turbing Issues

BILJNGUALISM

HOME RULE

Address before the Canadian Club, Queloh, Ontario

F

5052

B5M3

1917

c.2

ROBA

13th February, 1917

DISTURBING ISSUES.

When called upon by your Executive a few weeks ago to name the subject of my address, I mentioned National Service, but as someone had been dis- cussing it before you quite recently, it was suggested that I should deal with the activities of the International Joint Commission, of which I am a member. It was, however, my understanding that I need not confine myself to it, if I had a preference for some other subject. The International Joint Commission exists for a great purpose, the settlement of disputes between the people of the United States and Canada, and while I believe I am fully justified in saying that it is doing excellent work, and would be a very fitting subject to discuss, still I feel so very strongly about certain disturbing issues both in Canada and in Great Britain — issues resting upon racial and religious foundations — that I am going to ask to be permitted to briefly refer to two matters of grave public concern, namely, the Bilingual question in this country, and the Home Rule issue in Ireland. I can at once imagine someone saying: "Fools rush in where angels fear to tread." If that thought should come to anyone present, my defence is that with Canada taking part in this world war we have entered into a new era, when breaking through some of our old customs will be much more fashionable in the future than in the past — when a man's right to discuss his country's problems will be measured by his sincerity, regardless of his strength in this or that political party. We have so professionalized party politics, that men encased in their political clothes have been over-zealous, it seems to me, in dividing our house against itself. That, dangerous as it is, is as nothing compared to racial and religious issues when they become mixed up with the affairs of the nation.

Who then am I that I should take the liberty of discussing such issues? Born in the Province of Ontario, with my earlier years spent in the Province of Quebec, I moved when a young man to what was then known as our North West Territories. Now a resident of my native province, I consider I have a right to discuss bilingualism. As to the Irish issue, my father was an Ulster man and as his loyal heir, as well as being a small tax-payer in Ulster, I hold my right unchallenged there also. However, it should be sufficient to base my right simply on the fact that I am a Canadian and a British subject, with the firm determination that nothing shall happen that will force me to be the one without the other. Now I fully recognize that either of these issues furnish ample material for my address. There are features in them common to both and as my desire is not to trace out their history but rather to state their existence and their bearing on that sound harmony in Canada in the one case, and within the British Empire in the other, I concluded to link them together in one address. My desire is to endeavour to make it clear that our best interests demand a reasonable solution of both. If an issue is dangerous to our national life, the first step, it seems to me, is to get the people charged with that fact, then they are more likely to face it and seriously deal with it. I may be con- sidered too optimistic as to the possibility of clearing up disputes. I speak how- ever with some authority, as my experience as a member of the International Joint Commission has made it clear to me that very much can be accomplished in that regard, when men with some training in such matters go about them in a spirit of fairness to all parties concerned.

Recently, when looking over the papers of my nephew, the late John Lockhart Godwin, B.A., of the Canadian Trench Mortar Batteries, killed in action in the Ypres salient on the 8th July last, I came across an article pre- pared by him on the "French Element in Canada." In the early part of las*

2 DISTURBING ISSUES.

year, when bilingualism was very acute in Ottawa — when I saw on different occasions bands of French-speaking school children parading the streets, carrying banners with various texts, such as "We ask for British fair play," "For the right to be taught our native tongue," etc., I gave the subject some attention and put together a few notes with the view of using them on some occasion before one of our Canadian Clubs. I, however, dropped the idea until I came across my nephew's paper, written probably five years ago. It stirred me with a desire to speak on this subject. Here was a young man, scarcely out of his teens, thinking of the unity of his native land. It is evident that he expected much from the sons of France in Canada. He writes: "And " as we go further down the great St. Lawrence river, we realize that if ever the " genius of the Dominion is to take a high place in the realm of art, the soul and " impulse of the best achievement will come from Old Quebec, where the sombre " walls still tell of

" 'Old far-off unhappy things, And battles long ago'."

And could anything be finer than this his concluding paragraph :

"And as one studies this interesting province, he becomes more and more " convinced that what it most needs is some great awakening of the people to the " splendid opportunities which lie before them, if they will only throw themselves " more heartily into the tide of Canadian progress. The great hope of Quebec " lies in the unconditional acceptance of her Canadian destiny. And English " Canada will reap rich rewards for every compromise of racial pride made in " the interests of equality and justice. For the only time that Canada can be a " great power in the world is, in those cogent words of Dr. Drummond, when

"Frenchmen, Scotchmen, Englishmen, An' everyone she's free, An' all shak' han' and go to work For mak de Gran' countree'."

» An outstanding thought that has been ever present with me during the past two years is that we in Canada are not appreciative enough of those young men at the front who are fighting for the integrity of the British Empire. Writing to me on the 10th April last about the death of his younger brother C. R. Magrath Godwin of the Canadian Artillery, killed in action on the 4th of that month, he said: "I can look forward to nothing finer than to have served my " country in the splendid manner my brother has done." And, fearing that his relatives would be plunged in grief over the loss, he counselled us to be firm, adding, "What I have been telling some of my chaps' relatives who have had ""• one loss, and who are worrying too much — is — your share is surely contributed " — stop worrying and get busy. We don't worry here, we realize what it is — " and it is worth it." It is hard to lose those near and dear to us, but there is comfort in the thought that the fallen brave have served with honour and distinction in the great cause, and the issues are such that "It is worth it."

BILINGTJALISM

BILINGUALISM IN THE PROVINCE OF ONTARIO.

There never was a more prolific breeding ground for trouble than racial and religious disputes. Every few years, we in Canada appear to have had them in one form or another — the "school question" or "the marriage question in Quebec," or, as at present "the bilingual question." This latter was dragged into the Parliament of Canada during the session of 1916, and while an election was pending in the Province of Quebec. Anyone familiar with Can- adian affairs should know that the Parliament of Canada is not the place to seek a solution of issues involving race and religion, and more especially if, as in this case, such questions fall within the legislative functions of the Provinces.

