Alumni Oration

"The Alumni Oration By Dr. S.W. Dyde" University Monthly 29,8 (1910): 202-211. (UA Case 67a, Box 1)

I trust that little apology will be needed for my choice of subject. The old quarrel between the pedagogue and the politician has in these days lost much of its force, owing, on the one hand, to the widespread belief that a sound education is perhaps the greatest national asset, and on the other hand, to the growing conviction that national problems can be solved not by ready-made formulae, but only by a patient consideration of the facts. And it is in this spirit of appeal to the facts that I crave your attention this afternoon to what I wish to say on Canada.

I make no other claim to speak on this subject than that which you all might make equally well, namely, that of being deeply interested in it, and it is my utmost ambition to give expression to what you are all feeling, a deepening expression for our fair and noble land, and a larger hope for all our countrymen, whether newly arrived or native born.

It is just now generally thought that Canada is taking a positive step forward in what we may perhaps be allowed to call its national life, that it is passing from childhood into lusty youth. But with all growth come added responsibilities, and the measure of our size as a people is our willingness to accept those responsibilities. It was told of Theseus long, long ago, that when as a little boy he expressed to his mother his wish to go away to Athens to his father, the king of that city, she pointed out to him a mighty moss grown boulder, sunk in the ground, and told him that when he could heave that rock from its bed he might set out on his travels. Years passed, and when at last he was able to loosen and dislodge the rocky mass, he found under it a sword and a pair of sandals. It was only if he was prepared to put the sandals on his feet and buckle the sword to his side that he could step out into the world. It is with the growing people as with the growing youth. Advance in age and power brings increase of responsibility. In the serious mind responsibility is always coupled with privilege. We are now being frequently reminded in Canada that we must be imperial, we must think imperially, speak imperially, act imperially, if we are to be true to ourselves as a growing nation. And in sympathy with this advice I beg to present the motto of this address, namely—"A United Canada, in a United Empire, for a united Race."

If we are to be a nation, we must be united amongst ourselves; we must see our advantage in the light of the larger advantage of the Empire; we must firmly believe that we grow and prosper most securely, and attain to a permanent place in history, if we keep steadily in view the good of mankind. We must act and think nationally, imperially, humanly: Let me speak of these three points separately, and first;

A United Canada

Many of as still speak of ourselves as English Canadians, Scotch Canadians, Irish Canadians or French Canadians, as the case may be, as if Canada itself were still a "no man's land"—although D'Arcy McGee, and after him Principal Grant, urged upon us to drop the prefix and become not hyphenated Canadians, but all Canadians together.

To be Canadians is to stand on a ground broad enough and roomy enough for all. If the Maple Leaf is our emblem it must evoke the enthusiasm of all. In Ontario there still lingers a certain narrowness; in Quebec also a certain narrowness; but if we are able to be all Canadians together, we must see beyond the differences of language, race and creed to one common country, a common flag and a common destiny. Often in Ontario, when we sing the song of the Maple Leaf we make an improper change in the words written by the author. We make the chorus run,

"The Thistle, Shamrock, Rose entwine
The Maple Leaf forever."

recognizing, indeed, as we should, that Canada is a new England, or New Brunswick or Nova Scotia a new Ireland. But the author, with his broad, patriotic spirit, rightly gave the first place to those who were first in possession, and wrote:

"The Lily, Thistle, Shamrock, Rose,
The Maple Leaf forever."

Canada was not only a new England, a new Scotland, a new Ireland, but likewise a new France.

In the debates of the Canadian Parliament preceding Confederation, no one pleaded more convincingly for a United Canada than T. D. McGee, an Irish Roman Catholic, from whose brilliant and noble speech I make these extracts:

"This theory of race is sometimes carried to an anti Christian and unphilosophical excess. Whose words are these: 'God hath made of one blood all the nations that dwell on the face of the earth?' Is not that the true theory of race? Let me quote Rev. Mr. Kemp: 'About the year 1790 the Presbyterians of Montreal, of all denominations, British and American, organized themselves into a church, and in the following year secured the services of the Rev. John Young. At this time they met in the Recollet Roman Catholic church; but in the year following, they erected the edifice which is known as St. Gabriel Street church—the oldest Protestant church in the province. In their early minutes we find them in acknowledgment of the kindness of the Recollet Fathers presenting them with one box of candles, 56 lbs., at 8d., and one hogshead of Spanish wine at 61.5s.' Certainly a more characteristic instance of tolerance on both sides can hardly be found in the history of any other country."

