established, West Indian
Sugar favoured, penny postage secured, the Pacific Cable constructed,
assistance given in the South African War in the imperial interest, and
now the whole question remains to be decided in the Mother Country. The
colonies have all followed Canada's lead.
The conference of 1907 was futile. Sir Wilfrid Laurier took the
dignified course of repeating his offers made in 1902, and saying that
the question now rested in the hands of the British people. The British
Government declined to do anything, which in view of the elections
of the previous year was only to be expected, but a good deal of ill
feeling was unnecessarily created by the action of one member of the
Government, who offensively boasted that they had slammed, banged, and
barred the door in the face of the colonies. We still feel however that
this view will not represent the sober second thought of the British
people. If it does, of course our hopes of maintaining the permanent
unity of the Empire may not be realised.
From the Canadian standpoint I feel that enough has been said in
the foregoing pages, to show that there was a widespread movement,
participated in by people of both sides of the boundary line, which
would soon have become a serious menace to Canada's connection with
the Empire, had it not been for the vigorous efforts of the loyalist
element to counteract it. To the active share in which I took part
in these efforts, I shall ever look back with satisfaction. Not many
years have passed, but the change in the last twenty years, has been
a remarkable one, the movement then making such headway towards
commercial union or annexation being now to all seeming completely
dead. Nor should it be forgotten that it is to the Liberal party, a
great many of whose leading members took part in the agitation for
Unrestricted Reciprocity, that we owe, since they came into power, the
tariff preference to the Mother Country, and the other movements which
I have mentioned above, which tend to draw closer the bonds of Empire.
It would be difficult now to find in Canada any Canadians who are in
favour of continental union, many of those who formerly favoured it,
being now outspoken advocates of British connection, looking back with
wonder as to how they then were carried away by such an ill-judged
movement. Nevertheless the lesson taught by this period of danger is
clear. We must not forget, that with a powerful neighbour alongside
of Canada, speaking the same language, and with necessarily intimate
commercial intercourse, an agitation for closer relations, leading
to ultimate absorption, is easy to kindle, and being so plausible,
might spread with dangerous rapidity. This is a danger that those both
in Canada and Great Britain, who are concerned in the future of the
British Empire, would do well to take to heart, and by strengthening
the bonds of Empire avert such dangers for the future.
APPENDIX _A_
_Speech Delivered at the Royal Colonial Institute on the 13th May,
1890, in reply to_ SIR CHARLES DILKE.
I am very glad to have the opportunity of saying a few words this
evening. I have listened to the discussion and I find there is a
feeling that of all the Colonies Canada is the only one which is not
doing her duty. I have heard the doubt expressed as to whether Canada
would, in case of serious trouble, stand by the Empire in the defence
of her own frontiers. In support of this view I have heard an opinion
quoted of an Englishman who was dissatisfied with this country and left
it for the United States; dissatisfied there also he went to Canada,
where he is now equally dissatisfied and is agitating to break up
this Empire. I utterly repudiate his opinions. He is no Canadian and
does not express the views of my countrymen. You have generally large
numbers of Australians, New Zealanders and Cape Colonists at these
meetings, but it is not always that you have Canadians present, and
I do not think that we have altogether had fair play in this matter.
It seems to be popular to compliment the other Colonies, while the
doubt is expressed as to whether the Canadian people would fight to
keep Canada in the Empire. I am astonished to hear such a reflection
upon my country. Our whole history is a standing protest against any
such insinuation. Let me recall a few facts in our past history, facts
which show whether Canadians have not been true to this country. Why
our very foundation was based upon loyalty to the Empire. Our fathers
fought for a united Empire in the revolution of 1776. They fought to
retain the southern half of North America under the monarchy. Bereft
of everything, bleeding from the wounds of seven long years of war,
carrying with them nothing but their loyalty, they went to Canada and
settled in the wilderness. Thirty years later, in 1812, in a quarrel
caused by acts of British vessels on the high seas far from Canada--a
quarrel in which they had no interest--the Canadian people (every
able-bodied man) fought for three long years by the side of the British
troops, and all along our frontier are dotted the battlefields in which
lie buried large numbers of Canadians, who died fighting to retain
the northern half of the continent in our Empire. And yet I come here
to London and hear it said that my countrymen won't stand true to the
Empire. (Cheers.) Again, in 1837, a dissatisfied Scotchman raised a
rebellion, but the Canadian people rose at once and crushed it out of
sight before it could come to a head. The people poured into Toronto in
such numbers to support the Queen's authority, that Sir Francis Head,
the Governor, had to issue a proclamation telling the people to stay
at their homes, as they were gathering in such numbers they could not
be fed. (Cheers.) In the Trent affair--no quarrel of ours; an event
which occurred a thousand miles from our shores--every able-bodied man
was ready to fight; our country was like an armed camp, the young and
the old men drilling, no man complaining that it was not our quarrel,
and the determined and loyal spirit of the Canadian people saved this
country then from war. (Cheers.) So also in the Fenian Raid; again
no quarrel of ours, for surely we have had nothing to do with the
government of Ireland, and were not responsible in any way. Yet it was
our militia that bore the brunt of that trouble. The lives lost in that
affair were the lives of Canadian volunteers who died fighting in an
Imperial quarrel. This affair cost us millions of dollars, and did we
ever ask you to recoup us? And I, a Canadian volunteer, come here to
London to hear the doubt expressed as to whether my countrymen would
stand true to the Empire. (Cheers.) It is not fair, gentlemen; it is
not right. For the spirit of our people is the same to-day. (Cheers.)
I have also heard the statement made this evening that there were no
proper arrangements for the Nova Scotia militia to help in the defence
of Halifax, as if there might be a doubt whether they would assist the
Imperial troops to defend Halifax. This is not fair to my comrades of
the sister Province of Nova Scotia. Let me recall an incident in the
history of that Province at the time of the Maine boundary difficulty.
I allude to the occasion--many of you will remember it--when an English
diplomatist, being humbugged with a false map, allowed the Yankees
to swindle us out of half the State of Maine. Well, at that time,
Governor Fairfield, of the State of Maine, ordered out all the militia
of that State to invade New Brunswick. The Nova Scotian Legislature
at once passed a resolution placing every dollar of their revenue,
and every able-bodied man in the country, at the disposal of their
sister Province of New Brunswick. This vote was carried unanimously
with three cheers for the Queen; and their bold and determined stand
once more saved the Empire from war--(cheers)--and yet I, an Ontario
man, come here to England, to hear the doubt expressed as to whether
the militia of our sister Province of Nova Scotia would help to defend
their own capital city in case of attack. It is not fair, gentlemen,
and I am glad to be here to-night to speak for my sister Province.
(Cheers.) However, I cannot blame you for not understanding all these
things. You have not all been in Canada and even if any of you were to
come to the Niagara Falls and cross from the States to look at them
from the Canadian side, you would not return to the States knowing all
about Canada. It would not qualify you to be an authority on Canadian
affairs. (Laughter and applause.) Now our position is peculiar.
