a oe” oa

f f | |

Trish-Ganad'-n Kepresentatives

THEIR PAST ACTS, PRESENT STAND, FUTURE PROSPECTS.

: A REVIEW OF THE QJ USTION

~ ~S NS

— BY —

JOSEPH K. FORAN, LL.B.,

Advocate ; author of “ Lessays and Obligations,” Se.

FIAT JUSTITIA RUAT CCELUM. ,

ai <> om /

OTTAWA: PRINTED AT THE EVENING JOURNAL OFFICER, ELGIN STREET.

1886.

National Library — Bibliotheque nationale of Canada du Canada

ud

ao }

Trish-Ganadian Representatives

ap La ae a> a a a ae a ee ae aan PS IF OS See

THEIR PAST ACTS, PRESENT STAND, FUTURE PROSPECTS,

A REVIEW OF THE QUESTION

JOSEPH K. FORAN, LL.B.,

Advocate ; author of “ Essays and Obligations,” &ze.

NSD NIDN SOI IN ISI

FIAT JUSTITTA RUAT CCELUM.

OTTAWA: PRINTED AT THE EVENING JOURNAL OFFICE, ELGIN STREET.

1886.

CHAPTER CHAPTER CHAPTER

CHAPTER

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

I.—Why this pamphlet is written.. II.—Letter published 22nd July. III.—Letter published 29th July ..

IV.—Hon. Edward Blake as an Irishman and as a sympathizer (?) with Irish Catholics.

V.—Hon. John Costigan as a minister : His position and obligations. .

VI.—Mr. Mills’ amendment ; its result; the only course left for the Irish Representatives. .

VII.—Hon. Mr. Costigan’s fidelity to the Home Rule cause, since 1882: His unpublished letter to the Marquis of Lorne

VIII.—Mr. J. J. Curran and the Hon. J. Costigan are offered the pointed horns of adilemma ..

IX.—By whom would their enemies replace our pre- sent Irish-Catholic represeniatives ?.

X.—A few concluding remarks..

PAGE

22

24

26

31

35 38

| |

j ;

righ crit ste! nan pro of I Tri: diff tot dail to g rais forn arg wou

ina due with unp othe labo alm in it fore Can For

CHAPTER I. WHY THIS PAMPHLET IS WRITTEN,

‘‘A generous nation is grateful even for the preservation of its rights.” Again, “ Prejudices and passion have sometimes carried it toa criminal length.” These remarks of Junius, coupled with the desire to stem a flood of vituperation, that was not only injurious to our national name, but even detrimental to our best interests at home and abroad, prompted me to write two somewhat lengthy letters upon the question of Irish Catholic representation. ‘These letters were published in the Irish Canadian. Numbers of friends, of all shades of politics and of different creeds, have expressed a desire to see these letters presented to the public, in a more lasting form than through the columns of the daily or weekly press. Anxious to meet that request as it deserved, and to give a few explanations and several details upon the diffierent points raised in these letters, I have undertaken to reproduce them, in this form, and to add to their contents many facts and several minuter arguments which want of space, on the occasion of their first publication, would not allow me to give.

Before entering into this subject—a subject that I intend to examine in all its phases and from every imaginable standpoint—I think it is due to myself to make a few, very few, personal explanations. To begin with, these letters and this pamphlet have been written unsolicited, unpaid for, without the expectation or the desire for any recognition, other than that which all writers seek, viz: the just criticism of their labor. After the letters were first published the Hamilton Spectator almost insinuated that I was not a Home Ruler, and the /rish Canadian, in its editorial reply, did not postively deny that insinuation. I there- fore think it right that I should state what I am: I am an Irish Catholic Canadian, and a Home Ruler in every imaginable sense of the word. For a test; I was one of the first to speak at the first Land League

‘ 6

meeting ever held in Quebec. I was one of those who moved, and seconded, and spoke to resolutions at the first Land League meeting ever held in Ottawa; on the invitation ot Mr. J. P. Sutton, then of Quebec, I addressed a meeting’in the Champlain market in 1882, for the purpose of establishing the parliamentary fund and the Home Rule movement in that City. My intimate connection with the original Horne Rule resolutions passed in Ottawa by the House of Commons, and of which connection I will refrain from speaking, are all facts which should suffice to answer the question as to whether Jam a Home Ruler or not.

One more remark and my own individuality will drop into the back ground, while I ‘speak openly to the public, of public and important issues. The Globe said that I was mistaken in saying that the Home Rule resolutions were brought on during the heat of the Riel debate. I am not so stupid, even if I am but an atom compared to a Globe, to think that a debate on the Irish Home Rule Resolutions was carried on, at one and the same time as the debate on the Riel question. But while the latter debate was going on in the House, outside the House, in the societies and circles, the question of the introduction of the resolutions was being discussed. And 1 repeat there was ¢iex no knowing when or where the Riel affair would end. And again, for months after the Riel debate was closed, its effects were like a burning fever in the House: they are so all over Lower Canada, even to-day. As to what is to be thought of the respective courses of Hon. Mr. Costigan and Hon. Mr. Blake, I will speak to a very full extent when I have reproduced the two letters. In tact, I purpose sifting, in a few pages, the matter to the very bottom. I will close this species of preface with the words of Sir William Draper: ‘‘The kingdom swarms with such numbers of felonious robbers of private character and virtue, that no honest or good man i: safe ; especially as these cowardly, base assassins, stab in the dark, without having the courage to sign their real names to their malevolent and wicked productions.”

poe.

| |

red, and meeting then of 882, for ne Rule original mmons, 's which 1¢ Ruler

he back portant hat the he Riel 2d to a ns was uestion. ide the tion of Aen no uin, for yurning to-day. n. Mr. when I a few preface th such hat no aSsins, mes to

j 5

CHAPTER II. (Letter published on the 22nd July, 1886.)

THE QUESTION REVIEWED—THE MONTREAL “POST,” IRISH REPRE- SENTATIVES, J. J. CURRAN, ETC.

The following letter is addressed to the Editor of the Jrish Canadian :

Mr. Eprror—Permit me to occupy, in your widely circulated paper, the necessary space to express some ideas upon this question which has of late more than ever been ventilated through the press of this country. I will preface my remarks by stating that having written upon kindred subjects over a xom de plume, and having heard it remarked that the author of this anonymous correspondence must necessarily be some one who has a political object or some personal benefit in view, I have concluded to give this letter over my owu signature. It is influenced by no political motive, for Iam not a_ politician; it has no secondary object to gain, as I have never received, never asked for, nor do I want any political or personal favor. I will add that the measure of public men should be taken by their pud/ic actions, faults or virtues, not by their private lives, short-comings or good qualities. He who attempts to judge the conduct of public men by any other standard is either a personal slanderer, actuated by some petty spite, or else a hypocrite, striving to cloak his own mistakes beneath a mantle of public bombast.

' Despite the heading of this letter ~ do not purpose sitting in judgment upon the, now notorious, develc-ments which the articles of the Post and True Witness and the letters of Mr. Curran have brought before the public. The readers of both sides can and should judge for themselves. It is, however, to be regretted that the Post and Zrue Witness, after calling for the letters that were published in the Gazette, refused to print them, It was not so in the days gone by. ‘Old times are changed, old manners gone;” hut have the new times been an improvement upon the old, and have the manners of our day become more polished than those of the past? It would seem not! /

The question suggested by this controversy is that of Irish Catholic representation and division. I write from no political stand-point. ‘a here is a phantom of Liberalism that stalks through the country, and

8

there is a degenerate Conservatism abroad. Out of the thousand who invoke these words there are, sometiines, not ten who can define them. They merge principle in the individuality of some leader, and then “ go it blind.” It is from a #atsonal standpoint that I wish to calmly and iogically examine the subject. I will use no vituperation, nor will I follow :he example of several hot-headed writers of the hour, who deem. abuse as good as argument, and frantic censure as powerful as cout reasoning. ‘There is sentiment and reason in patriotism. Too ofte.,

however, the sentiment is not in accordance with reason, or else the

reason is not in accordance with sentiment. Unite them both and you have truly patriotic action. Sever them and you cut the Gordian knot that keeps the soul and body together. It is grand to see reason blending with sentiment; it is disgusting to contemplate sentimeni, passion, uu.bridled fury, unguided and unrestrained by reason.

This question, then, resolves itself into four. 1st—Is it contrary to:

our duties, as Canadians, to seek the advancement of any special national cause? 2nd—Is division inseparable from the Irish cause? 3rd— What should reasonably be expected from our representative men? 4th—lIs the advocacy ot any particular poiitical party-cause incompatible with that of nationality? Here are the four vital points. If properly understood, the result must be of benefit to every just cause. If impro- perly under: .ood, the consequences must be injurious to «ll concerned.

Allow me to review, in a few words, these four questions. I speak as one independent of all political parties.