Again, "All we need, Mr. President, mixed up and divided as we naturally are, is, in my humble opinion, the cultivation of a tolerant spirit on all the delicate controversies of race and religion—the maintenance of an upright public opinion in our politics and commerce— the cordial encouragement of every talent and every charity which reveals itself among us; the expansion of those narrow views and small ambitions which are apt to attend upon Provincialism. And with these amendments I do think we might make for Christian men desirous to bring up their posterity in the love and fear of God and the law, one of the most desirable residences in the world of this land we live in."

"A Canadian nationality, not French-Canadian, nor British-Canadian, nor Irish-Canadian—patriotism rejects the prefix—is, in my opinion, what we should look forward to...we must all liberalize, locally, sectionally, religiously, nationally. There is room enough in this country for one great free people, but there is not room enough under the same flag and the same laws for two or three angry, suspicious, obstructive nationalities."

"All we have to do is to lift ourselves to the level of our destinies, to rise above all low limitations and narrow circumspections, to cultivate that true catholicity of spirit which embraces all creeds, all classes and all races in order to make of our boundless province, so rich in known and unknown resources, a great new northern nation."

Beside these fine utterances of T. D. McGee, we may place the following words of the Attorney General, John A. Macdonald:

"If you wish to form—using the expression that was sueered at she other evening—a great nationality, commanding the respect of the world, able to hold our own against all opponents, etc., this can only be obtained by a union of some kind between the scattered and weak boundaries comprising the British North American provinces."

And again: "Instead of looking upon us as a merely dependent colony, England will have in us a friendly nation, a subordinate, but still a powerful people, to stand by her in North America in peace or in war."

Great Britain, at one time in her early history, faced successfully the task of uniting two languages and races into one nation, and what the lion has done the lion's whelp ought not to be afraid to imitate.

A United Empire

We must think imperially, not locally or sectionally.

From time to time local and sectional arguments have appeared in connection with the proposals that Canada should take her proper share of the burden of Imperial defence. Contending that there is no need for either a Canadian Navy or a contribution to the Navy of the Empire, one writer is reported to have said:

"We have been at peace with the world for almost a century. No one threatens the safety of our ports or our ships today."

And again:

"If Norway, with all her shipping on the ocean, can afford to do this, what possible need can there be for Canada, with the greater part of her shipping on inland lakes, where no European warship can get near them, proceeding with a programme of naval defence such as has been outlined?"

May we not answer:
 

1. Yes, possibly our ports and ships are safe today, perhaps because of the application of the Monroe doctrine. But are we to accept our safety from the United States? Is it manly to expect the workingmen of the United States, a foreign country, to be taxed in order to ward off an enemy's ships from our coasts? Is that the way to be a nation?
    
2. May we not answer: Yes, our ships in our inland lakes might be safe, but what of Australia, South Africa, the Mother Land? Is there shipping also on inland lakes? Can we be satisfied to fold our arms when they are in danger? Would any citizen of any country treat his fellow-citizens in that way? Logically this local and sectional thinking leads directly to the dismembership of the Empire.

 

Our forefathers of the time of Confederation were not of this narrow mind. I have quoted two great Conservatives of those days; here are the words of George Brown: "The time has come—it matters not what political party may be in power in England—when Britain will insist on a recommendation of the military relations which a great Colony such as Canada ought to hold to the Empire. And I am free to admit that it is a fair and just demand."…

When the time comes in the history of our Colony that it has overcome the burdens and embarrassments of early settlement, and has entered upon a career of permanent progress and prosperity, it is only fair and right that it should contribute its quota to the defence of the Empire."

"I am persuaded that nothing more than what is fairly due at our hands will be demanded from us, and anything less than this, I am sure the people of Canada do not desire."

"Nothing I am persuaded could be more foreign to the ideas of the people of Canada, than that the people of England should be unfairly taxed for service rendered to this Province."

And on the general point of the need of some defence Mr. Brown remarks:

"There is no better way of warding off war when it is threatened, than to be prepared for it when it comes."

There speaks a true Canadian of the olden time.

Listen to another voice, this time a voice from the Maritime Provinces, the voice of one whose face has always been affectionately turned across the Atlantic, Joseph Howe.

After contrasting the resources in men of the British Empire with the resources of Russia, Howe goes on;

"Have we not, at this moment, 100,000 000 of the Queen's subjects, beyond the British Islands looking on as mere spectators of this death struggle, while the Queen has no power to call one of them into the field. England, Ireland and Scotland furnish all the threws and sinews for this great controversy; theirs are the blood and treasure, the peril and the grief. There have been wailing and sorrow in every city and hamlet of these Islands, but what then? We have piped and danced beyond. Crepe shadows the doorway of every church in England, but our congregations come forth in gay attire, for the voice of the national sorrow has not been heard in our lands." This people are paying a million a week to uphold the national honor, yet we call ourselves the common inheritors of that priceless treasure, for the preservation of which we do not vote a sixpence. From the bosom of our mother country, as we call it, have gone forth thousands of stalwart men to carry the national flag, to die around it, to perish in the trench or in the hospital, and the boys of England, Ireland and Scotland are preparing to follow them. Now, let me ask you, have the outlying portions of the Empire sent a man? Where are the regiments that should pour in here, that would, it the 100,000,000 of people, now unrepresented and indifferent, were made to participate in the ennobling privileges and great duties of the Empire?