There are extremists on both sides of this question. The Legislature of Ontario has declared that the language of communication in its schools shall be English. This is true only so long as the majority of the electors in this province is made up of English-speaking Canadians. Why then was it neces- sary to have publicly declared it? Because, we are told, by some at least, there is a concerted move amongst certain extremists in the Province of Quebec to force the French language on the people of Ontario, and that that must be boldly and openly met by, what is claimed by its opponents to be, an effort to proscribe the French tongue. Laws do not make languages, nor can they destroy them. Many in Ontario point to the failure of Quebec to have properly played up in the matter of recruiting their quota to Canada's share in the war ; though there are English-speaking rural sections of the country I believe, very little better in that respect than is rural Quebec. Further, we are told the clergy of Quebec are a hindrance. I am disposed to believe there is not only considerable indifference amongst certain Quebec clerics, but decided opposition to any aid being rendered by Canada to Great Britain, or even to France. However, that attitude is not confined to them. If the people of that province or elsewhere wanted to join the colours, they would do so. If they are indifferent, there must be a reason. ' What is it ? May I answer it in this way. We reap only that which we sow. That is a truism that should always be kept in the lime- light.

Citizenship, at least in theory, imposes responsibility on the individual and the outcome of this war will bring us, if I am not very much mistaken, within reasonable distance of the fulfilment of that theory. There are men in Canada — frequently scoffed at in recent years — who were willing to accept, not only the obligations as citizens of the unit of the Empire within which they lived, but certain Imperial obligations as well — and known as Imperialists. If the name has historic significance that is offensive, we should be able to find one that has no connection with the past. There are others than French Canadians who, in the pre-war days, resented the position taken by the former. They had fear for the autonomy of Canada. The reason for that apprehension I never could discover. However, there were no misgivings regarding the attitude of both respecting Canada. Let Canada be attacked and all would at once jump into the breach and fight. That seems to be the attitude in rural Quebec today. It is not because England is involved in this war that there is apathy in Quebec, though an effort has been made in some parts of the Province to stir up an anti-British sentiment. It will, however, make no permanent headway. As a matter of fact, French-speaking Canadians have greater reason to be in this war than those whose tongue is English. We are all British subjects, with the same rights within the Empire, and our French-speaking fellow citizens have the added obligation, that their mother country, France, was and still is in danger of being crushed under the iron heel of the Hun invader. Indifference

4 DISTURBING ISSUES.

in the matter of recruiting at this time is, therefore, neither a question of race nor of religion; and, mark you, it is not a question of inability to fight, because our French-speaking citizens have in that respect proven themselves to be not inferior to any others. It is largely a question of education, of bringing home to all the responsibilities of citizenship, national and imperial, within the British Empire. And without any desire to recriminate, the fault lies to some extent at the door of large numbers of English, as well as French-speaking public men, who have in the past taken a narrow and provincial view of their status as citizens of a world-wide Empire.

There is a feeling amongst many of us who are members of the various denominations commonly called Protestant — and when I use the word it is in contradistinction to Roman Catholicism — that unless we tuck our religion under our pillows when going to bed it may be destroyed by Quebec reactionaries. A reactionary never destroys anything in these days, though his doctrines may be kept alive through opposition, even making some headway under such con- ditions. We are prone to accentuate difficulties if they be flavoured with race or religion. There is the kernel of most of the trouble which arises out of such controversies. This bilingual question, the outcome of trouble between the Irish and French Roman Catholics, was in no way — as I see it — started by reaction- aries in Quebec — though it doubtless has their whole-hearted support. May I liken the situation to two neighbours. One does something that the other regards as offensive, and the attention of the offender is drawn to it. The answer of the latter is: "I believe my action in the matter complained of is in the best interests of my family ; it is being done within my own property and I am quite within my rights." To me, he would be a better neighbour if he clearly stated his position as above, and then added that he had no desire to be offensive, and was willing to hear what the offended party had to say. If there should happen to be anything in his contention, the offender might find it possible to very fully carry out what he had in view, and in a way that would be inoffensive to his neighbour.

Let us for a moment look at the situation in "Theocratic Quebec." I am not insensible to certain conditions which have prevailed nor to the fact that the church in years gone by has influenced the legislature, and may be doing so still for all I know. If it should be, it is purely on subjects bearing on the the spiritual well-being of its adherents. It is claimed that evidence is to be found in the exemption from taxation of a vast amount of church property. It is true that that exemption applies equally to the properties of all religious bodies. It is claimed that the various organizations of the Roman Catholic Church are the holders of a very heavy percentage of exempted property; this, however, is a subject of controversy, as some Protestant bodies hold very valuable church properties in the city of Montreal. There does appear to be evidence in the Province of Quebec of the power of the Roman Catholic Church in the continuance of the system of tithes prevailing in certain localities whereby the majesty of the law is behind the church in the collection of its revenues from its people.

In fairness to the province of Quebec, I believe I am correct in saying that it is the policy of all the provinces within Canada to exempt from taxation church properties. I presume the attitude of any clerics that may have taken part in securing the passage of laws for the collection of revenue through tithes was, that the church is necessary to her people, that its duty to its people requires funds, and that its adherents should have no option in the matter of contributions. That each should carry his proper share of the financial burden — just as those having equal privileges of citizenship should carry their cor- respondingly equal obligations — a doctrine which if in force today would make

BILINGUALISM 0

it unnecessary to hunt the countryside begging men to enlist, and, incidentally, save much valuable time in getting them fitted for this world war.