We have a new country with illimitable territory--you can have no
conception of the enormous extent--a territory forty times the size
of Great Britain, and fifteen times the size of the German Empire,
and we have only a small population. We are opening up this country
for settlement, developing its resources, and thereby adding to the
power of the Empire. Our burdens are enormous for our population and
our wealth. What have we done quite lately? We have spent something
like $150,000,000--£30,000,000--in constructing a railway across the
continent and giving you an alternative route to the East. Many people
thought this would be too great a burden--more than our country could
stand--but our Government and the majority of our people took this
view, that this scheme would supply a great alternative route to the
East, bring trade to the country, add strength to the Empire, and
make us more than ever a necessity and a benefit to the Empire. And
remember, all the time we are developing our country, all the time we
are spending these enormous sums, we do not live in the luxury you do
here, and while we are perfectly willing to do a great deal, we cannot
do everything all at once. With you everything is reversed. You have
had nearly 2,000 years start, with your little bit of country, and your
large population, and by this time I must say you have got it pretty
well fixed up. (Laughter.) The other day I was travelling through Kent
and I was reminded of the remark of the Yankee who said of it: "It
appears to me this country is cultivated with a pair of scissors and a
fine comb." We have not had the time or the population to do this, and
we cannot afford a standing army. It is not fair to find fault with us
because we do not keep up a standing army. It is absolutely necessary
we should not take away from productive labour too large a number of
men to idle about garrison towns. The Canadian people know that as
things stand at present, they cannot be attacked by any nation except
the United States. We would not be afraid of facing any European or
distant Power, simply because the difficulties of sending a distant
maritime expedition are recognised to be so tremendous. Suppose war
should unfortunately break out with the United States--and that, as I
say, is the only contingency we need seriously consider--in that case,
what are we to do? It would be useless we know to attempt to defend
our country with a small standing army. We know that every able-bodied
man would have to fight. We know that our men are able and willing
to fight, and what we are trying to do is to educate officers. Our
military college, kept up at large expense, is one of the finest in
the world. Then we have permanent schools for military purposes, men
drafted from our corps being drilled there and sent back to instruct.
We keep up about 38,000 active militia, and the country has numbers of
drilled men who could be relied on. As an illustration of our system, I
may mention that in 1866 there was a sudden alarm of a Fenian invasion.
The Adjutant-General received orders at 4 o'clock in the afternoon
to turn out 10,000 men. At eleven the next day the returns came in,
and to his utter astonishment he found there were 14,000 under arms.
The reason was that the old men who had gone through the corps had
put on their old uniforms, taken down their rifles, and turned out
with their comrades, and there they were ready to march. Instead of
the militia force going down, it is, I think, slightly increasing.
Our force could be easily expanded in case of trouble. If there
were danger of war, and the Government were to say to me to-morrow:
"Increase your regiment of cavalry and double it," I believe it could
be done in twenty-four hours. I cannot tell you how many stand of arms
we have in the country, but I believe there are three or four times
as many rifles as would arm the present militia force, and therefore
there would be no difficulty on that score. In case of a great war,
it would, of course, be necessary to get assistance from England. We
certainly should want that assistance in arms and ammunition. We have
already established an ammunition factory, which is capable of great
extension. We have a great many more field guns that we are absolutely
using. It would be an easy thing to double the field batteries with
retired men. Further, there is a good deal of voluntary drill, and
I may say, speaking from my experience in the North-West campaign,
that I would just as soon have good volunteer regiments as permanent
forces. They may not be quite so well drilled, but they possess greater
intelligence and greater zeal and enthusiasm. If any trouble should
come, I am quite satisfied you will not find any backwardness on the
part of the Canadian people in doing their full duty. At the present
time, considering the enormous expense of developing the country and
of, in other ways, making it great and powerful, it would, I think,
be a pity to waste more than is absolutely necessary in keeping up a
large military force. The training of officers, the providing of an
organisation and machinery, the encouragement of a confident spirit
in the people, and a feeling of loyalty to the Empire--these are, I
venture to say, the principal things, of more importance than a small
standing army. (Applause.)
The Chairman (the Right Hon. Hugh C. Childers).--You will all, I think,
agree that it is rather fortunate the few remarks by previous speakers
have elicited so eloquent and powerful an address as that we have just
listened to. (Cheers.)
APPENDIX _B_
_Lecture Delivered at the Shaftesbury Hall, Toronto, on the 17th
December, 1891, on "National Spirit," by_ COLONEL GEORGE T. DENISON.
MR. CHAIRMAN, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN,
The history of the world is the history of the rise and fall of
nations. The record of the dim past, so great is the distance from
which we look and so scanty the materials of history, seems almost
a kaleidoscope, in which one dominant race rises into greatness and
strength upon the ruins of another, each in turn luxuriating in
affluence and power, each in turn going to ruin and decay.
In the earliest period, when Europe was peopled by barbarians, we read
of Egypt, of its power, its wealth, and its civilisation. Travellers
to-day, standing in the ruins of Thebes and Memphis, view with
amazement the architectural wonders of the gigantic ruins, and draw
comparisons between what the race of ancient Egyptians must have been,
and the poor Arab peasants who live in wretched huts among the _debris_
of former grandeur. The Assyrian empire has also left a record of its
greatness and civilisation. Their sculptures show a race of sturdy
heroes, with haughty looks and proud mien, evidently the leaders of
a dominant race. The luxuriant costumes, the proud processions, the
ceremonious _cortège_ of the Assyrian monarchs, all find their place in
the sculptures of Nineveh, while their colossal dimensions indicate
the magnificence of the halls and galleries in which they were placed.
These broken stones, dug from the desert, are all that is left to tell
us of a great and dominant race for ever passed away. The Persian
empire came afterwards into prominence, and was a mighty power when
in its prime. The Phœnicians, by their maritime enterprise and their
roving and energetic spirit, acquired great power. Their influence was
felt as far as England. Their chief cities, Tyre and Sidon, were at one
time the most wealthy and powerful cities in the world, excelling in
all the arts and sciences. To-day ruin and desolation mark their sites,
and testify to the truth of the awful prophecy of Ezekiel the prophet.
The Greeks and Romans were also dominant races, but the small republics
of Greece frittered away in dissension and petty civil wars the energy
and daring that might have made Athens the mistress of the world.
Rome, on the other hand, was more practical. The Roman was filled with
a desire for national supremacy. He determined that Rome should be
the mistress of the world, and the desire worked out its fulfilment.
The Carthaginians rose and fell, victims to the greater vigour and
energy of their indomitable rivals the Romans. After the fall of the
Roman Empire of the East, the Mohammedan power, restless, warlike, and
fanatical, quickly overran Asia Minor and Turkey, and threatened at one
time the conquest of all Europe.
Three hundred years ago Spain was the all-powerful country. Her ships
whitened every sea, her language was spoken in every clime, her coins
were the only money used by traders beyond the equator. England,
which was at that time the sole home of English-speaking people, was
only a fifth or sixth-rate Power. To-day the British Empire is the
greatest empire the world has ever seen, with 11,214,000 square miles
of territory, a population of 361,276,000, a revenue of £212,800,000,
total imports and exports of £1,174,000,000, and she owns nearly
one-half of the shipping of the world.
In considering the causes which lead to the rise and fall of nations,
we find that the first requisite to ensure national greatness is a
national sentiment--that is, a patriotic feeling in the individual,
and a general confidence of all in the future of the State. This
national spirit generally exhibits itself in military prowess, in a
determination of placing the country first, self afterwards; of being
willing to undergo hardships, privation, and want; and to risk life,
and even to lay down life, on behalf of the State. I can find no
record in history of any nation obliterating itself, and giving up its
nationality for the sake of making a few cents a dozen on its eggs, or
a few cents a bushel on its grain.