"We have been eighteen months at war, and the great provinces of the Empire, where the Queen's health is drunk at every festival, have not sent a man to enforce the Queen's authority. We have been eighteen months at war and not a man of the 100,000,000 who prefers I to venerate the British flag has struck a blow in its defence. Yet you tell me that the system is perfect, and I tell you that it is no system at all.

"Is the old pelican eternally to shed her blood for the nourishment of offspring who fly away when they are strong, or who, when the eagle descends upon the nest fold their wings and do not battle in her defence? Surely the mother is careless and indifferent, or the children unnatural!"

This is another message from the past, which we recognize as in the best sense Canadian. Are we not doomed to be children forever, to be children when it is possible for us to be men, if we accept protection for our homes and our land either from Great Britain or the United States?

A United Race

We must think and act as men.

When we speak of "thinking humanly," we mean that no country is justified in pursuing any course detrimental to mankind. Service to the race lies at the basis of the broadest and soundest nationality. All theories of national incompatibility and hostility must give way before a theory of international co-operation and comity.

 

 

 

1. If in Canada we are to think and act as men we must show fair play. Fair play means to refuse to hit below the belt, to tramp on a man when he is down; it means to resist the temptation to take any unfair advantage and to keep on playing the game openly, honestly, and above board. In the big game of nations we must observe the rules and play fair. In our country Great Britain has, I think, shown fair play as between English and French in allowing to our French compatriots their laws, language and religion, and this spirit of fair play is a quality which we in Canada should covet if we are to be true to our heritage.
    
2. A second item in thinking as men is respect for others. Tommy Atkins, the typical British soldier, is often not exactly choice or parliamentary in his language; but he is not ashamed to acknowledge his respect for a brave foe. He owns that "Fuzzy-wuzzy" was a "first class fightin' man," and also in the Boer war that there were many fellows "a damn sight worse than Piet." Is it not that fine quality which has made Britain's colonial policy such an unexampled success? Was it not the temporary eclipse of that quality which lost the United States? The unknown sergeant who worked patiently with the material he found in the land of the Pharoahs had this high quality. Said England unto Pharoah, "I must make a man of you, that will stand upon his feet and play the game." So England sent out to Pharoah Sergeant What's-his-name.

   And it's wrong and bad and dangerous to boast,
   But he did it on the cheap and on the quiet.
   And he's not allowed to forward any claim.
   Though he drilled a black man white,
   Though he made a mummy tight,
   He will still continue Sergeant What's-his name.
   Private, Corporal, Color-Sergeant and Instructor,
   But the everlasting miracle's the same!

   Must not we in Canada follow the same noble tradition? If we are the sons of Abraham, we must work the works of Abraham; if we do not the works, we are not sons, no matter by what name we may be called.
    
3. A third factor in thinking and acting humanly is admission of defects and willingness to learn, a capacity to own up, to recognize our own shortcomings; and, if need be, to swallow even a bitter pill; to say—

   "Let us admit it fairly, as a business people should,
   We have had no end of a lesson: it will do us no end of good."

   We must rise on the stepping-stones of our dead selves to higher things. If Great Britain has had a wonderful development, she has also had her share of hard knocks; and such an experience brings tolerance. At college it is not the experienced Senior who is most severe with the Freshman, but the bumptious Sophomore, who seeks to cover up his want of experience by swagger. And a young country may just as readily fall into the loud self-confident tone as a young student. It was once being suggested in my hearing that Canada had a good way to go yet before it could regard itself as on a par with some of the older lands; that we in this country did not yet properly appreciate the national value of music, the theatre, art, architecture, a noble history. And at once an over-confident Canadian burst in, "O, we are too busy to bother with such frills and tucks!" Yes, we are busy in Canada, and are glad to be. We have a big country to be busy in and are proud of it. We are giving a most cordial welcome to thousands upon thousands who are coming to us to build up homes. And there is no patriotic Canadian who, when he thinks of these things, will not feel a thrill of real satisfaction at the prospect. And yet when we find France paying 600,000 francs to keep Millet’s "Angelus" at home, and Dresden saying that she would not part with Raphael's "Madonna" for money, we ought to pause and think ; we ought to try to give to things their relative values. What we need, as D'Archy McGee said, is to welcome every talent, to hail every "invention, to cherish every gem of art, to foster every gleam of authorship, to honor every acquirement and every natural gift, to lift ourselves to the level of our destinies, to rise above all low limitations and narrow circumspections, to cultivate a true catholicity of spirit.
   
