by Gerald Therrien.
Part 4 – The Tory Annexation Plot
In the province of Nova Scotia, the 1848 election was won by the Reformers, who did not wish to collaborate with the Tories and their ‘British American League’ in the province of Canada.
The new provincial secretary, Joseph Howe, had written to George Moffatt, the League’s president, a hilarious answer to the league’s address, that:
“we gather from the scholastic production to which your name is attached that a convention called by yourself is to supersede the Parliament of Canada. This movement for dispensing with the services of the legislature, it seems to us Nova Scotians, very naturally generated the idea that the building in which it sat was an encumbrance; and that its books and papers, fraught with occult sciences and varied superstitions, were dangerous to the progress of society. Lord Elgin, who stood in the way of Mr. Protector Moffatt, was pelted as a matter of course; and as the old parliament house was too small for the convention, it was very reasonable that the mob should exclaim: “Burn it down, burn it down: why cumbereth it to the ground?” The promulgation of your manifesto and the occurrence of subsequent events take us somewhat by surprise in this benighted province; but nothing appears more natural than the sequence. As you have appealed to North Americans in your address, and as the mob in Montreal have favored us with their interpretation of its contents, I am induced to inquire whether it be the true one, and whether pelting the Queen’s representative, dispersing our parliaments and burning our books, are to be indispensable preliminaries in joining the British American League?”
However, in New Brunswick, a group of citizens of the city of St. John had formed a New Brunswick Colonial Association (somewhat similar in character to the League) and appointed delegates to attend a conference in Montreal with delegates of the British American League, that was set to begin on October 12th, 1849.
During this meeting in Montreal, it was unanimously agreed that:
“these colonies cannot now remain in their present position without the prospect of immediate ruin, and that it is a duty of the Imperial Government either – first, to restore to the colonies a preference in the British markets over foreign countries – or second, to cause to be opened to them the markets of foreign countries, and more especially the United States, upon terms of reciprocity”,
and that:
“a union of the British American Provinces, on mutually advantageous and finally arranged terms, with the concession from the mother country of enlarged powers of self-government … appears essential to the prosperity of the provinces.”
So, it would seem that the League was demanding either a restoration of their colonial preferential trading rights, or else for Britain to arrange for ‘reciprocity’ with the United States! and that this may require a union of the British colonies … with Britain’s permission, of course.
Unfortunately, on the day before, on October 11th, the ‘Annexation Manifesto’ appeared in the press – an ‘Address to the People of Canada’, which stated that:
“the number and magnitude of the evils which afflict our country, and the universal and increasing depression of its material interests, call upon all persons animated by a sincere desire for its welfare to combine for the purpose of inquiry and preparation, with the view to the adoption of such remedies as a mature and dispassionate investigation may suggest.”
The address considered the options:
1. the revival of protection in the markets of the United Kingdom – but the policy of the empire forbids it;
2. the protection of home manufactures – it might encourage the growth of the manufacturing interest in Canada, but without access to the United States market it would not work;
3. a federal union of the British American Provinces – but the market of the sister provinces would not benefit us;
4. the independence of the British American colonies as a Federal Republic – but new institutions would prove an over-match for the strength of the new republic;
5. reciprocal free trade with the United States – but it would not introduce manufactures to our country nor give us the North American continent for our market;
6. the remedy of a friendly and peaceful separation from British connection and a union upon equitable terms with the great North American Confederacy of Sovereign States.
and ended with the proposal that:
“we would premise that towards Great Britain we entertain none other than sentiments of kindness and respect. Without her consent, we consider separation as neither practicable nor desirable.”
In other words, annexation, but only with permission from our British Mother – the love of the Empire supersedes the love of independence, even though the Tories’ reasons for annexation concern the love of money.
Montreal’s English-language Tory press were discussing it – before the ‘Address’ had even been printed.
One week earlier, on October 3rd, the ‘Herald’, whose editor would sign the Address, wrote that:
“we have reason to wish for an incorporation with the states of the American Union; like reason prompts us to desire that this incorporation should take place as speedily as possible … It is of the utmost importance for the inhabitants of Canada, as the world believes that they are about to pass through a revolution, that they should do it at once.”
Also on October 3rd, the ‘Courier’, wrote that:
“when men find things irretrievably bad, they must needs think of desperate remedies. Annexation is that remedy; it will be foolish now for us to wait to see what England will do for us.”
