Produced by David T. Jones, Al Haines, Ron Tolkien & the
online Distributed Proofreaders Canada team at
http://www.pgdpcanada.net










                                  THE
                      STRUGGLE FOR IMPERIAL UNITY




[Illustration: logo]

                      MACMILLAN AND CO., LIMITED
                      LONDON · BOMBAY · CALCUTTA
                               MELBOURNE

                         THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
                      NEW YORK · BOSTON · CHICAGO
                        ATLANTA · SAN FRANCISCO

                   THE MACMILLAN CO. OF CANADA, LTD.
                                TORONTO

[Illustration: Colonel George T. Denison]




                           THE STRUGGLE FOR
                            IMPERIAL UNITY

                      RECOLLECTIONS & EXPERIENCES

                                  BY
                       COLONEL GEORGE T. DENISON

           _President of the British Empire League in Canada
                               Author of
"Modern Cavalry," "A History of Cavalry," "Soldiering in Canada," &c._

                      MACMILLAN AND CO., LIMITED
                      ST. MARTIN'S STREET, LONDON
              THE MACMILLAN CO. OF CANADA, LTD., TORONTO
                    THE MACMILLAN COMPANY, NEW YORK
                                 1909




                    RICHARD CLAY AND SONS, LIMITED,
                     BREAD STREET HILL, E.C., AND
                           BUNGAY, SUFFOLK.




                                PREFACE


Some fifteen years ago the late Dr. James Bain, Librarian of the
Toronto Public Library, urged me to write my reminiscences. He knew
that, as one of the founders of the Canada First party, as Chairman of
the Organising Committee of the Imperial Federation League in Canada,
then President of it, and after its reorganisation, under the name
of the British Empire League in Canada, still President, I had much
private information, in connection with the struggle for Imperial
Unity, that would be of interest to the public. He was therefore
continually urging me to put down my recollections in order that they
should be preserved.

I put the matter off until the year 1899, when I was retired from the
command of my regiment on reaching the age limit. I then wrote my
military recollections under the title _Soldiering in Canada_. This was
so well received by the Press and by the public that, being still urged
to prepare my political reminiscences, I began some years ago to write
them, and soon had them finished. In the early part of 1908 Dr. Bain
read the manuscript, and then asked me not to delay, as I had intended,
but to publish at once. Shortly before his death last spring, he again
expressed this wish. I have consulted several of my friends, and in
view of their advice now publish this book.

I have not attempted to write a history of the Imperial Unity movement,
but only my personal recollections of the work which I have been doing
in connection with it for so many years. I still feel, as I did when I
was writing my military recollections, that I should follow the view
laid down by the critic who said that reminiscences should be written
just in the style in which a man would relate them to an old friend
while smoking a pipe in front of a fire. I have tried to write the
following pages in that spirit, and if the personal pronoun appears too
often, it will be because, being recollections of work done, it can
hardly be avoided.

                                                     GEORGE T. DENISON.
  HEYDON VILLA, TORONTO,
                  _January, 1909_.




                               CONTENTS


                               CHAPTER I
  CONDITION OF AFFAIRS IN CANADA BEFORE CONFEDERATION                  7

                              CHAPTER II
  CANADA FIRST PARTY AND HUDSON'S BAY TERRITORY                       10

                              CHAPTER III
  THE RED RIVER REBELLION                                             17

                              CHAPTER IV
  THE RED RIVER EXPEDITION                                            33

                               CHAPTER V
  NATIONAL SENTIMENT                                                  49

                              CHAPTER VI
  ABORTIVE POLITICAL MOVEMENT                                         56

                              CHAPTER VII
  THE INDEPENDENCE FLURRY                                             62

                             CHAPTER VIII
  THE O'BRIEN EPISODE                                                 69

                              CHAPTER IX
  THE IMPERIAL FEDERATION LEAGUE                                      77

                               CHAPTER X
  COMMERCIAL UNION                                                    81

                              CHAPTER XI
  IMPERIAL FEDERATION LEAGUE IN CANADA                                85

                              CHAPTER XII
  COMMERCIAL UNION A TREASONABLE CONSPIRACY                           98

                             CHAPTER XIII
  THE YEARS 1888 AND 1889, WORK OF THE IMPERIAL FEDERATION LEAGUE    117

                              CHAPTER XIV
  THE YEAR 1890                                                      130

                              CHAPTER XV
  VISIT TO ENGLAND, 1890                                             138

                              CHAPTER XVI
  THE GREAT ELECTION OF 1891                                         155

                             CHAPTER XVII
  CONTEST WITH GOLDWIN SMITH                                         168

                             CHAPTER XVIII
  DISSOLUTION OF THE IMPERIAL FEDERATION LEAGUE IN ENGLAND           194

                              CHAPTER XIX
  ORGANISATION OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE LEAGUE                          206

                              CHAPTER XX
  MISSION TO ENGLAND, 1897                                           225

                              CHAPTER XXI
  THE WEST INDIAN PREFERENCE                                         242

                             CHAPTER XXII
  1899: ESTABLISHMENT OF EMPIRE DAY                                  248

                             CHAPTER XXIII
  THE SOUTH AFRICAN WAR                                              258

                             CHAPTER XXIV
  1900: BRITISH EMPIRE LEAGUE BANQUET IN LONDON                      271

                              CHAPTER XXV
  WORK IN CANADA IN 1901                                             285

                             CHAPTER XXVI
  MISSION TO ENGLAND IN 1902                                         291

                             CHAPTER XXVII
  CORRESPONDENCE WITH MR. CHAMBERLAIN                                338

  CHAPTER XXVIII
  CONGRESS OF CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE OF THE EMPIRE, 1906               356

                             APPENDIX _A_
  SPEECH IN REPLY TO SIR C. DILKE                                    371

                             APPENDIX _B_
  LECTURE ON "NATIONAL SPIRIT"                                       377

  INDEX                                                              405

  COLONEL GEORGE T. DENISON                               _Frontispiece_

  FACSIMILE LETTERS                                      _facing p._ 114




                         INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER

                            A UNITED EMPIRE


The idea of a great United British Empire seems to have originated on
the North American Continent. When Canada was conquered and the power
of France disappeared from North America, Great Britain then possessed
the thirteen States or Colonies, as well as the Provinces of Quebec and
Nova Scotia.

The thirteen colonies had increased in population and wealth, and the
British statesmen burdened with the heavy expenses of the French wars,
which had been waged mainly for the protection of the American States,
felt it only just that these Colonies should contribute something
towards defraying the cost incurred in defending them. This raised the
whole question of taxation without representation, and for ten years
the discussion was waged vigorously between the Mother Country and the
Colonists.

A large number of the Colonists felt the justice of the claim of the
Mother Country for some assistance, but foresaw the danger of violent
and arbitrary action in enforcing taxation without the taxed having
any voice in the matter. These men, the Loyalists, were afterwards
known by the name United Empire Loyalists, because they advocated and
struggled for the organisation of a consolidated Empire banded together
for the common interest. Thomas Hutchinson, the last loyalist Governor
of Massachusetts, and one of the ablest of the loyalist leaders,
believed in the magnificent dream of a great Empire, to be realised by
the process of natural and legal development, in full peace and amity
with the Motherland, in short, by evolution.

Joseph Galloway, who shared with Thomas Hutchinson the supreme place
among the American statesmen opposed to the Revolution, worked
incessantly in the cause of a United Empire, and has been characterised
as "The giant corypheus of the pamphleteers." He was a member of the
first continental Congress and introduced into that body, on the 28th
September, 1774, his famous "Plan of a proposed union between Great
Britain and the Colonies."

In introducing this plan Galloway made some most interesting remarks,
which bear their lesson through all the years to the present day. He
said:

 I am as much a friend of liberty as exists. We want the aid and
 assistance and protection of the arm of our Mother Country. Protection
 and allegiance are reciprocal duties. Can we lay claim to the money
 and protection of Great Britain upon any principles of honour and
 conscience? Can we wish to become aliens to the Mother State? We must
 come upon terms with Great Britain. Is it not necessary that the trade
 of the Empire should be regulated by some power or other? Can the
 Empire hold together without it? No. Who shall regulate it?

Galloway's scheme was very nearly adopted. In the final trial it
was lost by a vote of only six colonies to five. This rejection led
Galloway to decline an election to the second Congress, and to appeal
to the higher tribunal of public opinion. The Loyalists followed this
lead, and the struggle went on for seven years, between those who
fought for separation and independence and those who fought for the
unity of the Empire.

The Revolution succeeded through the mismanagement of the British
forces by the general in command, followed by the intervention of three
great European nations, who were able to secure temporary command of
the sea.

The United Empire Loyalists were driven out of the old colonies, and
many found new homes in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Canada; some
also went to England and the West Indies, carrying with them the
cherished ideas of maintaining their allegiance to their Sovereign, of
preserving their heritage as British subjects, and still endeavouring
to realise the dream of a United British Empire.

For this cause they had made great sacrifices, and, despoiled of
all their possessions, had been driven into exile, in what was then
a wilderness. Men do not make such extraordinary sacrifices except
under the influence of some overpowering sentiment, and in their case
the moving sentiment was the Unity of the Empire. The greater the
hardships they encountered, the greater the privations and sufferings
they endured for the cause, the dearer it grew to their hearts, for men
value those things most that have been obtained at the highest cost.

In the war of 1812-'14 the intense spirit of loyalty in the old exiles
and their sons caused the Canadian Provinces to be retained under
the British flag, and when afterwards, in 1837, rebellion broke out,
fomented by strangers and new settlers, the United Empire Loyalist
element put it down with a promptitude and vigour that forms one of
the brightest pages in our history. In Nova Scotia the agitation for
responsible government was headed by Joseph Howe, a son of one of the
exiled Loyalists. Suggestions of rebellion to him were impossible
of consideration, and he held his province true to the Empire, and
succeeded by peaceful and loyal measures in securing all he wanted.

Then Great Britain repealed her corn laws instead of amending them, and
introduced free trade instead of rearranging and reducing her tariff.
She deprived Canada of a small advantage which her products up to that
time enjoyed in the British markets, and which was rapidly assisting in
the development of what was then a poor and weak colony. This act was a
severe blow to Canada, because it meant that Great Britain had embarked
on the unwise and dangerous policy of treating foreign and even hostile
countries as favourably as her own peoples and her own possessions.

This caused a great deal of dissatisfaction in some quarters, and in
the year 1849 some hundreds of the leading business men in Montreal
signed a manifesto advocating annexation to the United States. This
aroused strong opposition among the United Empire Loyalist element in
Upper Canada; the feeling soon manifested itself in a way which proved
that no pecuniary losses could shake the deep-seated loyalty of the
Canadian people. The annexation movement withered at once.

Seeing how severely the action of the Mother Country had borne upon
Canada, Lord Elgin, then Governor-General of Canada, was instructed
to endeavour to arrange for a reciprocity treaty with the United
States, or in other words to ask a foreign country to give Canada trade
advantages which would recompense her for what Great Britain had taken
away from her. The United States Government, either influenced by the
blandishments of Lord Elgin, or by a politic desire of turning Canada's
trade in their own direction, and making her dependent for her business
and the prosperity of her people upon a treaty which the United States
would have the power of terminating in twelve years, consented to make
the treaty.

It was concluded in 1854, and for twelve years during a most critical
period, when railways and railway systems were beginning to be
established, the great bulk of the trade of Canada was diverted to
the United States, the lines of transportation naturally developed
mainly from north to south, and the foreign handling of our products
was left very much to the United States. The Crimean war broke out in
1854 and lasted till 1856, raising the price of farm produce two-fold,
and adding largely to the prosperity of the Canadian people. The large
railway expenditure during the same period also aided to produce an
era of inflation, while during the last five years of the existence of
the treaty the Civil War in the United States created an extraordinary
demand, at war prices, for almost everything the Canadian people had
to sell. The result was that, from reasons quite disconnected from the
reciprocity treaty, during a great part of its existence the Canadian
people enjoyed a most remarkable development and prosperity.

The United States Government, although the treaty is said to have been
of more real value to them than to Canada, at the earliest possible
moment gave the two years' notice to abrogate it, and they did so
evidently in the hope that the financial distress and loss that its
discontinuance would bring upon the people of Canada would create at
once a demand for annexation. In a sense they were right; talk in
favour of annexation was soon heard from a few, but the old sentiment
of loyalty to the Empire was too strong, and the people turned to the
idea of the confederation of the Provinces and the opening up of trade
with the West Indies and other countries. The Confederation of Canada
was the result, and the Dominion was established on the 1st of July,
1867.

My object in writing the following pages is to describe more
particularly from my own recollection, and my own knowledge of the
facts, the movement in favour of the Unity of the Empire which has been
going on during the last forty years.




                               CHAPTER I

          CONDITION OF AFFAIRS IN CANADA BEFORE CONFEDERATION


The extraordinary change that has taken place in Canada, in every way,
in the last fifty years cannot be appreciated except by those who are
old enough to remember the condition of affairs about the middle of
last century. The ideas, sentiments, aspirations, and hopes of the
people have since then been revolutionised. At that time the North
American Provinces were poor, sparsely settled, scattered communities,
with no large towns, no wealthy classes, without a literature, with
scarcely any manufactures, and with a population almost entirely
composed of struggling farmers and the few traders depending upon them.
The population was less than 3,500,000. The total exports and imports
in 1868 were $131,027,532. The small Provincial Governments found their
duties confined to narrow local limits. All the important questions
were entirely in the hands of the Home Government. The defence was
paid for by them. British troops occupied all the important points,
and foreign affairs were left without question entirely in the hands
of the British statesmen. The Provinces had no power whatever in
diplomacy, and were interested only in a few disputes with the United
States in reference to boundary difficulties, which were generally
settled without consultation with the Colonial Governments, and with
very little thought for the interests or the future needs of the little
British communities scattered about in North America.

The settlements were comparatively so recent that men called themselves
either English, Irish, or Scotch, according to the nationality of their
parents or grandparents. The national societies, St. George's, St.
Andrew's and St. Patrick's, may have helped to continue this feeling,
so that in reference to the various Provinces there was not, and could
not be, any national spirit. Another cause that led to the absence of
national spirit or self-confidence was that Great Britain not only held
the power of peace and war in her own hands, but, as a consequence,
took upon herself the responsibility for the defence of the Provinces.
British troops, as has been said, garrisoned all the important points,
and all the expenses were borne by the Imperial Government. Canada had
no militia except upon paper, no arms, no uniforms, no military stores
or equipment of any kind. She depended solely upon the Mother Country;
even the Post Office System was a branch of the English Post Office
Service. One can readily imagine the lack of local national spirit.
Of course the loyalty to the Mother Country and the Sovereign and the
Empire was always strong, but it was not closely allied to the spirit
of nationality as attached to the soil.

When the Crimean war broke out, the British troops were required for
it, and Canada was called upon to raise a militia force for her own
needs. This she did. Ten thousand men were organised, armed, uniformed,
and equipped at her expense. They were called the Active Militia, and
were drilled ten days in each year. The assumption of responsibility
had an effect upon the country, and when the Trent difficulty arose the
force was increased by the spontaneous action of the people to about
thirty-eight thousand men. Four years later the Fenian raids took place
upon our frontier, and were repulsed, largely by the efforts of the
Canadian Militia. All this appealed to the imagination of our youth,
and as confederation was proclaimed the following year the ground was
fallow for sowing seeds of a national spirit.

The effect of confederation on the Canadians was very remarkable. The
small Provinces were all merged into a great Dominion. The Provincial
idea was gone. Canada was now a country with immense resources and
great possibilities. The idea of expansion had seized upon the people,
and at once steps were taken looking to the absorption of the Hudson's
Bay Territory and union with British Columbia.

With this came visions of a great and powerful country stretching from
ocean to ocean, and destined to be one of the dominant powers of the
world.




                              CHAPTER II

              CANADA FIRST PARTY AND HUDSON BAY TERRITORY


It was at the period when these conditions existed that business took
me to Ottawa from the 15th April until the 20th May, 1868. Wm. A.
Foster of Toronto, a barrister, afterwards a leading Queen's Counsel,
was there at the same time, and through our friend, Henry J. Morgan,
we were introduced to Charles Mair, of Lanark, Ontario, and Robert
J. Haliburton, of Halifax, eldest son of the celebrated author of
"Sam Slick." We were five young men of about twenty-eight years of
age, except Haliburton, who was four or five years older. We very
soon became warm friends, and spent most of our evenings together
in Morgan's quarters. We must have been congenial spirits, for our
friendship has been close and firm all our lives. Foster and Haliburton
have passed away, but their work lives.

    The seed they sowed has sprung at last,
    And grows and blossoms through the land.[1]

Those meetings were the origin of the "Canada First" party. Nothing
could show more clearly the hold that confederation had taken of
the imagination of young Canadians than the fact that, night after
night, five young men should give up their time and their thoughts to
discussing the higher interests of their country, and it ended in our
making a solemn pledge to each other that we would do all we could to
advance the interests of our native land; that we would put our country
first, before all personal, or political, or party considerations; that
we would change our party affiliations as often as the true interests
of Canada required it. Some years afterwards we adopted, as I will
explain, the name "Canada First," meaning that the true interest of
Canada was to be first in our minds on every occasion. Forty years have
elapsed and I feel that every one of the five held true to the promise
we then made to each other.

One point that we discussed constantly was the necessity, now that we
had a great country, of encouraging in every possible way the growth
of a strong national spirit. Ontario knew little of Nova Scotia or New
Brunswick and they knew little of us. The name Canadian was at first
bitterly objected to by the Nova Scotians, while the New Brunswickers
were indifferent. This was natural, for old Canada had been an almost
unknown Province to the men who lived by the sea, and whose trade
relations had been mainly with the United States, the West Indies, and
foreign countries.

It was apparent that until there should grow, not only a feeling of
unity, but also a national pride and devotion to Canada as a Dominion,
no real progress could be made towards building up a strong and
powerful community. We therefore considered it to be our first duty
to work in that direction and do everything possible to encourage
national sentiment. History had taught us that every nation that
had become great, and had exercised an important influence upon the
world, had invariably been noted for a strong patriotic spirit, and
we believed in the sentiment of putting the country above all other
considerations--the same feeling that existed in Rome

    When none was for a party
    When all were for the State.

This idea we were to preach in season and out of season whenever
opportunity offered. The next point that attracted our attention
was the necessity of securing for the new Dominion the Hudson's Bay
Territory and the adhesion of British Columbia. At this time the
Maritime Provinces were not keenly interested in either of these
projects, while the province of Quebec was secretly opposed to the
acquisition of the Territory, fearing that it would cost money to
acquire and govern it, but principally because many of the French
Canadians dreaded the growing strength in the Dominion of English
speaking people, and the consequent relative diminution of their
proportionate influence on the administration of affairs. The Hudson's
Bay Company were also dissatisfied at the prospect of the loss of the
great monopoly they had enjoyed for nearly two hundred years. They
continued the policy they had early adopted, of doing all possible
to create the belief that the territory was a barren, inhospitable,
frozen region, unfit for habitation, and only suitable to form a
great preserve for fur-bearing animals. This general belief as to the
uselessness of the country, and its remoteness and inaccessibility,
which prevented any full information being gained as to its real
capabilities, also had the effect of making many people doubtful as to
its value and careless as to its acquisition. As an illustration of
the ignorance and false impressions of the value of the country, it is
interesting to recall that when, in 1857, an agitation was set on foot
looking to the absorption of the North-West Territories, very strong
opposition came from a large portion of the Canadian Press. Some wrote
simply in the interests of the Hudson's Bay Company. Some wrote what
they really believed to be true. Now that Manitoba No. 1 hard wheat has
a fame all over the world, as the best and most valuable wheat that is
grown, it is interesting to read the opinion of the Montreal Transcript
in 1857 that the climate of the North-West "is altogether unfavourable
to the growth of grain" and that the summer is so short as to make it
difficult to "mature even a small potato or a cabbage."

The Government, under the far-seeing leadership of Sir John Macdonald,
were negotiating in 1868 for the purchase of the Hudson's Bay Company's
rights, and they sent Sir George Cartier and the Hon. Wm. Macdougall
to England to carry on the negotiations. Mr. Macdougall was a man of
great force of character, an able debater and a keen Canadian. We knew
he would do all that man could do to secure the territory for Canada,
and as far as the arrangements in the old country were concerned he was
successful.

In anticipation of the incorporation of the territory in the Dominion,
and partly to assist the Red River Settlement by giving employment to
the people, the Canadian Government sent up some officials and began
building a road from Fort Garry, now Winnipeg, to the north-west
angle of the Lake of the Woods. This was in the autumn of 1868. Mr.
Macdougall appointed Charles Mair to the position of paymaster of this
party, and at once we saw the opportunity of doing some good work
towards helping on the acquisition of the territory. We felt that
the country was misunderstood, and it was arranged, through the Hon.
George Brown, the proprietor and editor of the Toronto _Globe_, who
had for many years been strongly in favour of securing the North-West,
that Mair was to write letters to the _Globe_ on every available
opportunity, giving a true account of the capabilities of the territory
as to the soil, products, climate, and suitability for settlement.

Mair soon formed a most favourable opinion, and became convinced that a
populous agricultural community could be maintained, and that in time
to come a large and productive addition would be made to the farming
resources of Canada. He pictured the country in glowing terms, and
practically preached that a crusade of Ontario men should move out and
open up and cultivate its magnificent prairies. His letters attracted a
great deal of attention, and were copied very extensively in the Press
of Upper Canada and the Maritime Provinces. They were filled with the
Canadian national spirit, and had a great effect in awakening the minds
of the people to the importance of the acquisition of the country.
Reports of his letters got back to Fort Garry, and caused much hostile
feeling in the minds of the Hudson's Bay officials, and the French
half-breeds and their clergy. The feeling on one occasion almost led to
actual violence.

Six years before this, in 1862, John C. Schultz (afterwards Sir John
Schultz, K.C.M.G., Lieutenant-Governor of Manitoba) had arrived in Fort
Garry. He was then a young doctor only twenty-two years of age. He
at once engaged in the practice of his profession, as well as in the
business of buying and selling furs, and trading with the Indians and
inhabitants. He was born at Amherstburg, and had grown up and been
educated in the country where Brock and Tecumseh had performed their
greatest exploit in defence of Canada. He was a loyal and patriotic
Canadian. He had been persecuted by Hudson's Bay officials. Once he
was put in prison by them, but was soon taken out by a mob of the
inhabitants. Mair soon became attached to Schultz. They were about the
same age, and possessed in common a keen love for the land of their
birth. Mair told him of the work of our little party, and he expressed
his sympathy and desire to assist. In March, 1869, Schultz came down
to Montreal on business, and when passing through Toronto brought me
a letter of introduction from Mair, who had written to me once or
twice before, speaking in the highest terms of Schultz, and predicting
(truthfully) that in the future he would be the leading man in the
North-West, and he advised that he should be enrolled in our little
organisation. Haliburton happened to be in Toronto at the time and I
introduced Schultz to him and to W. A. Foster, and we warmly welcomed
him into our ranks. He was the sixth member. Soon afterwards we began
quietly making recruits, considering very carefully each name as
suggested.

Schultz went back to Fort Garry. The negotiations for the acquisition
of the Hudson's Bay Territory were brought to a successful termination,
and it was arranged that it should be taken over on the 1st December,
1869. Mr. Macdougall was appointed Lieutenant-Governor of the
Territory, and with a small staff of officials he started for Fort
Garry.

During this time Haliburton had been lecturing in Ontario and Quebec
on the question of "interprovincial trade," showing that it should be
strongly encouraged, and would be a most efficient means for creating
a feeling of unity among the various provinces. He also delivered a
very able lecture on "The Men of the North," showing their power and
influence on history, and pointing out that the Canadians would be the
"Northmen of the New World," and in this way he endeavoured to arouse
the pride of Canadians in their country, and to create a feeling of
confidence in its future. This was all in the line of our common desire
to foster a national spirit, which formerly, in the Canadian sense, had
not existed.




                              CHAPTER III

                        THE RED RIVER REBELLION


During this year, 1869, when the negotiations in England had been
agreed upon, the Canadian Government had sent out a surveying
expedition under Lieut.-Colonel Dennis. This officer had taken a
prominent part in the affair of the Fenian Raid at Fort Erie three
years before, with no advantage to the country and considerable
discredit to himself. His party began surveying the land where a hardy
population of half-breeds had their farms and homes, and where they had
been settled for generations. Naturally great alarm and indignation
were aroused. The road that was being built from Winnipeg to the Lake
of the Woods also added considerably to their anxiety.

The Hudson's Bay officials were mainly covertly hostile. The French
priests also viewed an irruption of strangers with strong aversion, and
everything tended to incite an uprising against the establishment of
the new Government. When Lieut.-Governor Macdougall arrived at Pembina
and crossed the boundary line, he was stopped by an armed force of
French half breeds, and turned back out of the country. He waited till
the 1st December, when his commission was to have come into force, and
then appointed Lieut.-Colonel Dennis as Lieutenant and Conservator
of the Peace, and sent him to Fort Garry to endeavour to organise a
sufficient force among the loyal population to put down the rebellion,
and re-establish the Queen's authority.

When Lieut.-Colonel Dennis reached Fort Garry, he went straight to Dr.
Schultz' house where Mair was staying at the time, and showed them
his commission. Schultz, who was an able man of great courage and
strength of character, as well as sound judgment, said at once that
the commission was all that was wanted, and that he would organise a
force of the surveyors, Canadian roadmen, etc., who were principally
Ontario men, and that they could easily seize the Fort that night by
surprise, as there were only a few of the insurgents in it, and those
not anticipating the slightest difficulty. This was the wisest and
best course, for had the Fort been seized, it would have dominated the
settlement and established a rallying point for the loyal, who formed
fifty per cent. of the population.

Colonel Dennis would not agree to this. On the contrary he advised Dr.
Schultz to organise all the men he could at the Fort Garry Settlement,
while he himself would go down to the Stone Fort, and raise the loyal
Scotch half breeds of the lower Settlements. This decision at once
shut off all possibility of success. Riel, the rebel leader, had ample
opportunity not only to fill Fort Garry with French half breeds, but it
enabled him to cut off and besiege Dr. Schultz and the Canadians who
had gathered at his house for protection.

When matters had got to this point Colonel Dennis lost heart, abandoned
his levies at the Stone Fort in the night, leaving an order for them to
disperse and return to their homes. He escaped to the United States by
making a wide _détour_. Schultz and his party had to surrender and were
put into prison. Mair, Dr. Lynch, and Thomas Scott were among these
prisoners.

When the news of these doings came to Ontario there was a good deal
of dissatisfaction, but the distance was so great, and the news so
scanty, and so lacking in details, that the public generally were
not at first much interested. The Canada First group were of course
keenly aroused by the imprisonment and dangerous position of Mair
and Schultz, and at that time matters looked very serious to those
of us who were so keenly anxious for the acquisition of the Hudson's
Bay Territory. Lieut.-Governor Macdougall had been driven out, his
deputy had disappeared after his futile and ill-managed attempt to
put down the insurrection, Mair and Schultz and the loyal men were in
prison, Riel had established his government firmly, and had a large
armed force and the possession of the most important stronghold in
the country. An unbroken wilderness of hundreds of miles separated
the district from Canada, and made a military expedition a difficult
and tedious operation. These difficulties, however, we knew were not
the most dangerous. There were many influences working against the
true interests of Canada, and it is hard for the present generation to
appreciate the gravity of the situation.

In the first place the people of Ontario were indifferent, they did
not at first seem to feel or understand the great importance of the
question, and this indifference was the greatest source of anxiety to
us in the councils of our party. By this time Foster and I had gained
a number of recruits. Dr. Canniff, J. D. Edgar, Richard Grahame, Hugh
Scott, Thomas Walmsley, George Kingsmill, Joseph E. McDougall, and
George M. Rae had all joined the executive committee, and we had a
number of other adherents ready and willing to assist. Foster and
I were constantly conferring and discussing the difficulties, and
meetings of the committee were often called to decide upon the best
action to adopt.

Governor Macdougall had returned humiliated and baffled, blaming the
Hon. Joseph Howe for having fed the dissatisfaction at Fort Garry. This
charge has not been supported by any evidence, and such evidence as
there is conveys a very different impression.

Governor McTavish of the Hudson's Bay Company was believed to be in
collusion with Riel, and willing to thwart the aims of Canada. Mr.
Macdougall states in his pamphlet of _Letters to Joseph Howe_, that in
September 1868 every member of the Government, except Mr. Tilley and
himself, was either indifferent or hostile to the acquisition of the
Territories. He also charges the French Catholic priests as being very
hostile to Canada, and says that from the moment he was met with armed
resistance, until his return to Canada, the policy of the Government
was consistent in one direction, namely, to abandon the country.

Dr. George Bryce in his _Remarkable History of the Hudson's Bay
Company_ points out the serious condition of affairs at this time. The
Company's Governor, McTavish, was ill, the government by the Company
moribund, and the action of the Canadian authorities in sending up an
irritating expedition of surveyors and roadmakers was most impolitic.
The influence of mercantile interests in St. Paul was also keenly
against Canada, and a number of settlers from the United States helped
to foment trouble and encourage a change of allegiance. Dr. Bryce
states that there was a large sum of money "available in St. Paul for
the purpose of securing a hold by the Americans on the fertile plains
of Rupert's Land." Dr. Bryce sums up the dangers as follows: "Can a
more terrible combination be imagined than this? A decrepit Government
with the executive officer sick; a rebellious and chronically
dissatisfied Metis element; a government at Ottawa far removed by
distance, committing with unvarying regularity blunder after blunder;
a greedy and foreign cabal planning to seize the country; and a secret
Jesuitical plot to keep the Governor from action and to incite the
fiery Metis to revolt."

The Canada First organisation was at this time a strictly secret one,
its strength, its aims, even its existence being unknown outside of
the ranks of the members. The committee were fully aware of all these
difficulties, and felt that the people generally were not impressed
with the importance of the issues and were ignorant of the facts. The
idea had been quietly circulated through the Government organs that the
troubles had been caused mainly through the indiscreet and aggressive
spirit shown by the Canadians at Fort Garry, and much aggravated
through the ill-advised and hasty conduct of Lieut.-Governor Macdougall.

The result was that there was little or no sympathy with any of those
who had been cast into prison, except among the ranks of the little
Canada First group, who understood the question better, and had been
directly affected through the imprisonment of two of their leading
members.

The news came down in the early spring of 1870 that Schultz and Mair
had escaped, and soon afterwards came the information that Thomas
Scott, a loyal Ontario man, an Orangeman, had been cruelly put to death
by the Rebel Government. Up to this time it had been found difficult to
excite any interest in Ontario in the fact that a number of Canadians
had been thrown into prison. Foster and I, who had been consulting
almost daily, were much depressed at the apathy of the public, but when
we heard that Schultz and Mair, as well as Dr. Lynch, were all on the
way to Ontario, and that Scott had been murdered, it was seen at once
that there was an opportunity, by giving a public reception to the
loyal refugees, to draw attention to the matter, and by denouncing the
murder of Scott, to arouse the indignation of the people, and foment
a public opinion that would force the Government to send up an armed
expedition to restore order.

George Kingsmill, the editor of the Toronto _Daily Telegraph_, at that
time was one of our committee, and on Foster's suggestion the paper was
printed in mourning with "turned rules" as a mark of respect to the
memory of the murdered Scott, and Foster, who had already contributed
able articles to the _Westminster Review_ in April and October 1865,
began a series of articles which were published by Kingsmill as
editorials, which at once attracted attention. It was like putting a
match to tinder. Foster was accustomed to discuss these articles with
me, and to read them to me in manuscript, and I was delighted with
the vigour and intense national spirit which breathed in them all.
He met the arguments of the official Press with vehement appeals to
the patriotism of his fellow countrymen. The Government organs were
endeavouring to quiet public opinion, and suggestions were freely
made that the loyal Canadians who had taken up arms on behalf of the
Queen's authority in obedience to Governor Macdougall's proclamation
had been indiscreet, and had brought upon themselves the imprisonment
and hardships they had suffered.

Mair and Schultz had escaped from prison about the same time. Schultz
went to the Lower Red River which was settled by loyal English-speaking
half breeds, and Mair to Portage la Prairie, where there was also a
loyal settlement. They each began to organise an armed force to attack
Fort Garry and release their comrades, who were still in prison there.
They made a junction at Headingly, and had scaling ladders and other
preparations for attacking Fort Garry. Schultz brought up about six
hundred men, and Mair with the Portage la Prairie contingent, under
command of Major Charles Boulton, had about sixty men. Riel became
alarmed, opened a parley with the loyalists, and agreed to deliver up
the prisoners, and pledge himself to leave the loyalist settlements
alone if he was not attacked. The prisoners were released and Mair went
back to Portage la Prairie, and Schultz to the Selkirk settlement.
Almost immediately Schultz left for Canada with Joseph Monkman, by way
of Rainy River to Duluth, while Mair, accompanied by J. J. Setter,
started on the long march on snow shoes with dog sleighs over four
hundred miles of the then uninhabited waste of Minnesota to St. Paul.
This was in the winter, and the journey in both cases was made on snow
shoes and with dog sleighs. Mair arrived in St. Paul a few days before
Schultz.

We heard of their arrival at St. Paul by telegraph, and our committee
called a meeting to consider the question of a reception to the
refugees. This meeting was not called by advertisement, so much did
we dread the indifference of the public and the danger of our efforts
being a failure. It was decided that we should invite a number to come
privately, being careful to choose only those whom we considered would
be sympathetic. This private meeting took place on the 2nd April, 1870.
I was delayed, and did not arrive at the meeting until two or three
speeches had been made. The late John Macnab, the County Attorney, was
speaking when I came in; to my astonishment he was averse to taking
any action whatever until further information had been obtained. His
argument was that very little information had been received from Fort
Garry, and that it would be wiser to wait until the refugees had gone
to Ottawa, and had laid their case before the Government, and the
Government had expressed their views on the matter, that these men
might have been indiscreet, &c. Not knowing that previous speakers had
spoken on the same line I sat listening to this, getting more angry
every minute. When he sat down I was thoroughly aroused. I knew such
a policy as that meant handing over the loyal men to the mercies of a
hostile element. I jumped up at once, and in vehement tones denounced
the speaker. I said that these refugees had risked their lives in
obedience to a proclamation in the Queen's name, calling upon them to
take up arms on her behalf; that there were only a few Ontario men,
seventy in number, in that remote and inaccessible region, surrounded
by half savages, besieged until supplies gave out. When abandoned by
the officer who had appealed to them to take up arms, they were obliged
to surrender, and suffered for long months in prison. I said these
Canadians did this for Canada, and were we at home to be critical as
to their method of proving their devotion to our country? I went on to
say that they had escaped and were coming to their own province to tell
of their wrongs, to ask assistance to relieve the intolerable condition
of their comrades in the Red River Settlement, and I asked, Is there
any Ontario man who will not hold out a hand of welcome to these
men? Any man who hesitates is no true Canadian. I repudiate him as a
countryman of mine. Are we to talk about indiscretion when men have
risked their lives? We have too little of that indiscretion nowadays
and should hail it with enthusiasm. I soon had the whole meeting with
me.

When I sat down James D. Edgar, afterwards Sir J. D. Edgar, moved that
we should ask the Mayor to call a public meeting. This was at once
agreed to, and a requisition made out and signed, and the Mayor was
waited upon, and asked to call a meeting for the 6th. This was agreed
to, Mr. Macnab coming to me and saying I was right, and that he would
do all he could to help, which he loyally did.

From the 2nd until the 6th we were busily engaged in asking our friends
to attend the meeting. The Mayor and Corporation were requested to make
the refugees the guests of the City during their stay in Toronto, and
quarters were taken for them at the Queen's Hotel. Foster's articles
in the _Telegraph_ were beginning to have their influence, and when
Schultz, Lynch, Monkman, and Dreever arrived at the station on the
evening of the 6th April, a crowd of about one thousand people met them
and escorted them to the Queen's. The meeting was to be held in the St.
Lawrence Hall that evening, but when we arrived there with the party,
we found the hall crowded and nearly ten thousand people outside. The
meeting was therefore adjourned to the Market Square, and the speakers
stood on the roof of the porch of the old City Hall.

The resolutions carried covered three points. Firstly, a welcome
to the refugees, and an endorsation of their action in fearlessly,
and at the sacrifice of their liberty and property, resisting the
usurpation of power by the murderer Riel; secondly, advocating the
adoption of decisive measures to suppress the revolt, and to afford
speedy protection to the loyal subjects in the North-West, and thirdly,
declaring that "It would be a gross injustice to the loyal inhabitants
of Red River, humiliating to our national honour, and contrary to all
British traditions for our Government to receive, negotiate, or treat
with the emissaries of those who have robbed, imprisoned, and murdered
loyal Canadians, whose only fault was zeal for British institutions,
whose only crime was devotion to the old flag." This last resolution,
which was carried with great enthusiasm, was moved by Capt. James
Bennett and seconded by myself.

Foster and I had long conferences with Schultz, Mair, and Lynch that
evening and next day, and it was decided that I should go to Ottawa
with the party, to assist them in furthering their views before the
Government. In the meantime Dr. Canniff and other members of the party
had sent word to friends at Cobourg, Belleville, Prescott, etc., to
organise demonstrations of welcome to the loyalists at the different
points.

A large number of our friends and sympathisers gathered at the Union
Station to see the party off to Ottawa, and received them with loud
cheers. Mr. Andrew Fleming then moved, seconded by Mr. T. H. O'Neil,
the following resolution, written by Foster, which was unanimously
carried:

 That we, the citizens of Toronto, in parting with our Red River
 guests, beg to reiterate our full recognition of their devotion to,
 and sufferings in, the cause of Canada, to emphatically endorse
 their manly conduct through troubles sufficient to try the stoutest
 heart, and to assure the loyal people of Canada that no minion of the
 murderer Riel, no representative of a conspiracy which concentrates
 in itself everything a Briton detests, shall be allowed to pass this
 platform (should he get so far) to lay insulting proposals at the foot
 of a throne which knows how to protect its subjects, and has the means
 and never lacks for will to do it.

At Cobourg, where the train stopped for twenty minutes, we were met by
the municipal authorities of the town, and a great crowd of citizens,
who received the party with warm enthusiasm, and with the heartiest
expressions of approval. This occurred about one o'clock in the
morning. The same thing was repeated at Belleville about three or four
a.m., and it was considered advisable for Mr. Mair and Mr. Setter to
stay over there to address a great public meeting to be held the next
day. At Prescott, also, the warmest welcome was given by the citizens.
Public feeling was aroused, and we then knew that we would have Ontario
at our backs.

On our arrival in Ottawa we found that the Government were not at all
friendly to the loyal men, and were not desirous of doing anything
that we had been advocating. The first urgent matter was the expected
arrival of Richot and Scott, the rebel emissaries, who were on the
way down from St. Paul. I went to see Sir John A. Macdonald at the
earliest moment. I had been one of his supporters, and had worked
hard for him and the party for the previous eight or nine years--in
fact since I had been old enough to take an active part in politics;
and he knew me well. I asked him at once if he intended to receive
Richot and Scott, in view of the fact that since Sir John had invited
Riel to send down representatives, Thomas Scott had been murdered. To
my astonishment he said he would have to receive them. I urged him
vehemently not to do so, to send someone to meet them and to advise
them to return. I told him he had a copy of their Bill of Rights and
knew exactly what they wanted, and I said he could make a most liberal
settlement of the difficulties and give them everything that was
reasonable, and so weaken Riel by taking away the grievances that gave
him his strength. That then a relief expedition could be sent up, and
the leading rebels finding their followers leaving them, would decamp,
and the trouble would be over. I pointed out to him that the meetings
being held all over Ontario should strengthen his hands, and those
of the British section of the Cabinet, and that the French Canadians
should be satisfied if full justice was done to the half-breeds, and
should not humiliate our national honour. Sir John did not seem able to
answer my arguments, and only repeated that he could not help himself,
and that the British Government were favourable to their reception. I
think Sir Stafford Northcote was at the time in Ottawa representing the
Home Government, or the Hudson's Bay Company.

Finding that Sir John was determined to receive them I said, "Well, Sir
John, I have always supported you, but from the day that you receive
Richot and Scott, you must look upon me as a strong and vigorous
opponent." He patted me on the shoulder and said, "Oh, no, you will
not oppose me, you must never do that." I replied, "I am very sorry,
Sir John. I never thought for a moment that you would humiliate us.
I thought when I helped to get up that great meeting in Toronto, and
carefully arranged that no hostile resolutions should be brought up
against you, that I was doing the best possible work for you; but
I seconded a very strong resolution and made a very decided speech
before ten thousand of my fellow citizens, and now I am committed, and
will have to take my stand." Feeling much disheartened I left him,
and worked against him, and did not support him again, until many
years afterwards, when the leaders of the party I had been attached to
foolishly began to coquette with commercial union, and some even with
veiled treason, while Sir John came out boldly for the Empire, and on
the side of loyalty, under the well-known cry, "A British subject I was
born, a British subject I will die."

After reporting to Schultz and Lynch we considered carefully the
situation, and as Lynch had been especially requested by his fellow
prisoners in Fort Garry to represent their views in Ontario, it was
decided that he, on behalf of the loyal element of Fort Garry, should
put their case before his Excellency the Governor-General himself,
and ask for redress and protection. After careful discussion, I
drafted a formal protest, which Lynch wrote out and signed, and we
went together to the Government House and delivered it there to one of
his Excellency's staff. Copies of this were given to the Press, and
attracted considerable attention. This protest was as follows:

                                                RUSSELL'S HOTEL, OTTAWA
                                                    _12th April, 1870_.

  MAY IT PLEASE YOUR EXCELLENCY,

 Representing the loyal inhabitants of Red River both natives and
 Canadians, and having heard with feelings of profound regret that your
 Excellency's Government have it in consideration to receive and hear
 the so-called delegates from Red River, I beg most humbly to approach
 Your Excellency in order to lay before Your Excellency a statement of
 the circumstances under which these men were appointed in order that
 they may not be received or recognised as the true representatives of
 the people of Red River.

 These so-called delegates, Father Richot and Mr. Scott, were both
 among the first organisers and promoters of the outbreak, and have
 been supporters and associates of Mr. Riel and his faction from that
 time to the present.

 When the delegates were appointed at the convention the undersigned,
 as well as some fifty others of the loyal people, were in prison on
 account of having obeyed the Queen's proclamation issued by Governor
 Macdougall. Riel had possession of the Fort, and most of the arms, and
 a reign of terror existed throughout the whole settlement.

 When the question came up in the convention, Riel took upon himself to
 nominate Father Richot and Mr. Scott, and the convention, unable to
 resist, overawed by an armed force, tacitly acquiesced.

 Some time after their nomination a rising took place to release the
 prisoners, and seven hundred men gathered in opposition to Riel's
 government, and, having obtained the release of their prisoners,
 and declared that they would not recognise Riel's authority, they
 separated.

 In the name and on behalf of the loyal people of Red River, comprising
 about two-thirds of the whole population, I most humbly but firmly
 enter the strongest protest against the reception of Father Richot
 and Mr. Scott, as representing the inhabitants of Red River, as they
 are simply the delegates of an armed minority.

 I have also the honour to request that Your Excellency will be pleased
 to direct that, in the event of an audience being granted to these
 so-called delegates, that I may be confronted with them and given an
 opportunity of refuting any false representations, and of expressing
 at the same time the views and wishes of the loyal portion of the
 inhabitants.

 I have also the honour of informing Your Excellency that Thomas Scott,
 one of our loyal subjects, has been cruelly murdered by Mr. Riel and
 his associates, and that these so-called delegates were present at the
 time of the murder, and are now here as the representatives before
 Your Excellency of the council which confirmed the sentence.

 I have also the honour to inform Your Excellency, that should Your
 Excellency deem it advisable, I am prepared to provide the most ample
 evidence to confirm the accuracy and truth of all the statements I
 have here made.

  I have the honour to be
          Your Excellency's most humble and obedient servant,
                                                           JAMES LYNCH.

I believe this was cabled by his Excellency to the Home Government.
In the meantime Foster and our friends in Toronto were active in the
endeavour to prevent the reception of Richot and Scott. A brother of
the murdered Scott happened to be in Toronto, and on his application
a warrant was issued by Alexander Macnabb, the Police Magistrate
of Toronto, for the arrest of the two delegates, on the charge of
aiding and abetting in the murder. This warrant was sent to the Chief
of Police of Ottawa, with a request to have it executed, and the
prisoners sent to Toronto. Foster wrote to me and asked me to see the
Chief of Police and press the matter. When I saw the Chief he denied
having received it. I took him with me to the Post Office, and we asked
for the letter containing it. The officials denied having it. I said
at once that there was some underhand work, and that we would give the
information to the Press, and that it would arouse great indignation.
I was requested to be patient until further search could be made. It
was soon found, and I went before the Ottawa Police Magistrate, and
proved the warrant, as I knew Mr. Macnabb's signature. Then the men
were arrested. We discovered afterwards that the warrant had been taken
immediately on its arrival to Sir John A. Macdonald, and by him handed
to John Hillyard Cameron, Q.C., then a member of the House of Commons,
and a very prominent barrister, in order that he should devise some
method of meeting it. This was the cause of the Chief of Police denying
that he had received it. Mr. Scott, the complainant, came down to
Ottawa, and as we feared Mr. McNabb had no jurisdiction in the case, a
new information was sworn out in Ottawa before the Police Magistrate of
that City.

Richot and Scott were discharged on the Toronto warrant, and then
arrested on the new warrant. The case was adjourned for some days, but
it was impossible to get any definite evidence, as the loyal refugees
had been in prison, and knew nothing of what had happened except from
the popular report. Richot and Scott were therefore discharged, and
were received by the Government, and many concessions granted to the
rebels.




                              CHAPTER IV

                       THE RED RIVER EXPEDITION


During the spring of 1870 there had been an agitation in favour of
sending an expedition of troops to the Red River Settlement, to restore
the Queen's authority, to protect the loyal people still there, and
to give security to the exiles who desired to return to their homes.
The Canada First group had taken an active part in this agitation, and
had urged strongly that Colonel Wolseley (now Field-Marshal Viscount
Wolseley) should be sent in command. We knew that under his directions
the expedition would be successfully conducted, and that not only would
he have no sympathy with the enemy, but that he would not be a party
to any dishonest methods or underhand plotting. He had commanded the
camp of cadets at La Prairie in 1865, and had gained the confidence of
them all; afterwards at the camp at Thorold in August and September,
1866, he had nearly all the Ontario battalions of militia pass under
his command, so that there was no man in Canada who stood out more
prominently in the eyes of the people.

Popular opinion fixed upon Colonel Wolseley with unanimity for
the command, and the Government, although very anxious to send
Colonel Robertson Ross, Adjutant-General, could not stem the tide,
particularly as the Mother Country was sending a third of the
expedition and paying a share of the cost, and General Lindsay, who
commanded the Imperial forces in Canada, was fully aware of Colonel
Wolseley's high qualifications and fitness for the position.

The expedition was soon organised under Colonel Wolseley's skilful
leadership, and he started for Port Arthur from Toronto on the 21st
May, 1870. The Hon. George Brown had asked me to go up with the
expedition as correspondent for the _Globe_, and Colonel Wolseley had
urged me strongly to accept the offer and go with him. I should have
liked immensely to have taken part in the expedition, but we were
doubtful of the good faith of the Government, on account of the great
influence of Sir George Cartier and the French Canadian party, and
the decided feeling which they had shown in favour of the rebels. We
feared very much that there would be intrigues to betray or delay the
expedition. I was confident that Colonel Wolseley's real difficulty
would be in his rear, and not in front of him, and therefore I was
determined to remain at home to guard the rear.

From Port Arthur, the first stage of the journey was to Lake
Shebandowan, some forty odd miles. This was the most difficult part of
the work. The Government Road was not finished as had been expected,
and Colonel Wolseley was delayed from the end of May until the 16th
July, before he was able to despatch any of the troops from McNeill's
Bay on Lake Shebandowan.

It will be seen that the expedition was delayed nearly two months in
getting over the first fifty miles of the six hundred and fifty by
water which lay between Prince Arthur's Landing and Fort Garry. This
was caused by the fact that the first fifty miles was uphill all the
way, while the remainder of the journey was mainly downhill. Sir John
A. Macdonald was taken with a very severe and dangerous illness, so
that during this important period the control of affairs passed into
the hands of Sir George Cartier and the French Canadian party. This
caused great anxiety in Ontario, for we could not tell what might
happen. Our committee were very watchful, and from rumours we heard, we
thought it well to be prepared, and on the 13th July, Foster, Grahame
and I prepared a requisition to the Mayor to call a public meeting, to
protest against any amnesty being granted to the rebels; and getting
it well signed by a number of the foremost men in the city, we held
it over, to be ready to have the meeting called on the first sign of
treachery.

About the 18th July, 1870, Haliburton was at Niagara Falls and by
chance saw Lord Lisgar, the Governor-General, and in conversation with
him he learned that Sir George Cartier, Bishop Taché, and Mr. Archibald
(who had been chosen as Lieutenant-Governor of the new province) were
to meet him there in a few days. Haliburton suspected some plot and
telegraphed warning Dr. Schultz at London, Ontario, who sent word to
me, and on the 19th we had a meeting of our committee, and arranged at
once for the public meeting to be held on the 22nd. In the Government
organ, the _Leader_, of the 19th July was a despatch from Ottawa dated
the 18th in the following words:

 Bishop Taché will arrive here this evening from Montreal. The Privy
 Council held a special meeting on Saturday.

 It is stated on good authority that Sir George Cartier will proceed
 with Lieutenant-Governor Archibald to Niagara Falls next Wednesday
 to induce His Excellency to go to the North-West via Pembina with
 Lieutenant-Governor Archibald and Bishop Taché. On their arrival, Riel
 is to deliver up the Government to them, and the expeditionary troops
 will be withdrawn.

On the next day the same paper had an article which, appearing in the
official organ of the Government, was most significant. It concluded in
the following words:

 So far as the expedition is concerned we have no knowledge that there
 is any intention to recall it, but we would not be in the least
 surprised if the physical difficulties to be encountered should of
 itself make its withdrawal a necessity. How much better than incurring
 any expense in this way would it be for Sir John Young (Lord Lisgar)
 to pay a visit to the new Province, there to assume the reins of the
 Government on behalf of the Queen, see it passed over properly to Mr.
 Archibald, who is so much respected there, and then establish a local
 force, instead of endeavouring to forward foot and artillery through
 the almost impassable swamps of the long stretch of country lying
 between Fort William and Fort Garry. Should the Government entertain
 such an idea as this and successfully carry it out, the time would be
 short indeed within which the public would learn to be grateful for
 the adoption of so wise a policy.

This gave us the opportunity to take decisive action. We had already
been dreading some such plot which, if successful, would have been
disastrous to our hopes of opening up the North-West. If the expedition
had been withdrawn, what security would the loyalist leaders have had
as to their safety, after the murder of Scott, and the recognition
and endorsation of the murderers? It was essential that the expedition
should go on. On the first suspicion of difficulty, I had written to
Colonel Wolseley and warned him of the danger, and urged him to push
on, and not encourage any messages from the rear. Letters were written
to officers on the expedition to impede and delay any messengers who
might be sent up, and in case the troops were ordered home, the idea
was conveyed to the Ontario men to let the regulars go back, but for
them to take their boats and provisions and go on at all hazards.

Hearing on the 19th that Cartier and Taché were coming through Toronto
the next night on their way to Niagara, our committee planned a hostile
demonstration and were arranging to burn Cartier's effigy at the
station. Something of this leaked out and Lieutenant-Colonel Durie,
District Adjutant-General commanding in Toronto, attempted to arrange
for a guard of honour to meet Cartier, who was Minister of Militia, in
order to protect him. Lt.-Colonel Boxall, of the 10th Royals, who was
spoken to on the subject, said he had an engagement for that evening
near the station, of a nature that would make it impossible for him
to appear in uniform. The information was brought to me. I was at
that time out of the force, but I went to Lt.-Colonel Durie, who was
the Deputy-Adjutant-General, and told him I had heard of the guard of
honour business, and asked him if he thought he could intimidate us and
I told him if we heard any more of it, we would take possession of the
armoury that night, and that we would have ten men to his one, and if
anyone in Toronto wanted to fight it out, we were ready to fight it out
on the streets. He told me I was threatening revolution. I said, "Yes,
I know I am, and we can make it one. A half continent is at stake, and
it is a stake worth fighting for."

Lt.-Colonel Durie telegraphed to Sir George Cartier not to come to
Toronto by railway, and he and Bishop Taché got off the train at
Kingston. Taché went to the Falls by way of the States. Cartier
took the steamer for Toronto, arrived at the wharf in the morning,
transferred to the Niagara boat, and crossed to the Falls. This secrecy
was all we wanted.

About the same time another formal protest was prepared and Dr. Lynch
presented it to his Excellency the Governor-General:--

     _To His Excellency_ SIR JOHN YOUNG, Bart., K.C.B., _&c., &c.,
                      Governor-General, &c., &c._

 MAY IT PLEASE YOUR EXCELLENCY

 I have on several occasions had the honour of addressing Your
 Excellency on behalf of the loyal portion of the inhabitants of the
 Red River Settlement, and having heard that there is a possibility of
 the Government favouring the granting of an amnesty for all offences
 to the rebels of Red River, including Louis Riel, O'Donohue, Lepine
 and others of their leaders, I feel it to be my duty on behalf of the
 loyal people of the territory to protest most strongly against an act
 that would be unjust to them, and at the same time to place on record
 the reasons which we consider render such clemency not only unfair and
 cruel, but also injudicious, impolitic, and dangerous.

 I therefore beg most humbly and respectfully to lay before Your
 Excellency, on behalf of those whom I represent, the reasons which
 lead us to protest against the leaders of the rebellion being included
 in an amnesty and for which we claim that they should be excluded from
 its effects.

 (1) A general amnesty would be a serious reflection on the loyal
 people of the Red River Settlement who throughout this whole affair
 have shown a true spirit of loyalty and devotion to their Sovereign
 and to British institutions. Months before Mr. Macdougall left
 Canada it was announced that he had been appointed Governor. He had
 resigned his seat in the Cabinet, and had addressed his constituents
 prior to his departure. The people of the Settlement had read these
 announcements, and on the publication of his proclamation in the
 Queen's name with the royal arms at its head, they had every reason
 to consider that the Queen herself called for their services. Those
 services were cheerfully given, they were enrolled in the Queen's name
 to put down a rising that was a rebellion--that was trampling under
 foot all law and order, and preventing British subjects from entering
 or passing through British territory. For this they were imprisoned
 for months; for this they were robbed of all they possessed; and for
 this, the crime of obeying the call of his Sovereign, one true-hearted
 loyal Canadian was cruelly and foully murdered. An amnesty to the
 perpetrators of these outrages by our Government we hold to be a
 serious reflection on the conduct of the loyal inhabitants and a
 condemnation of their loyalty.

 (2) It is an encouragement of rebellion. Riel was guilty of treason.
 When he refused permission to Mr. Macdougall, a British subject, to
 enter a British territory, and drove him away by force of arms, he
 set law at defiance and committed an open act of rebellion. He also
 knew that Mr. Macdougall had been nominated Governor, knew that he
 had resigned his seat in the Cabinet, knew he had bid farewell to
 his constituents; yet he drove him out by force of arms, and when
 the Queen's proclamation was issued--for all he knew by the Queen's
 authority--he tore it up, scattered the type used in printing it,
 defied it, and imprisoned, robbed and murdered those whose only crime
 in his eyes was that they had obeyed it. It may be said that Riel knew
 that Mr. Macdougall had no authority to issue a proclamation in the
 Queen's name; a statement of this kind would lead to the inference
 that it was the result of secret information and of a conspiracy
 among some in high positions. This had sometimes been suspected by
 many, but hitherto has never been believed. An amnesty to Riel and
 other leaders would be an endorsation of their acts of treason,
 robbery, and murder, and therefore an encouragement to rebellion.

 (3) An amnesty is injudicious, impolitic and dangerous, if it includes
 the leaders. Some of those who have been robbed and imprisoned, who
 have seen their comrade and fellow prisoner led out and butchered
 in cold blood, seeing the law powerless to protect the innocent and
 punish the guilty, might in that wild spirit of justice, called
 vengeance, take the life of Riel or some other of the leaders. Should
 this unfortunately happen the attempt by means of law to punish the
 avenger would be attended with serious difficulty, and would not
 receive the support of the loyal people of the Territory, of the
 Canadian emigrants who will be pouring in, or of the people of the
 older Provinces. Trouble would arise and further disturbance break
 out in the Settlement. It would be argued with much force that Riel
 had murdered a loyal man for no crime but his loyalty and that he was
 pardoned, and that when a loyal man taking the law into his own hands
 executed a rebel and a murderer in vengeance for a murder, he would
 be still more entitled to a pardon, and the result would be that the
 law could not be carried out. When the enforcement of the law would be
 an outrage to the sense of justice of the community, the law would be
 treated with contempt. A full amnesty will produce this result, and
 bitter feuds and a legacy of internal dissension entailed upon that
 country for years to come.

 (4) It will destroy all confidence in the administration of law and
 maintenance of order. There could be no feeling of security for life,
 liberty, or property in a country where treason, murder, robbery and
 other crimes had been openly perpetrated, and afterwards condoned and
 pardoned sweepingly by the higher authorities.

 (5) The proceedings of the insurgent leaders, previous to the attempt
 of Mr. Macdougall to enter the Territory, as well as afterwards,
 led many to suspect that Riel and his associates were in collusion
 with certain persons holding high official positions. Although
 suspected, it could not be believed. An amnesty granted now, including
 everyone, would confirm these suspicions, preclude the possibility of
 dissipating them, and leave a lasting distrust in the honour and good
 faith of the Canadian Government.

 In respectfully submitting these arguments for Your Excellency's most
 favourable consideration, I wish Your Excellency to understand that it
 is not the object of this protest to stand in the way of an amnesty
 to the great mass of the rebels, but to provide against the pardon of
 the ringleaders, those designing men who have inaugurated and kept
 alive the difficulties and disturbances in the Red River Settlement,
 and who have led on their innocent dupes from one step to another in
 the commission of crime by false statements and by appealing to their
 prejudices and passions.

 I have the honour to be,
                          Your Excellency's most obe't humble Serv't,
                                                           JAMES LYNCH.

  QUEEN'S HOTEL, TORONTO,
              _29th June_.

This was also given to the Press and widely published.

The meeting for which, as has been said, a requisition had been
prepared, was called for the 22nd July, and in addition to the formal
posters issued by the acting Mayor on our requisition, Foster and I
had prepared a series of inflammatory placards in big type on large
sheets, which were posted on the fences and bill boards all over the
city. There were a large number of these placards; some of them read,
"Is Manitoba to be reached through British Territory? Then let our
volunteers find a road or make one." "Shall French rebels rule our
Dominion?" "Orangemen! is Brother Scott forgotten already?" "Shall our
Queen's Representative go a thousand miles through a foreign country,
to demean himself to a thief and a murderer?" "Will the volunteers
accept defeat at the hands of the Minister of Militia?" "Men of
Ontario! Shall Scott's blood cry in vain for vengeance?"

The public meeting was most enthusiastic, and St. Lawrence Hall was
crowded to its utmost limit. The Hon. Wm. Macdougall moved the first
resolution in a vigorous and eloquent speech; it was as follows:

 Resolved, that the proposal to recall at the request of the Rebel
 Government the military expedition, now on its way to Fort Garry
 to establish law and order, would be an act of supreme folly,
 an abdication of authority, destructive of all confidence in
 the protection afforded to loyal subjects by a constitutional
 Government--a death-blow to our national honour, and calls for a
 prompt and indignant condemnation by the people of this Dominion.

Mr. Macdougall in supporting this said that:

 There were many of our own countrymen there who had been ill-treated
 and robbed of their property, and whose lives had been endangered.
 Were we to leave these persons--Whites and Indians--without support?
 Was this the way that our Government was to maintain its respect? How
 could we expect in that or any other part of the Dominion, that men
 would expose themselves to loss of property, imperil their lives,
 or incur any hazard whatever, to support a Government that makes
 peace with those assailing its authority, and deserts those who have
 defended it.

Ex-Mayor F. H. Medcalf seconded this resolution which was unanimously
carried.

The second resolution called for the prompt punishment of the rebels.
It was moved by James D. Edgar (afterwards Sir James D. Edgar,
K.C.M.G.) and seconded by Capt. James Bennett, both members of the
Canada First group.

The third resolution read:

 Resolved, in view of the proposed amnesty to Riel and withdrawal of
 the expedition, this meeting declares: That the Dominion must and
 shall have the North-West Territory in fact as well as in name, and
 if our Government, through weakness or treachery, cannot or will not
 protect our citizens in it, and recalls our Volunteers, it will then
 become the duty of the people of Ontario to organise a scheme of armed
 emigration in order that those Canadians who have been driven from
 their homes may be reinstated, and that, with the many who desire
 to settle in new fields, they may have a sure guarantee against the
 repetition of such outrages as have disgraced our country in the past;
 that the majesty of the law may be vindicated against all criminals,
 no matter by whom instigated or by whom protected; and that we may
 never again see the flag of our ancestors trampled in the dust or a
 foreign emblem flaunting itself in any part of our broad Dominion.

In moving this resolution, I said, as reported in the Toronto
_Telegraph_:

 The indignation meeting held three months since has shown the
 Government the sentiments of Ontario. The expedition has been sent
 because of these grand and patriotic outbreaks of indignation. Bishop
 Taché had offered to place the Governor-General in possession of
 British territory. Was our Governor-General to receive possession
 of the North-West Territory from him? No! there were young men from
 Ontario under that splendid officer Colonel Wolseley who would place
 the Queen's Representative in power in that country in spite of
 Bishop Taché and without his assistance (loud cheers). We will have
 that territory in spite of traitors in the Cabinet, and in spite of a
 rebel Minister of Militia (applause). He had said there were traitors
 in the Cabinet. Cartier was a traitor in 1837. He was often called a
 loyal man, but we could buy all their loyalty at the same price of
 putting our necks under their heels and petting them continually. Why
 when he was offered only a C.B. his rebel spirit showed out again; he
 whined, and protested, and threatened and talked of the slight to a
 million Frenchmen, and the Government yielded to the threat, gave him
 a baronetcy, patted him on the back, and now he is loyal again for a
 spell (laughter and cheers).

I also pointed out how, if the expedition were recalled, we could, by
grants from municipalities, &c., and by public subscription, easily
organise a body of armed emigrants who could soon put down the rebels.
This resolution was seconded by Mr. Andrew Fleming and carried with
enthusiasm.

Mr. Kenneth McKenzie, Q.C., afterwards Judge of the County Court,
moved, and W. A. Foster seconded, the last resolution:

 Resolved that it is the duty of our Government to recognise the
 importance of the obligation cast upon us as a people; to strive in
 the infancy of our confederation to build up by every possible means
 a national sentiment such as will give a common end and aim to our
 actions; to make Canadians feel that they have a country which can
 avenge those of her sons who suffer and die for her, and to let our
 fellow Britons know that a Canadian shall not without protest be
 branded before the world as the only subject whose allegiance brings
 with it no protection, whose patriotism wins no praise.

The result of this meeting, with the comments of the Ontario Press,
had their influence, and Sir George Cartier was obliged to change his
policy. The Governor-General, it was said, took the ground that the
expedition was composed partly of Imperial troops, and was under the
command of an Imperial officer, and could not be withdrawn without the
consent of the Home Government. Sir George Cartier then planned another
scheme by which he hoped to condone the crime which Riel had committed,
and protect him and his accomplices from the punishment they deserved.

This plan, of course, we knew nothing of at the time, but it was
arranged that Mr. Archibald was to follow the Red River expedition
over the route they had taken, for the purpose apparently of going to
Fort Garry along with the troops. It was also planned that, when Mr.
Archibald arrived opposite the north-west angle of the Lake of the
Woods, he was to turn aside, and land at the point where the Snow Road
(so called after Mr. Snow, the engineer in charge of the work) was to
strike the lake, and proceed by land to Fort Garry. Riel was to send
men and horses to meet Mr. Archibald at that point, and he was to be
brought into Fort Garry under the auspices of the Rebel Government, and
take over the control from them before the expedition could arrive.

This is all clearly shown by two letters from Bishop Taché to Riel,
which were found among Riel's papers in Fort Garry after his hurried
flight. They are as follows:

          _Letter No. 1._--BISHOP TACHÉ _to_ PRESIDENT RIEL.