The Egyptians commemorated the deeds of their great men, erected
the greatest monuments of antiquity, and taught the people respect
for their ancestors, holding the doctrine, "accursed is he who
holds not the ashes of his fathers sacred, and forgets what is due
from the living to the dead." The Assyrians on their return from a
successful war paraded the spoils and trophies of victory through their
capital. They also recorded their warlike triumphs in inscriptions
and sculptures that have commemorated the events and preserved the
knowledge of them to us to this present day. The national spirit of
the Greeks was of the highest type. When invaded by an army of 120,000
Persians in B.C. 490, the Athenians without hesitation boldly faced
their enemies. Every man who could bear arms was enlisted, and 10,000
free men on the plains of Marathon completely routed the enormous
horde of invaders. This victory was celebrated by the Greeks in every
possible way. Pictures were painted, and poems were written about it.
One hundred and ninety-two Athenians who fell in action were buried
under a lofty mound which may still be seen, and their names were
inscribed on ten pillars, one for each tribe. Six hundred years after
the battle, Pausanias the historian was able to read on the pillars
the names of the dead heroes. The anniversary of the battle was
commemorated by an annual ceremony down to the time of Plutarch. After
the death of Miltiades, who commanded the Greeks, an imposing monument
was erected in his honour on the battlefield, remains of which can
still be traced.
This victory and the honour paid both the living and the dead who
took part in it, had a great influence on the Greeks, and increased
the national spirit and confidence of the people in their country.
The heavy strain came upon them ten years later, when Xerxes invaded
Greece with what is supposed to have been the greatest army that ever
was gathered together. Such an immense host could not fail to cause
alarm among the Greeks, but they had no thought of submission. The
national spirit of a race never shone out more brightly. Leonidas, with
only 4,000 troops all told, defended the pass at Thermopylæ for three
days against this immense host, and when, through the treachery of a
Greek named Ephialtes, the Persians threatened his retreat, Leonidas
and his Spartans would not fly, but sending away most of their allies,
he remained there and died with his people for the honour of the
country. They were buried on the spot, and a monument erected with the
inscription:
Go, stranger, and to Lacedæmon tell
That here, obedient to her laws, we fell.
Six hundred years after, Pausanias read on a pillar erected to their
memory in their native city, the names of 300 Spartans who died
at Thermopylæ. A stone lion was erected in the pass to the memory
of Leonidas, and a monument to the dead of the allies with this
inscription: "Four thousand from the Peloponnesus once fought on this
spot with three millions." Another monument bore the inscription: "This
is the monument of the illustrious Megistias whom the Medes, having
passed the river Sperchius, slew--a prophet who, at the time, well
knowing the impending fate, would not abandon the leaders of Sparta."
The Athenians were compelled to abandon their homes and take refuge on
the island of Salamis, where the great battle was fought the following
October, between 380 Greek vessels and a Persian fleet of 2,000
vessels. This action was brought on by a stratagem of Themistocles,
whom no odds seemed to discourage. This ended in a great victory for
the Greeks, and practically decided the fate of the war. Themistocles
and Eurybiades were presented with olive crowns, and other honours were
heaped upon them. Ten months after this Mardonius a second time took
possession of the city, and the Athenians were again fugitives on the
island of Salamis; even then the Athenians would not lose hope. Only
one man in the council dared to propose that they should yield; when he
had left the council-chamber the people stoned him to death. Mardonius,
who had an army of 300,000 men and the power of the Persian empire at
his back, offered them most favourable terms, but the national spirit
of the Greeks saved them when the outlook was practically hopeless. The
Athenians replied that they would never yield while the sun continued
in its course, but trusting in their gods and in their heroes, they
would go out and oppose him. Shortly after the Greeks did go out, and
a brilliant victory was won at Platæa, where Mardonius and nearly
all his army were killed. The Mantineans and the Elians arrived too
late to take part in the action with the other Greeks, and were so
mortified at the delay that they banished their generals on account of
it. Thus ended the Persian invasions of Greece. The national spirit of
the Greeks inspired them to the greatest sacrifices and the greatest
heroism, and was the foundation of the confidence and hope that never
failed them in the darkest hour. There were a few traitors such as
Ephialtes, who betrayed the pass, and a few pessimists like Lycidas,
who lost hope and was stoned to death for speaking of surrender. The
lesson is taught, however, that the existence in a community of a few
emasculated traitors and pessimists is no proof that the mass of the
citizens may not be filled with the highest and purest national spirit.
The history of Rome teaches us the same great lesson. As Rome was
once mistress of the world, as no race or nationality ever before
wielded the power or attained the towering position of Rome, so
we find that just as in proportion she rose to a higher altitude
than any other community, so does her early history teem with the
records of a purer national sentiment, a more perfect patriotism, a
greater confidence in the State on the part of her citizens, and a
more enduring self-sacrificing heroism on the part of her young men.
Early Roman history is a romance filled with instances of patriotic
devotion to the State that have made Roman virtues a proverb even to
this day. Many of the stories are, no doubt, mere legends, but they
are woven into the history of the nation, and were evidently taught to
the children to create and stimulate a strong patriotic sentiment in
their breasts. When we read the old legend of Horatius at the bridge;
when we read of Quintus Curtius, clad in complete armour and mounted
on his horse, plunging into the yawning gulf in the Forum to save the
State from impending destruction; when we read of Mutius Scævola, of
Regulus, urging his countrymen to continue the war with Carthage, and
then returning to the death which was threatened him if he did not
succeed in effecting a peace, we can form some idea of the spirit which
animated this people, and can no longer wonder at such a race securing
such a world-wide supremacy. The Romans took every means to encourage
this feeling and to reward services to the State. Horatius Cocles was
crowned on his return, his statue erected in the temple of Vulcan,
and a large tract of the public land given him. Rome was filled with
the statues, and columns, and triumphal arches, erected in honour of
great services performed for the State. Many of these monuments are
still standing. Varro, after the terrible defeat of Cannæ, received the
thanks of the Senate because, although defeated and a fugitive, he had
not despaired of the future of the State. The Romans, like the English,
never knew when they were beaten, and disaster rarely inclined them to
make peace. They did not look upon Carthage, their neighbour to the
south, as their natural market, not at least to the extent of inducing
them to give up their nationality in the hope of getting rich by
trading with that community, and yet history leads us to believe that
Carthage was at one time very wealthy and prosperous. No, the national
sentiment was the dominant idea.
For Romans in Rome's quarrel
Spared neither land nor gold,
Nor son, nor wife, nor limb, nor life,
In the brave days of old.
Even the Romans, however, had traitors, for we read that Brutus ordered
the execution of his own sons for treason. Catiline also conspired
against the State; of course his character was not good; he was said
to be guilty of almost every crime in the calendar, but when you are
picking out specimen traitors it is difficult to be fastidious about
their personal character. The national spirit of the race, however,
easily overcame all the bad influences of the disloyal, and it was only
when this sentiment died out, and luxury, selfishness, and poltroonery
took its place, that Rome was overthrown.
The experience of the ancients has been repeated in later times. The
national spirit of the Swiss has carried Switzerland through the
greatest trials, and preserved her freedom and independence in the
heart of Europe for hundreds of years. No principle of continental
unity has been able to destroy her freedom. The Swiss confederation
took its origin in the oath on the Rutli in 1307, and eight years
later at Morgarten, the Marathon of Switzerland, 1,300 Swiss peasants
defeated an army of 20,000 Austrians. This inspired the whole people,
and commenced the series of brilliant victories which for two centuries
improved the military skill, stimulated the national spirit, and
secured the continued freedom of the Swiss nation. In 1386 another
great victory was won at Sempach, through the devotion of Arnold of
Winkelried, whose story of self-sacrifice is a household word taught
to the children, and indelibly written on grateful Swiss hearts.