Ist Question—Is it contrary to our duties, as Canadians, to seek. the advancement of any special national cause? At once I reply that it 1s nob.

It was Lord Dufferin who said that “the struggle between the people of different nationalities, in Canada, is not a contest wherein mutual destruction is sought, but is one wherein the spoils, no matter who are the victors, should fall into the lap of Canada and the garland of victory be twined around fer brow.” While all are striving to improve the country, to lend a helping hand in the cavse of her progress, each particular nationality can only do so by faithfully working to improve its. own ccnditisn and to elevate its own standard. Onthis Canadian arena. the powerful wrestle for success, and tnose who ‘eek not to gain the victory are not only false to their own special nationality, but also false to their duties with regard to Canada. Every action performed by an English, Scotch, French, or Irishman that is of benefit to his own people becomes an action beneficial to the country at large.

Then if we neglect to aid in our own nation | cause, or to further our own interests, to whom are we to look for h...? Can we reasonably expect that the French, English or any cther people should take up our duties and espouse our cause? They are on the same track, they are striving to gain the gaol that we have in view; and if we stand with folded arms, or worse still, if we go backwards while they advance, how can we expect that they are to stop short on the course and help us.

Stn an aR a

rapt en ee ae ee ee Tee eee

anc the

Anc pub amc pur] nati rep! the

not

turn that rept atte sior that

d who them. n Tj go ly and will I deem. is cowl often,

se the

d you n knot ending assion,

rary to: ational: 3rd— men P patible ‘operly impro- erned. speak

o seek. y that

pn. the: herein

atter arland prove | each pve its arena. in the

false by an beople-

ther: nably p our: Py are:

with | how Ip us.

ai el Rt NSO SS Sink inn gS A ADOT SS nt a na

9

forward ? “Charity begins at home,” and “they who help not themselves cannot expect that others will help them.” It is then iust that a people should work, always in good feeling and as Canadians, to further their own special cause. And while the Irish are laboring in the contest for success, so are the people of all other nationalities. This brings us to the second question.

2nd Question—lIs division inseparable from the Irish cause ?

Unfortunately the answer would seem to be in the affirmative. Along the history of the ages it has ever been the same. From the forays cf the ancient chiefs that brought desolation upun the land to the divisions of Irish princes—divisions that clzared the way for the stranger and made a path for Henry II. to enter and usurp the country—from these greater divisions in the higher and more important ranks down to the minor struggles and constant animosities that usually ended in a faction fight—from these lower classes of divisions back to the quarrels of public representative men—all, all these divisions have been the root of Ireland’s troubles, sorrows and long nights of gloom.

It was this spirit of division that called forth the /Va¢ion in 1843, and it was against this evil that Thomas Davis and his companions fought with such vigor and devotion. They almost destroyed the hydra; but all its heads were not severed, and it revived at the death of Davis. Tell me, is this an unholy legacy that generation has transmitted to generation and that is to exist forever P It would seem as if, on this side of the Atlantic, certain people have “accepted the succession ” without a murmur, and have engaged themselves to perpetuate it to the very end.

Denis Florence McCerthy, addressing Ireland in his grand poem of the ‘ Bell Founder,” cried out :

‘* Thy children are dying or flying,

Thy great ones are laid in the dust, And those who survive ave divided,

While those who control are unjust.”

And where do we find that division most pronounced to-day? It is in public life. Not ,so much amongst the representatives of the people 2s amongst the voices of the people—the press! There is no unity of purpose, no mutual forbearance, no give and take, ro harmony, no national feeling upon that great public stage. The moment a public representative enters the lists he becomes the butt of the unreflecting, the unscrupulous, the jealous, the pre-eminently unpatriotic. Space will not permit me to enter into this question as I would desire. I must turn now to the third of my series of questions. I have pointed out that each nationality is struggling for success, that each has its own representatives, and that it is a contest between these. I have drawn attention to the fact that in the Irish cause there has always been divi- sion, and that it exists in our own country. The principal causes of that division here are jealously or ignorance: jealousy of a fellow

° 10

countryman’s success, or else ignorance of what should be expected f:om one called upon to represent the people. This leads me to the third question.

gra Question.—What should reasonably be expected of representa- tive men? Remember that the Irish representative has to contend with the equally powerful and usuall; more numerous representatives of other nationalities,

Some people wrongly imagine that the moment they have placed a mandate, to sit in the house, in the hands of a man, that, thereby, they have endowed him with omnipotence. Thcy think that he has a suff- cient warrant to ride over every obstacle, to rush into the chamber of debate, overturn all who may come in his way, and never draw breath until he has cleared the floor and stood, like Horatius, alone, in triumph over all his opponents. There are some who think that by electing a man they have furnished him with a pick lock to every door and secret, to every office anc situation in the country. It is quite an error tc: thus dream of such imaginary powers. But did they only cream of them it would be all well enough. The day of a man’s election, when supported by such people, generally becomes the first day of his endless troubles.

They place him in a dilemma at once. The Indian boys have a custom of shooting arrows into the air and measuring the flight of the arrow by the depth to which it enters the ground on falling. It is so with this class of supporters of public men. They raise their represen- tatives up in order to tear them down; they carry them upon their shoulders one day, that they may cast them under foot the next; they send them as high as possible, and the higher they rise the deeper they can be buried in the mire that has been prepared for them.

I anticipate the usual, the universal answer! Those people say : ‘“‘OQur representatives are traitors; they did not perform what we required of them; they consequently must come down and make room for others.” That is about the sum and substance of the cry. But do these people reason at all? Have they merely the gift of bad language without the iaculty of judgment? You tell us that the representatives of the people did not do what you demanded of them ; but did you ever examine whether what you want of them is within the range of possibility or not? You elect a man, you place a weapon in his hand ; then you fettur his arms ; and because he does not use the weapon you tear him down (as upon one sadly memorable occasion), or else he has to run the gauntlet of your mad execrations.

Behold his dilemma! If he does not attempt what you unreason- ably demand of him, if he does not advance (for he sees the impossibility that you do not see), then he is a traitor, he is useless, he must be taken off the track; if, on the other hand, he does attempt what you ask and he fails (as he knew he would), you cry out that he is sold, or he has no influence—he must be replaced. Whether active or inactive, it is all the same. He is the victim always. You demand the impracticable ; he cannot perform it, and the result is that the man

expected e to the

presenta- tend with ; of other

placed a eby, they ; a suffi- amber of w breath | triumph lecting a id secret, r tc: thus f them it upported troubles. s have a it of the It is so represen- on their xt ; they per they

pple say : what we ke room

But do language entatives you ever possibility hen you ear him » run the

Inreason- ees the eless, he attempt that he active demand he man

11

whom you praised from the house-tops one day, you curse with all your mighi the next.

Were this but the occurrence of one year I would not speak of it; but it is repeated year after year. Point me out ove Irish Catholic representative that has not suffered the same ingratitude and calumny. Suppose he speaks in the House, and that his address is not a success—, and often the most brilliant efforts die off in echo, while those who applauded vote the other way—then you crush him, bedaub him, cari- cature him; suppose he does not speak, you imnpute some false motive to his silence.

Remember, Mr. Editor, I am not speaking of a// Irish Catholics, nor of the majority of them; merely of those who spread discord for none other than personal motives, either of jealousy or gain. For example ren who were hoarse crying out for Irish Catholic representa- tion, and who at the same time held up to ridicule, calumniated and strove to crush the only men whose voices could be heard in the cause of Irish Catholics. For example: Knights-errant, who on one occasion execrated all that was British, and, with wondrous <onsistency, on another occasion would seek to don a sritish uniform. For example: men who were the first to cry out that our Irishmen in Parliament did not get fair play from their supporters, yet who (when a question of dollars and ‘cents arose, and the representatives could not do the impossible that they were demanded to do) were the first to turn upon them and “go for them” with more vengeance than would ever dare the most bigoted Orangeman. For example: men who, while they had sume personal object to gain, went hand in hand with our Irish Catholic representatives ; bui who, when they became jealous of those that succeeded, at once turned against them. Are we thus to be made the laughing-stock of every other creed and nationality? The Orangemen have no need to attack our Irish Catholic men. ‘ Let them alone ; they will soon be pulled down by their own,” is the thought of the wise Orangeman. What need have theif papers to lose time writing down our Irish Catholic members? Sure we have Irish Catholic papers that can do it for them! How are we to suppose that our opponents in this great struggle are to be equaled if we destroy our own arms, gag our own mouthpieces, and tear down our own battlements? This leads to he fourth and last question.