  MONSIEUR L. RIEL, PRESIDENT,

 I had an interview yesterday with the Governor-General at Niagara:
 he told me the Council could not revoke its settled decision to send
 Mr. Archibald by way of the British Possessions, and for the best of
 reasons, which he explained to me, and which I shall communicate to
 you later. We cannot therefore arrive together, as I had expected. I
 shall not be alone, because I shall have with me people who come to
 aid us. Mr. Archibald regrets he cannot come by way of Pembina; he
 wishes, notwithstanding, to arrive among us, and before the troops.
 Therefore he will be glad to have a road found for him either by the
 Point des Chenes or the Lac de Roseaux. I pray you to make enquiry in
 this respect, in order to obtain the result that we have proposed. It
 is necessary that he should arrive among and through our people. I
 am well content with this Mr. Archibald. I have observed that he is
 really the man that is needed by us. Already he seems to understand
 the situation and the condition of our dear Red River, and he seems
 to love our people. Have faith then that the good God has blessed us,
 notwithstanding our unworthiness. Be not uneasy; time and faith will
 bring us all we desire, and more, which it is impossible to mention,
 notwithstanding the expectations of certain Ontarians. We have some
 sincere, devoted and powerful friends.

 I think of leaving Montreal on the 8th of August, in which case it is
 probable I shall arrive towards the 22nd of the same month.

 The letter which I brought has been sent to England, as well as those
 which I have written myself, and which I have read to you.

 The people of Toronto wished to make a demonstration against me,
 and, in spite of the exaggerated statements of the newspapers, they
 have never dared to give the number of the persons present (?).
 Some persons here at Hamilton wished to speak, but the newspapers
 discouraged their zealous efforts.

 I am here by chance, and remain, as this is Sunday. Salute for me Mr.
 O. [O'Donohue?] and others at the Fort. Pray much for me. I do not
 forget you.

 Your Bishop, who signs himself your best friend,
                                                 A. G. DE ST. BONIFACE.


          _Letter No. 2._--BISHOP TACHÉ _to_ PRESIDENT RIEL.

                                               BOURVILLE, _5th August_.

  M. LE PRÉSIDENT,

 I well know how important it is for you to have positive news--I have
 something good and cheering to tell you. I had already something
 wherewith to console us when the papers published news dear and
 precious to all our friends, and they are many. I shall leave on
 Monday, and with the companions whom I mentioned to Rev. P. Lestang.
 Governor Archibald leaves at the same time, but by another road.
 He will arrive before the troops, and I have promised him a good
 reception if he comes by the Snow Road. Governor McTavish's house
 will suit him, and we will try to get it for him. Mother salutes you
 affectionately, as also my uncle. Mlle. Masson and a crowd of others
 send kind remembrances to your good mother and sisters. Forget not
 Mr. O. and others at the Fort. We have to congratulate you on the
 happy result. The _Globe_ and others are furious at it. Let them howl
 leisurely--they excite but the pity and contempt of some of their
 friends. Excuse me--it is late, and I am fatigued, and to-morrow I
 have to do a hard day's work.

                           Yours devotedly,
                                                 A. G. DE ST. BONIFACE.

These letters prove the plot and the object of it. There was also a
most compromising letter from Sir George Cartier, which was taken away
while Colonel Wolseley was a few minutes out of his room, attending to
some urgent business. The suspicion was that it was taken by John H.
McTavish, of the Hudson's Bay Company.

It is possible that the word that had been sent to keep back any
messages from the rear may have delayed and impeded Mr. Archibald's
progress, but whether that be so or not the fact remains that Mr.
Archibald lost two days trying to find the point where he was to meet
Riel's emissaries, and failing to make the junction he was obliged to
follow the circuitous route taken by the troops down the Winnipeg River
to Lake Winnipeg, and therefore he did not arrive "among and through
the people" of Bishop Taché. When he reached Fort Garry the Rebels
had been driven out, Colonel Wolseley was established in possession,
the British flag had been raised over the Fort, and Colonel Wolseley
was able to hand over the government of the country to the Queen's
representative without the assistance of Riel or his accomplices.

The successful arrival of the expedition, the flight of the rebel
leaders, and the confidence that further disorders could not be
successfully started, caused numbers of new settlers from Ontario to
move into the country, and the progress and development of the whole
Territory have since been most remarkable. Looking at the condition
of affairs now, it is hard to realise that a little indifference and
carelessness thirty-eight years ago might have delayed the opening up
of that great country for two or three generations, and it might easily
have happened that it would have been absorbed by the United States.




                               CHAPTER V

                          NATIONAL SENTIMENT


Sir John A. Macdonald was very ill during this crisis, and was unable
to take any part in public affairs, but the action of Sir George
Cartier injured the Government, and in the general election of 1872
Sir George himself was beaten by a large majority in Montreal and the
Government much weakened. The discovery of the Pacific Scandal followed
in the summer of 1873. This gave the public the information that the
Government had promised to Sir Hugh Allan and a few capitalists the
contract for building the Pacific Railway, in consideration of a large
contribution of between $300,000 and $400,000 towards the campaign
expenses of the Conservative or Government party in the late election.

After a bitter fight over it in the House of Commons, Sir John A.
Macdonald, seeing that his Government would be defeated, resigned
his position, and Mr. Alexander McKenzie and the Liberals came into
power. At the general election which took place in February, 1874, Mr.
McKenzie secured a large majority in the House of Commons.

During the stirring times in the summer of 1870, while the expedition
was on its way to Fort Garry, our committee were constantly meeting
to discuss matters and often met in my office. At one meeting it was
suggested that we should have a name for our party--the committee
had for some time been called jocularly the "Twelve Apostles."
Several names were mentioned, and someone said that Edgar had made a
suggestion. I walked across the hall into Edgar's office, and asked him
what he had suggested. He seemed to have forgotten the exact words,
but said, "Canada before all, or Canada First of all." I said, "That
will do: Canada First," and went back to my room and proposed it to the
others, and after some discussion it was unanimously decided that we
should call ourselves the "Canada First" Party, meaning that we should
put Canada first, before every other consideration.

To keep our party free from politics, and to cover our work, we decided
to have an organisation, called the North-West Emigration Aid Society,
which we could use to give out statements to the public, and to arrange
for meetings, &c., to push on our work.

In the autumn of 1870, following the lead given by Haliburton in his
lectures, I prepared a lecture on "The Duty of Canadians to Canada,"
and in 1871 I delivered it at Weston, Belleville, Orillia, Bradford,
New Market, Strathroy, Richmond Hill, London, Toronto, Brampton,
Halifax (Nova Scotia), Niagara, Wellandport, Dunnville, Chippawa, and
in 1872 at Niagara again.

This lecture was a direct appeal in favour of a Canadian National
Spirit. It began by showing that the history of the world was the
chronicle of the rise and fall of great nations and empires, of the
wars and invasions in which the lust of conquest on the part of rising
Powers, and the expiring struggles of waning empires, had been left
to the arbitrament of the sword, the nations rising and falling with
the changeability of a kaleidoscope. I pointed out that all the great
nations possessed a strong national spirit, and lost their position
and power as soon as that spirit left them, and urged all Canadians
to think first of their country--to put it before party or personal
considerations--pointing out that this sentiment, in all dominant
races, exhibited itself in the same way, in the patriotic feeling in
the individual, causing him to put the interest of the country above
all selfish considerations, and "to be willing to undergo hardships,
privations, and want, and to risk life and even to lay down life on
behalf of the State."

After showing a number of ways in which Canadians in ordinary life
could help Canada, I went on to say:

 If our young men habituate themselves to thinking of the country and
 its interests in everyday life, it will become in time part of their
 nature, and when great trials come upon us, the individual citizens
 will more readily be inclined to make the greatest sacrifices for the
 State.

Haliburton, in his lecture on "The Men of the North," made use of a
paragraph which I quoted. It shows the spirit which animated the Canada
First Party:

 Whenever we lower those we love into the grave, we entrust them to
 the bosom of our country as sacred pledges that the soil that is thus
 consecrated by their dust shall never be violated by a foreign flag or
 the foot of a foe, and whenever the voice of disloyalty whispers in
 our ear, or passing discontent tempts us to forget those who are to
 come after us, or those who have gone before us, the leal, the true,
 and the good, who cleared our forests, and made the land they loved
 a heritage of plenty and peace to us and to our children, a stern
 voice comes echoing on through thirty centuries; a voice from the old
 sleepers of the pyramids; a voice from a mighty nation of the past
 that long ages has slumbered on the banks of the Nile: "Accursed be he
 who holds not the ashes of his fathers sacred, and forgets what is due
 from the living to the dead."

I urged a confidence in our future as another great necessity:

 We have everything in a material point of view to make Canada a great
 country--unlimited territory fertile and rich, an increasing hardy
 and intelligent population, immense fisheries, minerals of every
 description, ships and sailors; all we further require is a moral
 power, pride in our country and confidence in its future, confidence
 in ourselves and in each other.

It has been sometimes said by those who knew little of the aspirations
of our party that there was a feeling in favour of independence among
us. The extract quoted from Haliburton's lecture shows how true he
was to the cause of a United Empire. I shall quote the concluding
paragraphs of my lecture, which are very definite upon the point:

 It must not be supposed that the growth of a national sentiment will
 have any tendency to weaken the connection between this country and
 Great Britain. On the other hand, it will strengthen and confirm
 the bond of union. Unfortunately England has reached that phase
 when her manufacturing and commercial community have attained such
 wealth and affluence, have become so wrapped up in the success of
 their business, and have acquired such a pounds, shillings, and pence
 basis in considering everything, that national sentiment is much
 weakened, in fact sentiment of any kind is sneered at and scoffed
 at as being behind the age. This school of politicians, fearing the
 expense of maintaining a war to defend Canada, calculating that in a
 monetary point of view we are not a source of revenue to them, speak
 slightingly of us, and treat the sentiment of affection that we bear
 to the Mother land with contempt.

 Nothing could be more irritating to a high-spirited people. We have
 the gratifying reflection, however, that the more we rise in the scale
 of nations, the more will this class desire to keep us, until at
 length every effort will be made to retain our affection and secure
 our fealty. It is our duty therefore to push our way onwards and
 upwards, to show England that soon the benefits of the connection in a
 material as well as a moral point of view will be all in her favour.

 I hope the day will come when the British Empire will be united into
 one great power or confederation of great nations, a confederation
 for the purpose of consolidating power as to foreign countries, and
 on all international questions; and rest assured, if we Canadians are
 only true to ourselves, the day will come when Canada will be not only
 the largest, but the most populous, the most warlike, and the most
 powerful of all the members of that confederation, if not the most
 powerful nation in the world.

I delivered this lecture, with a few slight changes, in Halifax, Nova
Scotia, on the 29th April, 1871, and the feeling then in that Province
against Canada and the name Canadian was so strong, that I changed the
title to that of "The Duty of our Young Men to the State." Haliburton
was then living in Halifax, and he had interested the late Principal
George M. Grant, of Queen's University, in our movement. Grant was then
a young minister in charge of a Presbyterian Church in Halifax. He took
an active part in getting up the meeting, which was largely attended,
and my lecture was favourably received. That was my first meeting with
Grant, and afterwards we were often closely associated in the movement
in favour of Imperial Unity, and were warm friends as long as he lived.
I shall often have to refer to him in the following pages.

Mair had been doing good work, delivering a splendid lecture in
Belleville in 1870. Haliburton had been delivering his lectures, and I
mine; but I felt that Foster, who had done such splendid work in the
editorial columns of the _Telegraph_, should also prepare a lecture. I
kept urging him until at last he began to write one. He used to bring
two or three pages at a time down and read them to me in my office. By
this time we had got thirty or forty members together and had formed,
as I have said, the North-West Emigration Aid Society, of which Joseph
Macdougall, son of the Hon. Wm. Macdougall, was secretary. The Hon.
Wm. Macdougall was then one of our members. On one occasion, when
the Society had issued a paper for publication, Mr. Macdougall had
induced his son to put in additional matter that had not come before
the Society. This did not please Foster, who asked six members of the
Society to sign a requisition calling a general meeting to consider the
matter. It was then decided that any publications issued by the Society
were to be brought before them first for approval.

It was not many weeks after this incident that Foster brought in the
concluding pages of his lecture and read them to me. I do not believe
any of the others knew anything about it. When he had read it all to
me, I said to him, "What are you going to call it?" He said, "I think
our motto, 'Canada First.'"

I thought that a good idea, and he wrote "Canada First" at the head of
it. I then asked him where he was going to deliver it. He was a very
shy fellow and he replied, "I am not going to deliver it." I said, "Oh
yes, you must. We will call a meeting." I knew we could get up a large
public meeting, and I wanted him to agree to read it, but he positively
refused. I then said, "You can read it here before our Society, and
then we can have it published in the papers"; and I wrote on the top of
it in pencil the words "Delivered before the North-West Emigration Aid
Society by Mr. W. A. Foster," and I showed it to him and said, "That
will look very well, and I am sure Mr. Brown will publish it." Foster
hesitated, but at last said, "Will you go and show it to Mr. Brown, and
ask him, if I read it before the Society, whether he will publish it?"
I agreed to do this.

I went to see the Hon. George Brown and explained the matter
thoroughly, and told him we were to get the MS. back, and have it read
before our Society, and then it would be given to him to be published.
Whether Mr. Brown forgot, or whether he thought he had some good matter
for his paper and wished to publish it before any other paper got wind
of it or not, or whether he thought the chronological order of events
was a matter of no moment, I cannot say. The result was, however, that
the second or third morning after, Foster came into my office early, in
a great state of excitement, and told me that the lecture was published
in full in the _Globe_ that morning, and that it had copied in large
type the pencil memo, which I had written at the top, "Delivered before
the North-West Emigration Aid Society by Mr. W. A. Foster." Foster was
very much troubled about it after his action about Macdougall, but our
friends were so pleased with it that no one complained.

This lecture was soon after published in pamphlet form and had a very
wide circulation throughout Canada. It was printed in the Memorial
Volume to W. A. Foster which was published soon after his death.




                              CHAPTER VI

                      ABORTIVE POLITICAL MOVEMENT


Shortly after these events some of our committee were anxious to make a
forward movement, to organise a political party to carry out our views,
and to start openly a propaganda to advocate them. I opposed this
strenuously, saying that the instant we did so the newspapers on both
sides of politics would attack us, and that they would have something
tangible to attack. The late Daniel Spry urged me very strongly that we
should come out openly. I opposed the idea and refused to take any part
in it, fearing that it would at the time injure the influence we were
beginning to exert.

Foster and I discussed the matter at great length, and my suggestion
was that we should go on as we had been going, and that if we ever
wished to hold public meetings Dr. Canniff, one of the "Twelve
Apostles," and the oldest of them, the author of "The Early Settlement
of Upper Canada," would always make an excellent chairman, and not
being a party man would not arouse hostility. I said, "If we organise
a party and appoint a particular man to lead, we shall be responsible
for everything he says," and repeated that the party Press would attack
him bitterly and injure the cause, which was all we cared for. Foster
supported my views, and during 1872 and 1873 we kept quiet, watching
for any good opportunities of doing service to the country.

In the general election of 1872 I was requested by the Hon. George
Brown and Alexander McKenzie to go up to Algoma, and either get some
candidate to run or run myself in the Reform interest against Lt.-Col.
Fred C. Cumberland, the sitting member for the House of Commons. I
arrived at Bruce Mines on the same steamer with Col. Cumberland, and
he called a meeting of the electors the same evening and asked me to
attend. I did not know anyone in the place, but Mr. Brown had given me
a letter to Mr. Peter Nicholson, which I presented to him and told him
I was going to the meeting. He urged me not to go, but I insisted. He
then said he would get a few friends, so that I would not be alone.
Col. Cumberland spoke for about an hour, and then called upon me to
speak, he well knowing I had come up to work against him. I asked him
to introduce me to the meeting, as I did not know anyone; this he did
in a very satirical manner. I then spoke for an hour, and attacked the
Government very vehemently for their Red River policy and on other
points. Very soon the whole meeting was with me, and after it was over
the people nearly all came over to Mr. Nicholson's store and insisted
that I should contest the constituency, and, finding I could not get
anyone else to run, I consented. Col. Cumberland withdrew the next day
from the contest, and the Hon. John B. Robinson was brought out in his
place. After a hard struggle I was defeated by a majority of eighty
votes. I fully expected to be beaten; in fact, I was surprised the
majority was not much greater. There was a very large amount of money
spent against me; so large that there was an inquiry in the House
afterwards, and something like $6,000, spent by the Northern Railway
Company against me, was, I believe, refunded to the company by the
directors or the Conservative party. This was my only attempt to enter
Parliament.

In November, 1873, I left for England and did not return until the
2nd February, 1874. Shortly after leaving an election came on, and
the late Chief Justice Thomas Moss was contesting West Toronto for
the House of Commons. Foster thought it would be good policy, as Moss
was sympathetic with our views, to organise the "Canada First" party
as a political organisation and as such to support Moss. He at once
took steps to organise it, and with the old organisation and a large
number of others the National Association was established. This was on
the 6th January, 1874. Of our old group there were W. A. Foster, Dr.
Canniff, Hugh Scott, Joseph E. Macdougall, C. E. English, G. M. Rae,
Richard Grahame, James R. Roaf, Thomas Walmsley, George R. Kingsmill;
and besides these a number of new associates--W. H. Howland, R. W.
Elliott, J. M. Trout, Wm. Badenach, W. G. McWilliams, James Michie,
Nicol Kingsmill, Hugh Blain, Jos. A. Donovan, W. B. McMurrich, G. W.
Badgerow, C. W. R. Biggar, W. H. Fraser, J. G. Ridout, W. E. Cornell,
W. G. Mutton, C. W. Dedrickson, J. Crickmore, Wm. Hessin, J. Ritchie,
Jr., R. G. Trotter, A. S. Irving, A. Howell, R. H. Gray, and Dr.
Roseburgh.

Foster did most of the work, and I have no doubt drafted the
constitution and the platform. He remembered what I had said, and
provided that the movement should be guided by an Executive Committee
of twelve, without any president or vice-president. The platform was
adopted as follows:

 (1) British Connection, Consolidation of the Empire, and in the
 meantime a voice in treaties affecting Canada.

 (2) Closer trade relations with the British West India Islands, with a
 view to ultimate political connection.

 (3) Income Franchise.

 (4) The Ballot, with the addition of compulsory voting.

 (5) A Scheme for the Representation of Minorities.

 (6) Encouragement of Immigration, and Free Homesteads in the Public
 Domain.

 (7) The imposition of duties for Revenue, so adjusted as to afford
 every possible encouragement to Native Industry.

 (8) An improved Militia System, under the command of trained Dominion
 Officers.

 (9) No Property Qualifications in Members of the House of Commons.

 (10) The Reorganisation of the Senate.

 (11) Pure and Economic Administration of Public Affairs.

It will be noticed that the very first plank in the platform was
"British Connection, Consolidation of the Empire, and in the meantime a
voice in treaties affecting Canada." This certainly was not favouring
either Independence or Annexation, and of the other ten items nearly
every point has since been carried into practice.

At the first public meeting, held on 6th December, 1873, Mr. W. H.
Howland was in the chair. He knew very little of our objects or
aspirations. He was the son of Sir Wm. P. Howland, who had been a
citizen of the United States, and had only settled in Canada some
fourteen years before W. H. Howland was born. Sir Wm. Howland was a
most useful and patriotic citizen, and during a very long life did
great service to Canada in various capacities, but neither he nor
his son had the inherited traditions of loyalty to the Empire which
animated the older Canadians, and the result was that at this first
meeting the chairman's remarks struck a discordant note in the minds
of the majority of the members of the National Association. "He held
that there was too much toadyism to English aristocratic usages in
this country. There was too much toadyism to titles. We would have no
aristocracy in this country but the aristocracy of merit, no order but
the order of merit, and the sooner the English Government recognised
the fact that the adornment of a man in this country with the feelings
they entertained was rather an insult than an honour to our people, the
sooner would they appreciate our real sentiment. Many Canadians who had
gone home had, he held, brought us into contempt by their toadying."

The result of this speech was most unfortunate. I believe he did not
speak for more than fifteen or twenty minutes, but in that time he
had practically killed the movement as a political organisation. The
committee were dissatisfied and disheartened; the political Press
seized at once on the weak points, and attacked the organisation for
advocating Independence, and charged it with being disloyal in its
objects. Mr. Goldwin Smith then joined it and hoped to use it for the
purpose of advocating the disruption of the tie which bound Canada to
the Empire. The National Club was founded by this organisation at this
time.

I returned to Canada shortly after the movement had been launched and
was at once appealed to by my old comrades to join and help to redeem
the party from the taint of Independence which it had acquired through
the unfortunate speech of W. H. Howland in introducing it to public
notice. I declined positively, telling them that it was too late, and
it would have to die a natural death. As a political party it lost
strength and soon died, its demise being hastened by the fact that it
gave encouragement to a few young men to come out openly in favour of
Canadian Independence, supported as they were by the great social and
literary status of Mr. Goldwin Smith, who has always been willing to
assist any movement likely to injure the unity of the British Empire.




                              CHAPTER VII

                        THE INDEPENDENCE FLURRY


The National Club soon ceased to be a political club and the National
Association gradually disappeared from public view. I joined it about
a year after its foundation, and was President of it in the years 1883
and 1884, and during the existence of the Club it has been the centre
of the sentiment "Canada First within the Empire," which has been the
dominant sentiment of the Canadian people for the last twenty years.

Mr. Goldwin Smith in the early years of the Club inaugurated a series
of dinners among the members where fifteen or twenty of us would dine
together and then discuss some public question of interest. These
dinners were popular, and Foster and I were generally present. On one
occasion Mr. Goldwin Smith gave out as the subject for discussion the
question as to whether "Annexation or Independence would be the best
future for Canada."

Mr. Smith was in the chair at one end of the long table, at which about
twenty or perhaps more were seated, and he opened the discussion by
pointing out some arguments for and against each alternative, leaving
it for the members to discuss as to which would be the best. I was in
the vice-chair at the other end of the table, and the speaking began on
one side of Mr. Smith, and came down that side of the table one after
the other to me. I was struck with the bad effect such a discussion
would have, in encouraging Canadians to argue in favour of either
Independence or Annexation, and when it came to my turn I simply said
that I could not argue in favour of either Independence or Annexation,
that I was vehemently opposed to both, and that if ever the time came
that either should have to be seriously discussed, I would only argue
it in one way, and that was on horseback with my sword. As I then
commanded the cavalry in Toronto and had sworn to bear true allegiance
to her Majesty, it was the natural way for me to put it. I sat down the
moment I had made this statement and the discussion went on. My remarks
were received as if I had spoken jocularly, but I think many of those
present sympathised with my way of looking at it. Mr. Goldwin Smith saw
that I had punctured the scheme, and referred to my remarks in the next
issue of his _Bystander_ for October, 1880, in the following terms,
which are in his best style:

 In Canada we have some curious remnants of the idea, dominant
 everywhere in days gone by, and still dominant in Islam, that
 intolerance on certain questions is a duty and virtue. The good
 St. Louis of France used to say that he would never argue with a
 heretic who doubted Papal doctrine, but give him six inches of cold
 steel; and we have lately been told that among ourselves there are
 questions which are to be debated only sword in hand. There are
 some special factors in our political composition, such as United
 Empire Loyalism, Orangeism, and the surviving sentiment of Anglican
 Establishmentarianism, which may explain the phenomenon without
 disparagement to our intellectual civilisation.

In a speech at a dinner of my regiment not long after, I spoke clearly
to them on the subject--and on the same lines. My views were received
with great enthusiasm.

For several years matters progressed slowly, a few young men advocating
Independence, among whom were E. E. Sheppard and Charles G. D. Roberts.
Mr. Norris and others were writing on the same line. Sheppard, who
then edited the _Evening News_ in Toronto, was the ablest of these
advocates, and carried on his campaign with great vigour and ability.
He designed a new flag and hoisted it over the _News_ office. In 1884
the Independence agitation was probably more in evidence than at any
period before or since. That year was the centennial of the arrival
of the United Empire Loyalists in Upper Canada, and it was decided to
hold a series of celebrations at Adolphustown, Toronto, and Niagara
in commemoration of the foundation of the Province. 1884 was also the
50th Anniversary of the establishment of Toronto as a city, and the
celebration of the two events was combined in meetings and festivities
which lasted several days. On Dominion Day there was a great review of
the Active Militia with regiments from various parts of the Province,
and one from Montreal. This large force paraded through the principal
streets to the Queen's Park, where they were reviewed, and then they
marched to the Exhibition Buildings, where the officers and men
were entertained at dinner. At the officers' dinner, Mayor Boswell,
Lieut.-Governor John B. Robinson, and I made the principal speeches.
The Toronto _Mail_ of the 3rd July, 1884, contained the following
article:

                   NUTS FOR THE INDEPENDENCE MONKEY.

 We offer the Cartwright party and their organ the following nuts to
 crack, taken from the report of the military banquet on Tuesday, to
 which we referred in our last issue.

 Mayor Boswell was next honoured. In responding, his Worship referred
 to the attempt which was being made in some quarters to introduce the
 question of independence or annexation into Canadian politics. He
 regretted this very much, but he was certain that no member of the
 Militia force would ever entertain such a proposal.

 Lieut.-Colonel G. T. Denison, in proposing the toast of the visiting
 corps, also referred to the same matter. He said that the Militia of
 Canada would remain true to its Queen and country. Before independence
 or annexation could be brought about, he said, "Many of us will
 have to be placed under the sod." His remarks were received with
 enthusiastic cheers, again and again renewed.

 The Lieutenant-Governor, in proposing the toast of Lieut.-Colonel
 Robert B. Denison, Deputy-Adjutant-General, also touched on the
 absurdity of the independence or annexation question. He felt
 satisfied that if it became a political issue, there would not be a
 constituency in Canada that would return a man in favour of it.

The United Empire Loyalist Centennial celebration took place in the
Pavilion, Toronto, on the 3rd July--the same day that the above article
appeared. It was a very successful meeting, there being representative
loyalists from all over Ontario. "Dr. Wm. Canniff was in the chair.
The speakers were the Hon. Senator G. W. Allan, Chief Green (a Mohawk
Indian, of Tyendinaga), Lieut.-Colonel George T. Denison, and Bishop
Fuller, of Niagara."

My speech was mainly directed against the Independence movement. I
showed how Canadians had always stood by British connection, and went
on to say:

 From whom comes this cry for independence? Not from the real
 Canadians, but from a few hangers-on of the newspaper Press--a few
 wanderers and Bohemians--men who have lived indifferently in Canada
 and the States, and have never been satisfied anywhere--men without
 an atom of stake in the country. And do you think that the people of
 Canada are going to submit themselves to the guidance of such men?
 Never. The Independence party in Canada can almost be counted on one's
 fingers and toes. The movement did not amount to anything, and the
 moment it did the real feeling of the country would manifest itself.

I was attacked very bitterly by the few Independence papers on account
of this speech, and the attacks continued for nearly six weeks. I was
invited to address the United Empire Loyalist Centennial celebration at
Niagara, which took place on the 14th August, 1884, and then replied
to some of the arguments used by them. On the question of national
sentiment I said:

 Sometimes it is said by strangers and aliens amongst us that we
 Canadians have no national sentiment, that if we were independent we
 would have more of it, and it is the fashion to speak loudly of the
 national spirit of the citizens of the United States. I take issue
 on this point, and on behalf of our people I say that the pride of
 the native Canadian in his country is quite equal to the pride of the
 Yankee in his, while the willingness to defend it in case of need is
 far greater in the Canadian.

 The strongest national sentiment that has yet been exhibited in the
 States was shown by the Southern people in their gallant struggle to
 destroy the Union. The national spirit shown by the Northerners where
 the bounties rose to about $1,800 a man, where patriotism consisted
 in hiring a man to go and fight while the citizen took a contract to
 supply the soldiers, as has been well said by their celebrated divine,
 Dr. Talmage, "With rice that was worm-eaten, with biscuits that were
 mouldy, with garments that were shoddy, with meat that was rank, with
 horses that stumbled in the charge, and with tents that sifted the
 rain into the faces of the exhausted." The patriotism shown by three
 thousand Yankee Militia almost in sight of this spot in 1812, when
 they refused to cross at Queenston to aid their comrades, whom our
 volunteers shortly afterwards cut to pieces under their eyes, was very
 different from the patriotism of the Canadians who crossed the river
 and captured Detroit, or those who fought at Chrysler's Farm, or those
 who drove back Hampton at Chateauguay.

 Can we call to mind the Canadians who came back to Canada from every
 State in the Union to aid in defending her from the Fenians without
 feeling that we have in our people a strong national sentiment?

 Wanderers and Bohemians, strangers and tramps may, because we are
 not traitors to our Government and our country, say that we have
 no national sentiment; they may not see or feel or appreciate the
 patriotic feeling of the Canadians, but we Canadians know that it is
 there. The Militia force is one proof of it, a finger-post to point
 out to all, that we intend to be a free people on this continent,
 and that, our liberties can only be taken from us after a desperate
 struggle.

 These wanderers and Bohemians, with the charming impudence of the
 three tailors of Tooley Street, speak of themselves as the people of
 Canada. It is the fashion of men of their type always to talk loudly
 of the people, as if they were the people. But who are the people?
 The people of this country are the farmers who own the soil, who have
 cleared the fields, who till them, and who produce the food that feeds
 us. The people of Canada are the workers who work in her factories,
 who carry on her trade, who sail her ships and spread her commerce,
 the citizens who build her cities and work in them. These are the
 people of Canada, not the few agitators who serve no good purpose, and
 whose absence would be a relief if they went back to the neighbouring
 Republic from which many of them have drifted in to us.

The result of these demonstrations so directly appealing to the
sentiments and feelings of the loyal element, which formed the vast
majority of the people, discouraged the disloyal element, and for a
year matters were rather quiet.

In March, 1885, the whole country was aroused over the outbreak of
the North-West Rebellion, and troops from all over Canada were sent
to aid in putting down the rebellion and re-establishing the Queen's
authority. One regiment came from Nova Scotia. The result of the affair
was to consolidate the Provinces into a Dominion, in a way that was
never felt before. This put the Independence movement quite out of
sight, and during 1886, and until May, 1887, matters remained dormant.
Particulars of the causes of this outbreak and some of the details of
the operations will be found in my "Soldiering in Canada," chapters XX.
to XXV.




                             CHAPTER VIII

                          THE O'BRIEN EPISODE


In the early part of 1887 the Irish party in Ireland had been
endeavouring to secure sympathy and assistance in the United States
and Canada, in favour of their demand for Home Rule. There was a very
large Irish population in Canada, and through their representatives in
our House of Commons and in the local legislatures they pressed for
resolutions in favour of the policy of Home Rule. The people of Canada
were not generally favourable to the movement, but the politicians on
both sides, who were anxious to obtain the Irish vote, did not hesitate
to support the Home Rule resolutions; little caring for the interests
of the Mother Country or the Empire, so long as their political
opponents did not obtain any advantage in the matter. The resolutions
were carried with remarkable unanimity. I was much annoyed, and wrote
to Lord Salisbury telling him to pay no attention to the addresses of
our politicians. I assured him that the silent masses of the Canadian
people were on his side on that subject, but unfortunately there was no
way in which the silent masses could make their views known.

The apparent unanimity of feeling in Canada, as shown by the action of
Governments and Parliaments, deceived the Irish Nationalists, and to
emphasise their power in Canada, Mr. Wm. O'Brien, M.P., announced that
he was going to Canada to drive Lord Lansdowne, our Governor-General,
out of Canada, amid the hoots and execrations of the Canadian people.
This was because he was an Irish landlord and had evicted some of his
tenants.

This was cabled across, and a day or two after I met Colonel Gzowski
(afterwards Sir Casimir Gzowski) on the street, and he told me that
Lord Lansdowne was coming to Toronto in a few days, and as O'Brien was
coming out, he thought we in Toronto should see that Lord Lansdowne
got a friendly reception. I saw the opportunity at once. I felt the
silent masses might have a chance to speak out, and said, "Leave that
to me: we will give him a great reception." Among other things it was
feared that the few disaffected might resort to violence against the
Governor-General.

A few days later, on the 26th April, 1887, I attended the St. George's
Society Annual Banquet, where I responded to the toast of the Army,
Navy, and Volunteers. The presidents of most of the benevolent and
patriotic societies of the city were guests at the dinner. The Premier,
Sir Oliver Mowat, sat next to me; the Mayor was present also, and a
very large number of prominent citizens. I saw what an opening there
was to start a movement in favour of the Governor-General, and spoke
in short as follows: I was speaking on behalf of the Army, Navy and
Volunteers, and drew attention to the fact that a great deal depended
upon the Volunteers--that only a few years before we had to turn
out, and go to the Niagara frontier to defend our country against an
invasion of Fenians from the United States. I said that the Irish of
that country had subscribed large sums of money, Irish servant girls
giving liberally out of their savings, to provide funds to organise
armed forces, to buy rifles and bayonets and swords and ammunition,
to be used in attacking a peaceful and inoffensive country in order
to devastate our fields, to shoot down our people, and rob us of
our property. I pointed out that I and my command had been sent to
Fort Erie, and that some of my comrades in the Queen's Own and other
Volunteer corps had been shot down, and many wounded, before we drove
the enemy out of the country. I thanked them for proposing the toast
of the "Volunteers," but went on to say, there was one thing, however,
that was very annoying and humiliating to us. The Fenians, having
failed to defeat us, were still carrying on their campaign against our
Empire. Money was being collected as usual in the United States in
large quantities, but instead of being used in the purchase of arms and
munitions of war, it was being expended in sending traitors into the
British House of Commons, and in maintaining them there to destroy the
Union, and make the first rift in our Empire. "Fancy, gentlemen, the
feelings of those of us who went to the front, who risked our lives,
who had our comrades killed in opposing these men, when we see our
politicians in our Houses of Parliament, for wretched party purposes,
clasping hands with the enemies of our Empire, and passing resolutions
of sympathy and support to them in their efforts to injure our nation.
These resolutions are an insult to our Volunteers, and a shame and
disgrace to our country," and I sat down.

This was received with uproarious applause. The people jumped to their
feet and cheered and waved their table napkins, many even got upon
their chairs, and shouted themselves hoarse. Sir Oliver Mowat (then
Mr. Mowat), who had supported one of these resolutions in the local
House shortly before, and was Premier, said to me when the cheering
subsided and I could hear him, "That was a very powerful speech you
made." I replied, "Do you think so?" He said, "It was a very strong
speech." I answered, "Was it? I tried so hard to be moderate." He
laughed and said, "You did, did you?" He never had any more such
resolutions in his House.

When the dinner was over and the guests were leaving, I stood near the
door and was surrounded by men approving of my speech. I picked out
the men I wanted--the Mayor, the presidents of societies, colonels of
regiments, &c.--and asked them to wait as I wished to speak to them.
When the group had gathered I said to them, "I did not speak as I did
for nothing. Lord Lansdowne is coming here very soon. Wm. O'Brien is
coming from Ireland to drive him out of Canada. We must arrange for
such a reception to Lord Lansdowne as no Governor-General ever had
in Toronto, and I want you all to agree to serve on a committee to
organise it; and I hope the Mayor will take the chair, and send out
notices for the meeting." All at once agreed heartily.

When the meeting was held to arrange the plan for the reception, a
number of those present wished a great procession to be organised of
societies and the city regiments in uniform, &c. I knew that the object
of the Irish Nationalists was to create the belief that the people of
Canada, with the exception of the official classes, &c., were not on
the side of the Governor-General, and that he would have to be guarded
by police and soldiers, and insisted that not one man in uniform should
be seen--that the people, as the people, should take the matter
into their own hands, and escort the Governor-General. It was a most
difficult task to carry the committee with me, but I was determinedly
persistent and at last carried my point.

A small committee was appointed to arrange details, and the reception
was organised with the greatest care. The Volunteer regiments were
pledged to turn out in plain clothes, with walking-sticks; the
societies also agreed to be out, the Orangemen did their part, the
lawyers were canvassed to be in the streets, and all were asked to act
as private detectives, and watch carefully any attempt to throw stones
by any disaffected parties if there were any. The citizens illuminated
their houses and shops on the route from North Toronto Station through
Yonge and King Streets to Government House. Members of the Toronto
Hunt Club, mounted and in plain clothes, formed an escort; but, what
was not known to the public, twenty-five picked men of my corps, the
Governor-General's Body Guard, in plain clothes, with Lieut.-Colonel
Merritt, my adjutant, in charge, rode as members of the Hunt Club,
along with them, and guarded the carriage of his Excellency. About
four hundred men of the Queen's Own, all in plain clothes, marched
along the street alongside the carriage. The Orange body arranged for
a torchlight procession with about a thousand torches, and the police
were entirely withdrawn from the streets on which the procession
marched. I do not believe anyone was ever more carefully guarded, for
the people as a mass took it in hand themselves.

On the morning of the day on which his Excellency was to arrive, I
learned that the General commanding had ordered a guard of honour to
meet him at the station. I went at once to the Mayor, and we went
together to see the Governor's military secretary, and urged him to ask
his Excellency to countermand the order and dispense with the guard.
This was done, and no man in uniform was to be seen. The reception was
a remarkable success. The streets were filled with most enthusiastic
crowds, and no Governor-General ever made such an entry into Toronto.
The people took him to Government House, and the whole neighbourhood
and the carriage drive were packed with cheering crowds. Lord Lansdowne
stood up in his carriage at the door, and made a speech thanking the
people, and he must have felt that he was among friends.

A few days later a great meeting was held in the Queen's Park, when a
number of prominent citizens made speeches condemning Mr. O'Brien's
proposed visit to Toronto and resolutions were passed in that sense.
The Mayor, on behalf of the citizens, sent a telegram to O'Brien
requesting him not to come to Toronto.

O'Brien and his people persisted, however, and called a public meeting
in the Queen's Park for the 17th May. There was a very large gathering,
probably ten or twelve thousand people, and O'Brien and his companion,
Mr. Kilbride (one of Lord Lansdowne's evicted tenants), were carefully
guarded by the police. The Irish party, who comprised probably
one-tenth of the crowd, organised the meeting, and Mr. O'Brien, with
several Yankee reporters around him, began to speak. The University
students had planned to start singing, and the moment he began, the
crowd broke out with "God Save the Queen." Cheers were then called
for Lord Lansdowne, Lord Salisbury, Lord Hartington, and Joseph
Chamberlain. Then the singing began again; "Rule, Britannia" was sung
by the great masses. Again cheers for the four statesmen already
mentioned, then alternately "God Save the Queen," cheers, and "Rule,
Britannia." No one could hear a word of O'Brien's speech. This went on
until he ceased to attempt to speak. Mr. Kilbride then stood up. The
students led the crowd in a refrain, "Pay your rint, pay your rint, pay
your rint, you thief," and the people shouted this over and over again,
and he, unable to be heard, had to cease, and the meeting ended by some
local man trying to say a few words.

While moving through the crowd studying the temper of the people, I saw
two or three incidents which showed me that there was a very dangerous
and ugly spirit among the loyalists, and I become anxious lest the mob
should get beyond all control. I went to the Chief of Police, who had
a large force of policemen and an escort of mounted police, to guard
the carriage of the visitors, and told him he would have a difficulty
in getting O'Brien away without injury. Being a Police Commissioner, I
advised him to get those in charge of the meeting to put up someone to
speak as soon as Kilbride finished, and to take O'Brien and Kilbride
quietly off the platform to the back, hurry them into the carriage, and
drive off before the crowd should discover it. This was done, and they
had barely got clear when the crowd, seeing they were going, chased
them and endeavoured to stone them. Fortunately they had a start, and
driving rapidly escaped without injury.

I had told the Chief of Police not to allow O'Brien to go anywhere on
the streets without a strong police guard, for, as I told him, "I do
not want him hurt for one thing, and, on the other hand, I should
be very sorry that the idea should get abroad that he could walk the
streets of Toronto (under the circumstances) without protection." The
following evening, O'Brien and his party of three or four friends,
including one Yankee reporter, started from the hotel in the dusk to
walk round a block, and would not wait for the police escort for which
the police sergeant was sending. The party had not gone two hundred
yards when the crowds began to gather and follow them. They were pelted
with stones and eggs, the New York reporter being badly cut by a stone.
They escaped with difficulty back to the hotel. In Hamilton, Kingston,
and other places O'Brien was also mobbed and chased and was obliged to
hide. He then left the country, while Lord Lansdowne, who remained,
received a few days later a remarkable ovation on his return to Ottawa.

I left for England the day after O'Brien's meeting (on my vacation)
and a day or two after my arrival in London I was dining at Lord
Salisbury's, where I met Mr. Balfour, then Chief Secretary for Ireland.
They were interested in hearing the particulars. I told Lord Salisbury
that the "silent masses" had spoken out, and with no uncertain sound.
Both he and Mr. Balfour said that O'Brien's reception in Canada had
helped the passage of the Coercion Bill through the House of Commons,
for it proved that the statement of the Nationalists that every country
in the world was on their side was not quite accurate.




                              CHAPTER IX

                    THE IMPERIAL FEDERATION LEAGUE


In 1884 a movement was begun in England, and the Imperial Federation
League was formed, for the purpose of securing the Federation of the
whole Empire, on somewhat the same lines as the Confederation of
Canada. The Right Hon. W. E. Forster was the moving spirit, and the
first President of the organisation. The objects of the League are
clearly laid down in the following resolutions defining its nature and
objects, which were passed at an adjourned conference held in London on
the 18th November, 1884:

 That a Society be now formed to be called "The Imperial Federation
 League."

 That the object of the League be to secure by Federation the permanent
 Unity of the Empire.

 That no scheme of Federation should interfere with the existing rights
 of local Parliaments as regards local affairs.

 That any scheme of Imperial Federation should combine, on an equitable
 basis, the resources of the Empire for the maintenance of common
 interests and adequately provide for an organised defence of common
 rights.

 That the League use every constitutional means to bring about the
 object for which it is formed and invite the support of men of all
 political parties.

 That the membership of the League be open to any British subject who
 accepts the principles of the League, and pays a yearly registration
 fee of not less than one shilling.

 That donations and subscriptions be invited for providing means for
 conducting the business of the League.

 That British subjects throughout the Empire be invited to become
 members, and to form and organise Branches of the League which may
 place their representatives on the General Committee.

It will be seen that the main object of this League was to secure by
Federation the permanent Unity of the Empire. The existing rights
of local Parliaments as to local affairs were to be preserved,
but the resources of the Empire were to be combined to maintain
common interests, and to provide for an organised defence of common
rights. That was the whole scheme in a nutshell, to form a Federated
Parliament, which would not interfere with local affairs, but would
have power to use the resources of the Empire for common defence. No
other object was given to the public. It was really formed to secure
colonial contributions to Imperial Defence.

The Imperial Federation League in Canada was inaugurated at a meeting
held in Montreal under the leadership of the late Mr. D'Alton McCarthy,
M.P., on the 9th day of May, 1885. A large number of prominent men
were present, and speeches were made by Jehu Matthews, Benjamin Allen,
M.P., D'Alton McCarthy, Senator Plumb, G. R. R. Cockburn, Edgar Baker,
M.P., Hector Cameron, M.P., A. W. Ross, M.P., Hugh McLennan, Senator
Macfarlane, Alexander McNeill, M.P., Dr. Potts, Hon. George E. Foster,
M.P., and Principal G. M. Grant. The first branch of the Canadian
League was organised at the small town of Ingersoll in Ontario in May,
1886, principally through the exertions of Mr. J. Castell Hopkins,
then a young man twenty-two years of age, and a junior clerk in the
agency of the Imperial Bank of that place. Mr. M. Walsh was elected
President, and Mr. Hopkins Secretary. Mr. Hopkins has ever since been
an active and industrious supporter of the movement. An influential
branch was inaugurated in Halifax, Nova Scotia, in December, 1886, of
which his Grace Archbishop O'Brien was one of the foremost members. The
next branch was established at Peterborough on the 28th April, 1887,
mainly through the exertions of Mr. J. M. Long. A small branch was
also started in Victoria, but in 1888 had not been affiliated to the
Canadian organisation.

In 1886, Lt.-Colonel Wm. Hamilton Merritt, one of the officers of my
regiment, came to me and endeavoured to enlist my sympathies in the
new movement. I discussed the whole subject fully with him. He had
hoped to get me to accept the presidency of the branch to be formed in
Toronto. I refused to take any part in the matter, feeling that Canada
was getting along very well, but that she had only just expended nearly
$150,000,000 in the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and
that she required some years of steady development before she could
undertake any further expenditures on a large scale for Imperial
defence, for I saw this was the main object of the League in England.
I did not think the time had come, nor the necessity, for pressing
this point, and that public opinion would not be in favour of any such
movement.

It will be seen that Imperial Federation made very little progress
for the first two or three years. In 1885, 1886, and 1887, only
three branches, and, with the exception of Halifax, very small and
uninfluential ones, had been established in all Canada.

There was no branch in Toronto, the most Imperialistic and most loyal
of all the cities of Canada, and up to the fall of 1887 the movement
had made but little headway.

In the year 1887, however, a movement arose which changed the whole
features of the case, which altered all the conditions, and made it
necessary for all loyal men in Canada to consider seriously the future
of their country. This movement, known as Commercial Union will be
dealt with in the next chapter.




                               CHAPTER X

                           COMMERCIAL UNION


The Canadian Pacific Railway was completed at the end of 1885, and it
began to prove a competitor with the railways in the United States for
the through traffic across the continent. This competition affected the
great financial interests of New York, for the United States railroads
were subject to regulations as to the long and the short haul, while
the Canadian Pacific Railway was free from them, and thereby had a
very great advantage in the struggle for business. This direct present
pecuniary interest, added to the belief that Canada was likely to prove
a much greater factor on this continent than had ever been anticipated
by the people of the United States, was the cause of the inception of
the Commercial Union Movement, which attracted so much attention at the
time, and has had such far-reaching influence on the affairs of the
British Empire ever since.

The originator of this movement, Erastus Wiman of New York, was born
at Churchville, near Toronto, and was educated and lived in Toronto
for a number of years in his early life. He was connected with the
Press and for a time kept a small book shop on King Street. He served
a year in the Toronto City Council. He became Toronto manager of R.
G. Dun and Company's Commercial Agency in 1860, and afterwards went
to New York and became manager of it there, and a member of the firm.
He was also president of the Great North Western Telegraph Company,
which controlled almost all the telegraph lines in Canada. He had not
taken the oath of allegiance to the United States, and he was suited in
every way to lead the insidious scheme which was started under the name
of Commercial Union, but was intended to bring about peacefully the
annexation of Canada to the United States.

The movement was planned and launched with remarkable skill. Mr. Wiman,
who was posing as a true-hearted Canadian, was, I believe, working
for great financial interests in the States, headed by Jay Gould. Of
course, of this there is no proof, but only the deduction that can be
drawn from a close study of all the information that can be had. The
first step was to establish the Canadian Club of New York, to be a
home for welcoming Canadians visiting that city. The next was still
more ingenious. A number of the most prominent Canadians, principally
literary men, orators, &c., were invited to New York as guests of the
Club, to address the members. These visitors were treated with the
warmest hospitality, and no indication given that Mr. Wiman had any
ulterior motives. About the same time, in 1886, Mr. Wiman gave some
public baths to the citizens of Toronto, at a cost of about $6,000, as
a proof of his warm feeling towards the city in which his early life
had been spent.

After all this preparation he came to Canada in the spring of 1887, and
aided by Goldwin Smith, Valancy Fuller, Henry W. Darling, President
of the Toronto Board of Trade, and a few others, he proposed in the
interests of Canada a scheme of Commercial Union between Canada and
the United States which he claimed would be a great boon and lasting
advantage to Canada. During the whole summer of 1887 an active campaign
was being conducted, meetings were held in many places, and addressed
by Mr. Goldwin Smith, Mr. Wiman, Congressman Butterworth, of Ohio, and
others. The members of the Canadian Parliament were furnished with
circulars, articles, and reports of speeches in profusion. Mr. Wiman,
as a member of the firm of Dun, Wiman and Company, had an influence
over the business men of Canada that could hardly be overestimated.
It would have been a serious thing for any ordinary business man in
any city, town, or village in Canada, if dependent upon his credit for
the profitable conduct of his business, to incur the hostility of the
mercantile agency, on whose reports his credit would largely depend.

The result was that at first the plausible speeches of its advocates,
and the friendly assistance of some newspapers, caused the movement
to acquire a considerable amount of success. It was not thoroughly
understood. It had been inaugurated as in the direct interest of
Canada by a friendly and successful Canadian, and was being discussed
in a friendly way, and many good men at first supported the idea,
not suspecting any evil, and not fearing that it might result in
annexation. I was away on a visit to England from the 19th May until
the 21st August, 1887, and heard very little of what was going on, and
not enough to understand the details or real facts of the scheme. After
my return to Canada I asked my brother, the late Lt.-Colonel Fred C.
Denison, then a member of the House of Commons for West Toronto, what
it all meant. He was not at all favourably impressed. He had been
supplied with copies of the literature that was distributed, and I read
it over, and we discussed the question very fully during some weeks.
We both agreed that it was a very dangerous movement, likely to bring
about the annexation of Canada to the United States, and designed for
that purpose by its originators, and we considered very carefully how
it could be met and defeated. I felt that, in view of the way in which
it was being taken up at the time by the people, it would be hopeless
to attack the scheme and endeavour to check its movement by standing
in front of it and fighting it. I was afraid we might be overrun and
probably beaten. I felt that the only way to defeat it was to get in
front, and lead the movement in another direction. My brother agreed
with me in this, and we decided to take a course of action based on
those lines.




                              CHAPTER XI

                 IMPERIAL FEDERATION LEAGUE IN CANADA


The progress the Commercial Union movement was making, and the great
danger arising from it, led my brother and me to discuss it with a
number of loyal men, and on all sides the opinion seemed to be that
active steps should be taken at once to work against it. The principal
active workers at first were officers of my regiment and a few other
personal friends, and small meetings were held in my brother's office
to discuss the matter, and it was decided that the best policy was to
advocate a Commercial Union of the British Empire as the alternative
to the proposition of a Commercial Union with the United States, and
that a scheme of Imperial Federation based upon a Commercial Union of
the various parts of the Empire would be the best method of advocating
our views. By advocating Imperial Federation it enabled us to appeal
to the old dream of the United Empire Loyalists of the Revolution. It
gave the opportunity of appealing to our history, to the sacrifices of
our fathers, to all the traditions of race, and the ties of blood and
kindred, to the sacrifices and the victories of the war of 1812, and to
the national spirit of our people, to preserve our status as a part of
the British Empire. G. R. R. Cockburn, J. M. Clark, D'Alton McCarthy,
John Beverley Robinson, Wm. Hamilton Merritt, Lt.-Colonel Fred C.
Denison, Casimir Dickson, Commander Law, John T. Small, D. R. Wilkie,
John A. Worrell, Henry Wickham, and James L. Hughes were the moving
spirits in organising the Toronto Branch of the Imperial Federation
League, and it was accomplished during the last two or three months of
1887 and the beginning of 1888.

In October, 1887, Erastus Wiman sent a circular to the Members of the
House of Commons, asking them for their views upon his scheme. Lt.-Col.
F. C. Denison sent the following reply, and forwarded a copy to the
newspapers:

                                            TORONTO, 12_th Oct._, 1887.

 SIR,

 I have received your circular of Sept. 17th sent to me as a member of
 the House of Commons, enclosing a copy of a speech delivered by you on
 Commercial Union and asking an opinion upon it.

 I must tell you that I am utterly opposed to it, as in my mind
 Commercial Union simply means annexation, a result to be deplored by
 every true Canadian, and unlikely to happen without the shedding of
 a lot of Canadian blood. We are now, despite what the advocates of
 Commercial Union say, a happy, prosperous, and contented people. I am
 positive no pecuniary advantage would accrue to Canada from Commercial
 Union, but even granting all that you say as to the increased
 prosperity it would bring to us, I would still be opposed to it. We do
 not in Canada place so high a value upon the "Almighty Dollar" as do
 the Yankees, and we hope always to be Canadians. Why should we sever
 our connection with the Mother Country, which has in the past done so
 much for us, for the sake of throwing in our lot with a people who
 produce more bank thieves and embezzlers than any other country in the
 world; who care so little for the sanctity of the marriage tie that
 one hundred divorces a day have been granted in one city? To do so
 would be national suicide. No pecuniary advantage can ever outweigh
 our national life, or our national honour. The appeals made in favour
 of Commercial Union are all addressed to the pocket, but I have
 confidence in my fellow countrymen that they will place our national
 honour and our independence above all pecuniary considerations. A
 man worthy of the name will not sell his own honour, or his wife's
 or his daughter's, for money. Such a proposal could not for a moment
 be considered from a financial standpoint, and no people worthy of
 the name would ever sacrifice their national honour for material
 advantages. There is no sentiment that produces such sacrifices as
 national sentiment, and you gentlemen who advocate Commercial Union,
 argue as if my countrymen would sell everything dear to them for
 money. You entirely misunderstand our people.

                        Believe me,
                                  Yours truly,

                                                       FRED C. DENISON.

  ERASTUS WIMAN, ESQ.,
  _New York, U.S.A._

The late Mrs. S. A. Curzon paraphrased this letter in the following
lines, which appeared in the Toronto _World_ of the 18th October, 1887:

    Well spoken, Denison! a heart beats there
    Loyal to more than selfish minds can grasp;
    Not gold our nation's wealth, or lavish ease,
    Nor sordid aim her rod of destiny.
    No! Canada hath ends beyond a life
    Fed by loose license, luxury, and pelf.
    She hath inherited through noble sires
    Of ancient blood, and lineage straight and clean,
    Great riches. A renown unequalled yet;
    A liberty hard won on many a field;
    A country wide and large, and fair and full;
    A loyalty as self-denying as a vow;
    An honour high as heaven and pure as light;
    A heroism that bleeds, but blenches not;
    An industry of muscle true as steel;
    A self-restraint that binds a world in bonds;
    An honesty contented with its own.
    Shall she sell these for gold? "What can gold give
    Better than she hath?--a nation's life
    A nation's liberty, a nation's self-respect."
    Brave words--my Denison--brave words and true!
    Take thou this tribute from a patriot heart.
    As thee our legislators ever be;
    Men whose whole aim is for the nation's weal
    And for safekeeping of her name intact.

On the 30th December, 1887, the Toronto Board of Trade gave a banquet
in honour of the Rt. Hon. Joseph Chamberlain. It was a very large
and influential gathering. I then fired my first public shot against
Commercial Union. Colonel Otter was put down to respond to the toast
of the Army, Navy, and Active Militia, but the Chairman in proposing
the toast, added my name also, without having given me any intimation
whatever that I would be called upon to speak. I quote the report which
appeared in the _World_ the next morning of my three minutes' speech:

 As belonging to the active militia of the country, I am very glad
 to be here to-night to do honour to so distinguished a statesman as
 the Rt. Hon. Joseph Chamberlain, because that gentleman, above all
 gentlemen in the Empire, has shown that he places the interests of a
 United Empire above all others (applause). There is no part of the
 British Empire where these words, "United Empire," convey a greater
 meaning to the hearts of the people than to the people of Canada
 (applause), and I am certain there is no part of the whole Empire
 where the Rt. Hon. Mr. Chamberlain is more heartily appreciated than
 in Toronto, the capital of the Province of Ontario--a Province
 which owes its origin to the desire on the part of men who, like Mr.
 Chamberlain, desired a United Empire, and made great sacrifices for
 it. There is a subject upon which I wish to say a word or two before
 I sit down, and that is Commercial Union. And in the presence of Mr.
 Chamberlain I wish to say that the active militia of this country
 have all been sworn to be faithful, and bear true allegiance to her
 Majesty, and they intend that Canada shall not be laid at the feet of
 any foreign country (great applause). I am a Canadian, born in this
 city, and I hope to live and die a Canadian, to live and die in a
 country where our people will govern their own affairs, where we will
 be able to establish our own tariff, and where it will not be fixed
 and established to suit a foreign people against our Mother Country.
 I can assure Mr. Chamberlain that when I speak in behalf of the
 volunteers of the country in this way, I am also voicing the feeling
 of all the fighting men in this country.

My remarks were received with great applause, and created somewhat of
a sensation, for it appeared that there had been an understanding that
the subject of Commercial Union was not to be referred to, and all the
speakers had been warned except myself. I have had a suspicion since
that I was called upon suddenly in the belief that I would speak out
plainly.

The Toronto _World_ commenting on the dinner said:

 The main result of Mr. Chamberlain's visit to Toronto and the speeches
 made at the dinner on Friday night must be a heavy blow and a great
 discouragement to the Commercial Unionists. On Friday afternoon it
 was stated to the reporters, on good authority, we believe, that the
 management of the Board of Trade had arranged to exclude the much
 disputed question of Commercial Union from among the subjects of the
 speeches. . . . But as Burns wrote--

    The best laid schemes of mice and men
    Gang aft agley.

 Colonel Denison's remarks so heavily charged with the electricity of
 British connection, "brought down the house," and after that all other
 subjects were lame and uninteresting to the company in comparison.
 Our distinguished visitor soon made it evident that he thought it the
 question of the day. . . .

 The event on Friday night, we repeat, must prove the worst blow that
 the Commercial Unionists have got since they forced their "fad" before
 the public. After this we fancy there will be a stampede among them to
 get out from a most unpleasant and ridiculous position.

As early as October, 1887, the late Thomas Macfarlane, one of the
ablest and most active members of the Imperial Federation League, wrote
to the journal of the League in England a strong article pointing
out that Commercial Union would mean annexation, and advocating a
uniform rate of duty on all foreign imports in every country of the
Empire over and above the ordinary tariff in force then. This was Mr.
Hoffmeyer's suggestion at the Colonial Conference of 1884, one made
mainly as a commercial measure which would encourage trade and give a
tie of interest to the various parts of the Empire. Mr. Macfarlane had
supported this view from the first.

During November and December, 1887, the matter was being considered,
and on the 22nd December a preliminary meeting was held in Shaftesbury
Hall, and after speeches by D'Alton McCarthy, G. R. R. Cockburn and
others, resolutions were passed in favour of forming a Toronto branch,
and a number gave in their names for membership. Mr. McNeill's
magnificent speech at Paris on the 19th January, 1888, was a most
eloquent appeal in favour of Imperial Federation, and was printed
and widely circulated in Ontario. He argued strongly in favour of
discriminating tariffs around the Empire.

On the 1st February the Toronto branch was formally organised, with the
Hon. John Beverley Robinson as President, George R. R. Cockburn, M.P.,
John M. Clark and Col. George T. Denison as Vice-Presidents, and Wm.
Hamilton Merritt as Secretary.

It was then arranged that the Annual General Meeting of the Imperial
Federation League in Canada should be held on the afternoon of the 24th
March, 1888, for the transaction of business, and that in the evening
there should be a large public meeting to inaugurate the Toronto
branch, and to bring it prominently before the public.

It will be remembered that with those who took the most active part in
the organisation of the Toronto branch the moving idea was to agitate
for a commercial union of the Empire. There was nothing in the original
constitution of the Imperial Federation League that would justify such
a policy being advocated. It was therefore necessary to amend or alter
the constitution to that extent. Consequently, at the Annual General
Meeting our Secretary, Wm. Hamilton Merritt, moved, and D. R. Wilkie
seconded, the following resolution:

 That the Imperial Federation League in Canada make it one of the
 objects of their organisation to advocate a trade policy between Great
 Britain and her Colonies by means of which a discrimination in the
 exchange of natural and manufactured products will be made in favour
 of one another, and against foreign nations; and that our friends in
 Parliament are hereby called upon to move in support of the policy of
 this resolution at the earliest possible moment.

This was unanimously carried. In the evening the public meeting was
held at the Association Hall, which was crowded to its limit. Mr.
Cockburn was in the chair. I moved the first resolution, which was as
follows:

 Resolved, that this meeting hails with pleasure the establishment of a
 branch of the Imperial Federation League in this city, and confidently
 hopes that through its instrumentality the objects of the League may
 be advanced, and the ties which bind Canada to the Motherland be
 strengthened and maintained.

In moving this resolution I outlined my reasons for advocating the
cause, and pointed out the necessity of doing something to counteract
the scheme of Commercial Union with the United States, calling on
the patriotic sons of Canada in that crisis in the affairs of the
country "to rally round the old flag and frustrate the evil designs of
traitors." I stated that the Commercial Union movement was designed
by traitors, that I wished "to be fair to those who believed that
the movement would not destroy the national life and sentiment of
Canada," but adhered to the position that the movement originated in
treason. "There was no use mincing words in the matter. Commercial
Union could only be carried out by severing the ties which bound the
Canadian people to the Motherland. Not only that, but it aimed at the
destruction of the national life of the country, by subjecting the
people to the power and dictation of a foreign country." The report in
the _Empire_ went on to say:

 He desired to draw the attention of the audience to a few facts in the
 history of the continent. Canada was a country with a comparatively
 small population, but an immense territory, rich in every department
 of mine and forest, lying alongside a country of immense population
 and great resources. If that country was not an aggressive country
 the difficulty would be minimised. He held, however, that it was an
 aggressive and grasping country. They wanted Florida, and they took
 it; Louisiana and Alaska they annexed; California and Mexico they
 conquered; and Texas they stole. They wanted half of the State of
 Maine that belonged to Canada, and they swindled the Canadian people
 out of it by means of a false map. The war between the North and
 South was as much for tariff as slavery. It was only after three
 years that the North decided to emancipate the slaves. They conquered
 the South and put them under their feet. He asked them to remember
 their treatment of the Canadian people in dealing with the question
 of Imperial Federation. In 1775 they attempted to conquer Canada, and
 again in 1812, but they were beaten ignominiously both times. They
 left no stone unturned in 1812 to conquer Canada, and gave it up as a
 hopeless task after a three years' effort. The population of Ontario
 at that time was only 100,000, as against their ten millions. They
 fomented discord which led to the Fenian Raid in 1866. Those benighted
 warriors came armed with United States muskets. They had never evinced
 a friendly feeling towards Canada. They sent the British Minister
 home during the Crimean War when they thought England had her hands
 full. . . . They gave a reciprocity treaty to Canada a few years ago,
 and allowed it to remain in force long enough to open up a volume of
 trade between the two countries, and then they suddenly cut it off in
 the hope that it would produce annexation. The Commercial Union fad
 had its birth in treason, he reiterated, and was designed in the hope
 of inducing the people of Canada to believe in the fallacy that, by
 tying themselves hand and foot to a foreign and hostile Power, they
 would get richer by it. They wanted to make Canadians believe that an
 extended market would benefit them. Their real desire, however, was
 to make Canada a slaughter market for their goods, and by crippling
 Canadian industries eventually drive the people of the Dominion into
 such a condition that they would be glad to accept annexation as an
 alternative of absolute ruin. They had conquered and stolen States
 in the South, and now they desired to betray Canada in the North.
 The scheme of Imperial Federation was designed to build up Canada
 and her industries, and absolutely to demolish the delusive theory
 propounded by the authors of that nefarious scheme Commercial Union.
 Unrestricted Reciprocity and Commercial Union were one and the same.
 The prime object of Imperial Federation was to complete an arrangement
 with the Mother Country, whereby our goods would be admitted free
 with a discriminating tariff against the importations of all foreign
 Powers. Such an arrangement he believed would not only benefit the
 agricultural community, but also the whole population of the Dominion.
 It would consolidate the Empire, and give the Canadian people greater
 influence amongst the nations of the world.

Mr. J. M. Clark seconded the resolution in an eloquent speech and it
was carried. Mr. Alex McNeill moved the next resolution. He said he
had felt a great deal of doubt coming down from Ottawa that day, but
when he was face to face with such a glorious meeting all his doubts
passed away like mists before the light of the sun. The news of that
meeting would be tidings of great joy all over the Empire, for it would
proclaim in trumpet tones that the great British City of Toronto was
up and doing in the glorious work of Imperial Federation.

Mr. R. C. Weldon, M.P., from Nova Scotia, made an eloquent speech.

The meeting was most enthusiastic and spirited. At its conclusion Mr.
D'Alton McCarthy invited about fifteen or twenty of the Committee and
speakers to his house to supper. I remember walking over with Mr. R. C.
Weldon, whose speech had been very warmly received. He was very much
astonished at the enthusiasm and vigour of the audience. He told me he
had never seen such a meeting before, and asked how I could account for
it. I replied, "Toronto is the most loyal and imperialistic city in
the Empire." It was partly founded, as was St. John, N.B., by United
Empire Loyalists, but the difference was that loyalty had come more
closely home to Toronto, that since its foundation every generation of
the Toronto people had seen the dead bodies of citizens who had died
fighting for the cause of the Empire or the Sovereign carried through
her streets for burial; that the battle of York had been fought in 1813
within the present limits of the city, the skirmish at Gallows Hill
three miles north of the city in 1837; that Toronto men had fought at
Detroit, Queenston Heights, and other fields in 1813-14, and at Navy
Island in 1837, also in 1866 at Fort Erie; that Toronto men were the
first sent from the older Provinces to the North-West Rebellion, and
that all this had kept the flame of loyalty brightly burning on her
altars.

Four days after this meeting, on the 28th March, 1888, Mr. D'Alton
McCarthy, President of the League in Canada, placed on the order paper
at Ottawa the following important notice of motion:

 That it would be in the best interests of the Dominion that such
 changes should be sought for in the trade relations between the United
 Kingdom and Canada as would give to Canada advantages in the markets
 of the Mother Country not allowed to foreign States, Canada being
 willing for such privileges to discriminate in her markets in favour
 of Great Britain and Ireland, due regard being had to the policy
 adopted in 1879 for the purpose of fostering the various interests and
 industries of the Dominion, and to the financial necessities of the
 Dominion.