We appear, however, to overlook a fundamental difference between the Roman Catholic Church and the various other Christian denominations. The doctrine of these latter is justification by faith alone, while that of the former is, I understand, substantially that its adherents must accept Christ through the tenets of their church. In other words, once a Roman Catholic, always a Roman Catholic, or there is no hope for salvation. That seems to be a sine qua non with the Roman Catholic clergy. And of necessity it makes them keenly on the alert in looking after their own people. I do not believe, however, that they can.be accused of any organized effort to draw Protestants within their faith. Their energies have been devoted entirely to, and in what they regard as, the best interests of their own people, and to that end only can it be said that they have influenced legislation. I feel quite satisfied they would not object to Protestant clergy obtaining the same legal rights to collect tithes from the adherents of their respective churches — nor would they object to religious exercises in the schools of other denominations. There has been no effort on their part to push their religion or the French language on other than their own French-speaking co-religionists.

We hear a good deal about English-speaking Protestants being driven out of our "Eastern Townships" in the Province of Quebec. The priest doubtless was a factor in this movement. If he could find a purchaser of his own faith ready to pay a good enough figure for some particular farm, a sale was effected, and he added another supporter to his church's revenues. It was a good busi- ness transaction on the part of the priest. He, however, has attempted to control neither the civil nor religious liberties of the Protestant land-owner, and if he happened to be a party to the transaction, he merely proved himself to be a good real estate agent for the original owner. And the Protestants can easily get their land back again if they are ready to pay the price. I can hardly conceive of a French-speaking or any other Canadian that would refuse to sell his pro- perty on account of religious considerations, provided the price was sufficiently attractive.

There was a time when I believed in the school being conducted on secular lines. My view in that respect has undergone considerable change. If the religion to which we profess to belong is essential to our welfare both now and hereafter, why should the receptive mind of the child not have the prin- ciples brought to its attention for a few moments daily in school ? However, it is not my intention to discuss that subject now, beyond saying this, and I know whereof I speak, that the Protestant minority in Quebec are treated with the fullest consideration by the French-speaking Roman Catholics. In short, that the Protestant minority have no grievances in that province.

If we appreciate that fundamental difference in our religions to which I have referred, then we should understand the aggressive activities of the Roman Catholic clergy where their own people are concerned. Of course, I appreciate there are extremists who have visions of race and religious predominance, but they are few. And there are men in the French church, drawn from the country, who spend many years in religious seminaries, studying dead lan- guages, rubbing shoulders with few, and who go back as teachers of the people. They may be narrow in their views, but it would be quite unfair to judge the church by such extremists, any more than we would judge other denominations by some within their ranks. Further, let me say, if the French clergy are pur- suing a policy that is injurious to the education of their own people, its cure may properly be left with their people — and they will cure it. But, let Protestants try to effect remedies and at once there springs up religious con-

6 DISTURBING ISSUES.

troversy — the best possible cement to hold the respective sides firmly about their leaders. In fact, even a superficial view of the Quebec situation makes it very clear that there is a vast amount of work ahead of those deeply concerned in the future of the French-speaking citizens of that province. The wealth of the province, its business — is largely in the hands of the English-speaking minority. Let the struggle of the French-speaking citizens with the English be one of healthy competition in the legitimate development of Canada and questions of language will take care of themselves.

The British Empire, extending around the globe, naturally is made up of people of various races. Therefore, the A, B, C, of British citizenship must be compromise. We cannot, by law, change sentiment or conscience. Both are extremely sensitive, and we all should be most considerate to each other when either is under discussion. There is a sentimental feeling for one's language. It is right there should be, and when a man's religion is introduced there arises the question of conscience. Neither has any bearing on the underlying prin- ciples of British citizenship. There are many things in our daily lives much more dangerous, and to which we have paid but little heed. All, however, will gradually be corrected, as I have an abiding faith in our future.

As for the French-speaking citizens of Canada, we need not worry about the soundness of their British citizenship. The old Province of Quebec has furnished some great men and will continue to furnish other great Canadians in the future.

Racial disputes, bad in any country, should have no place in the great British Empire. This particular bilingual issue has largely been localized in Ottawa. What is it? Broadly speaking, the French-speaking British subject there says the policy of the majority in the Province of Ontario is to destroy his language. I am not now going to discuss that claim, but I do say that I am absolutely and unqualifiedly opposed to such a doctrine. I have no desire to go into the school systems of Canada, beyond in general terms to say that I feel we attempt to overload, in the matter of subjects, our elementary classes. We force the teachers to work at high pressure. We load the children with text books on almost every known branch of education. Personally, I am of the opinion that there should be a little less book work and more time and oppor- tunity for the teachers to impress upon the children the value of character, of courtesy, of playing the game for the game's sake, of going down and out for principle. Any young man facing the world with his soul charged with such ideals, and with a fair understanding of a few main subjects of education, must win out in the world's race. Hence, I think our educational system might stand some revising ; not that I am suggesting that the education of young men should be restricted where they have the time to avail themselves of a good technical training.

Without further digression, the French-speaking dissident of Ottawa claimed that Regulation 1 7 of the Ontario School Regulations is the outcome of an effort to suppress his language; that it was illegal and that he is determined to resist it, and to that end he carried the matter to the Privy Council last summer. On the otlier hand, the Ontario Government's position has been that there was a good and sufficient reason for the adoption of Regulation 17. It appears that one of the Inspectors, a few years ago, found certain schools most inefficientlv conducted, and Regulation 17 was introduced to meeting the situation in those particular schools. All bilingual schools do not come under this regulation, but only those to which the inspectors may from time to time consider its applica- tion necessary. The Government of Ontario claims that it has no intention to destroy the French language; nor could it, should it so desire; but that English, being the language of the great majority, is, as has been fittingly expressed

BILINGUALISM. 7

the "bread and butter" language of the people in the Province, and consequently, in the interests of the children, prime attention must be paid to its teaching. The French speaking citizens, with whom I am intimate, are quite agreeable to that position, but the Ontario school regulations they have insistently claimed imply a proscription of their language. The contention that Regulation 17 is illegal has been disposed of by the Privy Council. Its decision rendered a few months ago, was that the Province of Ontario has full right to say what should and what should not be taught in its schools. Such a decision, it seems to me, is absolutely sound, but it does not touch that very delicate side issue — a man's sensitiveness 'regarding his language and the restrictions in the teaching of it to his children, paid for with his own taxes.

