His Own Man: Essays in Honour of Arthur Reginald Marsden Lower 9780773592964

Citation preview

HIS OWN MAN Essays in honour of Arthur Reginald Marsden Lower

Edited by W. H. Heick and Roger Graham

McGill-Queen's University Press Montreal, London 1974

This book has been published with the help of grants from Wilfrid Laurier University and Queen's University

.c. McGill-Queen's University Press 1974 International Standard Book Number 0-7735-0202-2 Legal Deposit 4th quarter 1974 Bibliotheque nationale du Quebec Design by Margaret Capper Queen's Graphic Design Unit Printed in Canada

Contents cOn

Roger Graham vii Foreword Frederick W. Gibson i Arthur Lower: Always the Same and Always His Own Man Margaret Prang 13 A. R. M. Lower: The Professor and "Relevance" W. H. Heick 19 The Character and Spirit of an Age: A Study of the Thought of Arthur R. M. Lower Ramsay Cook Canadian Freedom in Wartime, 1939-45 37 W. L. Morton 5 5 Further Reflections

on the "Most Famous Stream" H. Pearson Gundy 71 Liberty and Licence of the Press in Upper Canada S. F. Wise 93 Sport and Class Values in Old Ontario and Quebec

Bruce W. Hodgins 119 Unconventional Priest of the North: Charles Paradis, 1848-1926 D. C. Masters 149 Jasper Nicolls and English Protestant Education in Canada East 163 A Select List of Publications by A. R. M. Lower compiled by Anne MacDermaid 183 The A. R. M. Lower Papers: An Inventory compiled by Anne MacDermaid

vi

FOREWORD

This volume of essays by a number of Arthur Lower's former students and colleagues is intended to honour a man whose influence they gratefully acknowledge, whose accomplishments they admire, and whom as a person they hold in respect. The proposal to produce a Lower Festschrift originated with Professor W. H. Heick, and to him belongs the credit for initiating, organizing, and supervising its preparation. Well after the project was launched I was asked to associate myself with him in order to afford such assistance as I could. It has been a pleasure to play a part in bringing the work to completion. Unfortunately it was impossible to invite all those who might have wished to contribute to do so, or even to include every one of the essays that were offered. To all those who responded to the invitation to take part, whether they are represented in the following pages or not, I wish to express the thanks of Professor Heick and myself for their cooperation, understanding, and patience. Each of the essays was written expressly for this book with the exception of Professor F. W. Gibson's, which was composed for delivery at a dinner tendered to Dr. and Mrs. Lower by the Department of History at Queen's University shortly before Dr. Lower received an honorary degree from that university in the spring of 1972. Professor Gibson's perceptive and eloquent remarks seemed ideally suited to a volume of this sort and he kindly agreed to their publication here. The generosity of Queen's University and Wilfrid Laurier University in contributing grants in aid of publication is also gratefully acknowledged. It is not my purpose to write of Arthur Lower the man or of A.R.M. Lower the historian: these subjects are treated in some of the contributions that follow. But perhaps I may be permitted one small personal reminiscence. Having had my previous schooling in the United States, I commenced my undergraduate career at United College, Winnipeg in the fall of 1938 in a condition of total and, until then, blissful ignorance of Canadian history. As far as I can recall, the existence of Canada was seldom if ever acknowledged by my teachers in Chicago, let alone the possibility that it might have a history that could be of any interest or consequence to American schoolchildren. It was evident vii

that now, in Winnipeg, my virginal innocence of the subject could not remain unsullied much longer and I soon found out that my first exposure to it would occur the following year at the hands of a Professor Lower. He was on leave as a visiting professor at Dalhousie University for the 1938-39 session. During his absence I heard from some more senior students who had taken classes from him disquieting reports, much exaggerated as I subsequently discovered, about what a tough customer he was, a brusque and demanding taskmaster who did not suffer fools and laggards gladly. I awaited the start of the next academic session with trepidation. Shortly before it began I met Dr. Lower for the first time in the rotunda of the college. Thinking to disarm him and gain his sympathy, I blurted out that, having had my schooling in Chicago and not having been taught any Canadian history, I feared he would think me rather stupid. Perhaps he sensed what I was up to and, if he did, he was having none of it. Peering at me with a look of disdain, his lip visibly curling, he growled: "You're lucky. You won't have to unlearn it all." That remark has come to mind more than once since then, because I am sure that a large part of Arthur Lower's method as a teacher (and he was one of the best I ever had) consisted in trying to make his students "unlearn" things. In part these were errors of fact and mistaken historical explanations but more fundamentally they were assumptions, convictions, values which, by and large, he identified with certain features of the Anglo-Saxon Protestant tradition in Canada. He wanted, for example, to do what he could to "dissipate the mists of colonialism," as he phrased it in one article; to dispel the belief that biggest is best and that the main purpose of life is getting and spending; to disabuse us of the notion that a country with the physiography of Canada could adequately support a very large population and should encourage massive immigration; and to rid our minds of what he seemed sure was a prevailing arrogant prejudice against our Frenchspeaking compatriots. At the same time, of course, good Anglo-Saxon nonconformist that he was and is, he sought to imbue us with a due appreciation of our personal liberties, an understanding of how they had been won, and an awareness of how easily they could be subverted. Beyond that, his constant aim was to challenge and provoke, especially those of us with "British" names. He would toss off some unconventional remark about the monarchy, or perfidious Albion, or the Orange Order, or the Conservative party, or the ethics of the viii

market place, and then look around the room with a kind of defiant scowl, an air of "I said it and I'm glad. What do you want to make of it?" If in our responses the sparks seldom flew as he must have hoped they would, no one who listened to him attentively in the classroom or in the discussions at meetings of the History Club, which he did so much to make a lively group, could help but be affected. No doubt many of his students never did entirely "unlearn" all of the attitudes and beliefs against which he fired off his salvoes, but one did not have to agree with all he said to appreciate the privilege of hearing his discourse and being made to think anew. As this is written, Arthur Lower at the age of eighty-four has recently brought out another book, on the timber trade, and has yet another well along in preparation. Apparently he has not "unlearned" the nowadays much abused Protestant work ethic. And he continues to be, as he has always been, much more than the cloistered scholar, continues to act on one of his own major precepts, most clearly expressed many years ago in an article in The Canadian Historical Review. The social scientist, he wrote there, must strive to be "a formative agent in society" and "cannot, if he would, be a mere passenger on board ship. He must stand his watch on the bridge and help with the navigation...." Arthur Lower is still standing his watch on the bridge. For this we can all be grateful. Roger Graham

Queen's University

ix

Contributors

Ramsay Cook Professor of History, York University

Frederick W. Gibson Professor of History, Queen's University

Roger Graham Douglas Professor of Canadian History, Queen's University

H. Pearson Gundy Emeritus Professor of English Language and Literature, Queen's University

W. H. Heick Professor of History, Wilfrid Laurier University

Bruce W. Hodgins Professor of History, Trent University

Anne MacDermaid Assistant Archivist, Queen's University Archives

D. C. Masters Professor of History, University of Guelph

W. L. Morton Vanier Professor of Canadian History, Trent University

Margaret Prang Professor of History, University of British Columbia

S. F. Wise Professor of History, Carleton University

xi

Arthur Lower: Always the Same and Always His Own Man t.01 Frederick W. Gibson

There could be no happier occasion than this for a family party. The occasion, as you all know, is that on Saturday next the patriarch of our family will become the youngest graduate of Queen's University. I am sure that you will agree with me that Dr. Lower is a rather unusual university graduate; accordingly he will be awarded a degree of unusual distinction. When Chancellor Stirling confers upon him the degree of Doctor of Laws, honoris causa, he will, of course, be recognizing Dr. Lower's distinguished contribution to higher education at Manitoba and at Queen's. In a larger sense, however, Queen's University will be honouring Dr. Lower primarily as a great Canadian who, to our good fortune, has lived and worked as an eminent and wellbeloved member of our university community for the past twenty-five years. And so it is with us who are his colleagues and friends in this department: we, too, salute him as a great Canadian, and we welcome this opportunity to tell Dr. and Mrs. Lower of the high regard in which we continue to hold them. I think I can sum up our feelings by saying that we began with admiration and respect and that we moved on, in the course of time, to deeper feelings of friendship and abiding affection. The admiration and respect were already present when Dr. Lower came to Queen's twenty-five years ago. He came in 1947, at the age of 58, already fully established on a national plane as a scholar, teacher, and public man. His reputation was established at the University of Manitoba and on the larger stage of Canadian society, and it had developed in the course of eighteen creative and exciting years in Winnipeg. In 1929 Dr. Lower went from the Graduate School of Harvard University into the headship of the Department of History at Speech delivered at a dinner given in honour of Dr. Arthur Lower at the Faculty Club of Queen's University on May 31, 1972.

I

_

FREDERICK W. GIBSON

Wesley College, an affiliate of the University of Manitoba. As the head and senior professor of a small department he taught an astonishing range of courses; he taught a quite significant number of able young men and women who have subsequently made their mark on Canadian life; and he became widely known as one of the principal reasons for the high reputation of United College as a liberal arts college. For Dr. Lower these were also years of creative scholarship. His earliest interest in historical studies had been directed, principally by Dr. Adam Shortt, into the field of economic history, and this interest had already resulted in two volumes of documents on money and banking in Canada. In Winnipeg the same interest found further expression in a third volume, entitled Documents Illustrative of Canadian Economic History, which he edited in conjunction with his friend and colleague Harold Innis. Shortly afterwards Dr. Lower's economic studies came to fruition in two definitive monographs on lumbering and the forest industry in Canada. These two books placed Dr. Lower in the front rank of Canadian economic historians, as a leading exponent of the environmentalist interpretation of Canadian history. They also brought him, in 1943, into the presidency of the Canadian Historical Association. As time went on, however, his interests shifted from economic history into the more general fields of social and political history. The first major result of the enlarging concern was the publication, in 1946, of what subsequently became perhaps his best known book Colony to Nation. It won for its author a governor-general's medal and the Tyrrell Medal of the Royal Society of Canada, and there are many people who still regard it as the most searching and the most sparkling general history of Canada. But Dr. Lower was never—either in Winnipeg or at Queen's—an ivory-tower scholar. He has always been far too immediately and urgently concerned about the welfare of his country to permit himself this detachment. During the 1930s he entered vigorously and as an ardent Canadian nationalist into the anguished debate over Canadian foreign policy. And when this debate ended with the declaration of war, he plunged into the defence of civil rights and civil liberties against the various kinds of authoritarianism which were thrown up by depression and war; as a leading organizer of the Canadian Civil Liberties Union he became a national spokesman for individual freedom and the preservation of liberal democracy. As a Canadian nationalist, Dr. Lower never deluded himself that Canada could rise to

ARTHUR LOWER: ALWAYS HIS OWN MAN

3

full stature as a nation simply by throwing off the remnants of an ancient colonial bondage. He recognized that Canadian nationality had formidable enemies at home and that these included provincialism, parochialism, and other manifestations of internal division. The most dangerous of these he conceived to be the fundamental cleavage between English-speaking and French-speaking Canadians. Accordingly, he threw himself into the effort to understand and expound the French fact in Canada, to interpret French-speaking Canadians to their English-speaking fellow countrymen; and this growing concern was eloquently reflected in his presidential address to the Canadian Historical Association in 1943. It is a concern which has engaged him, together with a growing number of Canadians of both cultures, ever since. So the man who came to Queen's University in 1947 was already an experienced teacher and a mature scholar, a man of national eminence in his profession and in the broader field of public affairs and public controversy. It is an indication of the good sense of this university and especially of the wisdom of Dr. R. G. Trotter, who was then the head of our department, that in January of that year Dr. Lower received an invitation to come here as a professor of history; and it is part of the continuing good fortune of this university that he accepted the invitation and that he has remained among us to this day. To Queen's University Dr. Lower brought a combination of qualities. He brought a clear perception of his own identity and of the identity of the academic profession; quite exceptional gifts as a teacher; the bright lustre of his scholarship; a powerful attachment to Canada and concern for her welfare; a sense of the larger world, in space and time, of which Canada is a part; and a profound philosophic commitment to the liberal democratic tradition of ordered freedom. It is not surprising that he quickly found friends and allies in every quarter of the university. I myself saw these qualities at pretty close range and over a long period of time. I came to Queen's and to the Department of History in 1952, five years after Dr. Lower. I was then the junior man in a department of four, with Eric Harrison presiding gracefully as the head of the department; with Waldo Smith, our beloved mediaevalist, giving one full measure of his devotion to the History Department and a second full measure to the Queen's Theological College; with Dr. Lower as the Douglas Professor of Canadian History; and with myself as the bottom man on the totem-pole. We were a small, closely knit department,

4

FREDERICK W. GIBSON

but, because my main interests were in Canadian history, it was Dr. Lower with whom I worked most closely. I saw him at close quarters; I saw him often; and I saw him in a variety of contexts. The more I saw of him the more my initial admiration grew into strong affection. To me, as a junior colleague, Dr. Lower gave generous encouragement and support. He encouraged me, sometimes a little against my will, to teach a variety of courses outside my main field of interest so as to broaden and deepen my knowledge of my subject. He taught me never to regard any set of lectures or seminars as a finished and ideal product, but to keep working away at them from year to year in an unceasing effort to improve them. He was always interested in my own researches, as he was in those of other colleagues, and he would keep drawing me out about them and putting to me the most difficult fundamental questions. Although we were decidedly unequal in knowledge and experience, he invariably treated me as an equal colleague; he never interfered and he never condescended. He did me the honour of inviting me to share several courses with him, and for me this was a most illuminating experience. I remember vividly one course on the history of French Canada which we gave together and which I still give. We agreed beforehand on a general division of the course. Dr. Lower was to take it for the first term and I for the second. It was also arranged, in a general way, that we should meet somewhere in the eighteenth century and that I should be prepared to pick up the analysis at about the time of the Conquest. It didn't quite work out that way. When I first met that class early in January, I discovered that, as far as they were concerned, Champlain had just landed at Quebec and the main developments in the settlement and growth of New France lay ahead of them. I was a little disconcerted at the time, but it was not long before I began to see things in a different light, and, as I did, my feelings of mild chagrin gave way to renewed respect for my senior colleague. It became clear that in the first term Dr. Lower had been talking about the problems of the French monarchy in the seventeenth century, about the conflict between the Gallican Church and ultramontanism, about the nature of mediaeval society, and, beyond that, about Augustinian theology. In short, he had been going to the roots of French Canadian, and hence of Canadian, experience. He had been asking his students: "What do they know of Canada who only Canada know?" What his students learned about Canada from Dr. Lower, it soon became apparent, was far more important to their intellectual development than what they learned from me.

ARTHUR LOWER: ALWAYS HIS OWN MAN

5

Dr. Lower, as this illustration suggests, was a teacher of unusual challenge and imaginative power. He had a gift for the arresting phrase, the provocative allusion, the sweeping comparison; and he used this gift to make his students sit up and take notice and begin to think. His lectures and, indeed, his every-day conversation ranged boldly over space and time, lifting the eyes of his students to wide horizons, transcending the provincialism of their experience, and liberating their minds from bondage to the here and now. Although he was in every way a provocative and stimulating lecturer, I always felt that he preferred leading a seminar to lecturing. He never liked to see students cast in a passive role; he preferred the close discourse, the informal exchange, the frequent conflict of ideas and evidence which are the great strengths of the seminar system. He required of his students extensive reading and frequent writing. He used to say to me that one of our most important duties was to teach them to read and write. Proficiency in essay-writing was a prerequisite for success in Dr. Lower's courses. His classes, as you might expect, were heavily attended and, as the numbers grew, he was compelled to rely more and more upon tutors for essay-marking. Nevertheless he managed to read and evaluate at least one essay from every student in each of his courses. His marginal criticisms were frequently blunt and severe, but they were usually designed to discourage superficiality and to give the student some sense of style, some feeling for the language, some perception of the literary craft of the historian. Dr. Lower not only took his students seriously but he treated them kindly and generously. He opened his home to them, and we all know what a warm and friendly and stimulating home he and Mrs. Lower made it. Faculty and students used to gather there frequently for the regular meetings of the History Club. This was a project on which Dr. Lower had positive ideas and to which he gave strong encouragement. It should be up to the student members, he felt, to organize the meetings, present papers, and carry the initiative in discussion. The faculty members should stay in the background. In practice, it was, for several years, an interesting and useful club, partly because its affairs were conducted along these general lines. But I don't think it will cause any surprise if I observe in passing that the History Club also owed a good deal of its success to the fact that one of the faculty members, to wit, our guest of honour this evening, did not invariably find it possible to remain in the background of the discussions which took place.

6

FREDERICK W. GIBSON

In addition to his teaching duties, Dr. Lower played an important role in the general deliberations of the History Department and in the development of our curriculum. Believing, as he did, that elegant amateurism was no substitute for systematic, professional knowledge of a subject, he didn't take much interest in our general arts program in history. Instead, he directed our attention primarily to the strengths and weaknesses of the honours program, and under his leadership we began to reform this part of our curriculum, extending our offerings into areas such as France and Russia in which we had not hitherto been engaged. The impetus which he supplied initiated a policy of constant reexamination and reform which is still our practice. Similarly, it was his constant emphasis on professional standards of teaching and learning which gave additional momentum to the development of our seminar system and which led us to make more systematic and generous provision for graduate studies. Dr. Lower's interest in higher education at Queen's University was by no means confined, however, to the Department of History. He participated vigorously and independently in many of the larger affairs of the university outside the department. In this area he was moved principally, it seems to me, by a strong sense of the dignity and worth of the academic profession. He never made the silly mistake of writing off administrative officers as fools or knaves, but he knew that they could often be wrong and he didn't like any who put on airs; he took the attitude—in my view, quite properly—that they are essentially the servants of the university. For him the professors and the students were the heart and soul of any university, and he was concerned to see the primacy of the faculty given suitable acknowledgement. He wanted to see it recognized symbolically at convocations and on other academic occasions when the university was host to visiting scholars. He also wanted to see it recognized practically, in the government of the university, and it was for this reason, I think, that he gave such strong support to the formation of the CAUT as a national professional association of academic people. And, although the major reforms of university government, both at Queen's and elsewhere, had to await the decade of the sixties, by which time he had retired from active teaching, I have reason to know that he welcomed those changes which gave professors a larger role in the making of university policy. Yet neither the Department of History nor the wider affairs of Queen's University have ever succeeded in monopolizing Dr. Lower's

ARTHUR LOWER: ALWAYS HIS OWN MAN

7

attention. At Queen's as at Manitoba he was always prepared to accept the larger duties of citizenship, and he continued to speak up and make himself heard on national and international issues. He was very much in demand as a speaker and lecturer, and his willingness to accept a variety of outside commitments gave him frequent opportunities for extensive travel both in North America and in Europe and added a dimension of immediacy to his knowledge of the leading issues of the day. Seeing, a little earlier than some, a new danger to Canada arising from the massive cultural weight of our great neighbour, he was quick to join with others in the organization of a pressure group for the defence of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as a vital instrument of our national identity. He persisted in his earlier efforts to persuade English-speaking and French-speaking Canadians to accept the fact of one another's existence, and he embraced every opportunity to take part in what has become a great national debate. One such opportunity appeared with the appointment of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. It was Dr. Lower who brought together a group of us from Queen's and R.M.C. in weekly meetings throughout one long winter for the preparation of a brief for the Royal Commission; and it was his insistent prodding, more than anything else, which kept us at the task of reconciling our own differences until, finally, the brief was presented. And it will surprise no one who knows Dr. Lower if I add that not only did he accomplish this collective effort but he went on to submit a second and individual brief of his own. With these manifold activities drawing upon his resources, it would have been understandable if the flow of Dr. Lower's scholarship had abated. Such, however, was not the case. Throughout his years at Queen's he went on steadily writing history. I shall not attempt a complete list of his publications for this period. Canada: Nation and Neighbour appeared in 1952. In the following year he published Unconventional Voyages, a charming evocation of the beauties of the Canadian north and of the springtime of his own life. With this book and its successor it became evident that his writing was taking on a more personal and a more philosophic cast. This Most Famous Stream, published in 1954, is an eloquent exposition of the liberal democratic tradition; it won for him a second governor-general's medal. Four years later, in the year before his retirement, there appeared Canadians in the Making, a notable pioneer work in the field of

8

FREDERICK W. GIBSON

Canadian social history and a book filled with suggestive insights into intellectual history which was then, in Canada, a new ground just being broken. Dr. Lower's years at Queen's, now stretching over a quarter of a century, have been in many ways an extension of his earlier career at Manitoba. They have brought to fruition a lifetime of distinguished scholarship, teaching, and leadership in public debate. It was fitting, therefore, that the range of his accomplishment was recognized in 1961 when he was elected president of the Royal Society of Canada. I said a few minutes ago that I have had excellent opportunities to see Dr. Lower in action and that what I have seen has drawn me closer to him. One thing I observed above all: in every context and in every season he was always the same. He was always himself. He was always his own man. I noticed some of the things he did: he worked long and late over his books and papers; he asked why; he stood up and he spoke out; frequently he lashed out in criticism, but cleanly and on matters of principle; he acted on his convictions; he kept putting in his oar and he invariably pulled his weight. I also noticed what he did not do: he pursued no vendettas; he lent himself to no intrigue; he played no favourites and he angled for no favours; he sought no office and he bowed to no official. I found him to be a blunt-spoken, unaffected, great-hearted and large-minded gentleman who treated everyone with r:spect and kindness and who confronted all the problems of life with a youthful zest and vitality, erect and unafraid. And I, like a great many other men and women, not only at Queen's but throughout the 1:.nd, warmed to him and honour him for the man he is. Arthur Lower is not a man who can be fitted neatly into any general categories of thought and behaviour. He is far too distinctive an individual to be easily packaged and labelled. And yet, when one considers what he has said and done, certain broad traits and influe ices stand out clearly and illuminate the man and his purposes. First, and most evidently, he is a reformer. "I was raised a Methodist," he has told us, and Methodism made him a reformer for life. It left him permanently dissatisfied with things merely as they are, and it constantly impelled him to do something about them. Linked with the Methodist influence there is in his case, I think, a powerful s :rain of Puritanism, though I want to be careful about applying that t.:rm to Dr. Lower. To be sure, I never heard him swear, although I c ften saw him angry; nor did I ever hear him tell an off-colour story; to t le temptations of material wealth and personal display he was simply

ARTHUR LOWER: ALWAYS HIS OWN MAN

9

indifferent; and about many aspects of personal conduct I found him distinctly reticent. All these, of course, are traits of Puritanism, but in applying that term to Dr. Lower I don't use it in its narrower, censorious meaning. I mean it in the sense that he viewed life as a very serious matter, believed that it should be used for high purposes, and held it to be a duty of a Christian man to bear the burdens and improve the lot of his fellow-men. In this larger sense Arthur Lower is unmistakably a Puritan, and it is this Methodist-Puritan strain which constantly engaged him in the affairs of the various communities to which he has belonged, including the university, the municipality, and the nation. It carried him, inescapably and wherever he was, into public controversy. In public debate, as in private discussion, his stance was often critical, and he was frequently outspoken in expression of it, but his purpose was to improve, not to reprove—or, if you will, to rebuke the sin but not the sinner—and this obvious intent made his criticisms impersonal and took most of the sting out of them. Shining through much of his social and political criticism is a passion for freedom. The enemies of freedom have been his enemies. In every season he has resisted arbitrary authority and irresponsible privilege, and has striven to free men from bondage to parochialism and prejudice and cant. But, if Arthur Lower is a reformer, he is also very clearly a conservative. He has the conservative's respect for order and dignity; his regard for the proprieties and civilities of life, for good manners; his concern for the responsibilities of a gentleman. The freedom which Dr. Lower exalts is an ordered freedom. I have often thought that this conservative strain is closely associated with, and has been greatly amplified by, his highly developed aesthetic sensibility, his love of beauty and, particularly, beauty in its natural form. One has only to look at Horizon House, his own home at Collins Bay, to see the loving care that has gone into the restoration of this lovely farmhouse and its surrounding woodlands. All his life he has lived as close to nature as he could get, and it has been, I think, a prime source of his strength and his imagination. We at Queen's and in the Kingston community have special reasons to be grateful for this quality of his conservatism. It was Dr. Lower who led the successful campaign to preserve for the community two of the finest Loyalist homes in our neighbourhood, the Fairfield houses at Millhaven and Bath; and he is still contending, in the company of other public-spirited citizens, for the preservation of the road along the north shore of Lake Ontario from Kingston to the Bay of Quinte as a great scenic drive and parkland.

>

FREDERICK W. GIBSON

When I look, as I do every day, upon the physical attractions of our own university campus, I often think of an episode which occurred a )out ten years ago and about Dr. Lower's part in it. At that time the pressures of expansion were rising fast, and the officers of the universi ty, with the approval of the trustees, decided that a new physics b gilding should be erected on the field south of Kingston Hall, on what h as been traditionally known as the Lower Campus to distinguish it ft om what was at one time the Upper Campus. The Lower Campus as then, as it still is, the largest and loveliest open space in the central a .ea of the university and, when the decision was announced, a howl o protest went up. The faculty formed a committee, as faculties will, to look into the matter, and before long the committee came up with n ore than one preferable and feasible alternative site. The students organized a funeral procession and deposited on the steps of the a iministration building a coffin bearing the inscription "The Lower C ampus." These protests had their effect I have no doubt, but I have sometimes wondered whether the decisive stroke which brought a )out a rescinding of the official decision was not dealt by Dr. Lower ho, as it happened, was not even on the campus while the conn oversy was raging. He was then in western Canada, making a speaking tour of Canadian Clubs, but, when news of the dispute n ached him, he proceeded at once to set the heather on fire among the w estern branches of the Queen's Alumni, many of whose members subsequently took up the cause and deluged university officers and tI ustees with cries of cease and desist. If my conjecture as to who really s:.ved the Lower Campus is correct, perhaps it ought to be renamed "The Arthur Lower Campus." As I reflect upon these complementary strains of reformism and conservatism in Dr. Lower, I am tempted to describe him as a conservative-progressive. Yet I resist the temptation because, however n- uch one may juggle the noun and the adjective or try to avoid cLpitalizing the first letters, it remains a label which, in Canada at least, has an unmistakably party ring about it, and Arthur Lower has ni:ver been a party man. And, besides, there is an older, a more apt term which comes to mind. Although he never gave his loyalty to a political party, there can be no question that he gave it in full measure n his country. If I had to choose a single word to describe our guest of h. >nour, I would say that he is a patriot. Never a patriot in any narrow, cl iauvinistic sense, but ever a patriot in the old-fashioned, noble usage o:' the word: a man who loves his country, defends its freedom, labours

ARTHUR LOWER: ALWAYS HIS OWN MAN

II

for its welfare, and cherishes its reputation. It is his love of this land and its peoples which suffuses his books, makes them great history, and embodies in them a poetic vision of his country. And so it is Arthur Lower, patriot and friend, scholar and teacher, always himself and still his own man, whom we salute tonight, together with Mrs. Lower and their family, to all of whom we express once again our admiration and our abiding affection.

A. R. M. Lower: The Professor and "Relevance" t-Orl Margaret Prang

There must be many of his former students who have thought a good deal about Professor Arthur Lower during the recent controversy over "relevance" in our universities, for Lower's most distinctive quality as a teacher was that he was "relevant" in the best sense. This was not the result of any self-conscious straining to be as fresh as the daily newspaper, the yardstick applied by some misguided contemporary critics of the university. I doubt that Lower thought much about "relevance," nor do I recall that his students worried about it either. Lower could not help being relevant because he was both a good historian and a man thoroughly involved in his times, and especially in the life of his own country. If memory serves correctly, my first course with Professor Lower at United College, Winnipeg, was in English constitutional history, in which we made extensive use of Stephenson and Marcham's Sources of English Constitutional History. The Dooms of Canute, Magna Carta, the origins of habeas corpus, the Petition of the People, the Solemn League and Covenant, and all the other central documents were subjected to careful study in their historical contexts. Lower never seemed to be keeping an eye on the present, but the contemporary importance of the material under discussion was clearly vital to him and he made it so to his students. I doubt whether many members of the class were aware, although it would not have surprised us, that Lower and a small group who composed the Winnipeg Civil Liberties Association were currently engaged in a variety of activities in defence of the liberties of Canadians, and especially to secure modification of the Defence of Canada Regulations. What did come across to his students was that Lower cared deeply about the liberty of the citizen and thought it of the utmost importance that we should understand as clearly as possible the long struggle of the English-speaking peoples to achieve parliamentary democracy and the rule of law. In the class13

I

MARGARET PRANG

r Dom, as outside of it, Lower was the passionate liberal, and his spirit was infectious. In the early 1940s United College was a small institution of about s x hundred students and a faculty smaller in number than many cepartments in today's provincial universities. The history department was composed of Arthur Lower and D.C. Masters, both of 'horn offered an impressive range of courses and regularly lectured f -om twelve to sixteen hours a week. In addition to the course in c institutional history I studied British imperial history, American and Canadian history, and took a special seminar on French Canada with I ower—and that did not exhaust his "repertoire." Despite the der lands of lecture preparation across such a broad front, Lower was 'ell versed in the current scholarship in several fields, as evidenced by tie ample and up-to-date bibliographies provided in his courses. Of course all this was in marked contrast to the narrow fields of specialization in which most historians today do their teaching. It is far from c bvious that either the teachers or the taught are better educated under tae arrangements generally prevailing now. As I recall, Lower himself narked all the essays and examinations written in his courses, which Lsually had an enrolment of fifty or sixty students. Great stress was c ut on written work and on history as a literary art, and essays were carefully read and criticized. First-class marks were not often awarded a nd the student who received one was inclined to think that he had I rob ably earned it. Students generally held Lower in some awe, not only because they respected his academic standards, but also because he could be blunt i i making clear his unwillingness to suffer fools gladly. While he was f iendly and attentive to students genuinely interested in their studies, I ower did not go out of his way to involve himself in their personal 1 yes. The world he was prepared to share with us was the world of his i Itellectual interests, and it was this kind of sharing which he rightly I eld to be the proper function of a university. In contrast to today's talk about the need for personal relationships between teachers and students, neither professors nor students wanted to become personal fiends. By thus declining to prolong the adolescence of underg raduates or to inflict their own egos on their students, professors flowed students the independence to use the university as the setting i -I which they could grow up in their own ways. Although individual women students had no reason to feel that he ccorded them unequal treatment in any way, Lower sometimes dis-

THE PROFESSOR AND "RELEVANCE"

15

cussed their presence in the university in a manner which implied that the case for the higher, education of women could scarcely be taken for granted. Yet since they were in the university, women students were encouraged to participate fully in its life. The United College History Club, which Lower sponsored and encouraged, included women among its members and officers, in contrast to the older club at the University of Toronto, on which it was originally modelled. Many scholars would have found the teaching responsibilites carried by Lower a career in themselves. Yet in the decade and a half since 1929, when Lower had joined the staff of United College, he had made important contributions to Canadian economic history with the publication with Harold Innis of Select Documents in Canadian Economic History and with his own Settlement and the Forest Frontier in Eastern Canada and The North American Assault on the Canadian Forest. He was soon to be at work on that most opinionated and provocative general history of Canada, Colony to Nation. Lower was mercifully free of the belief that undergraduates should be burdened with every small nugget of information he had unearthed in his research. Although it was clear to his students that he possessed an enormous knowledge of the growth of the Canadian lumber trade, nobody could say that as a teacher he was preoccupied with "forest man" or even with economic man. He was a professional historian whose teaching was untainted by the narrow "professionalism" which provides legitimate ground for complaint about the "irrelevance" of some current undergraduate teaching. If Lower had an overwhelming preoccupation in the classroom during the years of World War II, it was with English-French relations and the survival of Canada as a nation. During my first year as an undergraduate he was president of the Canadian Historical Association and in the spring of 1943 delivered his presidential address, "Two Ways of Life: The Primary Antithesis of Canadian Life." Until this time Mackenzie King had kept the conscription issue from exploding, by the expediency of his plebiscite on the subject, but it was by no means certain that the war would end without major dissension between French and English. Unlike most voices in English Canada, Lower was anxious to explain sympathetically why 78 per cent of the Quebec voters were unwilling to release King from his promise not to introduce conscription. One can hear him yet, pleading with his English-speaking, often strongly Protestant students, to try to do the impossible—to feel what it was to belong to a group which had

5

MARGARET PRANG

e eperienced what we and our forebears had never known, conquest, and to understand why "the call of the blood" to which French Canadians responded was so different from the one which had carried into the Canadian armed forces many young men who would have been our classmates but for the war. The fact of the conquest was central to Lower's interpretation of Canadian history. This emphasis does not seem unusual today, when the meaning of the conquest is one c f the major debates in Canadian historiography and when recent events have focused so much attention on the origins of FrenchCanadian particularism, but such an emphasis was less common thirty y ears ago. Lower often spoke of Canada in terms which were far from flatterand his students were left in no doubt that we were typical examples of the cultural philistinism which was one of our country's worst features, but it was also evident that on balance Lower believed t la the whole Canadian enterprise and the teaching of young Canac ians were both well worthwhile. Among other objectives he hoped to contribute to the emergence of a generation of Canadians who would E e well informed about international affairs, one which might exercise more control over the nation's destiny than the generation which had j ist allowed Canada to become involved in a second world war. 1.1though Lower was not an outright opponent of the war, he apr eared to be uncomfortable about it and seemed prepared to entertain t le idea that Canada might have stayed out of it. From the same considerations that led him to put a great deal of energy into the work c f the Canadian Institute of International Affairs, Lower was instrunental in establishing in 1941 the Macalester-United College conference on international affairs. Macalester College was a Presbyterian 1 beral arts college in St. Paul, Minnesota, with a student body and curriculum roughly like that of United College. Each year a group of forty or fifty students and several faculty members from one of the colleges played host to a group from the other college. When I particir ated in the conference it was in its third year and the Americans V isited Winnipeg. Already the conference had become an important feature of undergraduate life in the college, and I am told remains so in t :le University of Winnipeg, which United College has now become. A subject which never ceased to fascinate Lower was the role of Methodism in the shaping of individuals and of the English-speaking world. One could not be his student for long without realizing his ambivalent attitude toward his own Methodist background and to-

THE PROFESSOR AND "RELEVANCE"

17

ward Christianity in general. About the intellectual validity of Christianity Lower was as sceptical as he was appreciative of its ethical and social utility. Although the students of United College represented a wide variety of backgrounds, many were from staunch United Church families, and were in various stages of affirming or rejecting the religious beliefs they had inherited. Lower's continuing debate about religious issues contributed a good deal to the intellectual development of many of his students, perhaps not least to the candidates for the United Church ministry in his classes. Lower's account of the occasion in Aldersgate in 1738 when John Wesley's heart was "strangely warmed," an event which he found both intriguing and moving, and his discussion of the social transformation wrought by the Methodist movement, readily captured the attention of his listeners, even after they had heard it more than once. Obviously Lower admired the evangelical spirit and the humanitarianism which sprang from it, and we were frequently reminded that we should be proud to be students in a college where J. S. Woodsworth had once been "senior stick." Although Lower's views of the CCF were mixed, there was no uncertainty about his admiration for Wordsworth and other socialists of his stamp. The missionary spirit had not always served Canada well, we learned. On one occasion Lower was deploring the lack of leadership in every field of endeavour in Canada, when suddenly he burst into a somewhat uncharacteristic emotional lament over the loss in World War I of so many of the best young men of his generation. Among those left, he declared impatiently, too many of the most able, imaginative, and idealistic had gone off to be missionaries in China, where they were helping to create a revolution which would prove to be one of the decisive developments of the twentieth century. Canada's loss was China's gain! Perhaps it was his half-admiring fascination with the various forms of missionary zeal that led Lower to the discovery of Dr. Norman Bethune at a time when few Canadians had ever heard his name. In one of his many memorable classroom digressions, Lower launched into an account of Bethune's career as a doctor in Spain and China, of his death in the service of the Chinese communist army, and of the place he was already beginning to occupy among China's heroes. In years to come, Lower asserted, in what seemed an extravagant claim, the life of this son of a Canadian Presbyterian manse would count for more in relations between China and Canada, and perhaps between China and

18

MARGARET PRANG

the western world, than all the diplomats and Christian missionaries who had ever gone to China. That was in 1944, five years after ethane's death. I did not hear of Bethune again until fifteen years later, when the CBC began to bring him to the attention of Canadians in radio and television documentaries. During two weeks in China in 1967, as I became increasingly puzzled about why two Canadian university teachers were permitted to visit China at the peak of the Cultural Revolution, when tourists were almost unknown, I thought c ften of Dr. Lower's prophecy. Everywhere the information that the foreign visitors were from Canada immediately brought the enthusiast c response, "Oh yes, the country of Dr. Bethune." During a day spent i:i a village near Shanghai, the local propaganda brigade of the People's Liberation Army put on a program of songs and dances, accompanied by traditional Chinese instruments, which concluded with a special number in our honour, a dance-charade depicting the selfless service of Dr. Bethune to the Chinese people. It was easy to relieve that Dr. Bethune was the reason for our admission to China and to agree to take warm greetings home to Canada. Quite possibly Lethune's life has altered relations between Canada and China and elped to prepare the way for the present thaw in relations between China and the western world. Twenty-five years earlier, in telling his class about Bethune, Lower was making no special effort to be "relevant"; he was simply expressing his own lively interest in the world and I- is sharp sense of history. There can be few occasions of reminiscence among graduates of United College in the thirties and forties when the talk does not turn to Lower. The comments are always of two kinds: "He really believed in the importance of what he was lecturing about, and so did we," and ' that man did more than anyone else to show me how to think about t ay society and the world around me." If Canadians today are intellectually more sophisticated and better informed than they were when he began his teaching career, Arthur Lowermay take some credit for the change.

The Character and Spirit of an Age A Study of the Thought of Arthur R. M. Lower c.01 W. H. Heick

Arthur R.M. Lower has concerned himself throughout his career with the contribution that the study of history may make to a society's understanding of itself and thus to its development as a nation. His life work has been to bring Canadians, through history, to an appreciation of the uniqueness of Canadian society and thereby to foster the development of a mature Canadian nationalism. At the centre of his understanding of Canadian history lie two dialectics: the first between the French and English ways of life; and the second between the developing Canadian nation and the restrictions (real or imagined) placed upon that growth by the mother country. An understanding of and accommodation to the first dialectic and a resolution of the second will lead Canada to the realization of its destiny as a united, mature nation within which the fullness of a liberal life may be provided for all Canadians.

Arthur Lower was one of a group of Canadian historians who helped foster a general cultural nationalism that arose in Canada during and after World War II. Publication of Colony to Nation in 1946 marked him as a major intellectual force generating strength for this movement toward national self-awareness. In the succeeding quartercentury he maintained this position by writing several more books and numerous articles that appeared in a wide variety of professional and popular journals. Colony to Nation was the culmination of more than half a century of personal development and the impact of several significant events. Born in Barrie, Ontario in 1889, Lower grew up in a community which 19

zo

W. H. HEICK

had recently moved out of the frontier stage. Started in 1819 as a military outpost on the portage from Lake Simcoe to Georgian Bay, Barrie really began to develop with the extension of the Northern Railway into the Muskoka region. As a base for the lumbering industry it acquired the rough image of such towns. In 1876, it was vying with Winnipeg for the honour of being reputedly the most evil town in Canada. In the last quarter of the century, the lumbering industry swept on beyond to new forests and Barrie became a trading town for the agricultural settlers moving onto the cleared land. For the most part the English settled in Barrie itself while the Scots and the Ulster Irish occupied its environs. Out of such Tory True Blue soil with a dash of Orange roots grew a community which emphasized its British and Protestant heritage. It was typical of the Ontario back counties which were in the forefront of the wave of anti-Roman Catholic bigotry that swept the province after Confederation. The county produced several champions of Protestantism such as D'Alton McCarthy and later C.B. Sissons. It was this attitude that Lower, in his inherent rebelliousness against the status quo, was to reject. However, the community was a fertile ground not only for advocates of the status quo, but also for less orthodox figures, such as Ernest C. Drury, the United Farmers of Ontario leader and premier of the province. In his own view Lower has been a natural Protestant in the sense that he was never satisfied with the existing state of affairs and that he accepted the necessity of individual decision. The conversion of his parents from Anglicanism to Methodism had a most profound influence on him; The new creed intensified his inherent impatience with things as they are and reinforced his belief in the need for individual action to achieve the ideal. This idealism, combined with a respect for order and a certain asceticism reflecting the Puritan influence so pervasive in Canadian society, constituted the basic social values of the liberal society he came to believe was the destiny of Canada. The proud imperial faith that radiated from Great Britain to her colonies at the turn of the century generated in this young man a naive devotion to the Empire.2 Experience gradually eroded this early faith and substituted for it a greater appreciation of Canada. His rebellious determination to be himself ground against his father's growing nostalgia for his native land—England; his own reaction to national events such as the Alaska boundary dispute provided further grist. His most formative years were spent as an officer in the Royal Navy during World War I. They left him with a much deeper sense of history, a

THE CHARACTER AND SPIRIT OF AN AGE

21

great dissatisfaction with the English class structure, and most important, a realization of how small was the British interest in the Empire. The "trip home" made him far more a Canadian, ready to build a unique Canada. Lower's intellectual development, fostered in his youth by extensive reading of Dickens, Thackeray, and Eliot, continued after the war with more reading of Shakespeare, Newton, Parkman, Macaulay, and Tennyson. Tennyson's "Ulysses," with its ethic of struggle restating the Methodist ethic, was the most formative poem in his educational experience. Student days at the University of Toronto under George Wrong and others were notable primarily for literary training. His professional development took up most of the decade after World War I. Work under Adam Shortt at the Board of Historical Publications laid the basis for much of Lower's early writing in Canadian economic history and helped him to earn a master's degree from the University of Toronto. Shortt was one of the few men, along with George Wrong and Harold Innis, whom Lower recognizes as his mentors in understanding Canadian history. Shortt's argument was that Canadian historical problems should be dealt with in a distinctly Canadian frame of reference. Such an assertion reinforced Lower's own nascent Canadian nationalism. The doctoral program at Harvard provided sound historical training. His most influential professors were Frederick Merk, who inculcated a powerful sense of meticulous, passionate scholarship and introduced him to the frontier thesis, and Samuel Eliot Morison, who reinforced his sense of style. After Harvard came Wesley (later United) College and the beginning of his career as teacher-historian, which eventually led to Colony to Nation. When Lower joined the historical profession the basic pattern of Canadian historiography had already become evident. Both English and French-Canadian historians have concentrated upon the survival motif, the real issue in dispute being the best means of survival. Canadian historiography also has been highly coloured by the tendency for the historian to act as "guide and mentor to the nation"3 in using the past to elucidate the present and plan the future. Lower was part of a new generation of Canadian historians, the Environmentalists, who took their understanding of the Canadian survival motif more directly from Canadian experience than any of their predecessors. Both the North Americanists, the branch of the Environmentalists to which he belongs and the Laurentians, among whom Donald G. Creighton is numbered, found their point of depar-

2.2.

W. H. HEICK

ture in the work of their contemporary, Harold Innis. These men were led by their North American experience to recognize the interdependence of the work of the various social scientists, including the historian, whose task was considered to be one of synthesis. Dissatisfaction with the shallowness of Adam Shortt's bloodless economic history, generated by a reading of John Ruskin's attack upon Utilitarian economics, Unto This Last, caused Lower to humanize his history and develop an appreciation of Canadian history within the context of a North American position. This fundamental point of view affected equally his use of the frontier thesis and later of the antithesis and maturation theses. II As a frontier historian, Lower drew together the experiences of his youth in the hinterland community of Barrie and as a forest ranger in the Ontario northland with his work under Merk at Harvard. He went beyond the purely political implications of the thesis to analyse why there had been in all phases of national life a less thoroughgoing expression of democracy in Canada than in the United States. In the absence of class distinction, and in the spirit and practice of political democracy, religion, and education, Canadian history had demonstrated Canada's development as a North American rather than a British nation.4 However, a bold Turnerian interpretation did not provide the complete answer, leaving Canada, as it did, merely a copy of the United States. Quite in line with his own nature and Shortt's premise, Lower was unable to ignore the special circumstances of the Canadian experience when compared to the American: a stronger and longer relationship with Britain, a briefer frontier experience, a greater influence of external events and, for French Canada, a different cultural background. In juxtaposing tradition and environment he was consistent with his North American understanding of Canada's history in favouring the heavier impact of environment; but the thrust could not be exclusively environmental. III

Although frequently used in his early writings to help explain

THE CHARACTER AND SPIRIT OF AN AGE 2.3

Canada's history, the frontier thesis had, for Lower, the limitation of being parochial. He retained it as a secondary factor in his work, but another line o f thought led to the basic concepts that form the essential substance of his thoughts about Canadian history. That core centred upon the first dialectic: Canadian history teaches that the uniqueness of Canada lies in the conflict between the French and English ways of life. Reason, compromise, and toleration must be applied to maintain and intensify a sense of nationalism. Only in this way may the destiny of Canada—maturity and unity as the framework for a liberal life for all members of society—be achieved. This key to Canadian history—the antithesis of the two ways of life—has its intellectual antecedents in the work of several men. The thesis concerning the close relationship between Calvinism and material progress, as expressed in a general sense by Max Weber, Ernst Troeltsch, and R.H. Tawney, and applied specifically to Canada by Andre Siegfried, was used by Lower to explain the differences between French and English Canadians. To enlarge his position he added new socio-cultural and intellectual studies to the largely economic environmentalism put forth by scholars such as Harold Innis. The culminative result is an argument that the antithesis is based upon a fundamental difference between French and English Canadians in their attitude to life, of which race and religion are two of the more obvious manifestations.5 Despite an occasional effort to find common historical ground for French and English Canadians to unite upon, Lower has continued to give primary weight to the antithesis as basic to his understanding of Canadian history. The second dialectic in Arthur Lower's interpretation of history involves the maturation thesis. Not only are two communities involved in an attempt to live together as one; they are also seeking to establish themselves as a mature member of the family of nations. Both peoples, but primarily English Canadians, must break the colonial ties with the mother country and learn to act in their own interests, on the basis of their own needs. Nationhood, to Lower, means being completely at home in your surroundings, which you and your ancestors have made yours, in order to build an enduring expression of the human spirit, embodying new values. Nationalism, the psychological manifestation of that maturity, is defined as the "spirit of inner cohesion" holding people in a community at peace with one other.6 The colonial response to life is childish, emotional: the national mentality generates a reasoned response based upon Canada's known needs.