This was the beginning of the great scheme of preferential tariffs
around the Empire, which has since attracted so much attention
throughout the British possessions. Mr. McCarthy's resolution did
not carry at that time; it was not intended that it should. It was
adjourned after some discussion. It was a new idea in Canadian
politics, and the members had not had time to study the question in all
its bearings.

The _Imperial Federation Journal_, representing the League in England,
was not favourable to the action of the Canadian branch, and advised
the Canadians to approach the other Colonies, and not disturb the
Mother Country with the proposal. Within five years this cause of
difference had, I believe, much to do with the disruption of the League
in Great Britain.

Mr. McNeill's reference to the importance of Toronto's accession to the
cause was well founded, for after that meeting the movement went on
with increased impetus, and subsequent events proved the far-reaching
effect upon the affairs of the Empire.

During the next three years a most vigorous campaign was carried on
in Ontario. Toronto became the headquarters of the League, a large
branch was kept up, and efforts were made to educate the public mind
and organise branches of the League in other places. An organising
committee was appointed, of which I was elected chairman. The movement,
which had been started in Montreal three years before, had languished,
and it was not until the Commercial Union movement alarmed the people
and proved the necessity for prompt action that the cause of Imperial
Federation became a strong and effective influence upon the public
opinion of Canada.




                              CHAPTER XII

        THE COMMERCIAL UNION MOVEMENT--A TREASONABLE CONSPIRACY


At the first public meeting of the Imperial Federation League in
Toronto I made the charge that the Commercial Union movement was a
treasonable conspiracy on the part of a few men in Canada in connection
with a number of leading politicians in the United States to entrap
the Canadian people into annexation with that country. It will be of
interest to trace this phase of the question and its development during
the three or four years in which the great struggle took place.

Ralph Waldo Emerson, in conversation with William Allingham in
November, 1872, said, "Americans will not take any definite step; they
feel that Canada must come into the Confederation, and will of herself.
American party in Canada always at work."--_Allingham's Diary_, p. 217
(Macmillan).

It will be remembered that I said that the United States "were an
aggressive and grasping people." "They wanted Florida and they took
it, Louisiana and Alaska they acquired, California and Mexico they
conquered, and Texas they stole." I went on to say that "they had
conquered and stolen States in the South, and now they desired to
betray Canada in the North." This speech was made on the 24th March,
1888. I was criticised by some on the ground that my remarks were
extreme in their character, and was caricatured and ridiculed in the
comic papers.

Six months later I was vindicated in a remarkable manner.

Senator Sherman, at that time one of the foremost statesmen of the
United States, and chairman of the Senate Committee of Foreign Affairs,
made a very significant speech before the Senate on the 18th September,
1888. He said:

 And now, Mr. President, taking a broader view of the question, I
 submit if the time has not come when the people of the United States
 and Canada should take a broader view of their relations to each other
 than has heretofore seemed practicable. Our whole history since the
 conquest of Canada by Great Britain in 1763 has been a continuous
 warning that we cannot be at peace with each other except by political
 as well as commercial union. The fate of Canada should have followed
 the fortunes of the Colonies in the American Revolution. It would
 have been better for all, for the Mother Country as well, if all this
 continent north of Mexico had participated in the formation, and
 shared in common the blessings and prosperity, of the American Union.

 So evidently our fathers thought, for among the earliest military
 movements by the Continental Congress was the expedition for the
 occupation of Canada and the capture of the British forces in Montreal
 and Quebec. The story of the failure of the expedition--the heroism of
 Arnold and Burr, the death of Montgomery, and the fearful sufferings
 borne by the Continental forces in the march and retreat--is familiar
 to every student of American history. . . .

 Without going into the details so familiar to the Senate, it is
 sufficient to say that Spain held Florida, France held all west of the
 Mississippi, Mexico held Texas west to the Pacific, and England held
 Canada. The United States held, subject to the Indian title, only the
 region between the Mississippi and the Atlantic. The statesmen of this
 Government early discerned the fact that it was impossible that Spain,
 France, and Mexico should hold the territory then held by them without
 serious detriment to the interests and prosperity of the United
 States, and without the danger that was always present of conflicts
 with the European Powers maintaining Governments in contiguous
 territory. It was a wise policy and a necessity to acquire these vast
 regions and add them to this country. They were acquired and are now
 held.

 Precisely the same considerations apply to Canada, with greater force.
 The commercial conditions have vastly changed within twenty-five
 years. Railroads have been built across the continent in our own
 country and in Canada. The seaboard is of such a character, and its
 geographical situation is such on both oceans, that perfect freedom as
 to transportation is absolutely essential, not only to the prosperity
 of the two countries, but to the entire commerce of the world: and as
 far as the interests of the two people are concerned, they are divided
 by a mere imaginary line. They live next-door neighbours to each
 other, and there should be a perfect freedom of intercourse between
 them.

 A denial of that intercourse, or the withholding of it from them,
 rests simply and wholly upon the accident that a European Power
 one hundred years ago was able to hold that territory against us;
 but her interest has practically passed away and Canada has become
 an independent Government to all intents and purposes, as much so
 as Texas was after she separated herself from Mexico. So that all
 the considerations that entered into the acquisition of Florida,
 Louisiana, and the Pacific coast, and Texas, apply to Canada, greatly
 strengthened by the changed condition of commercial relations and
 matters of transportation. These intensify, not only the propriety,
 but the absolute necessity of both a commercial and a political union
 between Canada and the United States. . . .

 The way to union with Canada is not by hostile legislation; not by
 acts of retaliation, but by friendly overtures. This union is one
 of the events that must inevitably come in the future; it will come
 by the logic of the situation, and no politician or combination of
 politicians can prevent it. The true policy of this Government is to
 tender freedom in trade and intercourse, and to make this tender in
 such a fraternal way that it shall be an overture to the Canadian
 people to become a part of this Republic. . . .

 The settlement of the North-West Territory, the Louisiana and
 Florida purchases, the annexation of Texas, and the acquisition from
 Mexico are examples of the adaptation of our form of government for
 expansion, to absorb and unite, to enrich and build up, to ingraft in
 our body politic adjacent countries, and while strengthening the older
 States, confer prosperity and development to the new States admitted
 into this brotherhood of Republican States. . . .

 With a firm conviction that this consummation most devoutly to be
 wished is within the womb of destiny, and believing that it is our
 duty to hasten its coming, I am not willing, for one, to vote for any
 measure not demanded by national honour that will tend to postpone the
 good time coming, when the American flag will be the signal and sign
 of the union of all the English-speaking peoples of the continent from
 the Rio Grande to the Arctic Ocean.

 I ask that the resolution be referred to the Committee on Foreign
 Relations.

I drew attention to this speech in a letter to the Toronto _Globe_ on
the 26th September, 1888. After quoting a number of extracts from it, I
went on to say,

 "This man is honest and outspoken. He is trying to entice us by kindly
 methods to annexation, which would be the annihilation of Canada as a
 nation; but does not his whole argument prove the absolute correctness
 of the view I took of Commercial Union at the Imperial Federation
 meeting, and does it not prove that his co-worker Wiman, being a
 Canadian, was acting the part of a traitor, in trying to betray his
 native country into a course which could only end in placing it
 absolutely in the hands of a foreign and hostile Power?"

A few days later another incident occurred showing the active interest
that was being taken in the annexation movement. Senator Sherman's
speech was delivered on the 18th September, 1888; on the 29th of the
same month, Erastus Wiman sent the following telegram to a number of
the Canadian newspapers:

                                                 NEW YORK, _29th Sept._

 I deem it my duty to say that information from Washington reaches me
 of a reliable character to the effect that the Senate Committee of
 Foreign Affairs has, during the past few days, in furtherance of the
 views of its Chairman, Senator Sherman, been discussing the question
 of inviting the Dominion of Canada to join the United States. So
 far have matters progressed that it is not at all unlikely that a
 resolution will be reported for concurrent action of both Houses,
 declaring it to be the duty of the President to open negotiations
 with Great Britain, looking to a political union between the
 English-speaking nations on this continent.

 The condition attending the invitation of Canada is understood to be
 that the United States would assume the entire public debt of the
 Dominion, estimated at $300,000,000.

 Commercial Union was urged as the basis of the proposed negotiation,
 on the ground that while a large majority might be secured for it,
 only a small minority favoured political union, but the sentiment of
 the Committee was so strong in favour of proposing at first Political
 Union, that it was impossible to contend with it.

                                                         ERASTUS WIMAN.

An attempt was made by Mr. Wiman to withdraw this message, but it
failed, and it was published in two or three papers.

The United States papers were for a year or two filled with articles
discussing annexation, sometimes in friendly strains, sometimes in a
most hostile spirit. President Cleveland's retaliation proclamation
following closely the refusal of the United States Senate to confirm a
treaty which had been agreed upon between Great Britain and the United
States, was a direct threat against Canada, issued to the people of the
Republic at a time likely to influence the result of the approaching
Presidential election.

On the 26th September, 1888, the Chicago _Tribune_ concluded a very
aggressive article with these words:

 There are two ways in which Canada can protect herself from all
 possibility of a quarrel with this country about fish. One of these
 is by commercial union with the United States. The other is political
 union. If she is not ready for either, then her safety lies in not
 provoking the United States by unfair or unfriendly dealing, for when
 the provocation comes, Uncle Sam will reach out and take her in, in
 order to ensure quiet, and neither she nor her venerable old mother
 can prevent it.

This paper about the same time had a cartoon depicting "The United
States in 1900," showing Uncle Sam bestriding the whole North American
continent.

The New York _World_, in December, 1888, also published a map of
North America to show what the United States would look like after
Canada came in, and depicted our country divided up into twenty-eight
new States and territories, and named to suit the Yankee taste. In
connection with this map the _World_ published an interview with
Senator Sherman, in which he advocated strenuously the annexation of
Canada to the United States, saying that "the fisheries dispute and the
question of the right of free transit of American goods over Canadian
railroads are a type of the disputes that have vexed the two nations
for a century, and will continue to disturb them as long as the present
conditions exist. To get rid of these questions we must get rid of the
frontier."

In the descriptive article on the map everything that could help to
excite the cupidity of the people of the United States was said and
with great ability, and Professor Goldwin Smith was cited as declaring:

 It is my avowed conviction that the union of the English-speaking
 race upon this continent will some day come to pass. For twenty years
 I have watched the action of the social and economical forces which
 are all, as it seems to me, drawing powerfully and steadily in that
 direction.

The map and the articles accompanying it were evidently published to
accustom the minds of the people of the United States to the idea of
expansion and aggression:

 What a majestic empire the accompanying map suggests; one unbroken
 line from the Arctic Ocean to the Torrid Zone. The United States
 is here shown as embracing nearly the whole of the North American
 continent. Having conquered the Western wilderness the star of
 Empire northward points its way. . . . There would be no more trouble
 about fishing treaties or retaliation measures, and peace with all
 nations would be assured, by making the United States absolute master
 of the vast Western continent. The Empire that this nation would
 embrace under such circumstances is so vast in extent that none other
 furnishes a parallel.

This is only an illustration of the feeling all over the United States
at this period from 1888 to 1890. The newspapers and magazines were
filled with articles and cartoons all pointing in the same direction.
Mr. Whitney, a member of the United States Cabinet, even went so far as
to say that four armies of 25,000 men each could easily conquer Canada,
indicating that the question of attacking Canada had been thought of.
General Benjamin F. Butler, in the _North American Review_, one of
their most respectable magazines, speaking of annexation, 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.
General J. H. Wilson, a prominent railway manager, presented a petition
to the United States Senate in which he said:

 The best and most thoughtful citizens were coming to look upon
 the existence of Canada, and the allied British possessions in
 North America, as a continuous and growing menace to our peace and
 prosperity, and that they should be brought under the constitution and
 laws of our country as soon as possible, peacefully if it can be so
 arranged, but forcibly if it must.

Then came the McKinley Bill especially bearing upon the articles where
Canada's trade could be most seriously injured. It was believed that
traitors in our own country assisted in arranging this part of the
tariff so as to strike Canada as severely as possible. As another
instance of the unprincipled manner in which these conspirators carried
on their work, the following Press dispatch was sent to some of the
United States papers:

 At a meeting called in Stimpson, Ontario, to hear a debate on
 annexation _v._ independence or continued dependence, a vote taken
 after the speakers had finished showed 418 for the annexation to 21
 for the _status quo_. It seems almost incredible, but this meeting is
 a good indication of the rapid strides the annexation sentiment is
 making among the Canadian people. The Tories cannot keep Canada out of
 the Union much longer.

As I have never been able to discover any place of that name in
Ontario, and as there is no such post office in the official list, it
is evident that the dispatch was a pure invention for the purpose of
deceiving the people of the United States.

Another important indication of the feeling is shown in an article in
the New York _Daily Commercial Bulletin_ in November, 1888, referring
to certain political considerations as between Canada and the States.
It states:

 What these are may be inferred from the recent utterances of prominent
 American statesmen like Senator Sherman and Mr. Whitney, Secretary
 of the Navy, just previous to the recent election, with reference
 to which the _Bulletin_ has recently had something to say. Both
 are inimical to commercial union unless it be also 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 public 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 is 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 a war with England, though it is but justice to him to say
 that he is of the opinion that the Mother Country, if really persuaded
 that the Canadians themselves were in favour of separating from her,
 would not fire a gun nor spend a pound sterling to prevent it. . . .
 The whole drift is unquestionably in that direction (political union),
 and in the meantime we do not look for positive action on the part of
 Congress, on either commercial reciprocity or the fisheries, at this
 session or the next. These questions, in all human probability, will
 be purposely left open by the party managers in order to force the
 greater issue, which, as it seems to me, none but a blind man can fail
 to see is already looming up with unmistakable distinctness in the
 future.

The _New York World_ in the early part of 1890 "instructed its
correspondents in Montreal, Toronto, and Quebec to describe impartially
the political situation in Canada in regard to annexation to the United
States." The report charges Premier Mercier with being "a firm believer
in annexation as the ultimate destiny of the Dominion of Canada,"
but he "is too shrewd a politician to openly preach annexation to
his fellow countrymen under existing circumstances." The report also
quotes the Toronto _Globe_ as saying that the Canadian people "find
the Colonial yoke a galling one," and that "the time when Canadian
patriotism was synonymous with loyalty to the British connection has
long since gone by."

The concluding paragraph of the _World's_ article is the most
suggestive and insolent:

 Nobody who has studied the peculiar methods by which elections are
 won in Canada will deny the fact, that five or six million dollars,
 judiciously expended in this country, would secure the return to
 Parliament of a majority pledged to the annexation of Canada to the
 United States.

The leading men in this conspiracy in Canada were Edward Farrer,
Solomon White, Elgin Myers, E. A. Macdonald, Goldwin Smith, and John
Charlton, the two latter being the only men of any prominent status
or position in the movement, and after a time Charlton left it. These
men were avowed annexationists, while there were a great many in
favour of commercial union who did not believe that it would result in
annexation, or did not care, and there were numbers who were ready to
float with the stream, and quite willing to advocate annexation if they
thought the movement was likely to succeed. When the Continental Union
Association was formed in 1892, Goldwin Smith accepted the Honorary
Presidency in Canada, for the organisation had its principal strength
in New York, where a large number of prominent and wealthy men joined
its ranks, Francis Wayland Glen being the Secretary. Glen became angry
at the defection of some Liberal leaders after they obtained office,
and gave the names of the organisers in a letter to the Ottawa _Evening
Journal_ of the 13th September, 1904, as follows:

 Charles A. Dana, Andrew Carnegie, John Jacob Astor, Ethan Allen,
 Warner Miller, Edward Lauterbach, Wm. C. Whitney, Orlando B. Potter,
 Horace Porter, John Hay, Theodore Roosevelt, Elihu Root, Oswald
 Ottendorfer, Cornelius N. Bliss, John D. Long, Jno. B. Foraker, Knute
 Nelson, Jacob Gallinger, Roswell P. Flower, Joseph Jno. O'Donohue,
 Chauncey M. Depew, John P. Jones, Wm. Walter Phelps, General
 Butterfield, General Henry W. Slocum, General James H. Wilson, General
 Granville W. Dodge, Charles Francis Adams, Oliver Ames, Seth Low,
 Bourke Cochrane, John C. McGuire, Dennis O'Brien, Charles L. Tiffany,
 John Clafflin, Nathan Straus, and Samuel Spencer.

In the list we received in addition to these there were others, nearly
500 in all.

Afterwards, in 1893, I was able to get some further information as to
the treasonable nature of the movement as far as the Canadian side
of it was concerned. The intention of those interested in the United
States was to endeavour to extend the power of that country to the
Arctic Ocean, as it had been extended to Mexico and the Pacific.

The Continental Union League in New York was in close connection with
the Continental Union Association of Ontario. Mr. Goldwin Smith, as I
have said, accepted the position of Honorary President, John Morrison
was the President, and T. M. White Secretary. The headquarters were
in Toronto. We had information at the time that Mr. Goldwin Smith
subscribed $500 to the funds, and that this was intended to be an
annual subscription.

There were two members of our League with whom I was constantly
conferring on the private matters connected with our work. Upon them,
more than on any others, did I depend for advice, for consultation,
and for assistance, and I can never forget the obligations I am under
to them. We three accidentally saw an opportunity of getting some
knowledge of the working of the Continental Union League in New York.
By great good fortune we were able to perfect arrangements by which
one who was in the confidence of the movement in New York was induced
to send us any information that could be obtained. For a considerable
time we were in receipt of most interesting information, much of which
was verified by independent evidence. We often heard from our agent
beforehand of what was going to take place, and every time matters
came to pass just as we had been forewarned. In many instances we had
independent corroborative evidence that the statements were reliable.

We were informed of a written agreement, signed by a Canadian Liberal
leader, to have legislation carried to handicap the Canadian Pacific
Railway if the Liberal party came into power. Our agent even obtained
knowledge of where and by whom it was signed, and who at the time had
custody of it. We received copies of many of Glen's letters to Mercier,
Fairer, Bourke Cochrane, and others. One letter to Colonel John Hay
at Washington informed him that the New York League was working in
conjunction with the Ontario League. A letter to Farrer told him of
a meeting held in November, 1893, in the New York _Sun_ office, at
which Honore Mercier, John Morrison, Tarte, and Robidoux were present,
that money was asked to aid the Liberals, but Glen objected. This
information we received some months after this meeting had been held.
Eleven years later, in the letter already referred to, which Glen in
his anger wrote to the Ottawa _Journal_ of the 13th September, 1904, I
find the following paragraph:

 Upon the 4th November, 1893, Wilfrid Laurier held a meeting of his
 friends in Montreal, and that meeting sent a deputation to New
 York to ask funds of the National Continental Union League for the
 elections, which it was supposed would take place in the spring of
 1894. Israel Tarte, Honore Mercier, J. E. Robidoux, Louis Joseph
 Papineau and Mr. Langelier, and Sir Oliver Mowat was represented by
 John Morison, of Toronto. These gentlemen met Mr. Dana, Mr. Carnegie,
 and myself in the office of _The Sun_ on November 6th. Mr. Tarte
 asked as a beginning for $50,000, with which to purchase _Le Monde_
 newspaper, and Mr. Morison desired $50,000 to purchase a labour paper
 in Toronto. Mr. Carnegie asked Mr. Tarte if he was prepared to pledge
 the Liberal party to advocate the independence of Canada as a prelude
 to continental union.

 He replied that if we furnished them with money for the elections they
 would do so if they were successful in the elections. Mr. Morison
 agreed with Mr. Tarte. Mr. Carnegie then asked Hon. Honore Mercier if
 he would contest the province of Quebec in favour of the independence
 of Canada as a prelude to continental union. He replied, Yes.

This statement cannot be taken as reliable. Glen himself was not
reliable, and it is not at all probable that Sir Wilfrid Laurier had
anything to do with sending these men to New York, and yet some of them
may have told Glen that he had, or Glen may have assumed it. Certainly
Sir Oliver Mowat never asked Mr. Morison to make any application of any
kind. I do not believe he would have entrusted him with any mission,
and I am sure Sir Oliver Mowat was as much opposed to these intrigues
as I was. It is quite possible that Morison posed in New York as
representing Sir Oliver Mowat, but it was an absurdity.

The letter of Glen, however, proves that there was some foundation for
the information our agent sent to us.

In a letter to Mercier in February, 1894, Glen stated that John
Charlton, an Ontario Liberal, had called on Dana the day before for
money, and I have another letter signed by Francis W. Glen which
corroborates this statement of our informant.

Mr. Goldwin Smith's name appeared often in the correspondence, so did
Erastus Wiman's. Myers is mentioned as going over to New York to see
Dana. Glen writes to Mercier on the 3rd April, 1894, to write to Farrer
in reference to Goldwin Smith. On the same day he wrote to Bourke
Cochrane telling him that Goldwin Smith was anxious for a resolution in
Congress. A copy of the draft of the resolution referred to, which was
sent to us, reads as follows:

 RESOLVED:

 That we believe that the political union of the two great
 English-speaking communities who now occupy and control North America
 will deliver the continent from the scourge of war, and securely
 dedicate it to peaceful industry and progress, lessen the _per
 capita_ cost of government and defence, ensure the rapid development
 of its boundless natural resources, enlarge its domestic and foreign
 commerce, unite all interests in creating a systematic development
 of its means of internal communication with the sea-board by rail
 and water, protect and preserve its wealth, resources, privileges,
 and opportunities as the undisputed heritage of all, immensely add to
 its influence, prestige, and power, promote, extend, and perpetuate
 government by the people, and remove for ever the causes most likely
 to seriously disturb cordial relations and kindly intercourse with the
 Motherland. We therefore invite the Canadian people to cast in their
 lot with their own continent, and assure them that they shall have all
 the continent can give them. We will respect their freedom of action,
 and welcome them when they desire it into an equal and honourable
 union.

I do not know whether this was introduced into Congress or not.

We also had information of meetings at Carnegie's house and _The
Sun_ office, and what took place at them. All our information was
conveyed to Sir John Thompson, and at a meeting in Halifax he made
some reference to movements that were going on in the States, which
apparently attracted attention.

Not long after this we heard from our informant that at a meeting where
Carnegie, Dana, and Goldwin Smith were present, Goldwin Smith said
they would have to be very careful, as he believed there was a leak
somewhere.

Among other information we obtained was a copy of the subscriptions to
the fund. Some of the more important were Andrew Carnegie, $600; R. P.
Flower, $500; Charles A. Dana, $460; J. J. Astor, $200; O. B. Potter,
$150; W. C. Whitney, $100, &c.

Outside and apart from all this information, I was shown a letter
from Honore Mercier to Charles A. Dana, and a letter enclosing it to
the President of the Continental Union Association of Ontario. I was
able to secure photographs of these letters. I forwarded one copy of
these photographs to Lord Salisbury, but kept copies from which the
facsimiles here published are taken.

              MERCIER, GOUIN, & LEMIEUX, _Avocats_.
                                                              MONTREAL,
                                                    _9th August, 1893_.

  Hon. Honore Mercier, C.R.
  Lomer Gouin, L.L.B.
  Rodolphe Lemieux, L.L.L.

                     [_Private and Confidential._]

  To the Honorable MR. DANA, Editor of _The Sun_, New York.

  DEAR SIR,--

 I have met General Kirwin Sunday last, and am satisfied with the
 general result of the interview.

 I asked him to see you without delay, and to tell you what took place.

 As the matter he placed before me concerns chiefly the American side
 of our common cause, I thought better to have your view first and be
 guided by you.

 General Kirwin seems to be a reliable man, as you stated in your
 letter, and to be much devoted to our cause.

 My trip in the East has been a success and will bring out a strong and
 very important move in favour of Canadian Independence.

 I will be in Chicago on the 22nd inst. to take part in the French
 Canadian Convention and hope to obtain there a good result.

 Allow me to bring your attention to my state of poverty and to ask you
 if our New York friends could not come to my rescue, in order that I
 might continue the work, in providing me with at least my travelling
 expenses.

 I make that suggestion very reluctantly but by necessity.

                     Believe me, dear Sir,
                                  Yours very truly,
                                                        HONORE MERCIER.

 P.S.--I would advise you to seal and register every letter you will
 send me. I intend to leave for Chicago on Sunday, the 13th inst., and
 stop at Detroit and Buffalo.

                                                                  H. M.

 [Illustration: facsimile of letter]

                              "THE SUN,"
                                             _New York, Aug. 12, 1893_.

  DEAR MR. MORISON,

 I have just received the enclosed letter. Its demands are moderate.
 You know the sum which is in my hands. How much should I send him?
 Please return the letter with your answer.

                                   Yours faithfully,
                                                            C. A. DANA.

  JAMES MORISON, Esq.,
  _Toronto, Canada_.

[Illustration: facsimile of letter]

This letter of Mercier's is very significant. I do not understand
the allusion to General Kirwin. His name was Michael Kirwin, and
he is not to be confused with Capt. Michael Kirwan who served in
the North-West Rebellion. I knew the latter well, he was an Irish
gentleman. The General Kirwin was a Fenian, and from what I heard
of him at the time I gathered that he was somewhat of a soldier of
fortune. Whether Mercier was intriguing for a Fenian rising or for
Fenian influence in the United States in favour of annexation I do not
know, but the association with such a man had a sinister look, to my
mind. The letter, however, shows Mercier's strong support of Canadian
Independence, and his desire to obtain money from foreign enemies of
his country to enable him to carry out his intrigues.

The transmission of this letter to the President of the Continental
Union Association of Ontario for advice as to how much money should
be paid out to Mercier shows how closely the two organisations were
working together.

The foregoing pages show clearly the object and aim of the Commercial
Union Conspiracy, the widespread influence of the movement among the
foremost men of the United States, the dangers Canada had to face,
with the power of a great country active and unscrupulous against her,
and embarrassed by the internal treachery of disloyal men in her own
borders. My main object in the following chapters will be to describe
the efforts and exertions made to warn our people, and to frustrate the
designs and intrigues of our enemies at home and abroad.




                             CHAPTER XIII

  THE YEARS 1888 AND 1889 THE WORK OF THE IMPERIAL FEDERATION LEAGUE


After the inauguration of the Imperial Federation branch in Toronto on
the 24th March, 1888, the members were much encouraged by the result of
the debate in the Dominion House of Commons on Sir Richard Cartwright's
motion in favour of unrestricted reciprocity with the United States.
The vote was taken at half-past four on the morning of the 7th April
after a discussion lasting for many days. The resolution was defeated
by a majority of 57 in a house of 181 members. The Commons of Canada
then sang "God Save the Queen."

The _Mail_ attacked me on the 26th April, 1888, on account of my
statement that the originators of commercial union were traitors, and
threatened that if I did not desist from acting in that way I should be
removed from the position of police magistrate. Replying the next day
in a letter to the editor I repeated:

 that Commercial Union originated in treason, and that it emanated
 from a traitor in New York. This view I still hold and will express
 whenever and wherever I feel disposed. . . .

I went on to say:

 I do not look upon this question as a political or party question. It
 is one affecting our national life. It is a foreign intrigue to betray
 us into the hands of a foreign people, and it behoves every Canadian
 who loves his country to do his utmost to save it from annihilation.

 I did not ask for the position of police magistrate; it was offered
 to me by cable when I was in England. I accepted it at Mr. Mowat's
 request. I feel under no obligation whatever to the country for the
 office. I feel I am giving good service for every dollar I receive.
 I did not want the office at the time I was appointed, and can live
 without it whenever I choose to do so, and all the traitors in the
 United States and Canada combined cannot make me cease to speak for
 my country when occasion requires . . . on questions affecting the
 national life, I shall always try to be in the front rank of those who
 stand up for Canada.

On the 7th May, 1888, the Toronto branch sent a deputation to Lord
Lansdowne, Governor-General, to present a memorial praying his
Excellency to invite the Australian Governments, and the Government of
New Zealand to join the Canadian Government in a conference to devise
means for the development of reciprocal trade and commerce.

_The Imperial Federation Journal_ published this memorial and Lord
Lansdowne's reply, and spoke of the energy and _élan_ which the
Canadian branches were displaying, and then added prophetically, "They
have, if we mistake not, set a ball a-rolling that will be found ere
long too big to be described in the half dozen lines of print that is
all the great English newspapers have so far seen fit to devote to the
subject."

The organisation of new branches of the League followed rapidly the
successful meeting in Toronto. On the 2nd April, 1888, a strong branch
was formed at Brantford, Ontario. On the 16th April another was formed
at St. Thomas, another about the same time at Port Arthur, on the 4th
May another at Orillia, while a very successful meeting of the Ottawa
Branch was held on the 22nd April, to carry a resolution in favour of
discriminating tariffs between the Colonies and the Mother Country.

On the 4th June there was a rousing meeting of the branch of the League
at Halifax, Nova Scotia, at which a resolution was unanimously carried
in favour of reciprocal trade between the colonies and Great Britain.
At this meeting the late Archbishop O'Brien, one of the ablest and
most patriotic men that Canada has produced, made a most eloquent and
powerful speech against commercial union or annexation, and, speaking
of the men advocating these ideas, he said:

 There are, however, others of this section less worthy of respect.
 They are men who have not courage to face great national problems, but
 think it wisdom to become the Cassandra of every noble undertaking.
 These men have for leader and mouthpiece Goldwin Smith, the
 peripatetic prophet of pessimism. Because, forsooth, his own life
 has been a dismal failure, because his overweening vanity was badly
 injured in its collision with Canadian common sense, because we would
 not take phrases void of sense for apophthegms of wisdom, he, the
 fossilised enemy of local autonomy and the last defender of worn-out
 bigotry, has put his feeble curse on Canadian nationality and assumed
 the leadership of the gruesome crowd of Missis Gummidges, who see no
 future for Canada but vassalage to the United States. Let them, if
 it so pleases, wring their hands in cowardly despair; but are we,
 the descendants of mighty races, the inheritors of a vast patrimony,
 the heirs of noble traditions, so poor in resources or so degenerate
 as to know no form of action save the tears and handwringings of
 dismal forebodings? It is an insult, and should be resented as
 such, to be told that annexation is our destiny. The promoters of
 Imperial Federation are called dreamers. Well, their dream is at
 least an ennobling one, one that appeals to all the noble sentiments
 of manhood. But what are we to say to the dreary prophets of evil,
 the decriers of their country, the traitors of their magnificent
 inheritance? They are not dreamers: they are the dazed victims of a
 hideous nightmare, to be kindly reasoned with when sincere, to be
 remorselessly thrust aside when acting the demagogue. The principle
 of Canadian nationality has taken too firm a hold on our people
 to permit them to merge their distinct life in that of a nation
 whose institutions give no warrant of permanency, as they afford no
 guarantee of real individual and religious liberty.

This extract from the speech of the Roman Catholic Archbishop of
Halifax indicates clearly how the Canadian feeling was being aroused by
the attempts upon the national life of Canada.

In the summer of this year the United States Senate refused to endorse
the Fisheries Treaty which had been agreed upon by President Cleveland
and the British authorities. This was followed by a Retaliation
proclamation, or at least by a message to Congress, asking for powers
to retaliate upon Canada, by cancelling the bonding privileges which
we have been using for very many years. The Retaliation Act was passed
after a most hostile discussion against Canada. This threat was
received by our people in the most unflinching spirit, and the matter
was soon dropped by the United States Government.

In October, 1888, the Toronto _Globe_, evidently with the object of
accustoming the minds of the Canadian people to the idea that the
question of Annexation or Independence was a live issue, and one to
be discussed and considered with as much freedom and propriety as
tariff reform or temperance legislation or manhood suffrage, called for
letters discussing the advantages or disadvantages of annexation or
independence. It was the same scheme that Goldwin Smith had endeavoured
to work in the National Club.

On the 6th October I wrote a letter to the _Globe_ on the condition and
prospects of Canada, and said:

 Events are crowding upon us faster than we are aware. Let us look back
 over the past few months. First came the Commercial Union movement,
 apparently originated by a Canadian in the interests of Canada, but
 which is now shown to have been a Yankee plot worked by a renegade
 with the object of producing annexation. Then came the repudiation
 of the Fisheries Treaty by the Republican party, followed by the
 Retaliation proclamation of the Democratic President; then came the
 almost unanimous passage of the Retaliation Act in the United States
 House of Representatives after a long succession of speeches by
 members of both political parties violently abusive and unreasonably
 hostile to Canada. Then came the speech of Senator Sherman exposing
 the hostile policy of a hundred years. Then the discussion of
 negotiations for annexation in the Committee of Foreign Relations, and
 to-day Senator Sherman's interview, in which he says, "Political union
 is necessary or war is inevitable." At this moment the Presidential
 election is being fought out on the question as to which party is
 most hostile to England and Canada, and unless a marked change comes
 over the people of the United States, it will not be many years
 before we shall be fighting for our existence as a free people on this
 continent. Senator Sherman's last warning is straight to the point,
 and cannot be overlooked or misunderstood.

I then went on to urge that we must forget all party differences, that
we should unite in the face of the common danger, that a firm and
united front might save us all the horrors of war, pointing out that
"at the Trent affair if there had been treason in Canada, or the least
sign of division in our ranks, we would have had war."

A number of letters in favour of annexation appeared in the _Globe_,
and I became much alarmed, for the writers signed their names. I
felt that if the discussion went on unchecked it would in time have
a certain effect upon the wobblers and the unreliable. I had studied
carefully the American Revolution, and was of the opinion that the
whole success of that movement was due to the fact that the loyal men,
and the law-abiding men, did nothing themselves, but relied upon the
constituted authorities to check a movement that in the end robbed them
of their property, deprived them of all their civil rights, and drove
them penniless into exile. I felt that as far as I was concerned I
would leave no stone unturned to prevent such a fate befalling Canada
through supineness or indifference.

At the annual dinner of the Caledonian Society of Toronto, on the
30th October, 1888, I responded to the toast of "The Army, Navy, and
Volunteers." The _Empire_ of the 31st October reported my speech as
follows:

 Colonel Denison launched forth a few hundred words which made the
 Scots fairly jump with enthusiasm, He referred in the first place
 to the achievements of Scotchmen in the British Army, and then spoke
 about the Canadian Volunteers. Canada at this moment, he said, is
 passing through a very critical crisis in her history. She will be
 called upon to preserve her national life within the next three or
 four years. (Someone ejaculated "Oh! Oh!") It's all very well to say
 "Oh! Oh!" said the Colonel. I tell you things are crowding upon us
 very fast. Within the past two months we have seen one thing after
 another showing a most bitter and hostile feeling towards this country
 on the part of the United States. Only this very evening came a
 telegram from Washington, saying that Cleveland is going to issue his
 retaliation proclamation immediately. Let him do it. (Cheers.) I have
 every faith in Canada. We have got everything on this northern half
 of this continent to make this a great country. We have the country
 and the people, and we can hold our own. All that is necessary is for
 us to be true to ourselves. (Cheers.) Then let us have confidence
 in ourselves and in our future. I am sorry to see that a few have
 not sufficient confidence in our future. I hope our volunteers will
 mark these traitors in this country, and put them in the rear when
 trouble comes. I do not like to see letters in our papers advocating
 annexation. It is nothing but rank treason. (Cheers.) There is one
 thing about it though, gentlemen, when these men come out, and put
 their names to annexation papers, they can be marked. We can put "ear
 marks" on them, and when trouble comes we will know who the traitors
 are. (Ringing cheers.)

And I went on to say we were putting their names in a list.

The _Globe_ was evidently much put out at my action, and not daring
openly to take the opposite view, relieved its feelings in a long
article heaping ridicule upon me and upon the Rev. Mr. Milligan, who
had spoken sympathetically with me at the same dinner, and intimating
that I was anxious for war with the United States. I wrote in reply to
this:

 I believe the United States to be very hostile to Canada; I believe
 they always have been. I believe they will endeavour to destroy our
 national life by force or fraud whenever they can, with the object
 of absorbing us. This has been my view for years, and I feel that
 the history of the past is strong evidence of the correctness of my
 opinion, if the events of the last two months are not absolute proof
 of it.

 I have always warned my fellow-countrymen of this danger. I have
 always striven to encourage a healthy Canadian national spirit, a
 confidence in ourselves and in our future. I have endeavoured to give
 courage to the faint-hearted and the timid, and have always urged that
 Canadians of all classes should stand shoulder to shoulder ready to
 make any and every sacrifice for the State. I have felt that doubts
 and misgivings, the preaching and talking of annexation, were of
 all things the most likely to induce the Yankees to attack us. In
 1812, the belief that we were divided, that the traitors were in the
 majority among us, and that we were ripe for annexation, had much to
 do with bringing on a bloody and severe war. The unanimity and courage
 displayed by our people at the Trent affair, the bold and unbroken
 front then shown by the Canadians saved us from war at that time.

 To-day every word that is said in Canada in favour of annexation, or
 that shows a want of confidence in ourselves, is being vigorously used
 in the United States to create a widespread belief in that country
 that we are ripe for annexation. This dangerous mistake will pave the
 way to war, and this is why I so strongly resent a line of action that
 is so fraught with danger to our country.

 Talk of my wanting war! The idea is absurd. It is the last thing I
 want. I hold that we have a free Government, that we have the fullest
 political, religious, and personal liberty. Our country is one of the
 most prosperous, if not the most prosperous, country in the world,
 and we have every hope of a great national future. If we had war
 it would cost the lives of thousands of our best. It would destroy
 our property, ruin our business interests, throw back our country
 twenty years in progress, burden us with an enormous debt, and if
 completely victorious we could not be freer, or have greater liberty
 or advantages, than we have to-day. We have no reason to go to war,
 unless we are driven to defend and preserve all we hold dear. No one
 appreciates this better than I do, and on that account all my efforts
 have been in the direction of preserving peace.

 If war comes you will probably be still carrying on the newspaper
 business on King Street, your annexation correspondents will (if at
 large) still be spreading fears and misgivings in the rear, if not
 traitorously aiding the enemy, but I will have to be on the outpost
 line, exposed to all the hardships and trials of war. I know enough
 of war to hope that the Almighty may give us peace in our time, but
 rather than my country should be lost, I hope when the day of trial
 comes that God may give me courage to make any and every sacrifice in
 the interests of my native land.

 I have been abused and attacked, threatened and ridiculed by Canadians
 for speaking out for Canada, but while I live nothing shall prevent me
 from doing what I believe to be the duty of every true Canadian.

One member of the Ontario Government met me on the street about this
time, and took me to task for speaking so strongly on the question of
Commercial Union and Unrestricted Reciprocity. I gave him an emphatic
reply that I would follow my own course in the matter. Another
prominent gentleman, since a Senator, and now a preferential tariff
supporter, also spoke to me on the street, and said, "Certainly people
should be allowed to discuss annexation or independence as they liked."
I denied this vehemently, and declared they could not have either
without fighting, and I told him plainly that if he meant to secure
either he had better hang me on a lamp-post, or otherwise, if it became
a live issue, I would hang him. I had made up my mind that if there was
to be any of the work that the "Sons of Liberty" resorted to in the
United States before the Revolution, we of the loyal party would follow
their example and do it ourselves. Sir Oliver Mowat, then Premier and
Attorney-General, once spoke to me, advising me not to be so violent in
my language. My reply was that if the matter became dangerous I would
resign my Police Magistracy one day, and he would find me leading a
mob the next. Sir Oliver Mowat was a thorough loyalist, and at heart I
think he fully sympathised with me.

Early in November, 1888, there was a large Convention of Dentists
held in Syracuse, New York State, which Dr. W. George Beers, of
Montreal, attended. At the banquet a toast was proposed, "Professional
Annexation." Dr. Beers replied in an eloquent, loyal, and manly
speech, which voiced the Canadian feeling. It was copied into many
Canadian papers, and printed in pamphlet form and circulated broadcast
throughout the country.

He told them: "Just as you had and have your croakers and cowards we
have ours, but Canada is not for sale. . . . Annexation as a serious
subject has received its doom, and in spite of the intoxication of
senatorial conceit on the one side, and the croaking of malcontents and
tramps on the other, Canada is loyal to the Mother Country from whose
stout old loins both of us sprang." And after describing the extent and
resources of the British Empire, he said: "Sharers in such a realm,
heirs to such vast and varied privileges, Canadians are not for sale."

During December, 1888, I spoke at a large meeting at Ingersoll on the
6th with Mr. J. M. Clark, on the 11th at Lindsay with Mr. James L.
Hughes, and on the 20th at a meeting of the Toronto League.

In 1889 the work went on very vigorously. Dr. George R. Parkin, one of
the most eloquent and able of our members, who had been lecturing in
England on behalf of the parent League, made a tour through Canada,
and the Imperial Federation League arranged a series of meetings which
he addressed with great eloquence and power. He was then on the way
to Australia, where his energy and enthusiasm helped on the spirit of
Imperialism among the people of that colony and New Zealand, and gave
the movement an impetus there which has not been lost. This was helped
by some speeches delivered in Australia in 1888, by Principal George M.
Grant, the greatest of our members, one who never lost an opportunity
of doing all he could for the cause.

It was an interesting fact that at one of Dr. Parkin's meetings at
St. Thomas he was accompanied by Mr. E. E. Sheppard, who, it will be
remembered, was one of the early advocates of Independence, and who
had flown an Independence flag over his office in 1884. Mr. Sheppard
had been won over by the arguments of our League to advocate Imperial
Federation as a practical means of becoming independent, and had
become a member of our Committee and a very powerful advocate of our
cause.

In Canada the League was very active this year. On the 11th January,
1889, Mr. D'Alton McCarthy and I addressed a large and enthusiastic
meeting at Peterboro. On the 17th January I attended a Sons of
England Banquet at St. Thomas, organised as a demonstration against
Annexation and in favour of Imperial Unity, where I responded to the
principal toast, and made a strong appeal against Commercial Union
and in favour of Imperial Consolidation. On the 9th February, A.
J. Cattanach, Commander Law, J. T. Small and I went to Hamilton in
Imperial Federation interests. On the 18th February, Dr. Parkin spoke
at St. Thomas. On the 29th March, 1889, J. Castell Hopkins and I
addressed a large meeting at Woodstock. I spoke at the St. George's
Society Banquet, Toronto, 23rd April. On the 11th May, there was a
large meeting at Hamilton addressed by Principal George M. Grant. The
Annual Meeting of the League took place at Hamilton the same day, and
the early difficulties of the movement are well evidenced by the fact
that at the Annual Meeting of the League only eleven representatives
were present, viz.: D'Alton McCarthy, M.P., President, in the Chair;
Thomas Macfarlane, F.R.S.C., representing Ottawa Branch; Principal G.
M. Grant, President Kingston Branch; Henry Lyman, President Montreal
Branch; H. H. Lyman, Treasurer; J. Castell Hopkins, one of the Hon.
Secretaries; Commander Law, Secretary Toronto Branch; D. T. Symons,
Lt.-Colonel George T. Denison, J. T. Small, and Senator McInnes. On the
21st May, Principal Grant delivered an address in Toronto, and another
on the 16th August at Chatauqua, near Niagara-on-the-Lake, both
powerful appeals in support of the cause.

The Commercial Unionists made violent attacks upon the League,
ridiculing it and its objects, and caricatures were often published
making light of our efforts, while many Liberal newspapers, led by the
_Globe_, attacked us at every available opportunity.




                              CHAPTER XIV

                             THE YEAR 1890


This was the most active and important year of our work for the
Empire, and we began to see the result of the efforts we had made. The
Commercial Union movement was as active and dangerous as ever, and the
contest was carried on with great vigour all the year.

On the 6th February, 1890, I wrote to Sir John Macdonald telling
him that the next election would be fought on the straight issue of
loyalty. At that time he hardly agreed with me, but before the year was
out my forecast was verified.

On the 13th January, 1890, I addressed a dinner of the Sons of England.
On the 25th of the same month I had a letter in the _Globe_ pointing
out the dangers of the belief obtaining ground that we were divided.
I knew that Mr. Mulock proposed moving a resolution in the House of
Commons to show how united our people were on the question of loyalty
to the Empire, and, to aid him, went on to say:

 These conspirators are working now every day to pave the way for
 trouble. The public mind of the United States is being educated, and
 those in Canada working for them and with them, some consciously,
 some unconsciously, are sowing seed of which we will reap the bitter
 harvest. The Canadians advocating Independence are of two classes, one
 a class loyal to Canada above all, the other using Independence as a
 cloak, knowing that Independence just now, while making us no freer,
 would deprive us of the backing of the Empire, and change our present
 practical independence, either to an absolute dependence on the United
 States or to the necessity of a desperate struggle with them.

 Mr. Mulock will do good service if he succeeds, as I suppose he
 will, in getting a unanimous vote of our Parliament in favour of
 the existing constitution of our country. It will show that we are
 not a downtrodden people, waiting for our neighbours to aid us in
 throwing off a galling yoke, and will tend to counteract the plots of
 those conspirators who are intriguing for our conquest and national
 extinction.

 We must show them that we are a united people on national questions.
 It is our only safeguard. If we are to be weakened by internal
 dissensions in the face of foreign aggression, God help our country.

On the 29th January, 1890, Mr. Mulock moved an address to her Majesty
in the following terms:

  MOST GRACIOUS MAJESTY,

 We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of
 Canada in Parliament assembled, desire most earnestly in our own name,
 and on behalf of the people whom we represent, to renew the expression
 of our unswerving loyalty and devotion to Your Majesty's person and
 Government.

 We have learned with feelings of entire disapproval that various
 public statements have been made, calling in question the loyalty
 of the people of Canada to the political union now happily existing
 between this Dominion and the British Empire, and representing it as
 the desire of the people of Canada to sever such connection.

 We desire, therefore, to assure Your Majesty that such statements are
 wholly incorrect representations of the sentiments and aspirations
 of the people of Canada, who are among Your Majesty's most loyal
 subjects, devotedly attached to the political union existing between
 Canada and the Mother Country, and earnestly desire its continuance.

 We feel assured that Your Majesty will not allow any such statement,
 emanating from any source whatever, to lessen Your Majesty's
 confidence in the loyalty of your Canadian subjects to Your Majesty's
 person and Government, and will accept our assurances of the
 contentment of Your Majesty's Canadian subjects with the political
 connection between Canada and the rest of the British Empire, and of
 their fixed resolve to aid in maintaining the same.

 We pray that the blessings of Your Majesty's reign may, for your
 people's sake, be long continued.

Mr. Mulock's speech clearly explains the reasons for his action. He
said:

 We are all observers of current events, we are all readers of the
 literature of the day, and we have had the opportunity of observing
 the trend of the American Press during the last few months. In that
 Press you find a doctrine set forth as if it were the expression of
 one mind, but appearing in the whole of the Press of the United States
 and being in that way spread far and wide. You find it asserted there
 that the political institutions in Canada are broken down; that we
 are a people divided against ourselves or amongst ourselves; that
 we are torn apart by internal dissensions; that race is set against
 race, creed against creed, Province against Province, and the Dominion
 against the Empire; and that this has created a feeling in favour of
 independence or annexation which is now only awaiting the opportunity
 to take practical form and shape. These statements have, no doubt,
 already done injury to our country. A surplus population does not
 seek countries which are supposed to be bordering on revolution.
 Capital does not seek investment in countries which are supposed not
 to be blessed with stable government. Therefore, for the information
 of the outside world, for the information of those who have not had
 the advantage of being born or becoming Canadian citizens, for their
 advantage and for our own advantage ultimately, I have asked the House
 to adopt this resolution. To give further colour to these statements,
 we find that the United States Congress appointed a Committee of the
 Senate, ostensibly to inquire into the relations of Canada with the
 United States; but if anyone investigated the proceedings of that
 Committee, he would find that apparently the principal anxiety of the
 Commission is to discover satisfactory evidence that this country is
 in a frame of mind to be annexed to the United States. I know of no
 better way of meeting their curiosity on that subject, and at the
 same time of settling this question, than for the people of Canada,
 through their representatives here assembled, to make an authoritative
 deliverance upon the subject. Such a deliverance will go far, I
 believe, to settle the question in the minds of the people of the old
 lands, those of England and of continental Europe, and then I hope
 it will result in setting once more flowing towards our shores the
 surplus capital and the surplus population of those old lands which
 are so much wanted for the development of the resources of this vast
 Dominion. I make this statement in no feeling of unfriendliness to the
 United States. We cannot blame them for casting longing eyes towards
 this favoured land, but we can only attribute that to Canada's worth,
 and, therefore, to that extent we can appreciate their advances. But
 that the American people seriously believe that Canada, a land so full
 of promise, is now prepared, in her very infancy, to commit political
 suicide, I cannot for a moment believe. Do the American people
 believe that this young country, with her illimitable resources,
 with a population representing the finest strains of human blood,
 with political institutions based upon a model that has stood the
 strain for ages, and has ever become stronger--do they believe that
 this country, possessing within her own limits all the essentials
 for enduring national greatness, is now prepared to abandon the work
 of the Confederation fathers, and pull out from the Confederation
 edifice the cement of British connection which holds the various parts
 of the edifice together? Do they, I say, believe that the people of
 Canada are prepared in that way to disappear from the nations of the
 earth, amidst the universal contempt of the world? No, Mr. Speaker,
 the American people are too intelligent to believe any such a thing.
 They have been trying to make themselves believe it, but they cannot
 do it. But whether they believe it or not--no matter who believes it
 outside of Canada--I venture to say the Canadian people do not believe
 it; and whatever be the destiny of Canada, I trust that such as I have
 indicated is not to be her destiny.

The motion was carried by a vote of 161 yeas and no nays.

This action of the House of Commons was of the greatest possible good,
and gave great encouragement to our League.

By this time the meetings of the Executive Committee of the Imperial
Federation League were generally held in my office, at the old Police
Court. I often occupied the chair in the absence of Mr. D'Alton
McCarthy, and later of Sir Leonard Tilley, who succeeded him as
President. At a meeting held on the 17th February, 1890, Mr. Henry J.
Wickham read a letter which he had received from a friend in the United
States, mentioning the custom of flying the Stars and Stripes over
the schools in that country, and suggesting that a like custom might
be advantageous in Canada. The idea was seized on at once, and it was
decided to organise a representative deputation with a view to waiting
on the Minister of Education, and getting him to make such a regulation
that the national flag would be used in all public schools in Ontario,
and hoisted on certain days of the year to commemorate events of
national importance. The details of the matter were left in the hands
of Mr. H. J. Wickham and myself. Mr. Wickham acted as secretary, and
very soon we had organised a very influential and powerful deputation
of representative men to wait upon the Hon. G. W. Ross and to ask for
Government recognition and authority for the movement.

On the 21st February, 1890, our deputation was received by the Minister
of Education, and the objects we desired were explained to the Minister
by Mr. Wickham, Mr. Somers (Chairman of the Public School Board), by
myself as chairman of the deputation, and we were supported by Mayor
Clarke, J. M. Clark and others.

Mr. Ross said that "it was needless to say that he sympathised deeply
with the deputation in their request." He said also that "he considered
the display of the national emblem would be a fitting exhibition
representing externally what was being done inside the schools. He
would have no objection to make such a regulation, if it was not easy
enough now, and legal if it was not so now, to display the national
emblem in some such way as to impress upon the children the fact that
we are a country and have a flag and a place in it."

This was most satisfactory to us, and the movement soon became
general, and now in several Provinces the practice of displaying the
flag is followed.

On the same night, the 21st February, I attended the annual dinner
of the Sergeants' Mess of the Queen's Own Rifles, all of whom were
Imperial Federationists. I found there, for the first time at a public
dinner to my knowledge, as one of the principal toasts, "Imperial
Federation," to which I responded. Since then, at almost all public
dinners in Canada, some patriotic toast of that kind has appeared on
the programme--"The United Empire," "Canada," "Canada and the Empire"
"Our Country," and many variations of the idea.

On the 4th March, J. M. Clark and I went to Barrie and addressed a
large meeting in the interests of Imperial Federation, and received a
hearty support.

Our Committee about this time thought it would be well to issue a
kind of manifesto that would explain our objects, and put forth the
arguments in favour of our views and could be used as a kind of
campaign literature to be distributed freely throughout the country. It
was therefore arranged that a meeting should be held for the purpose
of organising a branch of the League at Guelph, and that I should make
a speech there that could be printed in separate form for general
circulation. Mr. Creighton, of the _Empire_, agreed to send a reporter
to take a shorthand report which was to be published in that paper. Mr.
Alexander McNeill went to the meeting with me and made an excellent
speech, one of many great efforts made by him for the cause.

The meeting was held on the 28th March, 1890, and afterwards fully
reported in the _Empire_. The meeting was large, the hall being filled,
and was as unanimous and enthusiastic as the warmest advocate of
Imperial Federation could have wished. The report of this meeting was
reprinted and circulated in great numbers throughout the country.

The following day Dr. W. George Beers delivered an eloquent and
powerful lecture in Toronto in the interests of our cause, which was
well received.




                              CHAPTER XV

                        VISIT TO ENGLAND, 1890


In December, 1889, the Council of the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce
passed the following resolution unanimously:

 That whilst the Council approve of the objects of the Imperial
 Federation League as set forth in their circular of November the 13th
 last, they are of opinion that the primary essential condition of
 Imperial Federation is a customs union of the Empire.

This adoption of the main point in the policy of the Canadian Branch of
the League was very gratifying to us.

The Annual Meeting of the League in Canada took place on the 30th
January, 1890, and there was considerable discussion on the question
of preferential or discriminating tariffs around the Empire, although
no formal resolution was carried, as direct action at that time was
thought to be premature.

I moved a resolution: "That this League wishes to urge on the
Government the importance of taking immediate steps to secure a
universal rate of penny postage for the Empire." This was seconded by
Mr. McNeill, and carried.

A resolution was also carried against the German-Belgian Treaties
which prevented preferential tariffs within the Empire.

Lt.-Col. W. Hamilton Merritt suggested that the League should send its
organisers to England, as it was there the missionary work would have
to be done. Mr. McGoun supported this view, saying that "the policy of
the Canadian League should be to send delegates to England to promote
the gospel of commercial unity of the Empire."

It will be seen that at this early period of the movement the Canadian
Branch of the League felt that the real work would have to be done in
England. We had discovered that there were clauses in two treaties with
Germany and Belgium which positively forbade any special advantages in
trade being given by Great Britain to any of her colonies, or by the
colonies in favour of Great Britain or each other, that should not be
given to Germany and Belgium. This as a necessary consequence would
take in all nations entitled to the favoured nation clause.

It was essential, as the very first step towards our policy being
adopted, that these two treaties made in 1862 and 1865 should be
denounced. The earliest period that either of them could be denounced
was on the 1st July, 1892, provided that a year's notice had been given
before the 1st July, 1891, in order to secure that result.

After full discussion in our Executive Committee, I agreed to go to
England with two objects in view, first to endeavour to prepare the way
for the denunciation of the treaties, and, secondly, to urge the policy
of preferential tariffs around the Empire. A special resolution was
adopted to authorise me to represent the Canadian Branch of the League
while in England.

I arrived at Liverpool on the 27th April, 1890, and found a message
requesting me to speak at a meeting at the People's Palace,
Whitechapel, the next evening. This meeting was called by the League
in order that Dr. George Parkin might deliver an address on Imperial
Federation. The Duke of Cambridge was in the chair, and Lord Rosebery,
Sir John Colomb, and I were the other speakers. I was requested to say
nothing about preferential tariffs, and consequently was obliged to
refrain.

On the 13th May I happened to be at a meeting of the Royal Colonial
Institute. Col. Owen read a paper on the military forces of the
colonies. In the discussion which ensued Sir Charles Dilke, after
complimenting other colonies, viz.: Australia, New Zealand, and Cape
Colony, then proceeded to comment adversely on Canada.

I answered him in a speech which will be found in the Appendix "A."

On the 19th May I addressed a meeting at the Mansion House, under the
auspices of the London Branch of the Imperial Federation League, in
favour of Australian Federation, and once more I was requested not to
touch on the question of preferential tariffs.

On the 15th May I had attended the meeting of the Executive Committee
of the League, and with some difficulty and considerable persistence
had secured the insertion of the following clauses in the draft Annual
Report:

 10. As anticipated in last year's Report, a strong feeling continues
 to exist in Canada against the continuance in commercial treaties
 with foreign countries of clauses preventing the different portions
 of the Empire from making such internal fiscal arrangements between
 themselves as they may think proper. The League in Canada at its
 Annual Meeting, held in January last, passed a resolution condemning
 such stipulations. Most of the treaties obnoxious to this view
 terminate in 1892, and it is expected that strong efforts will be made
 by the League in Canada to obtain the abrogation of such clauses where
 they exist, and the provision under all treaties that the favoured
 nation clause shall not have the effect of extending to foreign
 countries the advantage of any preferential arrangement between
 different parts of the Empire. Any action in this direction taken by
 the Dominion Government will have the hearty support of the Council.

The 13th clause of the Report contained a copy of Mr. Mulock's loyal
address to the Queen from the Dominion House of Commons. The 14th
clause was as follows:

 The significance of this action of the Dominion Parliament cannot be
 overrated, and the League in Canada is to be congratulated upon this
 most satisfactory outcome of its steady and persevering work during
 the past three years.

When the Council Meeting was held on the 19th May to adopt the Report
for presentation to the Annual Meeting, clause after clause was read
and passed without question, until the 10th clause quoted above was
reached, when at once an elderly gentleman rose and objected strongly
to it, and moved to have it struck out. He made a speech strongly
Free Trade in its tenor, and urged that nothing should be done to aid
or assist in any preferential arrangements. Seeing at once that this
reference to their favourite fetish appealed to the sympathies and
prejudices of those present, I was sure that if not stopped other
speakers would get up and endorse the view. I jumped up at once as he
sat down, and made a short speech, saying, I did not know when I had
heard a more illogical and inconsistent speech, that I gathered from
his remarks that the gentleman was a Free Trader, that his whole speech
showed that he was in favour of freedom of trade, and yet at the same
time he wished to maintain treaties that were a restriction upon trade;
that if we in Canada wished to give preferences to British goods, or
lower our duties in her favour, or if we wished to have free trade with
Great Britain, these treaties would forbid us doing so, unless Germany
and Belgium and all other countries were included; that I felt Canada
would give favours to Great Britain, but would positively refuse to
give them to Germany, and could anything be more inconsistent than for
a man declaring himself a Free Trader on principle, and yet refusing
to help us in Canada who wished to move in the direction of freer
trade with the Mother Country, and I begged of him to withdraw his
opposition? This he did, and my clause was passed.

I found out afterwards that my opponent was Sir Wm. Farrer. Years
afterwards when Canada gave the preference to Great Britain in 1897,
and the treaties were denounced, the Cobden Club gave to Sir Wilfrid
Laurier the Cobden gold medal.

The Annual Meeting of the Imperial Federation League was held three
days later, on the 22nd May. I was announced in the cards calling the
meeting as one of the principal speakers, and as the representative
of the League in Canada, and was to second the adoption of the Annual
Report. The day before the meeting, when in the offices of the League,
a number of the Committee and the Secretary were present, I once more
said that I wished to advocate preferential tariffs around the Empire.
It will be remembered that this was one of the two points that I was
commissioned to urge upon the parent League. I had been restrained at
the People's Palace and at the Mansion House, but being a member of
the League, a Member of the Council, and of the Executive Committee,
and representing the League in Canada by special resolution, I made
up my mind to carry out my instructions. The moment I suggested the
idea it was at once objected to, everyone present said it would be
impossible. I was persistent, and said, "Gentlemen, I have been stopped
twice already, but at the Annual Meeting I certainly have the right to
speak." They said that Lord Rosebery would be annoyed. I said, "What
difference does that make; the more reason he should know how we feel
in Canada; there was no use in my coming from Canada, learning Lord
Rosebery's views, and then repeating them. I thought he could give his
own views better himself." They then said "that it would be unpleasant
for me, that the meeting would express disapproval." I said, "The
more reason they should hear my views, and I do not care what they do
if they do not throw me out of an upstairs window," finally saying,
"Gentlemen, if I cannot give the message I have undertaken to deliver I
shall not speak at all, and will report the whole circumstances to the
League in Canada, and let them know that we are not allowed to express
our views." This they would not hear of, and agreed that I could say
what I liked.

Lord Rosebery, who presided, made an excellent speech; among other
things he said:

 You will look in vain in the report for any scheme of Imperial
 Federation. Those of our critics who say, "Tell me what Imperial
 Federation is, and I will tell you what I think about it," will
 find no scheme to criticise or discuss in any corner of our Annual
 Report. If there were any such scheme, I should not be here to move
 it, because I do not believe that it is on the report of any private
 society that such a scheme will ever be realised. But I will say that
 as regards the alternative name which Mr. Parkin--and here I cannot
 help stating from the Presidential Chair the deep obligations under
 which we lie to Mr. Parkin--has given to Imperial Federation, namely,
 that of National Unity, that in some respects it is a preferable term.
 But if I might sum up our purpose in a sentence, it would be that we
 seek to base our Empire upon a co-operative principle. At present the
 Empire is carried on, it is administered successfully owing to the
 energies of the governing race which rules it, but in a haphazard and
 inconsequential manner; but each day this society has seen pass over
 its head has shown the way to a better state of things.

Lord Rosebery's idea of a "co-operative principle" is not very far
removed from the idea of a "Kriegsverein and a Zollverein."

In seconding the adoption of the Report I pointed out the many
difficulties we had to face in Canada through the action of the United
States, and concluded my speech in the following words:

 Now with reference to a scheme of Imperial Federation, I quite agree
 with the noble lord, our President, that we cannot go into the
 question of a scheme. At the same time I do not think it would be out
 of the way to mention here that it would be of the utmost importance
 to Canada that we should have some arrangement that there should be a
 discriminating tariff established. (Cheers.) The effect would be to
 open up a better state of trade than ever between the two countries. I
 feel that we in Canada would be willing to give for a discriminating
 tariff very great advantages over foreign manufacturers with whom
 the trade is now divided. I think if this matter is only carefully
 considered, it is not impossible for the English people, for the sake
 of keeping the English nation together, to make this little sacrifice.
 I have spoken to numbers of people in England, and I find a great many
 would be willing to have some such arrangement made if England were
 assured of some corresponding advantage. They seem to think it is a
 question which ought to be considered; but they think that England
 has committed herself to another policy to which she must stand.
 Well, I do not think that that is the case. My opinion is that it
 is to the interest of the Empire, and to the interest of the Mother
 Country, that something should be done which would knit the Empire
 together. I believe the English people are open to reason as much as
 any people in the world. That policy would be of immense interest to
 us considering that the United States are our competitors. Then again
 look at the advantages which might be offered in the way of emigration
 to a country under your own flag, with your own institutions, and with
 those law-abiding and God-fearing principles, which we are trying to
 spread through the northern half of the continent; and at the same
 time it would be adding strength to you all here at home. I must not
 detain you too long, but I thought I would like to mention these one
 or two points to you. I speak on behalf of the great masses of the
 Canadian people, and I think I have shown you some of the annoyances
 under which they have been living up to the present, and I am quite
 sure that if any sacrifice can be made the Canadians will be willing
 to meet you half-way. But it ought not to be all one way. There ought
 to be give and take both ways.

During my speech I was loudly applauded, and felt that a large majority
of the meeting was with me. When I sat down, I was just behind Lord
Rosebery, and to my astonishment he turned around, shook hands with me,
and whispered in my ear, "I wish I could speak out as openly." I knew
then that I had neither frightened him nor the meeting. The Report was
unanimously adopted.

I felt that I had succeeded in my mission as far as the Imperial
Federation League was concerned, but while I was on the spot I was
using every effort to urge the views of my colleagues in other
directions. Believing that the two strongest men in England at the time
were Lord Salisbury and the Colonial Secretary, Mr. Chamberlain, I had
been at the same time endeavouring to impress our views upon them.

I had met Mr. Chamberlain in 1887 in Toronto, and had spoken at the
same banquet which he there addressed. I wrote and asked him for an
interview, and discussed the whole question of preferential trade,
and the condition of affairs in Canada with him at great length. Our
interview lasted nearly an hour. I then used with him many arguments
which he has since used in his contest in England for Tariff Reform.
After I had put my case as strongly as I could, I waited for his reply.
He said, "I have listened with great interest to all the points you
have brought forward, and I shall study the whole question thoroughly
for myself, and if, after full consideration, I come to the conclusion
that this policy will be in the interests of this country and of the
Empire, I shall take it up and advocate it." I said, "That is all I
want; if you look into it and study it for yourself you are sure to
come to the same view," and got up to leave, but he then said to me
with the greatest earnestness, "Do not tell a soul that I ever said I
would think of such a thing. In the present condition of opinion in
England it would never do."

The result was that, though I was greatly cheered by his action, there
was not one word that I could use, or that could be used, to help us
in our struggle in Canada. I always felt, however, that it was only a
question of time when he would be heartily with us.

Lord Salisbury about this time invited me to an evening reception at
20 Arlington Street. When there I mentioned to him shortly what I had
come over for, and told him I wished to have a long talk with him if he
could spare the time. He said, "Certainly, we must have a talk," and he
fixed the following Wednesday, the 14th May.