4th Question—Is the advocacy of any particular party-principle incompatible with that of nationality? The answer is two-fold—no and yes. No, it is not, provided that you are first of all national and then partisan ; yes, it is, if you place party before creed or nationality. We have examples of both on all sides of us. It is not natural that any paper should be totally independent. But when a puplic organ sinks its nationality in its partizanship, it at once becomes a party organ and not a national one. Some anonymous writer has attacked the J/rish Canadian on the ground that it gives the history of our great Irishmen of the past, and does not fill its columns with Spurious despatches about

12

the ever-changing positions on the checker-board of European politics, I have no space here to prove the utter want of sincerity in that ~ttack, but it is obvious to every reflecting man.

I do not question whether an organ be Grit or Conservative ; that

is of little consequence in my present argument. There was a time when the Post and True Witness was a Conservative organ ; it became Independent ; it is now red hot Liberal. In other days it upheld ail Irish Catholic representatives ; it spoke from a national standpoint, and the party question was merely accessory. ‘‘ Each political party has its own organs,” wrote a former editor of that paper ; ‘‘ but our paper is the organ of the Irish Catholic element. We advocate our national cause and support our co-religionists first, and then we aid that party which seems to us the most worthy of our support.” Now-a-days the position is reversed, and the party goes first and the nationality comes fn for a secondary place. ; I will not ask what were the motives that caused that paper to turn so lively ; nor will I, now, attempt to follow any of its disjointed argu- ments as to its present position. It is no business of mine it it has become the organ of a faction ; but let it not still call itself the advocate of Irish Catholic interests. I say a faction, not a party. The Post and True Witness does not advocate the principles of the great Liberal party ; they are merely the ravings of a semi-political faction that sprung into existence in November last. It is the paper’s own affair if it sees fit to become the exponent of the very principles against which, in its halcyon days under the lamented and powerful writer, George E. Clerk, the Zrue Witness struggled with such might and success.

The principal Irish Catholics in the House to-day are Hon. John Costigan and Mr. J. J. Curran. I was about to ask were ever two men treated as they have been ?—but I find they only are undergoing the same fiery ordeal which all earnest Irish representatives have been forced to undergo. And for what? Go back to my third question for the answer: because they are nOt omnipotent and cannot do the impossible.

If to attack upon all sides the representatives of the people is a proof of national and religious advocacy, then the Zrue Witness has a success to score. What do they want? Here.is the answer in a nutshell. “ We want to get rid of Curran and Company and to replace them by true Irishmen.” I think that is about as clearly as they could state it. Then God help the poor Irishmen who are to take their places! Even if the Zrue-Witness could succeed in procuring the change, the successors of these men would have the same programme to fulfil—be praised, glorified, carried in triumph for a day or so; be sent to Parliament, there to meet the same obstacles that arise to-day fo: ‘‘ Curran and Company ;” there to contend with others in a great struggle: then to be called upon to do the impossible, to monopolize everything, to overturn everybody, to make way for their own people despite all opposition ; then to attempt this impossible and to fail ; and,

politics, t “ttack,

ve; that s a time became held all int, and y has its er is the al cause y which position n for a

to turn d argu- | it has dvocate Post and Liberal t sprung " it sees h, in its » Clerk,

n. John wo men ng the e been ion for do the

le is a

has a br in a replace

could e their g the ramme so; be to-day A great Dpolize people ; and,

13

finally, to be called traitors, useless tools, sold turncoats ; to be black- guarded high up and low down, and at last to be struck by the hands that they strengthened and to be betrayed by those whom they served the most. Who is prepared to accept that situation? If the past be an index of the future, such will be the treatment in store for every Irish Catholic representative, at the hands of some.

Can no stop be put to those advocates of division, who spread eternal discord on all sides? Remember, we are only one people among several other nationalities ; and that instead of binding, gagging, tripping our public-men, we should give them a helping hand and make easy the way they have to travel. Be not so headstrong ; do not forget the past services of your representatives ; consider that you are doing your enemy’s work by thus sending the names of your own people and representatives broadcast over the country amidst vile abuse and bootless vituperation ; be a partisan if you will, but do not choke your own national cause; rake money if you can out of politics, but not at the expense of your fellow-countrymen’s reputations ; leave to our natural opponents the task of blackening our best names; cease to attack, to crush those whom you once praised and supported, and whom you would praise and support again were they willing or able to do what your personal interests demand ; cease, in the name of sentiment and reason, to advocate one thing and to believe another.

Yours, &c., JOSEPH K. FORAN.

AYLMER, Que., 13th July, 1886.

CHAPTER III. (Letter published 29th July, 1586.)

CONTINUATION OF THE SUBJECT BROACHED LAST WEEK. To the Editor of the Trish Canadian :

Mr. EpiTor,—Last week I sent you a short review of this question. Not wishing to usurp too much of your valuable space, nor to tire your readers, I inerely touched upon a few general points. If you will allow me, I will this week conclude the arguments set torth in last week’s. letter, and then leave the subject to the meditation of those who may find interest in it.

I intend to treat of two questions this week. 1st. That of the Irish Canadian as a paper and as the exponent of Irish Catholic views. 2nd. That of Mr. J. J. Curran’s position, as member for Montreal Centre, and as an Irish Catholic and Conservative. I will do as I have always done—write dispassionately and without paying any attention to those scribes who, to use the words of Junius, “display assertion without proof, declamation without argument, and violent censure without dignity or moderation.” They may say what they please of me as an individual ; but I defy them to discover, in the whole range of my writings, anything at vaziance with the principles I am about to lay down in this letter. * bg *

* * 7 As the first question treated in his letter has merely reference to a special newspaper, and upon a point that has nothing to do with the argument of this pamphlet, I leave it out and I will turn to the second question. That is, to Mr. J. J. Curran, as an Irish Catholic representative and as a Conservative. I zepeat, I am not actuated by any political or personal motive in treating of this ques- tion. I do so in a spirit of fair-play. It is just that every man should have his opinioris, and have a right to express them, provided he does so as a gentleman should—in language and in tone that do not shock the feelings. It might seem egotism on Mr. Curran’s part were he to speak of himself as I purpose speaking of his conduct and principles. Perhaps I err ; I may not express them as he would like. If so, it is for him to set me right. As he is completely ignorant of my intention

to write upon this question, perhaps my views and his may not tally in.

all points ; yet I think they shall.

ot

BSS oo a .

EKe

5 question. tie your will allow ast week’s who may

nat of the lic views. Montreal as I have ention to on without

without me as an ge of my >) lay down

letter has. that has but and I

principles. f so, it is intention ot tally in.

15

The great accusation against Mr. Curran is, that he did not lead in

§ the second Home Rule Resolutions which Hon. Mr. Blake moved last

session.

On this point, for many reasons, I can speak with a thorough right—perhaps more so than any other man, except two, in Canada. Was Mr. Blake honest in his movement upon that occasion, or was it a

7 political dodge? I know not. But this I do know, that the taking hold

@ of the Home Rule resolution, in the midst of the fearful debate on the

Riel affair, and in face of the fact that similar resolutions were unani- mously accepted four years ago, gave evidence of very little foresight.

4 It was running the risk of having them defeated, which would have 4 ruined the good effect of the first resolutions ; or at best it was risking a

@ strong opposition to them.

In the very turmoil of that heated debate,

# when men of each political party were changing colors and flying in the § face of party principles (upon a side issue), it would be risking much to

RP:

jeapordize the effects of the first Home Rule resolutions by a hazard

@ under these circumstances. Now, that is a// that can be brought against

the Irish Catholic representatives. Saint Just, in his last speech to the French Convention, when

had his eyes plucked out by thieves of Sparta, and died in exile. Phocion

: and Socrates drank hemlock. Athens even on that day crowned herself

4 with flowers. | that these members moved the first resolutions and had them carried ; @ the scenes in the House during the sessions of ’79, 80, ’81, ’82, are @ forgotten.

# any party in Canada.

= he have received their support? Most assuredly not.

Lt signified not ; they had done good.” It matters not now

Well did the great Italian poet say that ingratitude lurks along the public highway. Now, to put the question plainly : As what

4 was Mr. J. J. Curran elected? Was it asa Home Ruler? That might

be the issue in Ireland, but it cannot become the political platform of Ne matter how strongly we may favor Irish Home Rule, yet it is not even a plank in tke Canadian political plat- form. Then, as what was he elected? It is a simple question. You can give but one answer: “ As an Irish Catholic Conservative, to repre- sent the interests of Montreal Centre.” ‘lhen has he remained an Irish Catholic? Did he waver as a Conservative? Has he neglected the special interests of his constituency ? Why not fight a man upon these issues, and not upon personal grounds or upon trans-atlantic politics ? Edmund Burk said that a man, “once elected, represented the minority as well as the majority, and the men who opposed him as weil as the men who supported him.” Mr. Curran may have been elected by a majority of his own nationality and creed ; but he also was elected by men of other creeds and nationalities. He represented the English, Scotch, French, and above. all, Irish of Montreal Centre. Did they’ elect him to represent their interests or not? Were he a Liberal would Then it was as

a Conservative, in Canadian politics, that Montreal Centre sent him to Ottawa ; and his duty there was to look after the special interests of his = own constituency, and to adhere to the Conservative party. He did so.