The memory of Winkelried will ever remain to them as an inspiration
whenever danger threatens the fatherland. A chapel marks the site of
the battle, the anniversary is celebrated every year, while at Stanz
a beautiful monument commemorates Winkelried's noble deed. In 1886 the
five hundredth anniversary of Sempach was celebrated by the foundation
of the Winkelried Institution for poor soldiers and the relatives of
those killed in action. In 1388 a small army of Swiss, at Naefels,
completely defeated, with fearful loss, ten times their number of
Austrians, and secured finally the freedom of Switzerland. A history
published last year says:
"Year after year the people of Glarus, rich and poor alike,
Protestant and Catholic, still commemorate this great victory. On
the first Thursday in April, in solemn procession, they revisit the
battlefield, and on the spot the Landammann tells the fine old story
of their deliverance from foreign rule, while priest and minister
offer thanksgiving. The 5th April, 1888, was a memorable date in
the annals of the canton, being the five hundredth anniversary of
the day on which the people achieved freedom. From all parts of
Switzerland people flocked to Naefels to participate in the patriotic
and religious ceremonies. A right stirring scene it was when the
Landammann presented to the vast assembly the banner of St. Fridolin,
the same which Ambuhl had raised high, and thousands of voices joined
in the national anthem."
A magnificent monument at Basle commemorates the bloody fight of St.
Jacques. The national spirit of the Swiss, nurtured and evidenced
in this manner, has held together for hundreds of years a people
professing different religions, and actually speaking four different
languages. In 1856 King Frederick William IV. of Prussia threatened
them with war. The whole people rose; grey-haired old men and mere
boys offered their services, fellow-countrymen abroad sent large sums
of money, and even the school children offered up their savings, and
there was no intruding traitor to object that the children should not
be allowed to interfere on the pretext that it was a party question.
Catholic and Protestant, French, German, Italian, and Romansch, all
stood shoulder to shoulder, animated by the same spirit, determined
to brave any danger in defence of the honour and independence of their
country. The noble bearing of the Swiss aroused the sympathy and
commanded the respect of all Europe, and really caused the preservation
of peace. They have been free for 500 years, and will be free and
respected so long as they retain the national spirit they have hitherto
possessed. It is interesting to note that the Swiss teach the boys in
the schools military drill, furnishing them with small guns and small
cannon that they may be thoroughly trained.
Russia has grown from a comparatively small principality to an enormous
empire, and as it has constantly risen in the scale of nations, so has
it also been marked by a strong sentiment of nationality. Alexander,
Prince of Novgorod, in 1240 and 1242 won two great victories, one at
the Neva and the other at Lake Peipus, and so saved Russia from her
enemies. He received the honourable title of "Nefsky," or of the Neva,
and the anniversaries of his victories were celebrated for hundreds
of years. The great Alexander Nefsky monastery in St. Petersburg was
built in his honour by Peter the Great. Dimitry, in 1380, won a great
victory over the Tartars. Over 500 years have elapsed, but still the
name of Dimitry Donskoi lives in the memory and in the songs of the
Russian people, and still on "Dimitry's Saturday," the anniversary
of the battle, solemn prayers are offered up in memory of the brave
men who fell on that day in defence of the fatherland. It is hardly
necessary to refer to the magnificent display of patriotism and
self-sacrifice shown by the whole Russian people, from Czar to serf, in
the defence of Russia in 1812, against armed Europe led by the greatest
general of modern times. The spirit of the Russians rose with their
sacrifices. The destruction of Moscow by its own people is one of the
most striking instances of patriotic devotion in history. The Governor
of Moscow, Count Rostopchin, burned his own country palace near Moscow
when the French approached, and affixed to the gates this inscription:
"During eight years I have embellished this country house, and lived
happily in it in the bosom of my family. The inhabitants of this
estate--7,000--quit at your approach. You find nothing but ashes." The
city was abandoned and burnt. Nothing remained but the remembrance of
its glories and the thirst for a vengeance, which was terrible and
swift. Kutusof, the Russian general, announced the loss, and said
"that the people are the soul of the empire, and that where they are
there is Moscow and the empire of Russia." The magnificent column
to Alexander I. in the square in front of the Winter Palace in St.
Petersburg is a striking memorial of the victor of this great war. A
visitor to St. Petersburg cannot fail to notice the strong pride in
their country that animates the people. Now turning to England we find
numberless proofs of the same sentiment that has built up all great
nations. The brilliant victories of Cressy, Poitiers, and Agincourt,
won by Englishmen against overwhelming odds, had no doubt exercised an
important influence upon the people. The Reformation and the discovery
of the New World exercised the popular mind, and a spirit of adventure
seized most of the European countries. English sailors were most
active and bold in their seafaring enterprises. They waged private war
on their own account against the Spaniards in the West Indies and in
the southern seas, and attacked and fought Spanish vessels with the
most reckless indifference as to odds. The Armada set a spark to the
smouldering patriotism of the people, the whole nation sprang to arms,
the City of London equipped double the number of war vessels they were
called upon to furnish. Catholics and Protestants vied with each other
in animating the people to the most vehement resistance. To excite the
martial spirit of the nation Queen Elizabeth rode on horseback through
her army, exhorting them to remember their duty to their country.
"I am come amongst you," she said, "being resolved in the midst and
heat of the battle to live and die amongst you all, to lay down, for my
God, and for my kingdom, and for my people, my honour, and my blood
even in the dust. I know I have the body of a weak and feeble woman,
but I have the heart of a king, and a king of England, too, and think
foul scorn that Parma, Spain, or any prince of Europe should dare to
invade the borders of my realms."
These noble sentiments show the feeling that animated the race, for no
woman could speak in such a strain who had not lived and breathed in an
atmosphere of brave and true patriotism. Elizabeth voiced the feeling
of her people, and this strong national spirit carried England through
the greatest danger that ever menaced her. The poems of Shakespeare
ring with the same loyal sentiment:
This England never did (nor never shall)
Lie at the proud foot of a conqueror,
But when it first did help to wound itself
Now these her princes have come home again,
Come the three corners of the world in arms.
And we shall shock them: Nought shall make us rue
If England to itself do rest but true.
_Henry V._ is as much a song of triumph as the _Persæ_ of Æschylus, but
here again history repeats itself, and Shakespeare has to refer to the
treasonable conspiracy of Grey, Scroop, and Cambridge, who
Hath for a few light crowns lightly conspired
And sworn unto the practices of France
To kill us here in Hampton.
The three hundredth anniversary of the defeat of the Armada was
celebrated at Plymouth three years ago, and a magnificent monument
erected on the Hoe, close to the statue of the brave old English
sailor, Sir Francis Drake, who did so much to secure the victory. The
great poets of England have voiced the patriotic feeling of the country
in every age. Macaulay's "Armada," Tennyson's "Revenge," and "The Light
Brigade"; the songs of Campbell and Dibdin are household words in our
empire, and I never heard of any objection being made to their being
read by children.