At this time there was an acute difficulty between the United States
Government and the British Government over the seizures of Canadian
vessels engaged in the Behring's Sea seal fisheries. A number of
Canadian vessels had been seized by United States cruisers, their crews
imprisoned, and their property confiscated. The Canadian Government
had complained bitterly, and, after much discussion, two Canadian
Ministers, Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper and Sir John Thompson, were in
Washington engaged, with the assistance of the British Ambassador, in
negotiations with the Hon. James Blaine, United States Secretary of
State, endeavouring to settle the Behring's Sea question, as well as
several other matters which were in dispute.

Having watched matters very closely in the United States, I had come
to the conclusion that the Washington authorities had no serious
intention to settle anything finally. We had made a treaty with them
before in 1888, which had arranged the matters in dispute upon a fair
basis, and when everything was agreed upon and settled, waiting only
for the ratification by the United States Senate, that body threw it
out promptly and left everything as it was. This action was at once
followed by the retaliation message delivered by President Cleveland,
which was a most unfriendly and insulting menace to Canada. I felt
confident that they were determined to keep the disputes open for some
future occasion, when Great Britain might be in difficulties, and a
_casus belli_ might be convenient.

The New York _Daily Commercial Bulletin_ openly declared in November,
1888, that the questions of the fisheries, etc., "in all human
probability will be purposely left open in order to force the greater
issue (viz., political union) which, as it seems to us, none but a
blind man can fail to see is already looming up with unmistakable
distinctness in the future."

At this reception at Lord Salisbury's I was discussing the negotiations
at Washington with Lord George Hamilton, then First Lord of the
Admiralty, expressing my fears that they would come to nothing, and
pointing out the dangers before us. He seemed somewhat impressed, and
said, "I wish you would talk it over with Sir Philip Currie," then
permanent Under-Secretary of Foreign Affairs, and he took me across the
room and introduced me to Sir Philip, to whom I expressed my opinion
that the negotiations at Washington would fail and that the United
States Government would not agree to anything. While I was talking to
him I was watching him closely, and I came to the conclusion, from his
expression, that he was positively certain that the matter was either
settled or on the very point of being settled, and I stopped suddenly
and said, "I believe, Sir Philip, you think this is settled. You know
all about it, and I know nothing, but I tell you now, that although
you may believe it is all agreed upon, I say that it is not, and that
either the Senate or the House of Representatives, or the President, or
all of them put together, will at the last moment upset everything."
I do not think he liked my persistence, or felt that the conversation
was becoming difficult, but he laughed good-naturedly and said, "Nobody
will make me believe that the Americans are not the most friendly
people possible, but I must just go and speak to Lord ----" whose name
I did not catch, and he left me.

The next week I had my interview with Lord Salisbury and put my
arguments from an Imperial point of view as powerfully as I could,
told him of the dangers of the Commercial Union movement, of the
desperate struggle I could see coming in the general election that was
approaching in Canada, told him of our dread of a free expenditure
of United States money in our elections, and pointed out to him that
the real way to prevent any difficulty was to have a preferential
tariff or commercial union arrangement with Great Britain, which would
satisfy our people, and entirely checkmate the movement in favour of
reciprocity with the States.

Lord Salisbury listened attentively and at last he said, "I am fast
coming to the opinion that the real way to consolidate the empire would
be by means of a Zollverein and a Kriegsverein." I was delighted,
"That," I said, "gives me all my case," and I urged him to say
something publicly in that direction that we could use in Canada to
inspire our loyal people, and put that hope and confidence in them
which would carry our elections. He did not say whether he would or
not, but I knew then that at heart he was with us.

As a matter of fact, he did speak in a friendly tone at the Lord
Mayor's Banquet at the Guildhall on the 9th November following, and
afterwards followed it up with a much more direct speech at Hastings on
the 18th May, 1892.

I then said that nothing could be done until the German-Belgian
Treaties of 1862 were denounced. He asked me why, and I told him the
effect of the treaties was to bar any such arrangement. He did not know
of the particular clauses and could hardly believe they existed. When
told he would find I was right, he said, "That is most unfortunate,
and they will have to be denounced." I thanked him for taking that
view and felt that I had a strong ally on both points. From subsequent
conversations and from many letters received from him during the
following ten or twelve years, I always relied upon him as a true
friend who would help us at the first possible opportunity.

On this occasion I also spoke to him seriously as to my forebodings
as to the failure of the negotiations at Washington and told him I
believed he was under the impression that the matter was about settled,
but warned him that at the last moment either the Senate or the
President, or someone, would upset everything.

I had spoken very plainly at the Canada Club not long before on the
Behring's Sea business, and some of my remarks were published in
several papers. On this point I said:

 We in Canada are for the British Connection. In years gone by when
 we thought that the British flag was insulted, though it was not
 a matter in which we were concerned and happened hundreds of miles
 from our shores, our blood was up, and we were ready to defend the
 old emblem. Can you wonder, then, that we in Canada have failed to
 understand how your powerful British ironclads could be idle in the
 harbours of our Pacific coasts while British subjects were being
 outraged in Behring's Sea and the old British flag insulted? No, that
 to us has been beyond comprehension.

Before I left England my anticipations were realised, and suddenly,
without any apparent reason, President Harrison broke off the
negotiations just as Mr. Blaine and our representatives had come to
an agreement, and he gave orders to United States vessels to proceed
at once to the Behring's Sea and capture any Canadian vessels found
fishing in those waters. This was about the end of May. I sailed for
home from Liverpool on the 5th June. On the _Parisian_ I met as a
fellow passenger the Rt. Hon. Staveley Hill, M.P., whom I had known
before and who had taken a most active part in the House of Commons
in favour of the Canadian view of the Behring's Sea difficulty. After
we had got out to sea he said to me, "I will tell you something that
you must keep strictly to yourself for the present; when we reach the
other side it will probably all be out," and he went on to say that
the British Government had made up their minds to fight the United
States on account of President Harrison's action. I was startled, and
asked him if they were going to declare war at once. He replied, "No,
not yet, but they have sent a message to the United States Government
saying that if they seized another Canadian vessel it would be followed
and taken from them by force from any harbour to which it would be
taken." I at once said, "That is all right; if that message is
delivered in earnest, so that they will know that it is in earnest, it
means peace and no further interference."

When we arrived at Quebec, to our surprise not a word had come out,
and no one seemed to have the slightest suspicion that anything had
happened. Some weeks elapsed and yet nothing was said, and I was under
the impression that there had been some mistake, although Mr. Staveley
Hill told me he had heard it directly from a Cabinet Minister.

I saw in the newspapers that large additions were made to the
Atlantic and Pacific fleets, the latter being more than doubled in
strength. About two months after my return a member of the House of
Representatives got up in the United States Congress and drew attention
to these extensive preparations, to the increase of the garrison
of Bermuda, to the work going on in the fortifications of the West
Indies, and asked that the House should be furnished with copies of the
despatches between the two Governments. These were brought down, and
Lord Salisbury's ultimatum appeared in the following words:

 Her Britannic Majesty's Government have learned with great concern,
 from notices which have appeared in the Press, and the general
 accuracy of which has been confirmed by Mr. Blaine's statements to
 the undersigned, that the Government of the United States have issued
 instructions to their revenue cruisers about to be despatched to
 Behring's Sea, under which vessels of British subjects will again be
 exposed in the prosecution of their legitimate industry on the high
 seas to unlawful interference at the hands of American officers.

 Her Britannic Majesty's Government are anxious to co-operate to the
 fullest extent of their power with the Government of the United States
 in such measures as may be found expedient for the protection of the
 seal fisheries. They are at the present moment engaged in examining,
 in concert with the Government of the United States, the best method
 of arriving at an agreement on this point. But they cannot admit
 the right of the United States of their own sole motion to restrict
 for this purpose the freedom of navigation of Behring's Sea, which
 the United States have themselves in former years convincingly and
 successfully vindicated, nor to enforce their municipal legislation
 against British vessels on the high seas beyond the limits of their
 territorial jurisdiction.

 Her Britannic Majesty's Government is therefore unable to pass over
 without notice the public announcement of an intention on the part of
 the Government of the United States to renew the acts of interference
 with British vessels navigating outside the territorial waters of the
 United States, of which they had previously had to complain.

 The undersigned is in consequence instructed formally to protest
 against such interference, and to declare that her Britannic Majesty's
 Government must hold the Government of the United States responsible
 for the consequences that may ensue from acts which are contrary to
 the established principles of International law.

 The undersigned has the honour to renew to Mr. Blaine the assurance of
 his highest consideration.

                                                     JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.
  _14th June, 1890._

This correspondence showed me that the information given Mr. Staveley
Hill had been based upon a good foundation, but this was followed in
Congress a few days later by a demand for a return of a verbal message
which was said to have been given by the British Ambassador to the Hon.
James Blaine. The answer was that a search in the records of the State
Department did not discover any reference to any such verbal message.
I have no doubt but that some such message was given.

About a year afterwards I was discussing matters with Sir C. Hibbert
Tupper, and I asked him if when they were in Washington they were not
at one time quite confident that the matter was practically settled.
He said, "Yes, certainly; we had been discussing matters in a most
amicable way, and had been coming nearer together, and at last we
agreed to what we thought was a final settlement, when President
Harrison interfered and broke off the whole negotiations."

Lord Salisbury's bold and determined action had the desired effect, and
soon an agreement was arrived at for an arbitration, which took place
in Paris in 1893. In spite of the false translations and unreliable and
false affidavits which appeared among the evidence produced on behalf
of the United States claims, the decision on the point of International
law was in our favour, and a large sum was awarded to our sealers
for damages. Canada therefore came out of the dispute with credit
to herself, owing to the firm and courageous stand of the Imperial
Government under the leadership of that great Prime Minister, Lord
Salisbury. My forecast to him of what he was likely to encounter in the
negotiations was fully verified.




                              CHAPTER XVI

                      THE GREAT ELECTION OF 1891


I arrived home on the 15th June, and found that in my absence I had
been vehemently abused both in a section of the Press and in the City
Council, partly because I was not present to defend myself, and partly
on account of the active manner in which I had been opposing the
disloyal clique.

Our Committee was still working earnestly in stirring up the feeling
of loyalty, and from that time until the great election of March,
1891, the struggle was energetically maintained. Arrangements were
made for demonstrations in the public schools on the 13th October,
1890, the anniversary of the victory of Queenston Heights, and on that
day a number of prominent men visited the schools of Toronto and made
patriotic addresses to the boys. I addressed the John Street Public
School, and afterwards the boys of Upper Canada College.

The _Globe_ attacked me on account of these celebrations in their issue
on 13th October, and followed it up with another article on the 14th
October. I answered both articles in a letter which appeared in the
_Globe_ of the 16th October, and concluded as follows:

 As to your remarks that I should abstain from interfering "in the
 discussion of questions that have become party property," I may say
 that before I was appointed Police Magistrate I was a follower of
 Mr. Brown, Mr. Mackenzie, Mr. Blake, and Mr. Mowat. Since then I
 have never voted or taken part in any political meeting. Not that
 the law prevents it, but from my sense of what I thought right. I
 may say, however, on behalf of the friends with whom I used to work,
 that I utterly repudiate the suggestion that loyalty to Canada and
 her history is not equally the characteristic of both parties. There
 are a few, I know, who are intriguing to betray this country into
 annexation, but they are not the men I followed, and when the scheme
 is fully developed I have every confidence that Canadians of all
 political parties will be united on the side of Canada and the Empire.
 No politicians can rule Canada unless they are loyal.

 On any question affecting our national life I will speak out openly
 and fearlessly at all hazards.

About the same time the _Empire_ newspaper, to help on the movement
and to advertise it, offered a flag (12 feet by 6 feet in size), the
Canadian red ensign with the arms of Canada in the fly, to that school
in each county which could produce the finest essay on the patriotic
influence of raising the flag over the school houses. Each school was
to compete within itself, and the best essay was to be chosen by the
headmaster and sent to the _Empire_ office. These essays from each
county were carefully compared, and the finest essay secured the flag
for the school from which it came. I read the essays and awarded the
prizes for about thirty counties, and it was a pleasing and inspiring
task. I was astonished at the depth of patriotic feeling shown, and was
much impressed with the great influence the contest must have had in
stirring up the latent patriotism of the people, spreading as it did
into so many houses through the children.

I was so much interested in what I read, and often found so much
difficulty in deciding which was the best essay, that I felt that they
all deserved prizes. I therefore decided to prepare a little volume
of patriotic songs and poems, and to publish a large number and send
a copy to the child in each school who had written the best essay,
and a copy was also sent to the master of every school that had sent
in an essay. I wrote to my friend Mr. E. G. Nelson, Secretary of the
Branch of our League at St. John, New Brunswick, and told him what I
was doing. I soon received from him a copy of a song, which he said my
letter had inspired him to write. It was called "Raise the Flag." I
give the first verse:

    Raise the flag, our glorious banner,
    O'er this fair Canadian land,
    From the stern Atlantic ocean
    To the far Pacific strand.

  _Chorus._

    Raise the flag with shouts of gladness,
    'Tis the banner of the free!
    Brightly beaming, proudly streaming,
    'Tis the flag of liberty.

I decided to use this as the first song and I called the little book:

                           "RAISE THE FLAG,
            And other Patriotic Canadian Songs and Poems."

On the front of the stiff cardboard cover a well-executed,
brightly-coloured lithograph of a school-house with a fine maple tree
beside it was seen, with a large number of children, boys and girls,
waving their hats and handkerchiefs and acclaiming the flag which was
being run up to the top of the flag-pole, the master apparently giving
the signal for cheering. On the back of the cover was a pretty view
of Queenston Heights, with Brock's monument the prominent object, and
over this scene a trophy of crossed flags with a medallion containing
Queen Victoria's portrait imposed on one, and a shield with the arms of
Canada on the other. Over both was the motto "For Queen and Country."

On the title page a verse of Lesperance's beautiful poem was printed
just below the title. It contained in a few words all that we were
fighting for, the object we were aiming at, and the spirit we wished to
inspire in the children of our country:

    Shall we break the plight of youth
      And pledge us to an alien love?
    No! we hold our faith and truth,
      Trusting to the God above.

    Stand Canadians, firmly stand
    Round the flag of Fatherland.

I asked a number of friends to assist me in the expense of getting
out this book, and I feel bound to record their names here as loyal
men who gave me cheerful assistance and joined me in supplying all
the necessary funds at a time when we had many vigorous opponents and
had to struggle against indifference and apathy:--George Gooderham,
John T. Small, John Hoskin, J. K. Macdonald, J. Herbert Mason, Edward
Gurney, Wm. K. McNaught, W. R. Brock, Allan McLean Howard, A. M. Cosby,
Walter S. Lee, Hugh Scott, Thomas Walmsley, W. H. Beatty, A. B. Lee,
John Leys, Jr., E. B. Osler, John I. Davidson, J. Ross Robertson,
Hugh Blain, Hon. G. W. Allan, Henry Cawthra, Fred C. Denison, Oliver
Macklem, G. R. R. Cockburn, James Henderson, R. N. Bethune, Sir
Casimir Gzowski, C. J. Campbell and W. B. Hamilton.

We published a good many thousand volumes and scattered them freely
through the country before the election of 1891.

I gave Lord Derby, then Governor-General of Canada, about a dozen
copies, and he sent one to the Queen, and some months after he received
a letter from Sir Henry Ponsonby asking him at the request of the Queen
to thank me for the book.

When the schools throughout the country received the flags which they
had won, in many instances demonstrations were organised to raise
the flag for the first time with due ceremony. I was invited to go
to Chippawa to speak when their flag was first raised. There was a
very large gathering of people from all over the county, and as an
illustration of how the opportunity was used to stir up the patriotism
of the people, I quote part of my address from the _Empire_ of the 30th
December, 1890.

 I am pleased to come here to celebrate the raising of the flag,
 because Chippawa is in the very heart of the historic ground of
 Canada. Here was fought out in the past the freedom of Canada from
 foreign aggression. Here was decided the question as to whether we
 should be a conquered people, or free as we are to-day, with the old
 flag of our fathers floating over us as a portion of the greatest
 empire in the world. (Applause.) In sight of this spot was fought the
 bloody battle which is named after this village, within three miles in
 the other direction lies the field of Lundy's Lane, and a few miles
 beyond the Heights of Queenston. From Fort George to Fort Erie the
 whole country has been fought over. Under the windows of this room
 Sir Francis Bond Head in 1837 reviewed about three thousand loyal
 militia who rallied to drive the enemy from Navy Island. It is no
 wonder that here in old Chippawa the demonstration of raising the flag
 should be such a magnificent outburst of loyal feeling . . . There is
 nothing more gratifying than the extraordinary development of this
 feeling in the last year or two. All through the land is shown this
 love for Queen, flag, and country. From the complaining of some few
 disgruntled politicians, who have been going about the country whining
 like a lot of sick cats about the McKinley Bill, some have thought
 our people were not united; but everywhere, encompassing these men,
 stands the silent element that doth not change, and if the necessity
 arise for greater effort, and the display of greater patriotism, and
 the making of greater sacrifices, the people of this country will
 rise to the occasion. (Loud applause.) The cause of this outgrowth of
 patriotic feeling has been the belief that a conspiracy has been on
 foot to betray this country into annexation. The McKinley Bill was
 part of the scheme. But are you, the men of Welland, the men whose
 fathers abandoned everything--their homes, and lands and the graves of
 their dead--to come here penniless, to live under the flag of their
 ancestors, are you likely to sell your allegiance, your flag and your
 country, for a few cents a bushel on grain, or a cent or two a dozen
 on eggs? (Loud applause.) No! the men of this country are loyal. No
 leader of either party can lead any important fraction of his party
 into disloyalty. We may have a still greater strain put upon us. If
 the conspirators believe that stoppage of the bonding privileges will
 coerce us, the bonding privileges will be stopped. If so, we must
 set our teeth and stiffen our sinews to face it (applause), and the
 more loyal we are, the more prosperous and successful we will be.
 Our contemptuous treatment of the McKinley Bill had, I believe, a
 great influence in the defeat of the Republicans, and may cause the
 repeal of the Bill, and then when we get freer trade we will keep
 it, because our neighbours will know that we cannot be coerced into
 being untrue to our traditions. In whatever you do put the interest of
 Canada first, first before politics and everything. (Loud applause.)

I addressed a number of meetings during the fall of the year and
winter, all on patriotic subjects, endeavouring to arouse the people
against Reciprocity or Annexation, and urging Imperial Unity as the
goal for Canadians to aim at. I spoke on the 11th September, 9th
October, 5th December, 29th December, 9th January, 1891, 19th January,
27th February, and the 17th March.

I had written in February, 1890, as already mentioned, to Sir John
A. Macdonald expressing my opinion that the next election would be
fought on the question of loyalty as against disloyalty. All through
the year I became more and more convinced of this, and foresaw that if
the elections were postponed until 1892 it would give the Commercial
Unionists and Annexationists more time to organise, and, what I dreaded
most, give more time to our enemies in the United States to prepare
the way for an election favourable to their views. I cannot do better
to show the trend of affairs than copy from the _Empire_ of the 7th
February, 1890.

After referring to the disloyalty of Premier Mercier of Quebec, and
quoting a statement of the Toronto _Globe_ that the Canadian people
"find the colonial yoke a galling one" and that "the time when Canadian
patriotism was synonymous with loyalty to British connection has long
since gone by," the article copies the extract from the New York
_World_ in which it states that "Nobody who has studied the peculiar
methods by which elections are won in Canada will deny the fact that
five or six million dollars judiciously expended in this country would
secure the return to Parliament of a majority pledged to the annexation
of Canada to the United States," and then goes on to say:

 This dastardly insult to our country is not only the work to order
 of a member of the staff of the New York _World_ but is adopted and
 emphasised by it with all the parade of display headings and of the
 black letter which we reproduce as in the original. So these plotters
 are contemplating the wholesale purchase of our country by the
 corruption of the electors on this gigantic scale, to return members
 ready to surrender Canada to a foreign Power. And for such insults as
 these we have mainly to thank the dastardly traitors who from our own
 land have by their secret information and encouragement to the foreign
 coveters of our country invited the insulting attack. By such baseness
 our enemies have been taught to believe that we will fall easy victims
 to their designs.

 Again, as so often before, we find the well deserved tribute to our
 Conservative statesmen that they are the bulwark of Canada against
 such assaults. Friends and enemies are fully in accord on this one
 point; that the opposition are not similarly true to their country
 is clearly indicated in this outspoken report, and it may also be
 observed that every individual or journal mentioned as favouring
 annexation is of the most pronounced grit stripe. It is, however,
 by no means true that the whole Liberal party is tainted with this
 treasonable virus. By thousands they are withdrawing from the leaders
 who are paltering with such a conspiracy, and are uniting themselves
 with the Conservatives to defend their country. Not the boasted six
 millions of United States dollars will tempt these loyal Canadians to
 sell their country. It is well, however, that Canada should thus be
 forewarned.

Watching all we could learn of these movements, I became very anxious
that the election should take place before another session. My brother,
the member for West Toronto, agreed strongly with me on this point.
Sir John Macdonald was gradually coming around to that view, but most
of his colleagues differed from him. My brother happened to be in his
office one day when several of the Cabinet were present, and Sir John
asked him when he thought the election should come on. He replied, "As
soon as possible," and urged that view strongly. Sir John turned to
his colleagues and said, "There, you see, is another." This showed his
difficulty.

There had been some rumours of intrigues between some members of the
Liberal party and the United States politicians. Sir Richard Cartwright
was known to have gone down secretly to Washington to confer with
Mr. Blaine, principally, it was believed, through the influence of
Erastus Wiman. Honore Mercier was also believed to have been mixed up
in the intrigues. In the month of November I had been able to obtain
some private information in connection with these negotiations, and
I went down to Ottawa on the 8th December, 1890, and had a private
conference with Sir John Macdonald and gave him all the information I
had gathered. I told him that Blaine and Sir Richard Cartwright had had
a conference in Washington, and that Mr. Blaine had thanked Mr. Wiman
for bringing Sir Richard to see him.

During the autumn of 1890, Edward Farrer, then editor of the _Globe_,
and one of the conspirators who were working for annexation, prepared
a pamphlet of a most treacherous character, pointing out how best
the United States could act to encourage and force on annexation.
He had the pamphlet printed secretly with great care, only thirteen
copies being printed for use among a few of the leading United States
politicians. In Hunter, Rose and Co.'s printing office where it was
being printed, there was a compositor who happened to know Mr. Farrer's
handwriting, and who set up part of the type. He was struck with the
traitorous character of the production, and gave information about it
to Sir C. Hibbert Tupper, then in the Government. He reported it to
Sir John Macdonald, and the latter sent Col. Sherwood, the chief of
the Dominion police force, to Toronto, and told him to consult with
me, and that I could administer the oath to the compositor, who swore
to affidavits proving the circumstances connected with the printing of
the pamphlet. The printer had proof slips of two or three pages when
Col. Sherwood brought him to my office, and it was arranged that any
more that he could get he was to bring to me, and I would prepare the
affidavits and forward them on to Col. Sherwood.

The proof sheets were watched so closely and taken back so carefully
after the corrections were made, that it was impossible to get any
of them, but the printer who gave us the information was able at the
dinner hour to take a roller, and ink the pages of type after the
printing had been finished and before the type had been distributed.
The impressions were taken in the most rough and primitive way, and as
he had only a few chances of doing the work without detection, he was
only able to bring me about two-thirds of the pamphlet.

These portions, however, contained enough to show the drift of the
whole work, and gave Sir John Macdonald quite sufficient quotations to
use in a public speech at Toronto in the opening of the election to
prove the intrigues that were going on. The revelation had a marked
influence on the election, not only in Toronto, but from one end of
Canada to the other.

It was a mystery to Farrer and the printers how Sir John had obtained
a copy, for they assumed he had a complete copy. They were able to
trace the thirteen copies, and Mr. Rose was satisfied no more had been
printed. He gave me his theory shortly after, and I was amused to see
how absolutely wrong he was. He had no idea that I knew anything about
it. The secret was well kept. The printer who gave them to us, Col.
Sherwood, Sir Hibbert Tupper, David Creighton, Sir John Macdonald, and
myself, I have heard, were the only persons in the secret until the day
Sir John brought it out at the great meeting in the Princess Theatre.

In January, 1891, Sir John Macdonald came to Toronto. He was anxious to
see me without attracting attention, and my brother Fred arranged for
him to come to my office at an hour when the officials would be away
for lunch, and we had a conference for about three-quarters of an hour.
He was very anxious to get a letter to publish the substance of which
I had known and which would have thrown much light upon the intrigues
between two or three Liberal leaders and some of the United States
politicians. I said I would do what I could to get the information,
but I did not succeed. Before he left he asked me what I thought of
bringing on the elections at once, or of waiting till the following
year. I jumped up from my chair at the suggestion that he was in doubt,
and said, "What, Sir John; in the face of all you know and all I know,
can you hesitate an instant? You must bring the elections on at once.
If you wait till your enemies are ready, and the pipes are laid to
distribute the money which will in time be given from the States, you
will incur great danger, and no one can tell where the trouble will
end." I spoke very earnestly and Sir John listened with a smile, and
got up to leave, saying to me, "Keep all your muscles braced up, and
your nerves all prepared, so that if the House is suddenly dissolved
in about three weeks you will not receive a nervous shock, but keep
absolutely silent." He said this in a very humorous and quizzical way
which was characteristic of him, and went off wagging his head from
side to side as was his wont.

I knew about Farrer's pamphlet and about other things which came out
in this election, and I had two very warm friends in the Liberal
Government of Ontario, Sir Oliver Mowat and the Hon. G. W. Ross. I did
not wish them to be mixed up with any political scandal that might
come out, nor did I wish them to commit themselves definitely to the
party at Ottawa, who were advocating a policy which I was sure could
not succeed, and the real meaning of which they could not support. I
told them both I thought there would be unpleasant matters divulged,
and begged of them to keep as far away from the election as they could.
They both seemed to take what I said in good part, and they adjourned
the session of the local Legislature till after the general election.

Mr. Mowat arranged that his son Arthur Mowat was to run in West
Toronto, and he spoke for him in his constituency, and also for the
Honourable Alexander Mackenzie in East York. He made several speeches,
all most loyal and patriotic in their tone. Mr. Ross spoke once in his
own constituency. I told him after the election when it went against
the Liberal party, that I had given him fair warning. He said, "Yes,
but I only made one speech in my own constituency." Sir Oliver Mowat's
assistance in Ontario saved the Liberal party in that Province from a
most disastrous defeat, for the people had confidence in him and in his
steadfast loyalty.

When the election was going on, my brother said one day to me, "I
think I shall defeat Mowat by four or five hundred." I replied, "Your
majority will be nearer two thousand than one thousand." He said, "That
is absurd; there never was such a majority in the city." I answered,
"I know the feeling in Toronto," and using a cavalry simile said, "She
is up on her hind legs, pawing the air, and you will see you will
have nearly two thousand." The figure was one thousand seven hundred
and sixty-nine, the largest majority in Ontario, I believe, in that
election.

The election supported the Macdonald Government with a large majority
in the House and practically finished the attempt to entrap Canada
into annexation through the means of tariff entanglements. Although
dangerous intrigues went on for several years, they were neutralised by
the loyal work of Sir Oliver Mowat and the Hon. G. W. Ross.




                             CHAPTER XVII

                      CONTEST WITH GOLDWIN SMITH


Professor Goldwin Smith was the foremost, and most active, dangerous,
and persistent advocate and leader of the movement for annexation to
the United States that we have ever had in Canada. After leaving Oxford
in 1868 he went to the United States, where he lectured at Cornell
University for two or three years. Having taken part in a controversy
in the Press over the Alabama question, in which he took the side of
Great Britain, he aroused a good deal of hostility and criticism in the
United States. In 1871 he removed to Toronto where he has ever since
resided.

He had some relatives living in Toronto in the suburb then known as
Brockton. My father and I, two uncles, and a cousin then lived in that
district, in which my house is situated, and we had a small social
circle into which Mr. Goldwin Smith was warmly welcomed. He shortly
after bought a house from my father near to his place, and we soon
became close friends. In my father's lifetime Mr. Smith belonged to a
small whist club consisting of my father, my uncle Richard, Major Shaw,
and himself. After my father's death I took his place, and we played in
each other's houses for some years, until Mr. Smith married the widow
of Wm. Henry Boulton and took up his home in "The Grange." The distance
at which he lived from us was then inconvenient, and in a few months we
discontinued the club.

In 1872 Mr. Smith was the prime mover in starting the _Canadian
Monthly_ and asked me to contribute an article for the first
number, and afterwards I contributed one or two more. At one time
we contemplated writing a joint history of the American Civil War,
in which I was to write the military part and he was to write the
political. I even went to Gettysburg to examine the battlefield, and
began to gather material, when we discovered that it would be a long
and laborious work, and that under the copyright law at the time there
would be no security as to our rights in the United States, as we were
not citizens of the republic. So the project was abandoned.

For many years Goldwin Smith and I were close friends, and I formed
a very high opinion of him in many ways, and admired him for many
estimable qualities. When the Commercial Union movement began, however,
I found that I had to take a very decided stand against him, and very
soon a keen controversy arose between us and it ended in my becoming
one of the leaders in the movement against him and his designs. When he
assumed the Honorary Presidency of the Continental Union Association,
formed both in Canada and in the United States, and working in unison
to bring about the annexation of the two countries, I looked upon that
as rank treason, and ceased all association with him, and since then
we have never spoken. I regretted much the rupture of the old ties of
friendship, but felt that treason could not be handled with kid gloves.

I shall now endeavour to give an account of the contest between us,
because I am sure it had a distinct influence upon public opinion, and
helped to arouse the latent loyalty of the Canadian people, and for the
time at any rate helped to kill the annexation movement in Canada.

I have already mentioned the incident of the dinner at the National
Club where I said I would only discuss seriously annexation or
independence with my sword. I did not think at that time that Mr. Smith
was discussing the question in any other than a purely academic spirit;
subsequent developments have satisfied me that even then he cherished
designs that from my point of view were treasonable.

In the early spring of 1887, Mr. Goldwin Smith was at Washington
and went on to Old Point Comfort and became acquainted with Erastus
Wiman, who was staying at the same hotel and who showed Mr. Smith some
courtesy. Mr. Smith invited Wiman to pay him a visit in Toronto in
the latter part of May, 1887, and shortly after it was found that the
strongest supporter that Wiman had for his Commercial Union agitation
was Mr. Goldwin Smith.

As I have already said, during 1888-9-90, I was frequently addressing
public meetings and speaking at banquets of all sorts of societies and
organisations. We had also started the raising of the flags in the
schools, the decoration of monuments, the singing of patriotic songs,
&c., and generally we were waging a very active campaign against the
Commercial Union movement. In 1891, the most dangerous crisis of the
struggle, Mr. Smith commenced a series of lectures which were cleverly
intended to sap the loyalty of our people and neutralise the effect of
our work. The three lectures were delivered before the Young Men's
Liberal Club of Toronto. The first was on "Loyalty" and was delivered
on the 2nd February, 1891, and was intended to ridicule and belittle
the idea of loyalty.

In reply to this I prepared at once a lecture on the United Empire
Loyalists which I delivered at the Normal School to a meeting of school
teachers and scholars on the 27th of the same month.

On the 11th May, 1891, Goldwin Smith delivered his second lecture on
"Aristocracy."

I saw now that there was a deliberate and treasonable design in these
lectures to undermine the loyal sentiment that held Canada to the
Empire, and as there was danger at any time of open trouble, I replied
to this in another way. I delivered a lecture on the opening of the
war of 1812 to point out clearly how much the loyal men were hampered
by traitors at the opening of the war of 1812, and how they dealt with
them then, how seven had been hanged at Ancaster, many imprisoned, and
many driven out of the country, and I endeavoured to encourage our
people with the reflection that the same line of action would help us
again in the same kind of danger.

On the 17th April, 1891, this lecture was delivered before the
Birmingham Lodge of the Sons of England.

On the 9th of the following November Goldwin Smith delivered his third
lecture entitled "Jingoism." This was a direct attack on me and on what
my friends and I were doing.

This lecture aroused great indignation among the loyal people. I was
asked by the Supreme Grand Lodge of the Sons of England to deliver a
lecture in reply at a meeting to be called under their auspices, which
it was intended should be a popular demonstration against Goldwin
Smith, and a proof of the repudiation by the Toronto people of his
views. The meeting was held in Shaftesbury Hall, then the largest room
in the city for such purposes, and it was packed to the doors. My
lecture was entitled "National Spirit," and was delivered on the 17th
December, 1891. (_See_ Appendix B.)

Referring to this lecture the _Empire_ of the 18th December, 1891,
commented as follows:

 The fervour and appreciation of the large audience which assembled
 in the auditorium last evening to hear Colonel George T. Denison
 were undoubtedly due in great measure to the well-known ability of
 the lecturer and to the intrinsic qualities of the lecture--its wide
 range of fact, its high and patriotic purpose, the eloquence with
 which great historic truths were imparted--but its enthusiastic
 reception was due none the less to the fact that the lecturer struck
 a responsive note in the breasts of his hearers, and that he was
 expressing views which are the views of the ordinary Canadian, and
 which at this time are especially deserving of clear and emphatic
 enunciation.

 In marked contrast to the enthusiasm of this immense gathering was
 the small handful of disgruntled fledglings and annexationists who
 assembled lately in some obscure meeting place to hear the sentiments
 of Professor Goldwin Smith, though even there the respectable Liberal
 element was strong enough to utter a protest against the annexationist
 views of the Professor.

 For several years there has been afoot a determined attempt, promoted
 on its literary side by the writings and addresses of Professor
 Goldwin Smith, to undermine the national spirit, to disturb the
 national unity, and to arouse the latent impatience of an intensely
 practical people for any displays of the pride, the courage, and the
 patriotic sentiment of the country. By elaborate sneers at "loyalty,"
 at "aristocracy," at "jingoism"; by perverting history, by appealing
 to the cupidity which always has temptations for a small section
 of every nation, this propaganda has been kept up persistently and
 malignantly, and it was not unfitting that Colonel Denison, who
 has been a foremost figure in stemming the movement by encouraging
 patriotic displays and honouring the memories of national heroes,
 should have met the enemy in the literary arena, and vindicated there,
 too, the righteousness and wisdom of encouraging national spirit.
 He has boldly met Professor Goldwin Smith's appeal to history, and
 triumphantly proved his case, and presents in this lecture to all
 thoughtful men, to all students of the past, incontrovertible evidence
 that the efforts being made in Canada to stimulate national patriotism
 and enthusiasm are in accordance with the experience of every virile
 and enduring race since the beginning of the world, and in thorough
 harmony with the experience of every young and developing community.

Goldwin Smith addressed a meeting at Innerkip on the 4th October, 1892.
He spoke on the question of freedom of speech, in defence of Elgin
Myers, who had been dismissed from his position of Crown Attorney at
Orangeville by Sir Oliver Mowat for publicly advocating annexation. I
answered him in a speech at the banquet of the Kent Lodge of the Sons
of England on the 11th October, 1892.

On the 3rd December, 1892, the _Empire_ published the following
correspondence:

                                                  CANADA LIFE BUILDING,
                                              _Toronto, Nov. 30, 1892_.

  DEAR SIR,

 It is the unanimous wish of the members of the Continental Union
 Association of Toronto that you accept the position of honorary
 president of the Association. As you have for many years been an
 earnest advocate of the reunion of the English-speaking people
 on this continent, it is considered fitting that you should fill
 this position. I am desired to add that your acceptance would not
 necessarily involve your attendance at our meetings nor require you to
 take an active part.

                          Yours respectfully,

                                                           T. M. WHITE.

  GOLDWIN SMITH, ESQ., _Toronto_.


                                               TORONTO, _Dec. 2, 1892_.

       The Secretary of the Continental Association of Ontario.

 DEAR SIR,

 As the Continental Association does me the honour to think that my
 name may be of use to it, I have pleasure in accepting the presidency
 on the terms on which it is offered, as an honorary appointment.
 From active participation in any political movement I have found it
 necessary to retire.

 Your object, as I understand it, is to procure by constitutional
 means, and with the consent of the mother country, the submission of
 the question of continental union to the free suffrage of the Canadian
 people, and to furnish the people with the information necessary to
 prepare them for the vote. In this there can be nothing unlawful or
 disloyal.

 That a change must come, the returns of the census, the condition of
 our industries, especially of our farming industry, and the exodus of
 the flower of our population, too clearly show. Sentiment is not to
 be disregarded, but genuine sentiment is never at variance with the
 public good. Love of the mother country can be stronger in no heart
 than it is in mine; but I have satisfied myself that the interest of
 Great Britain and that of Canada are one.

 Let the debate be conducted in a spirit worthy of the subject. Respect
 the feelings and the traditions of those who differ from us, while
 you firmly insist on the right of the Canadian people to perfect
 freedom of thought and speech respecting the question of its own
 destiny.

                           Yours faithfully,
                                                         GOLDWIN SMITH.

In March, 1893, an interesting episode in the struggle between the
loyal people and Goldwin Smith occurred in connection with the St.
George's Society, a most respectable and influential organisation of
Englishmen and sons of Englishmen, formed for benevolent purposes. Mr.
Goldwin Smith was a life member and a very generous contributor to the
charitable funds of the Society. His open and active hostility to the
Empire and to Canada's best interests, however, aroused a very bitter
feeling of resentment, and in February, 1893, Mr. J. Castell Hopkins
gave notice of motion of a resolution in the following words:

 Resolved, that in view of his advocacy of the annexation of the
 Dominion of Canada to the United States, his position as President
 of the Continental Union Association of Toronto, and the treason to
 his Sovereign to England and to Canada involved in these conditions,
 this body of loyal Englishmen request Mr. Goldwin Smith to tender his
 resignation as a life member of the St. George's Society, and hereby
 instruct the treasurer to return to Mr. Smith the fee previously paid
 for that privilege.

This notice of motion aroused much heated discussion in the Press,
numbers of letters being written strongly supporting Mr. Hopkins's
resolution, one "member of the Society" writing under that name, quoted
the object of the Society in its constitution "to unite Englishmen
and their descendants in a social compact for the promotion of mutual
and friendly intercourse," and he went on to say that there could be
"no mutual and friendly intercourse between a true-hearted, honest,
loyal Englishman and a traitor and enemy of England's power and
position. . . . If the St. George's Society does not speak out with
no uncertain sound it will be a disgrace to the Englishmen of Toronto
and be a death blow to the Society. Most Englishmen would as soon
join a society for friendly intercourse that contained thieves as
one that contained traitors. The thief might steal one's money. The
annexationist is striving to steal our birthright, our name, our place
in history, and the lives of the thousands who would die in defence of
their country and its institutions."

A number of our Imperialists who belonged to the Society formed a
committee to organise a plan of action. This committee met in my
office. We were not satisfied with Mr. Hopkins's resolution, as it
asked Goldwin Smith to resign, which he could easily avoid doing and
so put the Society in a false position. On the afternoon of the day of
the meeting our committee decided on a resolution which it was thought
could be carried as a compromise. When the meeting was held after there
had been considerable discussion, all upon the proper course of action,
a committee was appointed to draft a resolution as a compromise, and
the one we had prepared was adopted and carried unanimously. It was in
the following terms:

 Whereas it has been brought to the attention of this Society that Mr.
 Goldwin Smith, one of its life members, has openly proclaimed himself
 in favour of severing Canada from the rest of the British Empire, and
 has also accepted the office of honorary president of an association
 having for its object the active promotion of an agitation for the
 union of Canada with the United States, therefore this Society desires
 emphatically to place on record its strong disapprobation of any such
 movement, and hereby expresses its extreme regret that the Society
 should contain in its ranks a member who is striving for an object
 which would cause an irreparable injury to the Dominion, would entail
 a loss to the motherland of a most important part of her Empire, and
 would deprive Canadians of their birthright as British subjects.

This was soon followed by Mr. Smith's resignation from the Society.

In spite of Mr. Goldwin Smith's farewells he had an article in the
_Contemporary Review_ for January, 1895, on the Ottawa Conference
of 1894. After reflecting on the manner in which the "delegates"
were appointed, he went on to say the conference confined itself to
discussing trade relations and communications, and that defence "was
excluded by omission." He sneered at the French Militia who served in
the North-West Rebellion, and attacked the Canadian-Pacific Railway,
insinuating that it would be blocked in case of war, because part of it
went through the State of Maine. He made a great deal of snow blocks
also, and even said that the prediction made when the Canadian-Pacific
Railway "was built, that the road would never pay for the grease on its
axle wheels, though then derided as false, has, in fact, proved too
true," and he absolutely stated that "as a wheat-growing speculation,
the region has failed." The whole article was as inimical to Canada
and the aspirations of the people as he with his literary ability and
indifference as to facts could make it.

This article aroused a good deal of criticism and hostility all over
Canada. I received many letters from various parts of Canada, some from
friends, some from strangers, asking me to reply to it. Sir Oliver
Mowat urged me very strongly to answer it. I therefore prepared an
article and sent it to the editor of the _Contemporary_ with a request
that he should publish it. I wanted no remuneration, but claimed the
right to answer many inaccuracies. I received from the editor the
following letter:

                                   11, OLD SQUARE, LINCOLN'S INN, W.C.,
                                                     _8th March, 1895_.

  DEAR SIR,

 I am afraid I cannot find a place for your article on Canada.

 But I do not think that you need fear misconstruction. We know Mr.
 Goldwin Smith as a man of great ability and cultivation, but he is not
 taken as a representative of the bulk of Canadian opinion.

                             Believe me,
                                     Yours faithfully,
                                                     PERCY WM. BUNTING.

With this letter came my manuscript returned to me by same mail. I
replied as follows:

                                                 HEYDON VILLA, TORONTO,
                                                    _23rd March, 1895_.

  DEAR SIR,

 Many thanks for sending me word so promptly about my article and for
 returning the manuscript which has safely arrived.

 I am glad to find that you do not take Goldwin Smith as a
 representative of the bulk of Canadian opinion, and can only express
 the regret of Canadians generally that his distorted and incorrect
 views about our country are so widely circulated in England. This is
 the more unfortunate when the bulk of Canadian opinion is refused a
 hearing.
                                 Yours, etc.

I then sent the manuscript back to England to my friend Dr. George
R. Parkin, and asked him to get it published in some magazine. After
considerable delay, he succeeded in getting it in the _Westminster
Review_ for September, 1895. It was received very well in Canada, many
notices and copious extracts being printed in many of our papers. The
_Week_ published the whole article in pamphlet form as a supplement.

In the following January, the Press Association having invited Mr.
Goldwin Smith to their annual banquet to respond with the Hon. G. W.
Ross to the toast "Canada," some objection was raised by Mr. Castell
Hopkins to his being endorsed to that extent. Mr. Hopkins was attacked
for this in the _Globe_. I replied in his defence in the following
letter, which explains why we of the Imperialist party followed Goldwin
Smith so persistently and endeavoured to weaken his influence. It was
not from ill-feeling but from an instinct of self-preservation as to
our country:

 SIR,

 I have read an article in your issue of this morning, in reference to
 Mr. Goldwin Smith being asked to respond to the toast of "Canada" at
 the coming Press Association dinner, and censuring Mr. Hopkins for
 objecting to such a course.

 You say Mr. Hopkins's pursuit of Mr. Smith has become ridiculous, and
 you refer to the St. George's Society incident. As one who was present
 and took part in that affair, I may say that the feeling was that the
 fact of Mr. Smith being a member of the society gave him a recognition
 as an Englishman that he was not entitled to, in view of his hostility
 to the best interests of the empire. . . .

 Your editorial admits that Mr. Goldwin Smith "is a sincere advocate
 of political union." If so, he is a traitor to our constitution and
 our country. This political-union idea is no new or merely polemic
 discussion. It was advocated in 1775, and was crushed out by the
 strength of the Canadian people. It was advocated again in 1812, and
 again it brought war and bloodshed and misery upon our people, and by
 the lavish expenditure of Canadian lives our country and institutions
 were preserved. Again in 1837 it was advocated, and again produced
 bloodshed, and once more Canadian lives were lost in preventing it.
 Mr. Goldwin Smith knows this, or ought to, and he is the most potent
 element to-day in preparing the Yankee mind to take up the question
 of annexation. A belief in the States that we were favourable to
 annexation would do more than any possible cause to bring on an
 attempt to secure annexation by force. This belief led to the attempts
 in 1775 and 1812.

 In view of this, Goldwin Smith's conduct is treason of the worst
 kind. Such persistent hostility to the national life in any other
 country would not be tolerated for an instant. In Russia, under like
 circumstances, Goldwin Smith would long since have been consigned
 to the mines of Siberia. In Germany or Austria he would have been
 imprisoned. In France he would have been consigned to the same convict
 settlement as the traitor Dreyfus; while in the United States he would
 long since have been lynched. In the British Empire alone would he be
 safe--for he has found here in Canada the freest constitution, and
 the most tolerant and law-abiding people on earth, and these British
 institutions, under whose protection he is working against us, our
 people are determined to uphold at all hazards.

 I would not object to Mr. Smith appearing at any public function but
 that I feel it gives aid to him in misrepresenting and injuring our
 country. In 1812 we had just such men in Willcocks, Mallory, and
 Marcle, members of the House of Assembly, whose intrigues did much to
 bring war upon us. These men, as soon as the war broke out, went over
 to the enemy and fought against us, and Willcocks was killed in action
 fighting against Canada. Goldwin Smith will not follow his prototypes
 so far. On the first sign of danger he will escape, and settling in
 some comfortable retreat, probably among the orange groves on the
 Riviera, or perhaps in a villa on one of the Italian lakes, he will
 watch the struggle from afar, while "the overwhelming majority" of the
 opponents of political union in this country, or in other words the
 Canadian people, would be engaged in a fearful struggle in the defence
 of their native land and all that they hold dear. Those who know Mr.
 Smith best will readily imagine the sardonic smile with which he would
 read of our losses in action, of our difficulties, and the untold
 miseries that war always brings upon a people.

 I ask the Press Association if it is fair to their fellow-Canadians to
 allow our bitterest and most dangerous enemy to speak on behalf of our
 country? Is it fair to ask a loyal man like the Hon. G. W. Ross, who
 believes in Canada, to be coupled with a traitor?

Among the other methods of arousing the patriotic feeling of our people
was the erection of monuments on our great battlefields in memory of
the victories gained in the struggle to preserve the freedom of our
country in 1812-'14.

The Lundy's Lane Historical Society, one of the patriotic organisations
which sprang up over the Province, had started a movement for erecting
a monument on the field of Lundy's Lane where the last important and
the most hotly contested battle of the war took place in July, 1814.
They had collected a number of subscriptions but not sufficient for
the purpose, when Goldwin Smith offered through the late Oliver A.
Howland to supply the balance required, provided that he might write
the inscription so as to include both armies in the commemoration on
equal terms. This offer was promptly declined by the Society, which had
no desire to honour invaders who had made a most unprovoked attack upon
a sparse people, who had nothing whatever to do with the assumed cause
of the quarrel.

Shortly after, the Canadian Government took the matter in hand, and
provided the balance required for the Lundy's Lane Monument, and the
full amounts required for monuments on the fields of Chateauguay and
Chrysler's Farm.

The Lundy's Lane Monument was finished and ready to be unveiled on
the anniversary of the battle, the 25th July, 1895, and the Secretary
of State, the Hon. W. H. Montague, had promised to unveil it and
deliver an address. The day before Dr. Montague telegraphed to me that
he could not go, and asked me to go on behalf of the Government and
unveil the monument. I agreed, and he telegraphed to the President
of the Society that I was coming. About two thousand people were
assembled. It will be remembered that Mr. Goldwin Smith had commented
severely upon the proposal to put up a monument at Lundy's Lane, in
his lecture on "Jingoism" delivered in 1891. He said, "Only let it
be like that monument at Quebec, a sign at once of gratitude and of
reconciliation, not of the meanness of unslaked hatred." I replied to
this in my lecture on "National Spirit" shortly after, and said that
the Professor, "considering how he is always treating a country that
has used him far better than he ever deserved, should be a first-class
authority on the meanness of unslaked and unfounded hatred."

At the time of the unveiling of the monument, when speaking in the
presence of the officers and members of the Lundy's Lane Historical
Society, I naturally felt it to be my duty to compliment them upon
their work, to congratulate them on the success of their efforts, and
to defend them from the only hostile criticism that I knew of being
directed against them. I spoke as follows in concluding my address, as
appears in the newspaper report:

 It was well, the speaker said, that they should commemorate the
 crowning victory, which meant that he could that day wear the maple
 leaf, could be a Canadian. He was aware of one peripatetic philosopher
 who had said that the noble gentlemen of Lundy's Lane Historical
 Society, in putting up a monument to Canadians alone, were doing
 nothing but displaying the signs of an unslaked hatred. He would
 say that to show themselves afraid to honour the memory of their
 forefathers would be to make an exhibition of contemptible cowardice.
 Lieut.-Colonel Denison then argued that every great nation which has
 ever existed has shown itself ready to acknowledge the deeds of those
 who had fought for it, and he cited Assyria, Egypt, Greece, and Rome
 in ancient history, and Switzerland in modern times, in proof of
 this assertion. The erection of such monuments, he said, taught the
 youth of the land to venerate the memory of the past, and encouraged
 that sentiment of nationality which was throbbing now so strongly
 in Canada. (Applause.) The past ten years have witnessed a great
 improvement in that respect, he said. The flag can be seen flying
 everywhere, the maple leaf is worn, and Canadian poets celebrate in
 verse the finest passages of our history. The speaker concluded by
 expressing the thanks of all to the Government for deciding to erect
 monuments to commemorate Canadian battlefields. He was glad that the
 first had been erected on this sacred frontier; that at Chrysler's
 Farm would mark the spot of a great victory, and he was glad for the
 thought of sympathy with their French-Canadian brothers which had
 led to the commemoration of the brilliant victory of Chateauguay,
 where, against the greatest odds of the war, 500 French-Canadians had
 defeated 5,000 Americans.

    Where France's sons on British soil
    Fought for their English king.

 They should never forget that they owed a sacred duty to the men who
 fought and died for the independence of their country. (Applause.)

The Historical Society objected strenuously to a proposed inscription
for the monument, and stopped its being engraved, and asked me to urge
upon the Government to put something different. This was done, and I
was asked by the Minister to draft one. It was accepted, and now stands
upon the monument as follows:

 Erected by the Canadian Parliament in honour of the victory gained by
 the British and Canadian forces on this field on the 25th July, 1814,
 and in grateful remembrance of the brave men who died on that day
 fighting for the unity of the Empire.

                                 1895

My speech was printed in the Toronto papers at some length, and some of
Mr. Smith's friends censured me for having defended the Lundy's Lane
Society from his attacks. A week or two later I was amused at receiving
a visit from the Rev. Canon Bull, the President of the Lundy's Lane
Society, who came across the Lake to see me, to lay before me a matter
which had come before the Society, and of which after discussion they
felt I should be made aware.

I have mentioned above Mr. Goldwin Smith's offer made through Mr.
Howland to subscribe for the monument provided he could write the
inscription. This offer and its refusal the Society had kept strictly
private, so that I was quite ignorant of it, and made my address
in entire innocence of any knowledge in reference to it. Mr. Smith
apparently jumped to the conclusion that I had been told of this offer,
and that my comments had been caused by it. He wrote to Mr. Howland
and asked him to put the matter right, and enclosed him a draft of a
memo, which he wished Mr. Howland to send to the Society. Mr. Howland
very innocently sent Mr. Smith's letter, his draft memo., and his own
comments to the President of the Society, Rev. Mr. Bull. As soon as
the correspondence was read, my old friend Mr. Wm. Kirby, author of
_Le Chien d'Or_, said, "Col. Denison knew nothing of that offer, but
Mr. Smith did make an attack in his lecture on 'Jingoism,' and Col.
Denison had answered him in his lecture on 'National Spirit' which
was published in the _Empire_ in 1891, and his remarks on that point
at the unveiling were on the same lines." The Society refused to act
on Mr. Howland's and Mr. Smith's suggestion, but decided that Canon
Bull should come over to Toronto and lay the whole matter before me.
I thanked Canon Bull and asked him to thank the Society, and the next
day wrote to him, and asked him if I might have a copy of the letters.
He wrote to me promptly, saying I might as well have the originals and
enclosed them. I have them now.

While Mr. Goldwin Smith was working so earnestly against the interests
of the Empire, and while many were leaning towards Commercial
Union, and some even ready to go farther and favour annexation, Mr.
(afterwards Sir) Oliver Mowat, then Premier of Ontario, saw the danger
of the way in which matters were drifting. I often discussed the
subject with him, and knew that he was a thorough loyalist, and a true
Canadian and Imperialist. He often spoke despondingly to me as to what
the ultimate outcome might be, for, of course, the majority of the men
who at the time favoured Commercial Union were among his supporters,
and he would therefore hear more from that side than I would. In spite
of his uneasiness, however, he was staunchly loyal. Mr. Biggar, his
biographer, relates that just before the Inter-Provincial Conference
in October, 1887, an active Liberal politician, referring to his
opposition to Commercial Union, said to Mr. Mowat in the drawing-room
of his house on St. George Street, "If you take that position, sir, you
won't have four per cent. of the party with you." To which the reply
came with unusual warmth and sharpness, "I cannot help it, if I haven't
one per cent. I won't support a policy that will allow the Americans to
have any--even the smallest--voice in the making of our laws."

On the evening of the 18th February, 1891, in the election then coming
on, Mr. Mowat spoke at a meeting in the Horticultural Pavilion,
Toronto, and again his strong loyalty spoke out. He said among other
things, "For myself I am a true Briton. I love the old land dearly.
I am glad that I was born a British subject; a British subject I
have lived for three score years and something more. I hope to live
and die a British subject. I trust and hope that my children and my
grand-children who have also been born British subjects will live their
lives as British subjects, and as British subjects die." Sir Oliver
Mowat's clear and outspoken loyalty prevented the Liberals from being
defeated in Ontario by a very much greater majority than they were.

During the summer of 1891, however, the annexation movement assumed
a still more active form. Mr. Goldwin Smith was doing his utmost to
stir up the feeling. Solomon White, who had been a Conservative, and
was a member of the Ontario Legislature, induced a public meeting in
Windsor, where he lived, to pass a resolution in favour of annexation.
Encouraged by this, Mr. White arranged for a meeting in Woodstock in
Mr. Mowat's own constituency of South Oxford, in the hope of carrying a
resolution there to the same effect.

While there was a feeling to treat the meeting with contempt, Mr.
Mowat with keener political insight saw that such a course would be
dangerous, not only to the country but to the Liberal party as well,
and he wrote a letter on the 23rd November, 1891, to Dr. McKay, M.P.P.,
who represented the other riding of the county of Oxford in the House
of Assembly. He wrote:

 With reference to our conversation this morning, I desire to reiterate
 my strong opinion that it would not be good policy for the friends
 of British connection and the old flag to stay away from Mr. Solomon
 White's meeting at Woodstock to-morrow. By doing so and not voting at
 the meeting they would enable annexationists to carry a resolution
 in favour of their views, and to trumpet it throughout the Dominion
 and elsewhere as the sentiment of the community as a whole. If in
 the loyal town of Woodstock, thriving beyond most if not all the
 other towns of Ontario, the capital of the banner county of Canadian
 Liberalism, formerly represented by that great champion of both
 British connection and Liberal principles, the Hon. George Brown,
 and noted heretofore for its fidelity at once to the old flag and
 to the Liberal views, if in such a place a resolution were carried
 at a public meeting to which all had been invited, no subsequent
 explanation as to the thinness of the attendance or as to the
 contemptuous absence of opponents would, outside of Oxford, have any
 weight.

 There are in most counties a few annexationists--in some counties
 more than in others; but the aggregate number in the Dominion I am
 sure is very small as compared with the aggregate population. The
 great majority of our people, I believe and trust, are not prepared
 to hand over this great Dominion to a foreign nation for any present
 commercial consideration which may be proposed. We love our Sovereign,
 and we are proud of our status as British subjects. The Imperial
 authorities have refused nothing in the way of self-government which
 our representatives have asked for. Our complaints are against
 parliaments and governments which acquired their power from our own
 people. To the United States and its people we are all most friendly.
 We recognise the advantages which would go to both them and us from
 extended trade relations, and we are willing to go as far in that
 direction as shall not involve, now or in the future, political union;
 but there Canadians of every party have hitherto drawn the line.

The meeting passed by twelve to one the following resolution:

 That the people of Oxford of all parties are deeply attached to their
 beloved Sovereign, the Queen of Great Britain and Ireland; that they
 proudly recognise the whole British Empire as their country, and
 rejoice that Canada is part of that Empire; that Canadians have the
 most friendly feelings toward the people of the United States, and
 desire the extension of their trade relations with them; that while
 differing among themselves as to the extent of the reciprocity to
 be desired or agreed to, we repudiate any suggestion that in order
 to accomplish this object Canadians should change their allegiance
 or consent to the surrender of the Dominion to any foreign Power by
 annexation, political union, or otherwise.

Sir Oliver Mowat's biographer states that Sir Oliver had determined in
case a pro-annexation resolution should be carried at this meeting, to
resign his seat for North Oxford, and appeal again to the constituency
on the straight issue of British Connection _v._ Annexation.

The morning Sir Oliver's letter appeared in the papers and we knew what
had happened at Woodstock, I went up to his house and congratulated him
warmly, and thanked him earnestly for his wise and patriotic action.
I knew that as the leader of the Liberal party in Ontario he had
delivered a death-blow to the annexation movement. I told him so. I
said to him, "You had control of the switch and you have turned it so
that the party will be turned towards loyalty and away from annexation.
And when the future historian writes the history of our country, he
will not understand his business if he does not point out clearly the
far-reaching effect of your action in this matter."

Sir Oliver seemed to think that I overrated the matter, but he told
me that he had sent his secretary, Mr. Bastedo, to Woodstock to see
his leading supporters, and to do what he could to help Dr. McKay to
secure control of the meeting. Many years have elapsed, and I still
hold the opinion I expressed to Sir Oliver that morning, and I feel
that Canada should never forget what she owes to Sir Oliver Mowat, and
that his name should always be cherished in the memories of our people.

This was followed on the 12th December, 1891, by an open letter to the
Hon. A. Mackenzie which was published as a sort of manifesto to the
Liberal party, in which he made an exhaustive argument along the same
lines.

In the early part of 1892 Mr. Elgin Myers, County Attorney of Dufferin,
was writing and speaking openly and strongly in favour of annexation,
and on being remonstrated with by the Government, said he had the
right of free speech, and would persist. Sir Oliver dismissed him from
office. This was another strong lesson, and was heartily approved by
the people generally. About the same time and for the same cause E. A.
Macdonald was dismissed by the Dominion Government from the Militia, in
which he held the rank of Lieutenant in the 12th York Rangers.

On the 16th July, 1892, about two months after Elgin Myers' dismissal,
a great meeting of loyal Canadians was held at Niagara-on-the-Lake,
the first capital of the Province, to celebrate the one hundredth
anniversary of the establishment of the Province of Upper Canada by
Lt.-Governor Simcoe, who issued his first proclamation on July 16th,
1792, at Kingston.

The Lt.-Governor, Sir George Kirkpatrick, made the first speech, and
gave a historical sketch of the history of the Province. Sir Oliver
Mowat followed him, and made a very loyal and effective speech.

He commenced by saying:

 At this great gathering of Reformers and Conservatives in which both
 are equally active, I may be permitted to express at the outset a
 hope that there will be no attempt in any quarter to make party
 capital out of this historic event, or out of anything which may be
 said or left unsaid either in my own case or that of any other of
 the speakers. . . . As the Dominion grows in population and wealth,
 changes are inevitable and must be faced. What are they to be? Some
 of you hope for Imperial Federation. Failing that, what then? Shall
 we give away our great country to the United States as some--I hope
 not many--are saying just now? (Cries of "Never.") Or when the time
 comes for some important change, shall we go for the only other
 alternative, the creation of Canada into an independent nation? I
 believe that the great mass of our people would prefer independence to
 political union with any other people. And so would I. As a Canadian
 I am not willing that Canada should cease to be. Fellow Canadians,
 are you? (Cries of "No.") I am not willing that Canada should commit
 national suicide. Are you? (Cries of "No.") I am not willing that
 Canada should be absorbed into the United States. Are you? (Cries
 of "No.") I am not willing that both our British connection and
 our hope of a Canadian nationality shall be for ever destroyed.
 (Cheers.) Annexation necessarily means all that. It means, too, the
 abolition of all that is to us preferable in Canadian character and
 institutions as contrasted with what in these respects our neighbours
 prefer. . . . But I don't want to belong to them. I don't want to
 give up my allegiance on their account or for any advantage they may
 offer. . . . I cannot bring myself to forget the hatred which so many
 of our neighbours cherish towards the nation we love and to which we
 are proud to belong. I cannot forget the influence which that hatred
 exerts in their public affairs. I don't want to belong to a nation
 in which both political parties have for party purposes to vie with
 one another in exhibiting this hatred. I don't want to belong to a
 nation in which a suspicion that a politician has a friendly feeling
 towards the great nation which gave him birth is enough to ensure his
 defeat at the polls. . . . No, I do not want annexation. I prefer
 the ills I suffer to the ills that annexation would involve. I love
 my nation, the nation of our fathers, and shall not willingly join
 any nation which hates her. I love Canada, and I want to perform my
 part, whatever it may be, in maintaining her existence as a distinct
 political or national organisation. I believe this to be on the whole
 and in the long run the best thing for Canadians and the best thing
 for the whole American continent. I hope that when another century
 has been added to the age of Canada, it may still be Canada, and that
 its second century shall, like its first, be celebrated by Canadians
 unabsorbed, numerous, prosperous, powerful, and at peace. For myself I
 should prefer to die in that hope than to die President of the United
 States. (Cheers and applause.)

Sir Oliver's biographer, C. R. W. Biggar, says of this speech:

 Quoted and discussed by almost every newspaper in Canada from Halifax
 to Vancouver, and also by the leading journals of Britain and the
 United States, Sir Oliver Mowat's speech at the Niagara Centennial
 Celebration sounded the death-knell of the annexation movement in
 Ontario.

While Sir Oliver was speaking I was sitting close behind him, next to
Mr. Wm. Kirby, who was a staunch loyalist and keen Imperialist. He was
delighted and whispered to me, "Mr. Mowat has stolen your thunder," and
again, "He is making your speech." I replied, "Yes, there will not be
any need for me to say much now." And when I was called upon to speak
after him I made a speech strongly supporting him but very brief,
feeling, as I did, that he had done all that was necessary in that line.

He was always impressed with the feeling of hostility in the United
States. As I had been speaking upon that subject for years in
unmistakable language, and was often abused for my outspoken comments,
I was delighted on one occasion some years before at a Board of Trade
banquet in the Horticultural Pavilion, Toronto, to hear him say
positively "that the United States was a hostile nation." Afterwards in
the cloak room I congratulated him warmly upon his speech, and thanked
him for speaking so plainly about the hostility of the United States.
Sir John A. Macdonald was standing by, and he turned playfully towards
Mr. Mowat, and, shaking him by the shoulders, said, "Yes, Denison,
did he not do well, the little tyrant?" This was in reference to the
opposition papers having sometimes called him "the little tyrant." Mr.
Mowat seemed highly amused, and I was much impressed by the evident
kindly, almost affectionate, personal feeling between the two rival
statesmen.

The decided position taken by Mr. Mowat certainly had an immense
influence upon the Liberal party, and in this he was ably seconded by
the Hon. G. W. Ross, who on many occasions sounded a clear note in
favour of British connection and Imperial consolidation.




                             CHAPTER XVIII

       DISSOLUTION OF THE IMPERIAL FEDERATION LEAGUE IN ENGLAND


On the 30th January, 1891, Sir Leonard Tilley, of New Brunswick,
was appointed President of the League in Canada in place of D'Alton
McCarthy, mainly through the instrumentality of Principal Grant, who
was of the opinion that the course taken by Mr. McCarthy in opposition
to the Jesuit Estates Act and his movement in favour of Equal Rights
were so unsatisfactory to the French Canadians that the prospect of
the League obtaining their support would be hopeless while he remained
President. Sir Leonard Tilley was one of the Fathers of Confederation,
and at the time Lieutenant-Governor of New Brunswick.

A meeting of the Council of the League in Canada was held on the 18th
September, 1891, Sir Leonard Tilley, President, in the chair, when
after careful discussion they passed a resolution asking the League
in England to help the Canadian Government to secure the denunciation
of the German and Belgian treaties, and a second one urging once more
the importance of a preferential trade arrangement between the Mother
Country and the Colonies.

On the 30th of the same month, both Houses of the Canadian Parliament
passed unanimously an address to the Imperial Government, asking
them to denounce the German and Belgian treaties which prevented
preferential trade arrangements between the various parts of the
British Empire.

