« PreviousContinue »
NICHOLAS FLOOD DAVIN 237
lean white bear, in the light of the midnight sun, under torrid skies everywhere in the civilized world—nay, in its uncivilized corners also—wherever British energy and pluck, fortitude and indomitable tenacity have carried British commerce and arms—and where have they not?—everywhere in the civilized world the same feast is held; in city and jungle; on mountain and plain ; in lonely remote deserts, or in far-off isles and seas. There is no clime so inhospitable, there is no tract so dangerous, no isle so little, no sea so lone, but over tower and turret and dome, over scud and sand and palm tree, at this hour, the flag bearing the three crosses of the three great nations of the two heroic isles rises with solemn splendor and sublimesignificance ; where it is day the winds of heaven reverently caress its immortal folds, and where it is night the stars salute it as a fellow star. . . . . Macaulay, led away by a love for effect, pictured a traveler from New Zealand sitting on a broken arch of St. Paul's; and the great Daniel Webster in one of his addresses reflected that if England should pass into decay, the great Republic which was her child, born in storm and bitterness and fated to greatness, would preserve her memory, her arts, her language, her love of freedom. England's time cannot come unless her Empire's time should come. Where is the nation, or combination of nations, which could meet this world-wide Empire united to fight? Instead of the New Zealander sketching the ruins of St. Paul's, we should have the Maori swelling the Imperial army. The men living in the two heroic isles show no decay, and as for their colonial children and brethren, our Toronto Highlanders beat the regulars the other day. In earlier hours of danger we sent the Iooth regiment to the Imperial camp. We guided the Imperial troops up the Nile. Australia sent her sons to fight, and had arranged for her own naval contingent. South Africa has followed suit. What I see is more and fuller life everywhere. It may be that we shall see despotism and tyranny and barbarism, civilized only in the art of war, combined against this Empire with its fifty millions of English-speaking men and millions of loyal subject races. It may be that we may have to face an Armageddon in which the oceans and seas of the round world will be purple with blood and flame, and it may be that this is not beyond the bounds of possibility—it may be we should succumb. If so, we would, to use language which my gallant friend and his marines and bluejackets will understand, we should fall as they fall and die as our fathers died, with the jack still floating nailed to the mast, leaving a name without a parallel and which never could have a parallel. Much more likely we should send tyranny skulking to its hold, cooped up in narrower bounds, and make the three-crossed flag still more the world's flag of freedom. All the signs are signs of life; of expanding material, moral and spiritual power. This Empire will go forward, becoming greater in power and a still greater blessing to mankind.
SIR CHARLES TUPPER (1821 —)
MONG the statesmen of the Dominion of Canada Sir Charles A Tupper has long held a foremost place. Born, the son of a Baptist minister, at Amhurst, Nova Scotia, he studied medicine, and for years practiced as a physician. Entering the field of politics in 1855, his powers as an orator and his statesmanlike ability soon gave him high standing, he becoming Premier of his native province in 1864, President of the Privy Council in 1870, and for years afterward holding various ministries in the Macdonald Cabinet. For a number of years he was High Commissioner for Canada in England, and in April, 1896, he became Conservative Premier of the Dominion. His term of office was a brief one. In the general election that followed the Liberals won, and Sir Wilfred Laurier succeeded as Premier.
ON THE PROTECTION OF THE FISHERIES
[As a strenuous and aggressive orator, of excellent powers of logical argument, Sir Charles Tupper won popular favor and has long been much esteemed. The selection here given is from a speech made by him in the House of Commons, Ottawa, May 12, 1887, in the protection of the Fisheries, which was at that time a matter of controversy between Canada and the United States. After introducing the subject, he continued as follows.]
