The Loyalists: the Meeting Last Evening to Consider the Erection of a Monument

Année
1882
Mois
8
Jour
16
Titre de l'article
The Loyalists: the Meeting Last Evening to Consider the Erection of a Monument
Auteur
-------
Page(s)
2
Type d'article
Langue
Contenu de l'article
THE LOYALISTS. THE MEETING LAST EVENING TO CONSIDER THE ERECTION OF A MONUMENT. The Project Virtually Killed by the Passage of a Resolution to Postpone It. The meeting called for last evening in the Mechanics’ Institute Hall to take into consideration the propriety of erecting a monument to the Loyalists was very slimly attended, not more than one hundred people being present, of whom half, as it turned out, had come to oppose the project. The chair was taken by Judge Palmer, and on the platform were Judge King, Judge Skinner, and Messrs. Geo. Stewart, Silas Alward, G. M. Allen, E. T. C. Knowles and D. S. Kerr. Judge Palmer, in opening the proceedings, said that all knew the occasion that had called them together, to take steps to get up a memorial in honor of the Loyalists. It was thought to be fitting and right that some token should be erected in acknowledgement of their services to this country and the British crown. It was too late now to discuss the question, whether the Loyalists were right or wrong, but even those who took the strongest position against them must acknowledge their constancy and devotion to the cause which they embraced. Every one who feels an interest in this subject should aid in carrying on the work to a successful conclusion. Mr. E.T.C. Knowles was then elected secretary. Mr. D. S. Kerr then moved the first resolution in an able speech. He said the Loyalists were men of the same nature as ourselves, exposed to the same heat and cold and with the same warm feeling for their homes. He said that George III., though a good king, was ill-advised with respect to the American colonies. Then came the horrors of war, a war in which the Loyalists were no more consulted than we were. It was a cruel war in which families were divided and brothers arrayed against each other. He then spoke of the conduct of the war and to the mistake that was made in concluding a peace without making any provision for the safety of the Loyalists. The Loyalists were shipped off as exiles to this country and torn away from their homes. The first arrivals here were on the 18th May, 1783, and New Brunswick was organized chiefly on their behalf. The treatment of the Loyalists was condemned by both Houses of Parliament. He then referred to the war of 1812, when the sons of the Loyalists saved Canada to England, as one of the most gallant wars on record. The invaders were met like a wall of iron by the sons of the Loyalists. At the end of the war the Americans had not an inch of ground that they could claim in Canada. We find the whole world picturing its great events by statues and by monuments. In England they were erecting a monument to Sir Francis Drake who died nearly 300 years ago. The people of the United States erected monuments to their heroes, but what have we done to celebrate our great events? Not a single Canadian book had been written on the Loyalists until Dr. Ryerson’s book was published a year or two ago. On the other side they had Lossing’s books on the two wars of the Revolution and of 1812, which were a tissue of falsehoods. He referred to the march of the 104th regiment in Quebec in the winter and their battles in defence of Canada. The Loyalists had no memorial to mark their valor. Was it not reasonable that something should be done to preserve their memory? He dwelt eloquently on this branch of the subject and said it was our duty to do honor to the gallant dead. The erection of such a monument would be honorable to us as well as to the Loyalists. He wanted this monument as a witness that we intended to reverse our policy for the past hundred years and make this a country of prosperous homes. He concluded by moving a resolution to the effect that a granite monument, 100 feet high, its cost not to exceed $8,000, be erected on King square and that a committee be appointed for the purpose of carrying out the details. Mr. James Hannay seconded the resolution in a brief speech. Mr. A. A. Stockton thought they ought to have a memorial hall instead of a monument, and argued at some length in support of this view. Geo. Stewart, Esq., made an eloquent speech in favor of the resolution. He said a memorial hall to cost $50,000 or $100,000, was beyond our means. The monument was the proper thing. Stewart & White would give $50 towards it anyway. (Cheers.) Mr. I. Allen Jack took the same position as Mr. Stockton and argued in favor of a memorial hall. Mr. W. P. Dole ridiculed the signers of the memorial which had been placed before the Council, and objected to anything being said in honor of the men who fought in the war of 1812 to defend Canada from invasion. He spoke at great length in support of this view of the matter. Mr. Best said the people of Boston were ashamed of Bunker Hill Monument, and he thought a monument should not be erected in St. John, but a Memorial Hall, with a museum and other appliances. Judge King said they had to guard against raising a spirit of contention in the matter, and should keep down all bad feeling. He repudiated Mr. Dole’s idea that the references to the war of 1812 were improper, and he did not think we were bound to apologize for honoring anything that is heroic in the history of our country. The Memorial Hall scheme contemplated a large grant from the Province, but such aid could scarcely be expected to be given largely to a scheme that would merely benefit one locality. A Memorial Hall would be more for our own advantage than merely to commemorate the Loyalists, and it would look as if we were trying to get something more from the Loyalists than to do something for them. He thought that our regard for our ancestors would be better served by a monument than by a Memorial Hall. (Cheers). Mr. J. Travis moved, as an amendment, that this meeting appoint a committee to act in conjunction with the other committees that have been appointed by the Common Council, Historical Society and Natural History Society, to see what steps should be taken to celebrate the centenary of the Loyalists. Mr. R. J. Dunn seconded this amendment. Mr. David S. Kerr criticized Mr. Dole’s speech and his opinions in regard to the war of 1812. He pitied Mr. Dole’s ignorance when he said monuments were out of date, and said he thought very little of Mr. Dole anyway, either as a teacher or in any other capacity. Dr. Christie was opposed to the monument on account of the proposed location. He wanted to see King street put through the square. He, however, favored a monument. Mr. Geo. Stewart said he hoped that they would never live to see the street put through King Square. It was one of the lungs of the city and should be preserved. Judge Palmer criticised Mr. Dole’s remarks, especially what he had said in regard to the heroes of the war of 1812. If our neighbors were to be offended because we honor our forefathers who fought nobly, let them. But he did not believe any such doctrine as that. We did not want the opinion of committees, but of a public meeting of the descendants of the Loyalists. If the committees of these societies have an axe to grind and want a place to meet let them say so, but don’t erect a hall and then put it on the ground of benefit to the memory of the Loyalists. He did not wish to drag up the bones of his ancestors and say he was honoring them when he was only doing something for his own advantage. Mr. E. Sears, jr., moved that the further consideration of Mr. Kerr’s resolution be postponed until action has been taken on the report of the committees already appointed. The amendment was put and lost. Mr. Travis’ amendment was then put and declared carried by a very close vote. Mr. D. S. Kerr said that their vote had relieved him of a great deal of trouble. He had thought it his duty to bring the matter before them, but now he begged leave to retire from the whole business. Mr. Travis was then nominated as a member of the committee, and afterwards Dr. Christie, but the latter declined to serve, as did one or two other gentlemen but none of them would serve; no committee was therefore appointed. Mr. I. Allen Jack moved a vote of thanks to Mr. Kerr for the trouble he had taken, but he declined it. A vote of thanks was moved and carried to the chairman and the meeting broke up.