A very interesting pastoral letter, signed by the Archbishops and Bishops of the Province, was read on Sunday the 4th instant in all the Roman Catholie churches throughout Ontario, in which they say they:

"view with sorrow and alarm the divisions and dissensions existing in this " province because of the bilingual controversy, and being earnestly desir- " ous of promoting civil and religious peace and harmony, we solemnly " exhort and enjoin the clergy and laity of our respective dioceses to obey " all the just laws and regulations enacted from time to time by the " civil authorities, and we respectfully ask the majority in the province to " consider sympathetically the aspirations and requests of their French- " Canadian fellow-citizens in the matter of the establishment and opera- " tion of English-French schools, facilitating an equitable teaching of the " French language, together with a thorough acquisition of English.

" That we are confident there is no desire or intention on the part of " the government or the majority of the people of Ontario to proscribe the " French language." Elsewhere this pastoral letter states :

;< That we are also confident there is no ill-will on the part of the " French-Canadian people towards the government or the majority of the " people of Ontario, and are of the opinion that much of the agitation " against the educational measures of the government has been caused by " the misunderstanding of Regulation 17. Nor is this surprising, since the " Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in delivering its formal judg- " ment on this regulation, expresses itself as follows:

" 'Unfortunately it (the regulation) is couched in obscure language, " 'and it is not easy to ascertain its true effect'."

This important letter — a very fair and reasonable statement made by the Roman Catholic Church — exhorts the clergy and laity to obey the law, and urges that the aspirations of the French-speaking citizens of the Province be generously dealt with by the majority. I am heartily in sympathy with this latter request. I am sure we have no desire to be unfair with each other. I believe the trouble has largely been one of misunderstanding. The Privy Council says the Regulation "is couched in obscure language and it is not easy to ascertain its true effect" in respect to "the nature and extent of the restrictions that it imposes." Certain of our French-speaking citizens believed they saw in those restrictions an obnoxious suggestion. The Government on the other hand has always claimed the charge to be unfounded — that the Regulation was not framed for any such purpose. When the Ontario School Regulations are again under consideration, Regulation 17 might be carefully reconstructed with the view of removing all obscurity from its language. I am sure it is quite possible to do this, and if so, that sting will disappear which certain of our people claim to see in it — and without in any respect altering the intention of the Regulation

8 DISTURBING ISSUES.

— nor the conduct of the schools to which it is applicable, as determined upon by the Government.

In reviewing the case the Privy Council says, "The population of the " Province is and has always been composed of both English and French- " speaking inhabitants and each of the two classes of schools is attended by " children who speak, some one language, some the other, while some again have " the good fortune to speak both." The good fortune to speak both, I fear we have not fully appreciated. Let us therefore each and all do what we can to bring about a better understanding between the two races in this country and the bilingual question will soon disappear. A movement was inaugurated some months ago, the bonne entente, resulting in important delegations in the Pro- vinces of Quebec and Ontario exchanging visits. This "get together" movement will doubtless be productive of much good. All that is needed is a more intimate knowledge of each other. We all have our shortcomings — the more reason why we should be generous when considering each other's peculiarities, not common to both. We who remain at home in security are pledged, it seems to me, to those who have made the supreme sacrifice — to those still fighting for the integrity of our country — we are pledged to work overtime so as to make Canada a united country, a better country, a country of greater opportunity in the years following this war. Canada has indeed a great future before her. The measure of her greatness will depend upon the character of her men and women. To that end, let us try and be able to say when our time comes to "put out to sea," that we have helped to build up national character by depreciating everything that is ungenerous and tending to narrow our outlook on life.

And now, may I pass from an issue that is localized within a section of Canada, to one known throughout, that which we were once pleased to call, the civilized globe, and which is and has been, more or less, a source of irritation wherever the English language is spoken.

HOME RULE.

IRISH HOME RULE

IN ITS .

IMPERIAL ASPECTS.

I do not purpose entering into any consideration of Ireland's past history, involving as it does features which have implanted feelings of bitterness to- wards Great Britain, and especially towards England, in the minds of many of the Irish people. It is rather interesting to note that while the great majority of those engaged in the Home Rule movement are Roman Catholics, some of the outstanding leaders have been Protestants, such as Isaac Butt, William Shaw, who succeeded him as leader, and Charles Stewart Parnell. One of our greatest Canadians, Edward Blake, likewise a Protestant, gave several years of his life to the movement, and illumined it with his wonderful energy, ability and genius.

I have personally come into contact with instances of that bitterness to- wards England to which I have alluded. Early in 1878, when our Canadian West had to be reached by way of railways through the United States, owing to the non-existence of any Canadian Transcontinental Railway in those days, I was passing through Duluth en route to Winnipeg with two other young Canadians. We had to remain over for some hours until the Northern Pacific Railway train left for Fisher's Landing, on the Red River of the North, thence to take a flat-bottom boat about 200 miles to Winnipeg. Having regis- tered our names at the hotel, I saw a group of Irishmen looking at the register, and the word "Canada" after our names evidently provoked them into making some very disparaging remarks about Great Britain. A few years later, when in the study of a professor in a college town in Massachusetts, I was introduced to a middle-aged Irishman, who had called to see the Professor about his son, then attending the college. This man recognized my name as Irish, and learn- ing that I was from Canada he expressed astonishment that my father should live in a country over which the Union Jack floated.