The Seventh Annual General Meeting of the League in Canada was held in
the Tower Room, House of Commons, Ottawa, on the 1st March, 1892, Mr.
Alexander McNeill in the chair. A still further advance in the policy
of the Canadian League was made in a resolution moved by Lt.-Col. W.
Hamilton Merritt and carried as follows:

 That in the event of preferential inter Imperial trade relations being
 adopted in the British Empire, it is the opinion of this League that
 Canada will be found ready and willing to bear her share in a just and
 reasonable proportion of Imperial responsibilities.

On the 28th April, 1892, Mr. McNeill moved in the House of Commons:

 That if and when the Parliament of Great Britain and Ireland admits
 Canadian products to the markets of the United Kingdom upon more
 favourable terms than it accords to the products of foreign countries,
 the Parliament of Canada will be prepared to accord corresponding
 advantages by a substantial reduction in the duties it imposes upon
 British manufactured goods.

This was carried by ninety-eight votes to sixty-four.

All this was very gratifying to our League, and proved to us that
the campaign we had been waging in Canada for nearly five years had
convinced the majority of the people of the soundness of our policy.
We had our Parliament with us both on the question of the German and
Belgian treaties and preferential tariffs. In Great Britain, however,
our progress had been slow; with the exception of Sir Howard Vincent no
prominent British politician had accepted the principle of preferential
tariffs. Lord Salisbury had spoken tentatively at the Guildhall on the
9th November, 1890, and at Hastings on the 18th May, 1892, but he was,
while in a sense favourable, very cautious in his remarks, as he felt
public opinion in Great Britain was quite averse to any such policy on
account of their obstinate adherence to the principle of Free Trade.

The majority of the Imperial Federation League in England were not at
all favourable to the views of the Canadian League, and the Journal of
the League showed its bias in all its articles on the subject, while
Lord Knutsford on behalf of the Imperial Government in his dispatch on
the 2nd April, 1892, in answer to the joint address of the Canadian
Houses of Parliament declared, that for reasons given, "Her Majesty's
Government have felt themselves unable to advise Her Majesty to
comply with the prayer of the address which you have transmitted for
submission to Her Majesty."

The Eighth Annual General Meeting of the League in Canada was held
in Montreal on the 13th February, 1893, Mr. Alexander McNeill,
Vice-President, in the chair, and a resolution was carried, asking
the Government to request the Imperial Government to summon an
Imperial Conference. Sir Leonard Tilley wrote to the meeting asking
to be relieved of the duties of President, and advising the election
of Mr. Alexander McNeill in his place. In my absence, through Mr.
McNeill's efforts, I was elected President of the League. I accepted
the position, and on examination of its affairs I found that from a
business point of view it was in a very bad condition. The work of the
Secretary was behindhand, the League was without funds and considerably
in debt. I soon succeeded in placing it in a much better position. A
large amount of arrears of fees was collected, and with the assistance
of Mr. Herbert Mason and the late C. J. Campbell we soon secured
subscriptions from a number of friends of the cause, whose names I feel
should be recorded as they aided the movement for many years. The list
of subscribers was as follows: George T. Denison, J. Herbert Mason,
George Gooderham, A. R. Creelman, John T. Small, A. B. Lee, D'Alton
McCarthy, Sir Sandford Fleming, Sir Frank Smith, Alfred Gooderham,
T. G. Blackstock, D. R. Wilkie, Larratt W. Smith, E. B. Osler, A. M.
Cosby, George R. R. Cockburn, Hugh Blain, Albert E. Gooderham, W. G.
Gooderham, and W. H. Beatty. The debts were paid, and a balance on hand
and the future expenses for some years secured. A new secretary was
appointed, and everything was in good working order.

I had barely succeeded in this when I received from the secretary of
the League in England a communication marked "Strictly private and
confidential," informing me that there was a proposal to dissolve the
League, and close its business.

I was much astonished and alarmed at this information, and much
embarrassed by the strict secrecy imposed on me, but a day or two
afterwards I found by the cable dispatches in the Toronto papers
that the matter had come before the Council in England and that the
motion had been adjourned for six months. I concluded that the six
months' hoist meant the end of it. So I preserved the strict request
for secrecy which had been made to me. I had before written privately
in reply to the Secretary, Mr. A. H. Loring, protesting against the
proposition to dissolve the League. And I happened to mention that I
personally would feel inclined to keep up the struggle. I thought the
postponement had settled the matter, but as Mr. John T. Small, the Hon.
Treasurer, was going to England that summer, and as he was a member
of the Executive Committee of the League in England and entitled to
know what was being done, I urged him very particularly to go to the
head office in London, and inquire carefully as what was going on.
When he returned he told me that he had twice tried to see Mr. Loring
but failed, that he had asked for his address, which the clerk said he
could not give him as he was away on his holidays, and Mr. Small was
assured by the clerk that there was nothing going on, and that there
was no information that he knew of to give him.

All this lulled me into a feeling of security. Suddenly on 25th
November, 1893, the news came by cable to the Press that on the
previous day a meeting had been held in London, and that the League
had been dissolved. The meeting was called by a circular dated 17th
November, so that there was no possibility for the Canadian members of
the Council in England to have attended, even if notices had been sent
to them, which was not done.

In the Journal for the 1st December, 1893 (the last issue of that
publication), it is stated that discussion had been taking place in the
meetings of the Executive Committee during the previous six months,
to decide upon the course of action to be adopted by the League in
the immediate future; and it shows that a special committee had been
appointed to consider the matter. The report of this committee was
signed by the Rt. Hon. Edward Stanhope, M.P., President, Lord Brassey,
Sir John Colomb, R. Munro-Ferguson, M.P., H. O. Arnold-Forster, M.P.,
S. Vaughan Morgan, the Lord Reay, and J. G. Rhodes. This committee
reported "a recommendation, that the operations of the League should be
brought to a close."

"This report was discussed at several meetings of the Executive
Committee, and alternative proposals were carefully considered during
the autumn," and on the 24th November, 1893, the report was adopted
by a vote of 18 to 17, Mr. Loring saying he had been assured that the
Canadian League would continue as heretofore.

In spite of all these discussions mentioned, Mr. Small was assured
there was nothing going on, and the Canadian League were kept in
ignorance of the movement until it was accomplished.

This dissolution of the League at a council meeting to which none of
the thirty-five Canadian members representing the Canadian Branch
were either invited or notified, caused a considerable feeling of
dissatisfaction among our members, and was a severe and disheartening
blow to all friends of the cause in Canada, the concealment and secrecy
of the whole movement being very unsatisfactory to everyone.

I called a meeting of our Executive Committee at once for the 27th
November when the matter was considered. A resolution was moved and
unanimously carried that the Secretary should notify the Secretary
of the Imperial Federation League to stop the paper at the end of
this year, and if the journal should be continued that they should
communicate direct with the Canadian subscribers.

The following resolution was also, after careful consideration, carried
unanimously:

 Moved by G. R. R. Cockburn, Esq., M.P., seconded by H. J. Wickham:

 1. That the Executive Committee having had brought to its notice
 telegrams from England published during the past week in the daily
 papers stating that the Council of the League in England contemplated
 carrying resolutions tending towards its dissolution, would ask (as it
 conceives it has the right to do) to be advised at once of any steps
 proposed to be taken in that direction.

 2. The Canadian Branch of the League was formed at a meeting held in
 Montreal on the 9th May, 1885. At that meeting the resolutions passed
 at the Conference held in London on the 29th July, 1884, and at the
 inaugural meeting of the League held on the 18th November, 1884, were
 accepted, and a resolution was then carried forming a Canadian Branch
 of the League, to be called the Imperial Federation League in Canada.

 3. Among the resolutions of the League in England so accepted were the
 following:--

 (1) That the object of the League be to secure by federation the
 permanent unity of the Empire.

 (2) That British subjects throughout the Empire be invited to become
 members and to form and organise branches of the League which may
 place their representatives on the general committee.

 4. Canada then was, and is to-day, face to face with momentous
 questions involving its whole political future. The Earl of Rosebery
 then and until recently President of the League, in a speech at
 Edinburgh on the 31st October, 1888, quoted from a speech delivered in
 the American Senate by Senator Sherman these words:

 "I am anxious to bring about a public policy that will make more
 intimate our relations with the Dominion of Canada. Anything that
 will tend to the union of Canada with the United States will meet with
 my most hearty support. I want Canada to be part of the United States.
 Within ten years from this time (and I ask your particular attention
 to this), within ten years from this time the Dominion of Canada will,
 in my judgment, be represented either in the Imperial Parliament of
 Great Britain, or in the Congress of the United States." Such language
 he thought worthy of attention, and then Lord Rosebery went on to say:
 "My plan is this: to endeavour so to influence public opinion at home
 and in the Colonies that there shall come an imperious demand from the
 people of this country, both at home and abroad, that this federation
 should be brought about."

 5. To bring about a solution of the questions above indicated on the
 lines laid down by Lord Rosebery has been, since the formation of the
 Canadian Branch and up to this time, its constant and anxious care,
 and many of its members have, at great personal sacrifice, devoted
 themselves to securing the permanent unity of the Empire, with Canada
 as an integral part.

 6. Much work has been done, but much more remains to be done. The most
 enthusiastic of our members would be unable to say that the objects of
 the League have been accomplished, or that the question above referred
 to especially affecting Canada has as yet been solved.

 7. The dissolution of the League in England would therefore be nothing
 less than the desertion of the Canadian Branch at a critical period
 in its history, and would further appear necessarily to involve the
 destruction of the Leagues branches both in Canada and elsewhere. To
 those at least who are unfriendly to our aims, it will seem that the
 great cause, of which this branch may without exaggeration be said to
 be the representative in Canada, has received a heavy blow indeed at
 the hands of its friends.

 8. Under these circumstances the Council of the League in England
 will, this committee is convinced, appreciate the necessity and
 propriety of consulting the Canadian Branch of the League, and of duly
 notifying the members resident in Canada, of the Executive Committee
 and of the Council of the League in England, before taking any such
 step as that above referred to, a step to which this committee has
 seen the first and only reference in the public Press.

Not long afterwards we learned that a small faction, principally those
who had managed to destroy the League, had formed a new organisation,
had taken over the office, appropriated the records, lists of members,
subscription list, &c., and adopted the same trade mark or title cover
used for pamphlets. They also assumed the name "Imperial Federation
(Defence) Committee," and began circulating literature, pamphlets,
fly-sheets, &c., all pointing out the shortcomings of the Colonies, and
demanding cash contributions to the Army and Navy. This was done in a
spirit that aroused a good deal of hostile feeling in Canada, and did
much more harm than good to the cause they seemed to advocate. Had they
desired to destroy the movement in Canada, they could not have taken
more effective steps to secure that result.

This intrigue has been the most puzzling circumstance connected with
the history of the Imperial Federation movement. I have never been
able, even after the most careful inquiry, to reach with confidence
the real cause of such peculiar conduct. At one time I thought that as
Lord Rosebery had become Premier the existence of the League might have
become embarrassing to him, and that he had been in favour of doing
away with it, but Dr. Parkin assured me that this could not be, as Lord
Rosebery referred to the question some years after when Dr. Parkin was
his guest at Mentmore, and asked him why the League was dissolved, and
Lord Rosebery said that he regretted its dissolution very much and
could never understand it.

My own impression, although it is, of course, not capable of proof,
has always been that a few free traders on the committee were alarmed
at the progress the Canadian members were making in spreading views in
favour of preferential tariffs, and in reference to which Sir Charles
Tupper had been rather aggressive.

The destruction of the League would have been useless unless steps
were taken to prevent its revival, and to destroy, if possible, the
League in Canada. Hence the adoption of the name, address, trade mark,
etc., under which to flood Canada with publications tending to arouse
great hostility among our people. This was the condition in which I
found affairs only about ten months after I had been elected President.
The outlook was most discouraging, and caused a great deal of anxious
discussion among the stalwarts in Toronto. We decided to summon a
meeting of our most influential men to consider the situation, and
decide whether we also should dissolve, or whether we would continue
the struggle.

The meeting was held on the 3rd January, 1894, and after full
discussion it was decided to fight on, and with the assistance of
Sir John Lubbock, who had sent a communication to us asking us to
co-operate with him, to endeavour to resuscitate the League in England.

The ninth annual meeting of the Imperial Federation League in Canada
was held in the Parliament Buildings, Ottawa, on the 29th May, 1894,
and in the notices of motion printed in the circular calling the
meeting was one by Lt.-Col. Wm. O'Brien, M.P., as follows:

 Resolved, that the first step towards arriving at a system of
 preferential trade within the Empire should be for the Government of
 Canada to lower the customs duties now imposed upon goods imported
 from the United Kingdom.

And another to the same effect by Rev. Principal George M. Grant:

 Resolved, that this League is of opinion that as a first step towards
 arriving at a system of preferential trade within the Empire, the
 Government of Canada should lower the Customs duties now imposed on
 goods manufactured in and imported from Great Britain.

These notices exactly foreshadowed the policy adopted by Sir Wilfrid
Laurier's Government in 1897.

Another resolution was carried to the effect that a delegation should
be elected by the Executive Committee to confer personally with the
City of London Branch and similar organisations, and agree upon a
common course of future action. Accordingly on the 6th June, 1894, the
Executive Committee appointed "Colonel G. T. Denison President, Larratt
W. Smith, Esq., Q.C., LL.D., President Toronto Branch, George E. Evans,
Esq., Hon. Secretary of the League in Canada, John T. Small, Esq., Hon.
Treasurer, H. J. Wickham, Esq., Chairman of the Organising Committee,
J. L. Hughes, Esq., J. M. Clark, Esq., and Professor Weldon, M.P., to
be the delegation, with power to add to their number." Messrs. Clark,
Small, and Weldon were unable to act, and Sir Charles Tupper, then
High Commissioner, Lord Strathcona, and Lt.-Col. Septimus Denison,
Secretary and Treasurer of the London Ontario Branch, were added to the
delegation.

This was the turning point of the movement, and led to the organisation
of the British Empire League and the continuance of the struggle for
Imperial consolidation. The account of this mission, its work in
England, and the subsequent proceedings of the new League, and the
progress of the movement for Imperial Unity during the succeeding
years, will be dealt with in the following chapters.




                              CHAPTER XIX

               ORGANISATION OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE LEAGUE


I left for England on the 27th June 1894, arrived in London on the 9th
July, and at once called upon Sir John Lubbock, M.P., now Lord Avebury.
I breakfasted with him on the 13th, when we thoroughly discussed the
whole question. I pressed upon him the urgent need there was that we
should have a head office in England, and how important the movement
was in order to spread and maintain the Imperial sentiment in Canada.
He was most sympathetic and friendly, and said that if it would be
convenient for us he would gather a number of men favourable to the
idea to meet us at his house a week later, on the 20th July. I wrote to
the members of the delegation, and gathered them the day before at Lord
Strathcona's rooms on Dover Street, and secured the attendance of Sir
Charles Tupper, who was then High Commissioner for Canada, and also a
member of our League, and we added him to the committee. We discussed
our policy at considerable length, and arranged to meet at Sir John
Lubbock's in St. James's Square the following morning at eleven a.m.

I happened to be breakfasting at the United Service Club that morning
with Lord Roberts and General Nicholson, and Lord Roberts hearing that
I was going to Sir John Lubbock's, said that he had been asked to
attend the meeting, but had not intended to go. I prevailed upon him to
accompany me.

Sir John Lubbock had a number of gentlemen to meet us, among whom
were Sir Westby Percival, Agent-General for New Zealand, the Hon. T.
A. Brassey, Messrs. C. Freeman Murray, W. Culver James, W. H. Daw, W.
Becket Hill, Ralph Young, H. W. Marcus, and others. Sir John Lubbock
was in the chair and Mr. Freeman Murray was secretary. As chairman
of our deputation, I put our case before the meeting, following the
lines agreed upon at the conference at Lord Strathcona's rooms the
day before. I spoke for about forty minutes, and naturally urged very
strongly the importance of preferential trading throughout the Empire,
as a practical means of securing a permanent unity, and I insisted that
we should make the denunciation of the German-Belgian Treaties one of
the definite objects of the League.

The City of London Branch had prepared a programme of a suggested
constitution, which contained nearly all the clauses afterwards agreed
upon as the constitution of the British Empire League. Our Canadian
delegation accepted all their suggestions, but we insisted on a clause
referring to the German and Belgian Treaties. Our English friends were
evidently afraid of the bogey of Free Trade, and seemed to think that
any expressed intention of doing away with the German and Belgian
Treaties would prevent many free traders from joining the League. I
urged our view strongly, and was ably assisted by speeches from Sir
Charles Tupper, Lord Strathcona, and Sir Westby Percival. Our English
friends still held out against us. At last I said that we had agreed
with all they had advocated, had accepted all their suggestions, but
that when we asked what we considered the most important and necessary
point of all, the denunciation of the German and Belgian Treaties,
we were met with unyielding opposition, that there was no object in
continuing the discussion, and we would go home and report to our
League that, even among our best friends, we could not get any support
towards relieving us of restrictions that should never have been
placed upon us. Mr. Becket Hill seeing the possibility of the meeting
proving abortive, suggested an adjournment for a week. Mr. Herbert Daw
immediately rose, and in a few vigorous sentences changed the tone. He
said that the Canadians had agreed with them in everything, and that
when they urged a very reasonable request they were not listened to.
He said that was an unwise course to take, and urged that an attempt
should be made to meet our views.

Sir John Lubbock then said: "Perhaps I can draw up a clause which
will meet the wishes of our Canadian friends," and he wrote out the
following clause:

 To consider how far it may be possible to modify any laws or treaties
 which impede freedom of action in the making of reciprocal trade
 arrangements between the United Kingdom and the colonies, or between
 any two or more British Colonies or possessions.

I said at once that we would accept that clause, provided it was
understood that we of the Canadian Branch should have the right to
agitate for that which we thought was the best, and the only way,
probably, of unifying the empire. We claimed we were to have the right
to work for the denunciation of the treaties with the view of securing
preferential tariffs around the Empire, and that in so doing we were
not to be considered as violating the constitution of the League,
although the central council was not to be responsible for the views of
the Canadian Branch. That settled the matter at once, and the League
was formed. Difficulty was found in deciding upon a name. We wished to
retain the old name, but the arguments in favour of a change were so
great that we yielded to the wishes of our English brethren. A number
of names were suggested, most of them long and explanatory, when Mr.
James L. Hughes suggested that as the object was the maintenance of
the British Empire why not call the League simply "The British Empire
League." This appealed to all, and it was at once adopted, so that Mr.
Hughes was the godfather of the League.

It was then arranged that a meeting of the old City of London branch of
the Imperial Federation League should be called at the London Chamber
of Commerce. It was held on the 26th July, when several of us addressed
the meeting, and an organising committee was formed for undertaking
the work of the reconstruction of the League. It consisted of the
Canadian deputation and the following gentlemen: The Earl of Derby,
Earl of Jersey, Earl of Onslow, Earl of Dunraven, Field Marshal Lord
Roberts of Kandahar, Lord Brassey, Lord Tennyson, Sir John Lubbock,
Bart., M.P., Sir Algernon Borthwick, Bart., M.P., Sir Charles Tupper,
Bart., Sir Westby Percival, Sir Fred Young, Major General Ralph Young,
Lieut.-Colonel P. R. Innes, Dr. W. Culver James, Messrs. F. Faithful
Begg, M.P., W. Herbert Daw, E. M. Headley, W. Becket Hill, Neville
Lubbock, Herman W. Marcus, John F. Taylor, and Freeman Murray.

Addressing this meeting at some length, I endeavoured to show the
importance of settling the North-West, as well as other portions of
Canada, with a population of British people if possible, who would
grow grain to supply the wants of the mother country. I stated that a
preferential tariff against the United States would keep our people
in Canada, and would cause settlers from Great Britain to make their
homes in that country; and that in a very little time the North-West
Territories would be occupied by a large population of loyal people,
who would be devoted to the Empire, and would be able to supply all
the bread-stuffs that England would require. In order to impress that
upon the audience, I drew their attention to the fact that if England
was engaged in a war with continental countries, say, for instance,
Russia and France, it would cut off the supply of wheat from the former
country; and that if hostilities were also to break out between the
United States and England, it would confine the mother country's wheat
supply to India, Australia, and Canada; that the distance was so great
that it would take an enormous naval force to keep the sea routes open,
and that these would be constantly liable to attack and interruption
unless England had absolute command of the sea.

I then went on to say that I was aware that there was a strong feeling
in England that there was no possibility of a war with the United
States, but warned the meeting that they must not rely upon that
belief, and I quoted several facts to prove my view.

Within eighteen months the Venezuelan Message of President Cleveland,
followed as it was by the warlike approving messages to Mr. Cleveland
from 42 out of the 45 Governors of States, proved how easily trouble
might arise.

Mr. James L. Hughes also addressed this meeting, and we were strongly
supported by a member of the Fair Trade League, who used some powerful
arguments in favour of some steps being taken to improve the position
of the "Food Supply." He was answered by Mr. Harold Cox, Secretary
of the Cobden Club, who said that my proposition was one that would
abolish Free Trade, and substitute Protection for it. In spite of his
appeal to the intense prejudice of the British people, at that time
in favour of Free Trade, the idea of an Imperial Preferential tariff
seemed to have considerable weight upon those who heard it expounded.

Lord Tennyson was present at the meeting and spoke to me afterwards,
approving of much of my speech, but regretting I had spoken so freely
about the United States. I replied that the very fact of his criticism
was a strong proof of the necessity for my speaking out, and told him
I would send him some publications which would enable him the better
to appreciate our view. This I did. He has been a strong supporter of
the British Empire League and acted on the Executive Committee from the
first.

I addressed a large meeting at Hawick, Scotland, on the 17th August,
1894, and for the first time in Scotland advocated our Canadian policy.
My friend Charles John Wilson organised the meeting. I spoke in much
the same strain as in London. Although my remarks were well received it
was evident that free trade opinion was paramount, and that I did not
have any direct support in the meeting. One member of the Town Council
told me at the close that, while they were all free traders, yet I had
given them food for thought for some time. At the Congress of Chambers
of Commerce of the Empire held in London in July, 1906, my friend Mr.
Charles John Wilson, who spoke at my meeting in Hawick in 1894, was a
representative of the South of Scotland Chamber of Commerce, and made
a powerful speech in favour of the Canadian resolution which endorsed
Mr. Chamberlain's policy of preferential tariff, and his Chamber of
Commerce voted for it.

The organising committee appointed at the London meeting took a
considerable time in arranging the details. Lord Avebury told me that
he had considerable difficulty in getting a prominent outstanding
man as President, and that the negotiations took up a great deal of
time. He wished to secure the Duke of Devonshire, and he being very
busy, could not give much time, and only agreed at length to take the
position on the understanding that Sir Robert Herbert who, for many
years had been the Permanent Under Secretary for the Colonies, and was
about to be superannuated, should undertake to act as chairman of the
Executive Committee and attend to the management of the League.

When all was arranged, a large meeting was held at the Mansion House
on the 27th January, 1896, the Lord Mayor in the chair, and then the
British Empire League was formally inaugurated, the constitution
adopted, and a resolution, moved by Lord Avebury, carried:

 That the attention of our fellow-countrymen throughout the Empire is
 invited to the recent establishment of the British Empire League, and
 their support by membership and subscription is strongly recommended.

It may be mentioned that when our deputation reported to the League
in Canada the arrangements we had agreed to, it was suggested that an
addition should be made to the constitution by the insertion of what
is now the second clause of it. "It shall be the primary object of the
League to secure the permanent unity of the Empire." This, of course,
had been well understood, but the Canadian League desired it to be
placed in the constitution in formal terms. The request was made to the
committee in England, and it was at once acceded to.

A special general meeting of the Imperial Federation League in Canada
was held in the Tower Room, House of Commons, Ottawa, on the 4th March,
1896, to consider the annual report of the Executive Committee, and the
recommendation therein contained, that the League should change its
name to that of the British Empire League in Canada, and affiliate with
the British Empire League.

As President of the League I occupied the chair. Among those present
were: Sir Charles Tupper, Bart., G.C.M.G.; Sir Donald Smith, K.C.M.G.;
the Hon. Arthur R. Dickey, M.P.; Senators W. J. Almon, C. A. Boulton,
John Dobson, Thomas McKay, Clarence Primrose, W. D. Perley, and Josiah
Wood. The following members of Parliament: W. H. Bennett, G. F. Baird,
T. D. Craig, G. R. R. Cockburn, Henry Cargill, George E. Casey, F. M.
Carpenter, G. E. Corbould, Dr. Hugh Cameron, Emerson Coatsworth, D. W.
Davis, Eugene A. Dyer, Thomas Earle, Charles Fairburn, W. T. Hodgins,
A. Haslam, Major S. Hughes, David Henderson, Charles E. Kaulbach, J.
B. Mills, A. C. Macdonald, J. H. Marshall, James Masson, J. A. Mara,
W. F. Maclean, D'Alton McCarthy, G. V. McInerney, John McLean, H.
F. McDougall, Major R. R. Maclennan, Alex. McNeill, W. B. Northrup,
Lt.-Col. O'Brien, H. A. Powell, A. W. Ross, Dr. Thomas Sproule, J.
Stevenson, William Smith, Lt.-Col. Tisdale, Thomas Temple, Lt.-Col.
Tyrwhitt, Dr. N. W. White, R. C. Weldon, R. D. Wilmot, W. H. Hutchins,
Major McGillivray, William Stubbs, J. G. Chesley, A. B. Ingram; and
Messrs. S. J. Alexander, Sandford Fleming, C.M.G., N. F. Hagel, Q.C.,
James Johnston, Thomas Macfarlane, Archibald McGoun, C. C. McCaul,
Q.C., Joseph Nelson, J. C. Pope, E. E. Sheppard, J. G. Alexander, J.
Coates, Joseph Nelson, McLeod Stewart, R. W. Shannon, Major Sherwood,
Major Clark, Dr. Kingsford, Dr. Beattie Nesbitt, Prof. Robertson,
Dr. Rholston, Lt.-Col. Scoble, Captain Smith, George E. Evans (Hon.
Secretary), and others.

I moved the adoption of the annual report, which contained a copy of
the constitution of the British Empire League, and recommended that the
Canadian League be affiliated with that body.

As to the question of changing the name of the League, I said:

 That the Canadian delegation had urged the retention of the name
 Imperial Federation League, but the arguments in favour of the
 change were so great that we felt we had to yield to the wishes
 of our English brethren. The word Federation was objected to by
 some, and there is no doubt that to attempt to prepare a fixed and
 written constitution for a federated Empire, with all its divergent
 interests, would be a very difficult thing to do. If a dozen of
 the very ablest men in all the Empire were to devote any amount
 of time and their greatest energies to prepare a scheme for such a
 federation, and succeeded in making one practical and workable under
 existing conditions, might not ten or twenty years so change the
 conditions as to make a fixed written constitution very embarrassing
 and unsuitable? Such a method is not in accord with the genius of the
 British Constitution. The British Constitution is unwritten; it has
 "broadened down from precedent to precedent," always elastic, always
 adapting itself to changing conditions. So should the idea of British
 unity be carried out. Let us work along the lines of least resistance.
 The memorial included in the report urges a conference to consider
 the trade question. A conference might arrange some plan to carry out
 that one idea; in a year or two another conference could be called to
 consider some other point of agreement. Soon these conferences would
 become periodical. Soon a committee would be appointed to carry out
 the wishes of the conferences in the periods between the meetings;
 and then you would have an Imperial Council, and Imperial Federation
 would have become evolved in accordance with the true genius of the
 Anglo-Saxon race. Let us take one step at a time, and we shall slowly
 but surely realise our wishes.

These remarks outlined the policy that the Executive Committee had
agreed upon, and foreshadowed much that has since occurred.

Mr. Alexander McNeill seconded the adoption of the report, which was
carried unanimously.

Sir Charles Tupper then moved the first resolution:

 Whereas the British Empire League has been formally inaugurated in
 London with practically the same objects in view as the Imperial
 Federation League, this meeting expresses its sympathy and concurrence
 therewith, and resolves that hereafter the Imperial Federation League
 in Canada shall be a branch of the British Empire League, and shall be
 known and described as the British Empire League in Canada.

In his speech he gave a short sketch of the progress of the old League,
and pointed out that it was an important fact that this organisation
had committed itself to the policy of removing the obstruction to
preferential trade with Great Britain which existed through the
treaties with Belgium and Germany.

Mr. D'Alton McCarthy seconded the resolution. He also spoke of the work
of the old League which he had founded in Canada, and of which he was
the first President. He said:

 That no mistake was made in forming the League, because at that time,
 twelve years ago, the feeling was towards independence or annexation.
 The League did very much to divert public opinion in the direction in
 which it was now running. As to the treaties between Great Britain and
 other countries, he did not look upon them as an obstruction but as
 an impediment. For his part he was prepared to do anything to advance
 Canadian trade relations with England at once, without postponing it
 until those treaties were terminated by Great Britain.

This last sentence shows that at that time he was contemplating the
adoption of the policy of a British Preference, which I believe in the
following year, with Principal Grant's assistance, he succeeded in
inducing Sir Wilfrid Laurier and his Government to adopt.

The constitution, by-laws and rules for the governance of branches were
then adopted, and the work of the old Imperial Federation League in
Canada has since been carried on under the name of "The British Empire
League in Canada."

I have always felt that this success of our mission to England was most
important in its result, or at least that its failure would have been
very unfortunate. The collapse of the Imperial Federation League had
disheartened the leading Imperialists very much, and the deputation to
England was an effort to overcome what was a very serious set back.
Had we been obliged to come home and report that we could get no one
in Great Britain sufficiently interested to work with us, it would
necessarily have broken up our organisation in Canada, and the movement
in favour of the organisation of the Empire, and a commercial union of
its parts, would have been abandoned by the men who had done so much
to arouse an Imperial sentiment. The effect of this would have been
widespread. Our opponents were still at work, and many of the Liberal
party were still very lukewarm on the question of Imperial unity.

Our success, on the other hand, encouraged the loyalists, and led the
politicians of both sides to believe that the sentiment in favour of
the unity of the Empire was an element to be reckoned with. Sir John
Macdonald had made his great appeal to the loyalty of Canada in 1891,
and had carried the elections, the ground having been prepared by the
work of the League for years before. The general election was coming on
in 1896, and it was most important that the Imperial sentiment should
not be considered dead.

After Sir John's death the Conservative party suffered several severe
losses in the deaths of Sir John Abbott and Sir John Thompson, and
in the revolt of a number of ministers against Sir Mackenzie Bowell,
who had been appointed Prime Minister. The party had been in power
for about eighteen years, and was moribund, many barnacles were
clinging to it. My brother, Lt.-Col. Fred Denison, M.P., was a staunch
conservative, and a strong supporter of the Government, but for a year
before his death, that is during the last year of the Conservative
_régime_, he privately expressed his opinion to me that, although
he could easily carry his own constituency, yet that throughout the
country the Government would be defeated, and he also said he hoped
they would. He was of the opinion that his party had been in long
enough, and that it was time for a change; and he held that the success
of the Liberals at that time with their accession to office, and the
responsibilities thus created, would at once cause them to drop all
their coquetting with the United States, and would naturally lead
them to be thoroughly loyal to a country which they themselves were
governing.

About the 1st January, 1896, President Cleveland issued his Venezuelan
message in reference to a dispute between Great Britain and Venezuela.
It was couched in hostile terms, and was almost insolent in its
character. Among European nations it would have been accepted almost
as a declaration of war. This was approved of by the United States
as a whole. Nearly all the Governors of States (forty-two out of
forty-five was, I believe, the proportion) telegraphed messages of
approval to President Cleveland, and many of them offered the services
of the militia of their States, to be used in an invasion of Canada.
This aroused the feeling of our people in an extraordinary degree, and
in all Canada the newspapers sounded a loyal and determined note. I
was anxious about several papers which had opposed us, and had even
advocated independence or annexation, but indignant at the absolute
injustice of the proposed attack upon Canada they came out more
vehemently than any. The _Norfolk Reformer_ struck a loyal, patriotic,
and manly note, while Mr. Daniel McGillicuddy of the _Huron Signal_,
who used to attack me whenever he was short of a subject, was perhaps
more decided than any. He said in his paper that he had always been
friendly to the United States and always written on their behalf,
but when they talked of invading the soil of Canada, they would find
they would meet a loyal and determined people who would crowd to the
frontier to the strains of "The Maple Leaf Forever" and would die in
the last ditch, but would never surrender. Mr. McGillicuddy had served
in the Fenian raid in the Militia, and all his fighting blood was
aroused. This episode of the Venezuela message ended the annexation
talk everywhere, and Mr. McGillicuddy has been for years a member of
the Council of the British Empire League.

I had but little influence myself in political matters, but I had
great confidence in Sir Oliver Mowat and the Hon. George W. Ross, and
among my friends I urged that they should be induced to enter Dominion
politics, as their presence among the Liberal leaders would give the
people of Ontario a confidence which in 1891 had been much shaken in
reference to the loyalty of the Liberal opposition. I was much pleased
to find that before the election in 1896, arrangements were made that
Sir Oliver Mowat was to leave the Ontario Premiership, and support Sir
Wilfrid Laurier in the Senate.

In the early spring of 1896, while the Conservative Government were
still in power, I wrote to Lord Salisbury and told him what I thought
would happen, first that the Conservatives would be defeated, and
secondly that the Liberals, when they came into power, would be loyal
and true to the Empire, and that he need not be uneasy, from an
Imperial point of view, on account of the change of Government. I knew
that with Sir Oliver Mowat in the Cabinet everything would be right,
and I felt that all the others would stand by the Empire.

In 1897, during the Jubilee celebration in London, I saw Lord
Salisbury, and he was much gratified at the action of the Canadian
Government in establishing the British Preference, and said that they
had been anxious about the attitude of the Liberal party, until Sir
Wilfrid Laurier's first speeches in the House after his accession to
office. I laughingly said, "You need not have been anxious, for I wrote
telling you it would be all right and not to be uneasy." His reply was,
"Yes, I know you did, but we thought you were too sanguine."

As soon as the new Government were sworn in, we endeavoured to press
our views of preferential tariffs upon them, D'Alton McCarthy and
Principal George M. Grant exerting themselves on that behalf, and
during the autumn of 1896 a deputation of the Cabinet consisting of
the Hon. Wm. Fielding, Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright, and the Hon. Wm.
Patterson travelled through the country inquiring of the Boards of
Trade and business men as to their views on the question of revision of
the tariff.

Our League naturally took advantage of this opportunity to press our
views upon the Government, and urged Mr. Fielding and his colleagues
very earnestly to take steps to secure a system of preferential
tariffs. A curious incident occurred on this occasion that is worth
recording. While our deputation were sitting in the Board of Trade room
in Toronto waiting our turn to be heard, a manufacturer was pressing
the interests of his own business upon the Ministers. It was amusing
to hear him explain how he wanted one duty lowered here, and another
raised there, and apparently wanted the tariff system arranged solely
for his own benefit. There was such a narrow, selfish spirit displayed
that we listened in amazement that any man should be so callously
selfish. Mr. Fielding thought he had a good subject to use against us,
so he said to the man, "Suppose we lower the duty say one-third on
these articles you make, how would that affect you?" "It would destroy
my business and close my factory." "Then," said Mr. Fielding, "here
is a deputation from the British Empire League waiting to give their
views after you, and I am sure they will want me to give Great Britain
a preference." The man became excited at once, he closed up his papers
and in vehement tones said, "If that is what you are going to do, that
is right. I am an Imperial Federationist clear through. Do that, and I
am satisfied." "But what will you do?" said Mr. Fielding. "It will ruin
your business." "Never mind me," he replied, "I can go into something
else, preferential tariffs will build up our Empire and strengthen it,
and I will be able to find something to do." "I am an Imperialist," he
said with great emphasis as he went out.

I turned to someone near me and said, "I must find out who that man is,
and I will guarantee he has United Empire Loyalist blood in his veins."
He proved to be a Mr. Greey, a grandson of John William Gamble, who was
a member of a very distinguished United Empire Loyalist family. I am
sure this incident must have had some influence upon Mr. Fielding, as
an illustration of the deep-seated loyalty and Imperialism of a large
element of the Upper Canadian population.

The members of our League were delighted with the action of the
Government in the Session of 1897, in establishing a preference in our
markets in favour of British goods. It will be remembered that we had
been disappointed in our hope that Lord Salisbury would have denounced
the Treaties in 1892, when the thirty years for which they were fixed
would expire, but five years more had elapsed and nothing had been
done. I believe the plan adopted by our Government had been suggested
by Mr. D'Alton McCarthy, our former President, and in order to get over
the difficulty about the German and Belgian Treaties, the preference
was not nominally given to Great Britain at all, but was a reduction of
duty to all countries which allowed Canadian exports access to their
markets on free trade terms. This of course applied at once to Great
Britain and one of the Australian Colonies (New South Wales). All other
nations, including Germany and Belgium, would not get the preference
unless they lowered their duties to a level with the duties levied by
Great Britain. The preference was first fixed at one-eighth of the duty
just to test the principle.

Shortly after this was announced in our Commons, Kipling, who saw at
once the force of it, published his striking poem "Our Lady of the
Snows," which emphasised the fact that Canada intended to manage her
own affairs:

    Daughter am I in my mother's house,
    But mistress in mine own.
    The gates are mine to open
    As the gates are mine to close,
    And I set my house in order
    Said Our Lady of the Snows.

    .   .   .   .   .   .   .

Another strong point was illustrated in the lines:

    Favour to those I favour
    But a stumbling block to my foes,
    Many there be that hate us,
    Said Our Lady of the Snows.

    .   .   .   .   .   .   .

    Carry the word to my sisters,
    To the Queens of the East and the South,
    I have proved faith in the heritage
    By more than the word of the mouth.
    They that are wise may follow
    Ere the world's war trumpet blows,
    But I, I am first in the battle,
    Said Our Lady of the Snows.

This poem pointed out to Great Britain that Canada had waited long
enough for the denunciation of treaties which never should have been
made, and which were an absolutely indefensible restriction on the
great colonies.

At a meeting of the council of the British Empire League in Canada held
in May a week or two after the Annual Meeting in Ottawa, a resolution
was passed:

 That the President and those members of the Canadian Branch who are
 members of the Council of the League in England be hereby appointed
 a deputation (with power to add to their number) from the League
 in Canada to the League in the United Kingdom; and that they be
 instructed to lay before the members of the Parent League the views
 of the Canadian Branch on matters of national moment, such as the
 organisation of a Royal Naval Reserve in the colonies, and also to
 express their opinion that, as a guarantee of the general safety of
 the Empire, vigorous steps should at once be taken to provide that
 the British food supply should be grown within the Empire.

The deputation consisted of the following: The Hon. R. R. Dobell, M.P.,
George R. Parkin, J. M. Clark, A. McNeill, M.P., Sir Charles Tupper,
Bart., John T. Small, Sir Sandford Fleming, K.C.M.G., Lieut.-Colonel
George T. Denison, D'Alton McCarthy, Q.C., M.P., Lord Strathcona, H. H.
Lyman and J. Herbert Mason.




                              CHAPTER XX

                       MISSION TO ENGLAND, 1897


I left for England via Montreal on the 31st May, 1897, and expected to
arrive in Liverpool a day or two before Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who was
to sail some days later from New York on a fast ship. We were delayed
for some days by fogs, and did not arrive in Liverpool till after Sir
Wilfrid Laurier had left that place. He had arrived in the old world
for the first time of his life, and at once fell into the hands of
the Liverpool merchants and business men, at that time generally free
traders. He had not a colleague with him and naturally was affected
by the atmosphere in which he found himself, and in his speech at
the great banquet given by the British Empire League with the Duke
of Devonshire in the chair, he made a few remarks in reference to
preferential tariffs for which he was severely criticised at home.
I joined the party at Glasgow two days later, and Sir Wilfrid, who
seemed pleased to see me, had a long talk with me between Glasgow
and Liverpool on the special train which took the party down. On the
following morning the Liverpool papers had cables from Canada giving
an account of the discussion in the Canadian House of Commons over the
cabled reports of Sir Wilfrid's speech. He was attacked vehemently by
Alexander McNeill, our champion in the House, on one point of his
speech at Liverpool, and Sir Richard Cartwright and his colleagues, in
defending Sir Wilfrid, did so on the ground that the reports of what he
said could not be taken as correct, and asking the House to withhold
comment until the full reports should be received. This was a desirable
course to adopt, for cable despatches have so often conveyed inaccurate
impressions.

The real secret of the trouble was that in the busy rush of his work as
leader of the opposition, and then as Premier, Sir Wilfrid had not been
able really to master the question, but he soon grasped the subject,
and his later speeches were very effective. His reception by the
British people was wonderfully favourable, and the impression he made
upon them was remarkable. He stood out from all the other Premiers--and
there were eleven in all--and he was everywhere the central and
striking figure.

On the 5th July, 1897, a meeting of the British Empire League was held
in the Merchant Taylors Hall. The Duke of Devonshire was in the chair
and made an able speech welcoming the Premiers from the colonies. He
was followed by Rt. Hon. R. J. Seddon, Premier of New Zealand, Sir
William Whiteway, Premier of Newfoundland, Mr. G. H. Reid, Premier
of New South Wales, and Sir Edward Braddon, Premier of Tasmania. Sir
Wilfred Laurier had not been able to attend, and as President of the
League in Canada I was called upon to speak. As to the treaties, I said:

 I have come here from Canada to make one or two suggestions. In the
 first place in reference to preferential tariffs, we have shown you
 that we wish to give you a preference in our markets. (Cheers).
 But treaties interfere with us in the management of our own tariff,
 and I wish to emphasise the fact that some steps should be taken to
 place us in absolute freedom to give every advantage we wish to our
 fellow-countrymen all over the world. (Cheers.) We wish to give that
 advantage to our own people, and we do not wish to be forced to give
 it to the foreigner. (Hear, hear.) . . .

 Now my last point is this. In Canada we have viewed with considerable
 alarm the fact that the wealthiest and most powerful nation in all
 history is at this moment dependent for her daily food for three out
 of every four of her population upon two foreign nations, who are, I
 am thankful to say, friendly to her, and who, I hope, will always be
 friendly, but who, it cannot be denied, might by some possibility be
 engaged in war with us at some future time. These two nations might
 then stop your food supply, and that harm to you would spread great
 distress among the people of our country. I have been deputed by the
 League in Canada to ask you to look carefully into this question. If
 there is no real danger, relieve our fears; but if you find there is
 any danger let me urge upon you as strongly as I can to take some
 steps to meet that danger. Let the method be what it may, great
 national granaries, a duty on food, a bounty or what not, but let
 something be done.

A special meeting of the Council of the League was held on the 7th
July, 1897, to meet the deputation of our League. In my address I once
more dealt with the question of the German and Belgian treaties. I
said, "The Canadian people have now offered, in connection with their
desire regarding these treaties, to give what they propose to all
nations, but with the express intention of giving an advantage to our
own people. I am deputed to ask you to use what influence you can on
the Government and people of this country to give us that full control
of our own tariff to which we contend we are entitled."

Lord Salisbury in 1890, although favourable to the idea, was not
able to secure the denunciation of the German and Belgian treaties,
although I knew from his conversation with me that personally he felt
that they should be denounced. In 1892 Lord Knutsford peremptorily
refused a request by Canada to denounce the treaties. Lord Ripon was
not quite so peremptory in 1894-'95 after the Ottawa Conference, but he
refused permission to Mr. Rhodes to arrange a discriminating tariff in
Matabeleland. We had been held off for six years, but the action of the
Canadian Government brought matters to a head.

During June and July, 1897, in London the most profuse and
large-hearted hospitality was shown on every hand to the colonial
visitors, and I was fortunate enough to be invited to all the large
functions. I felt the importance of taking every opportunity to press
upon the leading men in England the necessity for the denunciation of
the treaties, and I knew Sir Wilfrid Laurier could not urge it with the
freedom or force that I could. Consequently in private conversations
I talked very freely on the subject, whenever and wherever I had an
opportunity.

I found that in meeting friends, almost the first remark would be an
approving comment on the friendliness of the Canadian Parliament in
giving the British people a preference in the markets of Canada. My
reply always was that it was no more than was right, considering all
that Great Britain had done for us. This was usually followed by the
remark that the Government were afraid, from the first impression of
the law officers of the Crown, that Great Britain would not be able to
accept the favour. My reply was very confidently, "Oh yes! you will
accept it." Then the remark would be made that the German and Belgian
treaties would prevent it. "Then denounce the treaties," I would say.
"That would be a very serious thing, and would be hardly possible." My
reply was, "You have not fully considered the question, we have." Then
I would be asked what I meant, and would reply somewhat in these terms:

 Consider the situation of affairs as they stand. To-day at every port
 of entry in Canada from Sydney, Cape Breton, to Victoria in the Island
 of Vancouver, along 3,500 miles of Canadian frontier, German goods
 are charged one-eighth more duty than goods from Great Britain, and
 goods from Great Britain one-eighth less duty than on German goods.
 This was being done yesterday, is being done to-day, and will be done
 to-morrow, and it is done by the Government of Canada, backed by a
 unanimous Parliament, and behind it a determined and united people.
 We have made up our minds and have thought it out, and have our teeth
 set, and what are you going to do about it?

This did not usually bring out any indication that any clear decision
had been arrived at by them, and then I would go on:

 Of course we know that you can send a large fleet to our Atlantic
 ports, and another to our Pacific ports, and blockade them, paralyse
 our trade, and stop our commerce, until we yield, or you may go
 farther and bombard our defenceless cities, and kill our women and
 children. Well, go on and do it, and we will still hold out, for we
 know that any British Government that would dare to send her fleets
 to jamb German goods down our throats when we want to buy British,
 would be turned out of office before the ships could get across the
 Atlantic. The thing is absurd, the treaties are an outrage, and the
 only course out of the difficulty is to denounce them.

These arguments carried weight with all to whom I spoke, and I spoke
to Ministers, Privy Councillors on the Government side, M.P.'s, and
others. Once only the head of one of the great daily newspapers seemed
to be annoyed at my aggressive attitude, and said, "You had better
not be too sure. We might send the fleet and be very ugly with you."
My reply was, "Well, go on and send it. You lost the southern half
of North America by trying to cram tea down their throats, and you
may lose the northern half if you try to cram German goods down our
throats. I should have hoped you had learned something from history."

It will be seen that the plan which was, I understand, originated by
D'Alton McCarthy, worked out very successfully. There could only be
one result, and within a month the treaties were denounced, and I felt
that the first great step of our programme had been made. The amusing
feature, however, was, that this object for which we fought so hard
three years before at the meeting at Lord Avebury's, when the British
Empire League was founded, and which was opposed by nearly all our
English friends, was no sooner announced as accomplished, than men of
all parties and views seemed to unite in praising the act, and the
Cobden Club even went so far as to present the Cobden Medal to Sir
Wilfrid Laurier.

Sir Wilfrid Laurier in all his speeches had upheld abstract theories
of free trade, and with considerable skill succeeded in allaying the
hostility of the free trade element. This, I think, helped to secure
the denunciation of the treaties, with the approval of all parties. On
my return to Canada I was interviewed in Montreal by the representative
of the Toronto _Globe_. Being asked by the reporter my opinion of the
probable effect of the denunciation of the German and Belgian treaties,
I said:

 The denunciation of these treaties marks an epoch in the history of
 the British Empire. The power of Canada has made itself felt not
 only in British but in European diplomacy. It has affected Germany,
 Belgium, and other countries, and every one of these countries knows
 that it was Canada's influence that produced the result. Another point
 in connection with the denunciation of these treaties is, that it is
 a tremendous step towards preferential trade within the Empire. Great
 Britain was going along half asleep. Canada has awakened her, and made
 her sit up and think. She has been jostled out of the rut she has been
 following, and is now in a position to proceed in the direction that
 may be in her own interest and in that of the Empire.

Being then asked if I had any opinions to express in regard to the
Premier's remarks in Great Britain on the question of free trade, I
said:

 His remarks were general and theoretical. The great point of the whole
 movement was to secure the denunciation of the treaties. Nothing could
 be done while these treaties were in existence, and in my opinion
 it would have been a most indiscreet thing for Sir Wilfrid Laurier
 to have pursued any line of argument that would have aroused the
 hostility of the great free trade party in Great Britain. The great
 point was to secure the united influence of all parties in favouring
 the denunciation of the treaties, which was an important step in
 advance.

Being asked to account for the fact that Sir Howard Vincent, of the
United Empire Trade League, a strong protectionist, and the Cobden Club
both united in applauding the denunciation of the treaties, I replied:

 Sir Howard Vincent and his League saw plainly that this action made
 for a preferential tariff. The Cobden Club are whistling to keep up
 their courage.

In the Conference of Premiers, held in 1897, it was not possible to
secure an arrangement for mutual preferential tariffs. The other
colonies were not ready for it, the Imperial Government was not ready
for it, nor were the people, but as the German and Belgian Treaties
were denounced to take effect the following year, in August, 1898, the
path was cleared, and from that date the Canadian Preference came into
force, and has since been in operation.

It will be remembered that the deputation of our British Empire League
to England, in 1897, was instructed to express the great desire of
the Canadian Branch that, as a guarantee of the general safety of the
Empire, vigorous steps should at once be taken to provide that the
British Food supply should be grown within the Empire. As chairman of
the deputation I did all in my power to stir up inquiry on the subject.
Being introduced to Principal Ward of Owens College, Manchester, when
at that city, I talked freely with him on the point, and he suggested I
should discuss it with Mr. Spencer Wilkinson, the well-known author and
journalist. He gave me a letter introducing me to Mr. Wilkinson, and we
had several interviews. Shortly after reaching London I called to see
my friend Lord Wolseley, then Commander-in-Chief. He took me with him
to his house to lunch, and as we walked over, I at once broached the
subject of the food supply, principally wheat and flour, and he told
me that the Government had been urged to look into the matter some two
or three years before, and that there had been a careful inquiry by
the best experts, and the report was that the command of the sea was
a _sine quâ non_, but if we maintained that, and paid the cost which
would be much increased by war prices, the country could get all the
grain they would want.

I said suppose a war with Russia and the United States, what would be
done if they combined and put an embargo on bread-stuffs? How would it
be got then even with full command of the sea? He did not seem himself
to have understood the difficulty, or studied the figures, and said,
"I cannot explain the matter. All I can say is that the Government
obtained the advice of the best men in England on the subject, and
that is their report." My reply was, "I wish you would look into it
yourself," and I dropped the subject.

I met Lord Roberts shortly after and I pressed the matter upon him. He
had not known of the Government report, and consequently listened to my
arguments attentively and seemed impressed, for I may say that 1897 was
the worst year in all our history as to the manner in which the supply
of food was distributed among the nations.

Mr. Spencer Wilkinson seemed to be much interested in my talks with
him, and one day he said, "I wish you could have a conversation with
some great authority on the other side of the question, who would
understand the matter and be able to answer you." I replied, "That is
what I should like very much. Tell me the best man you have and I will
tackle him. If he throws me over in the gutter in our discussion it
will be a good thing, for then I shall learn something." Mr. Wilkinson
laughed at my way of putting it, and said, "If that is what you want,
Sir Robert Giffen is the man for you to see." I said I would try and
get a letter of introduction to him. Mr. Wilkinson said he would give
me one, and did so.

I called to see Sir Robert Giffen. He received me very kindly, and we
had an interesting interview of about an hour. The moment I broached
the subject of the food supply he said at once, "That question came up
some two or three years ago, and I was called upon to inquire into the
whole matter and report upon it, and my report in a few words was, that
we must have the command of the sea, and that once that was secured,
then, by paying the somewhat enhanced war prices, we could get all
the grain required." My reply was, "Then, as you have fully inquired
into the question, you can tell me what you could do under certain
conditions. In case of a war between Great Britain and Russia combined
with the United States, followed by an embargo on food products,
where and how would you get your supplies?" Sir Robert said, "We do
not expect to go to war with the United States and Russia at the same
time." I said, "You were within an ace of war with the United States
only a year ago over the Venezuelan difficulty, and Great Britain and
Russia have been snarling at each other over the Indian Frontier for
years, and if you go to war with either, you must count on having the
other on your hands."

Sir Robert then said, "But I said we must have the command of the sea."
I replied, "I will give you the complete, undoubted, absolute command
of the sea, everywhere all the time, although you are not likely to
have it; and then in case of an embargo on wheat and foodstuffs where
are you to get your supplies?" He said, "We would get some from Canada
and other countries." I pointed out that all they sent was only a
fraction. Sir Robert then said, "They could not put on an embargo,
for it would ruin their trade." I told him that I was talking about
war and not about peace and trade, and said that no desire for trade
induced the Germans to sell wheat to Paris during the siege of 1870.
His idea had been that, in case of war with Russia or the United
States, or both, holding the command of the sea, Great Britain would
allow foodstuffs to be exported to neutral countries such as Belgium or
Holland, and then England would import from those countries. My answer
to that was, that if England had the command of the sea, the United
States or Russia would have only one weapon, an embargo, and they would
certainly use it. He seemed cornered in the argument, and said, "Well,
if we cannot get bread we can eat meat. I eat very little bread." I
said, "The British people use about 360 lbs. per head of wheat per
annum, and about 90 lbs. of meat, and a great deal of meat would be
stopped too"; and I said on leaving, "I wish you would investigate this
thoroughly again, and let the Government know, for I know they are
depending upon your report at the War Office"; and then I left him.

When at Liverpool shortly after on my way back to Canada, I asked
the manager of the Bank of Liverpool, to whom I had a letter of
introduction, if he would introduce me to the highest authority on
the corn trade in Liverpool. He introduced me to the late Mr. Paul,
ex-President of the Corn Exchange, and I had a long conversation with
him on the question of the food supply. As soon as I mentioned the
subject he told me that the corn trade people in Liverpool had been
asked from London to make a report on the possibility of supplying
grain in case of war. Mr. Paul told me that they had considered the
matter (I suppose he meant the leading corn merchants), and that their
report was practically that they must have the command of the sea, that
was essential; but that secured, and the enhanced war prices paid, they
could supply all the corn required in any contingency. I questioned
him as I had Sir Robert Giffen and found the same underlying belief.
The law of supply and demand would settle the question. The corn
would be allowed to go in neutral ships to neutral ports, and then be
transhipped to England. An embargo had not been considered or treated
seriously as a possibility, and when I cornered him so that he could
not answer my arguments, he said, "Well, if we could not get wheat we
could live on potatoes." I told him potatoes could not be kept over
a year, that a large quantity was imported which would be stopped.
I said he had better make another report. The whole thing was very
disheartening to me, for I saw how the Government were depending upon
peaceful traders for information how to guard against war dangers.

In 1902 when Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, then Chancellor of the Exchequer,
proposed a small tax on wheat and flour, I was pleased to see that
Sir Robert Giffen was the first prominent man to write to the Press
endorsing and approving of the bread tax, as it was called. It showed
me that Sir Robert had carefully considered the question, and was manly
enough to advocate what was not altogether a popular idea.

After my return to Canada I prepared an article for the _Nineteenth
Century_ on the "Situation in England," and it appeared in the December
number, 1897. In this I pointed out the danger of the condition of
the food supply, and the article attracted a considerable amount of
attention in the British Press, in comments, notices, letters, etc. Sir
Michael Hicks-Beach in a speech at Bristol, in January, 1898, referred
to the question, and in a way contradicted the points I had brought out
in the _Nineteenth Century_ article. My conversations the summer before
with Lord Wolseley, Sir Robert Giffen, and Mr. Paul had so alarmed me
at the false security in which the Government were resting, that when
I saw Sir Michael Hicks-Beach relying on the same official reports,
I determined, although I had never met him, to write him direct, and
on the 20th January, 1898, I wrote, drawing his attention to a remark
which he was reported to have made that "in any war England would have
many friends ready to supply corn," and I said, "Our League sent a
deputation to England last summer to draw attention to the danger of
the food supply. I was chairman of it. Since my return I published
an article in the _Nineteenth Century_ giving our views. I enclose a
reprint which I wish you could read. If you have not time please give
me one minute to examine the enclosed diagram (cut out of the _Chicago
Tribune_) showing the corn export of the world. This shows that Russia
and the United States control, not including the Danubian ports, nearly
95 per cent. of the world's needs, and if they were to put an embargo
on the export of food of all kinds, where would be the 'many friends
ready to supply England with corn?'"

Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, now Lord St. Aldwyn, with great courtesy wrote
me a personal letter, in which he thanked me for my letter, and went on
to say:

 I do not think that the sentence you quote "that in any war England
 would have many friends ready to supply corn" quite accurately
 represents what I said on that subject. The report was necessarily
 much condensed. But it would be true if (say) we were at war with the
 United States alone: or if we were at war with one or more of the
 European Powers and the United States were neutral. In either of such
 cases the interests of the neutral Powers in access to our market
 would be so strong, that our enemy would not venture to close it to
 them, in the only possible way, viz.: by declaring corn contraband of
 war. And I think that if the United States were the neutral party,
 self-interest would weigh more with them than their ill feeling
 towards us, whatever the amount of that feeling may be.

 It is possible, though most improbable, that the two great
 corn-producing countries might be allied against us. If they were, I
 believe that our navy would still keep the seas open for our supply
 from other sources, though no doubt there would be comparative
 scarcity and suffering. I am no believer in the enclosed diagram, the
 production of corn is constantly increasing in new countries such as
 the Argentine, and better communication is also increasing the total
 amount available for export. Bad harvests in the United States and
 Russia, and good ones in India and the Argentine, would show quite
 another result to that shown in the enclosed, though, as I have said,
 I do not believe it is true, even of the year which it professes to
 represent.

On receipt of this letter I wrote to Mr. Geo. J. S. Broomhall, of
Liverpool, editor of the _Corn Trade News_, and author of the _Corn
Trade Year Book_, and received from him a certificate of the correct
figures of corn exports. I forwarded it to Sir Michael Hicks-Beach,
showing that in 1897 India and the Argentine only exported 200,000 qrs.
and 740,000 qrs. respectively, and that the diagram I sent could not
have been a very great way out. In 1902 Sir Michael Hicks-Beach put a
tax of one shilling a quarter on imported wheat, and as I have already
said, Sir Robert Giffen wrote to the _Times_ approving of it. I was
very glad to see this action on the part of both of them.

On the 4th December, 1897, the Hon. George W. Ross gave an address
before the British Empire League in St George's Hall, Toronto, in
which he strongly favoured preferential tariffs and came out squarely
against reciprocity with the United States. This action was a great
encouragement to our cause and attracted considerable attention all
over Canada.

On the 8th December, 1897, the National Club gave a complimentary
banquet to his Excellency the Earl of Aberdeen, Governor-General. I
attended the banquet and sat second to the left of the president of
the club, Mr. McNaught. I was under the impression that Mr. Blake, who
had been a few years away from Canada, and who had joined the Irish
Nationalist party, would be sure to speak in a strain not acceptable
to our club. I mentioned this to Dr. Parkin who sat next to me. When
Mr. Blake began to speak he very soon uttered sentiments strongly
opposed to all that the Canadians had been working for in the Imperial
interest. I said to Parkin that as an ex-president of the club,
and president of the British Empire League, I would not allow his
remarks to pass without comment. I leaned over and told the chairman
I intended to speak a few minutes when Mr. Blake finished. He raised
some objection, but I told him I must speak. He mentioned it to the
Governor-General, who said he would wait for fifteen minutes. I told
Dr. Parkin I would divide the time with him.

After Mr. Blake sat down, I said:

 I have been a member of this club almost from its foundation. I was
 for many years on the Board of Directors, and for some years its
 President, and I feel that I should state that the speech of my friend
 Mr. Blake does not represent the views nor the national aspirations
 which have always been characteristic of the National Club. . . .

 I agree with what Mr. Blake has said as to the importance of
 preserving friendly relations with the United States. We hope to live
 at peace with them, but because we do not wish to beg for reciprocity
 or make humiliating concessions for the sake of greater trade, it is
 no reason why we should be charged with wanting war. We want peace,
 and no one can point to any instance where the Canadian people or
 Government have been responsible for the irritation. Mr. G. W. Ross
 pointed this out clearly in his admirable speech of Saturday night.
 The great causes of irritation have come from the United States.
 The invasion of 1775, the war of 1812, the Trent affair, and the
 Venezuelan business were all matters in which we were absolutely free
 from blame. Nor were we to blame some thirty years ago when I had to
 turn out with my corps to help defend the frontier of this province
 from the attacks of bands of Fenians, organised, armed, and equipped,
 in the United States, who invaded our country, and shot down some of
 my comrades, who died defending Canada. These raids were maintained
 by contributions from our worst enemies in the United States,
 but we drove them out, and now I am glad to say that, while the
 contributions still go on, the proceeds are devoted to troubling the
 Empire elsewhere, and I hope they will continue to be expended in that
 direction rather than against us.

 I approve of Mr. Blake's remarks about the defence of Canada, and the
 expenditure of money to make our country safer, but I object strongly
 to the hopeless view he takes. We are 6,000,000 of northern men, and,
 fighting on our own soil for our rights and freedom, I believe we
 could hold our own in spite of the odds against us, as our fathers did
 in days gone by, when the outlook was much more gloomy.

Dr. George R. Parkin followed with an eloquent and powerful speech
pointing out the various arguments which showed the growth of the
movement for Imperial unity.

It was thought at that time that Mr. Blake had some idea of returning
to Canadian politics, but the result of this meeting and the Press
comments must have put an end to any such idea if it ever existed.




CHAPTER XXI

THE WEST INDIAN PREFERENCE


In the autumn of 1897 the report of a Royal Commission on the condition
of affairs in the West Indian Islands was published. Field-Marshal Sir
Henry Norman disagreed with the other two members of the Commission,
and put in a minority report, showing in effect that the real way to
relieve the distress in the sugar industry of the West Indies, was
for Great Britain to put countervailing duties on bounty favoured
sugar coming into her markets. I was much impressed with Sir Henry
Norman's report as to the condition of the West Indies, and came to
the conclusion that we in Canada might do something to aid on Imperial
grounds.

I wrote, therefore, to Principal George M. Grant, one of our most
energetic and brilliant colleagues, asking him to let me know when he
would be in Toronto, as I wished to have a long conference with him.
On the 29th December, 1897, we met, and I discussed the whole question
with him and asked him to go to Ottawa, and urge Sir Wilfrid Laurier
and Mr. Fielding to increase the sugar duty in order that Canada might
be able to give a preference to West Indian Sugar. I pointed out that
such action would be popular, and that I was satisfied both parties
would support it. I had been pressing Sir Wilfrid and the Government
on many points, and thought that in this matter they had better be
approached from a different angle. Grant took up the idea eagerly, and
promised to go to Ottawa and do his best. On the 3rd January, 1898, he
wrote me "(Private and confidential)":

 A Happy New Year to you! I have just returned from Ottawa. Had an
 hour with Fielding discussing the West Indian question, which he
 understands thoroughly. I think that something will be done, though
 perhaps not all that we might wish at first.

 Had an hour also with Laurier. First, the preference hereafter is
 to be confined to Britain. That is settled, but this is of course
 strictly confidential.

 Secondly, he seemed at first to think that we had gone far enough with
 our twenty-five per cent. reduction, till we could see its workings,
 but when I argued for going steadily along that line he said, "I do
 not say yea, but I do not say nay." I intend to push the matter.

 He is in favour of the cable, but thinks that we cannot take it up
 this session.

 He impresses me favourably the more I study him. He has a truer
 understanding of the forces in Britain than Tupper in my opinion.

 Of course I told Fielding that the West Indian suggestion was yours,
 and that I cordially endorsed it. He is anxious to do something, but
 thinks that we must ask in dealing with them a _quid pro quo_.

Shortly before it was announced Sir Wilfrid Laurier told me the
Government were likely to give West Indian sugar a preference. And on
the 5th April, 1898, Mr. Fielding introduced his Budget, and in a most
eloquent and statesmanlike speech declared that Canada had her Imperial
responsibilities, and that she would lend "a helping hand to our
sister colonies in the south." This was received with great applause
from both sides of the House, and Grant and I were not only much
pleased at the success of our efforts, but still more gratified to find
the universal feeling in Canada in favour of Mr. Fielding's action. A
few days after, on the 9th April, Grant wrote to me:

 I am sure that my thorough discussion on the West India matter with
 Mr. Fielding did good, but the suggestion came from you. We may be
 well satisfied with the action of the Government, but it will be bad
 if the public gets the idea that the British Empire League is pressing
 them. It is our task rather to educate public opinion. Things are
 moving steadily in the right direction.

 P.S.--Mulock is evidently aiming at Imperial penny postage. Good!

Some time after this the German Government put the maximum tariff
against all Canadian goods, and Mr. Fielding met this by a surtax of
ten per cent. on all German goods entering Canada. This changed the
whole supply of sugar for Canada from Germany to the West Indies to
their great advantage.

On the 10th March, 1898, the Annual Meeting of the British Empire
League was held in the Private Bills Committee Room in the House of
Commons. It was a most successful meeting. Four Cabinet Ministers were
present, Sir Louis Davies, Sir Wm. Mulock, Hon. J. Israel Tarte, and
Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick. Sir Charles Tupper and Sir Mackenzie Bowell
ex Prime Ministers, and many members of the Senate and the House.
Those named above addressed the meeting as well as Principal Grant and
Colonel Sam Hughes.