The confidence of England in herself carried her through the terrible
struggle with the French, Spaniards, and Dutch, in which she lost
the American Colonies. Her patriotic determination also carried her
through the desperate struggle with Napoleon, who at one time had
subdued nearly every other European country to his will. While the
English people are animated by the spirit of Drake and Frobisher, of
Havelock and Gordon, of Grenville and Nelson, of the men who fought at
Rorke's Drift, or those who rode into the valley of death, there need
be no fear as to her safety. Our own short Canadian history gives us
many bright pages to look back upon. The exodus of the United Empire
Loyalists was an instance of patriotic devotion to the national idea
that is almost unique in its way. The manly and vigorous way in which
about 300,000 Canadians in 1812 defended their country against the
attacks of a nation of 8,000,000, with only slight assistance from
England, then engaged in a desperate war, is too well known to require
more than the merest reference. It is well to notice, however, how
the experience of all nations has been repeated in our own country.
We were hampered and endangered in 1812 by the intrigues of traitors,
some of whom in Parliament did all they could to embarrass and destroy
the country, and then deserted to the enemy and fought against us.
General Brock's address to the Canadian people, however, shows the same
national confidence that has carried all great nations through their
greatest trials. "We are engaged," said he, "in an awful and eventful
contest. By unanimity and despatch in our councils and by vigour in our
operations we may teach the enemy this lesson, that a country defended
by free men enthusiastically devoted to the cause of their king and
constitution can never be conquered."
The memory of our victories at Queenston Heights and Chateauguay are
as dear to the hearts of the Canadian people as Marathon and Salamis
were to the Greeks, or Morgarten and Sempach are to the Swiss. Why
then should we be asked to conceal the knowledge of these victories
won on our own soil, by our own people, in defence of our own
freedom? Confederation united the scattered provinces, extended our
borders from ocean to ocean, gave us a country and a name, filled the
minds of our youth with dreams of national greatness and hopes of an
extending commerce spreading from our Atlantic and Pacific coasts to
every corner in the world. The completion of the Canadian Pacific
Railway consolidated the country more than ever, brought the provinces
into closer union, and inspired the hope that a great portion of
the trade between the East and the West would pulsate through our
territory. All these causes have created a strong national spirit. This
feeling was dormant until the people became uneasy about an insidious
movement commenced four years ago in New York, which, while apparently
advocated in the interest of Canada, would have resulted in the loss
of our fiscal independence and possibly our national existence. This
was followed by President Cleveland's retaliation proclamation, a
blow intended to embarrass our affairs, and so to force us into
subserviency. Afterwards came Senator Sherman's speech, strongly
advocating annexation; and Mr. Whitney, the Secretary of the Navy,
threatened us with an invasion, describing how four armies of 25,000
men each could easily take Canada.
The newspapers in the States were filled with articles on the subject,
and maps were published showing our country divided up into states, and
its very name obliterated. As an instance of the newspaper articles I
quote the following from the New York _Commercial Bulletin_, published
in November, 1888, commenting on the speeches of Senator Sherman and
Mr. Whitney. The _Bulletin_ says:
"Both are inimical to commercial union unless it also be complemented
by political union, or, to phrase it more plainly, they insist
that annexation of Canada to the United States can afford the
only effective guarantee of satisfactory relations between the
two countries, if these are to be permanent. These prominent men,
representing each of the great parties that have alternately the
administration of this Government in their hands, we are persuaded
did not put forth these views at random, but that they voiced the
views of other political leaders, their associates, who are aiming at
making Canadian annexation the leading issue at the next Presidential
election. As if speaking for the Republicans, Senator Sherman, as has
already been shown, thinks the country now ready for the question,
while Secretary Whitney, as if speaking for the other political party,
is not less eager to bring the country face to face with it, even at
the risk of war with England."
The _North American Review_, one of the most respectable of their
magazines, actually published an article by General Benjamin F.
Butler, in which, speaking of annexation, he said: "Is not this the
fate of Canada? Peacefully we hope, forcefully if we must," and in the
truculent spirit of a freebooter, he suggested that the invading army
should be paid by dividing up our land among them. This was followed
by the McKinley Bill, aimed of course at all countries, but especially
bearing upon the articles where Canada's trade could be seriously
injured. This portion of the bill is generally believed to have been
prepared with the assistance and advice of traitors in our own country.
In face of all this a lecturer in this city a few weeks ago made the
following statement:
"Let me say once more, that I have been going among the Americans now
for more than twenty years. I have held intercourse with people of
all classes, parties, professions, characters, and ages, including
the youth of a university who are sure to speak as they feel. I never
heard the slightest expression of a wish to aggress on Canada, or to
force her into the union."
Among the people of antiquity there was a race that inhabited Mysia, a
portion of Asia Minor, lying next to the Hellespont. This race was said
to have been once warlike, but they soon degenerated, and acquired
the reputation of being the meanest of all people, Mysorum ultimus or
last of the Mysians being used as a most contemptuous epithet. The
ancients generally hired them to attend their funerals as mourners
because they were naturally melancholy and inclined to shed tears. I
think that the last lingering remnant of that bygone race must have
wandered into this country, and, unable to obtain employment in their
natural vocation, mourn and wail over the fate of Canada, urge our
people to commit national suicide, and use every effort to destroy that
hope and confidence which a young country like our own should always
possess. This small clique is working in collusion with our enemies
in the States, the design being to entrap us into annexation by force
or fraud. This threat upon our country's life, and the intrigues of
these conspirators have had the effect that similar attempts have
had upon all nations that have possessed the slightest elements of
manliness. The patriotic feeling at once became aroused, the clergy in
their pulpits preached loyalty and patriotism, the people burst out
into song, and patriotic poems of greater or less merit appeared in
the local press everywhere. The Stars and Stripes, often before draped
in friendly folds with the Union Jack, disappeared from sight, while
our own flag was hoisted all over the land. Battle anniversaries were
celebrated, military monuments decorated, and in all public gatherings
the loyal sentiment of the people showed itself, not in hostility
to the people of the United States, but in bitter contempt for the
disloyal among ourselves, who were intriguing to betray the country.
This manifestation of the popular feeling killed the commercial
union movement. No party in Canadian politics would touch it, and
the Commercial Union Club in this city is, I believe, defunct. Its
chairman, however, has not given up his designs against Canada. Coming
to Canada about twenty years ago, his first mission was to teach the
Canadians those high principles of honour of which he wished them to
believe he was the living embodiment. His writings and his influence
have never been on the side of the continued connection between Canada
and the Empire, but it is only within the last year or two that he
has thrown off the mask, and taking advantage of the movements in the
States to coerce us into annexation has come out openly in favour of
the idea under the name of Continental Unity. In his last lecture on
"Jingoism," given a few weeks ago, he made his political farewell.
If I placed the slightest confidence in his statement that he had
concluded his attacks on Canada, I would not have troubled to answer
this, his latest vindictive effusion. But he has already made so many
farewells that he calls to mind the numerous farewell performances of
antiquated ballet dancers, who usually continue repeating them till
they are hissed off the stage. Before three weeks had elapsed he once
more appeared before the public, with a letter announcing once more his
departure from the stage, and arguing at length in favour of annexation
for the purpose of influencing Mr. Solomon White's Woodstock meeting.
Mr. White's speech and his letter were the only words heard in favour
of that view, in a meeting which by an overwhelming majority of both
parties in politics, voted against the idea. He will write again and
lecture again if he sees any opportunity of doing Canada any injury.