2.4

W. H. HEICK

The emphasis is not upon political autonomy but rather upon psychological independence:7 the realization by Canadians of their separate personality so that something unique may be contributed to the history of mankind. An expanded consciousness of itself and experience—the history of the group—give that group a greater sense of its own destiny. In this context Lower has emphasized most strenuously one element which makes French Canadians much more attractive to him than are his English-Canadian compatriots. The former have been a selfconscious community ever since the generation following the Conquest. This maturity has come about primarily as a result of the Conquest, a deep historical event forcing the people to plumb the depths of life itself. On the other hand, only in the last quarter-century have English Canadians attained any semblance of a similar mature nationalism. Some of his most biting phrases are reserved for the description of their colonial frame of mind: "I have always felt that we should blush for the unconscionable time it has taken us to arrive at maturity. While Uruguayans and Peruvians, to say nothing of Guatemalians, have, for these many generations, taken for granted their place as self-determining peoples, Canadians have sat around their parents' house like great lubberly, overgrown boys afraid to learn and face the facts of life."9 The lack of maturity is the chief sin; what has been substituted in its place only compounds it. Crass materialism has so filled the English Canadian that there is no room left in him for a decent ideal such as love of country. Lower's interpretation of Canadian history up to the end of World War II has the unity and logic implicit in his conception of the creation and continuing survival of an increasingly mature national state. He divides Canada's history into three eras:9 from the Conquest to the achievement of responsible government; from this milestone to the end of World War II; and from 1945 to the present. French rule was a prologue during which there was no sense of nationalism among the French inhabitants. The initial era was that in which selfconsciousness was first awakened in the component elements of Canada. The middle era involved the quite mature French-Canadian nationalism and its budding English-Canadian counterpart coexisting in an effort to create a unified Canada. The latest era of Canadian history, that since the end of World War II, is as yet incomplete. Lying beyond the threshold of national existence, the period must be experienced and historical perspective gained, before its significance can be

THE CHARACTER AND SPIRIT OF AN AGE

25

fully grasped and its relationship to the earlier eras understood. At the beginning of that era Lower was prepared to state that the Canadian nation had been created. Twelve years later he reverted to expressing "some doubt as to the lady's existence, though of late there have been pious attendants at her shrine." 10 The miracle of Canada is only at its penultimate stage. The problem centres in the failure of modern Canada to find a distinctive genius. Only with such a discovery can Canadian nationalism become more significant than that of the Scots. Lower's use of the antithesis and maturation concepts to illuminate Canadian history raises the question of his position on several important topics: Canada's relationship with Great Britain and the United States; the use of the metropolitan concept; and the heroes and villains of Canadian history. In the debate over the relative appreciation of Canada's heritage he has demonstrated an obvious bias in favour of the United States. The judgment that Canada's external relations have been too much dominated by emotion explains his lack of appreciation of the British tie. A preference for the United States rests upon a belief that Canada's self-interest runs parallel to American self-interest. Most thorough in tracing Canada's steps to maturity in her association with Great Britain, Lower has made no similar effort to seek out and analyse the steps by which Canada has become a satellite of the United States. Since World War II he has with some stridency argued against undue American penetration of Canadian life: only free Canadians can shed their own cheap standards, reject others, and develop a Canadian life style of high quality. A more customary theme is the failure of Canadians to come up to his standards of excellence in citizenship: ". . . it is quite evident that a large section of Canadian opinion will not resist American pressure. . . . there can be few people on earth who are as willing, even anxious, as are English Canadians, to present their behinds to be kicked. "There are few Canadians in Canada. The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars but in ourselves, that we are underlings'."" Lower's use of the metropolitan concept also demonstrates his understanding of Canada's maturity. In one sense he discerns in the whole pattern of Canadian economic development the metropolitanhinterland relationship. His more fundamental understanding of the idea, however, relates to his explanation of the maturing process of the Canadian nation. In studying the historical relationship between mother country and colony—between metropolitan centre and

z6

W. H. HEICK

hinterland—he finds a parallel in the psychological relationship of a dominating elder person and an immature youth. Canada is caught, in the North Atlantic triangle, between two competing metropolitan centres. The Canadian problem has been to grow out of a provincial relationship with Great Britain, stay out of such a relationship with the United States, and develop a genuinely indigenous cultural nationhood. For a variety of reasons Lower favours the hinterland side of the metropolitan-hinterland concept. As noted above, he sees Canada in the role of hinterland in the international scene. Secondly, metropolitanism, by definition, is based upon "its undignified philosophy of grab,"12 a philosophy which is doubly odious because domination permits neither toleration nor compromise. Lastly, metropolitanism smacks of urbanism. Having been born and raised in a frontier community, he has always had a deep, sincere love of the Canadian countryside and wilderness, and a dislike of the city in which "foolish man battens down under bricks and mortar the earth he lives by."13 The either/or choice is against the city, despite his realization that a mature culture is not created without great centres of population. His fundamental dissatisfaction with the relatively conservative, immature nature of Canadians can also be found in his choice of historical heroes and villains. The decision really centres upon whether the person has been mature enough to catch the proper vision of what Canada might be. Among the saints of the saga are William Lyon Mackenzie, Robert Baldwin, Egerton Ryerson, William Hamilton Merritt, Thomas Keefer, Edward Blake, John S. Ewart, Henri Bourassa, John W. Dafoe, Louis St. Laurent, and A.G.L. McNaughton. Four men are in an even more special category: John A. Macdonald, for possessing the vision to create a nation; Wilfrid Laurier, a greater man than Macdonald, for giving all Canadians something they could agree upon—a Canada based upon compromise and tolerance; Robert Borden, for having forged a foreign policy based upon Canadian self-interest; and William Lyon Mackenzie King, the "unbeatable old helmsman,"" for having guided a united Canada through World War II. The villains of the piece are those who are timid in thought and action regarding the creation, maturation, and survival of the Canadian nation. Institutional villains include the Family Compact; the Orange Order; the pre-Confederation Anglican Church; and most villainous of all—Canadian Toryism in its political and nonpolitical

THE CHARACTER AND SPIRIT OF AN AGE

27

manifestations. Individuals included are George Brown, Alexander Mackenzie, Oliver Mowat, Honore Mercier, R.B. Bennett, and Arthur Meighen.

IV The capstone of Arthur Lower's interpretation of Canadian history is his understanding of the destiny of Canada. Maturity for maturity's sake is not the goal of the Canadian nation. Rather, the prime purpose is the creation of an opportunity for Canadians to live a unique Canadian way of life. In one sense that destiny can be expressed in his desire to have Canada become a home for Canadians; at present it is too much a boardinghouse. The French-English antithesis can never be resolved and in a sense resolution would be undesirable, for it would destroy that which, to him, gives Canada its uniqueness. Each generation must cope with the problem anew, its attempts at accommodation based upon past experience. His hope is that if French and English each act according to their understanding of the best interests of Canada the two will be able to come to a common decision on fundamental issues. The response to the Korean War represents something as close to this common response as Canadians have yet achieved. Given the disparate human elements in Canada, the wonder is not that the country has problems but that it exists at all. To ensure its continued existence both English Canadians, who bear the greater guilt of provocation and injustice, and French Canadians have to come closer to the Christian ideals of tolerance and forgiveness. The English need to cultivate more tact, less arrogance, greater self-assurance; the French a greater awareness of the rest of the world, and less touchiness. If such qualities can be developed then there is hope for a united Canada based upon the absolute equality of two unique peoples. The energy to create the Canadian nation is drawn from the land itself. This concept is not geographical determinism. Canada is a social being, created by the people's reaction to the land; not a geographic being, moulded by the impact of geography on the people. Canada with its divisions of race presents no common denominator in those profundities which normally unite, in race, language, religion, history and culture. If a common focus is to

28

W. H. HEICK

be found, it must come out of the common homeland itself. If the Canadian people are to find their soul, they must seek for it, not in the English language or the French, but in the portages and lakes of the Canadian Shield, in the sunsets and relentless cold of the prairies, in the foothill, mountain and sea of the North. From the land Canada, must come the soul of Canada. That it may so come, is not as fanciful as some might think. . . . Canada has been built in defiance of geography.... In every generation Canadians have had to rework the miracle of their political existence. Canada has been created because there has existed within the hearts of its people, a determination to build for themselves an enduring home. Canada is a supreme act of faith.15 The bringing of English and French Canadians to live together is feasible primarily because of their common North American heritage. To throw non-North Americans into the situation compounds the problem to a point close to hopelessness. Lower has long argued against the traditional concept that unlimited, indiscriminate immigration is the solution to this country's need for human resources. Expressing a position expounded by Adam Shortt and strengthened by his own reaction to his father's increasing nostalgia for things English, he has argued for an immigration policy based upon a reasoned judgment of Canada's needs. The development of natural resources will lead to a steady increase in population, whereas stimulation of growth by government policies aimed solely at playing the numbers game will not build a permanent community, but in fact will hurt Canada's development in the long run. Cheap immigrant labour drives out better quality Canadian labour if there is not room for both and only the United States will gain by the exodus of Canadian labour. Only in one respect does he recognize some value in immigration to compensate for its disturbance of such social homogeneity as exists in Canada: by removing the numerical preponderance of coloniallyminded Anglo-Saxons, it might contribute to the self-reliant cultural maturity of Canada. The immigrant does "not find 0 Canada subversive. If those who spoke English in Canada and did not find 0 Canada subversive could link up with those who spoke French and join to 0 Canada the words Terre de nos deux, there might then be some future for the common country."16 In the deepest sense the ideal way of life which Lower wants Canadians to have is a liberal or free way of life. His approach to life

THE CHARACTER AND SPIRIT OF AN AGE

z9

includes the concepts of freedom, tradition, democracy, ethical idealism, love of nature, coupled with efficiency. The liberal society is defined as that which takes most note of the individuality of man and is conducive to its fullest expression. It is the free man who can live life to the fullest. Yet freedom must be understood in the Actoni an sense of justice or the New Testament's concept of doing unto others as you would have them do unto you: a laissez faire society leads to slavery. Therefore a society which is just to the individual is the best society. Although justice can only be approximated by man, the liberal approach to life will come nearest to achieving perfection.'' It is from this philosophical well that his strong belief in compromise is drawn. Democracy in Canada becomes equality of opportunity for persons who remain different—not the United States concept of an equal chance to become part of the melting pot. Lower's elitism is quite compatible with his understanding of democracy. He recognizes that people are different and will remain so. Ninety-nine per cent of the people are Philistine by nature and he, a member of the remaining one per cent, sees it as his duty constantly to berate and goad the ninetyand-nine toward higher standards. In order to secure justice, freedom must be firmly grounded in tradition as expressed in institutions. A great admirer of the British use of experience to construct solid institutions, Lower is proud of Canada as "the pinnacle of dogmatic legal symmetry."18 Democracy as the voice of the people may be the voice of Satan and must be bridled with the reasoned use of law or first principles. For this reason, during World War II, he condemned vehemently the implementation of the War Measures Act, argued strenuously for the protection of civil liberties, and later supported the passage of the Canadian Bill of Rights. It is not altogether easy to reconcile with that earlier concern for civil rights his unwillingness to protest against the imposition of the War Measures Act during the FLQ crisis of October 1970. Two supplementary points must be noted. First, it is observable that since Lower has expressed his understanding of the destiny of Canada in terms appropriate to nineteenth-century liberal England, the achievement of that destiny places a much greater burden upon the French half of the Canadian compact. He appreciates most such men as Cartier, Laurier, St. Laurent, and Trudeau: French Canadians who have moved very far towards becoming English Canadian liberals in their outlook on life. Secondly, a basic assumption may be questioned. Is the French-English relationship really as dichromatic as he sets it up to be? Does the French-English dialectic really lie at the centre of

3o

W. H. HEICK

Canadian history? In the light of recent work in comparative Canadian literature establishing the existence of common French and English themes, together with the recognition of the relevancy of the survival motif to both French and English Canadian history,19 Lower's earlier efforts to seek out the common ground may have been a shorter line to the true destiny of Canada. The land may well be the scene of greater racial synthesis than he has envisioned. Lower's conception of the destiny of Canada being fulfilled by the achievement of a liberal way of life is entirely in accord with his basic philosophy of history. Like many Canadians since Confederation he has discarded the evangelicalism of the nineteenth century; but he has attempted to retain the Christian ethic which he equates with liberal humanism. Without its eschatological aspects life becomes an earthly striving for ethical perfection, guided by Christian standards. In this manner he has resolved what is to him the fundamental dilemma of the liberal—seeing man as a child of God yet having difficulty finding Him. Since he cannot answer the question of the existence of God in the affirmative, Lower has to deal with the question of determinism in history in purely human terms. In middle age he strongly favoured the deterministic view of life; however, his faith in the concept of free will was not to be denied, even at this stage of his development. He himself is not willing to be forced into a final conclusion on such points: " . . . confident epochs emphasize free will; those for which . . . the future is uncertain, determinism;"20 but if an attempt were made to draw a conclusion from his writings, the decision would have to be in favour of free will. The doctrine of progress raises another fundamental question for the historian. Lower has used several different concepts of progress to illustrate this thought. Colony to Nation is the story of people progressing to maturity. Later he elaborated a cycle of human affairs based upon surges of human energy. In Canadians in the Making he illustrates the thesis that Canadian society has progressed through a series of increasingly complex stages. This Most Famous Stream contains an even closer exegesis. There is no "inevitable plan at work for the progress of the race . . . to an Utopia. . . . there are logical processes in history which may take centuries to work out and . . . we are the beneficiaries of some of them. . . . Man transcends the ages."21 Consistently with the rest of his thought, progress is here expressed in human terms—in the areas of social justice and national maturation.

THE CHARACTER AND SPIRIT OF AN AGE

31

V

The conception of history as a key which the past gives us with which to confront the problems of the present requires of the historian, in Lower's judgment, a role essentially that of an educator and secondarily of an activist. The historian is a member of a community and his most creative function is to provide that commuity with selfknowledge as a foundation for faith in its own existence. History, in its most vital sense, is, for Lower, a joint product of myth and fact. Fact is the body but myth—the soul—gives life. He is in agreement with Macaulay that the historian will miss that which gives significance to all historical writing unless he acts as an artist. The historian can reach the heights and even transcend his profession to become a poet if he can stir in his readers a sense of man's destiny. Abhorrent of patriotic gore, Lower realizes that good history —national history—must be based upon fact sought out in every area of life and looked at objectively. The search for an integrating principle is an inductive act which, in the case of Canadian history, will not achieve complete depth and truth until several generations have lived and died as Canadians. Until that happens, writing Canadian history remains an act of faith, part of the process of constructing the Canadian nation. Writing to Canadians, in 1964, from his home near Kingston, Horizon House, he said: " . . . let me exhort to patience, tolerance, compromise, but determination. Canada is more than whim. It is for the fixed reality under it all whose presence cannot be proved but which is there, that I, like many other men, have laboured. I hope our labours will not be in vain." 22 Here again is the disciple of Macaulay, encouraging in his countrymen national pride and a sense of identity. In his outspokenness in this regard, Lower is more like the French-Canadian national historians than any of his English confreres. The use of the antithesis places upon Lower the responsibility of understanding the nature of each element and of educating his compatriots. English and French historians agree that he has achieved greater understanding of the other's culture than any other Canadian historian. Writing often to interpret French Canadians to English Canadians, he has also endeavoured to explain English Canadians to themselves so that they can better understand the human context within which the dialogue is occurring. His role as educator is also seen in his penchant for writing essays

32

W. H. HEICK

for the popular press. Deliberately provocative, in order to arouse the average Canadian to action, he has often suffered the critical barbs of his professional colleagues for having overstated his case. The activist aspect of his career is best illustrated by his role in the civil liberties movement noted elsewhere in this volume.23 A conception of history such as Lower's poses a difficult dilemma: can history retain its integrity as a rigorous and disciplined form of scholarly inquiry while partaking of public and functional uses in the treatment of current issues? The ideological assertion that it can does nothing to resolve the dilemma; resolution must come at the operational level. Has Lower succeeded in remaining a respectable professional historian while he has pursued his other vocation of helping to create the nation of Canada? Two basic qualities govern the judgment of a historian: rigid standards of research and an artistic flair for interpretation. Lower has acquitted himself well on both counts. His work on the forest industries in Canada, The Square Timber Trade of Canada (1932), Settlement and the Forest Frontier in Eastern Canada (1936), The North American Assault on the Canadian Forest (1938), and Great Britain's Woodyard (1973), his most scholarly contribution to Canadian history, is still definitive. His forte, however, is interpretation generously salted with personal reflections, rather than original academic scholarship. Colony to Nation is his greatest attempt to create history, representing the "pitch of my concern for country, calling out such imaginative and literary powers as I possessed."24 Still the best history of Canada, it succeeds brilliantly in setting forth his basic interpretive position concerning the two dialectics and in using a diverse range of subjects such as politics, economics, geography, race, religion, and social heritage to argue his case. With the advantage of the perspective acquired as Canada moves into a new age, some questions do arise about Lower's interpretations. In the field of religious history he is accused of not remaining true to Adam Shortt's precept and succumbing occasionally to the use of the American experience to describe the Canadian scene rather than asking his questions of the evidence from within the Canadian framework. The commonly-held idea that Roman Catholicism impeded Quebec's economic development can no longer be accepted. The uncritical use of the Weber —Tawney thesis also is suspect. Still, it is generally recognized that he has had a greater influence upon the interpretation of Canadian religious history than any other historian.

THE CHARACTER AND SPIRIT OF AN AGE

33

Secondly, the theme of nation-building has a teleological cast which may tell us more about Lower's dream for Canada than about what Canada has actually come to be. He may well have been unconsciously sifting out of all the evidence insignificant material to validate his position while ignoring facts more relevant to a truer understanding of Canada's history. Obvious examples of this are his virtual ignoring of the native races of Canada except where their actions impinge upon the life of the Caucasian majority, and his emphasis on the antithesis, resulting in a concentration upon the centre of action—usually in Ontario and Quebec. As a result those parts of the country out of the main line of activity, such as the Maritimes, are often ignored. (His understanding of the history of the Prairie West is an exception.) There is little in his writing of a pan-Canadian nationalism in which all regions, all minorities, have a role to play in creating the Canadian nation. And lastly, Lower's definition of nationalism as a "spirit of inner cohesion" holding people at peace with each other affects the validity of the antithesis theme. How can a Canadian nation be built upon such a definition when the uniqueness of that nation is supposedly in the continuing "bitter agony" of Canada? Canadian historiography began to come of age with Arthur Lower and his generation of historians. The two decades of the twenties and thirties were years in which the hard work on the details of various aspects of Canadian history was done, laying the basis for the age of synthesizing in the forties and fifties. Eclectic in his interests, Lower led the way in pulling into consideration a great variety of factors from the Canadian past, making history much more than past politics. With synthesis came style: his success and that of his contemporaries in writing serious, attractive history raised professional standards to a level equal to that of any other intellectual discipline in Canada, and to most historical work being done beyond its borders. The question of style has always been of major concern for Lower as an historian. An amateurish level of literary flair had run in the family. The inheritance was cultivated by an academic training as much literary as historical and by a life-long apprenticeship. The result was a narrative style characterized by precision, strength, and grace, used by fellow historians as a benchmark,25 and represented in Canadian literary anthologies. When the need arose, especially in his efforts to arouse the Canadian public, he was capable of adding an acerbic touch.26 The work of Arthur Lower in helping to create the myth of Canada

34

W. H. HEICK

and to bring Canadians to the threshold of a unique way of life may be judged a success. After the publication of Colony to Nation in 1946 reaction against his position steadily deteriorated to a point where, as early as 1952, D.C. Masters could claim that he "is in danger of becoming a crusader for a cause already won."27 Overly optimistic? Quite possibly. In the light of the derogatory judgments on nationalism being handed down in the present day, Lower may well be a crusader for a cause already lost or, as he states in closing his autobiography, "a surviving relic of Tennysonianism." But Macaulay's dictum that the perfect historian is he in whose work the character and spirit of an age is exhibited in miniature, is surely much more applicable. Only when historical perspective provides the opportunity to place in context the age since 1945 will Arthur Lower's true place in Canadian history and historiography be established. Whatever that judgment may be he will be remembered as one who heeded the injunction, warning, and exhortation he addressed to his fellow-countrymen at the end of Canadians in the Making: HEREOF NOR YOU NOR ANY OF YOU MAY FAIL AS YOU WILL ANSWER THE CONTRARY AT YOUR PERIL.

NOTES 1. For a grant which enabled research for this essay to be carried out appreciation to Wilfrid Laurier University is expressed. 2. G. A. Henty's Under Drake's Flag and W. H. G. Kingston's True Blue are the first books Arthur Lower remembers his mother reading to him as a youth. 3. Richard Saunders, "The Historian and the Nation," Canadian Historical Association, Historical Papers presented at the annual meeting held at Ottawa, June 7-10, 1967 (Ottawa: Canadian Historical Association, 1967), p. S. 4. The best example of Arthur Lower's use of the concept is in Settlement and the Forest Frontier in Eastern Canada, IX, Canadian Frontiers of Settlement, ed. W. A. Mackintosh and W. L. G. Joerg (Toronto: Macmillan, 1936). S. Colony to Nation, A History of Canada (Toronto: Longmans, Green, 1946), pp. 68-69. The idea was expressed initially in his review of D. G. Creighton's Commercial Empire of the St. Lawrence, Canadian Historical Review, 19, no. 2

THE CHARACTER AND SPIRIT OF AN AGE

6. 7. 8. 9.

10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19.

20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27.

35

(June 1938), 207-10. A more elaborate exposition came in his presidential address to the Canadian Historical Association: "Two Ways of Life—The Primary Antithesis in Canada's History," Canadian Historical Association, Annual Report, 1943 (Ottawa: Canadian Historical Association, 1943), pp. 5-18. The choice of topic was determined not only by the state of his professional research but also by his concern for French-English relations under the stress of World War II. "A Bright Future for a Dull Subject," Manitoba Arts Review, 3, no. 4 (Fall 1943), 12. Autonomy and independence are not synonymous to Lower. Autonomy relates to the institutional apparatus of the imperial relationship; independence refers to the sense of maturity of the Canadian person and nation. Canadian Forum, 31, no. 369 (October 1951), 162. For the most important statements of the maturation thesis see Colony to Nation (1946, 1953, 1957, 1964); Canada: Nation and Neighbour (Toronto: Ryerson 1952); and Canadians in the Making: a social history of Canada (Toronto: Longmans, 1958). Canadians in the Making, p. 439. "Andy McNaughton," Queen's Quarterly, 77, no. 4 (Winter 1970), 622. Colony to Nation, p. 212. Canadians in the Making, p. 260. "Andy McNaughton," p. 622. Colony to Nation, pp. 560-61. Canadians in the Making, p. 442. This Most Famous Stream: The Liberal Democratic Way of Life (Toronto: Ryerson, 1954) contains the fullest exposition of Arthur Lower's views on the topic. Canada: Nation and Neighbour, p. 25. Ronald Sutherland, Second Image (Toronto: New Press, 1971); Ramsay Cook, The Maple Leaf Forever: Essays on Nationalism and Politics in Canada (Toronto: Macmillan, 1971), pp. 142-44. The survival thesis as applied to both French and English historians had been expressed earlier by D. G. Creighton on June 16, 1959 in "A Long View of Canadian History," a CRC Television network program. "Why Men Fight," Queen's Quarterly, 54, no. 2 (Summer 1947), 187. This Most Famous Stream, p. 183. Colony to Nation (1964), p. xiv. Ramsay Cook, "Canadian Freedom in Wartime, 1939-1945." My First Seventy-five Years, (Toronto: Macmillan, 1967), p. 265. W. L. Morton, "The Art of the Narrative," Culture, 20 (1959), 399. See p. 24 for a sample and read also his "Bonnie Chairlie's Gone Awa'," Canadian Forum; 19, no. 219 (April 1939), 6. "Mind of an Era," Queen's Quarterly, 59, no. 4 (Winter 1952), 497.

Canadian Freedom in Wartime 1939-1945 t.41 Ramsay Cook

The intermittent attack upon the Defence of Canada Regulations is almost entirely due to lack of understanding, taken advantage of by extremists and pacifists, who are well aware that it is the Regulations alone that prevent them from accomplishing their anti-British designs. Commissioner S. T. Wood, "Tools of Treachery," RCMP Quarterly, April 1941. During the early months of 1938, as the insatiable ambitions of Herr Hitler and his ally, Benito Mussolini, were becoming increasingly plain, the government of Canada continued to hope that somehow the whole nasty nightmare would end without disturbing the country's tranquillity. Indeed the resignation of Anthony Eden, and his replacement by Lord Halifax as foreign secretary in the Chamberlain government in Great Britain, brought new hope for continued peace in the view of Canada's prime minister, William Lyon Mackenzie King. The best policy appeared to be to temporize, to avoid discussing issues that might reveal any signs of uneasiness about the way of the world. "To go on steadily," King wrote in his diary on March 14, 1938, "as if all were proceeding satisfactorily is, I think, at times like the present, the best policy for the government of our country."' But Prime Minister King was not prepared to neglect all elements of preparedness. The time had not yet arrived for any serious rearmament policies. Nor was the government willing to have its hand forced by a full-scale parliamentary debate on foreign policy. That could be delayed until early summer when the government would confirm its full support for policies of negotiation and appeasement. But some measures might be prepared, measures to ensure the country's internal security should the worst happen. On March 14, 1938, an order in council was passed establishing a standing interdepartmental Committee on Emergency Legislation under the chairmanship of C.P. 37

38

RAMSAY COOK

Plaxton, K.C., of the Department of Justice. This fourteen-man committee, representing eleven government departments and the RCMP, was assigned the task of examining and reporting on legislation that might be required in "the event of war, or emergency, real or apprehended."2 In July 1939 the committee submitted its report setting out a series of proposals which were to become the Defence of Canada Regulations proclaimed under the authority of the War Measures Act on September 3, 1939, one week before Canada formally declared war.3 This series of sixty-four regulations formed the basis for the internal security measures utilized by the government of Canada during World War II. Together they represented the most serious restrictions upon the civil liberties of Canadians since Confederation. In addition to the almost unlimited authority provided by the War Measures Act itself, the Defence of Canada Regulations provided the Liberal government of W.L.M. King with powers to intern without trial, prohibit specified political and religious associations, restrict freedom of speech and the press, and confiscate property. Normal legal procedures were thus summarily set aside as Canada prepared to fight totalitarianism in the cause of liberal democracy. Some small voices in the country quickly recognized the danger in this irony. [

While it was natural enough that a period of war should necessitate some unusual security measures there were important features of the Defence of Canada Regulations which went well beyond what Canadian conditions, "real or apprehended," could easily justify. The basic difficulty lay in the enabling legislation, the War Measures Act. That act, sponsored by the government of Sir Robert Borden in August 1914 and passed almost without debate,4 gave the government virtually unlimited powers. Its generality is illustrated by a central clause which stated: "The Governor in Council shall have power to do and authorise such acts and things, and to make from time to time such orders and regulations, as he may by reason of real or apprehended war, invasion or insurrection, deem necessary or advisable for the security, defence, peace, order and welfare of Canada."5 Nowhere in the act was provision made for parliamentary scrutiny of orders and regulations made under the authority of this legislation, though all such actions were recognized as having the force of law.

CANADIAN FREEDOM IN WARTIME

39

Of course Parliament was not abolished, but the events of the early months of World War II suggest the fragility even of that check on the authority of the government. On September 1, 1939, the King government invoked the War Measures Act declaring that a "state of apprehended War exists and has existed from the 25th day of August."6 Three days later sixty-four security regulations were proclaimed. Parliament met on September 7 in special session to fulfill King's long-standing pledge that in the event of war the Canadian Parliament would be asked to approve an independent declaration of war. During that brief session of Parliament no time was allotted for discussion of the Defence of Canada Regulations or the other actions taken by the government in preparation for war. Prime Minister King did, however, assure Parliament that another session would be held, prior to an election, in order to give the representatives of the people an opportunity to assess and to criticize the actions of the government. That promised session of Parliament opened, and closed, on January 25, 1940—the shortest session in Canadian parliamentary history.' In the election which followed, called on the pretext of a non-confidence motion passed by the Ontario legislature, the Liberals won a resounding victory.8 The new Parliament assembled on May 16, and nearly a month later, on June 11, 1940, the prime minister rose in the House of Commons to move a motion establishing a committee to examine the Defence of Canada Regulations.° For more than nine months, then, Canada had been lacking the one check on government power which remained under the War Measures Act. How extensive were the security measures which the government had adopted and what was their effect upon traditional civil liberties? The majority of the regulations were open to little criticism given wartime conditions, though all of them were based upon the dangerous principle of raison d'etat. The intention of these regulations was to prevent espionage, to protect strategic areas, to ensure some control over the activities of enemy aliens, and to prevent disruption of communications, or illicit production and sale of fire arms. Several of the regulations, however, infringed upon more fundamental civil liberties. Regulation 15, for example, established press censorship. Regulation 21 authorized preventative detention, under order of the minister of justice, of any person who could potentially act "in any manner prejudicial to the public safety or the safety of the state." 10 Thus habeas corpus and normal trial procedures were set aside. Regulation 22 provided for an advisory committee to examine cases and hear

40

RAMSAY COOK

objections from internees, but this was hardly a substitute for a normal trial. It is scarcely any wonder that the regulation had not been unanimously proposed to the government by its civil servants in this instance, and that it was the regulation most seriously criticized by civil libertarians during the war years. It nevertheless remained virtually unchanged for the duration of the war and was used to intern some 1,200 persons." Regulations 39 and 39A were designed to prohibit statements which "would or might be prejudicial to the safety of the state or the efficient prosecution of war."12 This broad prohibition was a clear threat to freedom of speech, discussion, and the press. Since it was to be enforced by provincial attorneys general and local courts, it was obviously subject to loose interpretation. It was under this regulation that several "beverage room conspiracies" were nipped in the bud.13 In 1940 the government added Regulation 39C, a list of sixteen organizations prohibited for the war's duration. That list was doubled in the next year to include in addition to Fascist, Nazi, Communist parties and fronts, the Jehovah's Witnesses, and Technocracy Incorporated. As troubling as the prohibition itself was the introduction of the principle of "guilt by association": attendance at a meeting, public advocacy of the illegal organization, or distribution of the organization's literature was tantamount to membership "in the absence of proof to the contrary." This latter phrase, used elsewhere in the regulations, reversed the traditional judicial precept whereby the onus to prove guilt rested upon the Crown." This is not the only way in which traditional trial procedures were altered by the regulations. One rule empowered the prosecution to apply for a closed hearing. Furthermore summary trial was prescribed in all cases except those in which the attorney general of Canada elected trial by indictment. Thus the normal right of an accused to elect trial by jury was denied. Summary trial became the normal procedure at least during the early years of the war when the regulations were most frequently applied.15 The overall effect of the Defence of Canada Regulations was to sweep aside many traditional and hard-won guarantees of freedom and, by appeal to the concept of raison d'etat, set aside judicial proceedings which had long been considered part of the normal functioning of the liberal democratic state. "Strange irony it is," the Winnipeg Civil Liberties Association remarked in 1940, "that a war for freedom should bring to Canada as one of its first results the negation of freedom, and the introduction of the favourite device of tyrannical

CANADIAN FREEDOM IN WARTIME

4

governments: arbitrary arrest without cause shown and without the safeguard of the law."16 II That the regulations existed was in itself sufficient cause for alarm. At least some examples of the application of the regulations indicated that the alarm was not without substance. A few instances may illustrate the point. One case which caused widespread suspicion of the government's motives was the internment of the president of the Canadian Seaman's Union, Pat Sullivan, on June 18, 1940, just at the time when conciliation proceedings involving his union were beginning. His offence was membership in the outlawed Communist party of Canada. Sullivan's lawyer, J. L. Cohen, K.C., applied for a hearing before the advisory committee but neither then nor later, when Regulation 22 had been amended to allow the internee access to sufficient particulars of his case to prepare a defence, was anything other than the charge of membership offered as a reason for internment. Cohen then turned to the courts in an unsuccessful attempt to gain a writ of habeas corpus. The union leader remained interned until October 1942 when all suspected Communists were released, the Soviet Union now having entered the war.17 The effectiveness of the internment of men like Sullivan, and the banning of the Communist party, is perhaps best measured by the disclosures of Igor Gouzenko and the subsequent spy trials after the war. Since Sullivan was not the only labour leader who found himself in trouble under the regulations—Charles Millard, the secretary of the CIO in Canada, was charged though never tried in 1939—organized labour developed a suspicion that the regulations were not entirely without class content, at least in application. Both the Trades and Labour Congress and the Canadian Congress of Labour, as a consequence, expressed annual concern and criticism of the internal security measures. A somewhat more spectacular case was that of the mayor of Montreal, Camillien Houde. His crime was to denounce the decision by the federal government to carry out a national registration. On 2 August 1940, he called reporters to his office where he branded registration as nothing more nor less than a prelude to conscription.'8 Houde was arrested and interned and he remained interned for more than three years. His arrest was accompanied by a blundering attempt

42

RAMSAY COOK

by the Office of the Press Censor to prevent newspapers from publishing Houde's statement, an action which caused even the most conservative newspapers to cry out in the cause of press freedom. Since Houde's offence was a very specific one it is difficult to understand why he was not prosecuted in the normal way. There was no obvious question of national security involved. That he was never prosecuted left the lingering suspicion that he was interned less as an enemy of the state than as an enemy of the political party in office. Certainly that was Houde's view and his internment did not prevent him from being overwhelmingly re-elected to the office of mayor of Montreal in 1944, nor to a seat in Parliament in 1945. So, too, there were other cases where political motives seemed to govern the application of the regulations. There was even one charge that a significant number of internees were released early in 1940 in order to assist the Liberals in the election." Whether this was so could not be proven, but the arbitrary nature of the regulations and the secrecy surrounding their enforcement ensured that the suspicion should exist and that the charge should be made. Most cases, when they became public and did not remain simply quiet internments, were against little-known people who could rarely rally public support. Such was the case of Samuel Levine, a young University of Toronto physicist who served nearly six months in jail and was not subsequently reemployed by his University. His crime apparently was that of renting a room to a man who possessed a substantial quantity of Communist literature.20 So, too, the case of the proprietor of the New Age Bookshop in Vancouver who was imprisoned for a year and fined $200 for possessing a quantity of books judged prejudicial to the safety of the state.21 Even a well-known person, Lieutenant-Colonel George Drew, the leader of the Conservative party in Ontario, found it difficult to obtain fair treatment under the regulations. Drew's offence was his public rejection of the conclusions of a Royal Commission established to examine allegations he had made concerning the tragedy of the Canadian forces during the fall of Hong Kong. Drew was charged with making statements prejudicial to the war effort but after a public protest the charge was withdrawn. The result was that Drew was left with a charge made against him neither proven nor disproven, hardly a satisfactory situation.22 Needless to say, Drew's political career, like that of Camillien Houde, was not seriously hampered by the incident. Though there were many other cases of large and small moment,

CANADIAN FREEDOM IN WARTIME

43

none was of the magnitude of the treatment received by those Canadians whose origin was Japanese. This community, living on the West Coast, had long been the object of prejudice, suspicion, and jealousy. Before Japan ever entered the war there were demands for restrictions on Japanese and Chinese Canadians. Though the King government attempted to resist this pressure, it nevertheless took some measures that were designed to deal with the problem in the event that Japan became an enemy belligerent.23 The original plan was to place the Japanese in Canada in the same category under the Defence of Canada Regulations as the one which required Italians and Germans to register as enemy aliens. This step was taken the day that the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.24 But these measures did not prove strong enough to appease the almost hysterical public in British Columbia. In January 1942 the government, responding to continuing pressure, adopted a policy of partial evacuation which provided for the removal of all male Japanese between the ages of eighteen and forty-five. When even this draconian measure failed to quiet the public, the Defence of Canada Regulations were amended, authorizing the minister of justice to evacuate all Japanese from security areas. No distinction was drawn between Canadian citizens of Japanese origin and those who had not obtained citizenship. In addition the possessions of this group passed into the hands of the Custodian of Enemy Property for disposal.25 Though the owners were to be compensated, even in terms of money alone there were obvious injustices. The case of Uazusu Shoji, who had twice been wounded while serving with the Princess Patricia's during World War I, provided a blatant example. Under the Soldiers' Settlement Act, he had purchased a nineteen-acre farm in British Columbia. The farm, his house, his chicken houses, his incubator and his chickens were sold for $14,092.59. After deductions for taxes and sundries Shoji received a cheque for $39.32.26 At the end of the war a decision was made by the Canadian government to deport the Japanese Canadians, a decision which was upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada. In the face of a public outcry the King government decided to reverse its decision. That was the least that could be done for a minority group of whom Prime Minister King had stated in August 1944: "It is a fact that no person of Japanese race born in Canada has ever been charged with any act of sabotage or disloyalty during the years of the war."27 The only explanation for the infamous treatment of the Japanese Canadians was public hysteria coupled with the existence of the dangerously arbitrary powers which the govern-

44

RAMSAY COOK

ment had assumed under the War Measures Act. But this action, as well as others, was clear proof that the critics of the security regulations were not concerned merely about potential threats to individual liberties. The threat was actual. III During wartime the Canadian public and its leading spokesmen readily accepted personal sacrifices and limitations on their normal liberties when these seemed necessary for the successful prosecution of the war. Moreover, since the vast majority of the people were not likely to be affected by even the most stringent security regulations, it is not surprising that there was no widespread protest against even the most severe sections of the Defence of Canada Regulations. Also, most Canadians appear to have trusted their government, believing that even though it had assumed unusually broad powers, it would use those powers with care and discretion. The Winnipeg Free Press, a newspaper which voiced some criticisms of the internal security measures, nevertheless expressed an opinion which was doubtless widely accepted during the war years. Its editor remarked: "there does not appear to be much ground for the apprehension that under cover of these regulations Mr. King, suddenly emerging as a Hitler with Mr. Lapointe transformed into a Himmler, will pull the foundations from under the Canadian democratic system."28 Obviously this faith was partly justified though the treatment of the Japanese Canadians indicated that it was less than wholly so. The fallacy of the argument, of course, was that measures, not men, are what guarantee the functioning of liberal democarcy. There can be little doubt, then, that the King government, in taking the steps that it did to protect the internal security of the country, had the support of the vast majority of the Canadian people. Indeed there were some individuals and groups who believed that even more drastic steps might have to be taken. That would seem to be the implication of remarks like those of Gordon Conant, the Liberal attorney general of Ontario, who declared on 7 May, 1940, that "to my mind the application of the time-honoured principle of British justice, that a man is innocent until proven guilty, makes it impossible to curtail the activities of these slimy, subversive elements that are at work in not only this province but throughout the country. . . ."28 The atmosphere of

CANADIAN FREEDOM IN WARTIME

45

crisis created by the war produced a mood of unease and suspicion. The commissioner of the RCMP reported in 1940 that his officers had received "literally thousands" of calls from "public-spirited citizens" about suspected acts of espionage and subversion.30 The government, too, was aware of public concern. In May 1940 when the blitzkrieg was at its height, King told his War Cabinet "that the critical military situation in Europe could not fail to have reactions upon the internal situation, that public opinion was becoming much exercised over so-called 'Fifth Column' activities, and that the government was under obligation, in addition to maintaining the defence of our own coasts, to maintain order within the country. Police forces for the latter purpose would require to be increased and expanded, and immediate consideration would have to be given to the advisability of raising a Home Guard."3' This tense atmosphere made it difficult for even the mildest critics of the government's actions to voice their views. To do so seemed at least unpatriotic, at worst, almost subversive. R.B. Hanson, the parliamentary leader of the Conservative party, was one of those who displayed little sympathy for civil libertarians. "I know there are a certain type of intelligentsia," he told the House of Commons in 1940, "—we call them 'pinks' in the street—who object to these regulations.... I am not going to make an attack on the professors of our universities but I have often thought that if they had a little more to do they would not give so much consideration to these abstract and academic questions about which we continually hear from them."32 Hanson was expressing a view widely shared among his Conservative colleagues who argued for strict enforcement of the regulations and supported these demands by quoting the views of such organizations as the Canadian Legion. A few Conservatives, notably John Diefenbaker and George BlaCk, counselled moderation and warned against hysteria. This latter view was shared by most spokesmen for the Liberal party, and was expressed most effectively by Ralph Maybank of Winnipeg and Brooke Claxton of Montreal. Within the King cabinet there were certainly some ministers who believed that the regulations, as originally promulgated, went too far and were in need of revision. One forceful exponent of this opinion was the postmaster general, C. G. Power, who had a well-deserved reputation as a conscientious liberal. In January 1940 Power prepared a letter of resignation from the cabinet, giving his opposition to the illiberal wartime measures as the reason for his departure. Power

46

RAMSAY COOK

argued that the regulations were unacceptable because they went beyond similar measures in Great Britain. So, too, they were inconsistent both with criticisms that had earlier been made of arbitrary actions by the Bennett government and with basic liberal philosophy. Fourthly, the postmaster general was convinced that such broad powers placed in the hands of the law enforcement authorities would inevitably be abused. Finally, Power wrote, the regulations were "not in keeping with the principles which we have asked our men to uphold in Europe, even at the risk of making the supreme sacrifice. We entered the war largely in support of an ideal and in opposition to an ideaology [sic] repugnant to our citizens. It seems to me that we should not suppress liberty at home on the vain assumption that we will thereby serve its cause abroad."33 The letter was apparently never sent. Power remained in the cabinet and a few months later was given the position of minister of national defence (air). No doubt he had expressed his viewpoint in cabinet, and found sympathy for his contention that the regulations were in need of modification. Prime Minister King himself was of that opinion though, as in most matters, he apparently needed "occasional stiffening."34 Power's views probably helped to convince his colleagues that the government should respond positively to the demand that a parliamentary committee be established to recommend changes in the regulations. After that committee had reported in 1940 the cabinet accepted proposed changes which slightly liberalized procedures under the regulations, though no fundamental changes were made.35 The cabinet was not always so sympathetic to this committee's recommendations. When in 1942 the parliamentary committee proposed raising the ban on the Communist party, the Jehovah's Witnesses, and Technocracy, the government refused to act, though interned Communists were subsequently released. The adoption of the parliamentary committee's report was never moved in 1942 (its chairman, J.E. Michaud, had resigned in opposition to its recommendations), apparently because many French-Canadian members of the Liberal party were unwilling to have the ban on the prohibited organizations lifted." The two minor parties represented in the House of Commons, and particularly the CCF, proved the most persistent critics of the security regulations. John Blackmore, on behalf of the Social Credit party, repeatedly argued for caution in applying the regulations. M. J. Coldwell and T. C. Douglas, for the CCF, advanced far more fundamental

CANADIAN FREEDOM IN WARTIME

47

criticisms. In session after session of Parliament they argued for broader parliamentary control of the regulations, for wider provisions for review of internees' cases, and they raised numerous individual complaints against the application of the regulations. Coldwell expressed the fear that the regulations could "leave the door open for some over-zealous advocate to inflict tyranny, oppression and calculated repression upon a thoroughly patriotic people."37 So, too, it was the CCF, particularly Angus Maclnnis, a member from British Columbia, who led in the futile defence of the rights of the Japanese Canadians.38 Opinion outside of the House of Commons was similarly divided. Some daily newspapers, such as the Montreal Gazette and the Toronto Globe and Mail, were anxious that the government should be fully empowered to deal summarily with suspected opponents of the war." L'Action catholique expressed the not obviously Christian sentiment that "to cut off all Nazi heads would be well, to cut off all the heads of the Bolshevists would be better."4° The Winnipeg Free Press and the Vancouver Sun from the outset of the war opened their pages to the views of those groups who advocated revisions of the regulations and gave them some editorial support. In Quebec, Le Devoir also adopted the stance of mild criticism of security measures. All would perhaps have agreed with the Free Press view that "Canada's effective war effort will depend upon the maintenance, not the limitation of freedom."'" By far the most consistent and effective press critics of the Defence of Canada Regulations were Saturday Night and the Canadian Forum. Neither of these magazines enjoyed an enormous circulation but Saturday Night certainly reached well beyond the small, moderately left-wing constituency of the Canadian Forum. Together these journals made themselves the organs of the civil liberties groups in the country. This was natural enough since B. K. Sandwell, Saturday Night's editor, was also president of the Toronto Civil Liberties Association. The Forum's regular contributors included Andrew Brewin and G. M. A. Grube, both of whom were active in the Toronto Association, and F. R. Scott who was already becoming Canada's best known civil liberties lawyer. Though the Forum's defence of freedom was more trenchant and persistent than Saturday Night's, the latter was doubtless more influential since it was a respectable journal whose support of the war effort, in contrast to that of the Forum, was unflinching. Moreover, by opening his pages to writers whose natural