Then a few years after I had permanently settled in Southern Alberta, in the early eighties — my business frequently brought me over the International boundary into the inter-mountain States, principally Montana and Idaho, where mining in those days was very active, and in connection with which Irishmen, or the sons of Irishmen, were very successful. I invariably found them most agreeable and could not ask for better people to deal with, so long as Great Britain was not referred to.

Ireland, in the last half of the Nineteenth Century, lost nearly 4,000,000 of her population through emigration. Of that movement — mainly to the United States — I am unable to state the percentage that was Roman Catholic, but unquestionably it was very large. They brought with them their feeling of hostility toward British law and British government, and these sentiments remained in large part unchanged down to the commencement of the present war. This resulted in persistent attempts to avail themselves of what oppor- tunities arose to create friction between the United States and Great Britain, and the Irish in the United States are an important political factor to be reckoned with, though possibly their political influence has declined consider- ably in recent years.

And why do I deem it proper at this date to speak of Irish Home Rule before an audience of Canadians? It is because the question has an important bearing on the well-being of the British Empire, and because so long as the problem remains unsolved it must continue to be a source of irritation and a hindrance to the homogenity of thought and effort, without which the British

10 DISTURBING ISSUES.

Empire cannot achieve the greatest good for the welfare of humanity, which I believe to be its destiny. When the war broke out, the attitude of the Nationalist leaders in Ireland was a source of great gratification, and one of its beneficial results was that the anti-British feeling amongst the majority of the Irish in the United States at once became palliated. I have seen evidences, however, of its recrudescence since Mr. Asquith's attempt and failure to bring into existence the Home Rule Act, which has been passed by the British Parliament, but which remains in abeyance during the war.

I have always firmly adhered to the idea that Canada must and will work out her own destiny on this North American continent, even though the aims and ambitions of the two peoples occupying its northern portion are essentially the same. At times issues have arisen and doubtless will again arise which have given occasion for more or less criticism, the one of the other. I have long held the opinion that the best interests of Canada — the best interests of Great Britain and the other units of our Empire — demand that we should live in the closest harmony with the great neighbouring republic, as do the best interests of the United States demand the same friendly relationship with us. Hence my anxiety to have removed as far as practicable all issues which are likely to cause friction between us. That, I frankly confess, was my ground for wishing long ago that the Irish Home Rule issue should be removed from British politics, and in reaching that conclusion I believed that this was possible of attainment without in any way sacrificing any interests in Ireland.

This Home Rule question was introduced into our Canadian House of Commons on several occasions. The first resolution in 1882 was by a motion for an humble address to Her Majesty, pointing out that Canada and its inhabitants " have prospered exceedingly under a Federal system, allowing to each " Province of the Dominion considerable powers of self-government, and " would venture to express a hope that if consistent with the integrity and " well-being of the Empire, and if the rights and status of the minority " are fully protected and secured, some means may be found of meeting " the expressed desire of so many of your Irish subjects in that regard, so " that Ireland may become a source of strength to your Majesty's Empire, " and that your Majesty's Irish subjects at home and abroad may feel the " same pride in the greatness of your Majesty's Empire, the same venera- " tion for your Majesty's rule, and the same devotion to and affection for " our common flag, as are now felt by all classes of your Majesty's loyal " subjects in this Dominion."

It will be observed the resolution was couched in very diplomatic language; it was passed by the Parliament of Canada without dissent. The acknowledg- ment by the Earl of Kimberley to our then Governor General, the Marquis of Lome, is most interesting, as indicating the tremendous change in the point of view of Westminster to the overseas Dominions in the past thirty-five years. It contained the following paragraph:

" Her Majesty will always gladly receive the advice of the Parliament " of Canada in all matters relating to the Dominion, and the administra- 1 tion of its affairs, but with respect to the questions referred to in the " address, Her Majesty will in accordance with the constitution of this " country have regard to the advice of the Imperial Parliament and " Ministers, to which all matters relating to the affairs of the United " Kingdom exclusively appertain."

In those days, the sentiment of the Canadian people towards remaining attached to the British Empire was, I believe, vastly greater than any sentiment of the people of the British Islands to keep them within the Empire. The attitude of Great Britain then was largely: if Canada wishes to step out of the

HOME RULE. 11

family circle, let her go; and indeed some prominent statesmen had given expression to their idea that Canada was more or less of an embarrassment to Great Britain. Notwithstanding the reply of the Colonial Secretary to which I have referred, the Home Rule"' resolution was again introduced into the Canadian Parliament in 1886, and in finally in 1903, and in terms very similar to the 1882 resolution, part of which I have quoted.

No one can accuse any Parliament of Canada, from Confederation to date, of any act tending to disrupt the British people; on the contrary, the action of our Parliament during the South African War, and especially in this present great world struggle, has shown a spirit of loyalty and devotion to the cause of a united Empire, the existence of which was undreamed of a quarter of a century ago. If the Irish Home Rule question were purely an Irish domestic issue, then Canada would have no right to interfere, and that was the attitude of some of the members who discussed the resolution at Ottawa. On the other hand certain speakers pointed out its disturbing effect to British interests out- side of the British Isles, which consequently made it an imperial issue.