Sir Wm. Mulock succeeded this year in securing Imperial Penny Postage,
which was one of the objects for which the British Empire League had
been working. It was managed with great boldness and skill by Mr.
Mulock. His first step was to announce that on and after a certain date
some three or four months in advance, all letters stamped with the
ordinary three cent domestic rate would be carried to Great Britain
without further charge. He knew that objection would be raised to his
action, but that it would bring the question to the forefront. The
Imperial Government objected to deliver the letters, and said the
matter would have to be considered at a conference. Mr. Mulock then
answered that a conference should be held, which was agreed to, but
he insisted it should not be a departmental affair, that he should
only be asked to discuss it with men of his own rank, that is with
Cabinet Ministers. This also was agreed to, and it was not long before
the matter was settled. Mr. Mulock sent me a cable telling me of his
success as soon as he came out of the meeting where the resolution was
passed.

On the 28th August, 1898, a large deputation of the Executive
Committee of the British Empire League met Mr. Mulock at the Toronto
railway station on his arrival from England, to welcome him home, to
congratulate him upon his success, and to invite him to a complimentary
banquet to be given in his honour.

The banquet took place on the 15th September, at the National Club.
Principal Grant, Alexander McNeill, and Sir Sandford Fleming all came
to Toronto to attend it. It was a most successful affair.

The Lieut.-Governor Sir Oliver Mowat, who was one of our
vice-presidents, attended, also Lord Herschel, Hon. Richard Herschel,
Hon. Charles Russell, Sir Frank Smith, Mayor Shaw, and a large and
distinguished company.

I was in the chair and proposed the health of Mr. Mulock. The _World_
of the following day, the 16th September, 1898, reported me as follows:

 Colonel Denison, inspired by the nobility of the dominant idea of
 the evening, looked like a general standing on the ramparts just won
 by his troops. He spoke of the double aim of the League, to preserve
 the permanency of the British Empire, and secondly to procure closer
 intercourse between the parts. He dwelt on the wonderful advance
 made by the idea of federation and the disappearance of the "Little
 Englander." It was not enough to denounce the German and Belgian
 treaties, or to have a preferential tariff. There should be no rest
 until a mutual preferential tariff had been secured.

Lord Herschel, Sir Oliver Mowat, Mr. Mulock, Principal Grant, Alexander
McNeill, Sir Sandford Fleming, Mr. George Hague of Montreal, Geo.
E. Casey, and W. F. Maclean all made loyal and patriotic speeches,
Alexander McNeill's being especially eloquent and powerful.

Our League was much gratified not long afterwards at an article which
appeared in the London _Daily Mail_ of the 21st November, 1898, under
the heading "Where Imperialism comes from." After referring to many
things Canada had done, preferential tariffs and preferences to the
West Indies, penny postage, &c., it concluded as follows:

 By their works ye shall know them, and by the record of Canada's works
 is her magnificent, constructive, peaceful Imperialism made known to
 the world. Yet its full strength can only be measured by going among
 Canadians in their homes and noting--and becoming affected by--the
 palpitating Imperialist life of the people, which even the coldness of
 the mother country cannot damp. When future historians come to write
 the history of the Empire's later development they will have much to
 say of Canada's Imperialist lead. At present we don't make half enough
 of this rich and beautiful Dominion--an Empire in itself--and its
 enthusiastically loyal sons.




                             CHAPTER XXII

                 1899: THE ESTABLISHMENT OF EMPIRE DAY


The Fourth Annual Meeting of the League in Canada was held in Ottawa
on the 6th April, 1899. In moving the adoption of the Annual Report,
I made an address which clearly outlined the policy of the League at
that time, and may therefore be worth quoting. It appears in the report
printed by order of the annual meeting as follows:

 The year that has passed since we last met has been a most important
 year in reference to the work of the British Empire League, and many
 striking events have happened which teach us lessons that we should
 carefully consider in framing our policy for the future. We have many
 things upon which we can look with great satisfaction. Since we last
 met the preference in our markets, which under certain conditions had
 previously been open to all countries, has been restricted to our
 empire. A preference has also been given to our sister colonies in
 the West Indies, and this example, we are gratified to find, has in
 a way been imitated by the Government of India, with the approval of
 the British Government, which is another move in the direction of the
 aims of our league. Almost simultaneously we see the London _Times_
 discussing a duty on wheat and sugar as a means of raising revenue. As
 this would not only raise revenue but help to raise wheat in Britain
 as well, it would aid to that extent in strengthening the empire. In
 reference to the preference to West Indian sugar, I wish to point
 out that I am informed that cane sugar in the United States has a
 preference through duties on beet root sugar, which, at present, is an
 advantage to West Indian sugar to the extent of 27 cents per hundred
 pounds, while the preference we have given in our market is only about
 18 cents per hundred pounds. I may suggest that we in Canada should
 increase our preference to, say, 40 per cent. of the duty, which would
 give our fellow-colonists a slightly greater preference than they now
 receive under the United States tariff. I need not say much about
 the fast Atlantic service, for all parties are united in favour of
 it, and we can only hope that it will be established at the earliest
 moment, for nothing would help more to show our position as a separate
 community upon this continent. We have been too backward in the past,
 and we should endeavour more and more to assert ourselves among the
 countries of the world.

 There is one point I wish to press upon this meeting: there has been
 in the last twenty-five or thirty years a revolution in the affairs of
 the world in reference to national relations and methods of defence.
 Germany has united, and we remember that it was accomplished under
 the stress and trial of war. The German Empire was inaugurated in the
 greatest palace of France, to the sound of the German cannon firing
 upon the capital city of their enemy. Italy, as the result of three
 wars, has been united and consolidated. The United States during the
 last year have launched out into the politics of the world, have
 adopted expansion as their policy, and are pressing their views on
 the Filipinos with rifles, maxims, and field guns. We have discovered
 this year once more by hard facts what history in all ages has
 shown--that nations cannot expect to exist upon the security of their
 natural moral rights, unless those rights are supported by physical
 strength. Spain has been taught that might prevails, and she has
 been crushed and humiliated for doing what the United States are now
 obliged to do themselves in the Philippine Islands. The greatest
 lesson of all, however, which this last year has taught us is that
 which we learn from the impending fate of China. There is a nation of
 three hundred to four hundred millions of people, honest traders, I
 am told, certainly most inoffensive and unaggressive; a nation which,
 from its peaceful character, industrious habits, and natural reserve,
 should have been the last to have aroused hostility. It has neglected
 its defences and has taken no effective steps to protect itself from
 wrong, and what do we see now as the result? The nations in the
 possession of navies and armies are commencing to tear it to pieces
 and divide the spoils.

 Do we hear of any of these nations being worried by conscientious
 scruples, or complaining of the moral wrong of this partition? No; the
 whole disputing is concentrated over the division of the spoils. Now
 what is the lesson this thing teaches us? It is this; that nations
 can only enjoy their freedom by being able to defend it, and that the
 true policy for nations under present conditions is to be closely
 united within themselves, to be thoroughly organised and equipped, and
 to be able in case of necessity to use their whole strength to the
 greatest advantage for the common safety--and to do this nations must
 be self-sustaining. (Applause.)

 In trade, also, we see the selfish war going on and increasing. While
 England is talking about the "open door," which is a fine phrase for
 theorists, she is finding other nations busily engaged in shutting
 their own doors. Each nation year by year is being forced to protect
 its industries by tariff regulations. France is following this policy;
 Germany and Russia also, and the most prosperous of them all, the
 United States, is carrying the principle to the greatest extent.
 One can see that this principle is growing and will grow, for the
 selfishness of nations seems, if possible, to be increasing every day.
 Now, how is the British nation placed? It has the best chances of all
 if it sees how to take advantage of them.

 It has the largest territory, with every variety of climate and
 products, with the greatest possibilities of development, with
 prospects of an internal trade far beyond all other countries. It has
 the best coaling stations scattered everywhere, but to secure and
 retain her advantages the empire must be consolidated, both for trade
 and defence, and this can be fully accomplished without the slightest
 aggression. (Hear, hear.)

 If we Canadians desire to be free and safe it must be in that empire
 to which we are attached by every tie, and to which we must be ready
 to give our strength for the common defence, if we expect the enormous
 reserve force of that empire to be at our back if our life as a free
 people should ever be threatened. (Applause.)

 It is necessary, therefore, for the prosperity and safety of all the
 parts, that the United Kingdom, India, Australasia, South Africa, and
 Canada should all be firmly united so as to show a square front to
 any enemies that may attack us. This is the object of our league; to
 secure the permanent unity of the empire; and with the extraordinary
 development of nations and of military progress in them, our empire
 must also, if it desires security, be ready in every part to pay for
 that security and be ready to defend it.

 In past ages the wars between nations have been carried on by moderate
 sized armies, while the great bulk of the people attended to their
 usual business, except where interrupted in the actual theatre of war.
 For a thousand years wars had been conducted upon that principle,
 until the French Revolution, when in 1793, being threatened with
 invasion by combined Europe, 1,300,000 men were conscripted in France
 to defend her frontier. This was the first example of a nation almost
 taking up arms to defend herself. It changed the organisation of
 armies; but later, under Napoleon, the nation returned more nearly
 to the old system of regular armies. In 1870 and since, however, the
 revolution in military defence in most civilised countries except our
 own has been completed. Now in France, Germany, and Russia the whole
 people practically are trained for war. The war footing of the army in
 France is about 4,000,000 and some thousands of field guns; in Germany
 just about the same; in Russia the army on a war footing is said
 to be 3,400,000; Austria has a war strength of 2,750,000. As these
 forces in these countries are all organised, and arms, equipment, and
 field guns ready, it will be seen that never before in history were
 such enormous military preparations made. The navies have increased
 almost in the same ratio, our navy fortunately being more than equal
 to any two navies combined. With this outlook, with this condition of
 affairs outside, it is only wisdom for the wealthiest of all nations
 to consolidate its power in order to preserve its wealth, possessions,
 and liberty.

 And what are we in Canada doing? We are following the example of the
 Chinese, and trusting to the forbearance and sense of honesty of other
 nations, instead of relying upon our own strength and the strength of
 the empire, to which we could better appeal if we did our own share
 properly.

 Thirty-eight thousand militia, drilled spasmodically, without the
 necessary equipment and departments, without reserves, or even rifles
 to arm them, is no contribution to the strength of the empire. This
 should be changed at once. We should establish depots for training
 our fishermen and sailors to supplement the royal naval reserve,
 and the guns with which to train them, the barracks in which to
 house them, and the permanent instructional staff necessary to drill
 them, if judiciously placed in batteries in front of St. John, N.B.,
 Charlottetown, Quebec, and other seaports, would be aiding the British
 navy, which protects our mercantile marine, while matters could be
 arranged to make them a defence for those seaports, which at present
 would be at the mercy of any swift cruiser that, evading pursuit,
 might approach their wharves. (Hear, hear.)

 Our militia should be largely increased, and supplies of all
 kinds provided, and in agreeing to do our share in developing and
 strengthening the military resources of the empire, in our own
 borders, we could fairly ask the mother country to remedy a danger
 which at present menaces the safety of our race.

 I spoke very plainly on this point of the food supply last year, but
 the intervening months have produced such strong evidence in support
 of my arguments that I wish to draw attention to the subject again. I
 said last year that an embargo on foodstuffs in Russia and the United
 States, rigidly carried out, would force the surrender of the mother
 country in a very few months. I have been told by trade theorists in
 England that the demand would create the supply, and that England
 could purchase food through neutral countries. I argued that an
 embargo by the two countries mentioned would necessarily be followed
 by an embargo in all important countries at once, and in all other
 countries as soon as their surplus was exported. This last year has
 seen this view triumphantly vindicated. Mr. Leiter effected a corner
 in wheat in Chicago, purchasers became alarmed, prices increased, and
 wheat began to be picked up in other countries. What was the result?
 Spain, a country which about feeds itself, put on an embargo. I
 believe Italy did the same, or was on the point of doing so, while an
 embargo was being discussed in France and Germany. If this could be
 the result of the cornering operations of one dealer in one town in
 one exporting country, what would have happened if those two countries
 which control nearly nine-tenths of the wheat exports of the world
 were to withhold that amount?

 I have been told that no country could put on an embargo, that the
 people would rebel against being prevented from selling their
 produce, but I have one example which conclusively proves my argument.
 The southern States had the bulk of the cotton supply of the world
 when the Civil war broke out in 1860. Their main industry was growing
 cotton, their capital, labour, and business were mainly involved in
 the production and sale of it. To force Great Britain to recognise
 and assist them, in other words, to bring pressure to bear upon a
 neutral power, the southern Government placed an embargo on the export
 of cotton. At Great Britain's request the northern Government agreed
 to give permits to let it go to England. So that it was not the
 blockade alone which prevented its export. The southern Government
 maintained a strict embargo. When their troops were forced back
 the stores of cotton were seized and paid for by the Confederate
 Government by receipts and Government bonds, and the cotton was
 burned. Mrs. Jefferson Davis, in her memoirs, says that her husband
 grudged every pound that got out. Now let us see what was the result
 of this embargo, and how far it was possible to enforce it. In 1860,
 England imported from the United States 1,115,890,608 pounds; in 1861,
 England imported from the United States, 819,500,528 pounds; in 1862,
 England imported from the United States 13,524,224 pounds; in 1863,
 England imported from the United States 6,394,080 pounds; in 1864,
 England imported from the United States 14,198,688 pounds. The drop
 from 1,115,890,608 to 6,394,080 pounds, about one-half of one per
 cent, shows how complete this embargo was. The cotton famine has not
 been forgotten. The loss to the English people has been computed at
 £65,000,000, and yet this only affected one industry in one section of
 one kingdom. (Hear, hear.)

 Nine-tenths of the population were able to help; the tenth affected,
 and there was abundance of food for all. But extend that pressure,
 and let it be in food, which no one can do without, and let it extend
 over the whole ten-tenths (as would be the case in the event of a
 stoppage of food) and try to imagine the misery that would follow.
 Food would have to be rationed to rich and poor alike, for the
 starving masses would not allow all there was to be monopolised by
 the wealthy. Under such conditions, what heart could the Government
 be expected to display in the conduct of the struggle? Russia and the
 United States could control the export of 40,000,000 quarters out of
 45,375,000 quarters exported by all nations in 1897. The late war
 between the United States and Spain is said to have cost the States
 nearly $500,000,000. If the Government of Russia and the United States
 bought the full surplus from their people of 320,000,000 bushels at
 the present market price, it would only cost them about $225,000,000,
 while even at $1 a bushel it would only be $320,000,000--the cheapest
 and most effective war measure that could be adopted. And this could
 be done by these countries without their having one war vessel. I
 repeat, therefore, that this is the weak point of our empire; our food
 should be grown under our own flag, or there should be large stores
 in England, and a preference which would increase the growth of wheat
 to the extent of 10,000,000 quarters additional in the British Isles
 would be the best spent money for defence that could be expended, and
 a preference to the colonies would soon produce the balance within the
 Empire. (Hear, hear.)

 We should urge this upon the mother country, not because it would help
 us enormously, though that is no reason why we should not urge it, but
 because danger to the mother country is danger to us all.

 These are the two points for us to look forward to, a thorough
 organisation of our own forces in Canada, with a liberal assistance
 from us toward the royal naval reserve and other defences of the
 empire, and a provision, for the food supply of the empire being
 made safe. These should go together, for there is not much use in
 our sending our sailors, well trained, to man war vessels, to defend
 our empire, unless it is understood that a ship without food is as
 useless as one without guns, or powder or coal or men. A number of
 requisites are absolutely necessary to make an effective navy, or an
 effective defence, and the want of one makes all the others useless,
 and food is one of these indispensable requisites. We cannot press
 this too earnestly upon the mother country, but we cannot talk to
 them about their duties or necessities until we first attend to ours,
 and show our willingness to take up our share of the common burden.
 The answer to my argument from the English point of view is that my
 suggestion to secure a safe supply of food might be a great material
 advantage to Canada. This should not be considered. A preference to
 the British farmer would increase the growth of wheat to sixteen or
 seventeen million quarters in the United Kingdom. This would do us no
 good financially, but would be a great service to us, because it would
 make our empire more secure.

 If large stores of grain were accumulated in England, it would be no
 advantage to us pecuniarily, but it would strengthen the whole empire,
 and I for one would be delighted to see either plan adopted, for at
 present none of us are safe. No nation or power can be independent
 that is not self-dependent. The lesson taught us by the course of
 events is to consolidate and unite our empire, both for trade and
 defence. (Applause.)

Another movement which has spread over the Empire was started this
year to help Imperial sentiment. Mrs. Clementine Fessenden of Hamilton
wrote to the Hon. G. W. Ross suggesting the establishment of an Empire
Day to be celebrated in the schools by patriotic exercises, readings,
and addresses. Mr. Ross was favourably impressed with the idea and
inaugurated the movement at a large meeting held in the Theatre of the
Normal School, Toronto, on the 23rd May 1899, which was attended by
most of the school teachers of the City and many others. I was asked by
Mr. Ross to address the meeting, which I did. Mr. Ross himself, Mr. N.
F. Rowell and Mr. Sanford Evans were the other speakers. This idea has
been taken up by Lord Meath in England, and has spread throughout the
empire, but that meeting in the Normal School was the beginning of the
movement.




                             CHAPTER XXIII

                         THE SOUTH AFRICAN WAR


During the summer of 1899 the relations between the British and
the Boers in the Transvaal became very strained. As early as the
26th April, 1899, Mr. George Evans, Secretary of the British Empire
League received the following cablegram from Kimberley, South Africa.
"Twenty-one thousand British subjects, Transvaal, have petitioned
Imperial Government obtain redress grievances and secure them status
which their numbers, industry, stake in country, entitle them. We
strongly sympathise, if you do too, would you as kindred Societies
cable Imperial Government sympathetic resolution." "Signed, South
African League Congress, Kimberley, representing 10,000 enrolled
members."

At this time we knew very little of the state of affairs in South
Africa, or of the merits of the dispute, and there was a hazy idea that
the Boers had opened up the country and should not be disturbed, and
after a conference of the principal members of the Executive Committee
it was decided to forward the cable to the Head Office of the League
in England leaving the matter in their hands. A cable was sent to
Kimberley telling them that we had asked the Head Office to decide what
to do. Principal Grant at the beginning of the difficulties in South
Africa, in the early summer of 1899, was in sympathy with the Boers
as against the gold seeking speculators of Johannesburg, and publicly
expressed his views in that way. I sympathised somewhat with his view,
but advised him to keep quiet, saying we could not tell how events
might shape, and we might have to take a strong stand on the other
side. I felt I did not understand the question.

In the following July, Mr. J. Davis Allen, representing the South
African Association, came from England to Ottawa, and explained to
the Canadian authorities the situation in South Africa and urged the
passing of a resolution that would strengthen the hands of the British
Government, in its negotiations with Mr. Kruger and the Transvaal
Government. Mr. Alexander McNeill naturally took up the cause and
wrote to me asking me to go to Ottawa to help Mr. Davis Allen in his
efforts. I declined to go, saying I did not sufficiently understand the
question, but a few days later, on the 31st July, 1899, Sir Wilfrid
Laurier introduced and Parliament unanimously adopted a resolution
which concluded as follows:

 That the House of Commons desires to express its sympathy with the
 efforts of Her Majesty's Imperial authorities, to obtain for the
 subjects of Her Majesty who have taken up their abode in the Transvaal
 such measures of justice and political recognition as may be found
 necessary to secure them in the full possession of equal rights and
 liberties.

This resolution, seconded by the Hon. George E. Foster, was carried
unanimously, and the House rose and sang "God Save the Queen."

Mr. Allen came to Toronto on the 10th August. Mr. McNeill had written
to me saying that Mr. Allen was coming to see me, and we had several
long interviews. He explained to me the whole situation, and read me
some of Lord Milner's despatches in which he pointed out clearly the
dangers that were looming up. He explained that the whole trouble was
a conspiracy on the part of the Boers to drive the British out of
South Africa altogether. He insisted that the Orange Free State was
deeply engaged in it, and that the Dutch in the Cape Colony were also
involved. All that Mr. Allen told me was absolutely verified before
six months had elapsed. After these explanations, and reading the
despatches of Lord Milner, I took up a very decided stand against the
Boers.

Colonel Sam Hughes, M.P., had as early as the 13th July called the
attention of the Government to the fact that Queensland had offered
a contingent, and he urged them to make an offer of one on behalf of
Canada. He also offered to raise a regiment, or brigade, for service
in case war should break out. Other officers in various parts of the
country made similar offers. Sir Charles Tupper, about the end of
September, came out boldly in favour of offering a contingent, and
agreed to help the Government in Parliament in any action they might
take in that direction. On the 25th September there was a small meeting
of senior officers in Toronto, Lieut.-Colonel James Mason being the
moving spirit. At that meeting we decided to call a meeting of the
members of the Canadian Military Institute for Saturday, the 30th
September, to consider the question of what Canada should do. The
_Globe_ of the 2nd October, 1899, reported me in part as follows:

 Lieut.-Colonel Denison followed. In his opening remarks he expressed
 the belief that there was no difference of opinion among British
 peoples, except those in South Africa, in regard to the question. The
 opinion had prevailed to a certain extent that the question was simply
 one as to the rights of the Uitlanders in the Transvaal. He was bound
 to admit that up to a certain period that had been his impression, and
 that being the case he had not been convinced that the matter was one
 which necessitated the Empire's going to war. Some time ago, however,
 he had been in the position of learning a good deal about the inside
 working of affairs in South Africa from one who was thoroughly posted
 in all the details. He had then discovered that it had got altogether
 beyond any question of interest or rights of the Uitlanders, and
 that for the last few years there had been a widespread conspiracy
 among the Dutch-speaking settlers over the whole of South Africa for
 the purpose of ousting the British. Ample proof was constantly being
 furnished as to the continuity of this conspiracy. Sir Alfred Milner's
 despatch of 14th May stated in the plainest possible language that
 such was the case, and it was a question whether Britain was to hold
 the balance of power in that part of the world or be driven out of
 it altogether. The conspiracy extended further back than the Jameson
 raid, and was one of the hidden causes leading to that affair. It was
 because of it that the English people and Government had become so
 angry over the famous telegram sent by the German Emperor to President
 Kruger.

 Continuing, Colonel Denison said it could not be gainsaid that
 the question was one of vital importance to the whole empire,
 and Canadians were as much interested as any of Her Majesty's
 subjects. The Dominion had not fully and properly appreciated
 her responsibilities as part of a great empire. If Canada was an
 independent nation of six millions of people it would have to
 support a standing army of 40,000 men, besides reserves of 200,000
 or 300,000. "Is it right," he asked, "that we should all the time
 be dependent upon the home Government and the British fleet for
 protection? Is it fair that we should not give any proper assistance?
 What kind of treatment would we have received from Washington in the
 Behring's Sea business or in reference to this Alaskan question if we
 had not had behind us the power of the Empire?"

 Such a course was not only selfish but impolitic and foolish. In his
 opinion not only should one contingent of 1,500 men be offered in the
 present crisis, but another 1,500 should be immediately got together
 and drilled so as to be ready in case of emergency. No one could tell
 where the thing was going to end, and reverses might be expected
 in the beginning. Other great nations envied the power of Britain
 and would be ready to seize the opportunity if the Empire was in a
 tight hole. Therefore they should be prepared, not only to send one
 contingent and have another on hand ready for the call, but should
 be in a position to relieve the garrisons at Halifax and Esquimalt,
 allowing the regulars to be added to the forces in the field. "We have
 been children long enough," he concluded; "let us show the Empire that
 we have grown to manhood."

 He then moved "That the members of the Canadian Military Institute,
 feeling that it is a clear and definite duty for all British
 possessions to show their willingness to contribute to the common
 defence in case of need, express the hope that in view of impending
 hostilities in South Africa the Government of Canada will promptly
 offer a contingent of Canadian militia to assist in supporting the
 interests of our Empire in that country."

This was carried unanimously.

This meeting started a strong movement of public opinion in favour of
the Government making an offer. On the 3rd October an article appeared
in the Canadian _Military Gazette_ which began in these words: "If war
should be commenced in the Transvaal--which seems most probable--the
offer of a force from the Canadian Militia for service will be made
by the Canadian Government," and it went on to give details of the
composition and methods of organising the force. Sir Wilfrid Laurier,
on behalf of the Government, at once disavowed it, and on the same day
gave an interview to the _Globe_, which appeared in that paper on the
4th October. He said:

 There exists a great deal of misconception in the country regarding
 the powers of the Government in the present case. As I understand
 the Militia Act--and I may say that I have given it some study of
 late--our volunteers are enrolled to be used in defence of the
 Dominion. They are Canadian troops to be used to fight for Canada's
 defence. Perhaps the most widespread misapprehension is that they
 cannot be sent out of Canada. To my mind they might be sent to a
 foreign land to fight. To postulate a case: Suppose that Spain should
 declare war upon Great Britain. Spain has or had a navy, but that
 navy might be being got ready to assail Canada as part of the empire.
 Sometimes the best method of defending one's self is to attack, and
 in that case Canadian soldiers might certainly be sent to Spain,
 and it is quite certain that they legally might be so despatched to
 the Iberian Peninsula. The case of the South African Republic is
 not analogous. There is no menace to Canada, and although we may be
 willing to contribute troops, I do not see how we can do so. Then,
 again, how could we do so without Parliament's granting us the money?
 We simply could not do anything. In other words, we should have to
 summon Parliament. The Government of Canada is restricted in its
 powers. It is responsible to Parliament, and it can do very little
 without the permission of Parliament. There is no doubt as to the
 attitude of the Government on all questions that mean menace to
 British interests, but in this present case our limitations are very
 clearly defined. And so it is that we have not offered a Canadian
 contingent to the Home authorities. The Militia Department duly
 transmitted individual offers to the Imperial Government and the reply
 from the War Office, as published in Saturday's _Globe_, shows their
 attitude on the question. As to Canada's furnishing a contingent the
 Government has not discussed the question for the reasons which I have
 stated, reasons which, I think, must easily be understood by everyone
 who understands the constitutional law on the question. The statement
 in the _Military Gazette_ published this morning is a pure invention.

This interview proves that Sir Wilfrid Laurier at that time had no
intention of sending a contingent.

On the 7th October Sir Wilfrid Laurier left for Chicago, and returned
to Ottawa on the 12th. The Boer ultimatum had been given on the 9th
October, was refused by Lord Milner on the 10th, and war opened on the
11th. This turned Sir Wilfrid back. He travelled on the train from
Chicago with Mr. J. S. Willison, editor of the _Globe_, who urged him
strongly to send a contingent at once. I called to see Sir Wilfrid on
his way through Toronto in order to press the matter upon him. He had
evidently made up his mind, for he told me he would send a contingent
no matter whether it broke up his Government or not, that it was the
right thing to do and he would do it. He was anxious, however, about
how his own people would take it, and told me that Mr. Bourassa would
resign as a protest, and he seemed very sorry that it should be so. I
was very much pleased at the decision and firmness he evinced, and have
always been very grateful to him for his action in this matter, as in
many other things in the interest of the Empire.

On the next day, the 13th October, the Order in Council was passed. It
provided that a certain number of volunteers in units of 125 men each
with a few officers, would be accepted to serve in the British army
operating in South Africa, the moment they reached the coast, provided
the expense of their equipment and transportation to South Africa was
defrayed, either by themselves or by the Canadian Government, and the
Government undertook to provide the equipment and transportation for
1,000 men.

I knew that it was the intention to send these eight units of 125 men
each, as distinct units to be attached to eight different British
regular infantry regiments, and that no officer of higher rank than
a captain was to be sent. I felt that our men would be swallowed up
and lost, and could gain no credit under such conditions. I therefore
published in the _Globe_ of the 14th October the following letter:

 The _Globe_ on Wednesday morning published in its Ottawa
 correspondence a proposed scheme for a Canadian contingent for the war
 in South Africa.

 If the Imperial Government proposes, as the report indicates, to
 enlist a number of units of one hundred and twenty-five men each, to
 be attached to the British Infantry Regiments, and to be paid and
 maintained at imperial expense, there can be no objection raised to
 their doing it, in any way they like, and under any conditions that
 may be agreed upon between the imperial authorities and the Canadians
 who enlist in what will practically be British regiments. Of course,
 these units will not be a Canadian contingent, any more than were
 the 40,000 Canadians who fought in the northern army during the civil
 war, or the large numbers who fought in the ranks of the United States
 army and navy in the late Spanish war. A thousand Canadians may go
 and fight for the Empire in the British army, but it will not be a
 Canadian contingent, nor will it represent Canadian sentiment, or a
 Canadian desire to aid the Empire. For what part will the six millions
 who stay at home contribute to that contingent?

 If Canada sends a contingent as her share in helping the common cause,
 she should send a force commanded by our own officers, and paid and
 maintained by our own people. They should feel that they represent
 our country, and that the honour of all who stay at home is in their
 keeping. Men would go in such a corps for such a purpose who would
 never dream of enlisting as the ordinary Tommy Atkins, in regiments
 they did not know, among comrades unfamiliar, and under strange
 officers. A Canadian contingent sent to represent our militia and
 country in an imperial quarrel would attract the very best of our
 young men, but every officer should be a Canadian.

 The slurs that have been thrown out in some quarters, that our
 officers are not qualified, are not based upon fact, and are grossly
 insulting to our people. We have had over 35,000 militia for over
 thirty years, we have had a Military College of the highest class
 for over twenty years, a permanent corps for over fifteen years, a
 number of our officers have been sent for long courses of instruction
 at Aldershot, and not long since 6,000 of our militia were engaged
 in a campaign of some four months' duration. If Canada with all that
 experience has not produced one man fit to command a battalion of
 infantry, we are too inferior a type of fellaheen to offer assistance
 to anyone. I repudiate, however, any such idea of inferiority. It does
 not exist, and even if it did, our own Government should not admit it
 until it has been clearly proven.

 It has been said that our men have not had war service, and that a
 lieutenant-colonel in command of a battalion in war must have war
 experience. I examined the list of imperial battalions published in
 this evening's _Telegram_, as being in South Africa, or told off
 to be sent there, and I find, after consulting Hart's army list,
 that out of these thirty-four battalions seventeen are commanded by
 lieutenant-colonels who have had war service, and the same number
 by lieutenant-colonels who have never had experience of any kind in
 active operations. An examination of our militia list of the 1st April
 last shows that in the seniority lists of lieutenant-colonels there
 are no less than seventy-six who have the crossed swords before their
 names, indicating that they have had active service. It seems strange
 that out of the seventy-six one could not be found sufficiently
 qualified. Let us send a Canadian contingent entirely our own, and at
 our own cost. Let us send the best we have, and then let us stand or
 fall with what they can do on our behalf. I think we can await the
 result with confidence.

Sir Wilfrid Laurier read this letter the same evening, and wrote me at
once, asking me to do nothing further on that line, but to meet him
at Sir Wm. Mulock's at ten p.m. on Monday evening, the 16th, on his
arrival from Bowmanville, and he asked me to get Mr. Willison to come
also.

On the Monday afternoon the evening papers published a despatch from
Ottawa, saying that the British Government had agreed to change their
order, and allow the contingent to go as a unit under a Canadian
officer. When I met Sir Wilfrid he told me he had received a telegram
at Bowmanville to that effect, but was surprised to hear that it had
got into the newspapers. He then told me that he had cabled to England
on the Saturday evening, the 14th, and had urged strongly that our men
should be sent as one corps, and that it had been agreed to. Once more
I was under obligations as a Canadian to Sir Wilfrid Laurier, in his
efforts to maintain the dignity of Canada. The feeling here was that
the dividing up our force into companies attached to British regiments
was the idea of General Hutton, who had the regular officer's view
as to the lack of capacity of colonial militia. The three years' war
which followed, with colonial forces side by side with imperial troops,
pretty effectually settled the question whether the colonial levies
were inferior or not to any of their comrades.

I was very much criticised by the more timid of my friends in Toronto
for the action I had taken in favour of having a Canadian officer in
command. The opinion was that Colonel Otter would, as senior permanent
officer, get the position, and some of the militia officers did not
have a high opinion of his capacity. The only regrettable incident
connected with the Canadian contingents was the coming home of the bulk
of Colonel Otter's regiment (when their term of service had expired) in
spite of Lord Roberts' express request. The other contingents stood by
their colonels, notably the Canadian Mounted Rifles under Col. Lessard,
who three times, at his request, postponed their return after their
term of service had expired, and only went home when there were very
few men left to represent the corps.

The Canadians who represented Canada, on the whole, did exceedingly
well, and brought great credit to our country. There were no Canadian
surrenders, in a war where Arnold White says that there were 226
surrenders of British troops. At the skirmish of Lilliefontein, Capt.
Cockburn, whom I had recommended to represent my old regiment, and
his troop of about thirty-five men, fought and would neither retreat
nor surrender until all but four were either killed or wounded. Capt.
Cockburn received the Victoria Cross for this affair. At the last
battle of the war, Hart's River, Lieut. Bruce Carruthers and about
thirty-five Canadian mounted riflemen fought until the last man was
killed or wounded. Lord Kitchener cabled to England that the battle
was won principally through the brilliant gallantry of Lieut. Bruce
Carruthers and his party.

There was one circumstance in connection with this fight that was
very gratifying to me. It will be remembered that in 1890 I had been
chairman of the deputation that had started the movement for raising
the flag over the schools, and for holding patriotic exercises of
various kinds. This movement had spread, and during the years 1890 to
1899 there had been a wave of Imperialism moving through the country.
The boys at school in 1890 were in 1899 men of twenty to twenty-five
years of age, the very men who formed our contingents. The proof of
this spirit of Imperialism which animated these men was strikingly
illustrated by an incident of this fight at Hart's River. I will quote
from the _Globe_ of 19th April, 1902:

 Standing alone in the face of the onrushing Boers at the battle of
 Hart's River on the 31st March, every comrade dead or disabled, and
 himself wounded to the death, Charles Napier Evans fired his last
 cartridge and then broke his rifle over a boulder.

 In the last letter thus far received by his father, Mr. James Evans,
 of Port Hope, Charlie looked not without foreboding into the future.
 "Before this reaches you we will probably be after De Wet. We can only
 hope for a safe and victorious trip. Many a good man has died for
 the old flag, and why should not I? If parents had not given up their
 sons, and sons had not given up themselves to the British Empire, it
 would not be to-day the proud dictator of the world. So if one or both
 of us (he had a brother with him) should die, there will be no vain
 regrets, for we will have done what thousands have done before us,
 given our lives for a good cause."

There could not be a better sermon on Imperialism than that young man's
letter to his father.




                             CHAPTER XXIV

             1900: BRITISH EMPIRE LEAGUE BANQUET IN LONDON


The fifth Annual Meeting of the British Empire League in Canada was
held at Ottawa on the 14th March, 1900. It was a very successful
gathering, no less than six Cabinet Ministers and five ex-Cabinet
Ministers being present besides a large number of senators and members
of the House of Commons.

About the middle of April I received a cablegram from Mr. Freeman
Murray, Secretary of the League in London, by order of the Council,
inviting me to go to England to attend a banquet which the League
was giving in London on the 30th April, and I left New York by the
_Campania_ on the 19th April. (The cablegram was urgent and I felt
it a duty to go over.) I arrived in London on Saturday evening, the
28th. All offices were closed on Sunday, so I could see no one until
Monday morning, the day of the banquet. I went down to the offices of
the League early and saw Mr. Murray, and found that there was to be a
great demonstration. There were to be three toasts besides that of the
Queen. The first the "Prince of Wales and the Royal Family," which was
to be responded to by the Prince himself, now the King; the second was
to "Her Majesty's Imperial Forces," to be proposed by Lord Salisbury
and responded to by me; the third "The Australian Delegates," to be
proposed by Mr. Chamberlain and responded to by Sir Edmund Barton, of
Australia. I saw the diagram of the tables and found that nearly six
hundred of the foremost men of the Empire were to be present, including
Lord Wolseley, Commander-in-Chief, Lord Lansdowne, Secretary of State
for War, and several Field Marshals and Admirals of the Fleet. Sir
Robert Herbert, the chairman of the executive, was with Mr. Murray,
and I demurred at once to responding to the toast of "Her Majesty's
Imperial Forces" in the presence of Lord Wolseley and the other Field
Marshals and Admirals. I asked if Lord Wolseley had been spoken to
about it, and the reply was that he had not, but that Lord Lansdowne
had arranged that I was to do it, and it was all right, and no one
would object. I decided I would go at once and see Lord Wolseley.

Before I left, Sir Robert Herbert and Mr. Murray consulted me about
the Hon. Mr. Tarte, who was in Paris and had telegraphed that he was
coming to the dinner, and wished to speak in order to make an important
statement. They were both averse to changing their arrangements, on
account of pressure of time. I urged them, however, to arrange for
Mr. Tarte to speak, and the toast list was changed and an additional
toast to the British Empire League was put on at the end of it, which
Mr. Tarte was to propose, and to which the Duke of Devonshire, our
chairman, was to respond.

I drove then at once to the War Office and saw Lord Wolseley, and told
him what the arrangements were, and the instant he heard I was to reply
for the Imperial Forces, he said, "Oh, that is capital, I did not know
whether I might not have to reply and I was thinking it over in the
train on my way to town. I am so glad you are to do it." I said, "Was
there nothing said to you about it? I will not be a party to anything
that does not show proper respect for you." His answer was, "There is
no one I would rather see reply than you." I asked him if I could say I
had his consent and approval. "Certainly," he replied.

When I arrived at the Hotel Cecil that evening I was warmly greeted by
many old friends. Shortly after the Prince of Wales came in, and just
afterwards Lord Salisbury, who spoke to the Duke of Devonshire and the
Prince of Wales, and then looking about the room he saw me and crossed
over at once and shook hands with me, and chatted for a few minutes
in his usual friendly manner. As soon as he moved away several of my
friends came to me and expressed surprise at the very cordial greeting
he had given me. I said, "Why should he not?" and then they told me
that he hardly ever knew or remembered anyone, and was very exclusive.
I had never thought that of him, as he had always been so kind and
friendly to me.

At the table I was third to the left of the chairman, the present
Prince of Wales and the Duke of Fife between us. I had a good deal
of conversation with the Prince and the Duke of Fife during the
dinner. Among other things, the Prince said to me, "Do you not feel
nervous when you have to address a gathering like this?" I said, "Not
generally, sir, but I must confess I never had to tackle an outfit like
this before." He seemed much amused at my western way of putting it.

I had not known anything of what I was wanted for till that morning,
so I had little time to think over what I should say. I had during the
afternoon thought out the general line of a short after-dinner speech,
but when I sat down at the table and looked around the room I was
impressed with the fact that I had been thrust into what was a great
Imperial function, and I had to vary my plan and pitch my speech in a
different key.

The King, then Prince of Wales, in responding to his health, made a
very fine speech, and referred to the attempt to assassinate him, which
had occurred not long before in Belgium. Lord Salisbury then proposed
"Her Majesty's Imperial Forces" and in doing so paid me a compliment
that I appreciated more than any that has ever been paid me. He ended
his speech in these words: "I beg to couple with the toast the name of
my friend, Colonel Denison, who has been one of the most earnest and
industrious, as well as most successful supporters of the Empire for
many years, as I have well and personally known."

I spoke as follows:

 May it please your Royal Highness, your Grace, my Lords and Gentlemen,
 and Ladies--I arrived at the offices of the League this morning, and
 found to my astonishment that I was put down to respond to the toast
 of the Imperial Forces. I am, I suppose, the junior officer in this
 room, but I have the consent and approval of my old commander, the
 Commander-in-Chief, so that I have very great pleasure in responding
 to this toast. I am glad to be here to-night, and I thank the Council
 of this League for their kindness in cabling an invitation across
 the Atlantic to me to come. I have come 3,500 miles to be with you
 to-night, to show my sympathy with the cause, and to bring to you a
 message from the British Empire League in Canada. I need not refer
 to what our League has done in our country, and is still doing, in
 educating public opinion in favour of the great idea of the unity of
 the Empire. We have been doing many things in that cause lately. You
 know what we have done in regard to preferential trade. What we have
 done in giving advantages to the West Indian Colonies is another proof
 that we are willing to put our hands in our pockets for the benefit
 of our fellow-countrymen. We Canadians are to-day paying a cent a
 pound more for our sugar to help labour in the markets of the West
 Indies. We have also had a great deal to do in helping to carry out
 the scheme of Mr. Henniker-Heaton for Imperial Penny Postage and in
 this sense we have done all we could. Now I want to say a few words
 to-night on behalf of our League on the question of Imperial Defence.
 We have thought over this thing seriously, and we see at this moment,
 in looking around the world, a great many things that we cannot help
 viewing with anxiety. We see every other great nation armed to the
 teeth; we see a feverish anxiety on the part of these other great
 nations to increase their navies to a very considerable extent. All
 that is something which should cause us to reflect very seriously
 as to our position, and do all that we can as an Empire to combine
 all our forces, so that, if at any future time the blow comes, the
 full force of the British Empire can strike in the swiftest and most
 powerful manner possible. We know that the Navy is the main defence of
 us all, and we know what great strides are being made abroad in regard
 to the navies of the different Powers, and it is our desire--and we
 have educated public opinion in Canada to that point--that there shall
 be a Royal Naval Reserve formed among our 70,000 hardy and vigorous
 sailors. We have got the people, Parliament, and the Government with
 us, and it will only take a little time and departmental work to have
 this matter carried out. That is one point. There is another. We are
 exceedingly anxious about your food supply. I know a candid friend is
 not always a pleasant companion, and this may be to some an unpleasant
 subject, but I have come to speak to you about it. Your food supply
 depends on your Navy, and if anything should happen to prevent for a
 few months the English Navy having the control of the sea, where would
 you people be? Now, we know that if the Mother Country goes down, the
 Colonies might hold together, but still what could we do if the heart
 of the Empire were struck? It would be like stabbing a man to the
 heart, and therefore we are anxious about your food supply because we,
 as a part of this Empire, are interested in it. Now, then, you are
 putting all your eggs in one basket. You are putting everything on
 the control of the Navy, and I want to say this to you to-night--I am
 again the candid friend--that you might have the absolute control of
 the sea and yet, by a combination of two Powers, with an embargo on
 food, you could be brought to your knees. I ask if it is right that
 things should be left like that? Should the greatest, the wealthiest,
 and the most powerful Empire in history be dependent on foreigners
 for its food supply? I shall not make any suggestions as to what
 should be done, but I have been asked to urge you to give earnest
 consideration to the point. So much for that. Now, with reference to
 the contingents. We sent our contingents to this war willingly. We
 not only did it willingly, but before the war came on our Parliament
 by a unanimous vote expressed its sympathy with and approval of the
 conduct of the Imperial Government, and therefore we had to stand by
 it. We have sent our men willingly--some 3,000 of them. We would have
 sent a great many more if it had been a great war, and I may tell you
 that at the opening of the war we all misunderstood it. One of our
 prominent statesmen said to me, "Denison, this is only a small war,"
 and Mr. Alexander McNeill, of the Canadian House of Commons, one of
 the staunchest friends of the Empire said: "This is a small war, and
 it is not necessary to use a steam hammer to break a nut." Another
 prominent statesman said to me after the ultimatum was issued: "If
 this were a great war and the Empire in danger we should have to send
 our men by the 50,000 and vote war credits by the hundred million."

 When that man said that he voiced, I believe, the feelings of the
 Canadian people. We sent the contingents, and the men, as I said,
 turned out willingly. Officers resigned their commissions all over
 the country and went into the ranks. In fact in one regiment there
 was only one private. (Laughter.) I am going to let you have that
 joke; if I had finished my sentence you would not have had it.
 There was one regiment in which only one private was able to get in
 to the ranks of the contingent. The others were all officers and
 non-commissioned officers. That sort of thing went on all over the
 country, and although they were only militia men, although they
 were only raw troops, I am proud to be able to say to-night, on the
 authority of Lord Roberts' despatches, that our men have been able
 to hold their own with the others. There is one more remark I wish
 to make. The people of Canada have been struck by the extraordinary
 way in which the Mother Country has entered into this war. The manner
 in which it has been done has thrilled our people with admiration.
 We have seen the best blood in England spilt in this campaign. What
 for? In order to uphold the rights of one or two hundred thousand
 of our fellow-colonists in one small part of the Empire. That has
 been a great object-lesson to us all. We have seen men of wealth, of
 birth, and position leave their comfortable homes by hundreds; we have
 seen them leave all the luxury and ease of the greatest and finest
 and highest civilisation that this world has ever seen, to undergo
 dangers, trials, wounds, and in many cases death, all for this cause.
 Now, this has been an object-lesson to us all in Canada. If your
 people will do that for one colony we feel you would be likely to do
 it for another. Whether you would or not I say it is a fine thing
 to have an Empire to fight for that can produce such men, and it is
 a proud thing for our contingents to be able to fight alongside such
 comrades. With reference still to this point about Imperial defence, I
 wish to say that we Canadians are very anxious about the establishment
 of all-British cables round the world, and we have tried to do our
 share in regard to the Pacific cable. We who are connected with the
 League in Canada have written and spoken and done everything we could
 to stir up public opinion, so that the Canadian people might have
 their share in that cable, and we have been alarmed lest anything
 should occur to affect adversely that project; and here let me say
 that I am glad to see present to-night my fellow-countrymen from
 Australia. I congratulate them on the possibility of the federation
 of their country, for we Canadians know by experience what a good
 thing it has been for us, and we believe that it will be equally
 good for them. But I wish to say to them, while here to-night, that
 while the establishment of the Pacific cable might have the effect
 of benefiting us in a pecuniary way by cheapening rates, that has
 not been the motive which has influenced people in our country. I
 for one may say that I never in my life sent a cable to Australia,
 I never received one, I never saw one, and I never met a friend who
 had, and on the committee of which I was one of the members I believe
 that that was pretty generally the experience. Allow me to say in
 explanation of this that I live in Toronto, well inland, where there
 is not any great communication with Australia, and therefore the
 question of cheap rates had nothing to do with our action. We wanted
 to see an all-British cable, so that if there should be a war the man
 in charge of the Navy should have the opportunity of handling that
 Navy to the best advantage. It is for that reason we Canadians want
 an all-British Pacific cable, and I am called upon to ask you here
 to use what influence you can, that, in any arrangements for new
 cables anywhere, there shall be a provision that the Empire may buy
 them at a fair price whenever it may wish, and I hope that the Empire,
 with the assistance of the Colonies, may some day unite and have
 their cables all over the world. Now, with reference to the Imperial
 forces, the Marquess of Salisbury did not say a great deal about the
 Imperial army. I think that I should like to say a word or two for
 them to-night. I think they have shown that in pluck and daring,
 and in the courage which has carried the British people through so
 much, they have been fully equal to the traditions of the past. With
 reference to the future I want to say one word. When this war is over
 I hope there will be an Imperial Conference called. I think the moment
 would be most opportune for leading men from the leading Colonies to
 meet together and see on how many points they could agree. I quite
 agree with the noble Marquess in saying that we must move slowly and
 along the lines of the least resistance; that we must move step by
 step, slowly and carefully, as we have been doing, and not be in too
 great a hurry for a written Constitution. That is the policy we have
 been advocating in our country, and it is the right one. I am afraid
 I have kept you too long. I am glad indeed to have been here to meet
 you to-night, and I am glad to see with us my friend, the Hon. J. I.
 Tarte, the first French Canadian who joined our League, now long years
 ago; and if there is anything more to be said on behalf of Canada I am
 sure that he will be willing to say it for me.

It will be noticed that when I said that there was one regiment in
which there was only one private, the audience laughed loudly and
interrupted me before I finished my sentence. I turned the laugh on
them to the evident delight of the present Prince of Wales, who turned
to me beaming with amusement when I sat down and said, "You nervous!
you--why you could speak anywhere about anything." He was evidently
pleased, for when my brother, Admiral John Denison, who commanded
the _Niobe_, which escorted him as far as Gibraltar when he left for
Australia, met him at Gibraltar, he spoke to him at once about my
speech at that dinner.

Lord Wolseley, who was sitting on my left, Lord Avebury and Sir Edmund
Barton being between us, tore off a piece of a menu card and wrote on
it, "My dear friend, Bravo! Bravo! Wolseley," and passed it up to me.
Everyone was very kind. The King came and spoke to me for a few minutes
as he was going out, and said he was pleased with my speech. The Duke
of Cambridge, Lord Salisbury, Lord Lansdowne, and many others spoke in
friendly terms, and altogether I was well pleased that I had crossed
the Atlantic to do that one piece of work for Canada and the Empire.

The accounts in the Press were very full of the idea of the importance
and success of the function.

The _British Empire Review_ said:

 It is unnecessary to dilate here upon the imposing features of the
 great assembly which congregated in the Grand Hall of the Hotel Cecil
 on 30th April. By common consent, as our principal contemporaries bear
 witness in the extracts from their leading columns, which are appended
 to the full report of the speeches at the banquet printed at the end
 of the present issue of the _Review_, no more memorable Imperial
 Demonstration has ever been held in London. Certainly the Executive
 Committee was justified in taking the exceptional course of inviting
 Colonel Denison to travel 3,500 miles in order to be present, and he
 in turn can have no reason to regret his acceptance of the invitation.
 Many of those present, from the highest downwards, have expressed
 the opinion that, taking into consideration the occasion of the
 banquet, the attendance of persons of note, the speeches, the general
 excellence of all the arrangements, and the dinner itself, the event
 stands unrivalled within living memory.

On the 17th May, 1900, a meeting of the Council of the League was
held, principally to hear an address from me on behalf of the Canadian
Branch. The late Earl of Derby, K.G., occupied the chair. I brought
before the Council the resolution with which our Executive Committee
had entrusted me when I was leaving:

 Resolved, that the Executive Committee of the British Empire League in
 Canada wishes, in view of the President's coming visit to England, to
 reiterate its well-defined opinions upon certain matters of Imperial
 unity. It strongly feels the desirability of the Pacific cable
 project, the importance to the Empire of some mutual tariff preference
 between its various parts, the advisability of holding another
 Imperial Conference to discuss matters of defence, trade, and other
 interests of the Empire, and the vital necessity of encouraging the
 production of a sufficient national food supply under the British flag.

I pressed all these points upon the Council in a speech which is
reported in the _British Empire Review_ for June, 1900.

I had been discussing these questions and particularly the food supply
with many people and found an undercurrent of feeling much stronger in
that direction than on my previous visits to England, and I felt sure
that if any political leader would come out and boldly advocate our
policy he would get a strong support. I knew Lord Salisbury was in full
sympathy with my views, but the cold reception given to him in 1890
and 1892, when he tried to lead public opinion in that direction, had
thoroughly discouraged him, and he refrained from further efforts, not
because he did not feel the importance of the question, but he felt it
was hopeless. He wrote me on 1st March, 1901:

 I am old enough to remember the rise of Free Trade and the contempt
 with which the apprehensions of the protectionists of that day were
 received, but a generation must pass before the fallacies then
 proclaimed will be unlearnt. There are too many people whose minds
 were formed under their influence, and until those men have died out,
 no change of policy can be expected.

Mr. Chamberlain still held back, but I felt that he would come to our
policy as soon as he could see any hope of a successful movement. I was
anxious to test the public feeling, but did not see any opportunity,
until I met Sir Howard Vincent about the middle of May, and he told
me he was going down to Chelmsford, to deliver a lecture on "South
Africa." The meeting was organised by Major Sir Carne Rasch, who was
nursing the constituency, and intending to be a candidate in the
Conservative interest at the general elections, which were to come off
that autumn. Sir Howard Vincent said he would arrange that I should
have half an hour to say something about Canada. I agreed to go, and
decided that I would feel the pulse of the masses on the subject of
food supply, but I said nothing of this to anyone, for I felt that
neither Sir Howard nor Sir Carne Rasch would wish to run any risks.
I began very cautiously but soon had the audience with me. I was
continually cheered, and went on farther and farther, until I advocated
a duty on corn, or a bounty on wheat, or a bonus to farmers to keep
wheat in ricks. I had been astonished at the friendliness of the
audience, but when I got to that point, Sir Carne Rasch and Sir Howard
Vincent evidently became nervous, and Sir Howard whispered to me that
we would have to get off in order to catch the train, and I stopped
instantly. On driving to the station I saw that both my friends were
uneasy, and I said, "I hope I did not make any bad breaks"; Sir Carne
said, "Oh, I think not." I replied, "You can easily say that I am an
ignorant colonial and did not know any better." He laughed at this, but
I could see he was a little nervous as to the result.

About four or five days after this I was in the lobby of the House of
Commons, when Sir Carne Rasch came out of the House, and as soon as he
saw me he came across to me at once, and said he was glad to see me,
and that he was going to get my address from Sir Howard Vincent. He
went on to say that the people at Chelmsford had been delighted with my
speech, that letters had been written to him, and he had been asked to
get me to go down to Chelmsford and repeat my speech and enlarge upon
it. He said he was astonished, that the people had been discussing it
ever since, and he offered to secure the largest hall in Chelmsford if
I would go down, and that he would guarantee it would not hold all that
would wish to come. I was leaving in three or four days for home, and
had no opportunity, and so had to decline.

A day or two afterwards, in the Mafeking demonstration, I was looking
at the crowds near the Piccadilly Circus, when I heard a man say to
another, "Is not that Colonel Denison?" I knew I had seen him before,
and I said, "Yes, it is; do you come from Toronto?" "No," he replied,
"I am from Chelmsford, and heard you speak there last week," and he
introduced me to three friends from Chelmsford. One was the Mayor,
another the editor of the _Essex County Chronicle_. They at once asked
me if I was going down to Chelmsford again, and whether Major Rasch
had seen me, and they urged me to go, telling me that the people were
very anxious that I should speak there again, and that they were busily
discussing the various points which I had raised.

I naturally watched for the return of the election in the following
October, for I was very anxious that my friend Sir Carne Rasch should
be elected. The return for Chelmsford was Major Rasch, 4,978, H. C. S.
Henry, Lib., 1,849, a majority of 3,129. I felt then that my speech had
not hurt him, or that if it had it did not matter. This incident had an
important influence upon the subsequent work of our League in Canada
for several years.




                              CHAPTER XXV

                        WORK IN CANADA IN 1901


I reported to the Executive Committee the details of my work in
England, and in the Annual Report for 1901 the Executive Committee
strongly supported the suggestion, which I had made at the banquet,
that an Imperial Conference should be held during 1901, to consider
many important matters affecting the safety and welfare of the Empire.
The Report went on to say:

 The time was never so opportune. The public mind is full of these
 Imperial questions. Australia is now in a position to act as a unit.
 Canada has long been ready. The people of England have at last
 awakened to the vastness, the importance, and future possibilities
 of their great outside Empire, and posterity would never forgive the
 statesmen of to-day if so favourable a chance to carry out a great
 work was lost. Your Committee consider that an Imperial Consultative
 Council should be established, and that immediate steps should be
 taken to thoroughly organise and combine the military and naval power
 of the Empire.

During the year 1901 I was consulting with the Executive Committee, and
with individual members of it from time to time, and expressed the view
that we had accomplished our work in Canada, that Commercial Union
had been killed, the desire for reciprocity with the States had died
out, that both political parties had become alive to the importance of
mutual Imperial preferential trade, and that the Canadian Government
had given a preference to Great Britain and the West Indies, that
penny postage had been established, Canadian contingents had been sent
to fight in an Imperial quarrel, that the Pacific cable was being
constructed principally through the determined action of Canada, and
that I felt the whole movement in favour of Imperial Unification in the
future would have to be fought out in Great Britain.

My experience in Chelmsford had convinced me that there was a strong
undercurrent of feeling in Great Britain in favour of tariff reform,
but that nearly everyone seemed afraid to "bell the cat" or to face the
tremendous influence of the bogey of Free Trade. I found many people
quite willing to admit privately the necessity of some change, but no
one ready to come out and boldly advocate tariff reform, or any kind
of protection. I said that if a few Canadians, good platform speakers,
would go over to England, and make a campaign through the cities
and towns, pleading with the people to unite with the colonies to
consolidate and strengthen the Empire, the support they would receive
would be very great, and might lead to securing the assistance of some
prominent political leaders.

I was, and always have been, convinced that so many influences of
every kind were working in our direction that in time our policy would
necessarily be successful.

This was discussed from time to time, and it was finally decided that a
deputation should go to England before the Imperial Conference, which
we knew would be held at the time of the coronation in 1902, and that
the deputation should advocate a concise and definite policy, easily
understood, which would contain the substance of the trade system that
we felt to be so necessary for the stability of the Empire. This was
crystallised into the following resolution:

 That a special duty of five or ten per cent. should be imposed at
 every port in the British possessions on all foreign goods; the
 proceeds to be devoted to Imperial defence, by which each part would
 not only be doing its duty toward the common defence, but at the same
 time be receiving a preference over the foreigner in the markets of
 the Empire.

Having decided upon this point, it was considered advisable that before
we went to England we should first test feeling in different centres in
Canada, to make sure that the policy we were advocating was one that
Canadians generally would approve. I decided to go to New Brunswick
and lay the question before a public meeting in St. John and discuss
the matter with prominent men, and in that way test public opinion. I
had a very successful meeting in St. John on the 28th November, 1901,
where one senator and four members of the Commons and of the local
legislature spoke approvingly of the resolution, which was carried
unanimously. The Press in New Brunswick was very favourable. The St.
John _Sun_, in its leading article the next day, said:

 We have no hesitation in endorsing the policy propounded by the
 President of the British Empire League, and supported at last night's
 meeting by all the speakers on both sides of politics and the
 unanimous vote of the audience.

The article concluded in the following words:

 Nor is it out of place to say that Colonel Denison's manner of
 presenting the proposition was worthy of the great theme. He is
 himself intensely impressed with the solemn dignity of the subject,
 which touches the destiny of our Empire, and this grave interest was
 borne in on the audience, and pervaded the other speeches, even those
 in which a lighter tone prevailed. For this reason, perhaps because
 most men speak better when they speak strongly, the speeches following
 the address of the evening were, like Colonel Denison's itself, in
 tone and quality distinctly superior to those which one usually hears
 on public occasions.

The _Morning Post_, of London, and the _Naval and Military Record_ both
had long articles commenting upon this meeting and approving of the
spirit shown, but not speaking hopefully of the possibilities of Great
Britain accepting the principle of preferential duties.

From St. John I went to Montreal, where I addressed a successful
meeting on the same subject on the 30th November, 1901. On the 24th
January, 1902, I addressed a large meeting in London, Ontario,
the Bishop of Huron in the chair. The same resolution was carried
unanimously, and the three newspapers--the Conservative, the Liberal,
and the Independent--all united in warm approval of the policy, as did
the other speakers, who were chosen equally from both sides of politics.

Some time later a meeting was organised at Owen Sound, which was
addressed by Mr. Alexander McNeill, Vice-President of the League,
advocating the same policy, which was unanimously endorsed.

The seventh Annual Meeting of the League at Ottawa, at which this
policy was also endorsed, took place on the 20th February, 1902.

By this time the Executive Committee had become confident that they
had the mass of the Canadian people behind them in their proposed
policy, and steps were taken to have a deputation proceed to England to
endeavour, by public meetings and otherwise, to bring the matter before
the attention of the people, and if possible to inaugurate public
discussion of the policy.

The following resolution was carried by the Executive Committee:

 The Executive Committee of the British Empire League in Canada, having
 regard to the rapid growth of national sentiment in the greater
 colonies and the strong and vigorous Imperial sentiment throughout the
 Empire, is of opinion that it is most important that advantage should
 be taken of the coming Imperial Conference in London to secure some
 definite and forward action towards the accomplishment of the objects
 of the British Empire League as a whole.

 The Executive Committee, with this view, requests the President of the
 League in Canada to visit England soon, if possible, and advocate the
 already expressed opinions of the Canadian branch by addressing public
 meetings, and otherwise, as he may find expedient and proper, in order
 to assist in influencing public opinion in favour of these objects.

 That he also be empowered and requested to advocate that a special
 duty of 5 to 10 per cent. should be imposed at every port in the
 British possessions on all foreign goods, in order to provide a fund
 for Imperial Defence, which fund should be administered by a Committee
 or Council in which the colonies should have representation.

 The Executive Committee also expresses the hope that the Hon. George
 E. Foster, the Hon. George W. Ross, and Dr. George R. Parkin, C.M.G.,
 if they may be able to visit England this year, will assist in this
 work, and give their valuable aid to the cause.

A copy of this resolution was sent to the head office in England, with
a request that I should have an opportunity of addressing the Council
of the League in April. A favourable reply was received.




                             CHAPTER XXVI

                      MISSION TO ENGLAND IN 1902


I left for England on the 10th April, 1902, and arrived in London on
21st April. The following members of the League and of the Executive
Committee, staunch friends and supporters of the cause, came to the
station to see me off: W. B. McMurrich, President of the Navy League,
H. J. Wickham, J. M. Clark, John T. Small, George E. Evans, Fraser
Lefroy, H. M. Mowat, K.C., Colonel Grasett, and J. W. Curry, K.C. I
was much impressed with the tone of their conversation; they seemed to
feel that I was going upon an almost hopeless errand, but let me know
how strongly they sympathised with me. I can never forget the loyal
support and assistance I have always received in all circumstances from
the spirited and unselfish patriotism of the advocates of Imperialism
in Canada. The greatest satisfaction I have is to feel that for so many
years I was working in a cause which rallied around it such a splendid
galaxy of upright and honourable men.

Mr. Foster was not able to go to England that year, but he went the
following year, and did great work in speaking through England, and
in Scotland, in support of Mr. Chamberlain's policy of Tariff Reform,
which was what we had been working for for so many years. The Hon.
George W. Ross came over late, being delayed by the Ontario General
Elections, and he supported me by a powerful and eloquent speech at the
annual meeting of the League in London. Dr. Parkin was also delayed,
but he had never fully accepted our trade policy, and as negotiations
opened at once between him and the Rhodes Trust to secure his services
for their work, he was not able to address any meeting, so that for
two months the whole burden fell upon me, and I was obliged unaided to
endeavour to break the ice, and get the movement started.

To look back now it is hard to call to mind the state of affairs
in England at this time. No prominent statesman had said one word,
in public, in support of mutual preferential tariffs except Lord
Salisbury, and he was discouraged and disheartened by the lack of
support, and at that time was in such failing health that no assistance
could be expected from him. I felt that I was facing a very hard
proposition, and one almost hopeless in its prospects. I was afraid of
being ignored or simply sponged out. I was very anxious to be attacked.
I knew if I was vehemently assailed it would be a great advantage, for
I felt I had the facts and arguments, and could defeat my opponents
in discussion. I had been for years studying the question, reading
constantly articles _pro_ and _con._, and had classified, organised,
and indexed my material, until I felt every confidence in my cause.

I arrived in London on the 21st April, and on that morning my first
stroke of good luck occurred. The papers had just published the
announcement of the Morgan combine of the Atlantic Steamship Lines.
This had positively startled the British people. It shook them up and
alarmed them, and caused them for the first time for many years to
be uneasy as to their pre-eminence in mercantile marine. They were in
a mood to listen to questions as to their future prospects. I used
Morgan's action in conversation to support my view that Great Britain
must follow the advice of the Prince of Wales and "wake up."

The _Daily Express_ sent a representative to interview me on the Morgan
affair, and on the 25th April, 1902, it published an interview of over
a column in length. I pointed out the widespread danger of Morgan's
combination if it succeeded, that the Canadian Pacific Railway might
be secured, and then no other line of steamships could compete, for if
the United States combine controlled the railways, they would control
the freights, and so the vessels; and if they dominated the Atlantic
and Pacific, the British Empire would be split in twain. I wound up the
interview by a plan to checkmate the combine, saying, "The right method
is to run a competing line, tax everything the combine vessels bring
into this country and let the things that the other line brings come in
free."

On the 1st May the _Express_ had another interview on the same question.

On the 26th April I spoke at the banquet given to the Lacrosse Team
at the Hotel Cecil, and touched upon Imperial questions, but the
newspapers reported nothing.

On the 28th April Sir Gilbert Parker gave a lunch for me at the
Constitutional Club, and invited several editors to meet me. On
the 30th April I attended the annual dinner of the Royal Colonial
Institute, where I was assigned to respond to the toast of "The United
Empire." This was my first chance of speaking to a large audience,
and it was composed of the foremost men in England interested in the
Colonial Empire. Sir George Taubman Goldie sat next to me and proposed
the toast. It came last. An extra toast to the Houses of Parliament
inserted to give Lord Halsbury, the Lord Chancellor, an opportunity to
speak, made it very late when my turn came. Sir Taubman Goldie said
it was too late and he would not speak. I felt it was too important a
chance for me to allow to slip, and I said to him that I must speak for
five minutes.