48

RAMSAY COOK

home was the Forum, B. K. Sandwell played a role of singular importance." To these magazines should be added the Canadian Unionist, the journal of the Canadian Congress of Labour, which pointed out the dangers of arbitrary power to an audience probably not reached by Saturday Night and the Forum. The most vigorous and committed critics of the Defence of Canada Regulations were the small groups of citizens who banded together in the Civil Liberties Associations. There were at least three of these associations in existence when the war broke out: in Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver. At the beginning of the war, the Montreal association took the initiative both in criticizing the internal security regulations and in calling a national civil liberties conference which was attended by some 400 people in May 1940.43 The conference was not a great success since it attracted a large number of left-wing delegates who forced endless debates and probably lost a good deal of public sympathy for the civil liberties cause. The Montreal Gazette's view of the conference was quite simple. "The government," its editor wrote, "ought not to tolerate associations of this character."44 More effective was the action taken by the Montreal group, in company with associations in Toronto and Winnipeg, in appealing directly to the candidates in the 1940 federal election to support a demand for the establishment of a parliamentary committee to review the regulations. This appeal was successful for it gained a commitment from Prime Minister King to establish a committee when Parliament convened. The Winnipeg Civil Liberties Association is particularly interesting since it was formed as a direct response to the challenge of the Defence of Canada Regulations." It began with four individuals: David Owen and A. R. M. Lower, both professors at United College, Lloyd Stinson, a United Church clergyman, and Alistair Stewart, a chartered accountant. In November 1939 these four men dispatched a letter to Prime Minister King, protesting the regulations and appealing directly to King's vanity. "You cannot therefore escape a grave responsibility:" they concluded, "It would be a very sorry epitaph for a great Liberal Prime Minister that he was the man who opened the way for the extinction of Canadian liberty:'f46 They asked specifically that Regulation 21 be repealed and that the right of habeas corpus be restored. This letter was widely circulated and by early 1940 a Provisional Committee for Civil Liberties was formed. The Provisional Committee's strategy was twofold. First it approached a variety of politicians in an effort to get the issue raised as soon as possible in the House of Commons.47 A second project was to

CANADIAN FREEDOM IN WARTIME

49

draw up a detailed and specific critique of the regulations to be widely circulated and then forwarded to Prime Minister King. The result was a "Memorandum on Canadian Freedom in Wartime." On May 8, 1940, after many revisions, the document was forwarded to the prime minister signed by seventy-seven prominent citizens, mainly from Western Canada. At the same time the document was published in a variety of sympathetic newspapers. The essence of the argument in the memorandum was that in a war for democracy, freedom at home should be safeguarded. Therefore limits on emergency powers and guarantees for individual rights were necessary even in a time of crisis. The Winnipeg group offered a particularly telling comparison between Canada under the War Measures Act and the Defence of Canada Regulations and the situation in Great Britain. "In Great Britain," they noted, "the parallel is the Emergency Powers Act. In contrast with the War Measures Act, the British Act is valid only for one year subject to renewal by Parliament. Moreover, each regulation taken under it must be laid before Parliament as soon as possible and either House may, within 28 days after receiving it, by resolution annul it."48 The document then proceeded to argue for parliamentary review of the regulations and a series of revisions in several sections of the existing rules. The letter to the prime minister accompanying the memorandum accurately described its signatories. "They are without exception," the letter stated, "people who do not stand for extreme views of any sort, but on the contrary represent the sober common sense of our community."49 This letter reveals the general approach of the Association which was permanently founded in April 1940 with Lower as its first chairman.s° It intended to remain moderate in composition in order to ensure that its radical criticisms of the Defence of Canada Regulations would carry weight with the community and the government. It was concerned not to become identified with far left groups—a strategy which was followed elsewhere as well.5' This, of course, left the Winnipeg group open to the charge of timidity, as when it refused to aid in defending a Communist bookstore owner in Vancouver in 1941.52 But the strategy was perhaps necessary given the temper of public opinion. Instead the group devoted its energies to prepiring submissions to the parliamentary committee on the regulations, writing articles for sympathetic publications, speaking to various groups in an effort to broaden support, and badgering politicians whenever the occasion presented itself.53 The Winnipeg Association, like its counterparts elsewhere, set its

50

RAMSAY COOK

sights particularly on the preventative detention powers provided by Regulation 21. This power, they repeatedly argued, should be repealed or at least hedged in by substantial safeguards. On that demand they never waivered even when it meant breaking ranks with such helpful supporters as the Winnipeg Free Press. In the autumn of 1941 that newspaper's Ottawa correspondent set out the position of the King government, and the Free Press, on the issue of preventative detention. "In time of war," Grant Dexter wrote, "special precautions are needed to safeguard the state. These cannot be provided by the courts because in many cases no evidence exists to warrant detention. Often there is no more to go on than suspicion. Yet the risks are so great that no chances can be taken."54 In the final analysis, Dexter insisted, faith had to be placed in the fairness of the minister of justice, Ernest Lapointe. To this the Winnipeg Civil Liberties Association replied without hesitation. "We desire in no way to disparage the Rt. Hon. Mr. Lapointe when we protest against his power of summary imprisonment without trial but only wish to affirm that as a matter of historical record and social experience such power is dangerous and likely to cause injustice when placed in the hands of any man."55 If the civil libertarians won the argument they lost the battle. Preventative detention remained a feature of the Defence of Canada Regulations until the war ended and most of the regulations were revoked on August 16, 1945.56 But the practice evidently was habitforming. Less than two months later, on October 6, 1945, secret Order in Council 6444 was passed giving the prime minister or the minister of justice powers of preventative detention to deal with the revelations of espionage provided by the defecting Soviet cipher clerk Igor Gouzenko. Those detained were held incommunicado, without formal charges, and were eventually "tried" before what must have been the most unusual Royal Commission ever estabished in a parliamentary democracy. "The whole proceedings," Prime Minister King admitted privately, "are far too much like those of Russia itself."57 IV In wartime Canada few people would have argued that emergency security measures were entirely unnecessary. Indeed the majority of Canadians, concerned that the Axis powers should be defeated at all

CANADIAN FREEDOM IN WARTIME

5'

costs, appeared willing to allow their government to define the extent to which normal civil liberties would be permitted to exist in time of crisis. That trust, in itself, may be a measure of the confidence of the Canadian people in the good democratic faith of their elected leaders. Some small groups, composed of politicians, professors, lawyers, journalists, and others, while not questioning the good faith of the government, were nevertheless convinced that even in time of war safeguards were necessary for the rights of the individual. Indeed perhaps those safeguards were more necessary than ever at a time when public emotion ran high and the rights of dissenters were more fragile than usual. For civil rights which exist only in normal times, but are revocable in times of crisis, are limited rights indeed. The Canadians who defended the liberty of the subject during those years both gave witness to the importance of civil freedoms and perhaps ensured that a bad situation was not allowed to grow worse. "The loss of freedom in Canada was to become one of the grave issues of the war," Professor Lower wrote in his autobiography, "and the little groups that rallied to do what they could to conserve our traditional liberties under the pressure of wartime hysteria deserved well of their country."58

NOTES

1. James Eayrs, In Defence of Canada: Appeasement and Rearmament (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1965), cited p. 61. 2. Defence of Canada Regulations (Ottawa: King's Printer, 1939), P.C. 531 (March 14, 1938), p. 2. 3. Ibid., p. 8. 4. Canada, House of Commons Debates, 1914, 1, 21 ff. 5. War Measures Act, George V, ch. 2, S6. 6. Proclamations and Orders in Council Passed under the Authority of the War Measures Act (Ottawa: King's Printer, 1940), 1, 1919-20. 7. E.A. Forsey, "Mr. Mackenzie King and Parliamentary Government," Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, 17, no. 4 (November 1951), 451-67. 8. J.W. Pickersgill, The Mackenzie King Record, I, 1939-44 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1960), pp. 60-64. 9. House of Commons Debates, 1940, 1, 658. 10. Defence of Canada Regulations, 1939, p. 30.

51

RAMSAY COOK

11. G. Ramsay Cook, "Canadian Liberalism in Wartime," (M.A. thesis, Queen's University, 1955), p. 265. 12. Proclamations and Orders in Council, 1940, 1, TC2973. 13. R. F. Lambert, This Freedom: A Guide to Good Citizenship in Time of War (Toronto: n.p., 1940), p. 15. 14. Defence of Canada Regulations, 1939, p. 47. 15. F. A. Brewin, "Civil Liberties in Canada During Wartime," Bill of Rights Review, 1, no. 2 (Winter 1941), 117. 16. Queen's University Archives, A. R. M. Lower Papers, Winnipeg Civil Liberties Association, "Memorandum on Freedom in Wartime," May 1940, p. 5. 17. J. L. Cohen, Regulation 21 (Toronto: Toronto Civil Liberties Association, 1940). 18. Montreal Gazette, August 3, 1940. 19. House of Commons Debates, 1944, 3, 2921. 20. Leopold Infeld, "The Story of Samuel Levine," Canadian Forum, 21, no. 246 (November 1941), 245-46. 21. Rex v. Ravenor, 75, C. C. C. 294. 22. House of Commons Debates, 1942, 4, 4097. See also J. L. Granatstein, The Politics of Survival (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1967), pp. 119-21; Pickersgill, Mackenzie King Record, I, 351-54, 403-7; E. F. Bush, "Sir Lyman Duff and the Hong Kong Inquiry," Dalhousie Review, 52, no. 2 (Summer 1972), 203-11. 23. Public Archives of Canada, Canada, War Cabinet Committee, Minutes of Meetings, II, July 17, 1940; III, October 24, 1940; Cabinet War Committee Documents, IV, H. Keenleyside to W. L. M. King, December 2, 1940. 24. Canada, War Cabinet Committee, Minutes of Meetings, VI, August 13, 1941; VII, December 7, 1941. 25. Proclamations and Orders in Council, 6, P.C. 46 (February 24, 1942), p. 126; F. E. LaVioletre, The Canadian Japanese in World War 11 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1948). 26. Edith Fowke, "Justice and Japanese Canadians," Canadian Forum, 26, no. 312 ( January 1947), 225-26. 27. House of Commons Debates, 1944, 5, 5915. 28. Winnipeg Free Press, May 8, 1941. 29. Ibid., May 10, 1940. 30. Canada, Annual Departmental Reports, 1939-40, 3 (Ottawa: King's Printer, 1940), p. 31. 31. Canada, War Cabinet Committee, Minutes of Meetings, I, May 22, 1940. 32. House of Commons Debates, 1940, 1, 667. 33. Queen's University Archives, C. G. Power Papers, Power to King, January 4, 1940 (marked "withheld"). Professor J. L. Granatstein drew my attention to this letter. 34. Lower Papers, J. W. Pickersgill to Lower, December 21, 1939; see also Pickersgill, Mackenzie King Record, I, 354. 35. Canada, Journals of the House of Commons of Canada, 1940, 1, 310 ff. 36. House of Commons Debates, 1943, 1, 615.

CANADIAN FREEDOM IN WARTIME

53

37. Ibid., 1940, 1, 754. 38. Ibid., 1945, 2, 3694-3704. 39. Montreal Gazette, September 12, 1939; Toronto Globe and Mail, September 23, 1939. 40. Cited in Montreal Gazette, June 8, 1940. 41. Winnipeg Free Press, January 24, 1940; Vancouver Sun, January 15, 1940; Le Devoir, 16 fevrier 1940. 42. F. A. Brewin, "Must Revise Censorship Regulations," Saturday Night, 55, no. 19 (March 9, 1940), 9. 43. Bulletin of the CCLU, Montreal Branch, 10 (November 1939); Montreal Gazette, May 19, 1940. 44. Montreal Gazette, May 23, 1940. 45. A. R. M. Lower, My First Seventy-five Years (Toronto: Macmillan, 1967), pp. 233 ff. 46. Lower Papers, Lower et al. to King, November 25, 1939. 47. Ibid., Lower to M. J. Co!dwell, January 14, 1940. 48. "Canadian Freedom in Wartime," Winnipeg Free Press, May 7, 1940. 49. Lower Papers, W. J. Waines to King, May 8, 1940. SO. Ibid., Civil Liberties Association of Winnipeg, Constitution, April 16, 1940. 51. Ibid., F. A. Brewin to Lower, February 21, 1941. 52. Ibid., John E. Mercredy to David Owen, January 6, 1941. 53. Lower, My First Seventy-five Years, p. 235. 54. Winnipeg Free Press, August 9, 1941. SS. Ibid., October 25, 1941. 56. Canadian War Orders and Regulations, 1945, 3 (Ottawa: King's Printer, 1945), P. C. 5637 (August 16, 1945), p. 263. 57. J. W. Pickersgill and D. F. Forster, The Mackenzie King Record, IV, 1945-46, (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1970), p. 148. See also Canada, Report of the Royal Commission Appointed Under Order in Council (Ottawa: King's Printer, 1946), P.C. 411 (February 6, 1946). 58. Lower, My First Seventy-five Years, pp. 233-44.

Further Reflections on the "Most Famous Stream" t..01 W. L. Morton

The history of Canada as written and, it would seem, as it happened from 1758 to 1920, gives little evidence of great popular concern for the civil rights of the individual. Canadian history does show great concern for political freedom and religious liberty, and much expenditure of effort to obtain them.' Of private or public agitation for civil rights, however, the rights in law of an individual, freedom from arrest, freedom of speech, and so forth, written history gives little account and actual history, so far as known, very little indeed. Did the colonists, then, and Canadians in the past have little regard for civil rights, their own or others? It might well seem so. The attempts of recent years, however, to introduce a bill of rights, that of Mr. Diefenbaker in 1960 and that connected with the Victoria Charter in 1971, into the constitutional stream of Canada raise the questions why such attempts should be made after over 200 years of political experience without a bill and whether we are witnessing a new concern for personal freedom. In all the time before our own no demand for a bill of rights was voiced. Injustices there were, as in the expulsion of Japanese Canadians from British Columbia in 1942 and in the interrogation of the accused in the Gouzenko cases of 1946, but no remedy was sought other than in established procedures. Nevertheless, that politicians politically and temperamentally so opposed as Mr. Diefenbaker and Mr. Trudeau should have attempted, the one to make law in Parliament, the other to propose for entrenchment in a new constitutional document, a bill of rights, does suggest that a body of feeling has developed in Canada which believes the customary safeguards of civil rights are no longer sufficient. The intention of this paper is not so much to seek to identify that body of feeling, as to suggest that, while there would seem to be little objection in legal theory to the introduction of a constitutional (as distinct from a statutory) bill of rights, there are objections, both in 55

56

W. L. MORTON

history and in political theory. Canada historically had no bill of rights because Canadians felt no need for one; they felt no need because in fact they enjoyed ancient and powerful safeguards of personal freedom and justice. These lay in the Crown, the courts, the procedures of the common law, and the parliamentary process. If a need is felt for a bill of rights now, it may be because these institutions are no longer providing the sufficient safeguards they once did. The history of the law and courts of Canada has yet to be written; the Canadian Holdsworth has yet to appear. From general history and particular studies, however, it is evident that the colonies which became Canada received the unqualified and undiminished tradition of British law,2 together with the fundamental principle of parliamentary government,3 the right to be taxed only by the assent of representatives.4 The legal tradition prevailed even in Lower Canada (Quebec) with its own civil law and its own tendency to value collective over individual rights.5 Behind the legal and parliamentary tradition stood the long history of the refinement of procedural law in the courts and the elaboration in constitutional conflicts of the supremacy of Parliament over the law. Beside the colonies lay the American Republic with its own version of constitutional government and its own embodiment of personal rights in the Bill of Rights, in both at once an example and a contrast. The American constitution was an example because of its public assertion of personal rights in a public document known to all, and which came to be taught, even memorized, in the schools. Moreover these were rights which could be identified without reference to the "natural rights of man" in the name of which the Revolution had been declared. At the same time it provided a contrast, just because of its central publication of personal rights, to the situation in the British colonies where the same rights, equally valid and equally available, remained largely in procedural law and in the working tradition of the law courts and the legal profession. The contrast also arose from the revolutionary foundation of the republic, the throwing off of allegiance to the Crown; whereas in the colonies the rights of the person flowed from the Crown as the source of law and the guarantee of justice (though some rights might, of course, be traced to the same ancient fountain as the rights of the American citizen, the medieval theory of the law of nature). A more basic contrast resulted from the fact that American rights were part of the fundamental law of the country, while those of the colonies were parts of procedural and of

REFLECTIONS ON THE "MOST FAMOUS STREAM"

57

statute law which might be altered, limited, suspended, or abolished by act of the Parliament, which in the United Kingdom had become, and in Canada was to become, supreme. That is, the personal rights of British subjects were dependent on Parliament, the legal profession, and the public all being aware of and concerned to adhere to the tradition of "freedom of the subject," of personal rights, which had come down from the past. That maintenance of tradition, and not a bill of rights as fundamental law amendable only by the electorate, was the guarantee of colonial and Canadian liberty. Canadian civil liberties, if in theory founded on natural law, were therefore such as the law allowed or in fact made positive by enactment and enforcement. They depended, in short, on public vigilance and the sanction of the courts. For the maintenance of civil rights in the colonies and Canada, there was needed, then, the same awareness of rights under the law and the same vigilance in assisting and defending them on the part of the legal profession and the public as had led to their formulation in England. Does Canadian history as known exhibit such an awareness and such a vigilance? There are well-known instances of both violation and recognition of civil rights: the arrest in 1810 of Pierre Bedard and associates, in the publication of Le Canadien; the admission of Michael Kavanagh, a Roman Catholic, to the Assembly of Nova Scotia in 1823, six years before the abolition of the Test Act in England; the refusal of admission of Ezekiel Hart, a Jew, to the Assembly of Lower Canada in 1807 and in 1808, and his subsequent admission in 1831, almost a generation before Jews were allowed to sit in the Parliament of the United Kingdom; the award of damages to William Lyon Mackenzie for the destruction of his presses in 1825. The list is evidence of awareness of rights and growing tolerance, if satisfaction on that score is offset by the harshness of the arrest of Bedard and the injustice of Robert Gourlay's deportation in 1819. What does seem to emerge is that the main concern of those times was rather for the growth of religious liberty, which was to become a bright page indeed in the history of liberty in Canada, than for the civil rights of the person. Here one detects a certain severity in the colonial outlook, a certain readiness to accept harsh measures, and a suspension of personal liberty. Indeed, a later scholar was to see a readiness to accept authoritative action running through Canadian history.6 In short, the constitutional and legal tradition in Canada usually maintained personal freedom, and to an unusual degree in human

58

W. L. MORTON

history, but in the last resort Parliament might suspend freedom for reasons of public safety. The general result of this traditional respect for civil rights coupled with the ruthless suspension of them on occasion was a rather pragmatic approach to the matter of personal freedom. To maintain freedom was, of course, the chief end of government and law, but it might at any time be suspended in the interest of society. This situation was in marked contrast to that in the United States, with its concept of fundamental law expressed in the constitutions and bills of rights of the federal and state governments. The Canadian colonies followed the British tradition of parliamentary sovereignty and put their trust in the common sense of their governors and in control of the legislature through their own doctrine of responsible government after 1848. In short, their concern was with political rights and religious liberty, with civil rights in a somewhat secondary position. They had little of the American tradition of natural rights expressed in a bill of rights, and none of their tradition of judicial review, the examination of statutes to see if they were within the competence of legislatures. Unfettered by fundamental law, Parliament was omnicompetent: so by implication at least was a Canadian legislature after 1848 in a matter that was colonial and not imperial.

II It may be deduced from the above considerations that liberty in the Canadian colonies was, first, political, a matter of local selfgovernment, and secondly, religious, a matter of sectarian rights. Both are, of course, of prime importance, but the famous stream of constitutional liberty includes civil, or individual, as well as political and religious freedom. Down to 1861 the third element was, apparently, never a matter of much public note. It may perhaps be inferred that the British tradition of personal freedom as upheld in the courts sufficed to protect the legal rights of those injured, as when William Lyon Mackenzie was awarded his damages. That there was, however, a conscious concern in Canadian society for personal freedom is revealed by two cases in the 1860s, that of John Anderson, a fugitive slave, and M. Lamirande, a fugitive from prosecution in the courts of France for falsification of bank accounts. It is significant that both were matters of extradition; no Canadian had faced such an obvious deprivation of rights as Anderson nearly,

REFLECTIONS ON THE "MOST FAMOUS STREAM"

59

and Lamirande actually, suffered. Anderson, moreover, as a fugitive slave in a country in which slavery had been abolished, and in which abolition sentiment was strong, attracted a body of support that no ordinary man under indictment could have done. Both cases, nevertheless, are important as illustrations that the Canadian legal profession and public were acutely concerned with matters of personal rights, and not merely drifting on a drowsy stream of tradition. The Anderson case was a cause célèbre in 1860-61, widely discussed in the Canadian, British, and American press, and fully recorded. A slave in Missouri, Jack Burton, as he was then named, killed a neighbour of his master who had attempted to seize him, at a time when Burton was visiting his wife, also a slave, on the neighbour's estate. Burton then escaped to Canada West and took the name of John Anderson. A letter to his father-in-law, written by an American missionary working among escaped negroes in Canada, seems to have betrayed his whereabouts. A white southern agent came to seek him; warned by the missionary, Anderson fled to Brantford and took the name of William Jones. His predicament took a turn for the worse when another negro informed a local magistrate that Anderson was wanted for murder in Missouri. The magistrate jailed Anderson. He was released, but his presence was now known, and he was rearrested on a warrant issued in Detroit, and brought before Chief Justice John Beverley Robinson of the Court of Queen's Bench on a charge of murder. In mid-December the court found that Anderson was liable to extradition under the Webster-Ashburton Treaty of 1842. That is, he was to be extradited, not as a fugitive slave, which had been done in only one case in Canada, but on the charge of murder. Nonetheless, there was an immediate public protest, and a prolonged agitation led by Thomas D'Arcy McGee, the Globe, Anderson's counsel, Samuel B. Greeman, and supported by a large part of the press and public. The outcome was an appeal to the Court of Common Pleas, and the discharge of Anderson on the technicality that the warrant was defective because it had left out four words of the relevant section of the treaty.' There can be little doubt that a legal technicality was used to give effect to the overwhelming sentiment of the court and the public. The case reveals beyond doubt that the legal tradition of civil rights was at once known and upheld in Canada, even if it was on this occasion fired by strong antislavery sentiment. No such publicity, or sentiment, attached to the Lamirande affair. It did provoke an outcry in Canada East that an injustice had been done

6o

W. L. MORTON

to an individual, but this seems to have been largely a matter of lawyers and politicians. Lamirande had been an agent of the Bank of France, and had been accused of the crime of "forgery" (falsification). He fled to New York, and then, fearing extradition from that state, removed to Canada East in the summer of 1866. On information relayed by a detective from New York, he was arrested and brought before Judge L. T. Drummond of the Court of Queen's Bench in Montreal at the instance of the consul-general of France, A. F. Gautier. With T. K. Ramsay as crown prosecutor and J. Doutre and one Spielthorn as his counsel, he was heard by the court on the issue of extradition. As for the crime with which he was charged, there was considerable legal doubt as to whether the treaty of extradition of 1843 between France and Great Britain covered the offence of falsification of documents. There was doubt also as to whether the consulgeneral was a diplomatic agent. Drummond remanded Lamirande to jail, and his counsel planned to sue for a writ of habeas corpus and appeal to the Superior Court. That night, however, an order signed by the governor general, Lord Monck, and the solicitor general, Hector Langevin, arrived in Montreal for Lamirande's extradition to France. With remarkable celerity, he was removed that night to Quebec by a French policeman and placed at once on the steamship Damascus sailing to Liverpoo1.8 Lamirande had thus been given no time to sue for habeas corpus, and the Court had not found for extradition. He had simply been deported on an executive order. Judge Drummond at once wrote in protest to the governor general, and Lamirande's counsel called on Monck in person. Drummond cabled the colonial secretary, protesting Monck's act and mailing the documents in the case. The Colonial Office tried to free Lamirande in England and the English press took up the case with indignation. Monck was deeply embarrassed, as a liberal and a lawyer himself, and deeply angry, because, as he assured Carnarvon, he had only signed the order on the undertaking by Langevin that it would not be issued until the judicial proceedings were complete.9 Whether there had been some misunderstanding, or miscarriage, or trickery on the part of Langevin in concert with the French consul, it is impossible to say.° Monck could do nothing but admit his mistake, express his regret, and meekly accept the reprimand Carnarvon sent him. Owing to the speed with which his captor moved him, Lamirande was not released in England, but was taken back to France, and there tried and convicted." It was not for want of legal effort, however, or even popular

REFLECTIONS ON THE "MOST FAMOUS STREAM"

6i

support, that he was denied the ordinary process of law to which he was entitled. A grand jury held an enquiry into the case and Judge Drummond actually took action against the crown prosecutor for contempt of court.12 Canadian legal tradition in the courts and among the profession would have ensured Lamirande a trial, with the probable result of a denial of extradition, had it not been for an executive act of surprising speed, to say the least.

III These two instances are not famous cases of civil rights, and the Lamirande case was a violation of proper judicial process. They are cited, partly to illustrate the scarcity of such civil cases, partly to illustrate that the Canadian tradition of respect for personal freedom was alive among lawyers, and could be aroused among the public. The "most famous stream," however, continued to flow in political and religious channels, and not until well into the present century did cases occur in which civil rights were frequently at issue. In the interval, the channels of the stream broadened and lengthened with the creation of the federal union of the British North American colonies and the territorial growth of Canada. The federation itself gave rise to two chief legal changes. Criminal law became a federal subject of jurisdiction, giving a single criminal code to Canada. Civil rights became in part a provincial subject of jurisdiction with the result that a variation of traditions and procedure became possible in important respects. The second was the evolution of the provinces as sovereign within their own jurisdictions. Canadians now became accustomed to constitutional decisions with constitutional bearings. These, of course, never declared a statute null and void, there being no fundamental law, but decided only which of two legislatures, federal or provincial, had the power to enact it, or aspects of it. The supremacy of the legislature whether provincial or federal, therefore remained, even though divided, and Canadians found themselves constrained to trust at first five and now eleven legislatures to maintain their civil liberties.° In the controversial history of judicial interpretation from 1867 to 1920, however, the interest of the contemporary public and later historians was confined to constitutional cases. Not one involving civil right became notorious or historical." Two things, it would seem, ended the long period in which the

6z

W. L. MORTON

inherited and cultivated tradition of constitutional liberties sufficed to maintain the personal freedom of Canadians. One was involvement in a major war, the other the growth of urban and industrial society, with its greater complexity, organization, and diminution of trust among men. Moreover, while the first of these affected the federal government, in which the constitutional tradition was perhaps strongest," the second was largely the concern of the provinces. These had been, since the judicial decisions of 1883-96, sovereign states within their own jurisdictions, and coordinate in power with the federal government, at least in time of peace. Under the pressures of urban and industrial growth, with their great effect on the law and on the growth of administrative boards and tribunals, provincial governments and legislatures, often provincial in outlook as well as in constitutional terminology, might be tempted to depart from established tradition. Even the federal government, under the unaccustomed strain of war and postwar unrest, might do so, and in fact was to do so. On the outbreak of World War I, the Canadian government of Sir Robert Laird Borden, under the "peace, order and good government" clause of the B.N.A. Act of 1867, passed the War Measures Act. It was an enactment of sweeping and drastic powers which, when proclaimed, greatly altered the constitutional system of Canada, both with respect to provincial powers and civil rights, suspending the latter when thought necessary. The time was one of ever more demanding war, yet it is to be noted that the four years of that period were not marked by any historically noted case concerned with civil liberty." The early postwar years, however, saw the first great and lamentable diminution of civil liberties in Canada. That was, of course, the amendment of the Criminal Code of Canada in consequence of the Winnipeg General Strike of 1919. The cases of the strike leaders tried and convicted had little if anything to do with civil rights. Those arrested and accused were accorded the ordinary process of law. The cases are to be compared with contemporary ones in the United States, or with the trials of sympathizers with the French Revolution in Great Britain in the 1790s. It was the harsh spirit of the prosecution and the stern interpretation of that dubious term "sedition" which made the cases historical,'' but it is the legal consequence of the strike, the amendment of the Criminal Code, that makes the Winnipeg Strike relevant in this context. The ancient British tradition had failed in what may have been its first severe test. Two events demonstrated that underlying that tradi-

REFLECTIONS ON THE "MOST FAMOUS STREAM"

63

tion in Canada there remained a strong, authoritarian strain, derived from what sources can only be guessed. One was the transformation of the Royal North-West Mounted Police, hitherto a territorial force working on the prairies and in the northern territories, together with the Dominion Police, into a national force, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. It was henceforth to be used in any part of our country, in the great cities as well as on the frontier, and against subversion as well as wilderness crime. The other was the abovementioned addition of Section 98 to the Criminal Code, by which the definition of unlawful association was greatly widened and severe penalties were provided for membership in such. The amendment of the Immigration Act followed, by which the federal government was given power to deport, without hearing or trial, any person, whether an alien or a British subject. The whole episode was a drastic expression of provincial xenophobia, and while Section 98 was removed from the code in 1936 after prolonged agitation, the use of deportation still disgraces the law and government of Canada.'8 In all this one may see the transformation of Canada from a relatively simple, rural, and frontier country into a twentieth-century society of class division, revolutionary ferment, and authoritarian powers of government. What then of the legal tradition of awareness of right and vigilance in asserting it? Was in fact tradition enough? In truth tradition, if broken, had reknit and after 1920 Canadians were more aware of the issue of civil rights than in the past. The labour movement, and especially J. S. Woodsworth, began and kept up without cessation a campaign against Section 98. It is to be remarked, at the same time, that neither Liberal administrations from 1921 to 1930, nor the Conservative government from 1930 to 1935, paid much attention to the lonely voice of conscience and civil liberty. Canadians, secure in their individual freedom as long as they behaved themselves, were apparently still largely content to use authoritarian means to get rid of those who might seem not to be desirable citizens. If therefore Canadians had returned to their own version of the legal tradition of civil rights by 1936 with the repeal of Section 98, it did not prove that the test of that tradition by war and industrial and urban growth had been completed. Not only was there the continuing test of how to maintain civil rights for, and against, those who wished to overthrow that tradition, as in the trial of Toronto Communists in 1931.19 From 1931 the world of liberal values rolled irresistibly to the brink of a war no one in Canada wanted, but which threatened

64

W. L. MORTON

everything the Canadian tradition stood for at its best. Once more Canada was at war, once more the War Measures Act, long forgotten and unmodified, was proclaimed. There was the usual blanketing of personal freedoms, the usual internment of enemy agents and suspects. Again, no case of infringement of civil liberties caught and held the public attention. Such there were, however, though on this occasion committees of private individuals undertook to watch over civil rights. As the writer knows from personal experience, there were acts of injustice fomented by ardent patriots which had quietly to be set right, wherever possible. There were such things as children of Jehovah's Witnesses refusing to salute the flag, the very stuff of liberty and freedom of conscience, but not likely to awake public attention.2° And there was the eviction of Japanese Canadians from British Columbia, unjust both in the act and in its implications. Again, as in 1914-18, it was not until the aftermath of the war that the full testing of the Canadian tradition came, and again there was the same lamentable failure to abide by tradition, the rule of law, and the dictates of conscience. One such occasion was the revelation by Igor Gouzenko, an officer of the Soviet embassy, of the existence of a spy ring in Russian pay intended to pass secrets of nuclear science to the Russian government. This was serious enough as the joint victors in the late war faced one another in initial hostility. It was the more serious inasmuch as Canada at that time, by virtue of its exceptional performance in the war, was still a junior member of the atomic club. A leak from Canada could alter the world balance of power against the United States and the United Kingdom. In the circumstances, it would perhaps be harsh to condemn the government for the course it took in denying those accused of giving information to the Soviet Union the ordinary processes of law in order to collect evidence in an intricate case of such bearing. It is, however, possible and imperative to condemn the Canadian public for accepting with little question — there was some from civil liberties committees, and academics, and distinguished lawyers — the action of the government. A one-man commission, the one man a brilliant judge but not distinguished as a lover of civil rights, interrogated in camera the several people accused. This was surely a misuse of the royal commission of enquiry, in itself an authoritarian act of government which made the trials of the Winnipeg strikers seem an exercise in the rule of law. Subsequently traditional usage was followed; the twelve persons accused were tried and some convicted and some acquitted in ordinary process. What was

REFLECTIONS ON THE "MOST FAMOUS STREAM"

65

important was that few people protested, and it now seems almost as forgotten as is the Lamirande affair. Above all, it was a calculated abnegation of the Canadian tradition of rule of law and personal freedom. It may be that what the Gouzenko affair revealed was that in Canada the "most famous stream" had come to mean three things: political liberty; religious freedom; minority rights. It no longer, however, ensured civil rights, except insofar as these were an offshoot of one or another of the above three. Yet in Canada political liberty had come to mean responsible government, which in turn meant that government was the authentic voice of the electorate, and could therefore do no wrong, unless it violated political, religious, or minority rights. Religious liberty meant, as noted above, only sectarian liberty. In itself it was a cold indifferent thing, doing little for charity and good fellowship among believers in a world in which it was increasingly a distinction to be a believer. And individual rights are seen as subordinate to minority rights, as was witnessed by the Roncarelli case and the persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses during the regime of Duplessis in Quebec.21 At any rate, something critical had happened. Since the end of World War II there has been an alert and vigorous interest in the upholding of civil liberties in Canada. But it is suggested here that this interest is not simply a reanimation of a tradition once only sporadically active and often lethargic. It is in significant ways different in content and purpose. Two great changes became apparent. One was a tendency to follow American example in the passage of fair employment acts and to discuss the adoption of bills of rights. This will be discussed below. The second was a pronounced disposition of the courts, prompted by the ending of appeals to the Privy Council and the erection of the Supreme Court of Canada as the final court of appeal, to take account of civil rights. The process was begun and carried on by the campaign against the Duplessis regime's breaches of civil rights, so long and persistently fought by F. R. Scott in a magnificent vindication of the yet living ancient tradition. The results are still tentative and unconfirmed, but Canadian law now possesses a considerable body of decisions and obiter dicta in favour of civil rights as such.22 Thus the principle akin at least to judicial review is now seen to be compatible with parliamentary supremacy and complementary with and corrective to it. It is the most hopeful development in Canadian society since the passing of the British North America Act. It would also seem that

66

W. L. MORTON

the dichotomy, noted in this article, between parliamentary supremacy and fundamental law, may be bridged. Both after all are terms of a working vocabulary and as in all such matters their usefulness is limited.23 Just how deep remains the Canadian instinct to use all the powers of the state, even to military force, and to override personal freedom was to be shown in blinding light in the invocation of the War Measures Act in October 1970, to replace the traditional police powers against the activities of the Front pour la liberation du Quebec. Whether such an action was justified will probably be debated until the fundamental evidence is known,24 but it may be taken to indicate how dubious is the foundation of civic rights in this country when by executive decision of government those rights may be indefinitely suspended. It may well be that Canadian public opinion is not to be relied on to maintain the tradition of civil liberty. Not only is it prepared to accept authoritarian acts by government, including deportation, that penultimate tyranny, provided they are committed by a responsible government; not only does it accept violation of the traditional safeguards of persons against arrest and accusation, as in liquor or game laws, for example, which allow search without warrant and the shifting of the onus of proof to the accused;25 not only is it prepared to tolerate an injustice done to an individual in the name of a majority — a readiness redeemed only by the patient and ultimately successful struggle of Frank Scott and his associates to have Duplessis' Padlock Law declared ultra vires; it has also neglected or forgotten the individual rights which provided for personal freedom in the great tradition. It would be interesting to know how that decay of tradition occurred. The weakening of the ties with England no doubt helped the process. Few ordinary Canadians now seem aware that they have rights against the state, and particularly against the police. People seem not to know that the policeman is a civilian in uniform for the purposes of recognition only; uniform of itself confers no authority upon him. He is doing what under the common law any citizen, in uniform or not, is bound, legally bound, to do, to maintain the peace and uphold the law. Few seem to realize they have no obligation to give information to the police that would incriminate themselves. Few seem to know they have a right to legal counsel. Few recognize their obligation to know their rights and to stand up for them. Without such recognition, the great tradition would be dead beyond revival. Faulty education of children in schools devoted to a popular dogma

REFLECTIONS ON THE "MOST FAMOUS STREAM"

67

of democracy empty of content, and faulty training and discipline of the police, are probably among the prime causes of this lamentable state of affairs. But urban growth, industrial society, and the immigration of great numbers of people used to regarding the police as authorities, have contributed to the decline of the sense of personal freedom, of being "free born," that is the heart of the great tradition. Finally, the study of American history in universities and high schools, and the coming of television, have acquainted great numbers of Canadians with the alternative mode of defending personal rights, a bill of rights. The United Nations Bill of Rights reinforced the process. There has been therefore a turning to the proposition that Canada, and also its provinces, should have bills of rights. The great trial lawyer and champion of civil liberties, John G. Diefenbaker, when prime minister made it his peculiar mission to drive through a federal bill of rights. He was most concerned, it may be assumed, to assure Canadians of all origins of the equality before the law of all Canadian citizens. But the bill was a statute, not fundamental law; it bound neither the courts nor the provinces.26 The same is true of provincial bills of rights. Prime Minister Trudeau proposed to replace the federal act with a bill of rights accepted by and binding on all governments and courts in Canada. If Canada is to have a bill, it ought to be of that kind, of course, but the possibility was one of the casualties resulting from the failure of the Victoria Charter to win unanimous approval and at the moment Canada stands at an impasse. It is, however, of much interest to note that the great tradition underwent a timely and thorough survey in the report of the Hon. Mr. Justice J. C. McRuer in his Enquiry into Civil Rights in the Province of Ontario. It is impossible to summarize that profound, lengthy, and yet terse exposition of the tradition of Canadian freedom under law, and of what has happened to it in the social and economic changes of the present century. Suffice it to say that it makes it plain that Canada has two clear choices. One is to adopt a bill of rights (as is recommended for Ontario)27 which might help defend personal freedom, but which certainly, as a fundamental law based on distrust of government as such, would alter the essential nature of government in Canada. It would no longer be "responsible"; that is, flexible, pragmatic, experimental. It would be circumscribed by fundamental rules which might limit even the War Measures Act. Alternatively, Canada could return to its own tradition of the "most famous stream." In the writer's opinion, it could scarcely do so with assurance.

68

W.

L. MORTON

Canada and its provinces, without, of course, repudiating the ancient liberties, do seem to need to add to their own parliamentary and civil tradition explicit statements of civil rights which can be pleaded and applied in court. The main reason for this is to educate a public which to a great extent has lost hold of the ancient tradition of liberty and is confused, as are the knowledgeable, by the effects of present-day urbanized and technologized society. Moreover, the long decline of Parliament, now so apparent, as the representative of society and the guardian of social and personal rights against government ever more powerful and secretive, makes it less and less possible to rely on Parliament and to trust government. Indeed, it may well be, as liberal and parliamentary democracy becomes less and less a rational process of debate and organized opinion, and more and more a plebiscitary democracy reduced to choosing among essentially caesaristic images devised by experts in advertising for display on television and to be sold like detergents, that the principal hope of future freedom may lie in civil rights entrenched in fundamental law and maintained by courts enjoying their traditional independence. In summing up, an admittedly cursory survey suggests that in the field of personal civil rights, as distinct from collective rights, colonists and Canadians, while they might be aroused to defend the civil rights of individuals, had, or made, relatively little occasion to do so. Yet the tradition of civil rights in Canada was dependent on a knowledge of rights and a readiness to assert them. Not until this century were Canadians in any number aroused by issues of civil liberty. They turned to a revival of the tradition of informed vigilance, and also to consideration of bills of rights. The latter is to be welcomed, but is at best a strengthening of the ancient tradition, if only because rights in practice are what persons will assert, the courts uphold, and society accept. Natural rights are not of themselves enforcible; they may be exercised as such but only so far as law and society will uphold them under stress. With a federal government and ten provincial ones exercising jurisdiction in matters of civil liberty, that vigilance must be alert at all times and argus-eyed.28

REFLECTIONS ON THE "MOST FAMOUS STREAM"

69

NOTES 1. See A. R. M. Lower, This Most Famous Stream (Toronto: Ryerson, 1954) for a searching analysis of political and religious liberty in Canada; D. A. Schmeiser, Civil Liberties in Canada (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1964) for a treatment of civil liberty in Canadian terms; and H. M. Clokie, "The Preservation of Civil Liberties," Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, 13, no. 2 (May 1947), 208-32, for a far-ranging, early, and authoritative critique of the subject; also W. S. Tarnopolsky, The Canadian Bill of Rights (Toronto: Carswell Co., 1966.) 2. See Bora Laskin, The British Tradition in Canadian Law (London: The Hamlyn Trust, 1969), p. 6. 3. See Vincent Harlow and Frederick Madden, eds., British Colonial Developments, 1774-1834, Select Documents (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1953), pp. 78-79, Campbell x. Hall, 1774; W. L. Morton, "The Local Executive in the British Empire, 1763-1828," English Historical Review, 78, no. 308 ( July 1963), 454, n. 1, referring to Lord Chancellor Thurlow in 1789 on the fundamental control of taxation by a colonial assembly; H. M. C. Dropmore Papers, 1, 505. 4. The principle of no taxation without representation in a colony was fully acknowledged, and never thereafter departed from in the peace proposals made to the American colonies by the British government in 1778. Harlow and Madden, British Colonial Developments, pp. 168-69. 5. See F. R. Scott, "The Bill of Rights and Quebec Law," Canadian Bar Review, 37, no. 1 (March 1959), 135-46, and Hon. J. C. McRuer, Ontario Royal Commission Inquiry into Civil Rights Report (Toronto: Ontario Queen's Printer, 1968). 6. H. M. Clokie, "Emergency Powers and Civil Liberties," Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, 13, no. 3 (August 1947), 384-94. 7. The description of the Anderson case is summarized from Robin Winks, The Blacks in Canada (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1971) pp. 174-76, but it takes up much space in the local press, both for its own sake and because it raised an issue of the comparative authority of Canadian and British courts. This is discussed in D. B. Read, Lives of the Judges of Upper Canada and Ontario from 1791 to the present time (Toronto: Rowsell and Hutchison, 1888). 8. Quebec Morning Chronicle, August 3, 27, 49, 31, 1866; Quebec Gazette, August 27, 29, 1866; United Kingdom, Parliamentary Papers, XLVIII, 1867, pp. 633-743, are the chief sources of the Lamirande case. The Montreal Gazette gave relatively little attention to the case but did give Judge Drummond's statement of the case in the issue of August 29. The Montreal Herald was critical of Monck, that is, there were strong partisan undertones in the treatment of the case by the press. 9. Parliamentary Papers, XLVIII, 1867, pp. 731-44, Monck to Carnarvon, October 6, 1866; Quebec Morning Chronicle, September 3, 1865. 10. The matter is not mentioned in Andree Desilets, Langevin, un pere de la Confederation canadienne (Quebec: Presses de PUniversite Laval, 1960); United Kingdom, Public Record Office, Carnarvon Papers, Monck to Carnarvon, December 10, 1866. 11. Parliamentary Papers, XLVIII, 1867, pp. 38-39. 12. Quebec Morning Chronicle, October 11 and 26, 1866; Montreal Gazette, October 26, 1866.

70

W. L. MORTON

13. Mr. Justice Abbott in Switzman x Elbing (1957) committed himself to the heterodox opinion that a Canadian statute might be found unconstitutional as well as ultra vires, perhaps a portent in Canadian judicial interpretation. On the effects of the growth of the number of jurisdictions, see Bora Laskin, "Our Civil Liberties, The Role of the Supreme Court," Queen's Quarterly, 61, no. 4 (Winter 1954), 455-71, which concluded "civil liberties should lie beyond provincial control." 14. The "perhaps" rests on two considerations. One is the record of the Department of Justice in advising disallowance of anti-Oriental laws of the Province of British Columbia. The second rests on the record of the Supreme Court of Canada in cases involving civil rights since 1949. See also F. R. Scott, The Canadian Constitution and Human Rights (Toronto: Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, 1959), p. 33. 15. The writer, in preparing this paper, consulted the Upper Canada Law Journal (published in 1865-1928), using the index. The word "right" occurred three times, in each case as "right of way," the term "civil rights" not at all. 16. For a study of its application in the West, see Joseph A. Boudreau, "Western Canada's 'enemy aliens' in World War One," Alberta Historical Review, 12, no. 1, (Winter 1964), 1-9. 17. Scott, Canadian Constitution, p. 35. 18. Canada, Statutes, 5 Geo. V. Chap. 2. 19. Schmeiser, Civil Liberties, pp. 88-89; see also Clokie, "Emergency Powers," 384-94. 20. See G. Ramsay Cook, "Canadian Liberalism in War Time" (M.A. thesis, Queen's University, 1955); also Schmeiser, Civil Liberties, pp. 80-85. 21. See F. R. Scott, "Trial of the Toronto Communists," Queen's Quarterly, 39 (Summer 1932), 512-27. 22. See W. F. Bowker, "Basic Rights and Freedom: What are They?" Canadian Bar Review, 27, no. 1 (March 1959), 52, and Scott, "The Bill of Rights and Quebec Law." 23. Edward McWhinney, "A New Base for Civil Liberties," Canadian Bar Journal, 8, no. 1 (February 1965), 28-36 and 43 discusses the theme effectively. 24. The event has already been commented on by Gerard Pelletier, La crise d'octobre (Montreal: Editions du Jour, 1971) and by Denis Smith in Bleeding Hearts . . . bleeding country (Edmonton: Hurtig, [c19711). A less drastic Peace Preservation Act has been adopted for use in less serious contingencies than an insurrection. 25. See the startling instances given in McRuer, Inquiry, IV, passim. 26. It may be coming to do so; see the Queen x Drybones case 1969, discussed by J. R. Mallory, The Structure of Canadian Government (New York: Macmillan, 1971), pp. 318-19. 27. McRuer, Inquiry, IV, pp. 1959-62. 28. On the whole theme of this sentence consult again Laskin, "Our Civil Liberties."