On the 4th of August, 1914, when this world war broke out, and for a couple of months prior to that date, I happened to be in Ulster. It was probably in June and July of that year that the Ulster Volunteer movement was at its height. In July I attended an inspection of fully 2,000 Ulstermen in uniform, and armed with rifles. At the same time, 200 nurses in uniform were also inspected. These were evidences of the serious determination of the "Coven- anters" to resist by force of arms any attempt to bring Ulster under the then proposed Home Rule Measure. Nevertheless, the situation had its lighter side, as all Irish situations have, as the following incident indicates. During those uncertain months preceding the war, there also was much activity amongst the Nationalist volunteers in the matter of preparation. A well-known physician near Armagh had two stablemen — whom I will call Tom and Pat. The former, an Orangeman, and a member of the Ulster Volunteers — while Pat, a Roman Catholic, was attached to the Nationalist organization. Tom was duly called on to put in his few days' drill — Pat immediately came to his rescue by offer- ing to do his stable work in his absence. Later on, when Pat had to go out with the Nationalist volunteers for his drill, Tom worked overtime in the stable so as to save Pat the expense of supplying a substitute.

What Protestant Ulster cannot understand is, why, if Scotland and England do not seek Home Rule, and, consequently, do not need it, should it be forced upon them ? Repeatedly, I have heard in Ulster the exprssion : "We want to be left alone." "We are quite satisfied as we are," and, occasionally, "Harness us to our hereditary foes, — never." The issue appears on the one side to be largely one of loyalty to King and Country — the cleavage largely because of religion. One of the arguments of Protestant Ulster — the Covenant- ers— is that, "the Nationalists are not loyal and never have been," that they are "looking to an independent Ireland." Even if these statements were true, is it sound reasoning that because a section of the people are disloyal, therefore they must be segregated — by the exclusion of Ulster from any scheme of self government in Ireland? Has not that idea in it the element of creating a breeding-ground for trouble-makers in Ireland, as well as amongst the British people elsewhere.

Another argument is that "Home Rule means Rome Rule." In no British country have the Hierarchy and Clergy of the Roman Catholic Church greater influence with its flock than in the Province of Quebec, and yet Home Rule in Quebec has never been used to undermine the devotedness of the people to British connection. On the contrary, there is historical authority for the fact that the Roman Catholic Church has used its influence towards cementing

12 DISTURBING ISSUES.

the bonds which unite that ancient province to the Empire. Greater religious freedom is not to be found in any country than where floats the Union Jack. The business of the Church is to look after the spiritual needs of its people. The day has passed when any Church can interfere in matters of State, even should it so desire.

To say that Irish Nationalists are disloyal, and that they will continue so, is altogether wrong. We know we have men in Canada of Irish descent, whose parents were uncompromisingly opposed to England, but whose offspring are good British subjects. The late D'Arcy McGee, who was a rebel in Ireland, was in Canada a distinguished statesman and a loyal subject. Two of his nephews have gallantly laid down their lives while serving in the Canadian forces in this war.

As for the idea of an independent Ireland, held by the few, it is entitled to no serious consideration. The mythical lore which surrounds Irish mountains and Irish valleys has imbued the Celtic imagination with a fervour in politics and religion, often more beautiful than practical, and wherein lies the harm of letting the poetic and visionary have their dreams as to the destiny of the Island of Saints. The force of commercial gravity alone will hold Ireland, for her own preservation and material progress, to Great Britain, the centre of the Empire.

To say that Protestant Ireland has the wealth and that the Nationalists will tax that wealth out of existence, has a political ring about it. If not, it indicates a timidness that is not British. Ireland, it does seem to me, needs some vitalizing force, greater evidence of team play amongst its prominent men in building up the industries of the country, and correspondingly less evidence of religious friction, which so long as it exists must be a bar to the real progress of the entire country.

I maintain that local self-government is desirable in England and Scotland as well as in Ireland. The breaking up of units into smaller ones for domestic legislative purposes should be based largely upon location and physical conditions — not religious differences. We have a Dominion Parliament, consisting of the Senate and House of Commons, patterned after Westminster — we also have our Provincial Legislatures. Let anyone suggest that the legislature in the smallest of our provinces — Prince Edward Island — be done away with, and merged in that of Nova Scotia, or New Brunswick, or better still an amalgamation of the three, and wouldn't we have a row on our hands ? When we realize that Prince Edward Island cover- ing 2184 square miles, with a population one-sixth of that of the city of Montreal, maintains a Lieutenant-Governor, a Legislature, and the usual trappings that go with such establishments, we must appreciate that a unit can be much too small, especially when it happens to be one of a group wherein all except the three Maritime Provinces each have areas considerably over 200,000 square miles. That fact is evidence that greater strength and consequently greater material advancement would come to those three provinces if welded into one, but who has the courage to take steps towards that desirable end ? It would be strenuously opposed by interests in each. They have set up house- keeping on their own account and must not be disturbed. The time will come, however, when the people of those provinces, where neither race nor religion are factors, will conclude that amalgamation is most desirable and they will bring it about themselves. A divided Ireland similarly would lose a great deal of the influence in the Empire that a united Ireland might properly expect to wield. Should Ireland, however, be divided, and given two local legislative establish- ments, largely on account of religious differences, I fear it would be quite impossible to ever amalgamate them, and my opinion is that two such separate

HOME RULE. 13

legislatures would prove a source of irritation to the British people both within and without Ireland, until at least greater evidences of the Millenium are visible on the horizon than at present exist.

With the tremendous speeding up of efficiency that has come to Great Britain in this war, it must be borne in on her public men that the Parliament at Westminster will have to be relieved from a mass of domestic legislative business which we, even in our comparatively small Canadian establishment at Ottawa, have had relegated to the provincial parliaments. In my own experi- ence in Ireland, which I admit has been very limited, I have seen the necessity of a local body wherein their representatives could give expression to the people's will. The misfortune is that Ireland, with its strong religious differ- ences, has had leadership in this movement forced upon her. It seems to me that the proper strategic move for the Nationalists to have adopted years ago would have been to prove to Scotland that she required Home Rule, and then to have allowed Ireland to follow in the procession. In the reconstruction of matters Imperial which must follow this war, I believe it will be found that England and Scotland will — possibly each of them — be given a local par- liament.