16

Then the only fault that could be found with him would be in his choice

between political parties. Was he consistent, as an Irishman, in joining |

and remaining faithful to the Conservative party ?

Listen to Thomas Francis Meagher, at Boston, in 1862 : “Twas a |

Radical at home ; I am a Conservative in America. I was a Libefal, a Revolutionist, a Radical in Ireland, because I fought for those rights

which were denied my country, and I wished to overthrow the despotism |

in the land. I am a Conservative here, because Here I enjoy those rights for which I fought in Ireland, and my duty is to conserve them

for my children.” It is so in Canada. Here the Irishman enjoys the |

privileges and liherties for which, in Ireland, he fought ; and here, if he be consistent, it is his duty to preserve intact those liberties and rights. What business has he to change the very institutions for which his ancestors struggled, and to obtain which the people of Ireland are fight-

ing manfully to-day? And supposing Home Rule be granted, does it |

mat become the duty of Parnell and the others to conserve that for which they fought so hard ?

As an Irishman, he most certainly was consistent in adopting that line of politics in Canada ; having adopted that ticket, he was elected upon it; he was consistent in remaining faithful to the party to support which he had been elected ; he was consistent in obeying the mandate received from the majority of the electors of Montreal Centre ; he was prudent and wise in not rushing forth, in the midst of that fever of more than frantic debate, with resolutions which might mar the effects of the first Home Rule Resolutions. If he was prudent then he was equally open and outspoken in the case of the first resolutions ; if he was out- spoken upon them, he was equally so upon the Orange Bill. Consistent throughout, they cannot fight him upon a public ground; they must go into personal issues ; they cannot furnish argument for argument ; they must use vile terms and slanderous language. An Irish Canadian Con- servative is what he claims to be; as such, both as Irish, as Canadian and as Conservative, he has been consistent. Now, face the man upon the real Canadian political issue, and see what you can make of the contest.

The special questions that arise from the letters published some

time ago are merely secondaty. For nearly nine months past, the Pos?

and Zrue Witness have been attacking Mr. Curran right and left. But read all the articles written against him and other Irish Catholic repre- sentatives ; add together a// that has been said against them ; then cut out of those articles and letters all that is personal, either as to the writers

‘ or as to the ones against whom they are written ; strip them of all their

‘vague accusations, their repetitions, more or less exact, of the same

‘ hackneyed expressions, their mass of common-place Billingsgate, their

heaps of synonymous and offensively unrefined adjectives—and what remains? Facts distorted and repeated in every possible shape and in every imaginable species of grating language ; not one vea/ argument ;

not

n kis choice | @ that is not contradicted by its own minor or else concluston.

, in joining

: “Twasa

a Libefal, a

those rights e despotism |

enjoy those serve them enjoys the | here, if he and rights. - which his id are fight- ed, does it rve that for

opting that was elected ’ to support he mandate re; he was ver of more ects of the as equally e was out- Consistent ey must go ent; they adian Con- 5 Canadian man upon ake of the

shed some t, the Pos? left. But olic repre-

then cut the writers bf all their the same gate, their and what pe and in rgument ;

# abusive and personal language.

@ and is considered clever journalism.

others are in the same box. @ present.

17

not one shadow of a political syllogism ; not one established premise

Of late the reader might find column after column of the most No sailor on the wharves of Quebec, no raftsman on the rapids of the Ottawa would make use of similar expressions with regard to a companion. Still chis passes for argument Quousque tandem abutere patientia nostra |

When I speak of Mr. Curran I merely take him as an example ; I will say no more upon the subject at Merely, will 1 ask the readers of certain papers to pause after

@each sentence they read and ask themselves: “Is this prompted by @ jealousy, envy, passion, irreflectio.., or desire for the public good ?”

‘se is it prompted by a pure

Yours, &c., JOSEPH K. FORAN. AYLMER, Que, r,th July, 1886.

| ! } i i t } { | |

Ee al et

~

CHAPTER IV.

HON, EDWARD BLAKE AS AN IRISHMAN, AND AS A SYMPATHIZER (?) WITH IRISH CATHOLICS.

In the latter of my two letters I ask if Mr. Blake was honest in his bringing in the Home Rule resolutions during the last session or not ? and I reply that “I know not!” It would be unfair for me, or any man, to gratuitously assert that either Mr. Blake, or any other public man, was prompted by evil or false motives in adopting any particular line of conduct. It is not possible for me to know what was passing in the mind of Mr. Blake when he grasped at that opportunity of ingra- tiating himself into the favor of Irish Catholics. But I judge from his past, from his speeches, from his conduct after the last general election towards Irish Catholics, from the political situation, and finally from his every move since the day that ambition prompted him to abandon a most lucrative law business, for the more dazzling, yet more uncertain career of politics. Fairly judging the man from these standpoints, we cannot fail to form an idea of what motives actuated him upon that memorable and much commented occasion.

Far be it from me to assert that Mr. Blake would injure, inten. tionally, any class or creed for the sake of personal ends. I respect too much his character and ability to pander to such unworthy insinuations; but I can say, and prove, that as a political leader, and above all since he succeeded in ousting the Hon. Alexander Mackenzie from the lead- ership, his ambition has daily augmented, assumed gigantic proportions and whatsoever may contribute to the gratification of that ambition he has always been ready to utilize. Like Napoleon the First—“ grand gloomy and peculiar, he sits upon his throne, a sceptred hermit, wrapt in the solitude of his own originality.” Seemingly unapproachable, yet ceaselessly learning secrets, which he hoards up but disdains to admit as important, or of interest to him. And I might apply to him again

at by

19

THIZER (?)

1est in his 1 or not? é, or any er public particular assing in of ingra- from his | election ally from bandon a Incertain oints, we pon that

fe, inten. pect too juations; all since he lead- portions tion he “ grand t, wrapt ble, yet ) admit again

the words of Charles Phillips: ‘ Princes and men may learn from him,

that if ambition can raise a man to the highest state, it can also pros-

trate him to the lowest.” His career-—public I mean—has been 4 prompted by that sole and predominating passion : he wishes to see every other man bow down before As intellect ; and this he has exhib- ited in public dealings with other men.

Take a man whose life is moving in such a circle and whose actions are prompted by that all powerful ambition, and it is impossible, com paratively speaking, to conceive him performing a public and important political feat, without that his object is to gain party ends.

To deny that Mr. Blake is an Irishman, would be to deny a fact proven. But to assert, or to pretend that Mr. Blake has, ever had, or could possibly have any sympathy for or feelings in common with Irish Catholics, is another thing,

Mr. Blake’s Home Rule speeches me often quoted by his ad- ' mirers. I admire him, as well as do others ; but I admire him for his ) great talent, for the ingenious manner in which he composed every sentence in his speeches on Irish questions. ‘There is more Celtic

warmth in one essay of Davis, and more Irish feeling in one phrase of | John Mitchel, than in all the pages of Hansard that contain the ) speeches of Mr. Blake: And they, as well as he, were Protestant /) Irishmen. Every word he used was picked out with caution and set — as carefully into the speech, as a precious pebble is set in the Mosaic of an Italian floor. Its color, strength, shape, meaning—all are examined. He rounds his phrases with a masterly power, but never ™ do they carry to the end a true ring of Irish metal. They open loud and clashing, like a broken gong; never do they sustain their sémdre, '. or prolong their vibrations, like the diapeson of a purely Irish effusion. * He poses, he commands, he parades himself, he displays his own indi- a viduality ; but never does he express himself upon any vital point ; ‘never does he touch any national chord ; never does he go into details ; ) never does he strive to awaken sympathy—it is not for Ireland, but for Edward Blake that he seems to speak.

Did he-care whether the resolutions were carried or not? I boldly 22 say he did not; and I will prove my assertion in succeeding Chapters. Whether carried or defeated, he knew that /e would get credit for bringing them’ in. In fact if defeated it would even better suit his

Purpose ; for then he could point across the floor and say to the Govern-

> a ten

———————— SS

GR eee Tents nme

Lh

20

ment party: “you defeated those resolutions, now answer your Irish fellow-countrymen for your conduct ; I wash my hands of it and I have done my duty.” As it is Mr. Costigan’s amendment saved such a disaster, and this too I purpose proving beyond a doubt. It is time for us to look the situation in the face, and I feel that every honest man will think with me, when he has concluded the reading of these pages.

I say Mr. Blake has proven his total indifference to Irish Catholics, to their interests and their cause. He has clearly told them, by his political acts, after the last election, that he did not want them. He has told them that there is no need of them, and that if he ever gets into power, although he may use them as the instruments of his elevatior . he will certainly cast them aside when the object of his life shall be gained.