Liberty and Licence of the Press in Upper Canada (40' H. Pearson Gundy

The greatest evils in society proceed from the abuse of power; and this, though abundantly manifested in the newspapers themselves, they prevent in other quarters. . . . Public nuisances are abated by the same means, and public grievances which the Legislature might else overlook, are forced upon its attention. Robert Southey' In the beginning was the printed word and the printed word in Upper Canada was a monopoly of the government. Before assumig his new post, Lieutenant-Governor John Graves Simcoe had insisted that a printing press would be "indispensably necessary." When he reached Quebec, he engaged Louis Roy, a French-Canadian printer from the printing office of John Neilson, to act as King's printer. In April 1793, at Newark (Niagara-on-the-Lake) the first fruits of his press made a belated appearance—Simcoe's speech at the opening of the first Parliament, and the initial number of the official journal, the Upper Canada Gazette or American Oracle. Roy, however, did not last long. Criticized because his English was inadequate, he resigned during the summer of 1794. Two American brothers, Gideon and Silvester Tiffany, were appointed to do the printing temporarily until someone with better claim to the office could be found. Thus, in 1797, Titus Geer Simons got the appointment, but as he was not himself a printer, he engaged the Tiffanys to do the actual work. They showed their annoyance with the way in which they had been treated by setting up news items from the United States in larger type than they used for British news which was sometimes crowded out altogether. This roused the indignation of Chief Justice Elmsley, who wrote to a member of the Executive Council: "Pray is there no possibility of having another printer? For though Simons' name is used, the Tiffanys are the real managers. . . . 71

72

H. PEARSON GUNDY

The King's answer [to an Address of Parliament], the finest thing in Modern History . . . has never made its appearance, while every trifle relating to the damn'd States is printed in large character. It will be the first thing I shall mention to Genl. Simcoe."2 The hatchet was soon applied and one William Waters was found to replace the Tiffanys in October 1798 when the press moved to York. Shortly after this, Gideon and Silvester Tiffany began to publish from Niagara a rival paper, the Canada Constellation, but after six months Gideon returned to the United States and the paper ceased publication. This was a relief to the executive who were uneasy about the editors' republican bias. In 1801, however, Silvester established his own newspaper, the Niagara Herald, which managed to run for a year and a half, often engaging in a war of words with the official Gazette. Titus Geer Simons, for the government, out-Heroded Herod in this slanging match, abusing both his rival and the King's English: "I give you rank of scavenger, and from the perverseness of a swinish disposition, I anticipate nothing but to see you constantly grovelling amongst the filth, your natural element" (31 January 1801). Thus early, liberty of fair comment degenerated into licence and set a pattern for vitriolic exchanges which became a commonplace, if not the hallmark, of Upper Canadian journalism. For the first decade in Upper Canada, the ruling oligarchy had their own way, controlling not only the press but the legislature as well. The sheer physical problems of settlement in a wilderness left little time or inclination on the part of a widely scattered population to engage in political controversy. By 1804, however, a small, cohesive group in York showed signs of an incipient opposition. The leading spirits were William Weekes, M.L.A., Sheriff Joseph Willcocks, Judge Thorpe, and John Mills Jackson. When Weekes was killed in a duel, Thorpe was elected to his seat in the Assembly and began to press for reform. Alarmed by this "insidious and inflammatory" conduct, LieutenantGovernor Francis Gore complained that Thorpe was determined "to embarrass the King's Government in this Colony."3 For his part, Thorpe warned the undersecretary of state that "the public mind is greatly agitated . . . and a Newspaper which the people are about to establish will soon blow up the flame."4 This paper was the Upper Canadian Guardian or Freeman's Journal, edited by Willcocks, whom Gore had dismissed as sheriff of the Home District. Again on the defensive, Gore wrote to the undersecretary of state: "The newspaper . . . has commenced its operations, this paper is dis-

LIBERTY AND LICENCE OF THE PRESS

73

tributed gratis through the country; the violent abuse of the Government & the personal attacks are notoriously believed to be the productions of Mr. Justice Thorpe."5 The home government now took action, relieving Thorpe of his position on the bench and transferring him to Sierra Leone. Gore's satisfaction was diminished, however, by the election of Willcocks to the Legislative Assembly. But the House had its own way of dealing with those who offended its dignity. On 18 February 1808, shortly after having taken his seat, Willcocks was found guilty of contempt of the privileges of the House for remarks published in the Guardian, and was lodged in York jail until the end of the session. According to one contemporary source he continued from his jail cell to publish "the mot scandalous Libels against the Governor and other respectable persons connected with the Government."6 John Mills Jackson, who had left York and returned to London, now published a pamphlet entitled A View of the Political Situation in the Province of Upper Canada and highly critical of the administration of Francis Gore. When copies arrived in York, it caused a mild sensation and was denounced in the Assembly as "a false, scandalous and seditious libel, comprising expressions of the most unexampled insolence and contumely towards His Majesty's Government in this Province."7 Jackson escaped prosecution only because he had left Upper Canada. Having successfully asserted its authority, the House of Assembly established a convenient precedent for use against the next offender. Shortly before the outbreak of the War of 1812-15, Col. Robert Nichol, who represented Norfolk county in the legislature, was accused of malversation of funds entrusted to him as commissioner of roads in the London District. He angrily denied this and charged his accusers in the House with "malevolence and detraction." For using this expression he was promptly held to be in contempt of the House and, like Willcocks before him, was sentenced to the York jail "during the pleasure of this House." Chief Justice Scott, however granted him a writ of habeas corpus, and warned Gore: "If the House of Asembly have power to commit in all cases similar to the House of Commons at home, the consequences will be fatal to the Province. We are not yet, in point of understanding, fit to be trusted with such authority." This point of view, however, was unacceptable to the House, which continued to exercise its prerogative in jailing members who abused its privileges or reprimanding at the bar of the House editors who were

74

H. PEARSON GUNDY

held to be "in contempt." After the war, such action would be taken again and again, often at the instigation of Col. Nichol himself. Newspaper offices in Niagara and York were closed during the war, leaving the Kingston Gazette, founded by Stephen Miles in 1810, the only journal in Upper Canada. Miles, though American by birth, loyally supported the country of his adoption, unlike Willcocks who defected to the enemy and was killed in an engagement at Fort Erie in 1814. In the immediate postwar period two or three new presses began operations and adopted a more critical attitude towards the ruling elite. They were soon aided and abetted by a Scottish reformer, Robert Gourlay, who was gathering material for a statistical survey of Upper Canada. Soon he became embroiled with members of the Family Compact and furnished lively copy for the weekly periodicals. Miles at first supported Gourlay but then turned against him when he assailed the Hagerman brothers. For this about-face, Gourlay so persecuted him that he decided to sell his paper to two Tory townsmen, John Macaulay and Alexander Pringle, at the end of 1818. They changed the name to the Kingston Chronicle, retaining Stephen Miles as printer. "All went on quietly," said Miles in his closing editorial, "till political controversy with its ten thousand tongues crept rapidly in ... [making] the arduous task of conducting a public journal ... a difficult and thankless one" (28 December 1818). Another editor, Richard Cockerell of the St. David's Spectator, also found this to be true. Innocently enough, he published in his journal an address of James Durand to his constituents in Wentworth County. But Col. Nichol, as soon as he read the address, rose in the legislature and denounced it as "a gross, false and malicious libel on the late House of Assembly." Durand denied the charge; he was merely doing some fence-mending between sessions and had not authorized publication of his remarks. But a select committee of the House upheld Col. Nichol's view of the matter and Durand was sentenced to York jail for the duration of the session, a penalty he evaded by leaving York and returning to his home. Cockerel], however, was brought to the bar of the House and sternly reprimanded. Meanwhile a third journal, the Niagara Spectator, owned and edited by Bartimus Ferguson, was getting into bad odour with the government for its support of Gourlay whose letters and addresses appeared in almost every issue. Twice the attorney general had prosecuted Gourlay for libel only to have him found "not guilty" by juries in

LIBERTY AND LICENCE OF THE PRESS

75

Kingston and Brockville. Redoubling his attacks on the executive, Gourlay now organized township meetings at which petitions were to be drawn up and forwarded to the King. To counter this, the government passed a bill declaring such meetings illegal and those who attended them ineligible to sit in the House. Gourlay at once issued a long and angry reply to be published by Ferguson in two instalments. The first instalment, unsigned, appeared on 3 December 1818 under the caption, "GAGG'D, GAGG'D BY JINGO!" The editor was at once arrested for publishing a libel on the governor and the Legislature and was imprisoned without benefit of bail. Gourlay immediately acknowledged that he, not Ferguson, was the author, adding that it was "evident that persecution and terror are now on foot to deprive the people of this Province of the inestimable Liberty of the Press" (17 December 1818). Ferguson was soon released on a technicality, but Gourlay was served a warrant to leave the country by the first day of January. When he ignored this, he was arrested, incarcerated in the Niagara jail, and held there until the August assizes. From prison, through the connivance of the jailor, he continued writing for the Niagara Spectator, contributing two addresses "To the Parliamentary Representatives of Upper Canada." In the House of Assembly, James Durant now had his turn to move a resolution that Gourlay's second address was "a most scandalous, malicious and traitorous libel, tending to disturb the peace of the Province and excite insurrection against the Government" (Journal of Assembly, 5 July 1819). Ferguson was now rearrested, and when it was said that he had backers who would indemnify him, he replied: "I stand alone in these prosecutions, and am willing to submit to a jury whether a free Press shall be maintained in the District of Niagara" (29 July 1819). At the August assizes, Gourlay, by this time too weak to defend himself, was sentenced to perpetual banishment, Ferguson to a year and a half in prison, to stand in the public pillory for one hour each day during the first month, to pay a fine of £50 and find sureties of £500 for good behaviour for three years. When he solemnly promised never to offend again, the pillory was omitted and the jail term reduced to seven months. There was probably some truth in W. L. Mackenzie's assertion that this unconscionable sentence contributed to Ferguson's early death at the age of forty (Colonial Advocate, 26 January 1832). With Gourlay now out of tht way, and with the demise of the

76

H. PEARSON GUNDY

Kingston Gazette and the Niagara Spectator, the new lieutenantgovernor, Sir Peregrine Maitland, felt that the province had been mercifully "liberated" from sedition. To Undersecretary Goulburn he wrote concerning Gourlay: "The fellow in a province like this was superlatively mischievous as long as he had the only two papers that are read, completely in his interest. . . . The liberty of the press is, however, now established."9 To both Gore and Maitland a "free press" was one that freely supported the administration. This role was supplied by the Kingston Chronicle which, under John Macaulay's editorship, was virtually a government organ. Rev. John Strachan, John Beverley Robinson, and Christopher Hagerman kept in close touch with the editor, offering advice, contributing anonymous articles, and protecting Macaulay against prosecution. Strachan cautioned him against attacking other editors. "I am always for an opposite policy. I would do nothing to irritate these people further than a total disregard of them."'° This advice Macaulay did not.always take to heart. In January 1822, when Barnabas Bidwell was declared ineligible to sit in the Assembly, Macaulay's reflections upon the pro-Bidwell members led the redoubtable Col. Nichol to cite him for contempt of the privileges of the House. Strachan not only urged Macaulay to apologize at once, but even sent him a model draft." Macaulay wrote the letter but sent it first to Hagerman who, instead of delivering it to the speaker, managed to get the debate on the alleged libel adjourned sine die.12 It paid to have good friends at court. A month after the Macaulay affair, Col. Nichol once again moved a resolution in the house that John Carey, editor of the York Observer, had published a libel on the House and in particular on one of its members. But this time the evidence was so trivial and unconvincing that the motion was lost. Hugh C. Thomson of Kingston, editor of the Upper Canada Herald, was less fortunate although his newspaper was a model of propriety and restraint compared with others. He had a reputation for fairness in presenting both sides of public questions, though editorially he favoured moderate reform. In 1823 he opposed the findings of a select committee appointed by the House to settle the affairs of the Kingston Bank of Upper Canada (or "pretended bank" as the bankers in York called it, since it had no charter). Equally opposed was a Masonic brother of Thomson's, the Kingston brewer Thomas Dalton, who later became editor of the Patriot. Dalton petitioned the Assembly to

LIBERTY AND LICENCE OF THE PRESS

77

reject the report and was the probable author of an anonymous article published by Thomson which ironically referred to the recommendations as a report for unsettling the affairs of the bank (Upper Canada Herald, 11 November 1823). This caught the eagle eye, and aroused the ire, of Col. Nichol, self-appointed guardian of the honour of the House of Assembly. He was quick to move that the offending piece was "a false, scandalous and malicious libel and a contempt of the privileges of this House." The motion carried, and Thomson was summoned to appear before the bar of the House. In self-defence, he disclaimed authorship of the article and said that in publishing it he had not the slightest notion that it was, or could be construed to be, libellous; if he had offended he was very sorry. But Mr. Speaker Sherwood was not disposed to let him off so lightly and proceeded to read him a lecture on respecting the representatives of the people. The opprobrious article, he said, conveyed no information but was "wholly addressed to the bad passions of mankind" (Niagara Gleaner, 27 December 1823). Charles Fothergill, the King's printer, was not surprised at this outcome, having characterized the article in his own paper, the Weekly Register, as "without doubt well calculated to find out the limits of the Freedom of the Press in this Colony" (20 November 1823). But Thomson's readers and supporters were incensed at this rebuke which they considered to be totally undeserved.13 Some months later, when Thomson had become a member of the Legislative Assembly representing the County of Frontenac, a Kingston group, headed by Marshall Spring Bidwell, presented him with an engraved silver cup as a mark of their respect for his "manly independence in the conduct of his paper." On one side of the cup was inscribed the following motto: "Liberty will have become extinct when an Editor of a Public Print who performs his duty with impartiality and spirit shall cease to be regarded as an invaluable member of society" (Upper Canada Herald, 21 June 1825). It was not long before Charles Fothergill, elected to the Assembly for Durham in March 1825, was to find out that there were strict limits to freedom of opinion on the part of the King's printer. He had been allowed to retain his office after his election, but as soon as he voted against a government measure he was promptly dismissed. A public meeting was held in York to protest this action as endangering "public liberty and parliamentary independence." William Lyon Mackenzie said it "proved to a demonstration that no man but a

78

H. PEARSON GUNDY

sycophant or a mere automaton can fill the situation" (Colonial Advocate, 19 January 1826). But despite petitions in his favour, he was not reinstated, and in appointing his successor the executive rejected applications by experienced journalists in favour of Robert Stanton, a Tory hardware merchant from Kingston. One of the unsuccessful candidates was Francis Collins, an Irish stenographic reporter whom Fothergill had engaged to report the parliamentary debates. Thwarted in his bid to become King's printer, Collins established his own paper, the Canadian Freeman, a reform organ in which he vented his spleen against the administration. In this game, however, he was outdistanced by William Lyon Mackenzie who had moved his Colonial Advocate from Queenston to York not long before Collins's journal appeared. For sheer scurrility, and abuse of the Family Compact, Mackenzie set a new record. Well aware that he risked a libel suit, he seemed to court such action and to anticipate his defence by quoting a convenient definition oflibel taken from the British Luminary: "What, then, is a libel? Simply an excuse to persecute and punish individuals for saying in print or otherwise, anything disagreeable to Ministers [of State] and for saying which a Jury can be found to pronounce an opinion against the speaker or writer or publisher. . . .What, then, shall we say to proceedings in libel cases? What, but simply that they are unjust, illegal and oppressive" (Colonial Advocate, 25 May 1826). The members of the administration whom Mackenzie libelled were, however, remarkably slow in rising to his bait. Not so some of their young people who banded together while Mackenzie was out of town in June 1826, raided his printing office, smashed the presses, and dumped the type (including three forms of the Journal of the House) into the adjacent bay. The provincial press echoed public opinion in deploring this wanton and destructive attack. But whereas the Tory papers, such as the Kingston Chronicle, played it down as an imprudent but high-spirited retaliation for Mackenzie's gibes, the reform papers took a more serious view of the matter. Under the heading in large type, LIBERTY OF THE PRESS, Thomson brought out a special edition of the Upper Canada Herald giving a very full account of "the patrician riot at York": "Such an annihilation of valuable property, such a daring breach of the peace in the face of the government, such an insult upon the laws, such a conspiracy and outrage against the freedom of the Press, the palladium of civil rights, was never before witnessed in this

LIBERTY AND LICENCE OF THE PRESS

79

Province or any other Colony under the protection of British Government and law" (20 June 1826). Thomson called upon fellow editors to forget party differences and unite with one voice in condemning this outrageous demonstration of mobocracy. In later issues he published a verbatim report of the subsequent civil action which resulted in the award to Mackenzie of £625 damages—enough to buy new equipment, pay his debts, and save him from bankruptcy. Recognizing the provocation Mackenzie had given, Marshall Spring Bidwell, his principal attorney, made a lesser issue of liberty of the press than did Thomson. In describing the court action to Macaulay, Robert Stanton wrote: "Bidwell's opening speech was a tame statement of the facts as laid out in the declaration—he threw in one or two touches on the liberty of the press, but was constrained to admit that the great blessing was sometimes converted into licentiousness ."' 4 Gratified by the amount of the award, Mackenzie took no further action against the individual rioters, nor did the attorney general. This point was brought up some months later when Francis Collins was served a warrant on four counts of indictment for libels published in the Canadian Freeman. "Why," asked Collins, should he be "prosecuted for an imaginary offense when those who broke into a dwelling and destroyed a press were not punished?"" The question led to a disagreement between Attorney General Robinson and his new British colleague, Mr. Justice Willis. Robinson said he prosecuted only if an application was made, in which case, Willis retorted, he was being derelict in his duty. Encouraged by this, Collins then attacked Robinson for having failed to prosecute Solicitor General Henry J. Boulton and lawyer James Small who, back in 1817, had acted as seconds for Samuel Jarvis when he fatally shot John Ridout in a duel. By applying to the grand jury, Collins obtained true bills in both these cases which were promptly heard in the Home District assizes. The type rioters were let off with nominal fines; Boulton and Small were acquitted. Judge Willis then suggested to Robinson the propriety of quashing the libel proceedings "in order to quiet the public mind." But in the attorney general's judgement, the licentiousness of the press was such that he declined to take his colleague's advice. Instead he remanded the case until the next assizes. Robert Baldwin, acting for Collins, objected to this as an attempt "to silence the Press . . . an unconstitutional infringement on its liberty," but the objection was overruled." Meanwhile Mackenzie, who had also been arraigned for libels in the Colonial Advocate, had his case remanded and was equally annoyed.

8o

H. PEARSON GUNDY

As Collins sarcastically remarked in the Freeman, Mackenzie had appeared in court "with about a cart load of books, pamphlets, papers &c and the Bible on top in order to defend himself by showing the exact similarity between his own writings in the Advocate and that of St. Paul in the Bible" (Canadian Freeman, 24 April 1828). No love was lost between these two radical and spiteful journalists who, when they were not attacking the Family Compact, were attacking each other. By his intervention in the libel cases, and his association with Thomson, Rolph, and Bidwell, Willis was at odds with the administration, and when he then declared the Court of King's Bench illegally constituted in the temporary absence abroad of Chief Justice Campbell, he was summarily dismissed by Sir Peregrine Maitland. The reform papers were at once up in arms and for months published column after column in defence of the judge. Thomson was particularly insistent that the interference of the lieutenant-governor was a setback to establishing the independence of the judiciary from the adminstration. The Kingston Chronicle countered this by declaring Willis to be "wrong-headed and weak-minded" (11 July 1828). While this controversy was occupying much space in the press, Thomson chaired a select committee of the House looking into the illegal importation of 600 barrels of pork from the United States. This, he discovered, was authorized by Maitland who had waived the regulations in favour of two prominent Tories. The committee's report placed the blame where it lay and Thomson commented editorially that Maitland's action could not legalize an illegal transaction. Nettled by this, the lieutenant-governor instructed the attorney general to indict Thomson for "unlawfully, wickedly and maliciously" publishing in the Upper Canada Herald "a certain false, wicked scandalous, infamous and malicious libel . . . to the great scandal and disgrace of His Excellency Sir Peregrine Maitland." This brought a sharp reaction from Thomson's supporters. A correspondent who signed himself "Erskine" wrote: "If official acts either of the Legislature, the Executive or Judiciary may not be publicly stated and examined, and their erroneous principles and probable ill consequences pointed out without incurring a Government prosecution as for a libel, we may bid farewell to the freedom of the Press, the boasted palladium of constitutional Liberty" (Upper Canada Herald, 24 September 1828). Thomson, however, was required to deposit surety for good behaviour even before his case was tried, an action on the part of Judge Sherwood which Francis Collins called "an act of

LIBERTY AND LICENCE OF THE PRESS

8i

open tyranny—subversive alike of freedom of the Press and liberty of the subject" (Canadian Freeman, 18 September 1828). Thomson himself said that Sherwood had apparently forgotten the principle basic to British law that a condemned man was deemed innocent until proven guilty. This, declared the Canadian Spectator, is "manifestly a grievance and a mode of controlling and even extinguishing the freedom of the Press" (as quoted in Colonial Advocate, 25 October 1828). An equally serious view of the matter was taken by a select committee of the British House of Commons looking into grievances in Lower and Upper Canada. Their report advocated an inquiry into "the vexatious system of prosecutions for libel at the instance of the Attorney General and the harsh and unconstitutional spirit in which these prosecutions have been conducted" (Upper Canada Herald, 24 September 1828). Influenced, perhaps, by this imperial displeasure, Robinson quietly dropped the charges against Mackenzie and Thomson, but felt that his own honour was at stake in prosecuting Collins who had accused him of "native malignancy" and had irreverently dubbed Judge Hagerman "our old customer." In the autumn assizes, Collins was tried before Judges Hagerman and Sherwood. The jury at first brought in a verdict that he was guilty of a libel on the attorney general only, but the judges insisted upon a general verdict. They then sentenced Collins to one year in jail, a fine of £50, and in addition surety of £600 for good behaviour for three years to be paid before his release—"a ruinous sentence," Collins said, "amounting to perpetual punishment." A convicted murderer, he pointed out, had recently been released after a year in prison and a fine of £10. "This," he exclaimed, "is the administration of Justice—this is freedom of the Press in Upper Canada, a British colony under the Government of Sir Peregrine Maitland!!! Good and merciful Heavens!—was there ever a more aggravated case of tyranny and oppression in the annals of the Inquisition?" (Canadian Freeman, 6 November 1828). "Yesterday," wrote S.P. Jarvis to William Dummer Powell, "that Precious Scoundrel Collins was brot up for Judgment in the libel case.. .. This morning Placards are up in all parts of the town calling a Public Meeting in order to devise some means to repel the attack that has been so unexpectedly made upon the great Bulwark of our liberties, and to shield a free Press from annihilation." Jarvis was pleased to be ironical, but many quite honestly believed that the heavy penalty was

82

H. PEARSON GUNDY

intended to intimidate other editors and so curtail their freedom of expression. Thomson was shocked by the severity of the sentence. "From the printed report of the trial," he told his readers, ". . . I do sincerely think Mr. Collins had not a fair, impartial trial." And two weeks later he wrote: "Every person with whom I have conversed on the subject unhesitatingly condemns the sentenced punishment as cruel and disproportioned to the offence" (Upper Canada Herald, 4, 18 December 1828). The House of Assembly was alarmed, and by a majority of 87 to 3 carried a motion to petition the new lieutenant-governor, Sir John Colborne, to extend clemency to Collins. Sir John replied through his civil secretary that "there are few Persons in this country who have a more distinct view of the immense advantages resulting from a free and well conducted Press than he has, or are more aware of the importance of unlimited discussion." Nevertheless his primary duty was to uphold the law, and to this end he had asked Mr. Justice Sherwood to comment on the grounds of the sentence. Sherwood's answer, which was sent to the speaker of the House, was to the effect that criticism in a "decent and proper manner" of public men and measures should be encouraged but not "calumny and abuse." Collins was guilty of wholesale slander and a severe sentence was the only deterrent. "Anything short of this," concluded the learned judge, "would be nugatory." The sentence which they pronounced upon Collins was "both proper and necessary for the public good."'7 But the House of Assembly was in no mood to be lectured, even by implication, on upholding the law and preserving the public good. In a remarkable show of solidarity, the members passed sixteen resolutions, the general purport of which was that Collins' conviction was "subversive of the freedom of the Press under pretense of correcting excesses, and destructive of the liberty of the subject under pretense of punishing an offender" (11 March 1829). These resolutions with other documents in the case were sent to the lieutenant-governor for forwarding to the King, praying that he extend the royal clemency. His Majesty was somewhat slow to act, but in the end Collins was released after serving forty-five of the fifty-two weeks, and by royal command both the fine and the sureties were remitted. Meanwhile, during the period of his incarceration, he was permitted to carry on his newspaper, in every issue of which he flayed his enemies. Under the caption LIBERTY OF THE PRESS IN UPPER

LIBERTY AND LICENCE OF THE PRESS

83

CANADA he blacklisted the judges, their assistants, and the jurors (identified by name and country of origin) as the tools of tyranny and enemies of freedom. In a series of long letters from "York Gaol" addressed to Robinson, Sherwood, Boulton, and others, he rang the changes upon their "native malignancy," along with that of "our old customer" Judge C. A. Hagerman. His most biting sarcasm was reserved for the attorney general: "I have ever viewed you as a Castlereagh in miniature. Castlereagh was a man of extraordinary talents, of tolerable private character, at the same time the corruptest minister that ever disgraced the British Cabinet. You, sir, seem to me to be directly of the Castlereagh Genus of politician, bearing the same proportions in power and ability, when compared to your great prototype, that a cat does to a tyger" (Canadian Freeman, 25 December 1828). But for none of this provocation and abuse was he further punished or his paper censored, as Gourlay had been for his addresses from Niagara jail. The Collins case was a turning point, coinciding as it did with a change in lieutenant-governors and a new judicial appointment. No less conservative than Sir Peregrine Maitland, Sir John Colborne had a more independent mind, valued impartiality, and had no intention of becoming a tool of the ruling clique. Henceforth the power of the Family Compact in Upper Canada would steadily decline. Mr. Justice Willis, had he been more diplomatic and less personally ambitious, might have succeeded, with the help of the moderate reformers, in effecting the independence of the judiciary from the administration. But his primary objective was to become chief justice, and the main obstacle in his way was John Beverley Robinson whom he must first discredit. Thus his intervention in the Collins case, ostensibly in the interests of justice, was not without a large measure of self-interest. Personal motives could scarcely have failed to influence the conduct of the attorney general and the two judges. Accused of native malignancy, Robinson felt his birthright besmirched. Moreover Collins had instituted a suit against his brother-in-law, Henry Boulton, on a charge of murder. Sherwood was equally incensed that his son, who had taken part in the Mackenzie press riot, was indicted with the others upon Collins' recognizance. And Hagerman bore the editor a grudge for the consistent ridicule to which he had been subjected in the columns of the Canadian Freeman. Collins, for his part, had a score to settle. His persecutors, as he conceived them to be, were in part responsible for the rejection of his

84

H. PEARSON GUNDY

application for the post of King's printer. He, a competent professional, had been turned down in favour of a hardware merchant who had never held a composing stick in his hand. Then, too, there were religious, perhaps even nationalistic overtones in this cause célebre. An Irish Roman Catholic, Collins supported reform-minded Father O'Grady in his stand against Scottish, High Tory Bishop Alexander Macdonell who suspended him from his post of vicar general. Macdonell was a highly respected member of the Executive Council. Everyone could take sides for or against Collins whose trial and tribulations were the current topic of conversation. But as Thomson reported in the Herald, the consensus both inside and outside the House of Assembly was that however much he had erred, he had not had a fair trial. The whole question of prosecuting editors for political libel required dispassionate consideration, as even the Tory press agreed. In an editorial on the libel prosecutions, James Macfarlane, Macaulay's successor as owner and editor of the Kingston Chronicle, commented: Such is our regard for the liberty of the Press that we should be sorry that any public body of men, we care not who they are, should be suffered to exist in any portion of His Majesty's dominions without being open to the animadversions of the journals of the day.... For our own part, we are partial to the discussion of public questions; and we like to see a little acid thrown in occasionally—a small sprinkling of spice, though at our own expense, is not unpleasant to us—it is like nutmeg to our negus. (as quoted in Upper Canada Herald, 17 July 1828) During the decade of the 1830s newspapers multiplied throughout the province, though many of them folded before the end of their first year of publication. Almost invariably, the prospectus or the first editorial paid tribute to LIBERTY OF THE PRESS, that palladium (a favourite word) of all civil liberties. Many examples could be cited; that of the Hamilton Free Press is typical: "Freedom throughout the Christian world is bursting the chains of fanaticism. . . . What, it may be asked has been the chief instrument in working these changes? We answer, the Press! . . . it is the Press that has fostered Freedom in her darkest day. . . . Whenever the Press is unfettered there liberty flourishes.... Liberty and the Press go hand in hand—the same mantle covers both" (as quoted in Colonial Advocate, 7 July 1831).

LIBERTY AND LICENCE OF THE PRESS

85

At the beginning of the decade, Mackenzie commented in the Colonial Advocate: "Seven years ago perhaps not more than 2,000 newspapers a week were distributed in Upper Canada. Now there are at least 8,000, and the number is rapidly increasing" (special issue dated September 1830). Midway through the decade, Mrs. Anna Jameson cited official figures: "Last year the number of newspapers circulated through the post office and paying postage was: Provincial papers, 178,065; United States and foreign, 149,502. Add 100,000 papers stamped or free, here are 427,567 papers circulated yearly among a population of 370,000 of whom perhaps one in fifty can read; this is pretty well."18 There were about forty different newspapers in Upper Canada at the time. "It is true," Mrs. Jameson goes on to say, "that a great deal of base, vulgar, inflammatory parry feeling is . . . circulated . . . but on the whole I should not like to see the number or circulation of the district papers checked."19 Base and vulgar many of the editorials were, descending to personalities with a licence that was as frequently deplored as it was practised. No epithet seemed too gross for Thomas Dalton of the Patriot to apply to his Methodist rival, Egerton Ryerson, editor of the Christian Guardian—"High Priest of Belial," "Instigator General to disease in the Body Politic," "Spreader of disaffection," "stultifier of the King's honest subjects," "Infidel," and so on. Ryerson bore it all with considerable patience. "Our business is not with men but with things," he had written in his first editorial in 1829, "not with individuals but with doctrines and practices. ... The great questions to be considered are Religious Privilege and General Education." Mackenzie welcomed the paper at first because it opposed Anglican monopoly of the Clergy Reserves, but when Ryerson exposed the godless principles of Hume and Roebuck, Mackenzie's supporters in the British House of Commons, the Colonial Advocate joined in the chorus of abuse. This did not prevent Ryerson from approving the more lenient libel bill which Mackenzie introduced into the House, a bill which enabled the defendant under plea of "not guilty" to produce evidence that the matter charged as libellous was in fact true and that it was written from praiseworthy, not malicious, motives. By convincing a jury of this, the defendant could be acquitted. Had it been introduced by some other member, the bill might have passed; the House divided evenly 22 for and 22 against, and Speaker McLean, by voting against, had the bill thrown out, though it managed to pass when it was reintroduced a year later. Irritated by this delay and by other actions of the Assembly

86

H. PEARSON GUNDY

during the year, Mackenzie expostulated in the Advocate that "our representative body has degenerated into a sycophantic office for registering the decrees of as mean and mercenary an Executive as ever was given as a punishment for the sins of any part of North America in the nineteenth century" (Colonial Advocate, 1 December 1831). This was too much for the House to swallow. James Samson, the member for Hastings, seconded by Thomson of Frontenac, moved a resolution that these remarks, and others in the Colonial Advocate, constituted a "gross, scandalous and malicious libel—intended and calculated to bring this House and the Government of this Province into contempt and to excite groundless suspicion and distrust in the minds of the Inhabitants of this Province. . . and is therefore a breach of the privileges of this House—and that William Lyon Mackenzie... be now called upon for his defence." Mackenzie, however, was prevented from speaking by the adjournment of the House. He had his day and a half in court nonetheless, speaking all the next day and continuing the day after when a debate on the motion was carried on with a good deal of heat and acrimony. Mackenzie had marshalled dozens of quotations from the Tory press which he considered more defamatory than his own statement, but which were passed over in silence by the legislature and executive. He was ably supported in his defence by Rolph, Bidwell, Peter Perry, and others. When the motion was again put, Peter Perry moved an amendment: "that as this House has allowed many other publications to pass without punishment or censure reflecting on the character and motives of its members for many years past . . . it is not expedient to take any further notice of the said libels published in the Colonial Advocate." This was lost 14 to 26, and a further amendment that Mackenzie be called to the bar of the House and reprimanded by the speaker lost 7 to 31. The original motion carried, and a second resolution was also carried 24 to 15 that William Lyon Mackenzie be expelled from the Legislative Assembly and his seat declared vacant. The entire debate makes instructive reading. Mackenzie declared that "it acted like a sieve—it sifted out the rotten chaff of pretended friends of the liberty of the press and the freedom of the people. . . . Remember that whenever the Press is not free, the people are poor, abject, degraded slaves, that the Press is the life, the safeguard, the very heart's blood of a free country; the test of its worth, its happiness, its civilization" (Colonial Advocate, 12 January 1832). Bidwell, however much he disapproved of Mackenzie's language,

LIBERTY AND LICENCE OF THE PRESS

87

defended his right to speak out and denied that it constituted a threat to good government. Were members really "so much afraid of a newspaper shot, and was their public character so questionable as to compel them to retreat behind the fortress of their parliamentary privileges to shield them from the artillery of a free press?" Speaking for the motion, William Morris discoursed with telling effect on the evils arising from the licentiousness of the press and what he considered to be the difference between restraining the licentiousness and destroying the liberty of the press (Colonial Advocate, 22, 29 December 1831). In the Upper Canada Herald, Thomson affirmed that an attentive study of the documents in the case must convince the impartial reader that condemnation was necessary. Without compromising its dignity and the rights of the people, the House "could not suffer so reckless a slanderer to retain his seat. It is only surprising that an honest man can be found to justify him" (26 January 1832). Dalton in the Patriot was more specific: "That Mr. Mackenzie should labor to keep the people on a false scent is in no way surprising. He is deeply interested in the deception: but that the learned and really talented Mr. Bidwell should cry out that the liberty of the Press was in danger . . . is really our astonishment and our mortification" (as quoted in Colonial Advocate, 26 January 1832). Public meetings were organized in Mackenzie's defence. In Lennox and Addington, the constituency of Peter Perry and Bidwell, a resolution was passed: "That we disapprove of the proceedings of the House of Assembly interfering with the freedom of the Press and the elective franchise." This was countered by other public meetings, such as the one in the Newcastle District, which condemned the radical press of Mackenzie and his followers who "screen themselves from the punishment due to such licentiousness by creating an alarm that the liberty of the Press is assailed" (Courier, 29 February 1832). Reelected to his seat for South York, Mackenzie was reexpelled five times and declared incapable of sitting in the House. He was assaulted in Hamilton, lnd in York his printing office was mobbed and all the windows broken. At the height of the fray a courageous young apprentice hung out, through a broken second-storey window, a flag bearing the motto LIBERTY OF THE PRESS. Mackenzie went to England to air his grievances, and won some sympathy from the colonial secretary, Lord Goderich, who, however, was not impressed when Mackenzie spoke about libel prosecutions as

88

H. PEARSON GUNDY

having endangered freedom of the press. To Colborne, Goderich wrote: "It is needless to look beyond Mr. Mackenzie's journal to be convinced that there is no latitude which the most ardent lover of free discussion ever claimed for such writers, which is not enjoyed with perfect impunity in Upper Canada."2° Much the same point of view was expressed by Hiram Leavenworth, editor of the St. Catharines Journal: That the press is the Palladium of liberty must be taken in a qualified sense; for its political licentiousness is as destructive to social order and private happiness as its venality is of constitutional freedom: it is equally the flatterer of the tyrant, and the agitator of the mob; it rivets the chains of the slave and lights the torch of the incendiary —the despot's executioner, and the patriot's hangman! Such is the press, undirected by talent and unawed by right, judging publick opinion. (26 January 1839) Hereafter it would be very difficult in prosecuting for libel to obtain a conviction. Sued for libel in the spring of 1834, George Gurnett, editor of the York Courier, was promptly acquitted, upon which the Kingston Spectator commented: "The sentences of Messrs Ferguson, Gourlay and Collins are spoken of in terms of detestation by every lover of freedom. They are striking instances of what office holders will do when they have the power in their hands. . . . But thanks be to Providence, the people are getting awake and uniting to shake off the former state of bondage" (17 April 1834). Significantly enough, no mention was made of William Lyon Mackenzie. Liberty was a blessing to be enjoyed, but when liberty became licence, what then? Must not truth be given the means to triumph over falsehood? Traduced by Mackenzie, Robert Stanton, the King's printer, had this to say: On either my public or private conduct Mr. Mackenzie under shelter of the "liberty of the Press" is at perfect liberty to make what animadversions he pleases. . . . I cannot, however, believe that the people of Upper Canada will ever sanction the monstrous doctrine that this shelter--the "Liberty of the Press"—is to be upheld or tolerated at the expense of truth. . . . The man who thus uses or abuses the Liberty of the Press proves himself a Tyrant: —in the guise of liberty he is dealing in licentiousness. (Kingston Spectator, 11 September 1834) After a term in office as first mayor of the City of Toronto, Macken-

LIBERTY AND LICENCE OF THE PRESS

89

zie was reelected to the Assembly and this time was allowed to take his seat. As chairman of the Select Committee on Grievances, he compiled the famous Seventh Report (1835), but not even Mackenzie had the temerity to include among Upper Canadian grievances a lack of freedom of the press, though he did include, in an appendix, documents relating to the libel case of Francis Collins. His collision course with the government ended in the abortive rebellion of December 1837 and his escape to the United States. But in the conservative reaction which followed, freedom of the press was maintained although abuse of that freedom was frequently cited as a contributing cause, or even the principal cause, of the insurrection. The Reverend James George of Scarborough, later vice principal of Queen's College, in a sermon on "The Duties of Subjects to their Rulers," preached immediately after the Rebellion, showed how liberty of the press had been abused: "Who can look at the way in which this liberty is abused when turned into licentiousness and not be greatly shocked.... Licentiousness may endanger the very existence of society."21 The Patriot wrestled with this same subject: "In every free Government there is a certain licence to demagogues who if not counteracted by the same power through which it is spread will sooner or later subvert order . . . by the increasing efforts of an insidious, licentious and clamorous periodical press, but it is a melancholy proof of a want of something in the Rulers who suffer the poison to spread unaccompanied by its antidote" (19 June 1838). This last point was argued at great length by Henry Ruttan in his report as chairman of the select committee on printing and publishing, dated 24 April 1839: The liberty of the press is so well understood . . . that the committee deems it altogether superfluous to say anything further in its behalf than that they are advocates for it to the fullest extent. . . . What induced individuals who took up arms against the Queen's authority? Your Committee reply that it was the abuse of the Press ... the wiles of republican agitators who worked out their traitorous ends by that formidable and comparatively uncounteracted engine—the Press. [Rebellion was] fomented by the dissemination among a credulous people of seditious newspapers filled with details of fictitious grievances and goading on the unwary with groundless alarms and inflammatory appeals. Ruttan's committee sought a remedy not in placing curbs upon the

90

H. PEARSON GUNDY

expression of editorial opinion, even republican opinion, but by counteracting it through newspapers in every district sponsored by the government which would present "sound, impartial, constitutional information," thus negating the effect of radical propaganda. So passionately did the chairman believe in this quixotic remedy that when the Assembly turned down his motion to have 10,000 copies of the report printed, he himself paid to have it issued for free distribution. Quite clearly liberty of the press was no longer an issue in Upper Canada; that battle had been won, not without its martyrs. Editors, even in the immediate post-rebellion period, were free to criticize or express unpopular opinions without being cited for contempt of parliament or being hailed before the bar of the House to be publicly reprimanded, or sentenced to the common jail. Charles Fothergill, whose new journal, the Palladium, appeared in the very week of the Mackenzie uprising, expressed the hope that he could conduct the paper "free from party Politics, and above all untainted by scurrility and personal abuse and from all acrimonious controversies." But it was not long before he was deploring the policies of Sir Francis Bond Head, even anticipating his impeachment. Dalton's penchant for personal abuse involved him in a suit for libel in Sandwich which cost him £25. But even his bitterest opponent, Francis Hincks of the Examiner, felt called upon to protest the fine: "If the statement in the Patriot was false, no one, we feel assured, would be more ready than Mr. Dalton to correct the error; if true it should be known ... we hope to see the day when nothing but wilful slander will constitute a punishable offence" (7 October 1840). But if there was a wider tolerance of opposed points of view and a better understanding of the role of a public press, there was little if any corresponding improvement in editorial manners. With few exceptions, editors continued to indulge in personalities, nor is there much to choose between the scurrility of those who favoured reform and those who advocated the status quo. Even the editors of religious papers in the heat of controversy forswore Christian charity, as witness the diatribes of Rev. A. N. Bethune in the Church against Ryerson of the Christian Guardian. To Tom Dalton, who perhaps alone could equal the vituperation of a Gourlay, a Collins, or a Mackenzie at the apex of their careers, but who mellowed somewhat toward the end, we leave the last word in the last year of Upper Canada and shortly before his own death:

LIBERTY AND LICENCE OF THE PRESS

91

We have often cogitated on the proposition "whether a Free Press were a blessing or a curse to the human family", and as often have we despaired of arriving at a determined and fixed opinion. Its good is so precious and its evils are so intense, that it will hardly ever be in human judgment to decide which has the preponderance. . . . A benevolent mind will never persevere in the use of the Press to the injury of his fellow men; he may by chance inflict an injury, but he will not know peace till he has made reparation. On the contrary, a cankered and envenomed mind, destitute of benevolence will consider the Press valuable only in the degree in which it may enable him to wound and kill the objects of his envy and hate. (Patriot, 7 February 1840)

NOTES 1. Quoted by H. C. Thomson in the Upper Canada Herald, July 29, 1829. 2. 25 February 1798, Correspondence of Hon. Peter Russell, ed. E. A. Cruikshank (Toronto: Ontario Historical Society, 1935), II, 104. 3. Report on Canadian Archives, 1892 (Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1893), Note D, "Political State of Upper Canada in 1806," p. 59. 4. Ibid., April 1, 1806, p. 47. 5. Ibid., October 4, 1807, p. 113. 6. J. E. Middleton and Fred Landon, A History of the Province of Ontario (Toronto: Dominion Publishing Co., 1927), p. 153. The anonymous source quoted implies, but does not explicitly state, that the libels continued after Willcock's imprisonment. 7. Ibid. pp. 148-49. 8. P.A.C., Q 316, p. 281. 9. July 22, 1819, Q 325-32, p. 92. 10. P.A.O. Macaulay Papers, November 18, 1821. 11. Ibid., January 21, 1822. 12. Ibid., February 17, 1823. 13. Upper Canada Herald. See letters, November-December 1823. 14. Macaulay Papers, October 18, 1826. 15. Observer (York), April 14, 1828. 16. Canadian Freeman, April 24, 1828. 17. Upper Canada, House of Assembly, Seventh Report on Grievances. . . (Toronto: M. Reynolds, 1835), p. 225.

92.

H. PEARSON GUNDY

18. Winter Studies and Summer Rambles in Canada (New York: Wiley & Putnam, 1839), I, 190. The increase in newspapers and readers was even more impressive, for Mrs. Jameson's statistics are suspect on two counts, first as to the degree of literacy in Upper Canada, and secondly as to the number of papers in circulation. There is no evidence to support a literacy rate as low as two per cent of the population. This might apply in districts newly settled by indigent Irish immigrants, but not to the province as a whole in 1836, the year in which Mrs. Jameson was writing. To test this, I examined in detail all the submissions for the year 1836 to the Heirs and Devisees Commission, comprising written claims, wills, affidavits, letters, and other documentation for establishing property rights. Of some 329 signatures, only 47, or seven per cent, were marked X, indicating inability to write. Claimants were from all districts and all classes in society, though the majority were identified as "yeomen". As recent studies have established, "by counting signatures one may obtain a measure of a minimum level of literacy." (Harvey L. Graff, "Toward a meaning of literacy: Literacy and social structure in Hamilton, Ontario, 1861," History of Education Quarterly, 12, no. 3, Fall 1973.) Mrs. Jameson's circulation figures show, according to her own estimate of literacy, that 74,000 persons (two per cent of the population) read about 428,000 newspapers per annum, or just over one per literate person per week. But many more papers circulated than she indicates, for hundreds of local newspapers did not go through the mails at all but were distributed by newsboys in the place of publication and by agents in the surrounding district. They were passed from family to family, as many could not afford the annual subscription price of four dollars. At times they were read aloud at social gatherings, and perhaps in taverns. 19. Ibid., p. 191. 20. Seventh Report. . p. 359. 21. Thoughts on High Themes (Toronto: Campbell, 1874), ch. xiv, p. 179.