The next morning none of the daily papers had any report of my speech.
The _Times_ included it under the words "other toasts followed." This
was the treatment I had been most afraid of. I knew there was no
chance of doing anything if I was simply ignored. It was not that my
speech was not important, but it was late and I was a stranger. Mr.
I. N. Ford, representative of the New York _Tribune_ and the Toronto
_Globe_, was present, and he at one saw the importance of the policy
I propounded, and cabled to New York, and all over the States, and
to Toronto a report of the dinner. His report, in view of subsequent
developments, may be reproduced:

 The most interesting episode of the last twenty-four hours has been
 the breath of fresh air at the Imperial function, the annual banquet
 of the Royal Colonial Institute in Whitehall Rooms. The speaking began
 after nine o'clock and was perfunctory for two hours. Lord Grey, as
 chairman, opened the proceedings quietly, and there was nothing of
 exceptional interest. The Hon. Henry Copeland, representing New South
 Wales, suggested that the three sons of the Prince of Wales, should
 have the titles of Princes of Canada, of Australia and of South
 Africa, and the daughter Princess of New Zealand. Lieut.-General
 Leslie Rundle asserted that a good feeling had been brought about
 between the colonial contingents and the British Army. The Lord
 Chancellor talked about the utility of Parliament. Lord Grey paid a
 tribute to the unselfish idealism of Mr. Cecil Rhodes.

 It was not until eleven that real interest was created by the response
 of Colonel Denison to the toast of "The United Empire." He was only on
 his feet five minutes, but he carried the representative audience of
 240 colonials with him.

He then gave a summary of the speech and concluded:

 Colonel Denison's policy excited murmurs of dissent at first, but was
 applauded with great vigour at the close as a practical sequel to the
 tax on grain and flour.

I give the verbatim report of this speech, and it will be seen that it
contains the whole principle of the Tariff Reform movement which has
since made such headway:

 As a member of this Institute, and one who has worked most of his
 life in the interests of the United Empire, I should have very great
 pleasure in responding to this toast at some little length, but I must
 be brief at this late hour. This year is one of the most important
 years of the history of the Empire. We speak of the United Empire,
 and although we have an Empire which in one sense is united, still in
 another sense it is not a United Empire. It is not combined in any
 way, or organised for defence, and I think it is absolutely necessary
 that steps should be taken at the earliest possible moment to have it
 properly combined. The coming conference of Premiers will be one of
 the most important events in the history of the British race. I am
 under the impression that when this conference meets it will either
 do some good work in connection with the unification of the Empire,
 or it may be that either through sloth, or indolence, or lack of
 appreciation of the extraordinary importance of the occasion, the
 critical moment may be allowed to lapse, and we may soon see our
 career as a great and powerful people approaching a close. ("No.") I
 certainly hope not, but speaking as a Canadian watching closely the
 trend of affairs in that country, and having had a good deal of work
 in the fight we had some fifteen years ago against Commercial Union
 with the United States, I tell you this is a most critical period, and
 that this Empire must combine for defence and for trade. For defence
 because every great thinker and every man who has studied the subject
 knows that we may have war upon us at any moment. Take the last words
 of that great statesman, Lord Dufferin, when he said that nothing,
 neither a sense of justice, nor the precepts of religion, nor the
 instincts of humanity, would prevent any of these foreign nations
 from attacking us at the first favourable opportunity. Why did Lord
 Salisbury two years ago, at the Primrose League gathering, say that
 "The whole thing may come as a wave upon us." Is it not necessary
 that we should combine the Empire both for trade and defence? Now we
 have considered this subject carefully in Canada, and held meetings
 all over the country, and the proposal we wish to see adopted at this
 conference--a proposal I have been asked by the British Empire League
 to lay before you--is that at that conference every representative
 there should agree to a proposal to put from five to ten per cent.
 duty on all foreign goods at every port in every part of the Empire.
 What for? Not for Protection or Free Trade, but to form a fund for
 defence. That is why it has got to be done, and you will require
 large sums of money to put the thing on a proper footing. We want
 also to combine for trade. We want some proposal which would help to
 a certain extent to protect the trade of the Empire in every part,
 which would tend not only to protect trade in every part, but to stop
 the merciless attacks made on the trade of this country by foreign
 nations. We have never had to face such a pitiless commercial war in
 all our history. The commercial war in the time of Napoleon was a mere
 incident in actual war, but we are to-day feeling the attacks at every
 turn. I think this proposal which the Canadian people wish to see
 adopted would have one other effect. We have 400,000,000 of people in
 this Empire, but only 50,000,000 of British stock and bound together
 by ties of kindred, race, and blood. The rest are satisfied to be in
 our Empire. But why? On account of the just administration of affairs,
 the freedom and liberties they enjoy under the British flag, and for
 one other reason also, because of the great prestige we have hitherto
 held as a great and dominant power. The proposal we suggest would have
 the effect of giving a direct trade interest to all these alien races
 under our flag to-day.

 I believe our good friend Mr. Seddon, of New Zealand, will soon be in
 this country and will be with us on this point. I hope our Australian
 friends will be with us also, and that the people of England will be
 willing to make some slight sacrifices for the purpose of holding our
 great and powerful Empire together, and at the same time we also shall
 be making sacrifices, and doing much more than ever before for the
 common cause.

This banquet was on the 30th April. As an indication of the interest
taken in the matter in the United States, on the 5th May the Chicago
_Tribune_ had a portrait of my brother, Lieut.-Colonel Septimus
Denison, which they believed was mine. Over the top were the words
"Projector of plan for Union of the British Empire against the World";
at the foot of the portrait "Colonel Septimus Denison."

 Several hundred representatives of the British Colonies grew wildly
 enthusiastic at a banquet in London on Wednesday night, over a plan
 proposed by Colonel Denison, of Toronto, for a union of Great Britain
 and all its colonies for commercial defence against the rest of the
 world. Colonel Denison's scheme, as outlined in his speech, is to levy
 a tariff of from five to ten per cent. at all British and colonial
 ports on all goods not from Great Britain or one of its colonies and
 establish free trade within the Empire.

On the 4th May I lunched with Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, and discussed
with him the policy that I was advocating. He argued the matter with
me, bringing forward any number of objections, which I answered as well
as I could. I soon came to the conclusion that he was quietly taking my
measure, and testing my knowledge of the question. I then warmed up in
my arguments and put my views strongly and emphatically, and soon came
to the conclusion, from a mischievous expression in his eye, that he
was not as much opposed to me as his remarks would lead one to think.
When leaving I felt that although he did not say a word in support of
my plan, yet he was not altogether unfavourable.

On the 5th May I met Sir Douglas Straight, editor of the _Pall Mall
Gazette_, and after some conversation he suggested to Mr. Sydney Low,
who was with us, to interview me on behalf of the _Pall Mall Gazette_,
and a long interview appeared on the front pages of that paper on
the 12th May, in which I put our views forward clearly and strongly.
After pointing out the precarious condition of Great Britain's food
supply I said that we in Canada felt that it would be a sheer waste
of money for us to pay for ships, troops, and coaling stations, while
taking no precautions to secure adequate supplies of food, and that a
preferential tax on food would help greatly to overcome the danger. I
concluded with the following words:

 I do not wish to enter upon the whole economical and financial
 question; but everything I have seen and read convinces me that your
 industrial situation is a perilous one, that you are paying for your
 imports largely out of capital, and that you are depending far too
 much on the profits of the carrying trade, of which, as you have been
 very forcibly reminded during the past few weeks, you cannot expect
 to have a virtual monopoly much longer. If you do not speedily make
 arrangements to secure yourselves some markets, where you will be
 able to deal at an advantage, you will be in a very serious position
 indeed in the course of the next few years. The opportunity of solving
 at once the defensive and the industrial problem seems to us to have
 arrived; and we have great hopes that British statesmen and the
 British public will take advantage of it.

On the 6th May there was a special meeting of the Council of the
League held in a room at the House of Commons, at which Lord Avebury
presided. It was called to hear my appeal for assistance in obtaining
opportunities for placing the views of the Canadian Branch before the
British people. There were a number of prominent men present, among
others the Duke of Abercorn, Earl Egerton of Tatton, Sir Walter Butler,
Sir Edward Carbutt, Rt. Hon. Sir John Cockburn, Sir Charles Fremantle,
W. Herbert Daw, Sir Robert Herbert, W. H. Holland, M.P., Dr. Culver
James, Sir Guilford Molesworth, Sir Charles Tupper, and Sir Fred
Young. Lord Avebury introduced me and I put my case before them. After
I had spoken at some length Sir Charles Tupper followed, supporting
me strongly. Mr. W. H. Holland--now Sir William Holland--criticised
my views from the Free Trade Manchester standpoint, and was totally
opposed to me. Captain Lee, M.P., was critical but not hostile. Mr.
Talbot Baines was not favourable to my views, but thought I should
have opportunities of putting them before the public. Sir Guilford
Molesworth and Sir Fred Young supported me strongly, as did Dr. Culver
James and Sir John Cockburn. I wound up the discussion, particularly
replying to Sir William Holland's remarks. Among other things Sir
William Holland had said:

 I might say that the trade of which I know the most, the cotton trade,
 would be affected considerably by such a scheme. If an important duty
 of five or ten per cent. were imposed on all cotton coming into this
 country from territory outside the limits of the British Empire, we
 should at once penalise that great industry by enhancing the cost of
 the raw material by five or ten per cent., and as the cotton trade is
 largely dependent on markets outside British territory, I am afraid it
 might have a disastrous effect on our ability to compete in the great
 neutral markets of the world, if our raw material was penalised to
 that extent.

When I rose to reply, I said:

 Will Mr. Holland kindly wait a few moments? I have just a few words to
 say in reply to his remarks. He is interested in the cotton trade, and
 has given us one or two ideas upon it. . . . With regard to cotton,
 I will give you one fair warning about that. You are engaged at this
 moment--the British people are engaged--in one of the most pitiless
 and merciless wars ever waged in commercial history. Napoleon's war
 was nothing to it. The United States have made up their mind that they
 are going to use you up in every quarter. They are taking your ships
 from you, and they are going to take your boot trade altogether.
 I came over here with the president of their great combine, and
 he explained it to me. "We shall destroy the whole shoe trade of
 England," is what he said. Now about your cotton trade. I want to warn
 you. Do not be surprised if before long there will be a heavy export
 tax put upon cotton in the United States, because I understand that
 they may likely keep it for manufacturing with themselves. If that is
 done--and it may be easily done--such a proposition as I have made of
 putting a ten per cent. duty on imports into the ports of the empire
 might cause cotton to be grown in Africa, in India, in Egypt, and
 in other places, and I think for the benefit of having cotton grown
 inside the Empire it will be a good thing to put on the duty, because
 you are not safe for a day with the United States. They are waging war
 upon us now at every turn.

Sir Wm. Holland evidently was impressed with my remarks about the
danger of the United States reducing their sale of cotton. It was
only about a month after that the public heard of the organisation of
the British Cotton Supply Association, with a subscription of £50,000
to make experiments in growing cotton under the British flag. I have
always had a very high opinion of Sir Wm. Holland ever since.

It was unanimously resolved at that meeting "to give Colonel Denison
every possible facility for stating his views to Chambers of Commerce
and other influential bodies without committing the League to an
endorsement, and it was referred to the Executive Committee to embody
this decision in a formal resolution in the name of the Council."

At a meeting of the Executive Committee held on the 15th May the
resolution was passed in these words:

 That while maintaining its traditional policy of neutrality in all
 matters affecting tariffs and fiscal arrangements, the Council of the
 League have pleasure in resolving that it will do everything in its
 power to provide facilities for Colonel Denison, the distinguished
 President of the League in Canada, to express publicly his views
 before the Chambers of Commerce and other important bodies in this
 country.

This resolution was published in the newspapers, and the action of the
Council was known to the Liberal leaders.

On the 7th May I dined at the Annual Banquet of the Newspaper Society,
and responded to the toast of "The Guests," where I had an admirable
opportunity of bringing my proposition before a large number of editors
of newspapers from all over Great Britain.

The Aberdeen _Journal_ commenting upon this dinner said:--

 Perhaps the most interesting speech of the evening was the last one.
 It was delivered by Colonel Denison, a Canadian, and President of the
 Empire League in Canada. He stated that he had been sent over to this
 country to do what he could to promote a movement for the defence of
 the Empire, and indicated that one of the proposals to be discussed
 at the Colonial Conference at the coronation would be one to impose
 a duty on foreign imports at every port in the Empire, in order to
 raise an Imperial Defence Fund common to the whole Empire. He said the
 duty might be 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9 per cent. There was one exclamation
 of dissent when this proposal was mentioned, but Colonel Denison's
 breezy, confident manner, and evidently strong conviction on the
 subject, excited general sympathy. Lord Tweedmouth's attitude during
 the Colonel's speech, as it may be described, suggesting an Imperial
 war tax, was rather quizzical than sympathetic.

By this time the newspapers were beginning to notice my work.
Fortunately for me about the same time Mr. Seddon had been speaking
on similar lines in South Africa, and Sir Wilfrid Laurier also in the
Canadian House of Commons. This alarmed the Liberal party, and the
_Manchester Guardian_ began to criticise and find fault with me to my
great satisfaction, for I knew I could stand anything better than being
ignored.

A friend of mine in the Liberal ranks told me about this time that the
leading Liberals were in a great state of anxiety at my work. They
believed, he said, that Chamberlain, Seddon, and Sir Wilfrid Laurier
had all agreed that the scheme was to be put through at the Imperial
Conference, and that I had come over as an advance agent, to break
the ice, to open the discussion, and prepare the way. I evaded making
any definite reply to this suggestion, jokingly saying that I was not
surprised to hear that they were anxious.

I had another hint that the Liberal party purposed arranging for a
great meeting at Leeds, at which Lord Rosebery was to speak, and a
direct effort made to rally the whole Liberal party together, under
the banner of Free Trade, as against the proposed corn tax, and the
preferential arrangements with the colonies, I thought it desirable
that I should have a talk with Lord Rosebery at once, and wrote asking
him for an interview. He invited me to lunch the next day, the 8th May.
There was no one present but his son and his secretary, and I appealed
to him earnestly, appealed to his sympathy with Imperialism, and to
his services to Imperial Federation, and urged him to assist me in my
work. I pointed out the dangers of the precarious food supply, and the
disintegrating influences that might break up the Empire, and put my
case as clearly as possible. He seemed to get more and more serious as
he saw all the arguments on that side, and when I was leaving I said to
him; "It is too bad of me to come and unload all my gloomy forebodings
upon you." His reply was, "I share a great many of them with you." I
knew then, as I knew at the meeting in 1890, that at heart he was a
warm Imperialist, but is terribly hampered and embarrassed by his party
affiliations. The meeting took place at Leeds on the 30th May. In his
speech he made two or three remarks which showed he was not as opposed
to my policy as I expected. In reference to the corn tax he said:

 Not another acre of wheat, we were told by one Minister, would be
 planted in consequence of this tax, which removed, to my mind, the
 sole inducement to vote for it, for if more of our country could be
 placed under wheat it would solve some of the difficulties connected
 with the land.

Again he said:

 But there is a much graver issue connected with this corn tax--an
 issue which has, in reality, only recently been imported into the
 discussion. It is, I think, quite clear from the last speech of
 the Colonial Secretary, that it is intended as a prelude to a sort
 of Zollverein or Customs Union throughout the British Empire. Now,
 speaking for myself, I cannot summarily dismiss any proposal for the
 closer union of the Empire, because it has been the ideal of more than
 the last twenty years of my life (hear, hear), an ideal of which I
 spoke to you at Leeds when I was last here. I do not say that Free
 Trade is a fetish, a religious dogma, which must be accepted and
 applied on all occasions without consideration or reservation. . . . I
 do not know, my mind is open, and I shall wait to hear.

His speech was more friendly than I expected, although some of his
party objected to an "open mind."

Before the Leeds meeting the Liberals held a meeting in Scotland,
at Aberdeen, on the 20th May, where the Rt. Hon. James Bryce made a
vigorous speech against the corn tax, which it was believed was being
put on preparatory for the Imperial Conference.

On the 23rd May I addressed the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce under
the chairmanship of its President, Sir Alfred Jones, who treated me
with the most unbounded hospitality. The meeting was very large and
successful, and although my views aroused criticism and were objected
to by some speakers, I had a chance to reply in acknowledging a vote of
thanks, and as I had the strongest arguments I had little difficulty in
effectively answering objections.

The _Westminster Gazette_ of the 21st May, the day before I went to
Liverpool, had the following article:

 Mr. Bryce stated the case against the bread tax with admirable point
 and force in a speech last night at Aberdeen. He dealt with its
 protective aspect, and the part it seemed destined to play in helping
 on an Imperial Zollverein, and had an excellent passage as to the
 effect of the tax on the very poor: he said:

 And when you get lower still, when you approach that large section
 of our people--in many places 30 per cent. of the population--which
 lives on the verge of want, it becomes a crushing burden, which
 means reduced subsistence, frequent hunger, weakness of body, and
 susceptibility to disease. The poor man suffers not merely because his
 margin is so small that the least addition to price tells, but because
 he can only afford the simplest and cheapest kinds of food. Bread to
 him is not only an article of first necessity, but of last necessity,
 etc.

The comment, "He dealt with its protective aspect and the part it
seemed destined to play in helping on an Imperial Zollverein," shows
the alarm in the Liberal ranks. One of the speakers at the Liverpool
meeting, who objected to my arguments, spoke of the marvellous
prosperity of Great Britain, all due, as he said, to Free Trade. In my
reply I used with great effect this extract from Mr. Bryce's speech,
and said that if about 8_d._ per head for a whole year meant to 30
per cent. of the population "a crushing burden, which means reduced
subsistence, frequent hunger, weakness of body, susceptibility to
disease," I could not see that it could be called a prosperous country.
I said I do not believe that gentleman ever saw a prosperous country.
Let him come to the protectionist United States of America, or to
protectionist Canada, and he will see countries where there is hardly a
soul who does not spend at least 8_d._ a week on pleasure or amusement.
This was apparently an unanswerable retort. I found this paragraph of
Mr. Bryce's very useful on more occasions than one.

I was told some five months after I had returned home, by one of the
newspaper men who visited Canada at that time, that he had heard, on
undoubted authority, that Mr. Joseph Chamberlain had privately asked
Sir Alfred Jones to get up a meeting, and invite me to go down and
address it. The result must have been satisfactory, for the meeting
was much more successful than I had any hope for. I think Mr.
Chamberlain's part leaked out and still further alarmed the Liberals,
and still more aided me.

The Liverpool papers gave good reports of the meeting, and the
editorial comments of two of them were not unfavourable, while one was
opposed to me. The _Courier_ of the 24th May said:

 Now Canada proposes--and no doubt she will not be alone--that the
 Empire as a whole accept this challenge. Colonel Denison suggests
 that a five per cent. tariff should be laid on foreign goods in every
 part of the Empire, and that the money be ear-marked for the defence.
 It is, of course, premature to discuss details, but the final words
 of the Canadian Imperialist deserve the most earnest attention. He
 shows that Mr. Chamberlain has not misread the signs in saying that
 an opportunity of closer union is about to be offered, and a chance
 given, perhaps once for all, of keeping British trade in British
 hands. If the occasion should be rejected, fair warning is given
 that the elements of disintegration will inevitably begin to operate
 among the colonies thus flouted, disappointed, and rebuffed. But we
 are asked to remember what Mr. Bryce says as to the percentage of the
 population always on the verge of want, and to whom an important duty
 would be fatal. They have not this terrible dead-weight in Canada, and
 neither have they anything of the sort in the United States. Is it
 not rational to suggest that this vast proportion of the population,
 ever ready to be submerged, is a result not of dear commodities, but
 of restricted production. On the score of mere cheapness there is
 assuredly little to complain of. The biggest and cheapest loaf costs
 something, and its price has to be earned. The question is, Are we to
 face this commercial struggle alone and unarmed, or are we to unite
 with the daughter nations in securing a not dubious victory?

On the 13th May, ten days before the meeting in Liverpool, I was dining
at Lord Lansdowne's at a dinner given to Count Matsugata, formerly
Prime Minister of Japan. The Premier and five Cabinet Ministers,
Lord Roberts, the Duke of Abercorn, and several others were present.
I was seated between Mr. Chamberlain and Lord George Hamilton. I
took advantage of the opportunity to discuss our policy with Mr.
Chamberlain, and pressed it as earnestly as I could put it, and we
had a long conversation. I pleaded with him to help us, that I was
still afraid of reciprocity with the United States, and that I felt we
were drifting, drifting, and that every year made it worse. Whether
my remarks had any weight on him or not I cannot say. I think he had
long been privately on our side, but anyway, three days after he made
a speech in Birmingham, which was the most hopeful thing that had
happened in all our struggle. In that speech he said:

 "The position of this country is not one without anxiety to statesmen
 and careful observers. Political jealousy, commercial rivalry, more
 serious than anything we have yet had, the pressure of hostile
 tariffs, the pressure of bounties, the pressure of subsidies, it is
 all becoming more weighty and more apparent.

 What is the object of this system adopted by countries which, at all
 events, are very prosperous themselves--countries like Germany and
 other large Continental States? What is the object of all this policy
 of bounties and subsidies? It is admitted--there is no secret about
 it--the intention is to shut out this country as far as possible
 from all profitable trade with those foreign States, and at the
 same time to enable those foreign States to undersell us in British
 markets. That is the policy, and we see that it is assuming a great
 development, that old ideas of trade and free competition have
 changed. We are face to face with great combinations, with enormous
 trusts, having behind them gigantic wealth. Even the industries and
 commerce which we thought to be peculiarly our own, even those are in
 danger. It is quite impossible that these new methods of competition
 can be met by adherence to old and antiquated methods which were
 perfectly right at the time at which they were developed.

 At the present moment the Empire is being attacked on all sides, and
 in our isolation we must look to ourselves. We must draw closer our
 internal relations, the ties of sentiment, the ties of sympathy--yes,
 and the ties of interest. If by adherence to economic pedantry, to
 old shibboleths, we are to lose opportunities of closer union which
 are offered us by our Colonies; if we are to put aside occasions now
 within our grasp; if we do not take every chance in our power to keep
 British trade in British hands, I am certain that we shall deserve the
 disasters which will infallibly come upon us.

This was the first public utterance of Mr. Chamberlain, in which he
endorsed in general terms the policy I was advocating. In the remarks
I have quoted, it will be seen that he endorsed the salient points
of my five minutes' speech a fortnight before at the Royal Colonial
Institute. Political jealousy, commercial rivalry, the pitiless
commercial war, the ties of sentiment, the ties of interest, the
keeping of British trade in British hands, etc. Nothing inspirited
me so much as this speech. I had preserved as a profound secret
Mr. Chamberlain's promise to me in 1890 that he would study up the
question, and, if he came to the conclusion it would be a good thing
for our Empire, that he would take it up. I had kept silent waiting
for twelve years, until I read that speech on the morning of the 17th
May, and I then told my wife the story of the interview in 1890, for I
felt he had adopted the policy.

The _Daily News_, in two articles on the 22nd and 24th May, made an
attack on Mr. Chamberlain and me, and found fault also with the British
Empire League for giving me any countenance, and strongly criticised
our policy. The first article was entitled "The Empire Wreckers." I was
delighted to see these articles, as well as others, in the _Westminster
Gazette_, the _Manchester Guardian_, and other Liberal papers. I saw
that my greatest difficulty had been overcome, and that I was not to be
ignored, but that I was likely to succeed in getting the whole matter
thrown into the arena for public discussion.

After quoting the proposition I was advocating in full, the _Daily
News_ went on to say:

 We leave to others the task of finding the appropriate adjectives for
 this composition, but Colonel Denison will forgive us if we observe
 that there is a certain inconvenience in conducting a campaign of this
 kind during the coronation festivities. We have no notion whether he
 is acting as the advance agent of Mr. Seddon and others, whose views
 on tariff preferences are of an extreme character, nor do we know
 how far he speaks as the representative of his fellow-colonists. But
 he and those who are acting with him must surely see that this is
 not the time for launching a campaign which is bound to give rise to
 differences, and possibly to heated differences. Everyone is anxious
 to give a cordial welcome to the visitors who will be coming to our
 shores next month, and nothing would be more unfortunate than to find
 ourselves involved in a dispute about preferences and tariffs with our
 own people. . . .

 There can be no doubt, however, that Mr. Chamberlain is the person
 primarily responsible for these proceedings, and it is with him that
 the Chambers of Commerce will have to deal if they wish to call their
 souls and their trade their own much longer. Ever since he came into
 office the master motive in Mr. Chamberlain's mind has been to put the
 Empire on a cash basis, to run it frankly as a commercial venture, and
 to occupy the position of managing director of the concern . . .

 From the standpoint of national trade and Imperial security it is
 the maddest scheme that was ever offered to a country as a policy.
 It ignores the fact that we do four times as much trade with foreign
 countries as with our Colonies and Dependencies, and that it ties our
 hands in our fiscal arrangements, and to all intents and purposes
 constitutes our Colonies as the predominant partner. Who would have
 thought that it would be necessary at this time of day to do battle
 against such midsummer madness? We repeat that if Mr. Chamberlain is
 allowed his way, and the British Empire comes to stand for starvation,
 misery, and loss of economic freedom for the mother country, the
 Empire will soon become a thing of the past.

On the 24th May, two days later, it returned to the attack on similar
lines. I saw my opening and promptly seized it. I wrote the following
letter to the _News_, which they were fair enough to publish in full
with an editorial note attached. It appeared in the _Daily News_ of the
27th May, 1902:

  SIR,

 In two articles in your issues of the 22nd and 24th inst., you have
 referred to my action in endeavouring to bring the views of the
 British Empire League in Canada--views which are almost universally
 shared by Canadians--before the people of this country. Will you
 kindly allow me to bring one or two points before your readers in
 defence of my action?

 The British Empire League here has not adopted our views, but has
 maintained a position of neutrality, being only willing to show to
 the Canadian Branch the courtesy of giving facilities for bringing
 its views forward. I have spoken already at four large banquets, and
 to the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce, without the British Empire
 League having had anything to do with the matter, either directly or
 indirectly.

 You speak of all that Free Trade has done for this country, the
 priceless boons, the carrying trade of the world, increased commercial
 relations with other nations, etc. I wish in a few words to point out
 why the Canadians are anxious about the present state of affairs in
 the interests of the whole Empire, in which our fate as a people is
 inextricably involved.

 1. We see every nation in the world armed to the teeth, the great
 nations increasing their navies with feverish anxiety. We see that you
 are alarmed in this country, for your naval expenditure has almost
 doubled in the last fifteen or twenty years. If war is out of the
 question this great expenditure is useless.

 2. We see that the United Kingdom which once grew 17,000,000 quarters
 of wheat, now produces about 6,500,000 quarters. We see that a
 combination of two Powers with an embargo on food would bring you to
 your knees in a few months, and compel you to surrender, and perhaps
 pull us down also as a people in the general smash of the Empire
 which might ensue. We know that our Empire cannot be either a free,
 independent, or great Power, until it is self-sustaining, and has its
 food grown on its own soil, and in the hands of its own people.

 3. We see a great Empire with great possessions, with resources
 unparalleled, with possibilities of future strength and prosperity
 almost beyond imagination; with no organisation, no combination, no
 complete system of defence: and this in the face of what you admit to
 be a possibility of the dangers of war.

 4. We see a commercial war going on of the most extreme type--many
 nations seemingly organising all their forces to injure the trade
 of Great Britain. We see that your export trade for the ten years
 1881-1890 amounted to £2,343,000,000, while in the following ten
 years, 1891-1900, it had only increased to £2,398,000,000, or an
 increase of £55,000,000 in the ten years. But the exports of coal in
 the first ten years amounted to £125,000,000, in the last ten years to
 £210,000,000--an increase of £85,000,000; which makes the exports of
 manufactured goods less by £30,000,000 during the years 1891-1900 than
 during the previous ten years, for export of coal is only a sale of
 national assets or capital.

 5. We see that while your trade is stationary at less profits,
 foreign nations are increasing theirs enormously. German exports in
 1895 amounted to £171,203,000, in 1901 to £237,970,000. The United
 States in 1871 exported about £90,000,000, in 1901 about £300,000,000
 (1,487,764,991 dollars). While your trade is in a weak condition, we
 see also the carrying trade passing into the hands of our rivals. The
 Morgan combine will control the North Atlantic trade if something is
 not done. It will fix the rates of freight, and, as a great portion
 of your food comes from the United States, they can make the British
 people pay the extra rates which will enable them to carry American
 manufactures of all kinds at the smallest cost, and so deprive your
 workmen of their employment and wages at the cost to themselves of
 dearer food.

 6. Canadians have seen the difficulty, and have given this country a
 preference of one-third the duty in their markets without any return
 or _quid pro quo_. We have contributed to an all British cable to
 Australia for Imperial reasons. I advocated at Liverpool a large
 tariff on wheat in the United Kingdom against everyone, including
 Canada. I advocated a tariff of five to ten per cent. on all foreign
 goods at every port in the Empire to raise a fund for the common
 defence, and to combine the Empire for trade. We in Canada do not
 require this change if you do not. We are prosperous; our exports
 are mounting up by leaps and bounds; the balance of trade is in our
 favour: but we are in the Empire; we have made up our minds to stand
 by it. We have spent the lives of our young men, and our money, in
 that cause in the past. When, therefore, we see your manufactures
 going down, your export trade barely holding its own in spite of a
 great increase of population, your carrying trade slipping from your
 hands, your agricultural interests being destroyed, three quarters of
 Ireland disloyal, principally because their farming has been ruined by
 what must seem a false policy to them, is it any wonder that we should
 wish to appeal to you to do something? Is it not only fair that you
 should listen to us, and if we can combine in any way to defend our
 Empire from foreign aggression, either in war or in trade, should we
 not all endeavour to do so?

  Yours, &c.,
                                                     GEORGE T. DENISON.
                           _President British Empire League in Canada._

 [The picture which Colonel Denison paints in such gloomy colours is
 unhappily true in a large degree. But the remedy is not to be found
 in impoverishing the people, increasing the price of the necessities
 of life, stopping the current of Free Trade through our markets, and
 establishing the principle of scarcity and dearness in the place
 of abundance and cheapness. Such a remedy would simply hasten the
 catastrophe that Colonel Denison foreshadows.--ED. _D.N._]

Lord Masham, speaking to me afterwards about this letter, laughed most
heartily and said, "Just think, to get that letter before the readers
of the _News_. That is capital, how the editor must have grudged
printing it."

I spoke at the Canada Club dinner on the 8th May in response to the
toast of "The Dominion of Canada," and at the Colonial Club dinner on
the 28th May in response to the toast of "The Empire." On the 2nd June
I addressed the Chamber of Commerce at Tunbridge Wells. On the 4th June
I addressed a large meeting in Glasgow, the Lord Provost in the chair.
On the 5th June another in Paisley, and on the 6th June I addressed
a joint meeting of the Edinburgh and Leith Chambers of Commerce in
Edinburgh.

On the 5th June the Glasgow _Herald_ had an article criticising my
speech. It gave me an opportunity which I used by sending them a letter
which they published the next day, the 6th. The same issue of the
_Herald_ had an article referring to my letter. To my gratification it
closed with these words:

 The question remains an open one whether, when the Colonies are
 prepared to accept some of the burdens of the Empire, we should accord
 them preferential treatment in respect of products in which they
 compete with foreigners.

I have already referred to the uneasiness and anxiety among the
Liberals about my mission, and in addition to Mr. Bryce's speech in
Aberdeen a large meeting was held in Edinburgh on the 8th June, where
the Rt. Hon. John Morley spoke in reply to my speeches in Scotland.
Among other things he said:

 You have got a gentleman now, I observe, perambulating Scotland--I
 am sure in perfectly good faith--I have not a word to say against
 it--perambulating Scotland on this subject, and it will be the
 subject, depend upon it, because it is in the hands of a very
 powerful and tenacious Statesman. Therefore excuse me if I point
 out a fifth broad effect. On the chances of some increase in your
 relatively small colonial trade, you are going to derange, dislodge,
 and dislocate all your immense foreign trade.

And he also said that it meant the abandonment of Free Trade, and
"would overthrow the very system that has placed us in the unexampled
position of power and strength and wealth."

On the 11th June I addressed the Chamber of Commerce of Bristol, and
my meeting attracted considerable attention from the local newspapers.
The _Western Daily Press_ had on the morning of the meeting a long and
quite friendly article, bespeaking earnest attention to my address,
even if I laid down "lines of fiscal policy along which the majority
may be reluctant to travel." The Bristol _Mercury_ gave a very full
report of the meeting and of the speeches, and had a long article
discussing the proposition from a strong Free Trade and hostile point
of view.

On the 10th June in the House of Commons my work caused a passing
notice. After I had left Canada the Executive Committee of the League
in Canada published in pamphlet form a report of the Annual Meeting of
the League in Canada containing my Presidential Address in moving the
adoption of the Annual Report, and they had an extra quantity printed
and sent a copy to every member of the House of Lords and the House of
Commons.

On the discussion of the Finance Bill in the House of Commons on the
10th June, Sir W. Harcourt, after saying that the Colonies could only
join the mother country on the basis of protection, went on to say:
"I received the other day the Manifesto of the Canadian Imperial
League, which seems to be a very authoritative document, containing,
as it does, the principal names in Canada, and which I would ask the
committee to examine in relation to the Budget. The first article
of the constitution of the League is thus laid down: 'To advocate a
trade policy between Great Britain and her Colonies, by means of which
discrimination in the exchange of natural and manufactured products
will be made in favour of one another and against foreign countries.'
Of course, that is the only basis on which the Colonies will deal with
us. If they give up their preferential duties against us, they will
expect us to institute preferential duties against other nations. In
the annual report of the Executive Committee of this British Imperial
League, dated February 1, 1902--months before the introduction of
the present Budget--we learn that at its meeting, which was held at
Toronto, the following resolution was adopted: 'Resolved, that this
meeting is of opinion that a special duty of 5 to 10 per cent. should
be imposed at every port in the British possessions on all foreign
goods'; and we are told, further, that the proceeds are to be devoted
to Imperial defence. But I come to the speech made by the president of
the League, which bears particularly on the Budget. He said:

 "New methods of taxation are absolutely necessary in Great Britain,
 and there is no difficulty in the way except the over confidence
 against which Kipling writes, and the strong prejudice in the English
 mind against taxing wheat. It is a remarkable thing that two months
 after this declaration was made we have, for the first time, a tax
 imposed upon wheat. The joint action of the poet and the financier
 has overcome the prejudice in the English mind against taxing
 wheat; then we are to have this duty of 10 per cent. on all food
 introduced into this country against the foreigners, and the whole
 thing is accomplished. I say that that is a policy of pure and simple
 protection. The Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday disavowed any
 intention of adopting this policy of universal duties to be levied
 upon all foreign goods. He said we are to proceed on the principles of
 free trade. But he introduced a sentence that something may be done in
 that direction. A great deal of doubt has been raised in reference to
 that sentence.

 "Mr. Austen Chamberlain said the right hon. gentleman the member
 for West Monmouth had adopted a remarkable line of argument. He had
 produced a pamphlet containing the report of an executive committee of
 a private association in Canada, and had referred to that document as
 if he could find in it an official explanation of the intentions and
 policy of His Majesty's Government.

 "Sir W. Harcourt.--I quoted it as the view to be presented by the
 Canadian Government. I believe I am perfectly justified in that
 statement.

 "Mr. Austen Chamberlain said he thought the right hon. gentleman had
 gone a good deal further than that. The views of the association were
 entitled to the respect which they commanded on their merits, and for
 the ability with which they were put forth; but they were not binding
 on the Canadian Cabinet, still less on the Government of this country.
 It was rather a far-fetched suggestion that in such a report as that
 was to be found the basis of the action which His Majesty's Government
 were now proposing. As a matter of fact the report appeared two
 months before the tax. Allusion had been made to a speech delivered
 by his right hon. friend the Colonial Secretary at Birmingham. But
 in that speech the Colonial Secretary was commenting on a speech
 made by the leader of the Opposition. He was not arguing in favour
 of preferential relations, but he was refusing to be deterred from
 proposing a tax which he believed to be good on its merits merely
 because it might be used, if the people of this country so willed, to
 draw closer the ties between the Motherland and the Colonies. That
 was a declaration which was emphasised by his right hon. friend the
 Chancellor of the Exchequer on Monday. The whole question between
 the Opposition and the Government now was that hon. and right hon.
 gentlemen opposite wished to extort from the Government at this stage
 a declaration that in no circumstances and at no time would they
 consent to preferential arrangements with the Colonies. He thought
 it would be a strange proceeding if, before learning authoritatively
 what the Prime Ministers of the great self-governing Colonies intended
 to propose, before learning the arguments with which those Ministers
 would support their propositions, the Government were to slam the door
 in their faces and solemnly declare that they would not listen to any
 arguments on the subject. That would not be a very friendly act. It
 would not be courteous in dealing with strangers, and it would not be
 decent in dealing with our kinsmen."

The final meeting of my campaign was at the London Chamber of Commerce
on the 13th June. Mr. Morley had spoken at Edinburgh on the 8th of
June, and had said generally that the policy I was advocating was
contrary to the principles of Free Trade under which England had built
up her wonderful prosperity, had maintained it for years, and which
was the foundation of Great Britain's present great prosperity. I had
been urged very strongly by all my friends to be very cautious not to
refer directly to either Free Trade or Protection. I was told that
the feeling in favour of Free Trade was so strong, that it would be
unwise to refer to it in set terms, and I was advised simply to argue
for the war tax of 5 to 10 per cent. to raise a defence fund. Up to
this time I had followed this advice, but when Mr. Morley attacked
me, and raised the question, I felt that the time had arrived for me
to come out boldly and in clear and unmistakable terms. I found in my
movement about the country that there was much more feeling in favour
of Protection than anyone believed. I therefore made up my mind to take
advantage of the meeting of the London Chamber of Commerce to make
a direct and vehement attack on Free Trade in order to test feeling
in that centre. I carefully prepared as strong a speech as I could
arrange, although I kept my own counsel as to my intentions. I decided
to make my address a direct reply to the Rt. Hon. John Morley and to
use his attack upon me as my excuse for criticising Free Trade in
hostile terms.

       *       *       *       *       *

The room was crowded, with a number of prominent men present. I
referred to Mr. Morley's remarks and said that I took issue with him,
and that I denied that Free Trade was the cause of Great Britain's
progress. I said her position was established under a system of
protection, that it was maintained by a protection of a different
kind for years, and that now she was not prosperous. I gave a great
many figures, and traced the trade returns at intervals from 1805
until the year 1901, and in reply to Mr. Morley's statement of the
wonderful prosperity of Great Britain I repeated the argument I used at
Liverpool, and quoted again Mr. Bryce's statement about the crushing
burden the 1s. a quarter on wheat would be on about 30 per cent. of the
population.

When I had finished, Lord Charles Beresford made a speech that was
quite friendly to my proposition, saying, "that the time had arrived
when we had to do something to bind the Mother Country and the Colonies
more closely together, and to do something also by which we might
mutually benefit by the trade of the Empire, in view of the enormous
competition directed against us by the rest of the world."

Sir Guilford Molesworth and Mr. Ernest E. Williams then spoke strongly
supporting me. They were followed by Mr. Faithfull Begg, who made a
short but remarkably clever speech. He began by saying, "Is this the
London Chamber of Commerce? Can I believe my eyes and ears? I have sat
here and listened to what I am satisfied was the strongest attack upon
Free Trade that has been heard in these walls in two generations, and
in an open discussion no one has said a word in defence of the old
policy. I was a Free Trader and I can no longer support the principle,
but will no one say a word in defence of the old cause?" This taunt
brought up a Mr. Pascoe, who used a number of stock arguments of the
Cobden Club school. General Laurie, Admiral Sir Dalrymple Hay, Sir S.
B. Boulton, and the Chairman, Sir Fortescue Flannery, then followed
in speeches distinctly favourable to my proposition, and the meeting
closed.

The effect of this meeting cannot be better shown than in the editorial
comments of the _Financial News_ of the next day, the 14th June, 1902:

 It was indeed a remarkable gathering which assembled at the London
 Chamber of Commerce yesterday to hear Colonel Denison speak upon the
 National Food Supply and cognate trade questions; and the essential
 feature of the meeting--more essential if Colonel Denison will
 allow us to say so, even than his own speech--was that to which
 Mr. Faithfull Begg drew attention when he announced his surprise
 that in a discussion upon Free Trade _versus_ Protection, no one, in
 that erstwhile typical house of Free Trade, stood up to champion the
 old cause. Most of those present were in Mr. Faithfull Begg's own
 position; they had recently been forced by the logic of events, from
 acquiescence in or championship of Free Trade, into a conviction that
 it would no longer do. True, Mr. Faithfull Begg's challenge brought
 forth a solitary advocate of the discredited philosophy; a young man
 to whom the meeting listened with obvious impatience; for as General
 Laurie said, every one of his points had been answered in advance by
 the lecturer, and the quality of his arguments might be gathered from
 the fact, that among them was an assertion that, as an explanation
 of our adverse trade balance there was no question as to there being
 anything in the nature of an export of securities in progress! That
 this should have been the only voice raised upon the Free Trade side
 would be a mightily significant circumstance in any gathering of
 business men; but to those who are familiar with the London Chamber
 even in its recent history, the significance is greatly heightened.
 For a body professedly independent, there was, until the other day, no
 association in England (unless it be the Royal Statistical Society)
 more thoroughly and openly upon the Free Trade side in the economic
 controversy. With the surrender of the London Chamber of Commerce it
 is really time to dictate conditions of peace.

This was a conclusion to my campaign far beyond my most sanguine
expectations. It was a coincidence that about the time I concluded my
campaign at this successful meeting, Dr. Fred W. Borden, Minister of
Militia of Canada, who had lately arrived in England, in an interview
with Mr. I. N. Ford, representative of the New York _Tribune_, stated
that I represented nobody's views except my own, and pretended that
he did not know of me even by name, until Mr. Ford let him understand
that he was too well informed for that to be accepted. In an interview
with one of the London newspapers he also spoke in a hostile manner
of me and my views. As he had been quite friendly to me personally
when we had met a day or two before, I was at a loss to account for
his action. After consideration, I came to the conclusion that the
Canadian Government had taken up some new position upon the question
of preferential trade, and that I was wrong in my previous belief that
I was working directly in their interests and in accordance with their
views in a general way.

Mr. Ford telegraphed on the night of the meeting to his various papers
across the Atlantic, the following account of my concluding words at
the London Chamber of Commerce:

 Colonel Denison closed his series of addresses in the United Kingdom
 on a tariff for Imperial Defence by a speech before the London Chamber
 of Commerce in which he announced that he represented the British
 Empire League in Canada, and had accomplished his purpose. This
 had been to raise the question of a British tariff for defence and
 business. The subject had been discussed in Parliament, and had been
 taken up by the Press throughout the Kingdom. The Dominion Ministers
 would be in England next week, and the responsibility for carrying the
 question into the Imperial Conference or dropping it altogether would
 be theirs not his.

When I sailed for home Mr. Ford cabled:

 Colonel Denison will sail for Montreal to-day. He has gone so far
 and so fast in presenting the plans of the British Empire League of
 Canada that neither Imperialist nor colonial has been able to keep
 abreast with him. His views on a war tax around the Empire are not
 considered practicable by the Canadian Ministers, but the energy with
 which he has forced the business side of Imperial Federation upon
 public attention here, is generally recognised.

The Annual General Meeting of the British Empire League was held on the
7th July, where the Hon. George W. Ross and I represented the Canadian
Branch. I moved a resolution which Mr. Ross seconded. I spoke as
follows:

 Your Grace, my Lords, Ladies, and Gentlemen,--I shall only occupy two
 or three minutes of your time, as I am fortunate to have with me one
 of the very best and most active members of our League, the Prime
 Minister of Ontario. I am here at this moment under a resolution of
 the League in Canada which reads as follows:

 "That he also be empowered and requested to advocate that a special
 duty of 5 to 10 per cent. be imposed at every port in the British
 possessions on all foreign goods in order to provide a fund for
 Imperial Defence, which fund should be administered by a committee or
 council in which the Colonies should have representation."

 That resolution I need not tell you is one which this League did not
 feel disposed to endorse because the League had held itself open, and
 I wish to thank the President, the Council, and the Members of this
 League for the broad-minded liberality and generosity with which they
 enabled me to speak, and say what we Canadians wished to lay before
 the people of this country. I thank this League for its courtesy, and
 for the broad-minded spirit in which it was done, more particularly as
 I happen to know that the well-considered resolution adopted by the
 Executive Committee was drafted by probably one of the most vehement
 opponents of my policy. That broad-minded spirit I have seen all over
 England and I wish publicly, as I am going away in a day or two, to
 express my thanks for that British spirit which allows such free
 discussion.

 I shall only take one or two minutes more because I wish Mr. Ross to
 have an opportunity of speaking at greater length. I have listened
 with a great deal of attention to what our noble President has said
 in his speech with respect to three questions, of defence, commercial
 relations, and political relations, and if you think of it, we have
 combined all three in these two lines: "A duty in order to provide
 a fund for Imperial Defence, which fund should be administered by a
 committee." The duty helps all questions of commercial relations,
 helps your trade, helps your food supplies, and it also furnishes a
 fund for defence, and provision is made for a committee to administer
 the political relations. The whole thing can be done by an adaptation
 of that resolution. As to the question of defence, I wish to say that
 we Canadians are in favour of any method that may be devised to defend
 this Empire, but we know that no system of defence can be made worth
 a snap of the finger that does not secure the protection of the food
 supplies of this Mother Country, and yet you persist in spending on
 ships, troops, fortification, on coaling stations on Naval Reserves,
 on everything but food, the most important of all. I urge you to do
 all you can not only to make your food supply safe, but also to save
 your trade, your merchant shipping, and to put all these things in a
 safe position.

Mr. Ross followed me with a very able and powerful speech in which he
expressed the views of the Canadian League with great eloquence and
vigour.

On the 17th June, a letter from Sir Robert Giffen appeared in the
London _Times_ severely criticising the policy I was advocating. As
a great statistician and Free Trader, and formerly Secretary of the
Government Board of Trade, he was considered the ablest expert on the
subject and his name carried great weight. His objections were in
substance:

 First, that under such a system at 10 per cent., the United Kingdom
 would pay £41,000,000 annually, and the colonies but £3,500,000, of
 which Canada and Newfoundland would contribute £2,400,000, whereas on
 the basis of population the Colonies are one quarter of the United
 Kingdom.

 Second, the effect of such a tax would be infinite disaster to the
 trade of the United Kingdom, by raising the cost of raw material and
 by requiring harassing regulations in regard to the entrepot trade.

 Third, the increase of existing duties in the Colonies by 10 per cent.
 would effect no such injury to their trade as the substitution of
 duties for the Free Trade system of the United Kingdom.

 Fourth, the duty on foreign goods entering the United Kingdom and
 preference given to colonial goods, would increase the price for
 colonial goods imported in the United Kingdom by £11,000,000, and the
 Colonies would thus gain much more than their contribution.

 Fifth, the difficulty in arranging bonding privileges in such free
 ports as Singapore and Hong Kong.

This letter was so plausible that even the _Times_ in an article on the
19th June, said:

 Colonel Denison is a representative Canadian of the highest character
 and proved loyalty, and no doubt his views prevail widely in British
 North America. At the same time the criticisms of his plan from a
 strictly economic point of view which Sir Robert Giffen published in
 our columns on Tuesday appear to us to be conclusive.

This attack was satisfactory to me as it gave me an opening for a reply
which I made as follows:

  SIR,

 In your issue of yesterday there is a letter from Sir Robert Giffen
 commenting upon my address to the London Chamber of Commerce, and
 requesting me to give information on certain points. May I give my
 answer?

 He asks (1) how much under the scheme I proposed the Mother Country
 would have to pay; (2) how much each of the principal Colonies; (3)
 how the trade of each would be probably affected; (4) what exceptions
 would be made as to Hong Kong and Singapore, which are distributing
 centres?

 1 and 2. These I shall answer together, dealing only with Canada,
 as space will not admit my going fully into the whole question. I
 will take Sir Robert Giffen's figures, although he puts the foreign
 imports of Canada and Newfoundland together at £24,000,000; while the
 statistical abstract for colonial possessions gives the figures for
 Canada alone at over £27,000,000 for 1900. Taking Sir Robert Giffen's
 figures, however, Canada would have to pay, on a basis of ten per
 cent. on foreign imports, nearly £2,400,000 per annum. As the normal
 amount Canada has been spending on defence in years past, has been
 about £400,000 per annum, this would mean an additional payment by her
 of £2,000,000 a year. Sir Robert Giffen claims that the United Kingdom
 would have to pay £41,000,000 per annum. This is an extraordinary
 statement. The expenditure of the United Kingdom upon the Army and
 Navy in ordinary years, not counting war expenses, far exceeds
 £41,000,000. So that the United Kingdom would not pay one farthing a
 year more under the proposition than she always does expend.

 This answers the first two points. The United Kingdom would pay
 nothing additional, Canada would expend £2,000,000 more than she has
 been doing.

 As to Canada's paying in proportion to her population, that would
 be an unfair basis, because she is a young country with very little
 accumulated wealth, and is developing and opening up enormous tracts
 of territory at a great cost to the sparse population. Great Britain
 is a small country with a large population, and has been in process of
 development for nearly 2,000 years, for I believe some Roman roads are
 in use to-day. The time will come when Canada will be able to do far
 more.

 3. As to how trade would be affected, I answer that the trade of the
 United Kingdom would be greatly benefited. The duty would tend to
 protect for yourselves your home market, which you are rapidly losing.
 It would give you advantages over the foreigner in the markets of
 360,000,000 of people in the British possessions, in which at present
 you are being attacked in the most pitiless and disastrous commercial
 war. It would turn emigration into your own dominions, instead of
 aiding to build up foreign, and possibly hostile, countries. In the
 British Colonies the inhabitants purchase from the United Kingdom many
 times as much per head as the inhabitants of foreign countries, and it
 is the direct interest of the Mother Country to save her population
 to build up her own Empire. Your food supply also, which is in a
 most dangerous and perilous condition--a condition which leaves our
 Empire dependent upon the friendship of one or two nations for its
 very existence--would be rapidly produced upon British soil among your
 own people, and would make you once again an independent and powerful
 nation. At present you are existing upon sufferance.

 4. Sir Robert Giffen speaks about the entrepot trade and the
 difficulty of allowing goods to pass in bond. We Canadians have so
 many goods passing in bond through the United States, and the United
 States have so many passing in bond through Canada, without the
 slightest difficulty on either side, that we cannot see how there
 could be any trouble about such an arrangement. This system could
 apply to Hong Kong and Singapore, and it should not require much
 thought or ingenuity to arrange minor details of that kind, if the
 broad principle was once agreed upon.

 The question of taxing raw material for manufactures and its effect
 upon exports to foreign countries could be easily arranged by the
 simple expedient of granting a rebate of the duty on goods sent to
 foreign countries. I fancy this is an expedient well understood by
 most civilised nations.

 It is asked also what would be result of putting an extra 10 per
 cent. on exports from the United States into Canada. It ought very
 largely to increase the sale of British manufactured goods in Canada,
 but I notice that Sir Robert Giffen, in counting the advantage to
 the United Kingdom, leaves out the United States, and only counts
 European competitors. This is rather remarkable, when we remember that
 the Canadian imports from the United States in 1900 were £22,570,763
 and from all European countries under £4,000,000. In this connection
 it is interesting to note that British imports into Canada had been
 declining for some years before 1897, but when the 33 1/3 per cent.
 preference was given to the United Kingdom the imports from it into
 Canada rose from £6,000,000 worth in 1897 to £9,000,000 in 1900.

 Sir Robert Giffen claims that the Colonies would gain the full amount
 of the 10 per cent. tax on the foreigner in increased prices. If so,
 why should not the United Kingdom gain the 10 per cent. on all she
 sold in the Empire? The rule should certainly work both ways; but, as
 a matter of fact, a large portion of the duty would be borne by the
 foreigner. The greater part of the present tax on flour is now being
 paid by the United States railways, through the reduction of their
 freight rates in order to meet it.

 Sir Robert Giffen repeats a second time, to impress it upon his
 readers, that the proposed preferential arrangements would impose a
 charge upon the people of the United Kingdom of £42,000,000, as if
 the people would have to pay that amount more than they do now. This
 I emphatically deny. It will only mean a rearrangement of taxation. A
 little more would go on grain and manufactured goods and other things,
 but it could come off tea and tobacco or income tax, so that the
 taxpayer would pay no more, and it makes little difference to him on
 what he pays it, if he actually pays out the same amount for his needs
 each year.

 In Canada we feel that Great Britain is steadily losing her trade,
 that her home markets are being invaded, that she is in great and
 constant danger as to her food, that her mercantile marine is slipping
 from her, her agriculture being ruined, and that anything that would
 tend to keep the markets of the Empire for the Empire would be of
 enormous advantage to her. The British Empire League in Canada
 suggested the scheme they have urged me to advocate in this country.
 This scheme has received general support in Canada, but the League
 will, I am sure, be pleased with any effective plan which will put
 matters in a better position for the advantage of the Empire as a
 whole.

  Your obedient servant,
                                                     GEORGE T. DENISON.
  _18th June._

This letter was not replied to. Lally Bernard writing from London to
the Toronto _Globe_ of the 8th July says:

 There is a great deal of argument going on in a quiet way regarding
 the controversy between Sir Robert Giffen and Colonel George Denison,
 on the subject of an Imperial Zollverein, and the reply of Colonel
 Denison to Sir Robert Giffen's letter in the _Times_ has aroused the
 warmest admiration even from those who are diametrically opposed to
 his theory.

Sir Wilfrid Laurier with Sir Wm. Mulock, Mr. Fielding, and Mr.
Patterson, arrived in London a few days after this. I had been
surprised at Dr. Borden's attempt to weaken and destroy the effect of
what little I had done to prepare public opinion, and thinking that Sir
Wilfrid and the other Ministers must have sympathised with what he had
done, I came to the conclusion that there was no use in me taking any
further trouble in the matter. I ceased any work, and although I was
constantly meeting Sir Wilfrid and his colleagues I never once spoke to
them upon the question.

I had been having several conversations with Mr. Chamberlain, and
knew exactly what his position was, and he had asked me to press the
Canadian delegates to take a certain course. In view of Dr. Borden's
action I had not attempted to do anything on the line Mr. Chamberlain
suggested. This was the condition of affairs when I had to leave for
home, which was just before the meeting of the Conference. I went
down to the Hotel Cecil the morning before leaving, and called on Sir
Wilfrid to say good-bye. He seemed astonished when I told him why I
had called, and asked when I was leaving; I told him the next day. He
urged me to stay over a week or two, but I said it was impossible as
my passage was taken and all my arrangements made, and I said I knew
he was going to a meeting and that I would not keep him. To my great
astonishment he said, "Sit down; I want to talk to you," and then he
surprised me by asking my opinion as to what could be done at the
Conference. I was so astonished that I said, "You ask me what I would
do in your place?" He said, "Yes. You have been here for over two
months, you have been about the country addressing meetings, you have
been discussing the question with the leading men, and you have studied
the subject for years, and I want the benefit of your opinion. Now what
would you say as to moving the resolution you have been advocating?"
I thought for a moment and said, "No, Sir Wilfrid, I would not do
that." He asked me why. I said, "Because it could not be carried. I
have discussed it with Mr. Chamberlain and he is not ready for it. Sir
Edmund Barton tells me that they are having a great fight over the
tariff and could not take it up now. Sir Gordon Sprigg says they are
not in a position to do it on account of the war in Cape Colony, and
Mr. Seddon is so full of another scheme connected with shipping, that
while he would support it, it might not be as vigorous support as would
be required."

Having the opening, however, I told him of my conversation with Mr.
Chamberlain, and pressed upon him the advisability of taking up Mr.
Chamberlain's idea, which was for Canada to give Great Britain further
preferences on certain articles, in fact, if possible free entry of
those articles in return for the preference of the one shilling a
quarter on wheat. I think this was already his view, but I pointed out
all the advantages from a Canadian point of view of this plan, and
expressing the hope that he would be able to see his way to it, I said
good-bye and left him. I saw my friend and colleague in my work, the
Hon. G. W. Ross, and told him of the conversation, and asked him to
press the same view upon the Canadian Ministers, which he did.

On my arrival in Toronto the representatives of the Toronto newspapers
came to interview me on my work. Among other things, I said:

 I am entirely satisfied that Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Mr. Fielding
 and Sir William Mulock are doing all in their power to obtain some
 advantageous arrangement for Canada at this Conference. They have
 all been impressed with the importance of their mission and their
 speeches have been along the best lines. Hon. Mr. Fielding made an
 admirable speech at the United Empire Trade League luncheon, in which
 he expressed the unanimity of the Canadian people in favour of the
 preference to England, stating that both parties were in favour of it,
 and appealing to Sir Charles Tupper, who sat near him, to corroborate
 this.

 Hon. George W. Ross at the annual meeting of the British Empire
 League, with the Duke of Devonshire as chairman, made a telling and
 impressive speech, strongly advocating preferential tariffs within
 the Empire. But in the face of Sir Frederick Borden's efforts in the
 opposite direction, these and the other splendid addresses of Sir
 Wilfrid and his colleagues could not have the effect that they would
 have produced had our representatives been of one mind in the matter.

 I was very much astonished at Sir Frederick Borden's action in stating
 that I represented nobody's views but my own, when he must have known
 that I never intended to represent anybody's views except those of the
 British Empire League, and that at all public meetings I invariably
 read the resolutions that had been passed asking me to take a certain
 course. His endeavours to minimise the result of my work and to lull
 the English mind into believing that everything was well, and that
 nothing should be done, must have had an injurious effect, as I have
 said, upon the efforts that Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Sir William Mulock,
 and Mr. Fielding were making upon behalf of Canada.

 Col. Denison was asked by one of those present as to the reason for
 Sir Frederick Borden's attitude, and he replied, "That I cannot tell
 you. I can only recall the remark of Lord Beaconsfield, made once in
 reference to Lord John Russell. He said, 'Against bad faith a man may
 guard, but it is beyond all human sagacity to baffle the unconscious
 machinations of stupidity.'"

Sir Michael Hicks-Beach resigned from the Cabinet while I was on my
way home. I always felt that the desire of Mr. Chamberlain to give a
preference to the Colonies to the extent of the one shilling a quarter
on wheat had something to do with the retirement of Sir Michael
Hicks-Beach. In 1906 I lunched with Mr. Chamberlain and he explained
to me why he had been unable to carry out the preferential arrangement
that he had outlined to me before Sir Wilfrid Laurier arrived in
England in 1902. The difficulty was that Sir Michael Hicks-Beach
objected to it because he had imposed the duty avowedly as a means of
raising revenue for war purposes, that he had defended it and justified
it as a necessity on account of the war expenses, that the war was
only just being concluded, and the outlay for months to come could not
be diminished. For that reason he was firmly opposed to reducing any
portion of the duty for the time. This prevented Sir Wilfrid Laurier's
offers being accepted, and postponed action indefinitely, as the
Conference concluded its session about the same time.

Sir Edmund Barton and Sir John Forrest went through Canada on their way
home to Australia from the Conference, and they with their party dined
at my house. During the day I drove Sir Edmund and Lady Barton about
Toronto. I told Sir Edmund what I had been urging Sir Wilfrid to do at
the Conference, and the remark he made was peculiar. He said that the
proceedings of the Conference were as yet confidential and he could
not speak of them, but he might say that I should be well satisfied
with my Premier. I was confident then that Sir Wilfrid had taken that
line which the official reports shortly afterwards corroborated. The
final result was, however, that our efforts had been unsuccessful, and
our movement had received a serious set-back.

We were encouraged in October, 1902, by the action of the National
Union of Conservative Associations held at Manchester on the 15th
of that month, when Sir Howard Vincent obtained the adoption of a
resolution in favour of Imperial preferential trade. The New York
_Tribune_, commenting on this, said: "This news is a great triumph for
the Hon. Joseph Chamberlain's views, and it also no doubt goes to show
that Colonel Denison's recent imperialistic campaign in the Motherland
was not without decided educative effect."

On the 20th October, 1902, the National Club of Toronto gave a
complimentary banquet to me in recognition of the work I had done in
England that summer for the Empire. Mr. J. F. Ellis, President of the
Club, occupied the chair; the Hon. J. Israel Tarte and the Hon. George
W. Ross were present. There was a large and influential gathering.
I was very much gratified at Mr. Tarte's presence. Although once
associating with the Continental Union League, he had for years been
a loyal and active member of our British Empire League. He was at the
time a Cabinet Minister, and came from Ottawa to Toronto solely to
attend the dinner, and it was at such a crisis in his career that he
wrote out his resignation from the Government on the train while coming
up. His speech is worth reproducing:

 Mr. President and Gentlemen of the National Club,--I think it is
 fit, I think it is proper, that French Canada should be represented
 at a gathering like this. I am not here this evening as a member of
 the Dominion Cabinet. Am I a member of the Dominion Cabinet? That is
 the question. That is the question I very diplomatically declined to
 answer when I was leaving Ottawa to come here. Being a Minister is
 not the most care-free life in the world. It is an occupation that is
 exposed to accidents of all kinds. A Minister is exposed to tremendous
 hazards--to the fire of the newspapers, to the bad temper of members
 of Parliament, to the assaults of opponents, and occasionally to the
 tender mercies of your best personal friends.

 I am present to-night as a British subject of Canadian origin--of
 French-Canadian origin--proud of British institutions, and feeling in
 that pride that he is speaking the sentiments of his countrymen in
 the Province of Quebec. I have been connected with the British Empire
 League since 1888. I am not prepared to say that I have approved all
 the speeches made by all members of the League, or that I have always
 agreed with the speeches that members of the League make here. I have
 in mind the fact, however, that decent speeches of other people have
 not always been properly appreciated. I was agreed from the start
 and am agreed now with the primary object of the League, which is
 to promote British interests abroad and at home, to bring about a
 better knowledge of our needs and a better understanding between all
 portions of the Empire. We belong to a great Empire; great through its
 power, great through its wealth, but especially great through its free
 institutions.

 I have now been thirty years in public life, as a newspaper man, as
 a member of the Legislature of my native province, and as a Cabinet
 Minister. After having travelled pretty extensively, observing as
 I went, after having visited several exhibitions of the world, I
 have come to the conclusion that British institutions are the best
 adapted to bring about the greatness of this country, as they make for
 happiness, safety, prosperity, progress, and permanency.

 Since I have been in office as Minister of Public Works, and that
 is six years and three months, I have endeavoured to the best of my
 ability to build up British and Canadian commercial independence on
 this continent. I have done my best to improve and develop trade
 between the Empire through Canadian soil, through Canadian channels,
 in Canadian bottoms, and through Canadian railways.

 Let us not be satisfied, continued Mr. Tarte. Let us make up our minds
 to make ourselves at home from a national as well as a commercial
 standpoint.

 Col. Denison, who is allowed to speak of things of which other
 people fear the consequence, has spoken of the tariff. Col. Denison
 has spoken of Chamberlain, and has quoted Chamberlain's words on
 the tariff. Chamberlain is not Minister of Finance--he is Colonial
 Secretary. He has spoken of the tariff, mind you. I think he should be
 dismissed. He has violated the Constitution of England, and doesn't
 know what he has done. He has spoken on the tariff, and he has spoken
 for Protection. He is a dangerous man. He has said foreign nations had
 formed combinations, and were maintaining hostile tariffs and that the
 English nation was suffering by reason of this. He will be punished.

This was a satirical allusion to the fact that he was being forced out
of the Cabinet, because, as Minister of Public Works, he had discussed
in public meetings the question of tariff policy. He was put out of the
Cabinet the next day.




                             CHAPTER XXVII

                  CORRESPONDENCE WITH MR. CHAMBERLAIN


As I have said, we felt that the result of the Conference had been
a very serious set-back and discouragement to all our wishes. I
therefore watched public opinion very carefully and with considerable
anxiety, and I noticed two or three uncomfortable indications. In the
first place a restlessness manifested itself among the manufacturing
classes in Canada, particularly in the woollen trade, against the
British preference which pressed upon them, while Canada received no
corresponding advantage, and a discussion began as to whether the
British preference should not be cut off. The next thing which alarmed
me was that during the following winter a movement arose in the United
States to secure the establishment of a reciprocity treaty with
Canada. Suggestions were made to renew the sittings of the High Joint
Commission which had adjourned in 1898 without anything being done.
This was evaded by our Government, but a strong agitation was commenced
in the Eastern States, and supported in Chicago, to educate the people
of the United States in favour of tariff arrangements with Canada.

The more far-seeing men in the United States were uneasy about the
movement for mutual preferential tariffs in the British Empire. They
saw at once that if successful it would consolidate and strengthen
British power and wealth and would be a severe blow to the prosperity
of the United States, which for fifty years had been fattening upon
the free British markets, while for thirty years their own had been
to a great extent closed to the foreigner and preserved for their
own enrichment. I felt that the failure of the Conference would give
power to our enemies in the United States and aid them to enmesh us in
the trade entanglements which would preclude the possibility of our
succeeding in carrying our policy into effect.