It will be remembered that a few weeks before the war broke out, His Majesty the King had a conference at Buckingham Palace at which both Irish parties were represented, and at which a strong effort was put forth to settle the controversy on conciliatory lines — the only sound method to pur sure under such circumstances. The result was a failure, due, I fear, in some measure to Ulster's failure to appreciate the gravity of the imperial side of the issue. I have that confidence in the Ulster Protestant that when he appreciates the importance of removing the Home Rule controversy from British politics, he will be prepared to recede from his present position and sacrifice in a measure what he now regards as the only sound position for a loyal Britisher. My faith is based on the outstanding loyalty for King and Country possessed by the Protestant Ulsterman. In giving an instance of that loyalty, may I be pardoned for introducing the personal side. My father crossed the Atlantic to New York in the early fifties of the last century. He had been engaged in railway construction work in England as a civil engineer, and was fully employed while in the United States. A few years after reaching that country, he was offered what was then regarded as a very good position. He realized, however, that it would eventually necessitate his renouncing his British allegi- ance, and so he at once removed to Canada to dwell beneath the British flag. There was no vigorous development movement in this country in those days — little or nothing for him to do at his profession, and he was forced to take up school-teaching. ( 1 ) A few years afterwards he was offered and accepted the inspectorship of Protestant schools within two counties in the Province of Quebec. With this work he remained some thirty-five years until his death. (2) He preferred a bare living in Canada, as a British subject, to greater material success in an alien country. With him, an Irishman stood first, regardless of his religious views. And while his heart was always in Ireland, I believe I am justified in saying that he was always ready to conciliate when the interests of the Empire could thereby be advanced. He was an Ulster man, possessing the main characteristics of his race.

(1) Forced to teach school is no uncommon expression. It is a reflection upon the intelligence of the people wherever it is possible to use it. In passing, may I say that the prizes in the teaching profession where men are capable of doing so much towards moulding the character of our future citizens, are even yet far too limited, if indeed there be any at all. Let us clearly understand that the country that wishes to win out must give the teaching profession a standing in order to draw men who will remain permanently in it instead of using it for a few years as a stepping stone to some other calling where their capacity and ability are more fittingly recognized.

(2) This I mention as evidence that I should know something of the treatment of the Protestant minority in the province of Quebec.

14 DISTURBING ISSUES.

I too am a Protestant, and I believe I will be found firm in my faith when "crossing the great divide." I once gave expression to that view to a prominent Irish Roman Catholic friend, and he said: "You are far too good a man to take any chances with the next world by entering it as a Protestant." That was a clever frontal attack on the Protestant — here is a counter blow. Some years ago when in Ulster, I was present when an effort was made to draw some of the Irish wit of a woman well over seventy years of age. Her nephew said he believed at some time in the past there had been a "turn-coat" in the matter of religion in their family, as he thought their forebears had been Roman Catholics. With much emphasis she instantly replied: "If so, I admire the intelligence of the one that turned." So much for the genial wit of the Irish. Neither of these replies is equal to that credited to Sir John A. Macdonald — our great Scotch-Canadian — when told he should embrace the Roman Catholic faith. He said: "No — too little to eat and too much to swallow."

My religion, however, has nothing to do with another man's rights of citizenship — my religion calls upon me to do unto all men as I would they should do unto me. I respect the man who has a religion and lives up to it, the man who practices the tenets of Christianity in whatever form he believes them must necessarily be a good citizen.

The bitterness towards England for not having granted Home Rule to Ireland in recent years does not seem to me to be justified. I cannot believe that those in control of the destinies of Great Britain during the last twenty years would have been seriously alarmed at the thought of an independent Ireland. They do not appear to have been particularly alarmed about anything, not even the tremendous preparation for war in recent years by the Central Empires. To the credit of the Englishman, he cannot be charged with follow- ing along lines of least resistance. Ireland is and has been represented by more members in Westminster according to population than has England, and as the Englishman did not consider that England required a domestic parliament, he could not see that Ireland needed one. I question if very many saw the need previous to this world struggle, which will cause us hereafter to look more deeply and seriously into our problems I believe the recent passage of the Home Rule measure was largely on the ground that the great majority of people in Ireland demanded it, and it came about through the strenuous struggle carried on for years by the Home Rule Party. Ireland is an entity by itself. True it is not as far distant from that important agricultural market — Liverpool — as is Canada. We in this country could have our main legislative business done in Westminster, but for no length of time. Trouble would surely follow if it was attempted. I fail to see, then, that England has ever gained anything in a material sense by denying Ireland Home Rule. Her attitude has not been selfish. The North of Ireland, with its admixture of Scotch blood, leaves that section of the country — the larger part of Ulster — a nation within a nation. Ulster is at least the equal in importance of any of the Irish Pro- vinces. It is, I believe, the most important in industrial activities. The Englishman's dilemna, it seems to me, in the matter of Home Rule in recent years at least, has been the demand for protection by that smaller nation — Ulster.

A few weeks ago, John Dillon, the Nationalist member for East Mayo, in approving the peace speech of President Wilson, is credited with saying: "No " peace can last, or ought to last, which does not recognize and accept the " principle that governments derive all their just powers from the consent of " the governed." Then he adds: "So long as Ireland is held under martial law, " and self government is denied to the Irish nation, it will be difficult for Great " Britain to obtain full credit as the champion of small nationalities. ..."