Sport and Class Values in Old Ontario and Quebec

S. F. Wise

In writing of his boyhood in Barrie towards the end of the last century, Arthur Lower mentions the benefits of bringing a small boy, an axe, and a woodpile into a productive relationship; he believes that the inner as well as the outer boy was toughened by such chores. Amusements—organized ones, anyway—get a characteristic Lowerian scoff. There were none. Then, in 1896, came the building of a "fair hall"; flooded in the winter, it became a rink. We are told: This meant the introduction of hockey and the beginning of our modern system of organized sport. It may have meant or symbolized more than that; it may have been a sign that the old social and economic solidarities were beginning to break up. They had come down from the 1860's when Ontario was taking shape and, since the average town had only a very slow growth, they had become fixed. They may have involved stodginess, but they also gave people roots; no one growing up in an Ontario town in the 1890's, in a decent home, could have failed to have this sense of belonging.' This is a heavy charge to lay against organized sport, even when it is realized that the "old social and economic solidarities" about to be broken up were only, in this calculation, some thirty years old. In fact, however, organized sport in Ontario and in other parts of Canada was quite as old as those social verities it was in danger of disrupting. Had Barrie been bypassed? Surely some echoes had reached it from its wide awake neighbour on Lake Couchiching? Although it was in 1896, the same year that portentous "fair hall" was built, that Jake Gaudaur of Orillia won the world's professional rowing championship from James Stanbury of Australia on the Thames in England, he had been a local hero—at least to Orillians 93

94

S. F. WISE

—for many years. In 1875, on Lake Couchiching, racing in one of those doubled-ended lapstreak skiffs mentioned so affectionately in Unconventional Voyages, Gaudaur won his first race, defeating Hughie Wise of Toronto over four miles. And there, and on Lake Simcoe at Kempenfeldt Bay, Gaudaur rowed for the next quarter of a century against the world's best: Australians, Englishmen, Americans, the mighty Ned Hanlan himself. In this period, an age just reaching its end when Arthur Lower began to attack the family woodpile, Lake Simcoe and Lake Ontario, the Kennebecasis and Bedford Basin, were nearly as important to the world of international rowing as the Thames itself, and certainly ranked with the Schuylkill and the Hudson. The likelihood is that most inhabitants of Barrie were quite conscious of the prowess of Gaudaur, and of a good deal more that was going on besides in the way of organized sport. As early as 1846, Barrie, then a village of some 500 people, had its own curling club, one of the first such organizations in Canada West.2 It appears, too, that the people of Barrie were quite familiar with the casual professionalism typical of track and field sports in the post-1867 period. In 1875, for example, a match race for stakes of $100 a side was held at Barrie "for the championship of Canada" between Dobson, the local pride, and a Galt flash named McCall. McCall won by fifteen feet over the 150-yard distance; "the result disappointed many here as Dobson was considered the faster runner, having beaten his rival on two former occasions." Interestingly, the match race was held "at the race-course," suggesting that yet another organized sport had reached Barrie some time before.3 In 1891, when Ottawa turned down an opportunity to act as host for the annual regatta of the Canadian Association of Amateur Oarsmen, Barrie put in a bid; so did its rival Orillia.4 Probably Arthur Lower was aware of these local activities; but if so, he chose not to recall them. When we were colleagues at Queen's he more than once reproved me (with a directness and a kindness that were both characteristic) for wasting time indulging my interest in sport. For him, sport was not a matter to be taken seriously, and he dismissed it from his mind. Not that he shared the revulsion against physical activity that the classicist M. I. Finley once called "perhaps the most remarkable of all existing academic taboos"; his love of the outdoors, of the challenge of our lakes, rivers, and Shield country has

SPORT AND CLASS VALUES

95

been the devotion of a lifetime. It was rather that games and pastimes had nothing of moment to contribute to the higher earnestness of the historian's calling, or to the understanding of a people's past, when compared to pursuits—political, religious, economic—of real significance. Yet there was more than this. In Canadians in the Making he describes our North American descent into barbarism "from the stern Puritanism, self-sacrifice and sense of duty of our grandfathers," to "the gay insouciance, the craving for cheap excitement, of the city mob," a process that has pushed us from the seventeenth century point our development had reached back to the second or third century of the Roman Empire. "In no surer way does our present period mark this turn—this historical retrocession ... than in the emphasis it begins to place on sports." Instead of "the zeal and vehemence that went into the life of the nineteenth century—especially in such areas as politics and religion," today "every ordinary man in the country is glued to his television set watching baseball or hockey." Sport, however, not only symbolizes the process of retrocession, it is an agent in that process. It relates "to the lighter side of life," sapping its dignity and reality. Scarcely had we won through to a degree of civic cultivation, than "the irresponsibles of society," the gay blades of the elite and the sordid many at the bottom, deflected our development from rural to urban values, from "Puritan to pagan."5 So sport, one gathers, is to be taken seriously by the historian after all. Arthur Lower, in fact, has given more attention to sport, and assigned to it a greater significance than any previous Canadian historian, even though one may not agree with his assessment of its adverse role in Canadian social development. Sports and games had never been absent from Canadian life, not even from the small town of Barrie, and were certainly not an exclusively urban preoccupation, although the role of the city in their rapid evolution in the late nineteenth century was vital. "The Canadians," a traveller commented about 1860, "are thoroughly a people for amusement, and enjoy all kinds of recreation exceedingly. They follow out the customs of the English to a great extent, and participate freely in the games so loved in the old country."6 Not only the English, but every people making up the Canadian population had its distinct tradition of athletics, a tradition usually closely related to the social position and outlook of the group.

96

S. F. WISE

Among French Canadians feats of strength and endurance connected to the occupations of a rural people were prized. E. Z. Massicotte, who published his Athletes canadien-francais in 1909, subtitled it "Recueil des exploits de force, d'endurance, d'agilite, des athletes et des sportsmen de notre race, depuis le XVIIIe siecle," and concentrated his attention upon strongmen and rough-and-tumble fighters, beginning with the legendary Grenon, l'Hercule du nord, whose massive strength amazed and cowed Wolfe's redcoats. There was Joseph Montferrand, hero of the French-Canadian lumbermen of the Ottawa Valley, who at eighteen defeated the best boxers from the English garrison in Montreal, and later "le champion de la marine anglaise" in a seventeen-second encounter at Queen's Quay, Quebec. Indeed, most of the stories about Montferrand, like those about other early French Canadian hero-figures, have to do with his conquests of English or Irish, as when, ambushed by Orangemen on a bridge between Hull and Bytown, he threw his assailants right and left into the river, while "calling upon the Holy Virgin and making the sign of the cross." In Massicotte's tales about the giants of the past, from Grenon to Louis Cyr, there run two threads: a veneration for power, muscularity, and amazing feats of endurance, and a depiction of the characteristic Canadien folk-hero, who by demonstrations of immense strength or by the terror of his wrath (though calm, dignified, and slow to anger) abashes and dismays the bullies of another race, thus testifying to the virtue and hardihood of his people. It is hardly surprising, given such values, that French Canadians (who have of course distinguished themselves in such Canadian team sports as hockey and lacrosse) should have excelled in weightlifting, gymnastics, wrestling, boxing, and marathon running, but it is surely evident as well that the values of fortitude, toughness, and endurance so central to the traditional popular culture of French Canada have a significance—and merit an investigation—transcending the humble realm of sport. Similarly, the Canadian Scots had an athletic tradition already old by the late nineteenth century. Their sport of curling, so perfectly suited both to our climate and to Scottish gregariousness, had been played in Canada since the eighteenth century. One day someone —perhaps an historian who is also a curler—will explain the cultural meaning of this game, and why a sport so peculiarly Scottish should

SPORT AND CLASS VALUES

97

have reached a level of general popularity and a level of performance so high, that by the 1960s Canadian curlers (of all manner of national origins and chiefly from the West) should have been acknowledged as the world's best. Certainly in its origins the game was exclusively Scottish and middle-class in nature; the first formal curling club was that of Montreal (later the Royal Montreal), where twenty merchants met at Gillis' Coffee House on 22 January 1807 to lay down the rules for the club.' After 1820, when clubs were organized in Quebec and in Kingston, curling spread throughout Upper Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick. Bonspiels, attracting rinks from all over Upper Canada, were held as early as 1859 (on Toronto Bay); in 1865, on Lake Erie near Black Rock, an international bonspiel between Canadian and American curlers, twenty-seven rinks a side, was held.8 By Confederation, it was evident that the game had spread beyond its Scottish devotees; in New Brunswick, for instance, the St. Stephens club had "several Chipmans" among its members, another Loyalist family, the Streets, were prominent among the curlers of Newcastle, while in 1860 one James Milligan of the St. Andrew's Club of Saint John, is recorded as having scored an eight end.9 By the 1890s there were curling clubs at Port Arthur, Rat Portage, Winnipeg, Portage La Prairie, Regina, and Calgary; in 1892 " J.D. Flavelle's rink of cracks from Lindsay, Ont. was beaten by Harstone of the Winnipeg Granites," an event of sufficient interest to warrant three columns in the Toronto Globe.° Covered rinks with "made" ice began to appear in Ontario in the 1880s; Toronto had six such large buildings, including that of the Granite Club, and there were others in Ottawa, London, Peterborough, Guelph, and Brantford. The men who curled were hardly "the irresponsibles of society," whether from above or below. Curling in the late nineteenth century was a middle-class game, for respectable citizens, too, have their diversions. Certainly curling related to "the lighter side of life," but of course it always had, even among dour Calvinists. There were at least some signs, however, that decorum was entering the game. The 1876 annual of the Ontario Curling Association has an engraving of the famous Toronto Red Jackets playing on Toronto Bay, with a basket of whiskey bottles at one end of the rink. The 1879 annual carried the same engraving, but a black cloth was modestly draped over the basket. Curlers themselves scarcely thought they were taking a hand in the downfall of Ontario civilization; they thought they were building character. The game was supposed to be about "good humour and

98

S. F. WISE

kindly feeling under all circumstances and provocations"; that quality, "in combination . . . with manly strength and cool judgment cannot fail to make men who will do equal honor to the land of their forefathers and the country of their adoption."H In curling, as in other sports of the time, competition broadened out from that of local clubs to the rivalry of communities, regions, and provinces. The railway was a major factor in that process, greatly assisting the spread of the competitive network in curling as in other sports. In the late nineteenth century it was commonplace for railways to run curling specials at cut-rate fares. As a result, the hundred or more clubs in Ontario exchanged visits during the season and participated by district group in playdowns for the provincial championship. Each group sent two rinks to Toronto annually to compete for the Ontario Tankard.12 In the Maritimes, special trains were laid on for the Interprovincial Tournament; in 1876 this tournament featured "a grand Bonspiel, Nova Scotia against New Brunswick," then "Scotchborn players against all comers," and finally the club matches, with the St. Andrews rink of Saint John meeting the Caledonian Club of Picton, the Thistles of Saint John against Halifax, New Glasgow against Chatham, and Pictou against Fredericton.13 In Ontario, as in the Maritimes, curling was a pastime for small communities as well as large: the sport pages of the Montreal Gazette in the 1870s and 1880s show that curlers in Lucknow, Simcoe, Ayr, Wingham, Port Hope, Lindsay, and Milton were quite as active as their fellows in Toronto, London, Hamilton, Ottawa, and Chatham. More than any other national group, the Scots, through their Caledonian games, stimulated interest in track and field sports. One of Canada's greatest all-rounders, the Scottish-Canadian Walter Knox, was the product of the long-standing Scottish interest in such sports; a near-contemporary of Arthur Lower, he grew up in Orillia. By the 1870s Caledonian games were being held at many points in Canada, and were becoming less exclusively Scottish in character. When the Montreal Caledonian Society held the twentieth renewal of its games in 1875, more than three thousand people attended, including competitors from sister societies in Ontario and in the neighbouring states. The Scottish flavour remained; pipe bands, sword dancers, and the inevitable tots dancing the Highland Fling competed alongside the runners, jumpers, and caber and hammer tossers. So, however, did Indians from the local reserves; one of them won the high hurdles." It is important to note, however, that the Scots were by no means alone

SPORT AND CLASS VALUES

99

in their love for such sports. Throughout Ontario, parts of Quebec and the Maritimes, hundreds of social, ethnic and religious organizations held athletic events during their annual picnics. At about the same time the Caledonians were having their games in 1875, another Montreal group, the Catholic Young Men's society, held its picnic on St. Helen's Island. The sports included not only races from 100 yards up to an open mile (the boys' race of 200 yards offered a $2 prize to the winner), but aquatic competitions "open to amateur members of Irish Catholic Societies."15 Such sports were as normal and natural a part of popular social life as were the dancing, singing, games, and speechmaking which also went on at picnics. John A.'s political picnics were adroit devices for capturing popular attention; most of the time, despite our historians, most Canadians were not thinking about the Pacific Scandal or the National Policy. Church and Sunday School picnics, the annual games of the firemen and the police, the outings of employees of the Grand Trunk and of various banks all featured sports competitions. McGill, Queen's, and Toronto universities held their own athletic competitions, and university "cracks" looking for wider worlds to conquer competed in open events at meets in Ontario and Quebec. In sum, and taking track and field only as a single example, Canadians were extraordinarily active in athletics in the decades immediately following Confederation. This wealth of physical activity stemmed not from some sinister collaboration between the elite and the plebs, but out of the national athletic traditions of the people themselves, and from conditions of life in which physical accomplishment and "manliness" were accorded value. Organization of track and field sports came because the very intensity of competition demanded it: the need to eliminate the "ringers" and hidden professionals, to regulate the rivalry between communities, to dispense with bizarre competitions (like three-legged races), to bring some uniformity to a confused situation. By the early 1880s, the Montreal Amateur Athletic Association began to sponsor an annual field day, and claimed that the winners of its events were Canadian champions. These meets were dominated by American athletes, mainly from the athletic clubs of New York City, although the Scots of Glengarry took their share of medals. "Do we not discourage, instead of encourage young Canadian athletes, and hinder, instead of foster, the development of Canadian athletic sports, by assembling our home talent, year after year, only to march in the triumphal procession of their Yankee

loo

S. F. WISE

conquerors," asked the Spirit of the Times of Toronto. It was thwarted nationalism that prompted the formation of the Canadian Amateur Athletic Association in 1884 for the explicit purpose of holding the Canadian championships; the first were scheduled for precisely the same day on which the New York clubs held theirs.'6

II Certain general propositions about sport in Canada in the late nineteenth century can be put forward, even though, within the present narrow compass, it is impossible to illustrate them adequately. The last forty years of the nineteenth century, and not just the decade of the 1890s, was the era of the rise of organized sport in Canada. Social historians must inevitably examine this sporting revolution; when they do, they will discover that it was not a divergence from the main lines of our social development but was part and parcel of that development. Organized sport may possibly have arisen because older, more austere outlooks were weakening, although that interpretation is at least open to question, but certainly its rise is connected to that of a society becoming more urban, more differentiated, and, at the same time, more integrated. During these decades Canadians, on the evidence of their newspapers and periodicals, were among the most sports-minded people in the western world. They pursued physical activity with the same dedication they brought to politics and religion, and with a joy, exuberance, and inventiveness not usually typical of their approach to public affairs. Certainly the generation that found a political solution to the problems besetting British North America in the 1860s was a creative one; our historians have satisfied us on that score. But it was at least remarkable that the same generation, and the next following, should have created or refined such sports as lacrosse, hockey, football, and basketball. In their adept organization of athletic leagues and federations to bridge gaps between communities and provinces, the Canadians of this era demonstrated the same capacity for skilful corporate leadership as they had in confronting the challenges of a vast country in commerce, industry, and transportation. Since the people who were leaders in public and business affairs were frequently the leaders in athletics and recreation as well, the attitudes they displayed towards sport, far from being signs of moral decay, were those also valued in society at large.

SPORT AND CLASS VALUES

Sport was not really dominated in this period by the effete or irresponsible sections of society. It is true that remnants of the colonial elites and their imitators continued to indulge in sports thought to be genuinely British in character, but having little relevance to the circumstances of Canadian life. It does not seem true that the mass of Canadians, whether farmers, small shopkeepers, clerks, or labourers, had much leisure for sports, except as spectators, at the time of Confederation. Only rarely, as in the case of Ned Hanlan, could a son of the people turn his athletic potential to professional advantage, though the steady movement towards shorter hours and Saturday half-holidays was to democratize sport before the end of the century. The real innovators, organizers, and enthusiasts in the field of sport were neither the aristocratic few nor the labouring many, but the solidly respectable business middle class and its allies in the professions, the universities, and the military. Unless a sport commanded the interest and involved the energies of members of these groups, it was unlikely to become either organized or popular. Boxing, at least in its professional form of bare-knuckle prizefighting, was a sport reprobated by the respectable classes. It was considered a lower-class form of entertainment, at about the same level as cock-fighting. As early as 1860, the police magistrate of Montreal sent a posse to break up a prize fight between "two low disreputable bullies named Jules Rivet and Essal LaPointe."17 In 1881, participation in or connection with a prizefight was made an offense under the Criminal Code; according to the member for Annapolis, it was well known that those who attended such brutal spectacles were "of the most degraded description, men of vicious propensities and accustomed to sensual indulgence of almost every kind."18 Such judgements partook not only of moral revulsion but of class bias. Pugilists came almost entirely from the lower classes, were usually Irish, American, or FrenchCanadian in origin, and were backed by gamblers, tavern keepers, and hotel owners. Their following was composed of labourers and urban "riff-raff," and their fights were frequently accompanied by disorders and a variety of petty criminal acts. There is some evidence that the police forces in the cities shared the taste of the unregenerate; at any rate, their reluctance to prosecute under the Act of 1881 was notorious. Following a prizefight at Albert Hall in Toronto, the crown attorney urged the police to bring charges; "they, however, think as he took the initiative in prosecuting the lotteries, he should also move in this matter."19 Some countenance was given, however, to what were termed "scientific sparring exhibitions," when gloves were used and

102

S. F. WISE

the Queensberry rules (introduced in 1867) followed. Thus in 1877 "a very large audience, and wonderfully respectable in its composition," watched such an exhibition in Nordheimer Hall, Montreal, between "Professor Richardson" and "Professor Wood" of the Montreal Gymnasium.2° Similarly, in Toronto's Adelaide Street Rink in 1885, some 1,500 people, "including Lieutenant Governor Robinson and many prominent citizens" attended a sparring match between the American Charles Mitchell and John F. Scholes of Toronto.2' Despite these exceptions, boxing did not really win an audience among the business and professional elites who patronized other sports; as a result, it was relatively late in achieving a degree of national organization. Not until 1897 were the first Canadian amateur championships held. The sport achieved some marginal respectability only when the Y.M.C.A. encouraged it, after the turn of the century, as an appropriate form of physical exercise. Much the same fate, oddly enough, was accorded the inoffensive sport of competitive walking, or pedestrianism. Throughout the period it was regarded as a "hippodrome" entertainment for the vulgar. In 1879, for example, Miss L. A. Warren, a "famous lady pedestrian" from Philadelphia, challenged all (female) comers in Montreal, and was bested over 25 miles on an indoor track by a strapping Montreal girl, Jessie Anderson. According to the Gazette's reporter, the atmosphere in the arena was abominable, "what with the wretched ventilation of the hall, the closeness caused by the crowd, and the amount of smoking and expectorating going on." When the American eventually fainted, "some unfeeling cads present had the bad taste to attempt an exultant cheer;" the reporter thought it particularly disgraceful that the crowd had helped the Canadian girl by "attempting to trip and standing in the path of the American."22 If such essentially spectator sports as boxing and pedestrianism were left almost exclusively to the urban labouring class, there were other sports, in which the emphasis was upon participation, that were confined to higher levels of society. Though cricket had been assiduously played for many years before Confederation, chiefly through the example provided by officers in garrison towns and by the entourages of provincial lieutenant-governors, it remained the sport of a minority, fostered by the private schools. Sir John Colborne's "prepare-a-Tory" foundation, Upper Canada College, played cricket from its inception in 1830; the social connotations the game has had in Canada are conveyed by a match between U.C.C. and "the gentlemen of Toronto"

SPORT AND CLASS VALUES

103

in 1836. The list of participants is a roll-call of the colonial elite: it included two Robinsons, two Keefers, a Phillpott, a Boulton, Rowsell (the government printer), William Henry Draper, and the inimitable Sir Francis Bond Head himself.23 Periodically, in the postConfederation era, brave statements about the health and future prospects of cricket were made: The game of cricket in Canada is without doubt waking up and this year we look to its being a most prominent feature in the line of sports. The winning of the international match by the Canadians last summer was a thing which went in no small way to make the sport popular and the activity of the officers of the existing clubs has given a hold to the game which . . . will establish cricket as a sport second to none in the Dominion. Toronto and the west generally has had a big share of the cricket and we do not see why Montreal as the bigger city should not have a large slice.24 Efforts were made to organize the game in the same way in which other successful Canadian sports had been. An Ontario Cricket Association was formed in 1880 with the Marquis of Lorne as president and William Hamilton Merritt as secretary, but its attempts to create public interest through a series of matches for a trophy, in emulation of sports like lacrosse, ended in failure. The O.C.A. gave up the ghost in 1891, to be replaced by the equally unsuccessful Canadian Cricket Association. Native Montrealers did not take to the game; uprooted Englishmen and the occasional enthusiast from Bishop's College School at Lennoxville formed the nucleus of what cricket was played.25 One of the sport's staunchest advocates, G. G. S. Lindsey, thought that the lack of a monied and leisured class told against cricket. He put his faith for the future of the game in the graduates of U.C.C. and Trinity College School, Port Hope, who would go forth to social leadership in Ontario, "schooled in the game, trained to command [and] learned in the art of handling an eleven." Perhaps the University of Toronto might help, as well, since boys from the private schools usually went on to it; "we believe," he wrote, "the game is not played at Queen's."26 Yet though the central provinces might lack a monied and leisured class in the English sense, their growing towns and cities were producing a prosperous business and professional middle class with strong interests in sports. Well before Confederation, respectable Montrealers might be seen in the winter months scaling their mountain on

104

S. F. WISE

snowshoes; the Montreal Snow Shoe Club was founded in 1843, and others were to follow. At first such clubs were purely social in character, members taking part in weekly tramps culminating in convivial evenings. Organized competition over measured courses with established rules had come by 1867, with annual fixtures between clubs. The love Montrealers had for snowshoeing (and for the winter carnival the snowshoers were foremost in organizing) aroused only bafflement in other centres; in 1885 the Gazette editorially abused a Toronto newspaper for its failure to grasp the beauty of snowshoeing. "Montreal," it declared, "contains more genuine sport to the square inch than any other city in the Dominion, Toronto included."27 Snowshoeing, at least as practised by the English-speaking clubs (which seem to have had little to do with such clubs as Le Canadien and Le Trappeur), was an elaborate and self-conscious synthesis of a number of cultural traditions. Members of the St. George's Club were proud of their "picturesque costumes of blanket coat and knickerbockers, red sash, scarlet stockings and tuque bleue." Picturesqueness did not mean indiscipline, however; "at the word of command from the President we fall in line and in Indian file begin the ascent of the mountain at a stiff and steady pace." Once within sight of Prendergast's or some other favourite inn, "the leader cries 'tally ho!' and all are off at full speed, each anxious to be first in." Snowshoers saw themselves as engaged in a manly pastime that was distinctively Canadian. "No Greeks of Hellas were more proud than we," said John Reade at the annual St. Georges Club dinner in 1881: What firmer bulwarks can a nation have, Than sons thus trained in eye, in foot, in hand, In quick resource, in temper and in skill? And he who has not felt his blood grow warm As through the frozen woods he makes his way, O'er the deep snow which crisps beneath his feet Has missed no common joy, and little knows The bliss our northern winter can bestow. Although snowshoeing was to flag as a winter pastime for respectable Montrealers in the later years of the nineteenth century, younger men being drawn off by hockey, the snowshoe clubs left a considerable legacy. The Montreal Snow Shoe Club was one of the founding organizations of the Montreal Amateur Athletic Association, that bastion of middle-class involvement in sport. The high-mindedness of the snowshoers, the earnestness with which they approached their

SPORT AND CLASS VALUES

105

chosen pastime, imbued the Montreal conception of amateur a thl eti ci sm.28 Another sport which never spread beyond narrow class lines was the hunt. Montreal, Ottawa, Quebec, and Toronto all had their hunt clubs; these cities' newspapers deferentially referred to "the fine old English manly sport of fox hunting." The Montreal Gazette's accounts of this supreme form of colonial mimesis do not differ in any substantial way from what a Zena Cherry might write in today's Toronto Globe and Mail of the doings of Toronto's pink-coated gentry out King and Kleinburg way. There were the mandatory lists of "those of our leading citizens" in attendance, studded with "Hons.," "Ladies," "Colonels," and the odd upwardly mobile "Doctor"; there was casual mention of country estates, hunt breakfasts, recherché luncheons and "Miss Marion Lewis's capital seat." Horsiness as the road to ultimate respectability was not confined to the Allans, the Willgresses, the Dawes', the Richardsons, and other merchants, financiers, bankers, and distillers; among them there were also the Baumgartens and, indeed, the Taschereaus and the Galarneaus.29 Though the fantasy-world of the hunt was a tiny one, it was directly connected, at least in the larger centres, with one of the most organized and popular sports of the period, horse-racing. Active participation was of course confined to little men and large animals, but in an era when most of the population fancied its judgement of horseflesh, thoroughbred racing was enormously popular. By 1867 there were few towns of any size not boasting of a race track and at least one race meeting a year. Montreal had its Province of Quebec Turf Club and its Blue Bonnets course; Toronto had the Woodbine and the Ontario Jockey Club. In both cities the track stewards included some of the wealthy families who also patronized the hunt. The O. J.C., organized in 1881 with Col. Growski as its first chairman, had directors from Hamilton, St. Catharines, Brantford, Niagara Falls, Peterborough, and Chatham as well as Toronto.3° Race meetings were occasions on which the elite mingled, though not too closely, with the democracy, and were social events as well as sporting occasions. As described in the press, the scene was always a brilliant one, with mandatory references to the beautiful contrasts provided by the dresses and sunshades of "the fair sex," the flags, banners, and racing colours. Racing crowds were invariably happy and light-minded: The assemblage yesterday afternoon was a very large and fashionable one, amongst those present on the grand stand and in the

Io6

S. F. WISE

carriages around the enclosure being many of Montreal's leading society people. Conspicuous among the vehicles around the course was a genuine tally-ho coach, on the top of which were seated a number of ladies and gentlemen. Lieutenant Colonel Whitehead drove the coach out in splendid style, and several gentlemen of the Hunt did the honors and dispensed the hospitalities (on ice) in truly royal style.3' While "the wealth and fashion of the Queen City all flocked to the Woodbine," so did thousands of their humbler fellow citizens; at the spring meeting in 1891, for example, there was an attendance of 15,000 on the first day and nearly 20,000 on the second.32 Here, perhaps, does Arthur Lower's conception of the social dimensions of sport most nearly apply. The patronage of the rich was not, however, extended to trotting, a form of racing that was prevalent in the rural areas of both Ontario and Quebec. Farmers and the inhabitants of small towns and villages were the chief devotees of this sport; Western Ontario particularly was a hotbed of it. It was frequently alleged in the press that trotting was a thoroughly corrupt form of racing; "for years the patron of the trotting track has been classified with the gambler and the blackleg, for honesty dwelt not there."33 Lacking support, both financial and administrative, from the kind of people who patronized thoroughbred racing in Canada, the trotting horsemen proved incapable of organizing to protect themselves from "the predatory horde of outlaws" drawn to their tracks, and eventually trotting became one of the very few Canadian sports to seek shelter within an American organization. The first Canadian trotting circuit was organized in 1884, under the auspices of the National Trotting Association of the United States."

III

Above all other sports, Canadians of this period were interested both as players and spectators in team games. With three of them, lacrosse, hockey, and football, the business, professional, military, and university communities of Montreal had direct associations, and with a fourth, the latecomer basketball, the connection was close. Field lacrosse was the brainchild of a prosperous Montreal dentist, W. G. Beers. As a child, and possibly too while a student at Lower Canada College, Beers had played the ancient Indian game of baggataway.

SPORT AND CLASS VALUES

107

Montreal interest in lacrosse had arisen from a demonstration by Indians from Caughnawaga at the St. Pierre race course as early as 1834. The first recorded match between whites and Indians was held in 1844, under the auspices of the Olympic Athletic Club; the first organized team was that of the Montreal Lacrosse Club, formed in 1856 and composed of players from Montreal's upper crust, including such names as Christie, Blackwood, Redpath, and Coffin. During these years a number of changes were made in the Indian game, especially to the form of the stick and through greater emphasis upon passing and teamwork, but it remained for Beers to give real symmetry to the sport.36 It was Beers who fixed the size of the field and the nature of the goals, determined the number of players and the names of positions, laid down the rules governing illegal play, and gave a match its duration (best three of five "games" or goals). Through his initiative, a convention of fifty-two delegates representing twenty-nine lacrosse clubs in Ontario and Quebec met at the Sons of Temperance Hall in Kingston on September 26, 1867 to form the Canadian National Lacrosse Association, and to adopt the rules he had first formulated in 1860.36 Beers, much prouder of this accomplishment than of his founding of the Canadian Journal of Dental Science, published in 1869 the first definitive book on the sport, Lacrosse: the national game of Canada. He believed that his refinement of the rough and formless Indian game was "as much superior to the original as civilization is to barbarism." Not only did lacrosse have the virtue of rapidly converting spectators into players through the excitement and admiration its skills aroused, but it had physical and moral benefits as well: Lacrosse stimulates nutrition, invigorates and equalizes the circulation, quickens and frees the function of respiration, strengthens the appetite and digestion, and purifies the blood. Its sociability calls forth a nervous stimulus which acts enticingly on the muscles. . . . Lacrosse knocks timidity and nonsense out of a young man, training him to temperance, confidence and pluck ... It shames grumpiness out of him, schools his vanity and makes him a man. Perhaps wisely, he offered no professional opinion about its effect upon the teeth. In the years after Confederation, lacrosse was truly the national game of Canada, or at least of the central provinces and British Columbia, where it rapidly took hold. The early teams were dominated by the sons of the well-to-do, but as W. K. McNaught pointed out, lacrosse was "the cheapest of all games." It needed no expensive

io8

S. F. WISE

equipment; "a single lacrosse stick and simple running gear is all that is required for action."37 Soon young men from town and countryside alike took up the game, clubs proliferated, intense local rivalries grew up, and inter-city leagues at several levels of competition appeared. Not only did lacrosse become the first mass participation sport, but it attracted large crowds of spectators as well. The speed, physical challenge, and patterned flow of the game were exciting enough, but there was also the heady brew of national pride in a sport that was uniquely Canadian, as this Montreal Gazette headline indicates: "The Great Game for the Championship of the World: Shamrocks of Montreal, Q., against Torontos of Toronto, Ont.: A Beautiful Day and an Exciting Match: Several Thousand Spectators Witness a Well Contested Match: The Longest Championship Game on Record."38 Hockey followed much the same evolution as lacrosse. Its precise place of origin is in dispute, but Montreal nurtured it. It too was first the game of the military, university men, and the athletic enthusiasts of middle-class Montreal, and though its rise was not so rapid as lacrosse's, it too was eventually invaded by players from all levels of society. Hockey rules did not spring from the mind of a single man, but were certainly much influenced by lacrosse; the game underwent considerable experimentation and change during the 1870s and 1880s before the pattern familiar today began to emerge and the great age of the sport to dawn. Hockey's history is familiar enough; that of Canadian football is perhaps less well-known. Young gentlemen in Montreal were playing something they called football as early as the mid-1860s, although there seems to have been no consistency in the numbers of players, the scoring rules, or the precise object of the game.39 It was at about this period that in England a clear division was being made. between association football (soccer), then emerging as the game of the working classes, and rugby football as the game of the public schools and of gentlemen amateurs. Both forms were played in Canada, with Montreal as the cradle of rugby and Toronto of soccer. American college football evolved directly from the well-known incident of May 15, 1874, when a visiting McGill team played Harvard according to Canadian rules. Not so familiar, however, is the fact that Harvard continued to play McGill and other Montreal clubs into the 1880s, in a period when the American game was developing quite different rules. Under pressure both from American universities and from native advocates of English rugby pure and undefiled, Canadian footbal-

SPORT AND CLASS VALUES

109

lers stubbornly refused to alter the game they had created. As late as 1882, the Montreal Football Club played Harvard, but its chief local rival, the Britannia club, which "for several years had had annual matches with Harvard, this year [has] made no attempt to arrange one, declining to recognize the American innovations in Rugby Union, and considering it inadvisable to attempt any compromise with them."40 Meanwhile, the Montreal game pushed its way steadily into Ontario, spreading first to Ottawa and to Royal Military College in Kingston, then to private schools like Trinity College and U.C.C., and eventually to strongholds of soccer like the University of Toronto and Queen's. It was in 1883 that Queen's (having been converted to the game by R.M.C.), rather inauspiciously inaugurated its brilliant winning record in Canadian football by winning the 'Central Association Championship"—a better term might have been the Calvinist Cup —over Knox College "by one goal for Queen's and one (under protest) for Knox."4' In 1884 the newly-formed Ontario Rugby Football Union was scheduling matches not only among the colleges already mentioned, but with Ontario Agricultural College at Guelph, and teams from Peterborough, Hamilton, and London,42 and by 1885 an inter-provincial game was played between selects from Ontario and Quebec.43 Despite its violence, and the prevalence of gore and serious injury, characteristics allegedly dear to the "mob," football was to remain for many years a class sport, played before small crowds of the knowledgeable. Although as then played it had its moments of swift, open movement, for the most part it resembled a primitive phalangial combat, much more enthralling to players than to bystanders. The nature of football gives special point to the question prompted by the general enthusiasm of the urban elite of this era for playing and promoting sports: why should members of highly conventional middle-class communities, the repositories of civic respectablility, have been so drawn to athletics in general, and to so violent a sport as football in particular? It is not an answer to say that young men from favoured backgrounds have a natural propensity for frivolity, lightmindedness, and social irresponsibility. No one who reads accounts of early football games—Ralph Connor's description in Glengarry school days (1902) is a relatively late example—can fail to be impressed by the strength of the contemporary conviction that football was a test of the capacity for leadership in the everyday world, and that

I I()

S. F. WISE

players were expected to exhibit qualitites of manliness, courage, and gentlemanly behaviour under the most trying conditions.

IV The institution that above all others expressed the involvement of the middle class in sport was the Montreal Amateur Athletic Association. The M.A.A.A. was essentially a federation of five clubs, the Montreal Lacrosse Club, the Montreal Snow Shoe Club, the Montreal Bicycle Club, the Tuque Bleue Toboggan Club, and the Montreal Football Club. It was operated by a board of directors drawn from each club; the board was charged with responsibility for property management, the scheduling of events in the many sports in which the association took part and many other matters, including the busy social round for which the association's main building was the centre. In the late nineteenth century, the M.A.A.A. was unquestionably the most powerful sporting body in Canada, with a decisive influence upon the development of most sports that Canadians engaged in. Its membership, including members from associated organizations, was over two thousand; membership cost the by no means negligible sum of ten dollars a year. In 1882 the M.A.A.A. acquired Barnjum's Gymnasium for $12,300, issuing bonds to pay for the purchase. By 1888, its playing fields and buildings were valued at more than $30,000, its annual revenue from dues was nearly that amount, and it had a healthy bank surplus. In addition to its constituent bodies, the association sponsored hockey, baseball, chess, fencing, and dramatic clubs, and ran a reading room and a library." Affiliation also existed between the M.A.A.A. and a number of other upper middle-class sporting clubs, including the Montreal Yacht Club, the Montreal Hunt Club, and the St. Louis Canoe Club.45 The ideals animating the members of the M.A.A.A. were those of the social milieu from which they came, that is, those of the upright, honourable, and puritanical Canadian gentleman: The moral influences of the M.A.A.A. are very considerable. Honour and fair play are inculcated, gambling or strong drink not tolerated on its premises or grounds; to prevent any chance of the former, cards were prohibited, its founders considering there were enough means of amusement elsewhere. Pure amateur sport of all

SPORT AND CLASS VALUES

III

kinds is encouraged, and anything tending to professionalism or hippodroming strongly opposed. A loyal feeling for everything Canadian and national is engendered, and in fact, no more healthy and strong moral organization exists for young men anywhere." Typical of the membership of the M.A.A.A., and also very much swayed by its moral athleticism was Dr. James Naismith. Born near Almonte, Canada West in 1861, Naismith grew up in a Calvinist community in which the Scottish emphasis upon hard work, "manly" sports and the value of education exerted a powerful influence upon the young. Determined to follow the ministry "in order to help my fellow beings," Naismith went to McGill on a scholarship in 1883, and graduated in theology in 1890. At the same time he became an outstanding athlete, playing centre at football for McGill and excelling in lacrosse, wrestling, and gymnastics. Upon graduation, he felt called to that special combination of Christian living and athletic endeavour that was the Y.M.C.A. ideal. While studying at the Y.M.C.A. training school at Springfield, Massachusetts, in 1891, Naismith made the final contribution of a remarkably creative phase in Canadian social history by inventing the game of basketball. The new sport was the outcome of pure logic suffused by the athletic ideals of the Montreal milieu. Naismith sought a sport in which physical contact would be reduced to a minimum, in which play would be as free-flowing as in lacrosse or hockey, and in which technical skill would have unfettered opportunity to determine the result. As he said in introducing the game to its first players, "if men will not be gentlemanly in their play, it is our place to encourage them to games that may be played by gentlemen in a manly way, and show them that science is superior to brute force with a disregard for the feelings of others."47 Naismith's objects in inventing what rapidly became a world sport lay bare a central irony in the role of the Canadian urban elite as pioneers in-the organizing and popularizing of sport: they were overwhelmed by their very success. The common man, increasingly free to engage in leisure-time physical recreation, invaded games supposedly the preserve of society's leaders, and brought to them attitudes that had little to do with the gentlemanly code." In one sense, the stand of the M.A.A.A. and bodies like it for amateurism as against professionalism was an attempt to draw class lines in sport. Increasingly, the respectable patrons of sport complained of professionalism and rough play, especially in lacrosse. After a particularly rough game between

112

S. F. WISE

Montreal and Cornwall in 1890, one Montreal journal considered that "the sooner the national game is handed over to the keeping of the professionals the better, for gentlemen cannot afford to have anything to do with it." Increasingly Canadian nature itself was evoked as an escape from the Goths: There is something primitive and poetical about the canoe, and canoeing is one of the few pastimes which has not yet degenerated like many of its fellows. A writer some time ago put it aptly when he said: 'All gentlemen are not canoeists, but all canoeists are gentlemen.' It is, perhaps, due to this fact more than to any other that a canoe camp is invariably a delightful place, where all meet on terms of equality . . . [and] jolly good fellowship.'" By the 1890s, the exodus was under way, though its extent within particular sports must await investigation. More and more, the urban elites turned to sports which they could pursue "on terms of equality and jolly good fellowship," insulated from the mass of their countrymen. Golf, for example, had been played in Canada at least since Confederation; the Montreal Golf Club, founded in 1873, was the first club organized for play in North America.50 In the 1890s, golf clubs sprang up not only around Montreal but in the vicinity of many Ontario cities and towns, with attendant labour forces of hired professionals, greenskeepers, and clubhouse flunkies. The clubhouses themselves, sprawling frame edifices reminiscent of Saratoga Springs hotels, were not merely pleasure palaces: they were social fortresses. Tennis, too, won a new popularity among the respectable classes. The Canadian Lawn Tennis Association, founded in the 1890s, "welded the game together and gave it a certain prestige." Soon tennis clubs, often in association with golf and country clubs, appeared, even in such communities as Uxbridge, Woodstock, Meaford, Wingham, Elora, Lindsay, and Owen Sound.5' Yacht clubs, too, attracted the well-to-do. In Toronto, "everybody who is anybody either owns or has an interest in some kind of sailing craft;" the Royal Canadian Yacht Club, boasting such members as Aemilius Jarvis and George Gooderham, built a palatial club house on the Island, a town club house as well, and purchased a steam yacht to ferry their members between the two.52 In Montreal, H. M. Molson and the great Canadian engineer George Herrick Duggan, men "generous of their time and wealth," built up the St. Lawrence Yacht Club during the 1890s.53 Cycling offers a case study of this social process. The penny-farthing

SPORT AND CLASS VALUES

113

bicycle, called, oddly enough, the "ordinary," cost as much as $300, much too expensive for most young men. The first cycling clubs to be organized in North America (in 1878) were in Boston and —inevitably—in Montreal. Within four years the Canadian Wheelman's Association had been formed to organize racing meets among the many clubs in Ontario and Quebec, and "to secure improvement of the public roads and highways." In 1883 the C.W.A. declared a Canadian champion, W. G. Ross of Montreal; his brother, P. D. Ross, an outstanding McGill athlete who was to become the proprietor of the Ottawa Journal, was vice-president of the Toronto club.54 In 1889 the invention of pneumatic tires and the inner tube by John Dunlop made detachable wheels and substantial production economies possible; the subsequent invention of the coaster brake made the bicycle a less dangerous vehicle. The consequence of the mass-produced, inexpensive "safety bicycle" was a minor transportation revolution; it was also, in a sporting sense, a social one. The bicycle craze meant that now, in the words of a cycling pioneer, "patrician and peasant" rode and raced together.55 This situation did not long remain. As cyclists from lower down the social scale challenged the dominance of the "patricians" in the sport, the latter turned to a new and more exclusive interest." The career of Dr. Perry Doolittle is probably representative. A Trinity College man and a wealthy Toronto physician, Doolittle had been one of the founders of the C.W.A. and a successful racer. By the end of the nineties, he had shifted his attention to the horseless carriage, helped found the Ontario Motor League, was an executive of the Canadian Good Roads Association and of the Toronto Automobile Club, and from 1920 until his death in 1933 was president of the Canadian Automobile Association.

V The relationship of sport to national athletic traditions, to social class and to certain dominant ideas centring upon the code of the gentleman and the concept of manliness seems plain enough, although each of these matters warrants further investigation. It is by no means as clear why middle-class Canadians, especially in Quebec and Ontario, should have turned so wholeheartedly to sport in the late nineteenth

11 4

S. F. WISE

century. It is true, of course, that other countries, such as Britain, France, and the United States, were undergoing a similar experience, and therefore the Canadian case might be considered simply another example of what was a general movement. It is not at all certain, however, that the Canadian pattern runs parallel to those in other countries. Eugen Weber has recently offered a socio-economic explanation for the rise of sport in France which appears to suggest some fruitful lines of inquiry. He argues that since the economic slumps of the eighties and nineties meant higher relative incomes for the upper and middle classes, especially for members of the professions, it was possible for "a higher proportion of the leisured young" to wait a relatively long time "before turning to money-earning activities." He couples this suggestion (it is no more than that) with the hypothesis that the leisured young chose sport, as an alternative to the colonies or to artistic ventures, as a reaction against the drudgery and stagnation of contemporary French life. "Action, liberation, adventure and the heroic life were what the colonies seemed to promise. So did sports."57 While one can follow Weber in viewing the rise of sport in Canada as "a fat boy's" movement rather than "a rebellion of the downtrodden," his explanation is pitched too firmly in terms of the young to fit the Canadian case. Had it not been for the enthusiasm, ability, and money of men already securely established in the community, Canadian sport would hardly have made the headway it did. Moreover, the nature of the post-Confederation sports movement bears a stamp that is quintessentially Canadian. Virtually all sport, at its first level, is an expression of the purely physical and of the joy of play. Anyone who has pursued athletics beyond this level knows that these attributes must be overlaid by mental and moral discipline; serious athletic competition is a test of body, brain, and will. In this sense sport is universal, and in the late nineteenth century Canada produced a large number of superior athletes. But Canadians were not content with playing a game well. They had an ineradicable itch for order. In nearly every sport in which middle-class Canadians were deeply involved, they sought to rationalize it, to reduce it to its fundamentals, to eliminate confusions, to make it conform to rules and regulations. Not only did this obtain with respect to the process of play itself, but the environment surrounding play must also be tidy and respectable. Sport was not a rebellion against established verities. It was their very lust for order and pattern that made Canadians innovators. Anything savouring of

SPORT AND CLASS VALUES

115

hippodromes, bread and circuses was to be rejected; sport was to be integrated into the rhythms of Canadian life. In another way, too, the Canadian approach to sport had a special character. Nowhere else, and certainly not in the chaotic United States, was the movement for the organization of national competition so pronounced. Scarcely had a sport been received, refined, invented, or taken up than clubs were formed and competition ensued within communities or localities, then broadened swiftly to the provincial and even to the national level. Canadians wanted national champions, partly out of community pride, partly out of the strong belief that their games were their own and that they played them superlatively well. It was no accident that among the first passengers to be carried east on the newly-completed C.P.R. was a British Columbia lacrosse team, challenging for the national championship. Middle-class Canadians of city and town still thought of themselves as a rugged northern people. In a society becoming more and more urban, sport was a surrogate for direct contact with the challenging vastnesses of our great land. In struggling against its forests, its waters, and its climate a hardy and venturesome people had been formed; athletic endeavour was proof that these qualities still remained. And, when opportunity offered, more and more respectable Canadians turned back to nature and, like Arthur Lower, rediscovered older realities in pitting themselves against the northern land.