“Come to proof” you say! I will: When after the last election Sir R. Cartwright was defeated, Mr. Blake, although supplied with

_ another financial luminary, proclaimed that he must have Sir Richard

Cartwright, and that he was required in the House. He at once got one of his minor satellites to withdraw and leave room for the worthy knight. ‘Then Mr. Edgar was defeated: Mr. Blake wanted him also. So another poor fellow had to get out and make way for Mr. Edgar. But, remember this: Hon. Mr. Anglin was defeated. He is an Irish Catholic, a life-long Reformer, a friend to Mr. Blake and his party, once speaker of the House, about the only Irish Catholic of any note or power in the Grit ranks, owner of a paper, a clever and learned man: yet Mr. Blake could find no constituency for him. Mr. Blake left that faithful friend in the cold and returned to Ottawa in triumph to take up Home Rule Resolutions and give the “gullible Irish,” a little soft saul- der to heal the wound and gloss over that wanton insult to their creed and nationality.

Need I recall the action of Mr. Blake on the O’Donoughuve quest- ion? By order in council passed the 13th February, 1875, full amnesty was granted to all those concerned in the first North-West rebellion, except Riel, Lepine and O’Donoughue. The order was so worded that scarcely cuuld its purpose be noted ; Riel and Lepine received pardon, on condition of five years banishment. But O’Donoughue was to have no condition, and no pardon. Mr. Costigan (then an ordinary member of the House) protested, and on the r2th. ot April 1877, he moved a resolution to the effect that O’Donoughue be treated as was Riel and

Lepine. Mr. Costigan spoke as an Irishman. When thus battling for

ver your Irish it and I have saved such a It is time for honest man these pages. ish Catholics, hem, by his em. He has er gets into elevatior. he hil be gained. last election pplied with Sir Richard at once got the worthy d him also. Mr. Edgar. is an Irish party, once ny note or rned man: ce left that to take up ‘ soft saul- heir creed

ue quest- lI amnesty rebellion, rded that 1 pardon, Ss to have y member moved a Riel and ttling for

sce oe ee

_) House to see where there was a place for Canadians.”

9»

21

fair play and even-handed justice, he was met by Mr. Blake (then the Minister of Justice.) In all the pomp of his commanding English ; in the well trained upokrisis (hypocrisy,) that first, second and last quality of a Demosthenic orator, Mr. Blake expressed ‘\is astonishment that the member for Victoria should have dared to demand pardon for a “ red- handed, rebel.” He harassed Mr. Costigan by interruptions most uncalled for, by the demands for the definition of ‘‘ justice,” the meaning of the word “sense,” the explanation of the word “act” and such like crotchety subtrefuges, (see Hansard for 12th April, 1877, pages 1406 and 1408.) Then in his own reply—(see //ansard, 12th. April 1877, pages, 1418, 1419, 1420, 1421, and 1422)—Mr. Blake displayed his real feelings towards Irishmen. ‘The hon. members who moved and seconded the resolution described the people who inhabited this country, as Frenchmen who stood shoulder to shoulder, as Scotchmen who stood shoulder to shoulder, as Englishmen who stood shoulder to shoulder, and Irishmen who did not stand shoulder to shoulder. As a Canadian of Irish Gescent, when he heard those sentiments he looked around the To make sure of himself, and for party purposes, Mr. Blake distinctly treated this simple resolution as a motion of want of confidence and it was defeated by a vote of 105 to 60. Mr. Blake found little enough room as a Canadian withoui assuming the vole of Irishman. Never dreaming that one day he would find it necessary to parade himself as an Irishman, he scoffed at the idea in 1877. Great statesman as he may be, his powers of political prophecy are small. Had he then been able to cast the

horoscope of the future, and to see adown that vista the Irish Resolu- tions to come, he never would have been party to so ungenerous a cause, | so unjust a purpose, so bigoted a line of policy as that sought to be enforced and actually carried out in the case of O’Donoughue.

I have not yet done with this “ Anti-Irish Irishman.”

CHAPTER V. HON. JOHN COSTIGAN AS A MINISTER—-HIS POSITION AND OBLIGATIONS.

This chapter will be short ; I merely wish to draw attention to the position occupied by Mr. Costiyan in the House to-day. Some people do not think for a moment of the fact that Mr. Costigan is no private member of parliament. He is a member of the Cabinet. As such he ds bound by an oath of office. He has a dozen colleagues acting with him. No matter how he may differ from them in his views, no matter what opinions he may hold that are adverse to thuirs, no matter how injured he may feel himself or his people, no matter what objections he may raise, or what pleas they may put forward, it matters not,—he is bound by the solemn oath of office to keep secret every word and move of that Cabinet, and were he to attempt to justify his conduct by the revealing of what has passed inside that avca a, he would be nothing more or less than a perjurer. You call upon him to tell why such an action was taken, why such another line of conduct was abandoned, what was said for or against the movements proposed. But surely you don’t want the man to break an oath in order to pander to curiosity ? Do you want him to become that which black pens strive to paint him, viz: a character unworthy of trust or faith? It becornes so fearfully ridiculous that one can scarcely command that patience necessary to deal quietly and calmly with such phases of the subject.

How does it come that we are always prone to find fault? If we can say evil of our neighbor we do so: we forget the good. If we have an equal chance of praising and disparaging, we censure with all our might. It is easy to say that 47s should be done and ¢hat should be done, but could you do it if you were in the representative’s placc ¢ Come now, be honest: how would you go about it? Give usa plan; show us something tangible ; map cut a prospectus; don’t censure and call names, don’t dictate and condemn, but give us some new aside,

BLIGATIONS,

tion to the pme people S no private AS such he acting with no matter Matter how jections he 10t,—he is and move ict by the de nothing ’ such an bandoned, surely you curiosity ? aint him, ) fearfully essary to

? 6If we we have h all our 10uld be $ placc ¢ } a plan ; sure and W aside,

23

Tell us what you would do, and what results you would obtain. Silent! And yet you condemn a man for not te!liag you that which his oath of office binds him to keep secret. You canvass his actions without knowing their motives. You shoot arrows before your adversary has time to take up his bow.

You do not, for no one dare, deny his brilliant services upon all questions that ..ould in any way touch the Irish or the Catholic interests ; the New Brunswick schools, the Orange biil: the first resolutions, etc. Yet, without knowing why, and without reflecting, you cast all this aside and you fly at the man, (or mea), for having really and truly saved the honor and effects of the first resolutions. I am speaking to the few: because you have not read Hansard and don’t know the real motive, then you spread broad-cast over the country reflections most vile and accusations most unjust.

Please read attentively the next chapier and I trust you will be able to perceive why Mr. Costigan did not or could not second the resolutions; why Mr. Curran refrained from bringing them up: why and how Mr. Costigan’s amendment saved their defeat. No matter who you are, provided you area Home Ruler, you certainly wished to see those resolutions carried. And I will prove that had not Mr. Costigan made his amendment they would have been defeated. Of course they were weaker than the first resolutions ; but who is in fault ? Those men, who could not see that such resolutions were untimely.

CizAPTER VI.

MR. MILLS’ AMENDMENT-—ITS RESULT—THE ONLY COURSE LEFT FOR

IRISH REPRESENTATIVES,

In this chapter I will put the question in a new light, anc. do so as simply as I can. After the resolutions were forced into the: House, despite the dangers to which thzy were going to be exposed, Mr. Blake seized upon the opportunity and moved them. Mr. Mills then moved an amendment tothe effect ‘“‘ that the name of Parnell be added to that of Gladstone, in the original resolutions.” To prove their sincere desire to aid in the work, and their real wish to have Ireland’s great leader Wi honored, the Irish-Catholic members (Conservative), one and all, voted

Mh | with the Opposition upon this amendment. Costigan, Curran, Daly, wih &c., all cast votes with the Liberals in order to express their admiration of Parnell and devotion to Ireland. What was the result ? The amend- ment was lost by 87 to 69. By a majority cf sixteen the name of Parnell was left out, showing that it was not to honor him, to serve Ireland, but to praise the Liberal leader, and for party purposes that the resolutions were t~’~i up by the Grit faction. Then arose the danger. Had Costigan, Curran, Bergin, Daly, &c., voted with Mr. Blake on the original motion, the result would necessarily have been the same ; the Blake resolutions would have been defeated by a majority of sixteen. Then would these Irish Catholics have stultified themselves! They would have given a powerful weapon to Salisbury, Chamberlain and Churchill. These men could have pointed to Canada and said, “ four yeais ago the Dominion favored Hume Rule, but since it has changed its opinion and it miust have good reasons for so doing.” Mr. Blake would have reaped the benefit of having taken them up; while their defeat would have suited all his other political purposes. What re- mained for Mr. Costigan and others to do? Save at all hazards the Gefeat! Mr. Costigan then, seeing that the vote would run on party

LEFT FOR

anc do so he: House, Mr. Blake len moved led to that ere desire eat leader all, voted an, Daly, dmiration e€ amend- name of to serve ; that the > danger. > on the me ; the sixteen, ! They ain and , . four changed . Blake le their hat re- rds the Nn party

25

lines, despite his and his colleagues’ efforts and their votes for the Opposition, and that certain defeat stared them in the face, and knowing that the Conservative vote was the stronger, he grasped, in a statesman- like manner, the situation and moved an amendment which had the effect of tiding the resolutions over the shoal, and saving them from being swamped. And for this amendment he is condemned. Men come out to condemn, in no measured terms, the very action which was

the salvation of the cause.