Every week I became more and more alarmed. It will be remembered
that there was then no Tariff Reform movement in England. That Lord
Salisbury was dying, that Mr. Chamberlain had not yet openly committed
himself, and that nothing was being done, while our opponents were
actively at work both in the States and in Canada. The small faction in
Canada who were disloyal were once more taking heart while the loyal
element were discouraged.

Still further to cause anxiety the Imperial Federation Defence
Committee took this opportunity, through Mr. Arthur Loring, to make
an imperious demand upon the Colonies to hand over at once large cash
contributions in support of the Navy, or practically to cut us adrift.
Had the desire been to smash up the Empire, the attack could not have
been better timed than when everything was going against the Imperial
view. I wrote a reply which appeared in _The Times_ on the 2nd March,
1903:

  SIR,

 With reference to your issues of January 9th and 10th which contained
 the letter of Mr. Arthur Loring, Hon. Secretary of the Imperial
 Federation (Defence) Committee, and your leading article upon the
 question of colonial contributions to the Imperial Navy, I desire to
 send a reply from the Canadian point of view.

 Mr. Loring's proposition is practically that the Mother Country
 should repudiate any further responsibility for the defence of the
 Empire, unless the Colonies pay over cash contributions for the Navy
 in the way and under the terms that will suit the Imperial Federation
 (Defence) Committee. The British Empire League in Canada and the
 majority of the Canadians are as anxious for a secure Imperial Defence
 as is Mr. Loring, but the spirit of dictation which runs through the
 publications of his committee has always been a great difficulty in
 our way, by arousing resentment in our people, who might do willingly
 what they would object to be driven into. Because we hesitate to pay
 cash contributions we are attacked as if we had made no sacrifices for
 the Empire. Mr. Loring seems to forget our preference to all British
 goods, which has caused Germany to cut off the bulk of our exports
 to that country, to forget that we imposed a duty on sugar in order
 by preference to help the West Indies in the Imperial interest, that
 we helped to construct the Pacific cable for the same reason, or
 that numbers of our young men fought and died for the cause in South
 Africa. We have proved in many ways our willingness to make sacrifices
 for the Empire, and yet, because we will not do just exactly what Mr.
 Loring's committee suggest, they wish to cut us adrift.

 This is a very impolitic and dangerous suggestion. It is so important
 that we should understand each other, and that you in England should
 know how we look at this question, that I hope you will allow me to
 say a few words upon this subject.

 The British Empire League in Canada requested me as their president to
 go to Great Britain last April to advocate a duty of 5 to 10 per cent.
 all round the Empire on all foreign goods in order to provide a fund
 for Imperial Defence. This proposition was approved of at a number of
 meetings held in various parts of Canada, and by political leaders of
 all shades of politics and I am certain it would have been confirmed
 by a large majority in our Parliament had Great Britain and the other
 Colonies agreed to it.

 I addressed a number of meetings in England and Scotland, and
 discussed the question with many of the political leaders in London.
 I soon discovered while the audiences were receptive, and many
 approved of the proposition, that nevertheless it was new, contrary
 to their settled prejudices, and that it would take time and popular
 education on the subject before such an arrangement could be carried
 in the House of Commons. When Sir Wilfrid Laurier came over just
 before the Conference, knowing that I had been discussing the subject
 for two months, he asked me if I thought the proposition I had been
 advocating could be proposed at the Conference with any prospect of
 success. I replied that I did not think it could, that Great Britain
 was not ready for it, that Australia at the time was engaged in such a
 struggle over her revenue tariff that she could not act, and that if
 I was in his place I should not attempt it. He did, however, make a
 number of suggestions at the Conference which, if accepted by the home
 Government, would have gone a long way to place the Empire on a safer
 footing. The Mother Country would not agree to relieve Canada from the
 corn duty, but was quite willing to accept and ask for contributions
 for defence. This Sir Wilfrid refused; and a large portion of our
 people approve of that course, not because they do not feel that they
 ought to contribute, not because they are not able to contribute, but
 because they do not feel disposed to spend their money in what they
 would consider a senseless and useless way.

 We feel that to save our Empire, to consolidate it, to make it strong
 and secure, there are several points that must be considered and that,
 as all these points are essential, to spend money on some and leave
 out others that are vital would be a useless and dangerous waste.
 If our Empire is to live, she must maintain her trade and commerce,
 she must keep up her manufactures, she must retain and preserve her
 resources both in capital and population for her own possessions, she
 must have bonds of interest as well as of sentiment, and she must have
 a system of defence that shall be complete at all points. An army or
 a navy might be perfect in equipment, in training, in weapons, in
 organisation, in skilled officers, &c., and yet if powder and cordite
 were left out all would be useless waste. If food were left out it
 would be worst of all, and yet Mr. Loring asks us to contribute
 large sums to maintain a navy, and to have that navy directed and
 governed by a department in which we would have little or no voice--a
 department under the control of an electorate who in the first war
 with certain Powers (one of which we at least know is not friendly)
 would be starving almost immediately, and would very soon insist on
 surrendering the fleet to which we had contributed in order to get
 food to feed their starving children. They might even be willing to
 surrender possessions as well. While you in England maintain this
 position, that you will not include food in your scheme of defence,
 do you wonder that we in Canada should endeavour to perfect our own
 defence in order to secure our own freedom and independence as a
 people, if the general smash comes, which we dread as the possible
 result of your obstinate persistence in a policy, which leaves you at
 the mercy of one or two foreign nations.

 I wish to draw attention to the following figures, which seem to show
 that there is weakness and danger in your commercial affairs as well:

                            1900.

  United Kingdom imports (foreign)          £413,544,528
  United Kingdom exports (foreign)           252,349,700
                                            ------------
  Balance of trade against United Kingdom   £161,194,828

                              1901.

  United Kingdom imports (foreign)         £416,416,492
  United Kingdom exports (foreign)          234,745,904
                                           ------------
  Balance of trade against United Kingdom  £181,670,588

 We see the result of this great import of foreign goods in the
 distress in England to-day. The cable reports tell us of unemployed
 farm labourers flocking into the towns, of unemployed townsmen
 parading the streets with organised methods of begging, of charity
 organisations taxed to their utmost limit to relieve want. We see the
 Mother Country ruining herself and enriching foreign nations by a
 blind adherence to a fetish, and we begin to wonder how long it can
 last.

 Adopt the policy of a duty upon all foreign goods, bind your Empire
 together by bonds of interest, turn your emigration and capital into
 your own possessions, produce ten or twelve million quarters more of
 wheat in your own islands, no matter what the cost may be, and then
 ask us to put in our contributions towards the common defence, for
 then an effective defence might be made.

                                           Yours truly,
                                                     GEORGE T. DENISON.

I was so alarmed at the state of affairs that on the 23rd March, 1903,
I wrote to Mr. Chamberlain the following letter, which shows my anxiety
at the time:

  DEAR MR. CHAMBERLAIN,

 There are one or two very important matters I wish to bring to your
 attention.

 Just before the Conference I had a conversation with you and Lord
 Onslow in reference to Canada's action. You considered that it would
 be useless at the time to attempt to carry the proposition that I
 had been advocating in Great Britain, of a 5 to 10 per cent. duty
 around the Empire for a defence fund. You told me what line you
 thought the most likely to succeed, and advised me that Canada should
 try to meet your views by further concessions to Great Britain in
 return for advantages for us in your markets. I urged this upon Sir
 Wilfrid Laurier, and I understand that he was willing to meet you, if
 possible, on the lines indicated. Unfortunately, nothing was done. I
 fancy your colleagues got frightened, for I know that you personally
 had a clear insight into the matter, and fully appreciated the
 importance of something being done.

 Now I wish to tell you how matters stand out here. Our people are very
 much discouraged. Many of our strongest Imperialists in the past are
 beginning to advocate the repeal of our preference to Great Britain.
 The manufacturers who were in favour of the preference, provided we
 had a prospect of getting a reciprocal advantage in your markets,
 are, many of them for their personal ends, now desirous of stopping
 it. All the disaffected (there are not very many of them) are using
 the failure of the Conference to attack and ridicule the Imperial
 cause. This is all very serious. The gravest danger of all, however,
 is that the United States will never give our Empire another chance to
 consolidate itself if they can prevent it. They are already agitating
 for the reassembling of the High Joint Commission to consider, among
 other things, reciprocal tariffs. Only the other day a member of the
 Massachusetts House of Assembly declared in that house that he had
 assurances from Washington that the passage of a resolution in favour
 of reciprocity with Canada would be welcomed by the administration. We
 see the danger of this, and our Government have made excuses to delay
 the meeting of the Commission until October. Now if nothing is done
 in the meantime towards combining the Empire--if nothing is done to
 make such a start towards it as would give our people encouragement,
 what will happen? The United States will give us the offer of free
 reciprocity in natural products. What would our people be likely to
 do in that case? All along the frontier our farmers would find it very
 convenient to sell their barley, oats, hay, butter, poultry, eggs,
 &c., to the cities on the border. In the North West it would appeal
 to our western farmers, who would be glad to get their wheat in free
 to the mills of Minneapolis and St. Paul. Such a proposition might
 therefore carry in our Parliament, and would probably bind us for ten
 or fifteen years. This would be a dead block against any combination
 of the Empire for preferential trade, for then you could not give us
 a preference, as we would be debarred from putting a duty on United
 States articles coming across our border, which would be necessary if
 an Imperial scheme were carried out.

 A proposition for reciprocity with the United States was made in 1887.
 At the dinner given to you in Toronto that year I fired my first
 shot against Commercial Union, and ever since I have been probably
 the leader in the movement against it. My main weapon, my strongest
 weapon, was an Imperial discriminating tariff around the Empire. We
 succeeded in getting our people and Parliament and Government to
 take the idea up and to do our side of it, and we have given the
 discriminating tariff in your favour. We hoped that you would meet us,
 but nothing has been done, and our people feel somewhat hurt at the
 result. Where will we Imperialists be this autumn when the High Joint
 Commission meets? The people of the United States will be almost sure
 to play the game to keep back our Empire, and we will be here with our
 guns spiked, with all our weapons gone, and in a helpless condition.

 I feel all this very deeply and think that I should lay the whole
 matter before you. I do not wish to see the Empire "fall to pieces
 by disruption or by tolerated secession." I do not wish to see "the
 disasters which will infallibly come upon us." I wish to see our
 Empire "a great Empire" and not see Great Britain "a little State,"
 and I do urge upon you as earnestly as I can to get something done
 this Session that will give us a preference, no matter how small, in
 order that our hands may be tied before the High Joint Commission
 meets, so that we may escape the dangers of a reciprocity treaty, for
 if we are tied up with one for ten years, our Empire may have broken
 up before our hands are free again.

 If something was done on the preference, I believe we could carry
 large expenditures for Imperial Defence in our Parliament. I enclose a
 letter to the _Times_ which appeared while you were on the sea, which
 I believe pretty fairly expressed the views of most of our people.

 I send my hearty congratulations on the success of your mission to
 South Africa, and on the magnificent work you have done there for our
 Empire,

                              Believe me,
                                         Yours, &c.

  _The Right Hon Joseph Chamberlain, M.P._


On the 16th April, 1903, I received a letter from Mr. Chamberlain which
was quite discouraging. I wrote to him again on the 18th April, and on
the 10th May received an answer which was much more encouraging.

I was not surprised when, on the 15th May, Mr. Chamberlain made his
great speech at Birmingham, which resulted soon afterwards in his
resignation from the Government, and the organisation of the Tariff
Reform movement, which he has since advocated with such enthusiasm,
energy, and ability.

The result of this speech was like the sun coming out from behind a
cloud. Instantly the whole prospect brightened, every Canadian was
inspirited, and confidence was restored. Such an extraordinary change
has seldom been seen. The Toronto correspondent of the _Morning Post_,
17th May, 1903, said:

 Canada has seldom before shown such unanimity over a proposed Imperial
 policy, as that which greets the project of Mr. Chamberlain for the
 granting of trade concessions to the British Colonies in the markets
 of Great Britain.

It is this hope in the ultimate triumph of Mr. Chamberlain's policy
which has caused the Canadian people to wait patiently for that result.
The extraordinary defeat of the Unionist party in the elections of 1906
has not destroyed this confidence, and the Empire has yet a chance to
save herself.

The 6th annual meeting of the British Empire League took place on 19th
May, 1903, in the Railway Committee Room, House of Commons, Ottawa.

A very unpleasant event occurred about this time in the Alaskan Award.
I had looked into the matter very closely while Sir Wilfrid Laurier was
in Washington engaged in the negotiations over the dispute, and I felt
confident that we had a very weak case for our contentions, in fact I
thought we had none at all. I saw Chief Justice Armour, who was to be
one of the Canadian Commissioners, just before he left for England.
He was a friend of mine, and one of the ablest judges who ever sat in
the Canadian Courts, and I told him what I thought. He evidently felt
much the same. I said to him that I wished to make a remark that might
be stowed away in the back of his head in case of any necessity for
considering it. It was that when he had done his very best for Canada,
and had done all that he could, if he found that Lord Alverstone
would not hold out with him, not to have a split but if the case was
hopeless to join with Lord Alverstone and make the decision unanimous.
I said if Lord Alverstone went against us the game was up, there was
no further appeal, no remedy, and there was no use fighting against
the inevitable, and it would be in more conformity with the dignity
of Canada, and good feeling in the Empire, to have an award settled
judicially, and by all the judges. Unfortunately the Chief Justice
died, and the Government appointed a very able advocate Mr. Aylesworth,
K.C., who happened to be in England at the time, to fill his place.
Mr. Aylesworth had been the advocate all his life. At that time he had
absolutely no knowledge of political affairs. The award was better
than I expected and gave us two islands, which the United States had
held for years, and on one of which a United States Post Office had
been long established. Mr. Aylesworth forgetting there was no appeal,
and that the matter was final, prevailed on Lt.-Governor Jetté who was
with him to make a most violent protest, and a direct attack upon Lord
Alverstone. Owing to this, the award created a good deal of resentment
in Canada. The people were very much aroused, and believed they had
been betrayed.

By the time Mr. Aylesworth arrived in Toronto he had time to think
the matter over. The Canadian Club had organised a great banquet in
his honour, and I am of opinion that when he arrived at home, he was
astonished at the storm he had aroused. He at once allayed the excited
feelings of his audience by a most loyal, patriotic, and statesmanlike
speech, and quieted the feeling to a great extent, although it is still
a very sore question in Canada, and Lord Alverstone is placed on the
same shelf with Mr. Oswald of the treaty of 1783, and Lord Ashburton
who gave away a great part of the State of Maine; but had I been in
Lord Alverstone's place, and I am an out and out Canadian, with no
sympathy whatever with the United States, I should have done as he did.

In the spring of 1903 a controversy arose between Mr. Joseph
Chamberlain and the present Lord Salisbury in which I was able to
intervene on Mr. Chamberlain's side with some effect.

Mr. Chamberlain had said in a public letter that the late Lord
Salisbury had favoured retaliation and closer commercial union with
the colonies. The present Lord Salisbury wrote to _The Times_ saying
that his father profoundly dissented from Mr. Chamberlain's fiscal
policy. Several letters followed from Mr. Chamberlain and Sir Michael
Hicks-Beach. I published in _The Times_ on the 18th May, 1905, the
following letter:

  SIR,

 The controversy which has been lately going on in the Press in
 Great Britain over the question of the late Lord Salisbury's view
 on protection and preferential tariffs has excited considerable
 interest in this country. As I am in a position to throw some light
 upon the late Premier's opinions on these questions, I would ask your
 permission to say a few words.

 I was for some years president of the Imperial Federation League
 in Canada, and since it was merged in the British Empire League I
 have held the same position in that body. In 1890 I was appointed
 specially to represent the Canadian League in England for the
 purpose of advocating the denunciation of the German and Belgian
 treaties, and of urging the establishment of a system of preferential
 tariffs between Canada and the Mother Country. In two interviews
 with Lord Salisbury, I urged both points upon him as strongly as
 possible, and pointed out to him that our League had taken up the
 policy of preferential tariffs in order to counteract the movement
 for commercial union or unrestricted reciprocity between the United
 States and Canada, which at that time was a very dangerous agitation.
 After hearing my arguments, Lord Salisbury said that he felt that the
 real way to consolidate the Empire would be by a Zollverein and a
 Kriegsverein. This was substantially our policy, and I begged of him
 to say something on that line publicly, as it would be a great help
 to us in the struggle we were having on behalf of Imperial Unity. He
 did not say whether he would do so or not; but a few months later at
 the Lord Mayor's banquet at the Guildhall in November, 1890, he made
 a speech which attracted considerable attention, and which gave us in
 Canada great encouragement. He spoke of the hostile tariffs and said:
 "Therefore it is that we are anxious above all things to conserve,
 to unify, to strengthen the Empire of the Queen because it is to
 the trade that is carried on within the Empire of the Queen that we
 look for the vital force of the commerce of this country. . . . The
 conflict which we have to fight is a conflict of tariffs."

 At Hastings on May 18th, 1892, he made another speech still more
 pronounced the terms of which are well known.

 We carried on a correspondence for many years, and I saw him on
 several occasions when I visited England. We discussed the policy of
 preferential tariffs and the denunciation of the German and Belgian
 treaties, which were denounced by his Government in August, 1897. His
 letters to me show how strongly he was in sympathy with us; but he was
 a statesman of great caution and evidently would not commit himself to
 practical action in regard to either preference or fair trade, as long
 as he believed that the prejudice against any taxation on articles of
 the first necessity was too strong to be overcome.

 The following extracts are taken from letters received by me from Lord
 Salisbury, and they give a clear idea of what his opinions were. In
 the early days of the movement I was probably the only one who was
 pressing on Lord Salisbury the urgent need of some action being taken,
 and he may not have had occasion to express his views upon the subject
 to many others.

 In a letter dated March 21st, 1891, in reply to one from me telling
 him of the danger of reciprocity or commercial union with the United
 States, he wrote:

 "I agree with you that the situation is full of danger, and that the
 prospect before us is not inviting. The difficulties with which we
 shall have to struggle will tax all the wisdom and all the energy of
 both English and Canadian statesmen during the next five or ten years.
 I should be very glad if I saw any immediate hope of our being able
 to assist you by a modification of our tariff arrangements. The main
 difficulty I think, lies in the great aversion felt by our people here
 to the imposition of any duties on articles of the first necessity. It
 is very difficult to bring home to the constituency the feeling that
 the maintenance of our Empire in its integrity may depend upon fiscal
 legislation. It is not that they do not value the tie which unites us
 to the colonies; on the contrary, it is valued more and more in this
 country, but they do not give much thought to political questions and
 they are led away by the more unreasoning and uncompromising advocates
 of free trade. There is a movement of opinion in this country, and I
 only hope it may be rapid enough to meet the necessities of our time."

 In another letter, dated November 22nd, 1892, he wrote:

 "I wish there were more prospect of some fiscal arrangements which
 would meet the respective exigencies of England and Canada, but that
 appears still to be in the far distance."

"In another letter written nine years later, dated March 1st, 1901, a
little over a year before his final retirement from office, referring
to a report of the speeches at the annual meeting of our League in
Canada, which I had sent to him, he wrote:

 "It is very interesting to read Mr. Ross's address about the error
 into which free trade may run, for I am old enough to remember the
 rise of free trade, and the contempt with which the apprehensions of
 the protectionists of that day were received. But a generation must
 pass before the fallacies then proclaimed will be unlearnt. There are
 too many people whose minds were formed under their influence, and
 until those men have died out no change of policy can be expected."

"These extracts show very clearly Lord Salisbury's views, and prove
that personally he would have favoured preferential tariffs in order to
save and preserve a great Empire."

                                               Yours,
                                                     GEORGE T. DENISON.

This was much commented on in the British Press.

_The Times_ said:

 The extraordinarily interesting letter which we publish from Colonel
 Denison, the president of the British Empire League in Canada, shows
 how deeply sensible was the late Lord Salisbury of the obstacles which
 prejudice and tradition offer to the adoption of a genuine policy
 of tariff reform, and how conscious he was of the difficulties to a
 practical statesman of overcoming them.

The London _Globe_ said:

 Few more remarkable contributions have been made recently to the
 controversy over fiscal reform than the letters of the late Marquis of
 Salisbury, which Colonel Denison, of Toronto, has communicated to _The
 Times_.

The _Outlook_ said:

 The invaluable letter in _The Times_ from Colonel G. T. Denison, of
 Toronto, has disposed once for all of Lord Hugh Cecil's theory that
 the system of free imports ought to be regarded as a Conservative
 institution. Passages cited by Colonel Denison from unpublished
 letters and forgotten speeches prove that the late Lord Salisbury's
 agreement with the principles of Mr. Chamberlain's policy was complete.

Lord Hugh Cecil had the following letter in _The Times_ of the 20th
May, 1905.

  SIR,

 I have no desire to enter into any controversy with Colonel Denison
 as to Lord Salisbury's opinion in 1891 or 1892. The extracts from the
 letters published by Colonel Denison do not seem to me to have any
 bearing on Lord Salisbury's attitude towards any question that is now
 before the public.

 I myself think that it is undesirable to quote the opinions of the
 dead, however eminent, in reference to a living controversy. But
 since the attempt continues to be made by tariff reformers to claim
 Lord Salisbury's authority in support of their views, it is right to
 say that I have no more doubt than have any of my brothers that Lord
 Salisbury profoundly dissented from Mr. Chamberlain's proposals so far
 as they were developed during his lifetime. Not only did he repeatedly
 express that dissent to us, and to others who had been in official
 relations with him, but he caused a letter to be written in that sense
 to one of my brothers.

 In conclusion, may I point out that it would have been more courteous
 in Colonel Denison, if he had at least consulted Lord Salisbury's
 personal representatives before publishing extracts from Lord
 Salisbury's private correspondence?

                                          Yours obediently,
                                                          ROBERT CECIL.
  _19th May._

I replied to this in the following letter to _The Times_, which was
published in the issue of 13th June, 1905:

  SIR,

 I have seen to-day, in _The Times_ of the 20th inst., Lord Robert
 Cecil's letter in reply to mine, which appeared on the 18th inst. As
 his letter contains a reflection on my action in publishing extracts
 from the late Lord Salisbury's letters to me, I hope you will allow me
 to make an explanation.

 Mr. Chamberlain had claimed that the late Lord Salisbury had approved
 of his policy of preferential tariffs, while the present Lord
 Salisbury held that his father "had profoundly dissented from Mr.
 Chamberlain's fiscal policy."

 As Lord Salisbury and his brothers had published their father's
 private opinions, which may have referred more to the time and method
 and details of Mr. Chamberlain's action than to the general principle
 of preferential tariffs, I had no reason to think that there could be
 any objection to publishing the late Premier's own written words on
 the subject. The letters from which I quoted, although not intended
 for publication at the time, contained his views on a great public
 question, and did not relate to any person, or any private matter, and
 as he was not here to speak for himself, I felt that it was desirable
 to publish the extracts in order to show clearly what his views were.

 Lord Robert Cecil says that it would have been more courteous in me to
 have consulted with his father's representatives before publishing,
 but in view of their own action in publishing his oral, private
 opinions, it would seem discourteous to assume that they could, under
 the circumstances, desire to suppress positive evidence on a matter of
 grave public importance to our Empire.

                                     Yours, etc.,
                                                     GEORGE T. DENISON.
  TORONTO, CANADA, _31st May, 1905_.

This closed the episode.




                            CHAPTER XXVIII

            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

  Cambridge, the Duke of, 140

  Cameron, Hector, 78

  Cameron, Hon. John Hillyard, 32

  Campbell, C. J., 159

  Canada, condition of, before Confederation, 7

  Canada Club dinner, 1902, 315

  Canada Club, speech at, 1890, 150

  "Canada First" party, origin of and meaning of, 9
    group aroused, 19
    a secret organisation, 21
    name chosen, 50
    Foster's lecture, 54

  Canadian Club, dinner to Mr. Aylesworth, 348

  Canadian Club of New York, 82

  _Canadian Monthly_ started, 169

  Canadian Mounted Rifles, 269

  Canadian Pacific Railway, cause of Commercial Union movement, 81

  Canadian Pacific Railway, plot to injure it, 110

  Canniff, Dr. Wm., 19, 26, 56, 58, 65

  Carbutt, Sir Edward, 299

  Carnegie, Andrew, member of Continental Union League, 109;
    at meeting in _Sun_ office, 111;
    subscription to Continental Union League, 113

  Carruthers, Bruce, at Hart's River action, 269

  Cartier, Sir George, in Hudson Bay negotiations, 13;
    Red River expedition, 34;
    visits Niagara Falls with Bishop Taché, 35-37;
    his early disloyalty, 44;
    changes his policy _re_ Red River, 45;
    letter to Riel, 48;
    defeated in Montreal, 49

  Cartoon, United States in 1900, 104

  Cartwright, Sir Richard, resolution on reciprocity, 117;
    meeting with Hon. James Blaine, 163;
    on tariff inquiry, 220;
    defends Sir Wilfrid Laurier, 226

  Casey, George E., M.P., 246

  Cattanach, A. J., 128

  Cawthra, Henry, 158

  Cecil, Lord Robert, letter to _Times_, 353

  Centennial of United Empire Loyalists, 64, 65

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Austen, 318

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Joseph, 75;
    at Board of Trade banquet, 1887, 88;
    interview with, 1890, 146;
    at British Empire League banquet, 1900, 272;
    on preferential tariffs, 282;
    luncheon with, 1902, 298;
    Liverpool meeting, 1902, 306;
    at Lord Lansdowne's, 308;
    speech at Birmingham, May, 1902, 308;
    _Daily News_ attacks, 310;
    correspondence with, 338;
    letter to him, 343-346;
    speech at Birmingham, May, 1903, 346;
    controversy with Lord Salisbury, 349;
    luncheon with, 1906, 356;
    illness of, 358, 366

  Charlton, John, M.P., in Continental Union Association, 108
    asks Glen for money, 112

  Chelmsford, meeting at, in 1900, 282;
    effect of this meeting, 286

  Chicago _Tribune_, 103;
    on speech, 1902, 297

  Chippawa, "Raising the Flag," 159

  Civil War in United States, 5

  Clafflin, John, 109

  Clark, J. M., 85, 91;
    seconds resolution, 1888, 94;
    at Ingersoll, 205;
    on deputations, 136, 204, 224

  Clarke, Mayor, 135

  Cleveland, President, message to Congress, 103, 120;
    Venezuela message, 210, 218

  Cobden Club give Sir W. Laurier Gold Medal, 142

  Coburg, reception of Schultz and Mair, 28

  Cochrane, Bourke, 109, 112

  Cockburn, Capt. Churchill, at action of Lilliefontein, 268

  Cockburn, George R. R., 78, 85, 91;
    occupies chair at First Imperial Federation meeting, 92, 159, 197, 200

  Cockburn, Sir John, 299

  Cockshutt, W. F., M.P., at Congress of Chambers of Commerce, 358

  Colomb, Sir John, 140, 199

  Colonial Club dinner, 1902, 315

  Commercial Union, origin of, 80-82;
    a treasonable conspiracy, 82-96

  Commons, resolution on Preference, 195

  Condition of Canada before Confederation, 7, 8

  Confederation of Canada, 6

  Conference of 1907 futile, 366

  Congress, the American, 2

  Congress of Chambers of Commerce, 1906, 212, 356, 359

  Constitution of Imperial Federation League, 77

  Constitution of National Association, 59

  _Contemporary Review_, Goldwin Smith in, 177

  Continental Union Association, 108, 109;
    Goldwin Smith Honorary President, 169;
    Goldwin Smith's letter to, 174

  Contingent to South Africa, letter on, 265, 266

  Cornell, W. E., 58

  Corn laws, repeal of, 4

  Cosby, A. M., 158, 197

  Cotton, growth of, in Empire, 300, 301

  Council Meeting of Imperial Federation League in 1890, 141

  _Courier, Liverpool_, extract from, 307

  Cox, Harold, 211

  Creelman, A. R., 197

  Creighton, David, 136, 165

  Crickmore, J., 58

  Crimean War, raised prices, 5

  Cumberland, Lt.-Col. Fred W., 57

  Currie, Sir Philip, Behring Sea question, 148

  Curry, J. W., K.C., 291

  Curzon, Mrs. S. A., poem, 87


  D

  Dana, Chas. A., Continental Union League, 109;
    at meeting in _Sun_ office, 111;
    Myers visits, 112;
    Mercier's letter to, 114;
    letter to Morison, 115

  Darling, Henry W., 82

  Davidson, Lt.-Col. John I., 158

  Davies, Sir Louis, 244

  Daw, W. Herbert, at Conference in 1894, 207, 208

  Dedrickson, C. W., 58

  Denison, Colonel George T., one of Canada First Group, 10;
    welcomes refugees from Fort Garry, 24, 25;
    goes to Ottawa with refugees, 26;
    drafts protest, 29;
    interview with Lt.-Col. Durie, 37;
    moves resolution at meeting, 1870, 43;
    lecture on Duty of Canadians, 50;
    advocates Imperial Confederation, 1870, 53;
    speech at National Club against independence, 63;
    speech at United Empire Loyalists' Centennial, 66, 67;
    O'Brien episode, 69;
    opposes Commercial Union, 83, 84;
    speech at Board of Trade banquet, 1887, 88;
    at organisation of Imperial Federation League, Toronto, 91, 92, 93;
    letter to _Globe_, 1888, 121;
    at Caledonian Society dinner, 122;
    threatens Annexationists, 123, 126;
    at Ingersoll, Lindsay, and St. Thomas, 127;
    at Peterborough and Woodstock, 128;
    chairman of flag-raising deputation, 135;
    appointed president Imperial Federation League, 196;
    on deputation to England, 1894, 204;
    at conference, Sir John Lubbock's, 1894, 207;
    organisation of British Empire League, 213;
    deputation to Hon. Wm. Fielding and Mr. Patterson, 220;
    mission to England, 1897, 225;
    on denunciation of German treaties, 228, 229, 230;
    interviewed in Toronto, 1897, 231;
    on food supply, 232-236;
    on West Indian preference, 242, 243;
    speech at annual meeting, 1899, 248;
    South African War, at Military Institute, 260, 261;
    letter to _Globe_ on Volunteer contingent, 265;
    at British Empire League banquet in England, 1900, 271-280;
    speech at Chelmsford, 1900, 282;
    speaks at St. John, N.B., and Montreal and London, Ont., 287, 288;
    mission to England, 1902, 291;
    speech at Royal Colonial Institute, 1902, 293;
    at Council meeting, British Empire League, 299;
    interview with Lord Rosebery, 303;
    addresses Liverpool Chamber of Commerce, 305;
    dines at Lord Lansdowne's, 308;
    letter to _Daily News_, 311;
    discussion in House of Commons, 316;
    addresses London Chamber of Commerce, 319, 320;
    controversy with Sir Robert Giffen, 326-331;
    returns to Toronto and interview, 332, 333;
    banqueted by National Club, Toronto, 335;
    writes to Mr. Chamberlain, 23rd March, 1903, 343;
    writes to _Times_ on Lord Salisbury's views, 349-352;
    writes to _Times_ in reply to Lord Robert Cecil, 354;
    speech at Congress of Chambers of Commerce, 359

  Denison, Lt.-Col. Fred C., writes to Wiman, 86, 87, 158, 165, 218.

  Denison, Rear-Admiral, 280

  Denison, Lt.-Col. Robert B., 65

  Denison, Lt.-Col. Septimus, 205

  Dennis, Lt.-Col. J. Stoughton, 17, 18

  Depew, Chauncey M., 109

  Deputation to England, 1894, 204;
    1897, 223, 224;
    1902, 286, 287

  Derby, Earl of, sends book to the Queen, 159;
    on British Empire League committee, 208, 281

  Detroit, 95

  Devonshire, the Duke of, president British Empire League, 212, 272, 273;
    at Liverpool, 225, 226

  Dickson, Casimir, 86

  Dilke, Sir Charles, at Royal Colonial Institute, 140

  Dissolution of Imperial Federation League, 194-198

  Dobell, Hon. R. R., 224

  Dodge, Granville W., 109

  Donovan, J. A., 58

  Drummond, George, 358

  Dunraven, Lord, 209

  Dun Winian & Co., influence of, 83

  Durie, Lt.-Col., guard of honour for Cartier, 37

  "Duty of Canadians to Canada," lecture on, 50, 51


  E

  Edgar, Sir James D., 19, 25, 43

  Edinburgh, Lord Morley's speech at, 315

  Edinburgh Chamber of Commerce meeting, 315

  Egerton of Tatton, Earl, 299

  Election of 1891, 156

  Elgin, Lord, negotiates Reciprocity Treaty, 5

  Elliott, R. W., 58

  Ellis, J. F., presides at National Club dinner, 335

  Emerson, Ralph Waldo, 98

  _Empire_, article in, 1890, 162;
    comments on national spirit, 172;
    flags given to schools, 156

  Empire Day inaugurated, 256

  English, C. E., 58

  Equal rights movement, 194

  Evans, Charles Napier, at Hart's River, 269

  Evans, George E., on deputation, 204;
    receives cable from Africa, 258, 291

  Evans, Sanford, 257

  Executive committee, resolution, 1902, 289

  Expedition, Red River, withdrawal proposed, 36, 42

  _Express_, The _Daily_, interview in, 293


  F

  Fair Trade League, 211

  Farrer, Edward, in Commercial Union, 108;
    Glen's letters to, 110, 111, 112;
    pamphlet, 163, 164

  Farrer, Sir William, 142

  Fenian influence, 115

  Fenian raid, Lt.-Col. J. S. Dennis at, 17

  Fenian raids, 9, 70, 240

  Ferguson, R. Munro, 199

  Fessenden, Mrs. Clementine, suggests Empire Day, 256

  Fielding, Hon. W. S., on Trade Inquiry, 220, 221;
    West Indian preference, 242, 243;
    speech in House, 243;
    in London in 1902, 331

  Fife, the Duke of, 273

  _Financial News_ on London meeting, 321

  Fisheries Treaty defeated in United States Senate, 120

  Fitzpatrick, Hon. Charles, 244

  Flag raising over schools, 134, 135

  Flag over schools, effect of, 269

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue, 321

  Fleming, Andrew, 27, 44

  Fleming, Sir Sandford, 197, 224, 245, 246

  Florida acquired by United States, 100

  Flower, Roswell P., 109, 113

  Food supply, correspondence on, 237

  Foraker, John B., 109

  Ford, I. N., report of Royal Colonial Institute dinner, 1902, 294

  Ford, I. N., 322, 323

  Forrest, Sir John, 334

  Fort Garry, 17;
    seized by Riel, 18;
    projected attack upon, 23

  Foster, Hon. George E., at First Imperial Federation League meeting, 78;
    mission to England, 1902, 290, 291

  Foster, W. A., in "Canada First" group, 10, 15;
    articles in _Daily Telegraph_, 22;
    gets warrant against Richot and Scott, 31;
    calls public meeting, 1870, 35;
    at amnesty meeting, 1870, 44;
    writes lecture, 54;
    organises National Association, 56, 57, 58, 59

  Fraser, W. H., 58

  Free Trade, attack upon, at London Chamber of Commerce, 320

  Free Trade bogey, 286

  Fremantle, Sir Charles, 299

  French wars, expense of, 1

  Fuller, Bishop of Niagara, 65

  Fuller, Valancy, 82


  G

  Gallinger, Jacob, 109

  Galloway, Joseph, 2

  Gallows Hill, 95

  Gamble, John W., 221

  German goods taxed in Canada, 229

  German and Belgian Treaties prevented preference, 139;
    mission against them, 150;
    resolution against, 194;
    discussion on, 207, 208;
    efforts against, in 1897, 228;
    denounced, 230

  Giffen, Sir Robert, interview with, 234;
    supports Corn Tax, 239;
    letter against me to _Times_, 325;
    reply, 327

  Glasgow, meeting at, 1902, 315

  Glen, Francis W., organises Continental Union League, 108;
    letters of, 109, 110, 111, 112

  _Globe_, the London, comments, 352

  _Globe_, Toronto, 14;
    letter to, in 1888, 101;
    attacks and reply, 122, 124;
    interview in 1897, 231

  Gooderham, Albert E., 197

  Gooderham, Alfred, 197

  Gooderham, George, 158, 197

  Gooderham, Wm. G., 197

  Governor-General Lord Lisgar, 45

  Governors of States endorse Cleveland, 211, 218

  Grahame, Richard, of Canada First Group, 19, 35, 58

  Grant, Rev., Principal George M., met him in Halifax, 53;
    at First League meeting, 78;
    in Australia, 127;
    at Hamilton, 128;
    on preferential trade, 204, 216;
    urges West Indian preference, 242;
    letters from, 243, 244;
    speaks at Mulock banquet, 1898, 246;
    sympathises at first with Boers, 259

  Grasett, Lt.-Col., 291

  Gray, R. H., 58

  Green, Mohawk Chief, 65

  Grey, Mr., United Empire Loyalist, 221

  Guelph, meeting at, 136

  Gurney, Edward, 158

  Gzowski, Sir Casimir, 70, 159


  H

  Hague, George, 246

  Haliburton, R. J., 10, 15, 16;
    at Niagara Falls, 35;
    lectures, 16, 51, 52, 53

  Halifax, lecture at, 53

  Halifax branch, annual meeting of, 119

  Hamilton, annual meeting at, 128

  Hamilton, Lord George, 148, 308

  Hamilton, Wm. B., 159

  Hamilton, Wm. O'Brien at, 76

  Harcourt, Sir Wm. Vernon, speech in House of Commons, 316

  Harrison, President, breaks off negotiations, 151

  Hartington, Lord, 74

  Harts River, Bruce Carruthers, at action of, 268, 269

  Hawick, meeting at, in 1894, 211

  Hay, Admiral Sir Dalrymple, 321

  Hay, Col. John, 109, 110

  Headley, E. M., 210

  Henderson, James, 159

  Herbert, Sir Robert, chairman of executive, 212, 272, 299

  Herschel, Lord, at Mulock banquet, 245, 246

  Herschel, Hon. Richard, 245

  Hessin, Wm., 58

  Hill, Rt. Hon. Staveley, Behring Sea negotiations, 151, 163

  Hill, W. Becket, 207, 208, 209

  Hoffmeyer proposal, 90

  Holland, Sir W. H., 299, 300, 301, 358

  Home Rule resolutions, 69, 70

  Hopkins, J. Castell, Woodstock meeting, 128;
    at Ingersoll, 79;
    St. George's Society, 175

  Hoskin, John, 158

  House of Commons address, 1891, 195, 196

  Howard, Allan McLean, 158

  Howe, Hon. Joseph, 4, 20

  Howell, A., 58

  Howland, O. A., 182

  Howland, W. H., chairman at Canada First meeting, 59, 60

  Howland, Sir Wm. P., 59

  Hudson's Bay officials, hostile, 17

  Hudson's Bay Company, their policy, 12

  Hudson's Bay Territory, 9, 12;
    acquired, 15

  Hughes, James L., 86;
    meeting at Lindsay, 127;
    on deputation to England, 1894, 205, 209, 211

  Hughes, Colonel Sam, at annual meeting, 1898, 244;
    offers to raise contingent for South Africa, 260

  Hunter, Rose & Co. print Farrer's pamphlet, 164

  Huron, Bishop of, 288

  Huron signal, 219

  Hutchinson, Thomas, 1

  Hutton, Major-General, 268


  I

  Imperial Conference, 1902, 286, 287, 303, 305, 331, 332

  Imperial defence, letter to _Times_, 339

  Imperial Federation (Defence) Committee, 339

  Imperial Federation foreshadowed in lecture in 1870, 53

  Imperial Federation Journal, comments of, 96, 118

  Imperial Federation League started, 77;
    in Canada, 85;
    annual meeting, 1888, 91;
    work of, 117-126;
    dissolved, 197, 198;
    resolution on dissolution, 199, 200

  Imperial preferential duty, 287

  Independence flag hoisted, 64

  Independence flurry, 62-68

  Independence movement, _Globe's_ action, 121

  India, export of wheat, 1897, 238, 239

  Ingersoll, branch formed at, 79;
    meeting at, 127

  Innerkip, Meeting at, 173

  Innes, Lt.-Col. P. R., 209

  Interprovincial trade, Haliburton's lecture on, 15

  Irving, A. S., 58


  J

  James, Dr. W. Culver, 207, 209, 299

  Jersey, Lord, 209

  Jesuit Estates Act, 194

  Jones, Sir Alfred, organises meeting at Liverpool, 305

  Jetté, Lt.-Governor, Alaska Commission, 348

  Jones, John P., 109


  K

  Kilbride, Mr., evicted tenant, 74, 75

  Kimberley, cable from, 258

  King, the, at British Empire League banquet, 1900, 273, 274, 280

  Kingsmill, George R., 20, 22, 58

  Kingsmill, Nicol, 58

  Kipling, Rudyard, poem, 222

  Kirby, Wm., 185, 192

  Kirkpatrick, Lt.-Governor Sir George, 190

  Kitchener, Lord, on Hart's River action, 269

  Kirwan, Capt. Michael, 114

  Kirwin, General, 114

  Knutsford, Lord, refuses to denounce treaties, 196, 228


  L

  Lacrosse Club banquet, London, 1902, 293

  _Lady of the Snows_, 222

  Langelier, Mr., at New York, 111

  Lansdowne, Lord, visit to Toronto, 70, 71, 73, 74;
    interviewed by Imperial Federation League, 118;
    British Empire League banquet, 1900, 272, 280;
    dinner at, 308

  La Prairie Camp, 33

  Laurie, General, 321

  Laurier, Sir Wilfrid, 111;
    British preference, 216;
    election of 1896, 219;
    Lord Salisbury refers to, 220;
    in Liverpool, 1897, 225;
    on Free Trade, 231;
    West Indian preference, 242, 243;
    resolution about Transvaal, 259;
    on contingent, 263, 264;
    returns from Chicago, 264;
    decides to send contingent, 264;
    at Sir William Mulock's, 267;
    speech in House, 1902, 303;
    interview with, at Hotel Cecil, 331;
    at conference, 1902, 333, 334;
    at conference, 1907, 366

  Lauterbach, Edward, 109

  Law, Fred, Commander, 86, 128

  _Leader_ article on Red River Expedition, 36

  Lecture on "Duty of Canadians," 50, 51

  Lecture on "National Spirit," Appendix A, 371

  Lee, A. B., 158

  Lee, Capt., M.P., 300

  Lee, Walter S., 158

  Leeds, Lord Rosebery's meeting at, 1902, 304

  Lefroy, Fraser, 291

  Leith Chamber of Commerce, 315

  Letter to _Globe_, 26th September, 1888, 101

  Letter to _Globe_ on wanting war, 124;
    on contingent, 265

  Lesperance, John Talon, poem, 158

  Lessard, Col. C. B., 268

  Leys, John, Jr., 158

  Liberty, Sons of, reference to, 126

  Lilliefontein, fight at, 268

  Lindsay, meeting at, 127

  Lisgar, Lord, at Niagara Falls, 35, 45

  Liverpool, arrived at, 1890, 140;
    in 1897, 225

  Liverpool Chamber of Commerce, 1902, 305, 307

  Liverpool papers, comments on meeting, 307

  London Chamber of Commerce meeting, 1902, 319, 320

  London, Ontario, meeting at, 1901, 288

  Long, J. M., 79

  Loring, A. H., 197, 198, 199;
    letter to _Times_ in reply, 339

  Louisiana purchased, 98

  Low, Seth, 109

  Low, Sydney, writes interview for _Pall Mall Gazette_, 298

  Loyal address from House to the Queen, 131

  Loyalists of the Revolution, 1

  Lubbock, Sir John: _see_ Avebury, Lord

  Lubbock, Neville, 210

  Lundy's Lane Monument, 181, 182

  Lyman, Henry, 128

  Lyman, H. H., 128, 224

  Lynch, Dr., taken prisoner, 19;
    arrives from Fort Garry, 25;
    first protest, 30, 31;
    second protest, 38, 39


  M

  Mafeking demonstration, 283

  _Mail_, London _Daily_, on Canadian Imperialism, 246

  _Mail_, the Toronto, 117

  Mair, Charles, 10;
    writes letters from Fort Garry, 14;
    introduces Schultz, 15;
    made prisoner, 19;
    escapes from Fort Garry, 21;
    raises loyal men at Portage la Prairie, 23;
    lectures at Belleville, 53, 54

  Manchester _Guardian_, 303, 310

  Manitoba No. 1, hard wheat, 13

  Mansion House, meeting at, 140;
    meeting in 1896, 212

  Map of North America in New York _World_, 104

  Marcus, Herman W., 207, 210

  Masham, Lord, 314

  Mason, Lt.-Col. James, 260

  Mason, J. Herbert, 158, 197, 224

  Matabeleland, proposed preference, 228

  Matsugata, Count, at Lord Lansdowne's dinner, 308

  Matthews, Jehu, 78

  Macdonald, E. A., 108, 190

  Macdonald, Sir John A., Hudson's Bay acquisition, 13;
    Red River rebellion, 28;
    interview with, 29;
    illness of, 35, 41;
    letter to, 130, 161;
    election in 1891, 163, 164, 165, 166;
    his death, 217

  Macdonald, J. K., 128

  Macdougall, Hon. Wm., sent to England _re_ Hudson's Bay, 13;
    appoints Mair to surveying party Fort Garry, 13;
    Lt.-Governor of North-West Territory, 15;
    arrives at Pembina, 17;
    returns to Ottawa, 20;
    at amnesty meeting, 42;
    member North-West Emigration Society, 54

  Macdougall, Joseph E., 20, 54, 58

  Macfarlane, Senator, 78

  Macfarlane, Thomas, letter to League _Journal_, 90;
    at Hamilton meeting, 128

  Mackenzie, Alexander, becomes Premier, 49, 57

  Macklem, Oliver, 158

  Maclean, W. F., M.P., 246

  MacNab, John, County Attorney, 24, 25

  MacNabb, Alexander, Police Magistrate, 31

  McCarthy, Dulton, president Imperial Federation League, 78;
    Toronto branch, 85, 90;
    at Toronto meeting, 1888, 95, 96;
    at Peterborough, 12;
    at Hamilton, 128;
    Sir Leonard Tilley replaces him as president, 194;
    subscribes to fund, 197;
    at annual meeting, 1896, 216;
    suggests preference to England, 222;
    on deputation, 224

  McGillicuddy, Daniel, 219

  McGoun, Archibald, 139

  McGuire, John C., 109

  McInnes, Senator, 128

  McKay, Dr., Sir Oliver Mowat writes to him, 187

  McKenzie, Kenneth, Q.C., 44

  McLennan, Hugh, 78

  McMurrich, W. B., 58, 291

  McNaught, W. K., 158, 240

  McNeill, Alexander, 78;
    speech at Paris, 91;
    at Toronto meeting, 94;
    at Guelph, 112;
    moves resolution in House of Commons, 195;
    in the chair at annual meeting, 1893, 196;
    at meeting of League at Ottawa, 1896, 214, 215;
    on deputation to England, 224;
    attacks Sir W. Laurier, 1897, 226;
    speaks at Mulock banquet, 245, 246;
    introduces J. Davis Allen, 260;
    on South African War, 276;
    at Owen Sound, 1901, 288

  McTavish, Governor, 20

  McTavish, John H., 48

  McWilliams, W. G., 58

  Meath, Lord, takes up Empire Day, 257

  Medcalfe, Mayor, F. H., 43

  Meeting of Imperial Federation League in Toronto, 1888, 91

  Meeting to welcome Schultz, Mair, etc., 24, 25, 26

  Mercier, Honore, New York _World's_ comment, 107;
    in Continental Union League, 110;
    at meeting in New York, 111;
    Glen writes to, 112;
    writes to Dana, 113;
    copy of letter, 114

  _Mercury_, the Bristol, 316

  Merritt, Lt.-Col. W. Hamilton, helps to escort Lord Lansdowne, 73;
    helps to organise Toronto branch Imperial Federation League, 79, 86;
    secretary Toronto branch Imperial Federation League, 91;
    moves resolution for preferential tariffs, 91, 195;
    advocates deputation to England, 139

  Michie, James, 58

  _Military Gazette_ on South African War, 263

  Military Institute, meeting at, 260, 261

  Militia, the, 8

  Miller, Warner, 109

  Milligan, Rev. Mr., 124

  Milner, Lord, 260, 261, 264

  Mission to England, 1897, 225;
    1902, 223-258

  Molesworth, Sir Guilford, 299, 300

  Monkman, Joseph, 23

  Montague, Hon. W. H., 182

  Montreal meeting, 1901, 288

  Montreal Transcript, 13

  Morgan Combine, 292

  Morison, John, president Continental Union Association, 109, 111, 112

  Morley, Lord, at Edinburgh, 1902, 315

  _Morning Post_ on St. John meeting, 1902, 288;
    comments, 1903, 347

  Moss, Chief Justice Thomas, 58

  Mowat, Arthur, contests West Toronto, 166

  Mowat, H. M., K.C., 291

  Mowat, Sir Oliver, at St. George's Society, 70;
    F. W. Glen's reference to, 111, 112;
    assists Laurier, 1891, 166, 167;
    his views on annexation, 178, 186, 187;
    letter to Dr. McKay, M.P., 187;
    action about Woodstock meeting, 189;
    speech at Niagara, 1892, 190, 191;
    joins Sir Wilfrid Laurier's Government, 219;
    attends Mulock banquet, 245

  Mulock, Sir William, moves address to the Queen, 130, 131, 132;
    penny postage, 244, 245;
    banquet to, 245, 246;
    a conference of, 1902, 331

  Murray, C. Freeman, secretary of meeting, 1894, 207;
    member of organising committee British Empire League, 210;
    cable from, 271

  Mutton, W. G., 58

  Myers, Elgin, in annexation conspiracy, 108;
    dismissed from office, 190;
    visits C. A. Dana, 112


  N

  National Association, constitution, 59

  National Club founded, 60;
    dinners at, 62;
    banquet to Lord Aberdeen, 239;
    dinner, 1902, 335

  National sentiment, efforts to encourage, 11, 50

  National Societies, 8

  "National Spirit," lecture on, 50, 172;
    Appendix B, 377

  National spirit lacking before Confederation, 8

  National Union of Conservative Associations, England, 335

  Naval reserve, 223

  Navy Island, 1837, 95

  Nelson, E. G., writes _Raise the Flag_, 157

  Nelson, Knute, 109

  New Brunswick, 11

  _News_, The _Daily_, London, attacks, 310;
    letter to, 311

  Newspaper Society dinner, 1902, 302

  Niagara-on-the-Lake, Centennial meeting, 190;
    United Empire Loyalist meeting, 64, 66

  Nicholson, General Sir Wm., 206

  Nicholson, Peter, 57

  _Norfolk Reformer_, 219

  Norman, Field-Marshal Sir Henry, 242

  Norris, W. E., on Independence, 64

  Northcote, Sir Stafford, 28

  Northern Railway in Algoma Election, 58

  "Northmen of the New World," lecture by Haliburton, 16

  North-West Emigration Aid Society, 50

  North-West rebellion, 68, 95

  North-West Territories, 13

  Nova Scotia, 11


  O

  O'Brien, Archbishop, 79;
    speech at Halifax, 119

  O'Brien, Dennis, 109

  O'Brien, Wm., visit to Toronto, 70;
    meeting at Toronto, 74

  O'Donohue, Joseph John, 109

  Onslow, Lord, 209, 343

  "Opening of the War of 1812," lecture, 171

  Orillia, branch formed at, 119

  Osler, E. B., 158, 197

  Oswald, Mr., 348

  Ottawa, branch meeting at, 119

  Ottawa welcomes Lord Lansdowne, 76

  Ottendorfer, Oswald, 109

  Otter, Colonel, 268

  _Outlook_ comments on letter to _Times_, 353

  Owen, Colonel, at Royal Colonial Institute, 140

  Owen Sound meeting, 1901, 288


  P

  Pacific cable, 286

  Paisley, meeting at, 1902, 315

  _Pall Mall Gazette_ prints interview, 298

  Papineau, Louis Joseph, 111

  Parker, Sir Gilbert, M.P., lunch at Constitutional Club, 293

  Parkin, Dr. George R., C.M.G., tour in Australia, 105;
    lecture at Whitechapel, 140;
    at Imperial Federation meeting, 144;
    on dissolution of League, 203;
    on deputation, 204;
    at National Club dinner, 239;
    answers Edward Blake, 241;
    on deputation to England, 1902, 290, 292

  Patterson, Hon. Wm., 220;
    at conference of 1902, 331

  Paul, Mr., at Liverpool, 236

  Pauncefote, Sir Julian, dispatch to United States Government, 152, 153

  Pembina, Hon. Wm. Macdougall arrives at, 17

  Percival, Sir Westby, 207, 209

  Peterborough, branch formed at, 79

  Phelps, Walter, 109

  Plan of Union of Empire by Galloway, 2

  Plumb, Senator, 78

  Portage la Prairie contingent, 23

  Port Arthur, base of Red River Expedition, 34;
    branch formed at, 119

  Porter, Horace, 109

  Post Office service in Canada, at first British, 8

  Potter, O. B., 109, 113

  Potts, Rev. Dr. John, 78

  Preference granted to Great Britain, 222

  Prescott, Schultz welcomed at, 27

  President of the League, 1893, 196

  Press Association and Goldwin Smith, 179, 180

  Prince of Wales at banquet, 1900, 273, 279;
    his advice to Great Britain, 293

  Princess Theatre, political meeting in, 1891, 164, 165

  Protest to Governor-General by Dr. Lynch, 30, 31

  Protest, Lynch's, against amnesty, 38, 39


  Q

  Queen, the, on _Raise the Flag_, 159

  Queen's Own welcomes Lord Lansdowne, 73;
    Sergeants' Mess on Imperial Federation 136

  Queenston Heights, 80;
    anniversary of, 155;
    view of, on book, 158


  R

  Rae, G. M., 20

  _Raise the Flag_, song and book, 157, 158, 159

  Rasch, Sir Carne, 282, 283

  Reay, Lord, 199

  Rebellion of 1837, 4

  Reciprocity, discussion in 1902, 338;
    dangers of, in 1903, 344

  Reciprocity treaty, 5

  Red River Expedition, 33, 34;
    proposed withdrawal, 36, 43

  Red River Rebellion, 17

  Red River Settlement, 13

  Reid, Hon. G. H., 226

  Report of Imperial Federation League in England, 1890, 140, 141

  Resolution at Toronto Station, 1870, 27

  Resolution on withdrawal of Red River Expedition, 43

  Resolution in Commons on preference, 195

  Retaliation Act in Congress, 120

  Review in Toronto in 1884, 64, 65

  Rhodes, Cecil, on preference, 228

  Rhodes, J. G., 199

  Richot, Father, delegate from Riel, 27, 28

  Richot and Scott arrested and discharged, 32

  Ridout, John G., 58

  Riel, seizes Fort Garry, 18;
    parleys with loyalists, 23;
    to send to meet Archibald, 45;
    letters from Bishop Taché, 46, 47

  Ripon, Lord, 228

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T., 356, 357

  Ritchie, J., Jr., 58

  Roaf, James R., 58

  Roberts, C. G. D., favours independence, 64

  Roberts, Field-Marshal Lord, at United Service Club, 206;
    attends conference at Lord Avebury's, 207;
    on food supply, 233;
    at Lord Lansdowne's, 308

  Robertson, J. Ross, 158

  Robidoux, Mr., 111

  Robinson, Hon. John Beverley, contests Algoma, 57;
    at military dinner 1884, 65;
    President Toronto branch Imperial Federation League, 86, 91

  Roosevelt, Theodore, 109

  Root, Elihu, 109

  Rosebery, Lord, at Whitechapel meeting, 1890, 140;
    at annual meeting, 1890, 143, 144, 146;
    dissolution of League, 200, 202, 203;
    at Leeds meeting, 304

  Rosebrugh, Dr., 58

  Ross, A. W., 78

  Ross, Col. Robertson, 33

  Ross, Hon. George W., supports flag raising over schools, 135;
    election of 1891, 166, 167;
    Press Association, 179, 181;
    his loyalty, 156;
    speech at St. George's Hall, 1897, 239;
    establishes Empire Day, 256;
    on deputation, 1902, 292, 324;
    speech at annual meeting in London, 1902, 325;
    at conference, 1902, 332;
    at National Club banquet, 1902, 335

  Rowell, N. F., speech on Empire Day, 257

  Royal Colonial Institute meeting 1890, 140;
    conversazione, 1906, 356;
    dinner, 1902, 293-298

  Russell, Hon. Charles, 245


  S

  Salisbury, Lord, 74;
    dinner with, in 1887, 76;
    views on preference, 149, 150;
    speech at Guildhall, 150, 196;
    ultimatum to United States, 152;
    on Canadian preference, 220;
    delayed denouncing treaties, 222;
    at British Empire League banquet, 1900, 272, 273, 274;
    discouraged, 281, 282;
    not supported, 292;
    fails in health, 339;
    letter to _Times_ on his views, 349

  Salisbury, the present Lord, writes to _Times_, 1903, 349

  Schultz, Sir John, at Fort Garry, 1862, 14;
    meets Mair, 15;
    advises Dennis, 18;
    taken prisoner, 19;
    escapes, 21;
    secures release of prisoners, 23;
    welcomed at Toronto, 25, 26;
    goes to Ottawa, 27, 28;
    sends me warning, 35

  Scott, Hugh, 19, 68, 158

  Scott, Riel's delegate, 28;
    arrested and discharged, 32

  Scott, Thomas, taken prisoner by Riel, 19;
    put to death, 22

  Seddon, Rt. Hon. R. J., at British Empire League meeting, 1897, 226;
    speaks in South Africa, 303;
    a conference, 1902, 332

  Sergeants' Mess Queen's Own Rifles, 136

  Setter, J. J., 23

  Shaw, Mayor, at Mulock banquet, 246

  Shebandowan, Lake, 34

  Sheppard, E. E., favours independence, 64;
    at St. Thomas, 127

  Sherman, Senator, advocates annexation, 99, 100, 101, 102;
    interview in New York _World_, 104;
    quoted by Lord Rosebery, 200

  Sherwood, Lt.-Col., 164

  Simcoe, Lt.-Governor, first Lt.-Governor of Ontario, 190

  Slocum, General Henry W., 109

  Small, J. T., at organisation of Imperial Federation League, Toronto, 86;
    at Hamilton, 1889, 128, 158;
    subscribes to special fund, 197;
    visits England, 198;
    proposition to dissolve league, 198;
    on deputation to England in 1897, 224, 291

  Smith, Goldwin, joins National Association, 60;
    organises club dinners, 62;
    _Bystander_ comments, 63;
    advocates Commercial Union, 82, 83;
    foresees annexation, 104;
    joins Annexationists, 108, 109;
    honorary president Continental Union Association, 109;
    name appears in Glen's correspondence, 112;
    Archbishop O'Brien denounces him, 119, 120;
    contest with, 168-193;
    lectures on "Loyalty," "Aristocracy," and "Jingoism," 171;
    lectures in reply, "United Empire Loyalists," "War of 1812," and
"National Sentiment," 171, 172

  Smith, Larratt W., 197;
    on deputation in 1894, 204

  Smith, Sir Frank, 197, 246

  Snow Road, 45

  Somers, Mr., 136

  South African War, 258, 259;
    contingents for, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264

  Speech by G. T. Denison at banquet, 1887, 88;
    British Empire League dinner, 1900, 274, 275

  Speech of Senator Sherman, 99

  Spencer, Samuel, 109

  Sprigg, Sir Gordon, 332

  Spry, Daniel, 56

  Stanhope, Rt. Hon. Edward, 198

  St. George's Society censures Goldwin Smith, 175, 176;
    dinner, 1887, 70

  Stimpson, Ont., false telegram report, 106

  St. John meeting, 1901, 287

  Stone Fort, Lt.-Col. Dennis at, 18

  St. Paul, hostile influence in, 21

  Straight, Sir Douglas, 298

  Strathcona, Lord, on deputation to England, 1894, 205, 206, 207;
    on deputation to England, 1897, 224

  Straus, Nathan, 109

  St. Thomas branch formed, 119;
    meetings at, 127, 128

  Symons, D. T., 128


  T

  Taché, Bishop, 36, 44;
    letters to Riel, 46, 47

  Tariff Reform, 291;
    movement started, 346

  Tarte, J. Israel, 111, 244;
    in London, 1900, 272;
    speech at National Club dinner, 1902, 335, 336

  Taxation in American colonies, 1

  Taylor, J. F., 210

  Tecumseh, 15

  Tennyson, Lord, 209, 211

  Texas acquired by United States, 98

  Thompson, Sir John, 113;
    at Washington, 147;
    his death, 217

  Thorold Camp, 33

  Tiffany, Charles L., 109

  Tilley, Sir Leonard, 20;
    president of Imperial Federation League, 134, 194;
    resigns presidency, 196

  _Times, The_, on Royal Colonial Institute dinner, 1902, 294;
    comments on Sir R. Giffen's letter, 326;
    letter in reply to Sir R. Giffen, 325, 326, 327;
    letter to, in 1903, 339;
    on Chamberlain-Salisbury question, 349-352

  Toronto branch Imperial Federation League, 80, 91
    Imperialistic city, 95
    United Empire Loyalist meeting, 65

  Transcript, Montreal, on North-West, 13

  Transvaal, 258

  Treaties, German and Belgian, 139;
    denounced, 230

  Trent affair, 240

  _Tribune_, New York, comments, 1902, 335

  Troops, British, in Canada, 8

  Trotter, R. G., 58

  Trout, J. M., 58

  Tunbridge Wells Chamber of Commerce, 315

  Tupper, Sir Charles, 215;
    on deputation, 1897, 224;
    annual meeting, 1898, 244;
    on contingent, 260;
    at League council meeting, 1902, 299;
    organisation of British Empire League, 205, 206, 207, 209

  Tupper, Sir Hibbert, at Washington negotiations, 147, 154;
    Farrer pamphlet, 164, 165

  "Twelve Apostles," 49


  U

  United Empire, idea started in America, 1

  United Empire Loyalists, 1;
    lecture on, 171

  United Empire Trade League luncheon, 1902, 333

  Unrestricted Reciprocity defeated in Commons, 117

  Unrestricted Reciprocity, 367

  "United States in 1900," cartoon, 104

  United States Senate throw out treaty, 120

  United States discussing reciprocity, 1902, 338, 339

  Upper Canada College, meeting at, 155


  V

  Venezuelan affair, Message, 210, 211, 218, 240

  Victoria, B.C., branch at, 79

  Vincent, Sir Howard, 196, 232;
    meeting at Chelmsford, 282, 283;
    at Manchester, 1902, 335


  W

  Wales, Prince of (now the King), at banquet, 1900, 271, 274, 280

  Walmsley, Thomas, 19, 58, 158

  Walsh, M., 79

  Ward, Principal, Owens College, 232

  War of 1812-14, 3

  Warrant issued for Richot and Scott, 31

  Washington, negotiations at, 1890, 150, 151, 152

  Weldon, Professor, 95, 204

  West Indian preference, 242, 243, 244

  _Western Daily Press_, article, 316

  _Westminster Gazette_, 305, 310

  _Westminster Review_, article in, 179

  White, Arnold, on the Army, 268

  White, Solomon, advocates annexation, 108, 187

  White, T. M., secretary Continental Union Association, 109;
    letter to Goldwin Smith, 173

  Whiteway, Sir Wm., 226

  Whitney, W. C., threatening war, 105, 109, 113

  Wilkie, D. R., 86;
    seconds resolution for preferential tariff, 91;
    subscribes to fund, 197

  Wickham, H. J., 86;
    starts flag movement, 134, 135;
    seconds resolution, 200;
    on deputation, 1894, 204, 291

  Wilkinson, Spenser, on food supply, 232, 233

  Williams, E. E., at London Chamber of Commerce, 321

  Willison, J. S., 264, 267

  Wilson, General James H., 105, 109

  Wilson, Charles John, Hawick meeting, 211, 212

  Wiman, Erastus, starts Commercial Union, 81, 82;
    Lt.-Col. Fred C. Denison, letter to, 86;
    telegram to Press, 102;
    in Glen's letters, 112;
    and Sir R. Cartwright, 163;
    meets Goldwin Smith, 170

  Winnipeg, 13

  Wolseley, Field-Marshal Lord, commands Red River Expedition, 33;
    warn him, 37, 44;
    at Fort Garry, 48;
    success of, 48;
    food supply, 233;
    British Empire League banquet, 1900, 272, 273, 280

  Woodstock meeting, 187

  Woollen trade in Canada, 338

  Worrell, John A., 86

  _World_, Toronto, comments, 89, 90

  _World_, New York, 107;
    map of North America, 1900, 104


  Y

  Young, Sir Frederick, 209, 299, 300

  Young, Major-General Ralph, 207, 209




                    RICHARD CLAY AND SONS, LIMITED,
                     BREAD STREET HILL, E.C., AND
                           BUNGAY, SUFFOLK.




                               FOOTNOTE:


[1] From Charles Mair's lines in memory of Foster.




                         Transcriber's Notes:


Hyphenation has been standardised.

Ellipses have been standardised.

Some minor spelling, punctuation and presentation layout has been
corrected/changed without specific note.