NOTES 1. A. R. M. Lower, My First Seventy-five Years (Toronto: Macmillan, 1967), p. 12. 2. Allan Metcalfe, "Tentative hypotheses related to the form and function of physical activity in Canada during the 19th century," p. 3. (Paper delivered to Symposium on the History of Sport and Physical Education, Edmonton, 1970, University of Alberta Library.) 3. Montreal Gazette, November 25, 1875. 4. Dominion Illustrated Monthly, 6, no. 149 (May 9, 1891), 455. 5. A. R. M. Lower, Canadians in the Making: a social history of Canada (Toronto: Longmans, 1958), pp. 320-21 and passim. 6. G. M. Craig, ed., Early Travellers in the Canadas, 1791-1867 (Toronto: Macmillan, 1955), p. 252. 7. "One hundred and fifty years of curling," Canadian Sport Monthly, 33, no. 11 (March 1957), 14.

116

S. F. WISE

8. James Hedley, "The game of curling," Outing Magazine, 22 (December 1889), 210. 9. James Hedley, "Curling in Canada," Dominion Illustrated Monthly, 1, no. 3 (April 1892), 177. 10. Toronto Globe March 3, 1892 11. Hedley, "The game of curling," 211. 12. James Hedley, "Curling in Canada," Dominion Illustrated Monthly, 1, no. 3 (April 1892), 173. 13. Montreal Gazette, January 18, 1876. 14. Ibid., August 24, 1875. 15. Ibid., August 20, 1875. 16. Ibid., April 22, 1884. 17. Ibid., October 24, 1860. 18. Canada, Parliament, Debates of the House of Commons, February 11, 1881, p. 938. 19. Montreal Gazette, March 30, 1883. See also Ibid., February 28 and March 25, 1884. 20. Ibid., January 23, 1877. Wood was in fact the American professional Billy Madden. Ibid., March 30, 1885. 21. Ibid., February 24, 1885. 22. Ibid., February 24, 1879. 23. G. G. S. Lindsey, "Cricket in Canada," pt. 4, Dominion Illustrated Monthly, 2, no. 3 (April 1893), 160. 24. Montreal Gazette, April 20, 1885. 25. Lindsey, "Cricket in Canada," pt. 3 (November 1892), 619. 26. Ibid., pt. 4 (April 1893), 163, 167. 27. Montreal Gazette, February 24, 1885. 28. Snowshoers are still very much with us, of course; but the nearest modern counterparts in spirit to the early snowshoers are the cross-country skiers, who have the same northern virtues, outlandish garb, and technical mystique possessed by the nineteenth-century Montrealer as he communed with his sub-arctic land. 29. Montreal Gazette, October 3, 1881, October 9, 1882, October 8, 1883, October 26, 1885, November 2, 1885. 30. Ibid., August 17, 1881. 31. Ibid., June 22, 1883. 32. Dominion Illustrated Monthly, 6, no. 152 (May 30, 1891), 526. 33. Ibid., 5, no. 111 (August 16, 1890), 102. 34. Montreal Gazette, April 22, 1884. 35. A. M. Weyand and M. R. Roberts, The Lacrosse Story (Baltimore: 1965), pp. 13-16. 36. Ibid., p. 18.

SPORT AND CLASS VALUES

117

37. "Cricket, lacrosse or baseball," Bystander (August 1880), quoted in Ottawa Citizen, January 25, 1967. McNaught was then secretary of the National Lacrosse Association. See also his Lacrosse and how to play it (Toronto: 1873). 38. July 31, 1876. The Shamrocks were recruited from the Irish working class of Montreal. 39. Even so, the Canadian term "rouge" was already being used for a kick in goal. See D. M. Fisher, "It's time to set football's history straight," Sports Canada, 1, no. 1 (August 1969), 22. 40. Montreal Gazette, October 9, 1882. 41. Ibid., December 10, 1883. 42. Ibid., March 26, 1884. 43. Ibid., October 25, 1885. 44. Dominion Illustrated Monthly, 2, no. 27 (January 5, 1889), 6-7; Montreal Gazette, April 17, 1882. 45. Dominion Illustrated Monthly, 2, no. 27 ( January 5, 1889), 6-7. 46. Ibid. 47. Canadian Sports Hall of Fame, Toronto, Biographical File, Dr. James Naismith. 48. Undoubtedly the movement from country to town during the period was important in the democratizing of sport; so too was the shorter hours movement. See Ian F. Jobling, "Urbanization and sport in Canada, 1867-1900." (Paper presented to the Symposium on the History of Sport and Physical Education, Edmonton, 1970, University of Alberta Library pp. 1-10.) 49. Dominion Illustrated Monthly, 5, no. 110 (August 9, 1890), 87. 50. In 1885 it acquired the title "Royal," a token that served "to show the kindly interest Her Majesty takes in her subjects, however remote they may be." Montreal Gazette, July 4, 1885. 51. Scott Griffin, "A chat about lawn tennis," Massey's Magazine, 2 ( July-December 1896), 58-60. 52. Dominion Illustrated Monthly, 5, no. 111 (August 16, 1890), 103. 53. Ibid., 6, no. 145 (April 11, 1891), p. 354. 54. Montreal Gazette, May 19, 1884. 55. P. E. Doolittle, "Cycling of today," Massey's Magazine, 1 (January-June 1896), 406-7. 56. Eugen Weber, in his "Gymnastics and sports in fin-de-siecle France: opium of the classes," American Historical Review, 76, no. 1 (February 1971), 70-98, has pointed to a similar social phenomenon in France. See especially pp. 80-82. What, one wonders, was the social position of the J. McKee from Arthur Lower's Barrie who won the Dunlop road race in Toronto in 1903? See History of the Dunlop Road Race, 1894-1921 (Toronto: 1922), p. 5. 57. Weber, "Gymnastics and Sports," 96, 98.

Unconventional Priest of the North: Charles Paradis, 1848-1926' c49-) Bruce W. Hodgins

I am sure I am a better scholar because I know the bush and the sea, because I can split wood, make a bough bed, snare a rabbit, run a rapids, reef a sail, tie a bowline and shape a course. . . So I am glad that I have made this combination, the simple and the sophisticated. It is one still open in peculiar degree to Canadians, if they still have the good sense to take advantage of it. For nothing can eliminate our frontier, that vast land to the north there, just beyond our glance, a land which the airplane may fly over but will never subordinate. We Canadians will always have this northern window through which to let fresh air into our civilized room. If we heap ourselves up in festering cities, that will be partly our own fault—for just beyond their pavement's end, stands the open, unfenced north. And if we can ever produce a way of life in this country which will be uniquely our own, it will arise from this combination of the simple and the sophisticated, from the complex skills and worldly wisdom of an urban civilization joined to the heritage of space and the clear untroubled eyes of a world which is eternally young. Arthur R. M. Lower2 For Charles Paradis, quarrelsome priest, sometime Oblate, artist, prospector, linguist, his sanctuary across fifty years of the old Ontario and Quebec North was always "where he happened to be." Sometimes he said mass under the trees, sometimes in an Ojibwa tent. Sometimes it was hot; more often it was so cold that his fingers were seared by the chalice. And often the black flies made him move when he should have been still, made him defy them and, as he described it, "change the attitude of the mass."3 His ultimate aim was always the same. It held whether he was serving as a missionary on Temiskaming, shooting the rapids of the Abitibi, fighting against the lumber barons on the Gatineau, feuding with senior politicians in Quebec City and his 119

i zo

BRUCE W. HODGINS

religious superiors in Ottawa, defending his personal effects in Buffalo and his honour in Rome, battling governments from the Veuve and Sturgeon, claim-staking by snowshoe at the Nighthawk, or reigning over his little theocratic wilderness retreat at Sandy Inlet at the end of the north arm of Lake Temagami. That aim was to colonize his beloved Canadiens, particularly those who had been foolish enough to emigrate to New England or Michigan, on the fertile pockets and ribbons of the Shield, in the land of the North. There he would help them recreate the simple life. Yet for the restless Paradis, nothing in his life was simple. Adventure and the wilderness, anger, frustration, and misunderstanding, all drove him onward. Perhaps he was paranoid. Frequently he was misguided. Certainly he is an unsung hero of the old North. Charles Alfred Marie Paradis was born on March 23, 1848, at Saint Andre de Kamouraska, one of sixteen children of Amable Paradis, carpenter, and Sophie Moreau. His ancestors had settled on L'ile d' Orleans at the time of Champlain. Though humble folk, Amable Paradis and his wife somehow found it possible to give their children a modicum of education, and young Charles was sent to take his classical studies at the College Sainte Anne de la Pocatiere. Fellow students and at least one of his teachers later testified to being surprised that the short, wiry extrovert ever chose the clerical life. But he did. In 1871 at Lachine he donned the habit and entered the novitiate of the Oblats de Marie Immaculee, taking his final vows in 1873. He was not, however, ordained by Bishop Duhamel of Ottawa and thus admitted to the Congregations des Oblats until October 1881. Meanwhile, beginning in 1875 he studied theology in Ottawa and from 1878 to 1881 served as a professor at Ottawa College, lecturing especially on art.4 But this teaching was interrupted by more than a year's study in Rome. It was later to be alleged that he was already causing trouble for his superiors. For them he was too proud, stubborn, and undisciplined, given to cabals, believing himself called to do great things but seeing himself persecuted by everyone, especially those in authority. Even he admitted, in 1887, that his superiors always saw him as "un fou, un imaginaire, un brute, un ecervele en theorie et en pratique."5 During the summer holidays of 1880 he took his first recorded trip north. Travelling by train and steamer to Mattawa, he and three of his colleagues canoed and portaged upstream to Temiskaming and up the involved Matabitchuan system until on July 26 they crossed the short divide which is now the site of the village of Temagami (to be so

UNCONVENTIONAL PRIEST OF THE NORTH

!

1

situated because of the future route of the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario, now the Ontario Northland, Railway); he gazed as "the first tourist" on the end of the northeast arm of Lake Temagami. Hiring an Ojibwa guide, he paddled down the fifteen-odd miles to the Hudson's Bay post and Indian settlement on Bear Island at the lake's centre and then turned northward to Rabbit Nose Island where the party camped for ten days. Paradis claimed that during this stay they and the Bay's manager caught the largest trout ever to be taken from the lake; weighing sixty pounds, the huge fish was hooked in deep water by means of a cedar pole with two lines, one to a stone anchor and one to a hook.6 But Paradis was also hooked. For the next forty-six years the North would never let him go, and for the latter part of his life Lake Temagami would be his home. After his ordination Paradis was assigned to the Oblate mission based at Opatchioning, the Narrows midway up Lake Temiskaming, whose territory stretched northward to the Abitibi and Hudson Bay. On May 5, 1882, he headed north from Ottawa with his fellow missionary and superior, Father Nedelec, a dour man with whom Paradis repeatedly clashed. The next two and a half years, those coinciding with Paradis' assignment, would be momentous ones in the history of northeastern Ontario. In November 1882, the CPR, pushing west from Mattawa, would run its first train into what was to become North Bay. The next year as the line was pushed ever further, nickel would be discovered in what became the Sudbury Basin. Thanks to Paradis and assisted by others, the Catholic Church, centred in Ottawa, would back a major drive for the colonization of French-speaking Canadians on both the Ontario and Quebec sides of Temiskaming and in the country far beyond. Paradis' own trip to the mission on the Ontario side, opposite the Hudson's Bay Company's Fort Temiskaming, and then on to Fort Abitibi, was auspicious. He reported it in detail by means of open letters to a Montreal newspaper.' He and Nedelec reached Mattawa only to find out that they would have to await the spring breakup to proceed further. In the meantime, Paradis travelled up the line to the temporary railhead in the vicinity of Lac Talon where hundreds of Quebecois were working on the CPR construction. Here he celebrated mass and preached a sermon to 600 persons au milieu de la forest. The sermon concerned the opportunity which now seemed to be presented of establishing a large French-speaking colony in Northern Ontario. The railway was the occasion for changing the course of history; if les

I22

BRUCE W. HODGINS

Canadiens did not act, rivals would, and that would be deeply regrettable. When the spring breakup came and no large canoes seemed immediately available, the Oblates agreed to help about twenty men transport the hull of a steamboat, belonging to Olivier Latour, a lumberman, up the many rapids of the Ottawa to Temiskaming. This would be the first steamboat ever on the lake, though, as Paradis noted, it would be the passengers who would take the steamboat, not the boat the people. They propelled the Mattawan in calm water by oars and up current by windlass and cables from along the shore. After hauling the boat up the lower rapids and traversing the quiet reaches, they required six days to conquer the six-mile Long Sault, just before Temiskaming; at one point the cable broke in the swirling waters and the boat pounded back down a half-mile of the river until it crashed on rocks. When the same happened in shallow swift rapids almost aux pontes de Temiskaming, the keel was cracked and the rudder broken. Nevertheless, on May 24, fete de Notre Gracieuse Souvereine, the Mattawan was on the lake. It was almost two weeks before it could be driven under its own power, so Paradis and Nedelec were transported to the mission in a petit esquif. After a few days they left for the fort on Lake Abitibi by canoe, with an Indian and a Metis guide, packed almost to the waterline with gear and a stove for their little chapel. On Sunday at the head of the lake they celebrated mass with 100 shantymen who were spending their first year that far north. Their route took them over that part of the Upper Ottawa known as Riviere and Lac des Quinzes, Lac Remigny, Lac Opesatica, over the height of land (then still the border between the provinces and the Northwest Territories) where on the plain the twin-peaked, Indian-fabled Swinging Hills stood out against the sky, into Lake Dassorat and the river to Lake and Fort Abitibi. The Indian talked of silver and gold in the land through which they had passed; he was right. They had crossed the pine tree line and a good part of the Clay Belt. Paradis' thoughts turned increasingly to colonization.8 Although the fort was without priests, they had been directed to proceed on an excursion northward to James Bay, but Paradis took ill, and he returned later that summer to Temiskaming.9 By now Paradis was convinced that the area was ideal for colonization and that forty parishes could be established with ease. The zeal for colonization was spreading like a fire through the elite of French Canada, particularly its young Ultramontane clergy, and Paradis was in the vanguard of the movement. Based on devotion and sacrifice,

UNCONVENTIONAL PRIEST OF THE NORTH

12.3

colonization was the means by which les Canadiens would fulfill their divine destiny. Temiskaming had good soil and a climate more temperate than that of Ottawa; in years to come it would be, he thought, the lumbering centre of the country. It would be the nucleus for a great surge to the North. The scenery reminded one of the Saguenay. Here, when pretty villages and white houses dotted the shore, "we might fancy ourselves on the banks of the St. Lawrence near Kamouraska."1° Paradis set about to convince the authorities of the need for decisive action. Bishop Duhamel had already indicated to the young Oblate his sympathy with the idea, and in September 1882, to promote development, Bishop N. T. Lorrain was put in charge of the new apostolic vica rate of Pontiac. At the time there was only a handful of small farms on Temiskaming, all serving inadequately the hungry demands of the lumber industry. Meanwhile, Father Paradis and a Brother Moffet established a model farm north of the mission on the Quebec side (just south of present-day Ville Marie and Paradis Bay on the Ontario side) in what became Baie des Peres. Throughout 1883 Paradis divided his time between the farm and making careful tours of the area in order to assess its full agricultural potential. He also persuaded his superiors in Ottawa to send the experienced Father Gendreau, the bursar of Ottawa College, famous for his colonizing efforts in the Eastern Townships, to corroborate the evidence. After Paradis conducted the older man around the area, Gendreau reported enthusiastically, expressing doubt only about communications. Paradis spent the winter in Ottawa, writing and lobbying. In March 1884, on request, he presented to Duhamel and had published La region du Temiskaming. Besides extolling the area, the pamphlet noted that unlike other new areas, this one already had a fine church, four priests, three Grey Nuns, a school, and a small hospital. He also pointed out that Sir Hector Langevin, Sir John A. Macdonald's minister of public works, had agreed to look into the difficulties in transportation on the Ottawa above Mattawa. Paradis advanced an elaborate engineering plan which called for eliminating the Long Sault by blasting, thereby lowering the lake level by as much as twenty-two feet; a dam would then eliminate the central rapids, and a seven-mile long CPR branch line from Mattawa would bypass the lower rapids. From Langevin, Paradis had secured a commitment of $5,000 to send engineers to look into the matter." But the young Oblate now had to direct his attention toward the longest canoe trip of his life. With three other priests he was to accompany Bishop Lorrain on his first visit to Temiskaming, Abitibi,

124

BRUCE W. HODGINS

and the missions on James Bay, travelling by large birch bark rabaska or canot de maitre. Leaving Mattawa on June 12, the group passed the engineering team at the Long Sault. At Fort Abitibi they picked up the resident Father Nedelec, with whom Paradis had already quarrelled. In the course of the trip, Paradis made many pen sketches and began several water-colours. During his trip in 1880 to Temagami, he had painted several pictures.12 In 1882, he had eighteen woodcuts published, usually in both the Canadian Illustrated News and L'Opinion Publique. Some of these were scenes of the lower Coulonge River which he had probably visited in 1881, but most came from his first trip from Mattawa to Abitibi. Besides landscape, his subjects included lumbering, mission work, towing the steamer, Indian dwellings, and fur trade posts. Several major paintings begun during these years were not completed until 1887.'3 All the pictures exhibited the same strong lines, intricate detail, and very careful treatment of tree, canoe, and water. Now, travelling with Bishop Lorrain, Paradis was constantly drawing in his work book. Father J. B. Proulx, one of the other priests, kept a lengthy, detailed log which he published later that year. In it he described Paradis as an artist already bien connu who on this voyage neglected to paint only one thing, the mosquitoes." The best work later appeared as brightly painted water-colour miniatures in a 72-page manuscript report to Langevin, "De Temiskaming a la Baie d'Hudson"; it extolled the agricultural and mineral potential of the whole area as an argument for the desired navigational improvements on the Ottawa.'3 With a bowman and six paddlers (and a sail), they canoed past the Swinging Hills, where one peak was named for Paradis and one for Proulx, past Fort Abitibi and down over the many portages and rapids of the Abitibi to the wide expanse of the Moose, visiting tiny settlements on the route. From Moose Factory, where they were entertained lavishly by James Cotter of the Hudson's Bay Company, the canoe went out on the broad tidal flats of the bay itself, where it was often marooned in the muck at low tide, until it reached the little Oblate mission at Fort Albany. (From all descriptions the fort was not much changed thirty years later when the young Arthur Lower visited it on his canoe trip down the Albany and up the Moose.)'6 On the return trip, when the group reached the Moose, another priest and Paradis, unable to endure Nedelec any longer, hired a small canoe and an Indian crew and made a speedy dash back to Temiskaming. Proulx merely reported that Paradis left the group. Later it was alleged that

UNCONVENTIONAL PRIEST OF THE NORTH

12_5

this pique cost the Oblates an extra $100.17 The storm soon broke. On September 14, under orders, Paradis left Temiskaming to be transferred to far-off Maniwaki on the Gatineau. Nevertheless, the cause of colonization flourished. Before leaving Ottawa with Lorrain, Paradis had begun to make plans for a major autumn promotional excursion to Temiskaming. The canoe trip would centre upon August Laperriere, translator at the House of Commons, who wanted to settle some of his children on good land. With Paradis as guide, this "last" trip began in October. The group included Father Therien, another leading colonizer, Oliver Armstrong, chief colonization agent for the CPR, and two emigration scouts from France. They sailed about the lake on the Mattawan and visited many of the choice inland sites on the Quebec side. In Ottawa, meanwhile, Duhamel took action. In November, at a large public meeting in the Bishop's Palace, plans for La Societe de colonisation du Lac Temiskaming were drawn up, and in December officers were elected. Father Gendreau became president, and Laperriere led the directors.18 But Paradis was now up in Maniwaki completing his report to Langevin. The report, dealing with soil, topography, climate, and minerals, naturally emphasized colonization and praised Temiskaming ("my Garden of Eden" from which "I was expelled . . . not for eating forbidden fruit")19 but it also made great claims for the whole region, called for a Hudson's Bay railway, and made the wild suggestion that the "prairies" around James Bay could support thousands of families growing grain and raising cattle. The report also attacked the heartless capitalism of the Hudson's Bay Company and other entrepreneurs. The company officials, for their own designs, discouraged agriculture and denigrated its possibilities. At Fort Albany they purposely never used manure (though they had a huge pile over 40 feet high) for their gardens and refused to help the Indians with agricultural techniques. They were opposed to agriculture because its success "in their lands would be a strong and emphatic denial of all the absurd rumors spread over the world by this powerful Company, representing their fur country as uninhabitable." Their statements should carry no greater weight than those of self-interested lumbermen. Their code aimed first at keeping white men out, secondly at keeping natives in, and lastly at securing all the furs; missionaries were tolerated only if they did not disturb this code. At Fort Albany the Crees were energetic and collected enough furs to allow a Canadien to live in luxury for a

z6

BRUCE W. HODGINS

year, yet they were paid only enough to keep them from starving and to send them back to the bush. Indians received no more consideration than mangy dogs. "This shows the agreeable side of all monopolies." It was for these reasons that the company opposed railways.2° As for small-scale enterprise, that was different. The report contains a great "pitch" for "Le Maringouinifuge," an insect repellent developed by the good father and patented by him on July 3, 1884.21 The next year the new society published an impressive booklet, which acknowledged Paradis' efforts and expressed the hope that the navigational works would be completed. The booklet also contained a large advertisement for "Le Maringouinifuge," suitably endorsed by Bishop Lorrain and available for sale at the offices of La ValMe d'Ottawa which published the booklet. The repellent was to be used by the new colons who would receive their land at one dollar an acre paid over four years.22 Already Ontario had completed a rough road for fifteen miles from Mattawa past the lower and middle rapids. By the end of 1885, thirty-seven families were in the district, and their numbers continued to grow. In 1886 the Oblates transferred their mission from the narrows to a site beside Paradis' farm, thus establishing Ville Marie. Although Langevin shelved Paradis' engineering plan, he did have constructed in 1887 a six-mile narrow tramline around the Long Sault, and in 1894 the CPR built a line from Mattawa to the south end of the lake. A little less than two years after Father Paradis arrived in the Gatineau valley he became involved, through his colonization efforts, in a serious battle with the Gilmour Brothers Lumber Company. This battle would carry him to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London and into the depths of Quebec politics, both secular and clerical, and would end in his expulsion from the Oblate Order. In the Gatineau, Paradis was officially a missionary priest residing at Ste. Philomene de Montcerf on the Riviere Desert in Egan Township, north of Maniwaki, though for a time he also had to care for St. Gabriel de Bouchette, south of Maniwaki. But from the moment of his arrival at Montcerf, he was much more than an ordinary missionary. The fame of Father Paradis, the short, husky priest with the huge flowing beard, had preceded him. He was known as a fearless man of imagination. Three times he had his little chapel rebuilt till it stood in exactly the right place, then he painted on its walls in a vivid, very personal style. As the promoter of colonization, he became extremely popular with

UNCONVENTIONAL PRIEST OF THE NORTH

127

the colons. In 1886 about thirty-five new families were added to the sixty-five already there. Their impressive church was, however, not yet completed. Paradis set about to construct a sawmill, to have lumber for the church, and a flour mill for the crops. But a sawmill required a supply of logs. Gilmour Brothers determined to block the supply and hence the mill. A Quebec law of 1883 had set aside large forest tracts as reserves for the lumber companies, thereby impeding colonization. From the Conservative premier, J. J. Ross, Gilmour had received huge tracts including Egan and had already cut the local pine. Other timber remained. Meanwhile, early in 1886, from the same government Paradis obtained sixteen lots for sale to new colonists, including two of his own brothers. This was done without the endorsation of his superiors. Paradis' grant, which seemed to include the right to cut wood, and the Gilmour concessions were clearly in conflict. Paradis requested repeal of the law. In October, the company moved onto the lots and began cutting furiously, apparently denying the colons even minimum compensation and placing its seals on logs already cut by these farmers. Such action was too much for Paradis. He and the colons took the Gilmours, "les Bourgeois du Chantier," to court, hiring as lawyer Alfred Rochon. Rochon, a courageous young fighter of absolute integrity, had run that same October as the local Gatineau Valley candidate for the Parti Nationale in the provincial election. He had lost to the veteran Conservative by 400 votes under highly peculiar circumstances.23 In 1886 Quebec was clearly and generally en colere. Two thousand miles to the west, on the previous November 16, a French-speaking colonizer of a different sort but one who himself had been an Oblate novice, Louis Riel, had been hanged for treason. In Quebec the Bleu or Conservative party was racked by dissension. Honore Mercier, the provincial Rouge or Liberal leader, condemning les Pendards, formed an alliance with alienated Conservatives, particularly young CastorUltramontanists, in both church and state. The resultant Parti Nationale made great gains in the October elections. In January 1887 the Ross government fell, and Mercier became premier of a dynamic nationalist government dedicated especially to the cause of northern colonization and highly critical of English-Canadian capitalism. A product of concern about emigration to the United States, unemployment in the cities, and overcrowding in the old parishes, the colonization thrust had come primarily from the Ultramontanists and the

128

BRUCE W. HODGINS

famous Father Antoine Labelle, cure of Saint Jerome. Now the altered political situation split the Ultramontanists deeply. Bishop Duhamel of Ottawa and the Bishops of Montreal and Trois Rivieres continued vehemently to oppose the Rouge Mercier, while most of the lower clergymen, including Cure Labelle, and their journalist friends led by Jules-Paul Tardivel of La Write flocked to the nationalist banner. Paradis and the Rouge Rochon were caught up in this wave of fervour. In his report to Langevin, Paradis had certainly given lumbering its due, particularly because it provided a supplemental income to new colonists. But he worried about the lumber companies' waste, the forest fires, and the inadequacies of legislation "to prevent the destruction of our forests."24 The hero of the colons began to act with increasing boldness. At one point, when the Gilmours grossly underpaid colons for some cutting, Paradis replaced company seals on the logs with his own and was briefly arrested. The lumber companies paid taxes, bought licenses, and helped fill the electoral war chests of the Conservatives; now the great Mercier was in power. One month after the change of government, in February 1887, Paradis won his case against the Gilmours before Judge Wartele in Aylmer. Immediately the company announced its intention to appeal the decision. Paradis elevated the case to a general one of social and French right against private and English greed.25 On April 16, La Write took up his cause in a highly ideological fashion. The colons were simple, devoted, patriotic French Canadians, the Gilmours were typical, pitiless English-speaking monopolists fighting against the laws of the land and of humanity, and Paradis was the zealous tribune; he was a revolutionary who had the audacity to champion the weak against the strong and not to desert at the crucial moment. La Verite reported that Paradis had gone to Quebec City and with Mercier's approval had convincingly presented the case of the colons to the full cabinet; in the Assembly, Mercier referred to the lutte heroique and promised his government's aid to colons generally. In May, by letter, Paradis presented the government with a very advanced conservationist plan for the forests. It involved replacing the law of 1883 with a threefold division of forest lands, all under strict governmental supervision. Lumber companies would be restricted to those vast rough tracts unsuitable even in the future for settlement and, on the basis of a limited annual licence, to arable areas not yet needed for settlement. Colons would have full rights to timber on their own lands. In each township or group of townships, as they were opened up, local public

UNCONVENTIONAL PRIEST OF THE NORTH

I 29

forest reserves would be established for careful, renewable use by the community through local sawmills. These locally controlled public reserves would also serve as a conservationist example to speculators and lumber companies, as a source of revenue to support education, and as nurseries for general reforestation.26 Neither Paradis nor Mercier was afraid of a strong role for government. Meanwhile, in Le Canadien, Joseph Israel Tarte for the Conservatives denounced the religious demagogue.27 For Paradis, more triumphs lay ahead. In the summer, the Gatineau election was nullified because of irregularities. When the by-election was called, Paradis' fame spread far beyond the area. It seemed to be a contest between Paradis and Mercier on one side and the lumber interests and the old regime on the other. On September 14, 1887, Rochon won by 1,300 votes, a victory attributable not just to Paradis but also to a swing in working class areas of Hull. Then on September 22, the Court of Appeals in Montreal, presided over by the great former chieftain of the Rouges, Sir Antoine Dorion, dismissed the Gilmour appeal. When the company announced its intention to appeal to London, Mercier declared that he, personally, would plead for Paradis and the colons before the Privy Council. By this time, however, Paradis had gone too far. In La Vallee d'Ottawa that August, he had accused J. J. Ross of having attempted, while premier, to bribe him through an official with an offer of $15,000. Ross vehemently and publicly denied the charge and placed a formal complaint with Rev. Celestin Augier, Canadian provincial of the Oblates, who had just arrived from France. In the fall of 1887, Paradis went first to Ottawa where an attempt to mediate the dispute failed, then briefly to Quebec, and finally to the Oblate house in Montreal where, on October 14, he was presented with an ultimatum from Senator Ross through Augier to prove his charge of attempted bribery or make a public retraction. For weeks he worked ostensibly on his report for Augier, appearing temperate, but at the same time probably encouraging his journalist friends in their vehement attacks. Despite his efforts, Paradis could hardly prove such a charge, even in an 84-page submission. Augier was unconvinced and later claimed that Paradis admitted that Ross himself had not actually attempted a bribe and that the press had taken the matter too far. Augier thought he thus had a compromise formula. He wrote to Bishop Lafleche of Trois Rivieres, chief Ultramontanist in the hierarchy and close friend of Ross, to intercede. At one point both Augier

130

BRUCE W. HODGINS

and Paradis visited Lafleche. Completely committed to Ross and believing in his innocence, Lafleche considered the compromise satisfactory. On January 15, 1888, Augier presented Paradis with the formula. Already Paradis had become suspicious when the proMercier press had exposed and denounced the Augier plan. Paradis now resolutely rejected the proposal and all such compromises; he claimed that a governmental bribe had been intended and that Augier had misrepresented his viewpoint. This got to the press. Lafleche, detesting a junior priest who could follow the liberal Mercier, demanded that Paradis be punished. Although the government interceded on Paradis' behalf, Augier listened to Lafleche. Expelled from the Gatineau, Paradis was sent in February 1888 to Plattsburg, New York." The pro-Mercier press, both its Rouge or left wing represented by L'Electeur and its Ultramontane or so-called right wing represented by La Write, L'Etendard, and La Justice, was already extremely agitated over the treatment of Paradis. Now it exploded with wrath against Augier, the arbitrary Frenchman. L'Electeur, arguing that les Canadiens would not easily give up their political rights, criticized the reactionary views of its old foe Lafleche and the insidious power of the lumber companies. It demanded the return of Paradis; he was the hero who, for the cause, had opened the Temiskaming, had portaged, cooked, and camped in the wilderness, and had suffered the privations and shared the work of the pioneers." The Ultramontanists stressed Augier's ignorance and simplemindedness and the religious devotion of those who backed Paradis.3° In an article signed by Tardivel, La Write had declared that Paradis, "pretre devoue, patriote ardent," was being persecuted because he had attacked the tyranny, inequality, and oppression of the great exploiters of the people's natural resources, companies which wanted to remain masters of the country, the government, and the settlers.31 Now the paper carried a detailed six-installment review of the whole "Affaire Paradis"; it also attacked Tarte of Le Canadien and others of the opposition press for slander.32 Senator Ross had been keeping Tarte carefully informed about developments from his side.33 Le Canadien, Le Monde, 34 La Presse, and Le Journal des Trois Rivreres reviled Paradis, Mercier, and the government. Throughout 1888, Paradis' principles made headway in the government and legislature. It was Mercier's great year, the year of the Jesuit Estates Act, the subsidization plan for railway expansion, and

UNCONVENTIONAL PRIEST OF THE NORTH 131

the debt reorganization. In Quebec never had there been such a decisive and bold legislative session, one dedicated to such strong government; after Mercier, there would be nothing to match it until the sessions led by Jean Lesage in the early 1960s. Acting as minister himself, Mercier appointed Cure Labelle, "Roi du Nord," as deputy minister of the new Department of Agriculture and Colonization. In Temiskaming and on the Gatineau, Paradis had been consciously following Labelle's example and dictates, and Labelle had exulted in Paradis' work. Both wanted new railway development to help colonists and both were enthusiastic in their desire to repatriate French Canadians from the United States. Colonization advanced. The legislature passed a new forestry act which, by admission, had been prepared by Paradis and given the finishing touches by Labelle. While not as radical as Paradis' first proposal, it did replace the act of 1883. It excluded lumber companies from rights in settled areas, gave thecolon full power on his property to cut and sell wood, subject to the same relative dues to the state as paid by the companies, and preserved as an uncut woodlot twenty acres in every 100-acre lot.35 When Mercier advanced the thesis that Quebec should have the great land mass north of the height of land and down to Hudson Bay, Paradis in the United States endorsed the proposal. Dusting off a draft of his old private report to Langevin, he published it with a new introduction and conclusion (praising Labelle) and a dedication to Mercier. "The North pole," he wrote, "can only frighten cowards; it will always exercise its magnetic attraction over our race of the iron arm and dauntless courage. However, there is no question of going to the pole just now. An unrivalled territory is opening close to us; unrivalled for its expanse, the richness of soil, the salubrity of climate and the beauty of its landscape." God called on people of the north devoted to Him to "regenerate" the wavering nations of the south.36 Meanwhile, Paradis' own case was floundering. In fact, he was demonstrating under attack tendencies toward paranoia that his enemies could use against him. Chafing in Plattsburg, he sent on March 8, 1888, a formal complaint against Augier to the superior general of the Oblate Order in Paris. Before this could be answered and indeed within two months of his arrival, he had caused so much trouble that he was transferred to the Oblate house in Buffalo. He had complained repeatedly about Augier and Oblate procedures, despite warnings from the local superior with whom he thereupon refused to speak. Before reaching Buffalo, Paradis made an unauthorized visit to

132.

BRUCE W. HODGINS

Montreal to advance his cause in the press.37 Then in Buffalo, on May 10, he received a reply from Paris: the superior general rejected his complaint and told Paradis to submit and behave or leave the Order.38 Two days previously, Paradis had complained to the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith in Rome about the delay in Paris and the behaviour of Augier and had asked for the full protection of the Holy See. On July 13, this appeal was rejected. The superior general then asked the American provincial formally to require Paradis to submit or face expulsion. On August 16, this was done by the Buffalo superior. When instead of answering, Paradis launched a new appeal to Rome, this time to the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, he was expelled. Still he refused to vacate the premises. On September 1, on request, two policemen, both bons catholiques, bodily threw the reverend father out of the house, his personal effects following him. Meeting resistance, they had used some disputed measure of violence. Paradis continued to affix "OMI" to his signature and to deny that his expulsion was legal.39 Returning to Canada, he released to the press a statement that he was heading for Rome, still a devoted priest who had not been condemned because he had not been heard." In Rome he presented his case. He also went to London for the hearing of the final Gilmour appeal, which Paradis and the colons won.4' In August 1889, a committee of the Sacred Congregation examined his complaints and declined to try the case. Back in Canada, Paradis was supported by a group of radical patriotes prepared to champion his cause and raise money to carry on the fight. A brochure to this effect was widely distributed. Lafleche and others were scandalized. In January 1890, Archbishop Fabre of Montreal publicly warned of an apparent revolt against authorized religion. When some newspapers printed the appeal of the patriotes, Paradis strangely laid a charge against them. At the preliminary hearing, he was able to criticize his enemies with great publicity. When Augier intervened in the press, with the help of the judge and Archbishop Fabre an out-of-court settlement was arranged. Fabre then informed Paradis that according to Rome he was no longer an Oblate. Paradis answered that he was off again to Rome, that a new appeal to the full plenary of the Sacred Congregation was pending.42 This time the body did finally agree to consider the case. His submission delivered, he left for Canada during the summer. Augier himself had to go to Rome where he presented, in January 1891, a

UNCONVENTIONAL PRIEST OF THE NORTH 133

57-page indictment of Paradis. In this highly partisan and heavily documented piece of work, Paradis' character and tendency to independence and disobedience, dating from his school days, were presented in a most unflattering fashion. He was accused of blatantly defying specific orders not to campaign in the Gatineau by-election, of neglecting the way of life of the Oblates and keeping late hours, and of grossly neglecting his basic religious duties in Montcerf. Certain obscure financial dealings of Paradis in Montcerf, some allegedly involving his brother, and other such matters were newly introduced.43 Paradis had not a chance. While in Rome, however, he had been working on plans for the establishment of a new religious order to be called the "Oblate Missionary Society of St. John the Baptist" or "Colonizing Missionaries" (MC). On his return to Montreal, he immediately published, with the express permission of the Archbishop of Montreal, a 50-page booklet outlining the aims and structures of the new organization. It contained an endorsation from Cure Labelle, who had been honoured in Rome, and the benediction of Pope Leo XIII. The order was to be dedicated to settling Catholics on new lands, to begin with exclusively Canadiens on new lands in Canada. The order was to have priests, teaching masters, and working brothers. The booklet also provided a detailed plan and constitution for a cooperative union of dedicated settlers.44 By the end of 1890, Paradis and four other priests in three dioceses had with episcopal permission committed themselves to the new society and taken conditional vows.45 On March 18, 1891, Rome spoke. Paradis' appeal was rejected. His expulsion from the Oblates was confirmed. The Sacred Congregation even suggested that Cardinal Taschereau of Quebec would not likely approve of his new order.46 Yet Paradis had deeply shaken the hierarchy. To the end of his days, Father Augier was seen to flinch whenever anyone spoke of "paradis."47 Charles Alfred Paradis, MC, at the age of forty-two, was finished with confinement, with the old Oblate Order, with bureaucratic superiors, with people of small minds and limited vision. Still a priest, he would have his own order, dedicated solely to colonization and to the patron saint of French Canada. Expelled from Temiskaming, expelled from the Gatineau, though a hero to colons of both, he would go back to his first northern love, the Temagami country, the land of deep water, still the land of the canoe, away from politics, on the fringe of conflicting

134

BRUCE W. HODGINS

spheres of influence. He would go back to the spirit of his first great outdoor sermon, delivered to the Quebecois in Ontario at Lac Talon. With Lake Temagami itself serving virtually as the centre of a new province, he would create a large French-Canadian colony in northeastern Ontario. In the shape of an octopus, the lake emptied two ways: to the north it flowed into the Montreal River and Lake Temiskaming of the Ottawa watershed, and to the south (via the Temagami River) it flowed into the Sturgeon River and Lake Nipissing of the French River system, and then to Georgian Bay. The Montreal and Sturgeon and their appropriate tributaries allegedly ran through largely fertile valleys. The CPR already crossed the former at the French-Canadian settlement of Sturgeon Falls; another line was planned somewhat farther north, crossing the Temagami River just before it emptied into the Sturgeon and running diagonally by Lake Wanapitei. (Not completed until 1914, it became part of the Canadian Northern and then the CNR.) Running north from North Bay a line was being planned which would cross the Montreal. (It became the TNO and then the ONR.) Using these rail lines and rivers as colonization roads, Paradis would settle, in numerous parishes, French Canadians mainly repatriated from Michigan and New England. These new parishes would work their way progressively inward toward his little fresh-water sea, jewelled with 1,300 islands, Lake Temagami." Here the colonization priest-king of the Temagami must have his headquarters, his wilderness manor farm, court, and chapel. The Temagami country was on the northeastern edge of the huge diocese of Peterborough. In 1891, even before Rome spoke, Paradis visited Bishop R.-A. O'Connor in Peterborough. With a sympathetic introduction from the Archbishop of Montreal, he secured the bishop's permission for himself and a few of the tiny band of his new unofficial order, both priests and non-priests, to engage in independent colonization and mission work in the far north of the jurisdiction. O'Connor was prepared to go this far even though Cardinal Taschereau candidly warned him in four letters about Paradis' tendencies and Rome's attitude. Paradis did not become a regular member of the diocesan clergy." With the spring breakup, he headed north by train and canoe to the Hudson's Bay post on Bear Island in the centre of Lake Temagami. From there he travelled about the region, checking on possible sites for settlements. It was probably on this trip that he first went up past Rabbit Nose to Sandy Inlet at the northernmost end of the lake.5°

UNCONVENTIONAL PRIEST OF THE NORTH 135

Here, where the small Anima Nipissing River entered, he found a flat area surrounded by the kind of rugged hills which he had written about and painted since his youth at Kamouraska. Here, though beneath the thin humus soil lay a thick bed of alluvial sand, he would construct his farm, his retreat, ultimately his capital. This was the grand design. Paradis now realized that the first area to be seriously settled would have to be just north of the CPR line, west of Sturgeon Falls near the recently established community of Verner. Ontario had opened to settlement sixty-eight townships near the line, selling land at fifty cents an acre. In 1893, Paradis issued a pamphlet from his Mission du Sacre-Coeur, Lac Timagami (presumably Sandy Inlet), explaining the opportunities and advertising his grand design. On the cover was a heart of maple leaves with a beaver at the bottom and a cross on top. The booklet criticized the devastation caused by the unrestrained Nimrods of the Hudson's Bay Company among the unprotected beavers, which were in danger of disappearing. Here, Paradis argued, was just one example of how Canadian forests and their animals would decline as sources of income because of the inadequacy of governmental conservationist action. Mining would have to take their place; the region was particularly blessed with deposits of nickel, gold, and silver to serve as complements to agricultural settlements' Paradis personally divided his time among the lake itself (at Bear Island, Sandy Inlet, and perhaps at a site in the southwest arm),52 the Verner area, and promotional trips to Montreal and then Michigan. By the end of 1892, two missionaries were helping him on the lake and more than a dozen workers were preparing the land north of the CPR, where two miles northwest of Verner Paradis constructed a chapel and residence called Domremy in memory of Jeanne d'Arc whom he increasingly venerated. He also built a sawmill.53 The Sturgeon was about eight miles north of Domremy, and Paradis travelled back and forth this way to Lake Temagami by canoe in summer. Then he and his men cut a twenty-six-mile winter road, which he travelled by snowshoe, from Doniremy north following the township boundaries to the end of the southwest arm of his lake at what he called and is still called Baie Jeanne.54 He also started a chapel on the northeast side of Bear Island, away from the mistrusted post;55 the fact that the Bear Island Indians still had links with the Oblates of Temiskaming was somewhat troublesome. The Oblates, indirectly including Nedelec, complained to O'Connor about Paradis' lack of attention to these Indians even

136

BRUCE W. HODGINS

after the priest had taken up his basic residence in Domremy and was off in Michigan and beyond; Peterborough vainly suggested the need for a resident Oblate.56 In 1896, Bishops O'Connor and Lorrain agreed to the temporary transfer of the Temagami post to the latter's charge.57 But the Domremy area also presented a problem: the CPR line was in the mission sphere of the Jesuits, who were not too sympathetic to the independent-minded priest, and in 1895 Verner itself received a resident priest, A. L. Desaulniers, likewise suspicious of Paradis. In the spring of 1895 Paradis brought his first large body of settlers to the Domremy-Sturgeon area, which from then until about 1905 would be his chief centre of activity. The settlers, who had followed the lumber trade, came mainly from around Lake Linden, Michigan, in which state at least 140,000 French-Canadians then resided.58 Backed by Quebec's Societe General de Colonisation et de Rapatriement, the project initially involved well over 2,000 people.59 In Toronto, where he briefly saw Liberal Premier Sir Oliver Mowat, Paradis had tried to secure formal assistance from the Ontario Department of Crown Lands. He wanted four dollars a head, the setting aside of entire townships for the settlers, and the construction of rough roads before they arrived. This was too daring an initiative for the Ontario bureaucracy. The department only agreed to sell the land to them and to employ some of them in building a limited number of roads.6° In Ottawa, Paradis had better luck with T. M. Daly, the Conservative minister of the interior. While this federal department had no control over lands in Ontario, it did handle and promote immigration. It advanced $400 to help cover his Michigan expenses and $1,000 via the Quebec Colonization Society to help the settlers get established. It also provided for the transport of a small group of Swedish immigrants whom he was helping to settle in the area.6' The colons from Michigan arrived by the hundreds, but under the circumstances there were fewer than originally planned, and the only work accomplished was that done by Paradis' own lay colleagues. The settlers had to work terribly hard to have things ready for winter, when many men found employment in the shanties. Some hundreds returned to the United States, but hundreds stayed; most, by far, were pleased with their priest-king who worked right along with them. A small opposition minority clearly were not. They gathered about Desaulniers. The regular cure, with his tiny Verner quickly outclassed by the Domremy settlement and its irregular priest, needed no encouragement. He

UNCONVENTIONAL PRIEST OF THE NORTH 137

complained to the Conservative candidate in the forthcoming federal election.62 Via Daly this reached the president of the Colonization Society, J. D. Rolland, MLC, who stoutly defended Paradis.63 So did L. M. Fortier, chief of the Immigration Service, who visited the area and was convinced that the agitators were merely a few lazy "kickers."64 Desaulniers and the dissidents retorted. Attacking Fortier, they sent letters and petitions to both the government and Rolland, complaining about misappropriation of food purchased with the $1,000 and threatening to work for the opposition in the coming election. Fortier, returning with an official of the Colonization Society, held a full public hearing on the matter." Here they were presented with a petition signed by 123 heads of households from the group championing Paradis and attacking the conspiracy "form& a Verner." Both gave a "complete vindication of Reverend Father Paradis," noting his lack of finesse but pointing out that many of the signatures on the opposition petitions were either false or obtained falsely." Although Paradis had won the first round, it seemed too much like past encounters. But he persisted. When Laurier and the Liberals won the election of 1896, Paradis immediately petitioned the new prime minister for help. Then in the fall he went to Ottawa and saw R. W. Scott, the new acting minister of the interior. On that occasion and in a follow-up letter from Domremy he asked for public funds to complete the purchase of machinery for a much-needed rolling mill, to pay for $900 worth of seed grain from Manitoba that had proved very successful, and to finish the necessary grist mill. Private capitalists declined to invest in struggling settlements. Admitting that the government did not owe him a cent, he pointed out that he had worked for Canada for "twenty years" and that Scott had agreed that people who do such work should be paid by the country. "I am poor and crippled with debts contracted for no other end than to serve my country," he wrote, "and still I want to stick to that career until the last." To promote repatriation he asked for a salary of $150 a month. Even without help he was securing five or six families a month who were settling in the area north to the Sturgeon. Thousands of acres remained, and with help he had "people to fill them all."67 An expanding department was impressed. He went on the payroll, via the Colonization Society, at $50 a month retroactive to July 1.68 Unfortunately, by April 1897, Paradis was again in difficulties. A fire destroyed his new much-needed community grist mill and the