CHAPTER VII.

HON, MR. COSTIGAN’S FIDELITY TO THE HOME RULE CAUSE SINCE 1882— HIS LETTER TO THE MARQUIS OF LORNE.

It has been stated that Mr. Costigan ceased to take an interest in the Irish cause after che passing of the Home Rule resolutions of 1882. It is true he did not go about crying from the house-tops his Irish senti- ments ; but unknown to the public, in secret and in the quiet sphere that lies beyond the din of public tumult he unceasingly labored for that cause. Did some Irish-Canadians but know the one-half of his actions and movements to aid and further the Home Rule cause, they would blush with shame at having treated the quiet worker so disgracetully. Because he did not parade his every act before the public gaze they - think he was silent and inactive. In 1883, before any definite plan of Home rule was adopted by the Irish party at home, and when the Marquis of Lorne was about to leave Canada, he wrote to Mr. Costigan asking that Mr. Costigan should point out what measures he deemed necessary for Ireland, in order that these suggestions might be used, on the other side of the Atlantic, to Ireland’s benefit. Before Gladstone favored Home Rule, before Parnell’s platform was completed, here is what Hon. John Costigan, sent to the Marquis of Lorne. As Minister of the Crown and as an Irishman, this so much abused man, placed the following powerful statement in the hands of Her Majesty’s representative.

‘“‘ Ottawa, 18th June, £883.

‘“DkAR Lorp Lorne: In your letter of the 8th inst., you ask me “to pomt out what measures I deem most useful for Ireland.

“T am thoroughly convinced that Home Rule is the measure that ‘“‘Trishmer at home and abroad expect. I am also of opinion that no “‘ other measure, which will not place the control of Local Legislature “and administration in the hands of the Irish people, will be satisfactory “to them, or productive of that harmony which is so essential to the “ well-being of the Empire.

882—

rest in f 1882. 1 senti- sphere for that actions would

i 9 5 4 »

27

“ T an. aware of the existence of difficulties in the way of giving to ‘“‘ Ireland a system of local government similai' to that enjoyed by the 4‘ Provinces of Canada ; but I believe those difficulties are iess numerous ‘“‘and less complicated than the difficulties that presented themselves to “the framers of our present constitution, and snould be as easy of being “provided for in the case of Ireland as they were in the case of the “different provinces now comprised in the Canadian Confederation. “The difticulties in the way seem to be of a triple nature. The large ‘‘ owners of property look with dread at the prospect of entrustiny vested ‘interests in the hands of men who would be new to the responsibilities ‘of administering a people’s affairs. They seem to fear the teachings “of Socialism, and to think that if Ireland were free from her present ‘moorings, confiscation of all existing proprietary rights would follow. “ Then English pride revolts at the danger of disintegrating the Empire. “Tt views with alarm the proposal to ‘establish what it considers might ‘be a hostile Parliament in Ireland, and even moderate Englishmen “ fancy that such an experiment would be dangerous. Again the religious ‘“‘ minority in Ireland appear to think that its liberties would be in danger, ‘‘and they question the propriety of entrusting their future to the keeping “ of rmen with whom they have had long and bitter feuds.

‘‘ Those are, in my opinion, among the prominent difficulties which ‘‘the Imperial Government have to overcome, and if they can be satis- “‘ factorily guarded against the experiment of granting Home Rule to “ Treland might be attempted without arousing the fears of the landlords, ‘“‘the dread of Imperial shipwreck, or the terror of religious persecution. ‘“‘ Tf the Imperial Government reserved to itself the right of ze¢o over all ‘Trish Legislation, as the Government of the Dominion has over all “‘ Acts of Provincial Legislatures, the dangers of Socialism, confiscation “or persecution would at once vanish. With such a pow-r vested ‘‘interests would be as safe as they are now, the integrity of the Empire “just as secure, and the liberties of the minority just as free from the ‘dangers of extinction. The Irish Prrliament would have no power to ‘successfully assail either one or the other. ‘The chances are that the “desire for doing so would not exist. The past history of Ireland, as ‘well as the current events go to strengthen this supposition, for it is a ‘“‘ well-known fact that, in all their struggles, men differing in religious ‘‘ belief from. the majority, have always been among the most trusted “leaders of the people. In the East, South and West, gentlemen hold- ‘‘ing religious views contrary to theirs enjoy to-day the highest repre- “ sentative officers, legiz'ative and municipal within their gift, and there ‘can be no just reason for anticipating that the conduct of the majority “in the future would differ from their action in the past ; but, assuming “the worst, the people of Ireland would be powerless in view of tue “safeguard which the ze¢o wonld ensure. But there could bea still ‘“‘ greater safeguard. These difficulties could be finally settled before ‘* Home Rule were granted at all. ‘The land question could be settled ‘“now. In fact I believe no system of Home Rule would succeed in

28

“Treland unless that question were first settled. No matter how that “question is disposed of at present, the ultimate solution of it must be a “medical one. Ireland must have a peasant proprietary sooner or later | “ and it should be for more satisfactory to the landlords and better for “the Empire to have the difficulty ended by an Imperial enactment than ‘risk the success of Home Rule by leaving so difficult a problem to be * solved by the first Local Legislature. And the integrity of the Empire | “‘ would be secured in the same way ; everything affecting that integrity os ‘might be reserved for Imperial administration and Ireland would have ‘‘no more power to break away from Great Britain than any Province in L | “the Dominion would have to break away from the Confederation. 1 “ With our power of vefo and the control of the militia, the danger of id im “secession is removed and there is no reason, that I can see, that Great i. ; “ Britain could not guard her interests in a similar way. oe a * “Nor do I see any danger which might threaten the minority in @ “Ireland that could not be guarded against. Your Lordship may i “remember that at the time of Confederation the Protestant minority a ‘“‘of Quebec asked for certain guarantees. They rightly wished that “their interests should in someway be guarded in order that they should * “have a fair share of representation in the House of Commons as well a “as in the Local Legislature of their Province. What was done? In q “the Eastern Townships there was a Protestant minority, and twelve “constituencies were so arranged as that they would have Protestant ee ‘‘ majorities, thus securing Protestant representation to the minority of a ‘“‘Quebec. This arrangement stands good to this day. Why could not Me “a similar arrangement be made in Ireland in arranging the constituen- a “cies for the Local Parliament? The North could be so divided that Bit “ certain constituencies would have Protestant majorities, thus securing “to the minority fair representation. In fact the chances are that the ‘minority wouid hold the balance of power. There would be, as there “now is, a large portion of the Irish Catholics who would defend ‘* Protestant liberties as readily as they would defend their own, and | ‘any attempt to interfere with these rights would end as disastrously as i “if an attempt were made to extinguish che rights of the Protestant ‘| ‘minority in the Province of Quebec, or of the Roman Catholic os Y “minority of the other Provinces. ‘Thus, my Lord, it appears that the “ three great difficulties in the way could be removed by surrounding “the proposed Constitution with safeguards which in a great way have ‘‘ already been adopted with marked success here.” x * * 5 x Zo bl 3] “‘ There is another “serious aspect of the Irish question which a careful student of the et “English press cannot fail to notice. That press is continually pointing ry “out the difficulties in the way of Home Rule, but never tells us of the 4 “ advantages such a change in Ireland would be to the Empire at large. “* No thought seems to be given to the security and peace that a satisfac- “tory solution of the difficulties in Ireland would bring to Canada alone. ot + + * * * * * * “Home Rule would,

rR ee one

x

Sg" Sas a Mice Se

“Tam, ce

yw that ist be a or later tter for nt than 1 to be Empire ntegrity ld have vince in eration. nger of it Great

rity in ip may ninority ed that should as well e? In twelve testant Ority of uld not stituen- ed that ecuring hat the as there defend wn, and Dusly as ptestant atholic at the bunding ay have

another of the bointing s of the nt large. satisfac- a alone. would,

29

“‘beyond a doubt, consolidate, not weaken, the Empire. It would “make the Irish at home as loyal as the Irish in Canada and the “ Colonies, and it would remove all causes of serious agitation on the ‘“‘ part of extremists. That loyalty would be cheaply purchased by the ‘‘ surrender to the Irish people of the management of their local affairs. ‘¢ England should accept the national aspirations of the Irish people as “a burning fact, and instead of decrying it, utilize it for her as well as “Treland’s benefit. How strong that national aspiration is, the attempt ‘‘of the Pope to interfere with the Parnell testimonial fully proves. * as + * That sentiment should be accepted as a factor in the “‘ present struggle, and ,it would be wise if the English Government ‘allowed it generous and legitimate play. * * * * “‘ With reference to the Franchise, I see no reason why the English law “‘ of household suffrage with a larger Franchise should not be applied to ‘‘Treland. It would not do to have a more restrictive Franchise in “Treland than in England, and to us in this country it appears an “anomaly that the poorer country should have the larger assessment in “ order to qualif-: for the electorate.”