HOME RULE. 15

The Parliament of Great Britain passed a Home Rule Measure in 1914, but its enforcement upon Ulster, that smaller nation within the Irish nation, presents vast difficulty. Efforts have been put forth on several occasions since the commencement of this war to bring harmony into the Irish situation, but all the ingenuity of the present Prime Minister — Lloyd George — has failed to accomplish anything. Various suggestions have been made, and amongst them to exclude Ulster from the Home Rule Act. My opinion is that that would be quite unwise. Ulster has a large number of Roman Catholics within its borders and they naturally would have as much right to be dissatisfied under an Ulster legislature as the majority in Ulster have to object to a Dublin Parliament. This Irish issue is not a question of great political astuteness in working out some agreement between the two Irish parties. It is a question of men learning to stand side by side in legislative bodies, attending to the business of the entire country without working into that business religious controversy.

I fear that those of the plain people in Ireland looking for Home Rule, may expect it to be a panacea for every ill. If so they will be disappointed. There are other things than Home Rule necessary to make the people prosperous. For instance, from my own observation I would say that the greatest blessing that could come to Ireland would be to follow the recent action of some of our Canadian provinces, by prohibiting the liquor traffic. I have been much impressed with the statements of men in widely scattered localities in those provinces where prohibition is now effective — men whom I knew to be opposed to prohibition before the suppression of the traffic. All speak of the magnifi- cent results of a beneficial character in the short time their respective laws have been in operation.

Ireland will have other questions cropping up, questions of trade, questions of social improvement of the people, questions demanding the united and intelligent effort of Ulster men, Leinster men, Munster men, Connaught men — Protestant and Roman Catholic. It would indeed be a blessed consummation if all could be impressed with the supreme importance of endeavouring to make Ireland happy and contented, not only for Ireland's good, but for the advance- men of all that British ideals means within a contented Empire. A happy and contented Ireland is, I appreciate, a long cry. The natural brilliancy of the Celt enables him to be a born politician. In consequence many outside of Ireland feel that no matter what form of local government is given to Ireland, he will continue to agitate for something additional. That doubtless will be true of some until all those of the present generation clinging to "Ireland's past wrongs" have passed away, but because of that situation is a local government measure to continue to be a foot-ball, making the country a hot-bed of dis- sension? The point I wish to make clear is that the issue cannot safely be suspended in the air much longer. In my opinion it is a mistake to try in any constitution to work out to a nicety protection for the minority. I would rather trust to the majority to see that the minority receives fair play, than to an interpretation by the majority of a constiution loaded with provisoes under which the rights of the minority are supposed to be protected. An elastic constitution, capable of adjusting itself to the changes, occurring from time to time, in the outlook of the people concerned, is vastly preferable to some rigid arrangement that fails to take into account that fact. The suggestion has been made that the Prime Ministers of the overseas dominions be invited to join both Irish parties in an effort to work out some satisfactory legislative plan for Ireland. They doubtless could be very useful on account of their intimate knowledge of the functions of existing legislative bodies, subsidiary to those in which they occupy seats. It would be a delicate position for them to be placed in, yet I feel confident they would gladly render every assistance in their

16 DISTURBING ISSUES.

power to bring about a settlement as one and all must appreciate the importance to the British people throughout the world, of having the Irish issue settled, and settled to the reasonable satisfaction of all classes in Ireland. And that I hold is possible if the people of Ireland can only make up their minds to let bygones be bygones. The solution is one of compromise in which both parties should recede from their position to a certain extent, as, for instance :

(a) The Nationalists to agree to a modification of the present Home Rule Bill, less autonomous than they now desire. That, it appears to me, would be far better than the present measure, with Ulster excluded. In time, the people would have confidence in their public men as a body, regardless of their religious views, and gradually they would demand and obtain greater freedom in local government.

(b) The Ulster Protestants to go into the organization with the right to vote themselves out in the period between fifteen and twenty years hereafter, unless other parts of the United Kingdom meanwhile adopt a system of local government. To experiment with a Home Rule Act for three years, as has been very generally talked of, with the right to Ulster to vote herself out at the termination of that period, would not give a Home Rule Act a chance for its life. Feelings of bitterness, racial or religious, are. not to be assuaged in a few years. The old people who have been active in the fight pro and con will in a way stick to their youthful impressions, and not until the younger generation becomes the body politic can measures be fairly tested in the light of calmness and reason. Fifteen years would give Ulster a good opportunity to test local government and I believe that agitation would largely disappear before the expiration of that period.

In bringing this short and very imperfect address to a close, let me say that Ireland was rapidly heading towards civil strife and bloodshed in the days immediately preceding this war. And how could it be otherwise with the amount of time spent in religious party demonstration and counter demonstra- tion. I believe in the pre war days in connection with these demonstrations, there were more drums pounded to pieces per square mile in some parts of Ireland, than for all purposes in any fifty square miles in any other part of the world. The country, or the portions where the two factions are to be found, was in a most abnormal condition. Attending a Church of Ireland service on the Sunday before the 12th of July, 1914, I heard the Government attacked from the pulpit, with a vigour that reminded me of some of our political meetings in this country. And as for Mr. Redmond and Sir Edward Carson, I sometimes wondered if some of their more ardent followers travelled for the express purpose of using the walls of the railway coaches upon which to scribble their opinion and wishes regarding the leaders of the opposite party. If sending men to perdition can be accomplished in that way, then I feel sorry for the future of both gentlemen.

All that must cease if Ireland is to fulfil her proper destiny in this world. Surely this great crisis through which we are passing will regenerate us. If so, the war with its great sacrifices will not have been in vain. The very heart of this discord is in that part of Ireland where St. Patrick preached the gospel of Christ, at a time when Ireland led the British Isles in the matter of civiliza- tion, and was given the title by European scholars of those early days : Insula Sanctorum et Doctorum. This Home Rule issue is a question for the Irish people themselves to settle — a question in which both sides should recede and through conciliation agree upon a local legislature for all of Ireland, the powers of which can be enlarged as the people themselves demand, following the gradual removal of that distrust which has up to the present stood in the way of any reasonable and harmonious settlement being reached by the two parties.