138

BRUCE W. HODGINS

sawmill, together a loss of $7,000. Debts were severe. If only he could get the full $150 he had asked for; with this in mind, he wrote to Clifford Sifton, the new minister of the interior.69 Although the formal answer was negative, he was thereupon appointed an immigration commission agent, to be paid $3 for every man, $2 for every woman, and $1 for every child brought in on the CPR." The sawmill was now rebuilt; that November Paradis again went to Ottawa and obtained a five-month salary advance to complete the grist mill." But this was still not enough to cover his huge debts. The new cure of Verner, Charles Langlois, was extremely critical, complaining to both Rolland and the government about the nonpayment of debts and wages that on one occasion put Paradis briefly in jail. He also criticized Paradis' allegedly strange ways of colonizing, noting the fact the bishops did not trust him enough to be a regular priest." To meet these complaints the superintendent of immigration held another hearing in Verner for all concerned. In his report he admitted the dangerous magnitude of the debts but exonerated Paradis, pointing out that the debts had all been incurred for purposes of community development. As for colonization and rebuilding the mills, Paradis was doing a fine job." Thus upheld, Paradis then received his greatest boost in a lengthy article on colonization in Northern Ontario published in La Patrie of Montreal, August 20, 1898. By arrangement with Oliver Armstrong, Paradis' old CPR friend, a reporter who signed himself "Henri" visited the various new French-Canadian settlements from Mattawa to Sault Ste. Marie. He depreciated Verner and held out his greatest praise for the large beautiful area being developed by Father Paradis, stretching mainly north from the "village" of Domremy. Though Pre-Cambrian rock protruded here and there, he reported, the soil was basically excellent; a mica mine discovered by one of the three orphans living with Paradis would soon be in production. "Henri" referred to Paradis' "happy and contented" settlers. Conditions in each of the six or seven chief townships of the area were carefully described. The missionary-colonist himself, it was recalled, was a connoisseur and an artist. At Domremy, Paradis' "chalet," farm, chapel (with its 1,300 pound "Jeanne d'Arc" bell suspended at the door), his garden overlooking the Veuve River and the CPR, and his mills were all flatteringly depicted. A school, in Byzantine style, was planned. Ever the engineer, Paradis had harnessed a little hilltop spring nearby which, by means of an aqueduct, distributed water in the locality. "Henri's" only

UNCONVENTIONAL PRIEST OF THE NORTH

139

complaint concerned the slow pace at which the Ontario authorities built back roads. "Henri" was enthusiastic about Paradis' latest plan. He had formed a company to build the Nipissing and Timagami Railway, to run the twenty-six miles from the CPR at Domremy due north through the settlement along the winter trail he had cut right to Lake Temagami. It would be an electric railway using the hydro power from the twenty falls on the Temagami River which would also supply electric lights to the vicinity. And it would be constructed in the following year. On his winter road, at the Sturgeon and Temagami Rivers, Paradis had built pretty little houses, Notre-Dame-des-Anges and Notre-Dame-desRameaux (now at opposite ends of River Valley). "Henri" had walked the trail as far north as the latter and was convinced that with the advent of the railway it would become the centre of the district.74 To Paradis, Notre-Dame-des-Rameaux was really only another step leading from Domremy to the north end of Lake Temagami. It was not to be. The axe fell on February 28, when Paradis received a letter from the Department of the Interior dismissing him from the service, effective at the end of March. Paradis was in the act of writing to Sifton for a four-month advance because he intended to be near Lake Temagami all that time—presumably because of his plans for the railway—and he wanted to haul up supplies before the roads broke up. He now repeated his request and in astonished terms asked why he was being cut off.75 Paradis' political and personal problems had become enmeshed in the political and ideological strife within the Canadian Catholic Church of the 1890s. In November 1898, Bishop O'Connor of Peterborough had attended the great Colonization Conference in Montreal. Members and friends of the Oblate order were prominent at this gathering of primarily French-speaking enthusiasts. Although the Liberals had won Canada in 1896 and Quebec in 1897, the mood at the conference was clearly Ultramontane and anti-Liberal. Both Sifton's federal policy on western settlement—favouring, it seemed, East Europeans over French Canadians—and the alleged anticlerical policy of the provincial regime were severely criticized. L'affaire Paradis and other examples of insubordination were considered in the corridors.76 Apparently the Oblates and O'Connor discussed the troublesome Paradis. Partly through the intercession of Father H. A. Constantineau, a leading Oblate at the University of Ottawa, Sifton, Tarte, and a vulnerable Laurier were informed clearly that O'Connor

14o

BRUCE W. HODGINS

wanted Paradis "dismissed" from the federal payroll. In January 1899, O'Connor appointed Father Joseph Gingras, parish priest of Sturgeon Falls, as Missionaire agricole for the whole region of northeastern Ontario that concerned Paradis. Sifton then acted "as requested" and fired Paradis as immigration agent. Then, in correspondence and again working through Constantineau, O'Connor asked Laurier to appoint Gingras as the new immigration agent in Paradis' stead. Laurier agreed to appoint whomsoever O'Connor wanted so long as that man was not at the same time a parish priest." Gingras got the appointment but died almost immediately. Meanwhile, Paradis fought back. Writing to his old foe Tarte, now of course translated to Liberalism and the cabinet, with a copy to Laurier, Paradis emphasized that he knew that Bishop O'Connor had laid "politico-religieuse" issues before Tarte and the government. He pleaded with Tarte to ask O'Connor to hold an inquest, something the bishop so far had refused to contemplate. Meanwhile, argued Paradis, colonization would suffer." But Rolland, who had chaired the Montreal conference and finally had become alarmed by Paradis' debts and dealings, had deserted him. A new rival Colonization and Repatriation Society of Ontario had been formed that was critical of Rolland. Backed by the Mayor of Ottawa and several other prominent Franco-Ontarian citizens, the Society innocently petitioned in August to have Paradis reinstated and made chief federal colonization agent for Nipissing." It was of no avail. The forces arrayed against the fiery little priest were too great. Dynamism lost. Order, stability, and the parish priests won. For a time Paradis stayed on at Domremy, working away at his debts, raising money from private sources, and continuing to promote colonization and look after his settlements. For a time he also worked a gold mine on Emerald Lake, forty miles to the north. The little man with the powerful legs and the flowing white beard was a common sight walking with a cane along the rails to Verner,8° or snowshoeing for miles on his back trails. In 1904, his local opponents were still complaining to the government that the CPR continued to favour him financially and that his new prospective settlers were arriving at the wrong time.81 The same year he asked Immigration to give him free franking privileges for his colonization advertisements which involved major CPR excursion runs.82 He also launched a fund-raising scheme selling St. Joseph medallions to parish priests.83 In 1904 the Diocese of Sault Ste. Marie, with its seat at North Bay, was separated from

UNCONVENTIONAL PRIEST OF THE NORTH 141

Peterborough. The next year Bishop Scollard granted Paradis of "Verner" rights to celebrate mass throughout the new diocese, subject to the approval of local pastors." Paradis later claimed that he had been responsible for repatriating at least 8,000 French Canadians from the United States and for establishing them in his settlements or in other sites along the CPR, both toward Sault Ste. Marie and north of Sudbury.85 Although probably somewhat exaggerated here, the actual number was large. Increasingly, after 1905, he spent most of his time on his beloved manor farm at Sandy Inlet that had languished during his stay at Domremy. Here he brought orphan boys, other young men and a few families, some for short periods, some for long ones. Together the community cleared 130 acres, grew crops and kept cattle, horses, and pigs. The huge wooden cross which they erected on the little rocky point at the mouth of the Anima Nipissing River became a local landmark." For some time around 1909, the old driving spirit returned, and off he went, with Bishop Scollard's blessing, prospecting for gold northward in the Nighthawk-Porcupine area. He hoped to strike it rich and use the money to assist in the education of children on his old settlements. Partly successful, he did make the second strike in the Nighthawk and staked over forty claims. In North Bay he formed a syndicate that grubstaked him, and in Montreal he formed a company. By mere chance, he just missed out staking what became the Hollinger. One day (and night), at the age of sixty, he snowshoed fifty miles from the Nighthawk west, to catch the CPR in order to beat a "claim jumper" to the mining office in Sudbury. Probably to facilitate his prospecting on Nighthawk, Paradis eliminated over half of Frederick House Lake. This lake is below, that is north of, the Nighthawk. Beyond its outlet was a forty-three-foot falls with high clay walls near its brink. In the fall of 1909 and with the help of about ten men, Paradis dynamited away the walls. The lake water rushed down the river, lowering the lake's level about eighteen feet. Even Nighthawk Lake was lowered about three feet. Paradis declared proudly that he had uncovered rich alluvial soil for colonization. The Ontario mining authorities were much displeased. Paradis was summoned to the minister, but allegedly when the holy father threatened to put the lake back, the matter was dropped. Later the railway into Timmins was laid across the old lake bed.87 Back at Sandy Inlet the years rolled by. Instead of the Lake

142

BRUCE W. HODGINS

Temagami area filling up with French-speaking colons, it became the centre of a forest reserve and in summertime a place for hardy English-speaking canoe trippers, summer residents, and rugged tourists. The manor farm, which he still ruled like the old priest-king he was, continued. In 1915, Mgr. Latulipe, the first bishop of the just created diocese of Haileybury, and ten other priests made a state visit.88 Selling vegetables to the lake's summer residents, the patriarch became a folklorique attraction. On summer Sundays, Paradis would travel down in his little motorboat the seventeen miles to Bear Island to take the service, attended not only by the Indians (who were always suspicious of him) but also by English-speaking tourists, many of whom were non-Catholic. The man who had helped bring the first steamer to Temiskaming was wont to stop his sermon when a bush plane flew low overhead, shake his fist, and refer to the "Grasshoppers of Hell."89 After the service he would proceed by boat for fifteen miles into the new village of Temagami for more conversation. Early in 1924, when Paradis was away on a mission, a mysterious fire at Sandy Inlet destroyed his home and most of the other buildings. He lost his personal possessions, including many of his water-colours and several paintings which he had obtained in Italy, and a lot of unpublished writings including an Ojibwa-French dictionary he had been labouring on. He and his "working brothers" had to leave permanently their wilderness home. He was somewhat cheered by attending convocation at the College in Sudbury where the sons of some of his colons from Michigan were graduating. Then he took a three-day canoe trip from Gowganda to Shining Tree. He was both fiery and sentimental that summer when a reporter for the Toronto Star Weekly interviewed him on Bear Island, where he was living in the tiny sacristy, his gleaming white teeth still perfect, below a hooked nose and eagle eyes half covered by a cardboard shade.8° Shortly thereafter he took himself to Bishop Scollard's house in North Bay.91 In 1926 he went to Montreal where, on May 10, he died at the Shrine of St. Joseph. The unconventional priest of the North had had a colourful and controversial career. Paradis had been at the very centre of the colonization movement. In his own way he was also a part of the early conservation movement.92 He claimed to believe in the old simple ways, yet his life was full, dynamic, complex, and stormy. An individualist, he nevertheless recognized the need for government planning and was imbued with patriotism and a sense of community. He

UNCONVENTIONAL PRIEST OF THE NORTH

143

was a man who had dreamed dreams and for this reason more than any other he deserves to be remembered, and not only in the North.

NOTES 1. The author is especially grateful for assistance in making this study possible. Trent University helped with a grant. As research assistant, Michel Trudeau, a former student of the author's, performed a service of great diligence, integrity, and commitment. Donald Smith was very helpful. Many people, very old and very young, both red and white, connected with Lake Temagami and with Camp Wanapitei, the site of Paradis' retreat on Temagami's Sandy Inlet, were a source of either information or inspiration or both. 2. Unconventional Voyages (Toronto: Ryerson, 1953), p. viii. 3. As reported by Frederick C. Griffin after an interview with Father Paradis, Star Weekly, Toronto, August 2, 1924 (henceforth styled Griffin). 4. Numerous sources, especially J. B. A. Allaire, Dictionnaire Biographique du Clerge Canadien Francais (Saint-Hyacinthe, 1908), Les Contemporaires, pp. 457-58; Archives Deschatelet, Peres Oblats de Marie Immaculee, Ottawa (henceforth styled ADO), Curriculum Vitae de C.-A.-M. Paradis; and ADO, Sacree Congregation des Eveques et Reguliers, J. B. Celestin Augier 0.M.I., Exposé de l'affaire Paradis (Rome: S.C. de la Propagande, 1891), pp. 1-2 (henceforth styled Exposé). 5. Exposé, Paradis to Augier, October 2, 1887. 6. Griffin. 7. L'Opinion Publique, 13, 20, and 27 juillet, 1882. 8. Ibid. 9. J. B. Proulx, A la Baied' Hudson, on recit de la premiere visite pastorale de Mgr. N. Z. Lorrain (Montreal, 1886), p. 278. 10. C. A. M. Paradis, From Temiskaming to Hudson Bay (n.p., 1900), p. 66. The bulk of this pamphlet was first written in 1884 in French as a manuscript given to Sir Hector Langevin; it exists in the Quebec Archives, Langevin Papers. Revised, it was published in 1888 with a dedication to Honore Mercier and reissued in English in 1900. 11. Paradis, La Region du Temiskaming; Arthur Buies, L'Outaouais Superieur (Quebec, 1889), pp. 126-27, 249, and 302; and Alexis de Barbezieux, Histoire de la Province Ecclesiastique d'Ottawa et de la Colonisation dans la vallie d'Ottawa (Ottawa, 1897), II, 67, 365, 436-41. 12. One water-colour (c. 13,799) in the Public Archives of Canada, Picture Division, shows the priests camped on Rabbit Nose Island in 1880. 13. At least five exist in the PAC; one (c. 13,800) is a particularly vivid portrayal of the fort and mission on the Narrows. 14. A la Baie d'Hudson, p. 20.

144

BRUCE W. HODGINS

15. See note 11. A short article by Albert Gerin-Lajoie "Fragments from a Journey," The Beaver (Winter 1969), pp. 24-31, reproduces 17 of these pictures. The article compares Paradis' trip with a summer one taken in 1686 by De Troyes. While emphasizing the Paradis Rapport, it draws heavily on the trip log by Father Proulx. 16. Unconventional Voyages, pp. 25-30, and 47-48; and A. R. M. Lower, My First Seventy-five Years (Toronto: Macmillan, 1967), pp. 80-86. Long before 1971, when the author of this article visited Fort Albany on a canoe trip down the Albany, the Oblate mission and settlement had again been moved off the island to the south shore. 17. Exposé, p. S. 18. See n. 11 above. 19. From Temiskaming to Hudson Bay, p. 61. 20. Ibid., pp. 30-35. 21. Ibid., pp. 27 and 29. /2. Au Lac Temiskaming! (Ottawa, 1885); the advertisement appears on p. 26. 23. La Verite, Quebec, 16 avril 1887 and 18 fevrier 1888; and Robert Rumilly, Histoire de la Province de Quebec (Montreal: Editions Bernard Valiquette, 1941), V, 215-16, 253-54, 260-61. 24. From Temiskaming to Hudson Bay, p. 60. 25. See note 23; and also Griffin (where the story is somewhat garbled). 26. La Write, 11 juin 1887. 27. Rumilly, V, 254. 28. Ibid., V, 260-61 and 287-88; Le Monde, 6 septembre 1887; Exposé, pp. 26-33; and ADO, C. A. M. Paradis, Journal personnel, 17 janvier au 9 fevrier 1888. 29. L'Electeur, 28 fevrier 1888. 30. Rumilly, V, 289; La Justice, various dates in late February and early March, 1888. 31. La Write, 20 decembre 1887; note also 26 novembre, 28 decembre 1887, and 21 janvier 1888. 32. Ibid., 4, 11, 18, 25 fevrier 3, 17 mars 1888. Similar sentiments in L'Etendard, 25 janvier 1888. 33. e.g. PAC, Tarte Papers, Tarte to Ross, 19 decembre 1887, 16, 18, janvier 1888. 34. e.g. Le Monde, 8, 25 fevrier, 10, 13 mars 1888. 35. Rumilly, IV, 214-16, 252-53; V, 28-33; VI, 68, 158; VI, 169, 250. 36. From Temiskaming to Hudson Bay, pp. i-vi and 67-68. 37. Affaire, pp. 5, 9, 20, 33. 38. ADO, J. Fabre to Paradis. 39. Affaire, pp. 33-35, 48-49, 53. 40. La Write, 7 decembre 1888. 41. Rumilly, V, 261. 42. Affaire, pp. 17-19, 36-39. 43. Affaire.

UNCONVENTIONAL PRIEST OF THE NORTH 145

44. C. A. M. Paradis, Societe des Missionaries de S. Jean-Baptiste Ou Des Missionaires Colonisateurs (Montreal, 1890). 45. Affaire, pp. 49-50. 46. ADO, Nouvelle et derniere decision du St. Siege dans I'Affaire Paradis: Document officiel (Rome, 1891). 47. Rumilly, V, 290. 48. C. A. M. Paradis, Ce qu'il importe a toute Canadien de Savoir (n.p., from Lac Timagami, 1893), especially pp. 14-20, reprint of an article in La Presse by "un Touriste" (undoubtedly Paradis himself), 24 novembre 1892. 49. Ibid.; Archives of the Diocese of Peterborough, Diocene Record (written by O'Connor), 1892, and Bishop O'Connor Papers, Fabre to O'Connor, February 21, 1891, and Taschereau to O'Connor, 19 mars, 4, 8, 12 avril, 1891. 50. Griffin. 51. Ce qu'il importe. 52. Interviews by Michel Trudeau with Peter Commanda and Ted Derosier, Lake Temagami, 1971. 53. Germaine Cote, "Verner et Lafontain," Documents Historiques, Revue de la Societe du Nouvel Ontario (Sudbury, 1945), pp. 12-13. 54. PAC, RG 75, Department of the Interior, Immigration Branch, Papers of the Colonization and Repatriation Society of Ontario (henceforth styled Col. Papers), "Colonization Across the North and West of Ontario," typed translation of article in La Patrie, August 20, 1898, by "Henri." 55. See n. 52. 56. Gaston Carriere, Histoire documentaire de la Congregation des Missionaires Oblats de Marie Immaculee dans Pest du Canada (Ottawa, 1969), I, 103-7. 57. O'Connor Papers, Lorrain to O'Connor, March 11, 1896, with note by O'Connor signifying written approval given March 24, 1896. 58. Donald Chaput, "Some Repatriement Dilemmas," Canadian Historical Review, 49, no. 4 (December 1968), 409. 59. Col. Papers, R. A. Lewis to L. M. Fortier, January 25, 1895, and J. D. Rolland to T. M. Daly, February 3, 1896. 60. Ibid., Aubrey White to Paradis (copy), January 31, 1895, and Aubrey White to A. M. Burgess, February 18, 1895. 61. Ibid., A. M. Burgess to R. W. Scott, November 19, 1896, and Rev. A. L. Desaulniers to J. B. Klock (copy), January 21, 1896. Some sources refer to Swiss rather than Swedes. 62. Ibid. 63. Col. Papers, Rolland to Daly, February 3, 1896. 64. Ibid., L. M. Fortier to A. M. Burgess, February 6, 1896. 65. Ibid., Desaulniers to Rolland (translated copy), February 5, 1896, Lynwode Pereira to J. B. Montier (copy), and same to Desaulniers (copy), both February 20, 1896. 66. Ibid., L. Pereira to H. W. Bowie (copy), April 8, 1896, with enclosed petition, and "notes of the Verner Enquiry," Ottawa, 1896. 67. Ibid., Paradis to Scott, October 31, 1891.

146

BRUCE W. HODGINS

68. Ibid., Deputy Minister to R. W. Scott (with marginalia by Scott), November 19, 1896 69. Ibid., Paradis to Sifton, April 28, 1897. 70. Ibid., James Smart (Deputy Minister) to Paradis (copy), May 6, 1897, and Ass't Secretary to Paradis (copy), May 21, 1897. 71. Ibid., Paradis to T. A. Brisson (translated copy), November 13, 1897. 72. Ibid., Langlois to Smart, February 28 and April 1, 1898. 73. Ibid., F. Pedley to James Smart, April 19, 1898. Father Mercier, a colleague of Paradis', was also at the hearing. 74. Ibid., a typed translated copy of the article. In June 1973 Michel Trudeau, for the author, visited River Valley, examined ruins, and interviewed M. Donat Dupras, aged 75, who remembered Paradis' many visits to his father's house. He pointed out parts of the now largely overgrown "Chemin du Pere Paradis" or "La Marche du Pere Paradis," still used occasionally as a springtime trail to fishing on Lake Temagami. 75. Ibid. 76. Rumilly, IX, 81-87. 77. PAC, Laurier Papers, Laurier to Constantineau, April 13, 1899 (copy): "As requested by His Grace the Archbishop of Peterborough (sic), Father Paradis has been dismissed." Also, O'Connor to Laurier, March 1, 1899; Constantineau to Laurier, March 10 and 23 and April 7, 1899; Laurier to Constantineau, March 14 and April 13, 1899 (copies) and telegram, Constantineau to Laurier, April 11, 1899; and undated (c. January and February 1899) clippings, mainly from La Presse. 78. Col. Papers, Paradis to Laurier and Paradis to Tarte, 4 mars 1899. 79. Ibid., "Petition" [August 1899]. 80. Interviews by Michel Trudeau with M. Hormidas Lapage (aged 82) and Leon Lacasse (aged 81), in Verner, summer of 1971; further descriptions of Paradis' Domremy and its mill were given to Michel Trudeau, in June 1973, by M. Arthur Trahan (aged 73) and M. Alfred Roy in Verner and Father St. Amour in Ottawa. Griffin speaks of the great snowshoe treks. 81. Col. Papers, L. M. Fortier to Mr. Scott, April 13, 1904. 82. Ibid., Paradis to Superintendent of Immigration, September 17, 1904. 83. ADO, a handbill by Paradis entitled Lettre Confidentielle. 84. Archives of the Diocese of Sault Ste. Marie, North Bay, Bishop Scollard Papers, Scollard to Paradis, June 23, 1905. 85. Griffin. 86. See n. 52. Also interview of the author with Mrs. Audrey Morrison (then about 90) in Temagami, summer of 1971. Paradis' ice house (still being used) and the ruins of his chapel and blacksmith shop, plus many farm implements, all survive on the property of Camp Wanapitei of which the author is part owner. In its dining hall is displayed the inscribed horizontal piece of the cross found by campers in the late fifties. 87. Griffin. Also Ontario Mines Report, pt. III, 1919, pp. 31-32, and Ontario, Sessional Papers, 1919, LI, pt. II, p. 42. 88. Scollard Papers, Paradis to Scollard, July 17, 1915.

UNCONVENTIONAL PRIEST OF THE NORTH

147

89. Recollection of G. W. Cochrane told to the author by his daughter, Carol Bangay, North Bay, December 1971. 90. Griffin. 91. Archives of the Diocese of Sault Ste. Marie, Chronicle of the Diocese, 1926, p. 91. 92. In 1971, a plaque was erected in Paradis' honour in front, ironically, of the church at Verner, by the Archaeological and Historic Sites Board of Ontario. It seemed to some as if Paradis were still being plagued by troubles. The inscription is a monument to the prosaic. There is not a hint of controversy or expulsion and just a suggestion of adventure. There is no mention of the grand design, no mention of Domremy (which has vanished from the maps), of Sandy Inlet, or even Lake Temagami.

Jasper Nicolls and English Protestant Education in Canada East (-01 D. C. Masters

The hist gaphy of Quebec has been largely concerned with the fortune< Jt the French-speaking majority: their culture, frustrations, hopes, and fears. English Quebec society as such has received much less attention. Though they were from the beginning a minority among a French-Canadian majority, the English in Quebec had definite ideas as to the sort of society they wished to create. It was to be a society in which the English-speaking administrator and the English merchants would be dominant elements and it must be inspired by the religious and political ideas characteristic of English culture. It was to be a culture which must be fortified and developed by appropriate institutions of education. Thus the English Protestants of Quebec established schools and colleges to help create the sort of culture they wanted. The ideas of Jasper Nicolls, the first principal of Bishop's College, may be regarded as indicative of English culture in Quebec; but his ideas are not merely of significance in the Quebec setting. They are capable of much wider application.

Jasper Hume Nicolls (1818-77), the son of General Gustavus Nicolls (1779-1860) and Heriot Frances Thomson, was born on October 17, 1818, on the island of Guernsey. Jasper spent a good deal of his early life in British North America where his father had a long career, concluding as Commanding Royal Engineer in Halifax (1825-31) and Quebec (1832-37). He was educated at Oriel College, Oxford (B.A. 1840) and was a fellow of Queen's College, Oxford (1843). He was ordained to the Anglican diaconate in 1844 and was priested in 1845. 149

15o

D. C. MASTERS

In 1845 he returned to Canada to assume the position of principal of Bishop's College, Lennoxville, Quebec, a position which he held until his death at Lennoxville, on August 8, 1877. Nicolls' chief claim to distinction was his achievement in piloting Bishop's College through the difficult early stage of its history and establishing the institution in the life of Canada East. Much of Nicolls' success was a result of the strong support which he always received from Bishop George J. Mountain (1789-1863). Mountain was the moving personality in the incorporation of Bishop's College in 1843 and was its president until his death. He was also Jasper Nicolls' uncle by marriage, and his father-in-law from 1847. While Nicolls' appointment might be regarded as smacking of nepotism, it meant that Bishop's was directed from 1845 to 1863 by two men who thought alike in matters of religion and education, and who always cooperated amicably and effectively. Nicolls was a man of fine character: sincere, straightforward, with a fine sense of humour and great personal charm. He was popular with his students and a number of them, mainly young clergy and schoolteachers, continued to correspond with him after their graduation, reporting on their activities and offering gratuitous advice on how to run the college. Nicolls had one weakness: he was not a particularly strong disciplinarian in coping with the occasional student disorders which punctuated student life at Bishop's.' Politically, Nicolls and his relatives in Quebec reflected the outlook of a large section of Quebec English society. The Nicolls-Mountain family connection were very loyal to the Crown, suspected most Canadian politicians, particularly the Reformers, disliked Americans, and were opposed to annexation in 1849. There are comparatively few expressions of political opinion by Nicolls himself in the Nicolls Papers but a letter to his future wife, Harriet Mountain (1816-93), showed that he shared the anti-Americanism of the Mountain family: "Indeed it was a satisfaction to find oneself once more removed from under the ignorant, self-satisfied barbarism of these folks of the starspangled banner."2 In the period when annexation was being hotly discussed in Quebec, its advocates were persona non grata at Bishop's College, although Bishop Mountain, the president of the College, was more rigid in this connection than Nicolls. Thus in 1850, when Nicolls had proposed A. T. Galt, the great Sherbrooke political leader, as a trustee for the college, Mountain refused to accept Galt's nomination, describing

JASPER NICOLLS AND PROTESTANT EDUCATION 151

him as "a declared annexationist & that in a prominent public capacity."3 That Nicolls may have been less worried than Bishop Mountain about the prospects of annexation in 1849 is suggested by the difference in their attitudes to the British American League. The League emerged in 1849 in Canada East and West as the advocate of reforms presumably necessary to preserve the British connection. While professedly loyal, the League was widely suspected of being infiltrated by annexationist opinion.4 Whether or not Nicolls was aware of these suspicions is not clear; but at any rate he was a member of the League in 1849. Mrs. Mountain, an accurate reflector of her husband's political opinions, wrote to her daughter, Harriet Nicolls, in July 1849, "I hope my good son, Jasper, has decided to withdraw his name from the B. and A. League. I hate leagues and we, one and all, very much regret that he should have joined this."5 Despite this slight difference with the Mountains over the League, there is no reason to think that Nicolls could have regarded annexation with anything but distaste. While Nicolls no doubt had the same desires as most Anglicans for the position of the Church of England in Canada, he was less occupied than John Strachan and the first Bishop Mountain with the attempt to secure for the Church at least some of the privileges of an established church. His religious thought was chiefly addressed to questions of Christian doctrine, particularly in their English setting. That Nicolls' views were decidedly Tractari an was indicated in the bishop's letter to Mrs. Mountain on the occasion of Nicolls' engagement to Harriet: "He may have some leanings in Religion upon particular points, acquired at Oxford, which are not in perfect accordance with my own views upon those points." The bishop hastened to add that Nicolls was "a sound believer and a thoroughly and entirely conscientious and high-principled man and uncompromising Churchman." Nicolls' views as an educator were conditioned by his views as a Christian. Indeed he was mainly, although not exclusively, concerned with the task of working out a system in which the roles of Christianity and of secular learning could be appropriately combined. His task in Quebec depended upon the assumption that a Protestant religion and culture could thrive even in the midst of a numerous and powerful French Catholic population. He believed that English education must be given a Christian base and moral strength along with intellectual power. These would provide the only possible foundation for true personal freedom.

152

D. C. MASTERS

II The formal statement of Nicolls' views on education is contained in three speeches which he made and subsequently published in a threeyear period (1857-60) in the middle of his career. The three statements are a lecture, The End and Object of Education, which Nicolls delivered to the Young Men's Protestant Educational Union at Quebec in 1857, an Address to the Teachers of Academies in the District of Bedford, delivered in 1858, and Nicolls' Convocation Address at Bishop's College in 1860.7 In The End and Object of Education Nicolls asserted, "I suppose, then, we may consider the question now answered—what are the objects at which education aims? They are the cultivation of the powers of the mind and the formation of virtuous character."8 A virtuous character, he declared, should make possible that self-control which will give the individual the maximum of personal freedom. Moral training will be best imparted if it is accompanied by religious training. Intellectual cultivation is most likely to be developed by a system of education which is not inspired by the idea of immediate utility, but by the desire to develop the powers of mind. In the Quebec lecture Nicolls considered the question which subjects of study were most likely to develop moral character and the powers of the mind. Not surprisingly he put religion first, insisting on the relevance of studies which would make the student acquainted with the nature of the Divine Being, with proofs of His moral government of the world and with His attributes. The student must understand his own relation to the Divine Being both in the present and the future. Education and, indeed, life itself could be dealt with only if one accepted the premise that the grave was not the end, that there was a future beyond the grave.8 Nicolls mentioned a considerable list of subjects which he declared would "tend to elevate him [the student] in his relation to his fellow men, and give him a superiority over the uneducated or the less highly educated.") The list included history; mathematics and logic; grammar, composition, and rhetoric; poetry; fine arts; metaphysics; language; the classics. It was with some reluctance that Nicolls also included scientific subjects in his ideal curriculum. He had been urged by Dr. S. C. Sewell of Ottawa, a medical doctor who had previously taught chemistry at Bishop's, to take cognizance of the menace of science in his curriculum. Sewell had asserted in a letter to Nicolls in October 1852: "I think with Hugh Miller that in this age of scientific infidelity, the

JASPER NICOLLS AND PROTESTANT EDUCATION 153

clergy must be armed with science in addition to metaphysics—to combat the giant that is now overthrowing Faith."11 Nicolls may have forgotten this advice by the.time he wrote the lecture in 1857, but he did attempt to appropriate the findings of science to the purposes of the Christian apologist. He began the paragraph on science somewhat brusquely, "There are other branches of education with which I must deal somewhat summarily," and continued: "I am far from denying much importance to such studies as Geology, Mineralogy, Botany, or Natural History, but I cannot at all concede to them, in accordance with the spirit of the age, the first place. They are the more important, because when approached in a proper spirit, they are found to bear testimony as ample as it is constant, to the wisdom and beneficence of the Creator."12 Nicolls regarded astronomy as calculated to produce the same excellent effect in a high degree, exclaiming "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament sheweth His handywork." He was less enthusiastic about chemistry: "It is a subject for which I think sometimes too high a place is claimed; it is one, as it appears to me, which is to be followed not as an end, but as a means; and as a means, it leads not to the perfection of the higher powers of man, but rather to the gratification of those tastes, which are not peculiar to him, as the lord of the created world."13 Nicolls wrote this in 1857, two years before the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species. Had he been writing later, in the atmosphere of mutual suspicion between clergy and scientists following the appearance of the Origin, the section on science could well have been longer and less relaxed. While Nicolls had expansive ideas as to the number of subjects to be included in the ideal curriculum, it should be noted that in practice he adhered at Bishop's to the more concentrated curriculum in use in the other Anglican colleges in Canada. The Bishop's curriculum as listed in a promotional booklet published in 185714 consisted mainly of Greek, Latin, mathematics, and divinity. A few additional courses were listed but it seems doubtful that many of them were actually taught. The booklet explained "some of the subjects contained in this course [the Arts] are not yet sufficiently provided for, though they are not wholly neglected, such as History and Moral Philosophy, and Chemistry."15 Nicolls was always aware of the difficulties of adding new subjects to the curriculum at Bishop's. An effort was made in 1849 to begin instruction in the physical sciences, when Dr. Sewell became temporary professor of chemistry. Unfortunately there was no money to pay

1 54

D. C. MASTERS

him and after giving his services freely for some time (the College merely supplied the chemical apparatus) he eventually resumed medical practice first in Montreal and later in Ottawa. The English in Quebec are often criticized for refusing to learn French. Nicolls did not share this reluctance but subscribed to the proposition that an English-speaking college in Quebec should give courses in French. In 1860 he declared, "Let us try to bring side by side the French Canadian, and the Anglo Canadian minds; try to understand their ideas and opinions, and make known to them our own. If we cannot ourselves attain this reciprocity of understanding, let it be our care that our children shall. Let French be as necessary to their education as English."16 Nicolls encouraged his own young children, Kate and Gustavus, to begin the study of the language.'' A sporadic attempt was made to establish French on the Bishop's curriculum in the 1860s, but on September 6, 1865, Nicolls reported regretfully to his wife that the French teacher, Rioux, was leaving because the status of French at Bishop's was to be "on such a footing that it won't be worth his while to remain here." Nicolls hoped however to be able to remedy the situation.18 Presumably French had a lower priority than instruction in religion and the array of other subjects calculated to foster the development of the mind. In his Convocation Address at Bishop's on June 27, 1860, Nicolls described his idea of the appropriate relationship between "sectarian religion" and the general Protestant community. He met the usual criticisms that were being advanced against Bishop's. He denied that the college was a mere theological seminary, pointing out that there were Bishop's graduates in many walks of life in Canada. To the charge that the college was bigoted and exclusive he pointed out that it exacted no religious tests for admission or the granting of degrees although "we expect all to read and understand their Bible; we make religion a matter of every day life."19 Nicolls would not admit that Bishop's was illiberal. "On the point of liberality," he said, "I will only repeat here, what has been already more than once publicly asserted, that our Institution is just as liberal as the United States Colleges. . . . We are not ashamed of being, what is termed denominational; but we open our doors to all; we have no test on admission; we have no test in granting degrees. We expect that where parents and guardians do not give directions to the contrary, our pupils will attend the services of our own Church."2° He explained that parents of non-Anglican students could direct the attendance of their sons elsewhere on Sundays.".

JASPER NICOLLS AND PROTESTANT EDUCATION

155

Nicolls then expounded his view of the function of a university. This was his most significant pronouncement and it makes clear that, unlike some of their twentieth-century descendants, the church colleges of the period were based on a coherent and comprehensive philosophy. Nicolls declared that it was the function of a university to gather to itself all branches of learning and to demonstrate that all branches are parts of the divine revelation. Because this passage, like the one in the Quebec lecture, is basic to Nicolls' position, I quote it at length: For it is the business of an University to gather into itself all the branches of learning, to adopt and interweave with the old and well-tried, what is new and modern; to assist in its measure, and according to its capability in the work of scientific discovery, but far more to sanctify scientific discovery. When man searches and investigates, argues and proves, pronounces at his study-table, that this or that field or rock, produces or does not produce a certain precious metal, or indicates by calculation the existence of some hitherto undiscovered heavenly body, and points out the very spot it occupies at the moment; when the human mind thus strides onward, let it be the University's privilege to demonstrate that the excellency of all this, is not of man, but of God; that while man discovers, he discovers what God has made, what God gives him to understand. Universities let us remember are Christian Institutions.22

HI It should be noted that despite his ideas on the place of Anglican religion in education Nicolls did not favour the Baptist or Methodist Episcopal idea in regard to the separation of the church college and the state. In their desire to preserve the religious freedom of their institutions many Baptists and Methodists stoutly refused any financial assistance from the state. When the Baptist Canadian Literary Institute (later Woodstock College) was burned down in 1861 the college authorities refused a contribution offered by the town of Woodstock to assist in the expense of rebuilding.23 When the treasurer of the Methodist Albert College accepted a gift of $800 from the government in 1858 there were bitter protests from the Methodist constituency.24 Nicolls and his associates at Bishop's did not

156

D. C. MASTERS

share this objection to government assistance. With his British background Nicolls probably thought in terms of a close association between the government and the Church of England, even though he now lived in a country where the Church of England was not the established church. The Tractarians had had a tendency to favour disestablishment; but Nicolls did not relect this aspect of Tractarian thought. To be sure, applications for government assistance were not free of difficulty. Bishop Mountain had qualms about enlisting the support of politicians of whom he disproved and confessed to Nicolls in 1850: Mr. Baldwin has been a leader in the destruction of King's College, Toronto; but notwithstanding that perverse view respecting the grand University and his radical principles in politics, he is a Churchman and a communicant and a supporter of the Church Society. I do not like having recourse to him, mais que faire? I do not like having recourse at all to a Legislature and Ministry and a Governor (the last being simply an automaton in the hands of the second) whose ungodly and unscrupulous proceedings have swept away the Christian character of the University just mentioned. I cannot go on in faith and hope, and although I commend our case to God, I hardly feel as if it were consistent with my doing so, to put it, on earth, into the hands of such instruments.25 In spite of these qualms Nicolls and the bishop were happy enough when the legislature in 1847 granted the college an annual subsidy of Z250. Perhaps this grant was more acceptable since it was secured at the instigation of T. C. Aylwin, a leading Conservative. Nicolls and Bishop Mountain later attempted to get the subsidy raised. In 1850 it was increased to £300, and in 1855 to £450.26 Not all of Nicolls' dealings with the politicians were directly related to fund-raising. In May of 1856, he set out from Lennoxville to campaign against an education bill which had been introduced in the Legislative Assembly in Toronto, at that time the capital of the Province of Canada. George Cartier's bill, one of two educational measures which he sponsored in 1856, raised the permanent funds in higher education in Canada East by $25,000 to $88,000. Opponents of the measure contended that the distribution of the funds by the superintendent of education would be open to abuse. Nicolls shared this view, fearing that Bishop's would not receive adequate support under the system. His letter to Harriet, written on May 18, 1856 on the steamer Arabian then approaching Toronto, describes his efforts on shipboard to oppose the bill. He had had a long talk with C. L. Terrill, the

JASPER NICOLLS AND PROTESTANT EDUCATION

157

member for Stanstead, who became provincial secretary to the Tache-Macdonald adminstration less than a week later. Nicolls wrote that Terrill seems to think we may succeed, and hopes we may; he thinks, however, pretty much as Judge McCord and Aylwin that we are not in much danger of malpractice at the hands of the Supt. of Schools. `If he is not fair, the house will still be able to express its opinion.' But said I the house will not be in any hurry to do so, tho' it can, nor wd. the Supt. possibly care much if it did—He acquiesced at last in this viewNicolls' campaign against the bill also included discussions with members of the radical opposition. His letter from the Arabian continued: Have also made acquaintance with Dorion, the leader of the `Rouges'. . . . & he said, that it would be thus that after a couple of years the allowance would all be disposed of according to the whim of the Supt. One deserving Institution wd. get (say)£200—and another, nearly worthless it may be, but in the Supt.'s good books, £500. Terrill, by the by, said we had certainly taken the right course, & whether we succeeded or not in retaining the grant in independence, we should certainly gain in reputation & strength.27 Although Nicolls also enlisted the support of others, including A. T. Galt, in the campaign against the education bill, the measure nevertheless passed. While Nicolls was willing to accept money from the government he did his best to resist anything which smacked of control and stoutly ignored the efforts of the Quebec educational authorities to get Bishop's to submit annual reports to the government. The desire for a charter for Bishop's had made it necessary for Nicolls to deal with Lord Elgin at Quebec in 1852; but once the charter was secured he wanted the college to be as free as possible of government control while continuing to enjoy government subsidies.

IV Since Bishop's maintained a school, later called Bishop's College School, as a feeder for the university, Nicolls was interested in secon-

158

D. C. MASTERS

dary as well as in higher education. Presumably a principal advantage of this private, church-controlled school was that, just as in the case of the university, religion could be given a place which Nicolls regarded as essential. Yet even in Nicolls' day most boys and girls in Canada East, as well as in other parts of Canada, did not attend private, church-related schools. Indeed, a former Bishop's College student wrote to Nicolls in 1 852 complaining that the high prices charged by the school kept down registration and prevented it from "being a popular school with its hundreds."28 Most pupils were dependent upon publicly financed and nonsectarian institutions. Although Nicolls was not involved in the public part of the school system, he had ideas on how it should be run. In his Address to the Teachers of Academies in the District of Bedford he indicated his ideas about the real world of publicly controlled education in Canada East. Here it was not a matter of describing his ideal system. He had to consider a world in which there were such factors as the FrenchCanadian, Roman Catholic majority; anti-Anglican and even, in his eyes, anti-religious Protestant groups; shortages of Canadian and a comparative plenitude of foreign-born teachers. In this situation, Nicolls addressed himself to the special problems of an Englishspeaking Protestant minority. To begin with, Nicolls felt that the best way to secure amicable relations was to keep people apart. Firm lines must be drawn between the French and the English, between Roman Catholics and Protestants: "And first of all let us ask the question, What will promote union? It may sound paradoxical; but still it is true, that one chief way to promote union, is to have clearly-drawn lines of separation. And this on the preacher's principle, who finished his sermon on brotherly love, with a rule that all neighbours should have a seven-rail fence running along the boundary lines of their property."29 Nicolls maintained that the French system of education should be dominant in areas where the French were in the majority and English education in areas like the Eastern Townships where the English were in the majority. He insisted that the different English groups should attempt to resolve their differences, the most serious of which were religious. Nicolls did not propose any formal religious instruction in the Protestant schools. He favoured the use of opening exercises at the beginning of the school day with prayer and scripture reading. There was to be no explanation of the scripture passage on the part of the teacher. The whole of the religious instruction was to be left to the

JASPER NICOLLS AND PROTESTANT EDUCATION 159

home and the church. Nicolls enjoined: "Let the children read the Divine word itself in school; where it requires to be expounded, let it be their own duty to seek explanation from their parents at home, or from their own minister."30 In the case of parents "who are set upon having their children brought up without any fear of God, without any knowledge of the Redemption which has been purchased for them," Nicolls proposed that the children could be absent from the opening exercises. In his concern for the defence of the rights of English Canadians against the inroads of the French, Nicolls suggested that the Province of Canada be divided for educational purposes into three administrative divisions: Upper Canada, Lower Canada, and Middle Canada. Middle Canada was to include Montreal, the Eastern Townships, and part of Canada West. Nicolls regarded this plan as in the interests of the Ango-Saxons in Lower Canada. "This system would unite us more with Canada West," said Nicolls, "and is the only system, that I can see, under which our Protestant population here would ever be likely to receive the attention they desire, or deserve." He added, "Whether such a system will ever be adopted I know not; but at any rate it seems to me wise, under our existing circumstances, to keep our eyes turned towards the West."3' The idea of calling in the English from Upper Canada to rescue the English of Lower Canada had always been popular with the Lower Canada Tories prior to the Union of 1840-41 and, of course, this idea was written into Durham's Report which was published in 1839. Upper Canadian Tories like R. B. Sullivan and John Beverley Robinson who were opposed to union of Upper and Lower Canada prior to 1840 had been in favour of joining Montreal and the Townships to Upper Canada.32 Nicolls was not, of course, discussing political union, but his proposal of administrative union for educational purposes revealed the same pattern of thought as that of Sullivan and Robinson. Nicolls wished the teachers in the Quebec English schools to be of a high standard and, so far as possible, native Canadians. Teachers at academies should hold the degree of B.A., preferably from a Canadian university. He asserted, "I would at once give a preference, between two candidates, to the home-born, or at any rate the home-educated; those who come from abroad I would invite to become naturalized, and, meanwhile, I would be preparing the article we require at our own manufactories."33

160

D. C. MASTERS

V It remains to attempt an appraisal of Nicolls' place in the history of Canadian educational thought. He stands for an English-controlled system to be maintained in a dominantly French environment; but he also stands for the preservation of Christian ideas in the schools and colleges of our country. His views on the secular schools of Lower Canada are of interest in indicating the desire of the Lower Canadian English to maintain a separate school system and thus preserve their culture. However, his idea of a separate English Protestant system in Canada East was not new when he advocated it in 1858 and was actually in process of being established. The school act of 1846 set up separate and distinct school commissions for Protestants and Catholics in Quebec municipalities. In 1859 there was formed in Canada East a Council of Public Instruction in which there were eleven Roman Catholics and four Protestants. Ten years later the Council was organized as two committees.34 This dual system was not seriously challenged until the Lesage administration in 1960 began a tentative policy of unifying the Department of Education and the Quebec schools. Nicolls' desire for teachers trained in Canada and his insistence that the preference in appointments be given to Canadians may have been prompted by the desire to secure employment for his graduates, but it also indicates a nationalist streak in his thinking. His nationalism was not irreconcilable with regard for the mother country and may even have been prompted by dislike of the Americans. While Egerton Ryerson, the chief superintendent of schools in Canada West, favoured instruction in religion and morality so long as it was not characterized by sectarianism,35 Nicolls proposed to safeguard the Christian position in the public schools by prayer and scripture reading alone. He was unwilling to entrust religious instruction to teachers who might be of any denomination or even complete unbelievers. In the ideal system as set forth in The End and Object of Education he obviously favoured religious instruction and, of course, his own secondary school at Bishop's came close to his ideal. While Nicolls was the exponent of a religion-centred system in every field of education, he is chiefly of importance in regard to that part of the system in which he was most involved, higher education. His distinctive achievement was to advocate and to succeed in the establishment of an English and Christian academic community in Quebec,

JASPER NICOLLS AND PROTESTANT EDUCATION 161

based upon a homogeneous corpus of thought. The fact that he favoured a broader and more variegated curriculum than the narrowly classical one then in vogue in Anglican colleges suggests what he might have accomplished but for financial limitations. While much of his importance lies in the fact that he expounded his ideas in relation to the English society of Quebec, he is also in a broader tradition, that of Charles Inglis, John Strachan, and other founders of church-related colleges in Canada. He was not the first Anglican educator in Canada; but he stated the case for the Christiancentred college with brilliance and worked out his philosophy in considerable detail. Two of his writings, the Quebec lecture of 1857 and the Convocation Address of 1860, were lucid expositions of a philosophy which had a long run in the history of Canadian education, in English-speaking Quebec, and indeed throughout Canada. There are some who still regret the triumph of secularism over this philosophy. Its abandonment struck a blow at the very heart of the culture for which Nicolls stood.