*“* As to Provincial Legislatures, I can see no reason for their adop- ‘tion. They would add materially to the burdens of the people without “corresponding advantages. One Parliament would be sufficient with “County Boards and such a Municipal system as are have here. If that ‘‘ Parliament were vested with power enough to control local affairs, “‘ strong enough to develope the resources of the country, and prudent ‘“‘ enough to expend advantageously its share of the revenue, peace and ‘contentment would reign once more in Ireland. All this can, I be- “lieve, be easily accomplished, andif it be done within a reasonable “time I am convinceu we will witness an outburst of Irish loyalty that “ will be an additional guarantee of the stability of the Empire and the “security of the Throne.

‘“‘ Having now, my Lord, given you an idea of my opinion on the “Trish question, I avail myself of the opportunity of congratulating your ‘‘ Lordship and Her Royal Highness on the pleasing fact that in sever- ‘ing your official connection with them, you carry with you the best “wishes of the Canadian people, for your prosperity and happiness, and ‘‘to assure you that no portion of them wish that prosperity and happiness “to yourself and Her Royal Highness more fervently than do the Irish,

“Believe me to be, erc., &c , “ Dear Lord Lorne, “Yours very truly, “JOHN COSTIGAN.”

Remember it was in the summer or 1883 this was written. It came

from a Minister of the Crown to the representative of England in

Canada, and was to be conveyed by that representative to England and

i “ i i

80

to be placed before the English Government. Also we must remember that in 1883 Gladstone was yet wavering with regard to the Irish question. What mighty effect this communication had in opening the eyes of the ‘grand old man,” and in leading to the generous and noble effort which he made, last winter, to introduce the Home Rule Bill, may be gleaned from a comparison between the policy maped out by Mr. Costigan in 1883, and that adopted by Gladstone in 1886. Any careful student of the two cannot fail to perceive their striking connection. And yet, while Costigan’s silent and unostentatious efforts were thus working magical wonders beyond the ocean, because he could not come forward to lay before the public his every act, some people in Canada saw fit to upbraid him, and accuse him of a want cf interest in the Irish cause.

Here I will point out another fact generally overlooked. Mr Costigan’s first resolutions passed throngh both Houses, and were an expression of the Senate as well as Commons of Canada. In 1886 Mr. Blake took no steps to have his resolution introduced or passed through the Senate. And why? The Senate is not an elective body and there was no political end to be’gained by having its sanction to the move- ments of an Opposition, that irresponsible portion, of the Commons.

By the same reason that prevented him from grasping at popular favor, by bringing second resolutions (to destroy the effects not only of the first ones, but also of all his private labor in the cause), namely, that it was not the time ; by that reason I am prevented from coming forth with the details of every move upon the board. But when it is the time, you may look out for more. Did those writers, who move by impuise and outbursts of passion, only know the sincere and constant efforts of their present representatives to further their interests here and their cause at home, they would strike their breasts with compunction and say, that noblest word that man can say, ‘‘I was wrong.”

Bi)!

ember estion. of the which leaned gan in lent of , while nagical to lay pbraid

1. Mr ere an 86 Mr. hrough 1 there - move- ons. opular only of y, that y forth is the bve by Dnstant re and hnction

CHAPTER VIII.

THE POINTED HORNS OF A DILEMMA ARE OFFERED MR. J. J. CURRAN

AND HON. J. COSTIGAN,

In one of my letters I pointed out that no matter whether the representative acts or refrains from acting, he is accused all the same. Now the question is put every day: “Why did not Mr. Costigar, or Mr. Curran move the resolutions in 1886?” Why Mr. Costigan could not have done so, I have to a certain extent told you ; why Mr. Curran could not have done so I have also pointed out: but now I come to another phase of the question. I say Mr. Costigan would have ruined all his former efforts had he done so and would have used the Irish cause (as Mr. Blake did) to gain popularity for himself; Mr. Curran would have run counter of Mr. Costigan’s movements and then given rise to a fresh division and caused another split, in the already too much split up Irish people. Again I say, and will come to the proof at once, that neither Mr. Costigan sor Mr. Curran could have come out with resolutions in opposition to the public expression of sentiment to the contrary, and the puclic statement that such a movement would be hurtful. Mr. Curran, as the Irish Catholic member for Montreal Centre, could never run in direct opposition to the will cf the Irishmen of his division. Read the following: This appeared in the Ottawa parliamentary correspondence of the Montreal! /os¢, on the 15th April, 1884. It was also embodied in the Zrue Witness :—

““HomE RuLeE: It is said that a resolution will be proposed in Parliament sympathizing with Mr. Gladstone and the Irish people on the prospect of obtaining Home Rule for Ireland. Should this be proposed from the Ministerial side of the House tt will be understood at once as a Tory dodge to win back Irish support. It is hard to see, however in what way ‘t can benefit them now that their chief organ, the Mazi, followed by the entire Tory press, have shown themselves bitterly hostile to Irish autonomy and justice to the Irish people. Mr.

| | I j 1

82

Blake and the Liberal party, on the other hand, have proved their friendship to the Irish cause and have no need of formulating their views on Mr. Gladstone’s bill. The Irish people are not to be hum- bugged. The records of the both parties are before them. The press has shown the feeling prevailing in either camp. But the time has passed for resolutions of the kind. ‘The present attitude of the Tory party and press gives the lie to their former professions and convicts them of gross hypocrisy in dealing with the great Irish question. It matters little what they say or do. We are on the eve of victory, and know who our friends have been in the long struggle.”

The italics are my own. In the face of the assertion that the time had passed for such resolutions, and in the presence of the fact that had the Irish Conservative members taken up the resolutions, they would be considered as playing a Tory dodge, how could they come forward with any such movement? This requires no comment. There it stands in its scarlet wickedness. No matter how they were to act it was pre-arranged that they should Fe condemned; aad by the very same paper and very same people that cried them down for not bringing in the resclutions.

There is another point yet that must not go by untouched. Some parties have tried to make the public believe that Mr. Wm. O'Brien M. P. and editor of Parnell’s organ the United Ireland, said that Mr. Costigan’s amendment injured the Blake Resolutions. I cannot believe that Mr. O’Brien would contradict himself so openly.. His statement has, either willfully or accidentally, been misunderstood. I here give verbatim et literatim, what Mr. O’Brien said, on the same topic, in United Ireland, the 15th May, 1886.

“Great capital is sought to be made by a couple of Tory papers out of the fact that the Dominion House of Parliament has by a large majority rejected the resolution of Mr. Blake, leader of the opposition,

in favor of Self-Government. On looking at the telegraphed report of the debate on the question we are opaque enough to fail to discern any

particular ground for Tory delight. The debate, we perceive, lasted

until five o’clock in the morning, and in the result an amendment of Mr.

‘Costigan, a member of the Ministry, was adopted. The amendment

differed very little in substance, though it did in construction, from the proposed resolution. It expressed a cordial interest in the welfare and prosperity of the Irish people, and adhered to the sentiments expressed in

the last address to the Crown on the subject of granting a measure of self-

government to Ireland. While declining to forward any fresh Address, having regard to the snub then administered by the Tory (?) govern-

-mgnt, the Canadian Parliament reiterates, its good wishes for Ireland,

83

and ‘earnestly hopes; that some measure satisfactory to its people mr y be passed. Now, where is the cause of our contemporaries’ unholy joy ? Between amendment and resolution it is all but a case of tweedle-dum and tweedle-dee. The advantage, if any, is on the side of Irish liberty ; for it is from the responsible Ministry these good wishes emenate, not from the irresponsible Opposition.”

I will close this chapter with the words of the Dublin Freeman's Journal, edited by Mr. E. Dwyer Gray, M.P. Referring to numerous congratulatory messages received by Parnell, he says. “The most notable of these is the long and deeply earnest ccmmuncation of the Minister of Inland Revenue in Canada, the Hon. John Costigan, who speaks on behalf of the Irish representives in the Dominion Parliament, is, we need hardly retnind our readers, the mover of the celebrated series of resolutions in favor of Home Rule for Ireland, passed in 1882, and which was the first expression of its kind in favor of the Irish National demand. Mr. Costigan also moved the amendment to the resolutions in the Dominion Parliament a few days ago, and the purport of which was so ludicrously misinterpreted by several of our home journals, as well as some across the Channel.” The Western People, the leading Nationalist paper in the West of Ireland, reproduces Mr. Costi- gan’s cablegram to Mr. Parnell and says. ‘The distinguished Canadian Minister, John Costigan, sends from Ottawa a message of sympathy and encouragement to Mr. Parnell.”