And, the ‘Gazette’, on October 5th, advised that the address should be:
“well conceived and well matured … an organization should take place first, and then a declaration of opinion. We have to consider what Upper Canada and the other provinces will do.”
Later, the ‘Herald’ would write that:
“with the defeat of the Baldwin Ministry, it believed, all the factions in Lower Canada would be fused into one independent party”;
the Courier would write that:
“in order to get rid of a vicious administration, we should proclaim our independence, and invite our beloved Mother to sanction, and other nations to recognize the same”;
and the Gazette would write that:
“there should be no hesitation or division of opinion among the opponents of the existing regime about thoroughly informing the English Government and people of the real state of public feeling in Canada.”
Here, we begin to see hints of the Tories’ real, ulterior motives – defeating the reform government in Canada.
One year earlier, in 1848, the Montreal Board of Trade had sent a petition to the Queen that warned that:
“the abandonment by the mother country of her protective policy is producing important changes in the commercial relations of the colony, which, unless regulated or counteracted by wise legislation, may lead in the end to consequences which every loyal subject would deplore … a growing intercourse with the United States … that … must sooner or later be politically interwoven.”
The petitioners asked for:
“the repeal of the Navigation Laws as they relate to Canada, and the throwing open the navigation of the St. Lawrence” [and] “the enactment of a moderate fixed duty … on foreign wheat, colonial to be admitted free.”
The Montreal free-traders criticized the Board of Trade petition and sent their own petition that:
“we trust that the loyalty of the province depends upon something loftier than a mercenary motive” [and] “we conceive that all we have a right to ask of the mother-country is to repeal the Navigation Laws as far as they relate to Canada” [and not to ask for duty-free wheat.]
One of the signers on this petition was the Reform legislator, Benjamin Holmes. Holmes’s business partner was John Young, the president of the Montreal Free Trade League. Ironically (in order to control the ongoing debate) Holmes would become one of the leaders in the annexation movement, and Young would become a leader of the anti-annexation movement!?!
In 1849, the British Government repealed the Navigation Laws, ending her monopoly in shipping on the St. Lawrence river, but did not allow Canadian wheat to enter British ports duty-free.
However, in a private communication to their British correspondent, shortly after, the firm of Holmes, Young & Knapp declared that:
“the feeling of annexation to the United States seems to be the most prevalent at present among our people; could the measure be brought about peaceably and amicably, there is not a doubt but that three-quarters, if not nine-tenths, of the inhabitants would go for it … the commercial system of the United States now offers more advantages to the province than any other within view, but to avail ourselves of it, is impossible without the question of annexation being involved.”
“The Canadian public were generally disappointed at the non-concurrence of the United States in the scheme for reciprocal free trade, and, in the judgement of the writer, would not rest content until they had secured the free admission of their native products into the American market. There was, however, but one way to bring it about, and that way was annexation.”
In other words, the only way to achieve reciprocity (free trade) was by the threat of annexation!
The Montreal ‘Pilot’, the (English) newspaper of the Reformers, attacked the annexation manifesto calling it ‘high rampant Toryism’, and that it should first prove that the majority of the inhabitants of Canada, and also of the other British American colonies, were in favour of annexation; that the British government would grant it; and that the United States would agree to it.
It also pointed to the fact that by far the largest portion of the names appended to the Address were members of the British American League – including half of the Executive Council of the Montreal branch! Of those people who signed the Address, barely one-thirtieth of them were French Canadiens – however, among them were Papineau’s young followers at L’Institut Canadien!!!
The Montreal ‘Transcript’ would warn of this alliance, between the Tories and the French ‘republicans’, that:
[the Anglo-Saxons] “probably imagine that by making a bargain with the neighbouring Union, their influence will be all in all, and that the influence of their French allies will count for nothing … so far from their influence prevailing, the influence of Mr. Papineau and his friends is much more likely to turn the scale than that of the British ultra-Conservative Party.”
L’Institut Canadien were not supporters of the Tories, but actually wanted annexation with the United States, as a way of escaping British colonialism!!! and this intervention could sabotage the Tories’ plan.
[the above quotes were taken from ‘The British North America League 1849’ by Cephas Allin, and from ‘Annexation, Preferential Trade and Reciprocity’, by Cephas Allin & George Jones]
[next week – part 5 – Papineau and L’Institut Canadien]