This Oxford Professor has been most systematic in his efforts to carry
out his treasonable ideas. He sees several obstacles in his way. The
prosperity of the people, their loyalty to their sovereign, their love
for the motherland, the idea of imperial unity, the memory of what we
owe to the dead who have died for Canada's freedom, and the martial
instinct of our young men which would lead them to fight to maintain
the independence of their country. He sees all these influences in his
way, while the only inducement he can hold out to us in support of his
view is the delusive hope that annexation would make us more prosperous
and wealthy. How getting a market among our competitors, who produce
everything we sell and are our rivals everywhere, would enrich us is a
difficult point to maintain, and as his forte is destruction and not
construction, his main efforts are devoted to attacking all that stands
in his way. Without the same ability, he seems desirous of playing the
part of a second Tom Paine in a new revolution, hoping to stab the
mother country, and rob her empire of half a continent, as did that
other renegade whose example he tries to imitate. He never loses an
opportunity to make Canadians dissatisfied with their lot, trying to
make us believe that we are in a hopeless state, while in reality we
are exceedingly prosperous. In England he poses as a Liberal Unionist,
which gives him a standpoint in that country from which he can attack
Canada to the greatest advantage. His book on the Canadian question
was evidently written for the purpose of damaging this country in
England. One of his very few sympathisers said to me with a chuckle,
"It will stop emigration to Canada for five years." I need not devote
time to this, however. Principal Grant has exposed its inaccuracies and
unfairness, and proved that this prophet of honour has been guilty of
misrepresentations that would shame a fourth-rate Yankee politician.
In the London _Anti-Jacobin_ this summer he tells the English people
to turn their attention to Africa, to India, and to Egypt, that there
they have fields for achievement, and that other fields may be opened
when the Turkish empire passes away, and asks the English people why
they should cling to a merely nominal dominion. He evidently longs
to see Englishmen, and English treasure and English enterprise given
to assist and develop India, Africa, Egypt, or Turkey, anywhere
except Canada, which has given him a home and treated him with a
forbearance and courtesy unparalleled. The vindictive malignancy
of this suggestion to the _Anti-Jacobin_ is manifest. He sees that
emigration to the magnificent wheat fields of our North-West will
help and strengthen Canada, and so he decries Canada in his book and
writes to English journals endeavouring to divert English enterprise
and capital to countries inhabited by alien races about whose affairs
and possibilities he knows nothing. These are instances of his
systematic intrigues against the prosperity of Canada. In February
last, to attack the innate loyalty of the people, he delivered to an
organisation of young men in this city a lecture on "Loyalty." The
whole aim of the lecture was to throw ridicule upon the very idea. A
few men of bad character, who had claimed to be loyal, were quoted
to insinuate that loyalty was synonymous with vice. As I have in my
lecture on the "United Empire Loyalists" sufficiently answered him on
this point, I will pass on to the next which was on "Aristocracy." The
object of this lecture was to discredit aristocracy, to show that the
aristocracy belong to England and to the Empire, and to try to arouse
the democratic instincts of a democratic country like ours against
British connection. To weaken, if possible, the natural feeling of
the people towards the land of their ancestors. His last lecture,
on "Jingoism," is the one I principally wish to deal with, as it is
aimed at the other influences, which this Mysian desires to weaken in
furtherance of his traitorous plans. The main object is to strike at
our national spirit, at the evidences of it, and at the causes which
increase and nourish this sentiment. He combines in a few words what
he objects to: "Hoisting of flags, chanting martial songs, celebration
of battle anniversaries, erection of military monuments, decoration
of patriotic graves, arming and reviewing the very children in our
public schools." In his elegant way he says: "If Jingoism finds itself
in need of all these stimulants, we shall begin to think it must be
sick." As a matter of fact, it is these manifestations of a Canadian
national spirit that make him sick, to use his own elegant phrase. He
says, "Jingoism" originated in the music halls of London. No feeling
could have originated in that way in Canada. We have neither the
music halls nor the class of population he refers to. With his usual
inaccuracy and want of appreciation of historical teaching he fails to
see that the national spirit in Canada has shown itself in exactly the
same way as the same feeling has been exhibited in all great nations
in all ages, and has been evoked by the same cause, viz. national
danger. He speaks of protectionism coming back to us from the tomb
of mediæval ignorance, forgetting that he helped to resurrect it in
1878 and gave the influence of his pen and voice to put that principle
in power. The volunteer movement, that embodiment of the martial
instinct of our race, the outcome of the manly feeling of our youth
to be willing to fight for the freedom and autonomy of their native
land is another great element that stands in the way of the little
gang of conspirators, and so our lecturer attacks the whole force. As
we have no standing army, he praises the regular soldiers, so as by
innuendo the more forcibly to insult our volunteers; insinuates that
it is something feminine in the character of our people that induces
them to flirt with the scarlet and coquette with the steel. This
historian says the volunteer movement in England was no pastime, it
was a serious effort to meet a threatened danger; but, unfortunately
for his argument, the danger never came to anything. And yet he ought
to know that volunteers in England have never seen a shot fired in
anger for over two hundred years, and that he was speaking to the
citizens of a city, that have seen in every generation since it was
founded dead comrades brought home for burial who had died in action
for their country. The loss of life and the hardships of the North-west
campaign, the exposure to the bitter cold of winter storms, and the
other sufferings of our Toronto lads on the north shore trip, of
course, were only pastime, while the parading in the parks and commons
of England, in the long summer evenings, has been a serious effort. The
erection of a monument at Lundy's Lane, unless it included honouring
the aggressors who fought against us and tried to wrest from us our
country, is described as "the meanness of unslaked hatred." Are the
monuments all over England, France, Germany, Russia, Switzerland,
Rome, Greece and the United States all evidences of "the meanness of
unslaked hatred"? They have never hitherto been looked at in that
light. The professor, however, 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. After twenty-five years the people of Toronto decorated the
monument in honour of their dead volunteers, who died in defence of
Canada in 1866. There was not one word of swagger or fanfaronade,
simply an honouring of the memory of the dead, and pointing out the
lesson it taught to the living to be true to their country. This is
the cause of a sneer from this man, who seems to forget that those who
fell in 1866 died for Canada. What more could man do than give up his
life in defence of his country? And yet we, the people of Toronto, have
to submit to these insults to the memory of our dead fellow-citizens.