   Yes, we must, as McGee nobly said, lift ourselves to the level of our destinies, and make our own everything which can be appropriated from the ripest and deepest experience of others. Remembering the wise words, of the old Roman poet Terence, "Homo sum, et nihill humani a me alienum puto" (I am a human being, and I consider nothing human to be beyond the range of my sympathies), and, looking forward to a great future for our country, we must not raise the cry "Canada for Canadians," but rather "The world for Canada, and Canada for the world!"
   
   My last point is sense of responsibility.
    
4. There is no surer mark of sovereign power than the acceptance of responsibility. Every position has its responsibilities and duties—husband, father, member of a club, student, graduate, citizen, no matter what.

 

Privilege implies responsibility, and the greater the privilege the larger the responsibility. Accordingly, the Prime Minister of Canada is, as the title implies, the head of the civil service. No king is a king in fact, or by any right divine or human, if he shirks the duties of his post. That truth at least is as old as Shakespeare and Milton. And what is true of a man is true of a country. The aim to be something in the world must carry with it the desire to do something for the world. God couldn't be God if he wasn't love. If you keep slaves, you are a slave. The sponge, which absorbs all and gives nothing, is a low order of animal; the miser who cries "Give, give I" is a low type of man; and the country which recognizes no obligation to the race is not worthy of a position on the map. It must justify its existence by the extent of its subscription and donation; that is, by the extent of its active interest in and furtherance of what is of value to humanity.

This is what Abraham Lincoln meant when addressing a regiment of soldiers returning from the war. He advised them to realize what their country stood for, namely, "an open field and a fair chance; that you may all have equal privileges in the race of life." It is not "Everything for me, and nothing for you," as the small boy used to say when playing marbles. It is not "Every man for himself, and the devil take the hindmost !" but rather the words of the cheery Alpine-guide, who, knowing that some of the party are not inured to mountain climbing, sings out as he makes his way upward :

 

 

 

"Go slowly forward in the van,
And then you'll take your hindmost man."

Is it too much to say that the possession of this quality is one of the glories of the Motherland?

Has it not endeared her to her colonies more and more as the years go by? Does not this faculty help her to solve the hard problems of Empire? In every colony the growth of a spirit of freedom and independence, cherished by the wise mother, has gone, hand in hand with a strengthening of the old tie.

Do we not indeed esteem and love the old land because she puts faith in us, throws us on our own resources, and trusts us to work out our own problems, even the great problem of the unification of Canada? Do we not believe that in solving this, our greatest problem, we are making our contribution to world politics?

Is it not inspiring to every Canadian that our domestic question is so clearly a world-question; that if we answer it bravely and manfully we are doing our best to promote peace on earth? Why might not Germans, English, French, Russians, live amicably under four flags, if French and English live here together in peace and good will under one flag?

A recent French writer, a visitor from Europe, has said that there is an impassible barrier between the French and English in Canada, and that Canadians are not one people. Between the two races, he writes, "there is openly declared war, whose bitterness it is useless to seek to disguise."

That is not true; that theory does not account for the Canadian spirit, the spirit that now animates French and English boys that grow up side by side. It is true that we agree to worship at different altars, and in some places go to different schools, but we have an unquenchable faith in the future of our common country. Indeed, we believe that the serious political handicap, the diversity in language, race and creed, may be after all our greatest boon, that it may give us our best chance to live as a nation and have our name forever engraven on the marbles of time.

This inspiring choice we owe to the Empire to which we belong. That must be the reason why our statesmen, independent of party, desire to maintain the connection between this new land end the old, not that, like the pelican, we should drink the mother's life when we are young, and then fly away when we are old; but that we should share with her in her highest aims and hopes. This must be why Sir John A. Macdonald said "a British subject I was born, a British subject I will die." This must be why Sir Wilfrid Laurier says "I am British to the core " And with these hopes and aims before us, with "Fair play for all" inscribed on our banners, with a willingness to recognize and accept the merits and gifts of others, with a firm belief that we play a man's part in the world's life by taking on our own shoulders our own responsibilities, that the crown which we aspire to win is not one of gold and jewels, but a union of men and nations for mutual advantage and service, with such aims and hopes we can, I believe, look forward with confidence to a worthy future for our beloved land, Canada.