I had the honor of being sent on a confidential mission to Washington by the Governor-General previous to assuming my duties in England in 1884, and had a long and interesting conversation with the late Secretary Frelinghuysen on that subject. I may say I regard it is a misfortune that the administration of which he was a member was not returned to power, and that his life had not been spared to carry out what I am certain he was prepared to carry out. The result was that a Democratic President was elected in the United States, and a Democratic administration was
SIR CHARLES TUPPER 239
framed ; but that administration had not, as the honoraple gentlemen know, a majority in the Senate; and although the Government of the United States in good faith carried out the engagement with the Government of Canada, and sent down a proposal to dispose of this matter by an international commission, their proposal was rejected by the Senate. It was for that reason, and not because I wish to express any preference for one party or the other in the United States, that I said I think it was a misfortune that the recommendation of the Democratic President and Government had to be acted upon by a Republican Senate. That proposal was rejected, and Canada was forced, as you know, ex necessitate rei, to adopt the policy of temperately and judiciously, but firmly, protecting the rights of Canadian fisherman in Canadian waters; and I am glad to be able to state that during my term of office as High Commissioner in London, where I had constant and frequent intercourse with the great statesmen of both of the political parties in that country in relation to this question,--whatever party was in power, or whatever might be representing the Government—I met the firm and unqualified desire, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, to study carefully what were the undoubted rights of Canada and the Empire; and I speak of the Governments which represented both the great parties in England, when I say I found on their part the steady and uniform desire and determination firmly to maintain Canada in the assertion of her just and legitimate rights. I believe that, anxious as are Her Majesty's Government—and everybody knows how extremely anxious they are to avoid the slightest cause of difference with the United States—the time is far distant when the Government of England will shrink in the slightest degree from giving fair and candid consideration to whatever are the just claims of Canada in relation to that question. Under these circumstances I think we had a right to expect from the Congress of the United States a different course to that which they pursued. When the President of the United States sent this appeal to Congress for an international commission, what did the people interested in the fisheries say? They said, “We do not want to have anything to do with Canadian waters; we want no international commission. The fish have all turned south ; they are coming into our waters; we do not require to go into Canadian waters at all ; we want no commission, no international arrangement, but simply to keep ourselves to ourselves, and let the Canadians do the same.’’ I think that is very much to be regretted. I think the interests of that great country and the interests of Canada alike require close commercial relations and extended reciprocal relations. I
240 SIR CHARLES TUPPER
have no hesitation in saying so. It would be, in my judgment, a great misfortune if anything were to prevent reciprocal trade arrangements with the United States, which would be, as they were when they existed before, alike beneficial to both countries. We know we were satisfied with reciprocity, but we do not conceal from ourselves, because the statistics of our own country prove it beyond question, that, advantageous as was the Reciprocity Treaty from 1854, for twelve years, to the people of Canada, it was infinitely more advantageous to the people of the United States. But as I say, we were met by the proposal to arm the President with the power of declaring non-intercourse. I do not believe he will put that power into force, and I am strengthened in this belief by the letter which the President of the United States addressed to the parties who communicated with him on the subject, and which showed that that gentleman, armed with this tremendous power, fully recognized the enormous interests that had grown up under that peaceful intercourse between Canada and the United States, and that he was fully alive to that momentous responsibility that would rest upon his shoulders if he should put it in operation. . . . .
That is the solitary cloud now upon the horizon, but it is not without its silver lining. Non-intercourse would not be an unmixed evil. I would deeply deplore it. Every member of the House, and every intelligent Canadian, would deeply deplore any interruption of the commercial relations which exist between this country and the United States; but I cannot forget that, if this policy of non-intercourse were adopted, it would lead to the development of the channels of communication between ourselves; and that the commerce of Canada, which is to-day building up New York, Boston and Portland, would be carried through exclusively Canadian channels to Canadian ports, and would build up Montreal, Quebec, St. John and Halifax with a rapidity which the people of this country can scarcely understand. So, looking at this question in all its bearings, while I most earnestly hope that no such policy will be adopted ; while I have not the slightest idea that it will; I say that should it be adopted, great as is the American Republic, enormous as is their population, they will find that Canada feels that she has as great and as valuable a portion of this North American continent under her management and control and to be developed as that lying to the south of us; and they will find the people of this country an united land of patriots, who, sinking every other consideration, will say they owe it to their country, they owe it to themselves, to show that there will be no faltering in maintaining to the utmost the undoubted and admitted rights that belong to the people of Canada.
GOLDWIN SMITH (1823—)
ate soils. Born in England and educated at Oxford, he was made Professor of Modern History at that university in 1858. Coming to the United States in 1864, he was for four years Professor of English History at Cornell University. His life in Canada began in 1871. Here he made his home in Toronto, engaged in editorial work, authorship and lecturing. As a lecturer Smith ranks high among modern speakers, evincing much breadth and depth of thought and felicity in expression. He was in England an advanced Liberal in politics, and a champion of the American Union during the Civil War. In addition to his productions as an orator, his written works are numerous and valuable.
G OLDWIN SMITH has dwelt and made his mark in three separ
GOD IN THE UNIVERSE
[Goldwin Smith is not among those who think that science has probed to the bottom the mystery of things. Ambitious as are its efforts, and far and deep as it has reached, it still stands only on the threshold of the secret of time and space, with the creative Deity looming in impenetrable vastness beyond its ken. Such is the text of the extract we select from his eloquent and suggestive address delivered at Oxford
on the Study of History.] What is the sum of physical science? Compared with the comprehensible universe and with conceivable time, not to speak of infinity and eternity, it is the observation of a mere point, the experience of an instant. Are we warranted in founding anything upon such data, except that which we are obliged to found on them, the daily rules and processes necessary for the material life of man 2 We call the discoveries of science sublime; and truly. But the sublimity belongs not to that which they reveal, but to that which they suggest. And that which they suggest is, that through this material glory and beauty, of which we see a little and