An earnest protest is also made against teaching patriotism to our
children in the public schools, making them nurseries, as he says, of
party passion. Of all the many instances of the false arguments and
barefaced impertinence of this stranger, this is the worst. What party
in this country is disloyal? What party is not interested in Canadian
patriotism? A few strangers, some like the Athenian Eschines, believed
to be in the pay of the enemy, some actuated only by natural malignity,
are trying to destroy Canada, and find the patriotic spirit of our
people in the way. These men have tried to hang on to the outskirts of
a great and loyal party, and by the ill odour which attaches to them
have injured the party, which longs to be quit of them. When Goldwin
Smith's letter was read at the Woodstock meeting another letter from
the foremost Liberal leader in Canada was there advising the Liberal
party to be true to its fidelity to the old flag, to vote down the
resolutions of the conspirators, and to show that we were prepared to
sacrifice something to retain the allegiance of this great Dominion to
the sovereign we love. I have never referred to this question without
vouching for the loyalty of the great body of the Liberal party, and
especially for the loyalty of my old leaders, the Hon. George Brown,
Mr. Mackenzie, Mr. Blake and Mr. Mowat. And Mr. Mowat voiced the
feeling of all true Canadians, for, thank God, this has not yet become
a party question. As is done in Switzerland, and as is universally done
in the United States--and all honour to them for it--all parties will
unite to teach our children to honour our own flag, to sing our own
songs, to celebrate the anniversaries of our own battles, to learn our
own history, and will endeavour to inspire them with a national spirit
and a confidence in our future. In all this, remember that we do not
want war. It is the last thing anyone wants. These intrigues between
traitors here and enemies in the States may betray us into war, but
if it comes, it will not be the fault of the Canadian people, or the
great mass of the right-thinking people of the United States. We only
want to be let alone. We have everything a nation requires, we have an
immense territory and resources, we are as free as air, with as good
institutions as any country in the world. We do not wish to lose our
nationality or to join a country for mere mercenary considerations
where, in addition to a thousand other disadvantages, we would have to
pay more as our share of the pension fund alone than the whole interest
on our present national debt. We have nothing whatever to fight for;
we don't even require their market unless we can get it on equal and
honourable terms. We do not intend, as some advise, to kneel down in
the gutter in front of our neighbour's place of business, and put up
our hands and blubber and beg him to trade with us. Such a course would
be humiliating to the self-respect of a professional tramp. A war could
do us no good--could give us no advantage we do not now possess, save
that it would rid us of our traitors. It would be a fearful struggle,
and, no matter how successful we might be, would bring untold loss and
suffering upon our people. This professor of history, who asks if we
want war, ought to know that every attempt in the past to carry out his
views has resulted in bloodshed. In 1775 our people fought against the
idea. In 1812 they fought again in the same cause. In 1837, in spite
of real grievances, all was forgotten in the loyalty of the Canadians,
and once more by bloodshed the feeling of the people was manifested. On
the 27th October, 1874, the _Globe_ editorially told him that what he
was advocating simply meant revolution, and yet this man who is taking
a course that he knows leads in the direction of war and bloodshed
has the impudence to charge loyal men who are working in the opposite
direction with wanting war.
The Swiss have for 500 years celebrated their battle anniversaries
and honoured their flag and taught patriotism and military drill to
their children. Their whole male population is drilled, and yet no one
charges them with being an aggressive or "jingo" race; no one ever
dreams that they desire war. It is a fallacious and childish argument
to say that this kind of national spirit in itself indicates an
aggressive feeling. If so, the United States must be a most aggressive
race, for no country waves her flag more persistently with cause or
without; no country more generally decorates the graves of her dead
soldiers, and no country is erecting so many military monuments, and I
respect them for it. By all means let us live on friendly terms with
our neighbours, but certainly no people would despise us as much as
they would were all Canadians so cowardly and contemptible as some
sojourners here wish us to be.
The census returns seem to cause great satisfaction to our enemies.
The progress has not been as fast as some could wish, and the exodus
of our people is much talked of. The only trouble I find is that the
exodus is not as extensive as it should be. The man who cannot get on
here, or who is dissatisfied with Canada or her institutions, is right
to go to the country he likes best. It does not cost much to go, and,
if he wishes, by all means let him go. The man to be despised is he
who, dissatisfied here, remains here, and, using the vantage ground of
residence in the country, exerts every effort to injure and destroy it.
If a few of this class would join the exodus, instead of doing all they
can to increase it, it would be a blessing, and in the end increase
materially both our population and our prosperity. Strength does not
consist so much in numbers as in quality. When Hannibal was crossing
into Italy he called for volunteers to stay behind to garrison some
posts; not that he required them, but because he desired to rid himself
of the half-hearted. Some thousands volunteered to remain. He then
considered his army much stronger than when it was more numerous,
because the weak element was gone. Shakespeare, that great master of
human nature, puts the same idea in Henry V.'s mouth on the eve of
Agincourt, when in the face of fearful danger:
Oh, do not wish one more;
Rather proclaim it, Westmoreland, through my host
That he who hath no stomach to this fight
Let him depart; his passport shall be made
And crowns for convoy put into his purse:
We would not die in that man's company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.
It is this very exodus of the dissatisfied from Canada that makes our
people more united and determined. We have about 5,000,000 of people
anyway, about equal to the population of England when she faced Spain,
about equal to the population of Prussia when, under Frederick the
Great, she waged a triumphant war against a combination of Powers of
about 100,000,000.
The remarks about the copyright law are really too funny. The professor
says that the anti-British feeling in the States is dying out, "and
its death will be hastened by the International Copyright Law, because
hitherto the unfair competition to which American writers were exposed
with pirated English works has helped to embitter them against
England." Their hatred is not against their own countrymen, who, with
the consent of the nation, have pirated English books, and sold them
in competition against their native writings, but it is vented against
the poor, innocent English author, whose property has been taken from
him, much against his will and to his great loss. There is not a man in
all the United States who would imagine so mean an idea. Space will not
admit of answering one-half the misrepresentations and false arguments
in this lecture on "Jingoism." The utter indifference to facts and
to the teachings of history, when they do not aid his arguments,
gives this lecturer an advantage from which a more scrupulous writer
is debarred. Take for instance his reference to the calmness and
freedom in the States during the civil war. His statement that "civil
law prevailed, personal liberty was enjoyed, the press was free, and
criticised without reserve the acts of the Government and the conduct
of the war" seems strange to any who remember the history of the time
when Seward's "little bell" could put any citizen in the northern
states in prison without warrant or trial; when Fort Lafayette in New
York harbour, the old capitol at Washington, Fort McHenry at Baltimore,
and Fort Warren at Boston were filled to overflowing with political
prisoners; when newspapers were suspended and editors imprisoned, when
Clement Vallandigham, one of the foremost men in the United States,
was imprisoned and then banished for criticising the policy of the
Government.
He speaks of his sympathy with the "Canada First" movement, of which
I was one of the originators and for which I chose the motto "Canada
First," the idea being that we were to put our country first, before
all personal or party considerations. We began our work by endeavouring
to stir up and foster a national spirit. Charles Mair wrote a series of
letters from Fort Garry to the _Globe_ in 1869, before the North-West
territories became part of Canada, advocating the opening of that
country. His letters were filled with the loyal Canadian spirit. Robert
G. Haliburton a year or two after went through the country lecturing
on "Intercolonial Trade," and "The Men of the North," and teaching the
same lesson. W. A. Foster about the same time wrote his lecture on
"Canada First," a magnificent appeal to Canadian patriotism, while I
lectured in different parts of the Dominion on "The Duty of Canadians
to Canada," urging the necessity of encouraging a strong national
spirit in the people. The professor says he gave the movement his
sympathy and such assistance as he could with his pen. He hoped, as did
one or two others who injured us by their support, to turn it into an
independence movement and make a sort of political party out of it, and
it melted into thin air, but the work of the originators was not all
lost, as Mair says in his lines in memory of our friend Foster:
The seed they sowed has sprung at last,
And grows and blossoms through the land.
The professor has in the same way been giving his sympathy and support
to the Reform party, advocating trade arrangements somewhat as they
do, and tacking on annexation, which they do not. His assistance
is blasting to the Reform party, and nothing but Mr. Mowat's manly
repudiation of his ideas could save the party from the injury and
damage that so unwelcome a guest could not fail to bring upon it. For
I have no doubt he is as unwelcome in the ranks of the Reform party as
his presence in Canada is a source of regret to the whole population.
The last words of his lecture are as follows:
"But at last the inevitable will come. It will come, and when it
does come it will not be an equal and honourable union. It will be
annexation indeed."
With this last sneer, with this final insulting menace, this stranger
bids us farewell, and only does so, partly because he thinks that in
his book and in his lectures he has done all that he possibly can to
injure our prosperity, to destroy our national spirit, to weaken our
confidence in ourselves and in our country; and partly also to disarm
criticism and somewhat allay the bitter feeling his disloyal enmity to
Canada has aroused. But we need not lose hope.