NOTES

1. Bishop's University, Bassett Memorial Library, Nicolls Papers, G. J. Mountain to Jasper Nicolls, May 8, 1861. 2. Ibid., Nicolls to Harriet Mountain, August 23, 1847. 3. Ibid., Mountain to Nicolls, January 28, 1850. 4. Public Archives of Canada, The Elgin-Grey Papers 1846-1852 (Ottawa: J.O. Patenaude, King's Printer, 1937), 1, 347-49, Elgin to Grey, April 23, 1849. 5. Nicolls Papers, Mrs. Mountain to Harriet Nicolls, July 21, 1849. 6. Ibid., G. J. Mountain to Mrs. Mountain, January 22, 1847. 7. Jasper Nicolls, The End and Object of Education: A Lecture delivered before the members of the Quebec Young Men's Protestant Educational Union on 12th January, 1857 (Montreal: John Lovell, 1857); An Address to the Teachers of Academies in the District of Bedford, delivered at Froste Village, on the occasion of the formation of a Teachers' Association, October 29, 1858(Burlington, Vermont: Burlington Daily Times, 1859); An Address delivered before the Convocation of the University of Bishop's College at its Annual Meeting, June 27,1860 (Sherbrooke: J. S. Walton at the Gazette Office, n.d.) 8. End and Object of Education, p. 7. 9. Ibid., p. 18. 10. Ibid., p. 19. 11. Nicolls Papers, S. C. Sewell to Nicolls, October 28, 1852.

16z 12. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.

22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32.

33. 34.

35.

D. C. MASTERS

The End and Object of Education, p. 22. The End and Object of Education, p. 22. Ibid. Historical Sketch of the University of Bishop's College (Montreal: John Lovell, 1857), pp. 16-18. Ibid., p. 16. Convocation Address, p. 11. Nicolls Papers, General Nicolls to Nicolls, May 14, 1858. Ibid., Nicolls to Harriet Nicolls, September 6, 1865. Convocation Address, p. 8. Ibid. It was only gradually that Nicolls came to adopt this position. In 1845 when offering him the position of principal, Mountain wrote, "The feature of the project which staggers you is, I am aware, the admission of Dissenters as students. They will all be required, however, to attend daily prayers in the college & will only by special permission in each case, go to any other place of worship on Sundays." (Nicolls Papers, Mountain to Nicolls, January 17, 1845.) Nicolls came loyally to adopt this position. Convocation Address, p. 12. D.C. Masters, Protestant Church Colleges in Canada, A History (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1966), p. 64. Ibid., p. 62. Nicolls Papers, Mountain to Nicolls, April 3, 1850. D.C. Masters, Bishop's University, the First Hundred Years (Toronto: Clarke, Irwin, 1950), pp. 25-30. Nicolls Papers, Nicolls to Harriet Nicolls, May 18, 1856. Antoine Aime Dorion (1818-91), later minister of justice (1873-74) and chief justice of Quebec (1874-91). Nicolls Papers, R. Lindsay to Nicolls, June 3, 1852. Address to the Teachers of Academies, p. 10. Ibid., pp. 12-13. Ibid., p. 18. After proposing that Montreal and the townships be included in Upper Canada, Sullivan said that the French, "may enjoy bad laws, bad roads, bad sleighs, bad food and ignorant legislation in peace and quietness, injuring no others and not being interfered with themselves." See Charles R. Sanderson, ed., The Arthur Papers, pt. I (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1943), p. 185, R. B. Sullivan to Sir George Arthur, June 1, 1838. Address to the Teachers of Academies, p. 20. F. Henry Johnson, A Brief History of Canadian Education (Toronto: McGraw-Hill, 1968), pp. 33-36; George W. Parmelee, "English Education [in Quebec]," in Canada and Its Provinces, ed. Adam Shortt and Arthur G. Doughty (Toronto: Glasgow, Brook and Company, 1914), XVI, 469-82. See Egerton Ryerson, "Report on a system of Public Instruction for Upper Canada, 1846," in Documentary History of Education in Upper Canada, VI, 1846, ed. J.G. Hodgins (Toronto: Warwick Brothers and Rutter, 1899), pp. 140-211.

A Select List of Publications by A. R. M. Lower t0.) compiled by Anne MacDermaid

The extensive nature of Dr. Lower's writings has called for the compilation of a bibliography for some time. The present survey has been limited to those articles and books formally published, and excludes early student newspaper articles, book reviews, and most letters to newspapers. Full listings of unpublished materials, book reviews, and other material excluded from this select bibliography are to be found in Queen's University Archives. 1915 with Melvill, C. D.; and Comeau, N. A. "Reports on Fisheries Investigations in Hudson and James Bay and Tributary Waters in 1914." Appendix to the Annual Report of the Department of the Naval Service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1914. Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1915. "Nationalism and Peace," The School, 3 (May 1915), 613-16. [Toronto.] 1919 "Extracts from the log of . . .," The Sailor, 2 (November 1919), 12. [Navy League of Canada.] "Two Christmas Nights Afloat," The Sailor, 2 (December 1919), 22. 1922 "Immigration and Settlement in Canada, 1812-1820," Canadian Historical Review, 3 (March 1922), 37-47. 1924 "The Exodus to the United States: Is It Real or Imaginary?" Toronto Globe, May 22, 1924. 163

164

ANNE MACDERMAID

1925 "Calling our Souls our Own," Listening Post, 3 (May 1925), 9-10, 24. "Credit and The Constitutional Act," Canadian Historical Review, 6 ( June 1925), 123-41. "A Sketch of the History of the Canadian Lumber Trade," in Canada Year Book. Ottawa: King's Printer, 1925, pp. 318-23. Reprinted in Forestry in Canada, Dominion Bureau of Statistics, Ottawa: King's Printer, 1926, pp. 32-37. Shortt, Adam, ed., Documents Relating to Canadian Currency, Exchange and Finance during the French Regime. Translated by A. R. M. Lower and W. Smith. Ottawa: F. A. Acland imprimeur, 1925, 2 vols. 1926 "The Business Historical Society," Industry, 18 (December 25, 1926), 5. [Published by the Associated Industries of Boston, Mass.] 1926-27 (ed.) Bulletin, Business Historical Society, Cambridge, Mass. 1, nos. 1-6 ( June 1926 to March-April 1927). [Issued by Business School Library of Harvard University; "edited and mostly written by A. R. M. Lower," A.R.M.L.] 1927 "Canada: A Motherland," Dalhousie Review, 6 ( January 1927), 441-50. "The Evolution of the Sentimental Idea of Empire—A Canadian View," History, new series, 11 ( January 1927), 289-303. 1928 "The Forest in New France," Canadian Historical Association Report (1928), pp. 78-90. 1929 "Assault on the Laurentian Barrier, 1850-70," Canadian Historical Review, 10 (December 1929), 294-307. "New France in New England," New England Quarterly, 2 (1929), 278-95.

PUBLICATIONS BY A. R. M. LOWER

165

"Some Neglected Aspects of Canadian History," Canadian Historical Association Report (1929), pp. 65-71. 1930 "Can Canada do without the Immigrant?" Maclean's, 43 (June 1, 1930), 3. "The Case Against Immigration," Queen's Quarterly, 37 (Summer 1930), 557-74. "Growth of the French Population of Canada," Canadian Political Science Association Proceedings (1930), pp. 35-47. "The Origins of Democracy in Canada," Canadian Historical Association Report (1930), pp. 65-70. 1931 "Canada and the Problems of the World's Population and Migration Movements," Canadian Historical Review, 12 (March 1931), SS-S9. [A. R. M. Lower], "Paying for Higher Education," Winnipeg Free Press, October 31, 1931. 1932 (ed.) "Edward Gibbon Wakefield and the Beauharnois Canal," Canadian Historical Review, 13 (March 1932), 37-44. "A Five-Year Plan for Canada," Winnipeg Free Press, December 10, 1932, magazine section, 1. "Growth of Canada's Population in recent Years," Canadian Historical Review,13 (December 1932), 431-35. "Paddling your own Canoe," The New Outlook, new series, 8 (May 18, 1932), 469. [Publication of the United Church of Canada.] Square Timber Trade of Canada. Toronto: Royal Canadian Institute Publications, 1932. Reprinted in Contributions to Canadian Economics. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1933, pp. 40-61, and in Approaches to Canadian Economic History, Carleton Library series, no. 31. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1967, pp. 28-48. "Three Centuries of Empire Trade," Queen's Quarterly, 39 (May 1932), 307-25.

1 66

ANNE MACDERMAID

1933 "Foreign Policy and the Empire," The Nineteenth Century and After, 114 (September 1933), 257-64. with Innis, H.A., eds. Select Documents in Canadian Economic History, 1783-1885. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1933. "Our Present Discontents," Dalhousie Review, 13 (April 1933), 97-108. 1934 "Colonialism and Culture," Canadian Forum, 14 (April 1934), 264-65. "Democracy and Parliament," Dalhousie Review, 14 (April 1934), 5-15. "Europe, War and Canada," Toba', 1 (March 1934), 16-17. [Manitoba Arts Quarterly.] "Is there an Empire Foreign Policy?" International Affairs, 13 (September 1934), 746. "Says Canada's Foreign Policy should Keep Her Free of Entanglements," The Native Son, 4 (December 1934), 1. 1935 "Foreign Policy and Canadian Nationalism," Dalhousie Review, 15 (April 1935), 29-36. "How to Win the Election," Winnipeg Free Press, October 12, 1935. 1936 [Address to the 14th Annual Conference of the League of Nations Society in Canada], Interdependence, 13, nos. 3 and 4 (1936), 191-95. "Canada and the League: How Far should Canada go?" Country Guide (January 1936), 10, 26-27. "A Canadian Perspective," Manitoban (November 10, 1936), 1. "Foreign Policy in the Far East," Conference on Canadian-American Affairs, Proceedings. Boston: Ginn and Co., 1936, pp. 212-14.

PUBLICATIONS BY A. R. M. LOWER

167

with Rabbi Frank, McWilliams, R. F., and Tan, E. J. "A Policy of Isolation for Canada: Is it practicable? Is it desirable?" Interdependence, 13, nos. 1 and 2 (1936), 191 ff. "General and Specific Aspects of Canadian Foreign Policy," in Canada, the Empire and the League. Toronto: Nelson's, 1936, pp. 445-55. [Lectures given at the Canadian Institute on Economics and Politics, July 31 - August 14, 1936.] "In Unknown Quebec," University of Toronto Quarterly, 6 (October 1936), 89-102. "Lumbering," in W.S. Wallace, ed., Encyclopedia of Canada, vol. 4. Toronto: University Associates of Canada, 1936, pp. 142-48. "Quebec City Today," Saturday Night, 51 (August 8, 1936), 5. Settlement and the Forest Frontier in Eastern Canada. Canadian Frontiers of Settlement series, vol. 9. Toronto: Macmillan, 1936. "Why Write Essays?" Manitoban (5 [Autumn] 1936). 1937 "Canada and the Americas," Dalhousie Review, 17 (April 1937), 17-22. with Coyne, J.B., and MacFarlane, R.O. Brief submitted to Royal Commission on Dominion Provincial Relations by the Native Sons of Canada. Winnipeg: Albion Press, December 1937. "External Policy and Internal Problems," University of Toronto Quarterly, 6 (April 1937), 326-37. "From Huskisson to Peel: A Study in Mercantilism," Royal Society of Canada Transactions, series 3, 31 (1937), section 2, 51-68. Reprinted in Essays in Modern English History in honour of William Cortez Abbott. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1941, pp. 381-404. "The King and the Crown," in Manitoba Essays. University of Manitoba, 1937, pp. 122-41. "Our Shoddy Ideals," Maclean's, 50 (November 1, 1937), 24, 39- 40. "This Island Nation," Canadian Defence Quarterly, 14 (April 1937), 306-10.

168

ANNE MACDERMAID

"Why Immigration Plans Fail," Country Guide (September 1937), 7, 45-46. 1938 "America and the Pacific," Dalhousie Review, 18 (April 1938), 45-49. "Canada Can defend Herself," Canadian Forum, 17 (January 1938), 341-44. "Canadian Unity and Its Conditions," Introduction to Violet Anderson, ed., Problems in Canadian Unity. Toronto: Nelson's, 1938, pp. 1-21. "Defence of the West Coast," Canadian Defence Quarterly, 16 (October 1938), 32-38. Marsden, A. R. [A. R. M. Lower], "The European Minuet," Winnipeg Free Press, May 10, 1938. "Motherlands," Dalhousie Review, 18 (July 1938), 143-48. North American Assault on the Canadian Forest: A History of the Lumber Trade Between Canada and the United States. Toronto: Ryerson Press, 1938. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1938. "The Product of Revolutions: Basic Factors in English History," Canadian Historical Association Report (1938), pp. 31-40. Marsden, A. R. [A.R.M. Lower], "The Whirligig of British Policy," Canadian Forum 18 (September 1938), 171-73.

1939 "Bonnie Chairlie's Gone Awa'!" Canadian Forum, 19 (April 1939), 6. Reprinted in M. Ross, ed., Our Sense of Identity. Toronto: Ryerson Press, 1954, pp. 161-63. "Canada in the New World Order," Canadian Forum, 19 (May 1939), 44-46. [Attributed to A. R. M. Lower] "Canadian Immigration: a negative view: another view," Round Table, 29 (March 1939), 398-411. "Conscription of Wealth," Country Guide, 58 (November 1939), 12, 60.

PUBLICATIONS BY A. R. M. LOWER

169

"Geographical Determinants in Canadian History," in R. Flenley, ed., Essays in Canadian History presented to G. M. Wrong. Toronto: Macmillan, 1938, pp. 229-52. "A Half-Forgotten Builder of Canada: William Hamilton Merritt," Oueen's Quarterly, 46 (Summer 1939), 191-97. Reprinted in R. G. Riddell, ed., Canadian Portraits. Toronto: Oxford, 1940. [CBC broadcasts.] "National Interests in the Pacific: American and Canadian," Conference on Canadian-American Affairs, Proceedings. Boston: Ginn and Co., 1939, pp. 105-26. "Pitfalls for Canadian Freedom," Events, 5 (April 1939), 263-68. "Robert Laird Borden, His Memoirs," Public Affairs, 2 ( June 1939), 180-84. "Sir John A. Macdonald," Dalhousie Review, 19 (April 1939), 85-90. "The United States through Canadian Eyes," Quarterly Journal of Inter-American Relations, 1 ( July 1939), 104-11. (ed.) "An Unpublished Letter of Daniel Webster," New England Quarterly, 12 ( June 1939), 360-64. 1940 Canada and the Far East: 1940. Institute of Pacific Relations Inquiry Series. New York: the Institute, 1940; Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1973. "Canada and Foreign Policy," Queen's Quarterly, 47 (Winter 1940), 418-27. "Canada now centre of U.S.—Empire Defence," Financial Post, August 31, 1940, 9. with Lapp, J. A. S., and Wirth, L. "Civil Liberties and the Fifth Column," The University of Chicago Round Table, no. 121 ( July 7, 1940). "Light," Saturday Night, 55 (February 10, 1940), 6. "The Maritimes as a Strategic Point in North America," Public Affairs, 4 (December 1940), 57-60.

17o

ANNE MACDERMAID

"Sir John Macdonald in Caricature," Canadian Historical Association Report (1940), pp. 56-62. "Wartime Democracy in Canada," New Republic, 102 (April 15, 1940), 503. 1941 "Canada's New American Relationships," The Native Son (January 1941), 9. "The Canadian American Defence Agreement and its Significance," Round Table, no. 122 (March 1941), 347-57. "French Canada and the World of Business," Realizations Canadiennes francaises. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba published broadcasts, 1941, 20-23. Also published in La Liberte, Winnipeg (January 1, 1941), 7. "Our Democratic Institutions," Dalhousie Gazette, January 10, 1941. ["A guest editorial from a talk given over CFRC Radio, Winnipeg." A.R.M.L.] "Rampart of the East: Newfoundland Today and Tomorrow," Winnipeg Free Press, October 18, 20, 1941. "Social Sciences in the Post-War World," Canadian Historical Review, 22 (March 1941), 1-13. "Towards a Canadian National Spirit," The Native Son, 2 (March 31, 1941), 7. "The World Tomorrow," Winnipeg Free Press, April 3, 1941. 1942 "Canada's Foreign Policy," New Commonwealth Quarterly, 7 (April 1942), 271-80. "Newfoundland in North Atlantic Strategy," Foreign Affairs, 20 (1942), 767-70. with J. F. Parkinson, eds. War and Reconstruction: Some Canadian Issues. Toronto: Ryerson Press, 1942. "Social Sciences in Canada," Culture, 3 (December 1942), 433-40. "What ought to be Done with our Japanese . . .?" Financial Post,March 21, 1942.

PUBLICATIONS BY A. R. M. LOWER

171

"Why Canada Fights," The Native Son, 2 (January 1942), 1. 1943 "A Bright Future for a Dull Subject," Manitoba Arts Review, 3 (Fall 1943), 10-21. Canada as a Pacific Power. Canadian Wartime Information Board, Canadian Affairs Pamphlets, 1, no. 13 (November 1943). Canadian edition also published as 1, no. 4 (March 1944). The Development of Canadian Economic Ideas, a supplement to J. F. Normano, The Spirit of American Economics; a study in the History of Economic Ideas in the United States prior to the Great Depression. New York: 1943. Committee on the study of Economic Thought. Studies in the History of Economic Thought. Vol. 1. "The First and Second Empires: a Comparison," The Native Son, 3 (October 1943), 2. "Lohengrin and the Conservative Party," Canadian Forum, 22 (February 1943), 327-28. "National Policy . . . revised Version," Manitoba Arts Review, 3 (Spring 1943), 5-14. "Reconstruction in the Light of the last Twenty-five Years," Manitoba Educational Association Convention Report (July 3, 1943), pp. 69-71. "Two Nations or Two Nationalities?" Culture, 4 (December 1943), 470-81. "Two Ways of Life—the Primary Antithesis in Canadian History," Canadian Historical Association Report (1943), pp. 5-18. Also published in University of Toronto Medical Journal, 22 (October 1944), 28-38. Reprinted in Approaches to Canadian History. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1967, pp. 15-28. 1944 "By River to Albany," The Beaver, outfit 275 (June 1944), 16-19. "The Commonwealth in the Post-War World," Country Guide, 63 (April 1944), 50-52. "Commonwealth Policy," The Native Son, 4 (January 1944), 10.

172.

ANNE MACDERMAID

"The Forest Industry and Lumbering in Nova Scotia about 1840," Halifax Chronicle, October 18, 1944. 1945 "Canada and the Pacific after the War," Toronto: Canada Council, 1945. Institute of Pacific Relations, Canadian Institute of International Affairs, Canadian Papers, 1945, no. 2. "Canadian Equation," Canadian Forum, 24 (February.1945), 257. 1946 "Canada, the Second Great War, and the Future," International Journal, 1 (April 1946), 97-111. Colony to Nation: A History of Canada. Toronto: Longmans, Green, 1946. 2nd and 3rd editions, 1953, 1957; 4th revised edition, 1964. "Determinism in Politics," Canadian Historical Review, 27 (September 1946), 233-48. "A New Community of Mankind," Country Guide, 65 (May 1946), 5, 49-50. Rapport du Comite des manuels d'histoire du Canada. La Societe canadienne d'education: 1946. [A. R. M. Lower contributed to this report.] "Transition to Atlantic Bastion," in R. A. Mackay, ed., Newfoundland. Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1946, pp. 484-508. "World Organization—or Else!" Manitoba School Journal, 8 (May 1946), 5-6. 1947 "Canada—Next Belgium?" Maclean's, 60 (December 15, 1947), 9, 51-53. Foreword to Ross, Frances A. The Land and the People of Canada. Toronto: Longmans, Green, 1947, pp. v, vi. Portraits of the Nation series. "In Quest of Social Science Materials," Canadian Library Association Bulletin (February 1947), 57-58. "July First, 1867: The First Dominion Day," Saturday Night, 62 (June 28, 1947), 28.

PUBLICATIONS BY A. R. M. LOWER

173

"Some Reflections on a Bill of Rights," The Fortnightly Law Journal, 16 (February 15, March 1, 1947), 216-18; 234-37. "Taking the Fairies out of the Woods: a Dialogue," University of Toronto Quarterly, 16 ( July 1947), 349-56. "Tyrrell Medal," Royal Society of Canada Transactions, 3rd series 41 (1947), 69-70. "Two Ways of Life: the Spirit of our Institutions," Canadian Historical Review, 28 (December 1947), 383-400. "Why Men Fight," Queen's Quarterly, 54 (May 1947), 187-200. 1948 "Animals and the Class War," Saturday Night, 63 (February 28, 1948), 29. "Canada and a Free Society or: Liberalism, Its Nature and Prospects," Ontario Educational Association Annual Report (1948), pp. 68-75. "Canada in the New, non-British World," International Journal, 3 (Summer 1948), 208-21. with J. W. Chafe. Canada. A Nation and How It Came to Be. Toronto: Longmans, Green, 1948. "Does our Education Educate?" Maclean's, 61 (November 15, 1948), 9, 72-76. "The Essence of Liberalism," Winnipeg Free Press, June 11, 1948. Reprinted as Winnipeg Free Press pamphlet no. 20 (May - July 1948). "French Origins of English Civil Liberty," Culture, 9 (March 1948), 18-28. Reprinted in E. Morrison and W. Robbins, eds., As a man thinks, Essays British American and Canadian. Toronto: Gage, 1962, 3rd edition, pp. 77-89. "Historian Sees History Made: Here's Some Advice for Political Conventions," Financial Post, August 14, 1948. "If we joined the U.S.A.," Maclean's, 61 ( June 15, 1948), 7-8, 71-74. "Liberalism in Canada," in Canada Looks Ahead. Ottawa: Tower Books, 1948, pp. 151-72. [Verbatim shorthand report of speech presented at national summer conference of Young Liberal Federation of Canada, 1947.]

174

ANNE MACDERMAID

"Premier King Out—Then What?" Financial Post, January 31,1948. "What this country needs is ten new provinces," Maclean's, 61 (October 15, 1948), 7, 77-79. 1949 "Imperialism or Metropolitanism?" in Nehru Adhindan Granth: A Birthday Book. Calcutta: 1949, pp. 403-6. Upper, L.E.G. [A. R. M. Lower]. "Let's Move Our Mountains," Saturday Night, 65 (December 27, 1949), 25. "Myth of Mass Immigration," Maclean's, 62 (May 15, 1949), 16, 69-71. "Upper, L. E. G. [A. R. M. Lower] . "Square on the Hypotenuse," Saturday Night, 65 (January 4, 1949), 19. 1950 Brief to the Committee of the Senate on Human Rights. Senate Special Committee on Human Rights, Proceedings, no. 9 (June 6, 1950), 311-25. Ottawa: King's Printer, 1950. "Canada, 1925-1950," United Church Observer, 12 (June 1, 1950), 9, 33. "Europe is Still Alive," Queen's Quarterly, 57 (Spring 1950), 1-20. "Germany Revisited," International Journal, 5 (Spring 1950), 141-62. "How Large a population for 1975?" Financial Post, November 25, 1950, 18. "Mr. King," Canadian Banker, 57 (Autumn 1950), 46-55. "Opinions des historiens anglo-canadiens 'Pour ou contre le manuel d'histoire unique?' " L'Action Nationale, 35 (May 1950), 354, 366. "Our 'Target' for Population," Financial Post, November 25, 1950. "Religion and Religious Institutions," in G. W. Brown, ed., Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1950, pp. 457-83. "What is Democracy?" and "How to Maintain Democracy," Winnipeg Free Press, November 7, 13, 1950.

PUBLICATIONS BY A. R. M. LOWER

175

1951 "Germany looks to the West," Saturday Night, 66 (April 3, 1951), 9, 11. "I came back and I am content," Maclean's, 64 (July 1, 1951), 2, 47-48. "The Mariposa Belle," Queen's Quarterly, 58 (Summer 1951), 220-26. "On the Hope Report," United Church Observer, 13 (August 1, 1951), 9. "Reginald George Trotter," Royal Society of Canada Transactions, 3rd series, 45 (1951), 119-21. "The Time for Decision," Country Guide (March 1951), 7, 91. "Trans-Canada Crossing," The Native Son, 7 (October 1951), 1, 12-15. "The West and Western Germany," International Journal 6 (Autumn 1951), 300-7. "Whence Cometh our Freedom," Food for Thought, 11 (February 1951), 5-12. [Publication of the Canadian Association for Adult Education.] 1952 "The Adam Shortt Notebooks in the Douglas Library," Queen's Review, 27 (October 1952), 182-85. "Are there Canadians?" Saturday Night, 38 ( July 28, 1952), 1, 17-18. Canada: Nation and Neighbour. Toronto: Ryerson Press, 1952. "How I heard the News, Two Wars and a Peace," Queen's Quarterly, 59 (Spring 1952), 32-38. "The Importance of History," Canadian School Journal (AugustSeptember 1952), 262. [Series of notes prepared by a teacher of a speech given to the English and History section of the Ontario Educational Association, Easter 1952.] "Lake Freighter," Queen's Quarterly, 58 (Winter 1951-1952), 508-41. Reprinted in Saturday Night, 67 (May 17, 1952), 12,

176

ANNE MACDERMAID

30-31, and in Unconventional Voyages. Toronto: Ryerson Press, 1953, pp. 123-29. "The Massey Report," The Canadian Banker, 59 (Winter 1952) 22-32. "No Class in Canada?" Saturday Night, 67 (July 12, 1952), 9, 18-19. "This question of Canadian Culture," Queen's Commerceman, 8 (Winter 1952), 11-12. "Seeing the Pacific from Winnipeg," Saturday Night, 67 (July 5, 1952), 11, 20. 1953 "Canadian University," Royal Society of Canada Transactions, section 2, 3rd series, 47 (1953), 1-16. "Canadians, Good Second Bests," New Liberty, 30 (November 1953), 15, 63, 65-66, 68. "Conservatism: the Canadian Variety," Confluence, 2 (December 1953), 72-82. "The Crown in Canada," Canadian National Magazine, 39 (1953), 4-5, 13. Reprinted in Queen's Review, 29 (January 1954), 3-10, 18. "The Crown in Canada," The Imperial Oil Review, 37 ( June 1953), 3. "Harold Adams Innis, 1894-1952," Royal Society of Canada Transactions, 3rd series, 47 (1953), 89-91. "Lumberjack's River," Queen's Quarterly, 60 (Spring 1953), 24-40. "The Question of Private T.V.," Queen's Quarterly, 60 (Summer 1953), 170-80. "She's Our Queen, too!" New Liberty, 30 (June 1953), 33. "So this is a free Country, Is It?" New Liberty, 30 (May 1953), 15, 92-95. "The Survival Value of a Soft Nation," Saturday Night, 69 (October 31, 1953), 7-8. Unconventional Voyages. Toronto: Ryerson Press, 1953. "The Uses and Abuses of Universities," Saturday Night, 68 (April 25, 1953), 7-8.

PUBLICATIONS BY A. R. M. LOWER

177

1954 "High School: Weak Link in Educational System," Saturday Night, 69 (September 11, 1954), 7-8. This Most Famous Stream: The Liberal Democratic Way of Life. Toronto: Ryerson Press, 1954. Paperback edition, 1967. 1955 "Arguments against going to the Dogs," Saturday Night, 70 (October 1, 1955), 7-8. "Canadian University: time for a new deal," Queen's Quarterly, 62 (Summer 1955), 243-56. "Is Distrust of Ability Formula for Success?" Saturday Night, 70 (April 23, 1955), 7-8. "Keep the Farmers off the Farms," Saturday Night, 70 (March 26, 1955), 13. "Our Elderly Adolescents," Saturday Night, 70 (May 28, 1955), 31-32. "Political `Partyism' in Canada," Canadian Historical Association Report (1955), pp. 88-95. "The Question of National Television," Canadian Forum, 34 (March 1955), 274-75. "The Simple Men," The Beaver, outfit 286 (Autumn 1955), 16-19. "U. S. Revisited: Some New Comparisons," Saturday Night, 70 (December 24, 1955), 9. 1956 "Canada and the Future," Saturday Night, 70 (January 21, 1956), 9-10. "Education in a Growing Canada," in Joseph Katz, ed., Canadian Education Today. Toronto: 1956, pp. 1-14. 1957 "Is the RCMP a Threat to our Liberty?" Maclean's, 70 (July 6, 1957), 57-58.

178

ANNE MACDERMAID

"Some Reflections on Kingston's Architecture," Historic Kingston, no. 6 (1957), 3-12. [Publication of the Kingston Historical Society.] "Time, Myth and Fact: The Historian's Commodities," Queen's Quarterly, 64 (Summer 1957), 241-49. 1958 "Beginnings of a new Political Era," Canadian Commentator, 2 (May 12, 1958), 3-4. Canadians in the Making: A Social History of Canada. Toronto: Longmans, Green, 1958. "Toronto in the 1880's," excerpt from chapter 20, reprinted in E. H. Winter, ed., Our Century in Prose. Toronto: Macmillan, 1966, pp. 133-38. with F. R. Scott et al. Evolving Canadian Federalism. Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press, 1958. "Gods Canadians Worship," Maclean's, 71 (October 25, 1958), 22-23, 66-67. [Excerpt from Canadians in the Making.] "A New Book that challenges our Myths: Excerpts from Canadians in the Making," Maclean's, 71 (August 2, 1958), 12-13, 35-39. "Pearson and the Mantle of Laurier," Canadian Commentator, 2 (February 1958), 3. 1959 "Monument among the Tombstones," Queen's Quarterly, 66 (Spring 1959), 146-50. "The Proposed Bill of Rights," Canadian Commentator, 3 (March 1959), 2-3. "Udawah's Stream," Queen's Quarterly, 66 (Summer 1959), 203-16. 1960 "Canadian historian A. R. M. Lower introduces South African historian Arthur Keppel- Jones," Maclean's, 73 (October 8, 1960), 19. "Some Angry Home Thoughts from Abroad," Maclean's, 73 (February 13, 1960), 10, 51-52. "Sounds of Battles Long Ago," Saturday Night, 75 (December 10, 1960), 56-58.

PUBLICATIONS BY A. R. M. LOWER

179

Special Committee on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, House of Commons, Ottawa. Minutes of Proceedings, July 20, 1960. Testimony of A. R. M. Lower, pp. 312-37. Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1960. 1962 "The Future of Man," Queen's Quarterly, 68 (Winter 1962), 539-44. "Growth of Population in Canada," in Vincent Bladen, ed., Canadian Population and Northern Colonization. Toronto: 1962, pp. 43-68. [Studia Varia of the Royal Society of Canada, 1961-62.] "How Good are Canadian Universities?" Canadian Association of University Teachers Bulletin (November 1962), 4-11. "The Social Responsibilities of the Business Man," The Business Quarterly, University of Western Ontario, 27 (Winter 1962), 11-16. "Speaking to each Other," Royal Society of Canada Proceedings, 3rd series, 56 (1962), 69-80. [Presidential address to the Royal Society of Canada, June 1962.] 1963 "Bilingualism in Canada's History," Ottawa Citizen, February 19, 20, 21, 1963. "The Forest: Heart of a Nation," Canada Month, 3 (November 1963), 21-23. Reprinted in P. G. Penner and J. McGechan, eds., Canadian Reflections. Toronto: Macmillan, 1964. Letter on Roman Catholicism, United Church Observer, 25 (March 1, 1963), 2. "Professor Webb, and 'The Great Frontier Thesis'," in A. R. Lewis and T. F. McGann, eds., The New World looks at its History. Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press, 1963, pp. 142-54. "Queen's, Yesterday and Today," Queen's Quarterly, 70 (Spring 1963), 69-75. "Symposium on Liberty," Canada Month, 3 ( June 1963), 23-26. 1964 "Administrators and Scholars," Queen's Quarterly, 71 (Summer 1964), 203-13.

8o

ANNE MACDERMAID

"The Flag issue sums up our whole historical experience," Montreal Star (July 11, 1964). "How to Make the new Canada: Extend Canadians' Rights to be French across Canada," Maclean's, 77 (February 8, 1964), 26, 36. "Mr. Lesage's Eye is on the Goose," Kingston Whig Standard, April 4, 1964. "Would Canada be better off without Quebec?" Maclean's, 77 (December 14, 1964), 27, 51-52. 1965 "Canada at the Turn of the Century, 1900," Canadian Geographical Journal, 71 (July 1965), 2-13. "Canada in World Affairs," in The Decisive Years. Toronto: Barker Publishing Company, 1965. "Church and State in Canada." Inaugural Lecture of the National Capital Lectures, Dominion-Chalmers United Church, Ottawa: November 1, 1965. "The Quinte Parkway," Park News, 1 (November 1965), 14-16.[Journal of the National and Provincial Parks Association of Canada.] (ed.) "Three Letters of William Osgoode, First Chief Justice of Upper Canada," Ontario History, 57 (December 1965), 181-87. 1966 "Loring Christie and the Genesis of the Washington Conference of 1921-22," Canadian Historical Review, 47 (March 1966), 38-48. "Loyalist Cities: Saint John, New Brunswick and Kingston, Ontario," Queen's Quarterly, 72 (Winter 1966), 657-64. "Public Parks before Private Property on Canada's Lakeshore," Canadian Commentator, 10 (October 1966), 24-25. 1967 "Agitation: The Struggle for Self-Rule," Imperial Oil Review, 51 (July 1967), 24-63.

PUBLICATIONS BY A. R. M. LOWER

181

"British North America in the 1860's," in Canada One Hundred, 1867-1967. Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1967, pp. 6-20. "Canada 100: A New Nation Fighting for Survival 1870-1900," Winnipeg Free Press, Centennial Edition, 1967. "Canadian Values and Canadian Writing," Mosaic, 1 (October 1967), 79-93. [A Journal for Comparative Study of Literature and Ideas, University of Manitoba Press.] "Centennial Ends; Centennial Begins," Queen's Quarterly, 74 (Summer 1967), 236-47. "Is Canada a Christian Country?" United Church Observer, 29 (January 1967), 5. My First Seventy-Five Years. Toronto: Macmillan, 1967. 1968 "Great Britain Today," Queen's Quarterly, 75 (Summer 1968), 208-21. "Ontario: Does it Exist?" Ontario History, 60 (June 1968), 65-69. "Three Ojibway Folk Tales," as told by Paul Michel of the Lake Nipigon Ojibways to Arthur Lower, Queen's Quarterly, 75 (Winter 1968), 584-91. 1969 "Adam Shortt, Founder," Historic Kingston, no. 17 (1969), 3-15. "Once again: the uncomfortable Lecturn," Canadian Commentator, 13 (July-August 1969), 15-16. "The Uncomfortable Lecturn," Canadian Commentator, 13 (February 1969), 14-15. "The United Empire Loyalists," Loyalist Gazette, 7 (Spring 1969), 9-12. "Andy McNaughton: Crusading Canadian," Queen's Quarterly, 77 (Winter 1970), 618-23. "Canada and the United States," Contemporary Review, 216 (May 1970), 242-45.

182

ANNE MACDERMAID

"The Metropolitan and the Provincial," Queen's Quarterly, 77, (Winter 1970), 577-90. "My recollections of the west [1929-1945]," Canadian Historical Association Papers (1970), pp. 19-29. "Townsman and countryman," Dalhousie Review, 50 (Winter 1970-71), 480-87. 1970 "Arthur Leonard Phelps, 1887-1970," Royal Society of Canada Proceedings, 4th series, 9 (1971), 93-96. "Historical Perspective: interview by Welf H. Heick," Queen's Quarterly, 78 (Winter 1971), 518-35. Introduction to W. Caniff, History of the Settlement of Upper Canada. Canadiana Reprint Series of Rare Books. Belleville: Mika Studio, 1971. "Metropolis and Hinterland," South Atlantic Quarterly, 70, no. 3 (Summer 1971), 386-403. "Queen's Yesterday and Today," Historic Kingston, 20 (1972), 77-89. 1972 "That humble fellow, the historian—some reflections on writing history," Journal of Canadian Studies, 7 (February 1972), 45-50. 1973 Great Britain's Woodyard: British America and the Timber Trade, 1763-1867. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1973.

The A. R. M. Lower Papers An Inventory t49') compiled by Anne MacDermaid

Dr. A. R. M. Lower has been depositing his papers in the Queen's University Archives since 1959. The collection now spans the full course of his academic career and documents in some detail the genesis and preparation of his many publications. Consisting of some fortyfive feet of correspondence, manuscript, published, and personal material, as well as items relating to organizations and institutions with which Dr. Lower has been affiliated, the collection is one of rich research potential, dealing with numerous aspects of Canadian public affairs over a span of many decades. Queen's University Archives possesses a comprehensive, ongoing inventory of the Lower Papers, which are arranged as follows: Series A: Correspondence, 1925-1971 (9 feet) General correspondence, 1930-63, consists of six folders: with H. A. Innis, 1930-39 (and 1952); with J. W. Dafoe, 1932-43; with Adam Shortt; and with other correspondents. The main series of correspondence, totalling almost nine feet, is closed, to be opened only with the permission of Dr. and Mrs. Lower. Correspondence pertaining to Dr. Lower's publications is to be found with the publications, and correspondence pertaining to the organizations, societies, and institutions with which he has been affiliated will be found with their records in the papers. Series B: Publications and Manuscripts (24 feet) Dr. Lower's prolific literary output has taken diverse forms, ranging from undergraduate newspaper articles to scholarly addresses, from impassioned briefs to learned papers, from amusing vignettes to authoritative books. The bulk of the collection, supported in many cases by correspondence and both manuscript and printed copies of the works, is arranged as follows: 183

184

ANNE MACDERMAID

Articles Selected articles are listed in the bibliography. The papers contain as well early contributions to the undergraduate student newspaper of the University of Toronto, and some articles which may only have reached mimeograph form, or have remained in manuscript. Book Reviews The papers contain a listing of some 125 book reviews, most of which are to be found in the papers. Broadcasts There are thirty-seven folders of material on broadcasts during the period from 1935 to 1956, and two folders of related correspondence for the period 1938-55. The broadcasts deal mainly with Canadian-American relations, foreign affairs, and discussions of various books. Speeches and Lectures There are fifty-three folders of speeches and lectures for the period 1931-58, treating mainly of Canadian foreign policy, defence, and government. Submissions and Briefs There are seventeen folders of material on submissions and briefs for the period 1937-67. The briefs include those submitted to the Royal Commissions on Dominion-provincial Relations (1937), Broadcasting (1956), Publishing (1960), and Bilingualism and Biculturalism (1964). Books There are thirteen and a half feet of files related to Dr. Lower's books, a listing of which is found in the bibliography. Files include notes, manuscripts, correspondence, contracts, galley proofs, and press comments. The collection also contains six scrapbooks, made up of newspaper clippings of references to Dr. Lower from 1913 to 1967. Series C: Organizations and Activities

(7.5 feet)

Canada and Newfoundland Education Association, 1943-45 3 folders. Correspondence, reports, and memoranda.

THE A. R. M. LOWER PAPERS

185

Canadian Association of University Teachers, 1935-40 1 folder. Drafts of aims of the association, proposed organization. Canadian Bill of Rights, 1958-60 5 folders. Correspondence, 1958-59. Supporting articles, 1958-60. Notes and proposals, brief to the prime minister, 1959. Canadian Centenary Council, 1961-67 1 folder. Correspondence. Canadian Centennial, 1958-59 2 folders. Correspondence, 1958-59, miscellaneous material. Canadian Civil Liberties Associations, 1939-59 29 folders. Correspondence, 1939-59. Harry Crowe case reports, memoranda, clippings, and articles, 1958-59. Reports from CLA branches and conferences, speeches, articles, and news clippings. Canadian Club, 1959-61 2 folders. Tour correspondence, 1959-61. Itinerary, 1961. Canadian Flag, 1963-64 2 folders. Correspondence, 1963-64. Speeches, interviews, press clippings, 1964. Canadian Historical Association, 1941-59 4 folders. Correspondence, 1941-45, 1954. Meeting agendas, minutes, 1941-43. Canadian Institute of International Affairs, 1933-68 8 folders. Correspondence, 1933-53. Minutes of meetings, 1935-45. Reports, 1937-45, notes and clippings. Canadian Radio and Television League, 1954-67 13 folders. Correspondence, 1954-66. Minutes of meetings; brief, 1956. News releases and newsletters, 1955-67. Articles and news clippings. Canadian Social Science Research Council, 1940-56 25 folders. General correspondence, 1940-56. Correspondence of the Bilingualism and Biculturalism Committee, 1947-56, of the Grants-in-aid Committee, 1930-34, of the Library Committee, 1943-55. Minutes of meetings, 1945-47. Annual Reports. Canadian Student Assembly, 1939-40 2 folders. Correspondence, 1939-40. Reports, policy statements, 1940.

186

ANNE MACDERMAID

Canadian Union of Students Seminar on Confederation, 1963-64 2 folders. Correspondence, 1963. Seminar papers, January 10-12, 1964. Committee of Senate on Human Rights, 1947-50 3 folders. Correspondence, 1947-50. Brief, Senate proceedings, 1950. French Canada Studies Programme, McGill University, 1963 3 folders. Correspondence, policy outline, inauguration proceedings. Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada, 1956-61 16 folders. Correspondence, 1956-61. Agenda papers, 1960-61. Project files for various sites, legislation, policies, and finances. Institute of Pacific Relations, 1938-45 2 folders. Correspondence, 1938-41. International Geographical Union, 1945-51 1 folder. Correspondence. International Student Service, 1949 2 folders. Correspondence, lecture notes on summer seminar in Holland. Native Sons of Canada Society 1 folder. Charter. Provincial Archives of Manitoba, 1934-35 1 folder. Correspondence, notes, and memoranda. Quebec Bill 60, to 1963 1 folder. Scrapbook with summary, chronology, organization charts, and news clippings. Quinte Historic Sites Association, 1955-61 15 folders. Correspondence, 1955-61. Minutes of meetings, 1957-61. Projects, 1955-56. News clippings, 1957-61. Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, 1963-67 13 folders. Correspondence, 1963-64, 1967. Brief and minute books of Kingston group, 1963-64. Press clippings, 1960-64. Royal Society of Canada, 1944-64 40 folders. Correspondence, 1944-63. Presidential address, circular letter and replies, 1962. Minutes of meetings, awards, finances,

THE A. R. M. LOWER PAPERS

187

officers and members of committees, 1951-62. Reports, memoranda, and briefs, 1949-62. Bilingualism and Biculturalism brief correspondence, 1963-64. Minutes of correspondence of various committees including membership committee, 1947-53, program committee, 1952-53, Tyrrell medal committee, 1952-53. United Church of Canada, 1947-67 7 folders. Correspondence, minutes of meetings of the Commission on the Church, the Nation and World Order. Building Committee correspondence and reports, 1956-60, about Collins Bay Church. Series D: Institutions at which Dr. Lower was employed

(3 feet)

Among other material: United College, 1929-47 20 folders. Correspondence, 1929-47. Committee reports and memoranda, 1930-45. History course outlines, 1929-46. News clippings. Queen's University, 1944-68 47 folders. Correspondence, 1944-61. Reports, minutes, and memoranda, 1944-59. Department of History lecture notes. Queen's Faculty Association correspondence, 1949-57. Reports, minutes, press clippings. (7.5 feet) Series E: Personal Material This collection includes 37 folders of material related to Dr. Lower's student days, 1903-29; 11 folders of war mementoes, 1914-19; 6 folders of material related to interviews with Dr. Lower; 14 folders of photographs; and 16 folders of newspaper clippings related to his career, 1936-52.