Let this suffice! Can any one pretend, now, that Costigan, Curran and the other Irishmen (Conservatives,) in the House, did not act properly when they adopted the line of conduct for which sume would condemn them? Can any person fail to see that Mr. Blake’s cause savoured much of demagougism and party ends? Unless you are completely blinded by party prejudices you cannot but, now, see that the course followed by these men, was the only honorable and _ national one.

A few words upon the position occupied by Mr. J. J. Curran. In my second letter I referred to it ; but some have, willfully or accident- ally, misconstrued my meaning. There exists a tacit agreement in Montreal that one division should be represented by an English-speaking Protestant, another by a French-Canadian Catholic, and the third by an Irish-Canadian Catholic. Mr. Curran is the one who was chosen and elected, by one of the largest majorities in the Dominion, to represent Montreal Centre. He actually is the representative of the wealthiest

34

division in Canada. No other constituency, in all the Dominion, can

approach Montreal Centre in commercial importance and wealth, It is

as an Irish Catholic (in the first place) and as a Conservative that he

has been chosen. ‘There are in his immense division Scotch and Eng-

lish, as well as Irish business men ; and his grand and all important

duty is to see to the interests of that division and to adhere to the party | whose policy filled its docks with shipping, its wharves with rail-cars and | its commercial houses with prosperity. A task more than sufficient for a man of less ability ; yet, while fulfilling that task, he never lost sight of the fact that?he is an Irish Catholic ; and upon all occasions, when it could benefit his people’s cause, he was to the front. No important business man ‘of Montreal has ever found fault with him. He was faithful to them and they will be staunch to him. Those who raise cries, excite passions, inflame prejudices, must sooner or later feel the reaction, like the boomerang they hit backwards.

ey Vv

ea

CHAPTER IX.

BY WHOM WOULD THEIR ENEMIES REPLACE OUR PRESBNT IRISH-

CATHOLIC REPRESENTATIVES ?

Do you want “to jump from the frying pan into the fire”? A few days ago a man, with whom I was travelling from Montreal, said to me: “If we could only get Curran, and Bergin, and Costigan out, we'd be all right. Zhey are not the thing. We want Irish-Catholic representation.” I asked him what were his politics. He replied that he was, in principle, a Conservative. Now, does that man imagine that the Grits and Mr. Blake are going to supply us with Irish-Catholic representatives? If he does he is badly mistaken. He is of those who would cure a headache by cutting off the head.

In vain have I scanned the political horizon—with a Grit telescope or a Conservative field-glass—in vain have I looked for a sign of any man, or men, to replace those we have. Let us suppose, tor the moment, that they are even worse than they have been painted by their enemies ; yet are we going to silence our only mouthpicces, and leave their seats to be filled by men of other creeds and other nationalities ?

Again, are we going to render ourselves notoriously unjust and ungrateful, merely to please a few dissatisfied characters, who (no matter what might be done) could never be satisfied ? Mark well, that it is from the ignorant and the unreflecting that all such cries come. But these people do not raise the cry until it has been taught to them by knaves, who wish to use them as tools.

Please point me out the man, or the men, in Canada to-day that a change of parties would give to the Irish cause ? I have placed in its true light the situation of Mr. Anglin. Scan the whole Reform array and find me another Costigan or another Curran. Find me a man to have acted as Costigan and Curran did during the Orange Questions, the School Questions, the Amnesty Questions, the Irish Questions,

36

Show mea man, who after carrying the first resolutions, and seeing the danger of the second ones, and after his advice was discarded and when the movement was going to pieces, would rush to the breach and save, for his very opponents, the cause they would have ruined. Come! Look about and point me out the men to replace these men ; tc do better ; to be sincerer ; to be more faithful ; to be more able; to give us some newer ideas ; to map out for us some more original plans ; to improve the condition of Irish Catholic :epresentation !

You may have a better optical instrument than I possess; I will thank you for a sign upon the political expanse. In all the range of our vision we cannot find men to repiace them ; unless they be men of other creeds and other nationalities ; unless they be men less abl2 and less experienced ; unless they be men who have never done anything and who are not qualified to do anything for our people. And, with all the faults that you chose to impute to your present representatives, can you reconcile yourself to a blank in the House? Take them out, and you have no one to speak, to act, or to even think for you. We must not commit suicide at least! Surely we are not so blind as not to perceive the true aspect of the situation. I speak thus, upon the supposition that they are even worse than they have been represented ; but I actually believe and I really know, that in no other country, and by no other creed or nationality, have more brilliant and beneficial services been rendered to a cause, than have been rendered by these men to the cause of Irish Catholics in Canada.

When we consider the vast flood of opposition which they have so long and so calmly, yet forcibly stemmed, it becomes wonderful to contemplate. We are too prone to forget the circumstances by which these men are surrounded, and in cur actual safety we forget the dangers from which they protect us. Like the flood-gates of Holland, that keep back the Zuyder Zee, the people revel in joy while the gates are secure; but a breach in one of them would deluge the land and destroy a whole country. So while these men are in the gap we consider ourselves safe ; but take them away and then beware of the deluge! It is easy to keep them there; but open the gate, and when the waters rush in it requires almost super-human strength to shut it again; take one of these men away und then arises the almost impossible task of replacing him and of securing anew our safety and peace.

You may say that these men have faults. No person is going to

CN en ee

ETO Ne,

37

deny that fact. We all have faults, some more, some less ; but none of us are perfect. Humanum est errare. However, I ask you to fird me men without any faults. Ah! if you can perform that most wonderful feat, then I will be the first to swell the /o Pean of the new- comers. But before you produce your perfect men, please attempt the lighter task of procuring better men than those we have. Just try to find substitutes for them—men with fewer shortcomings and with more ability and more desire to do good.

The editor ot an edition of Davis’ Essays, in his introduction to the volume, uses a few remarks that can well be applied to the present case in Our own country. “But though great men, wise men, kingly men, cannot but be few, good men and true men need not be so scarce as they are,—men, I mean, true to their own convictions, and prompt in their country’s need,—not greedy of distinction, but knowing wel! the hived sweetness that abides in an unnoticed life,—and yet not shrinking from responsibility, or avoiding danger, when the hour of trial comes. It is such men that this country needs, and not flaunting histrionists, or empty, platform patriots.” And it is such men that we have; men who have patience as well as courage and who know how to bide their time, as well as to move forward when the occasion demands it.

a

CHAPTER X, A FEW CONCLUDING WORDS,

I did not write these pages to injure any person, to hurt the most delicate feelings of any one, nor to seek any other end than one of justice towards those whose position, in the stormy vortex of public life, renders them open to unjust and scurrilous attacks. I have not to deal with finance, nor a government’s policy, therefore I avoid figures and extracts from blue-books. My theme being only Irish Catholic Repre- sentation in Canada, I think I have touched upon the most vital | ».nts of the question. The necessity of union between ourselves ; the past conduct of our representatives ; the vileness of vituperation and the bootlessness of censure ; the traps laid for the credulous by our opponents ; the mask of the Opposition leader and his true colors, as proven by, his past actions ; the absolute need of men in the house and in the cabinet ; the ability of the men actually there ; the absence of any men fit to replace them ; the honest view of the Home Rule question ; the dangers to which the resolutions were exposed ; how Mr. Costigan saved them ; Mr. Curran’s position as member for Montreal centre; and finally our exagerated ideas of a member’s power and our unreasonable demands upon our representatives.

I fancy that I have covered most of the ground. I have not entere.’ into any details. These pages are written upon general principles and upon the largest possible views of the question. I had originally intended to reproduce only the two letters to the Irish Canadian ; but I deemed some of these remarks necessary, in order to more clearly explain the situation. .

In closing I will say that perhaps, in the near future, [ may come again with a pamphlet of details and minute facts ; for the present thes: few arguments must suffice. Read these attentively and form a just aii 2 unprejudiced judgment, propagate these ideas and put these precepts

39

into vigorous practise, and your country will reap the benefit ; you will bring credit upon the Irishman’s cause in this land of our adoption, and thereby reflect honor upon the grand oid land for whose future peace, freedom and glory, we are all bound to labor and pray. Above all be united ! Have confidence in your representatives! Be faithful to each other and success must smile upon you! For my part, having faith in our leaders, although the humblest in the ranks and the last in the file, I am ever ready, without dispute or gainsay, to follow wheresoever they may go or command me to go, be it into the arena of intellect, unto the tented field, into the sanctuary of peace, or even the hermitage of silence.