The instances I have given from the history of the past show that the
very spirit that has carried great nations through great trials has
manifested itself in all ages, just as the patriotic feeling of the
Canadian people has burst out under the stress of foreign threats and
foreign aggression, and under the indignation aroused by internal
intrigue and treachery. This feeling cannot be quenched. Our flag will
be hoisted as often as we will, and I am glad to notice that our judges
are seeing that what is a general custom shall be a universal custom,
and that where the Queen's courts are held there her flag shall float
overhead. All parties will unite in encouraging a national spirit, for
no party can ever attain power in this country unless it is loyal.
Mr. Mowat shows this clearly in a second letter which has just been
published in the _Globe_. We will remember the deeds of our ancestors
and strive to emulate their example. Our volunteers will do their duty
in spite of sneers, whether that duty be pastime or a serious effort.
We will strive to be good friends with our neighbours, and trade
with them if they will, putting above all, however, the honour and
independence of our country. In Mr. Mowat's words:
"We will stand firm in our allegiance to the sovereign we love, and
will not forget the dear old land from which our fathers have come."
If all this is "Jingoism," the Canadians will be "Jingoes," as that
loyal Canadian, Dr. Beers, said in his magnificent lecture at Windsor.
We would rather be loyal Jingoes than disloyal poltroons. If history
teaches us anything, it teaches us that a sound national spirit alone
can bring our native land to a prominent position among the nations of
the earth; and if thus animated, what a strength this country will be
to the British Empire, of which, I hope, we may ever form a part. Let
us then do everything to encourage this spirit. Let all true Canadians
think of Canada first, putting the country above all party or personal
or pecuniary considerations, ever remembering that no matter what the
dangers, or trials, or difficulties, or losses may be, we must never
lose faith in Canada. I will conclude with a few lines from one of
"The Khan's" poems, which appeared not long since in one of our city
papers, as they indicate the feeling that exists generally among native
Canadians:
Shall the mothers that bore us bow the head
And blush for degenerate sons?
Are the patriot fires gone out and dead?
Ho! brothers, stand to the guns,
Let the flag be nailed to the mast
Defying the coming blast,
For Canada's sons are true as steel,
Their mettle is muscle and bone.
The Southerner never shall place his heel
On the men of the Northern Zone.
Oh, shall we shatter our ancient name,
And lower our patriot crest,
And leave a heritage dark with shame
To the infant upon the breast?
Nay, nay, and the answer blent
With a chorus is southward sent:
"Ye claim to be free, and so are we;
Let your fellow-freemen alone,
For a Southerner never shall place his heel
On the men of the Northern Zone."
THE END
INDEX
A
Abbott, Sir John, 217
Abercorn, the Duke of, 299
_Aberdeen Journal_ on Newspaper Society's dinner, 302
Aberdeen, Lord, at National Club dinner, 239
Aberdeen, Mr. James Bryce's meeting at, 305
Abortive political movement, 56-61
Adams, Charles Francis, 109
Address, House of Commons to the Queen, 131
Adolphustown, meeting at, 64
Alaska acquired by United States, 98
Alaskan Award, 347
Algoma, contest constituency, 57
Allan, Hon. G. W., 65, 158
Allen, Benjamin, 78
Allen, J. Davis, visits Canada, 259;
visits Toronto, 260
Allen, Ethan, 109
Alverstone, Lord, on Alaskan Arbitration, 348
American Continental Congress, 2
Ames, Oliver, 109
Amnesty meeting, 41-45
Annexation letters to _Globe_, 121
Annexation manifesto of 1849, 4
Annual meeting, Imperial Federation League in Canada, 1888, 91;
1889, 128;
1890, 138;
1892, 195;
1893, 196;
1894, 204;
1896, 213
Annual meeting, Imperial Federation League (England), 1890, 142
Annual meeting, British Empire League in Canada, 1897, 223;
1898, 244;
1899, 248;
1900, 271;
1901, 285;
1902, 288, 289;
1903, 347
Annual meeting, British Empire League (England), 1902, 324
Appendix A, 369
Appendix B, 375
Archibald, Lt.-Governor, visits Niagara Falls, 36;
plot to forestall expedition, 45-47;
fails to meet Riel's emissaries, 48
Argentine export of wheat, 1897, 238, 239
Armour, Chief Justice, 347
Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hon. H. O., 199
Ashburton, Lord, 349
Atlantic and Pacific Fleets increased, 152
Atlantic Steamship Combine, 292
Avebury, Lord (Sir John Lubbock), 203, 206;
presides at conference, 207;
member of organising committee, 209;
British Empire League inaugurated, 212;
meeting at his house, 230;
at British Empire banquet, 280;
presides at Council meeting, 1902, 299;
at Congress, 358
Aylesworth, Hon. Mr., Alaskan Arbitration, 348
B
Badenach, Wm., 58
Badgerow, G. W., 58
Baines, Talbot, 300
Baker, Edgar, 78
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J., 76
Banquet, British Empire League in London, 1900, 271-280
Barrie, meeting at, 136
Barton, Sir Edmund, 280, 332, 334
Bastedo, S. T., 189
Beach, Sir Michael Hicks-, on food supply, 236, 334, 356
Beatty, W. H., 158, 197
Beers, Dr. W. Geo., speech at Syracuse, 126;
speech at Toronto, 137
Begg, Faithfull, M.P., 321, 322
Behring Sea fisheries, 147, 150, 151
Belleville welcomes Schultz, 27
Bennett, Capt. James, 26, 43
Beresford, Lord Charles, 320
Bernard, Lally, letter to _Globe_, 330
Bethune, R. N., 159
Biggar, C. W. R., 58;
on Sir Oliver Mowat, 186, 192
Birmingham Chamber of Commerce, 138
Blackstock, T. G., 197
Blain, Hugh, 58, 158, 197
Blaine, Hon. James, Behring Sea difficulty, 147, 151, 153;
_re_ Commercial Union, 163
Blake, Edward, at National Club, 239
Bliss, Cornelius N., 109
Board of Trade banquet, 1887, 88
Board of Trade banquet, Sir Oliver Mowat's speech, 193
Body Guard, Governor-General's, escort Lord Lansdowne, 73
Boer ultimatum, 264
Borden, Sir Fred, in England, 1902, 322, 331, 333, 334
Borthwick, Sir Algernon, 209
Boswell, Mayor, 64, 65
Boulton, Major Charles, 23
Boulton, Sir S. B., 321
Bourassa, Henri, 264
Bowell, Sir Mackenzie, 217, 244
Braddon, Sir Edward, 226
Brantford branch formed, 119
Brassey, Hon. T. A., 207
Brassey, Lord, 198, 209
Bristol Chamber of Commerce meeting, 316
British Columbia, union with Canada, 9
Brock, Sir Isaac, 15
Brock, W. R., 158
Brock's Monument, 158
Broomhall, G. S., 239
Brown, Hon. G., letters of Mair to _Globe_, 14;
Red River expedition, 34;
publishes Foster's lecture, 55;
Algoma election, 57
Bruce Mines, meeting at, 57
Bryce, Dr. George, 20
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James, at Aberdeen, 306, 315
Bull, Rev. Canon, 185, 186
_Bulletin_, New York _Commercial_, 106, 148
Bunting, Percy Wm., correspondence with, 178
Butler, General Benjamin F., 105
Butler, Sir Walter, 299
C
Caledonian Society dinner, 1888, 122
California absorbed by United States, 98