Evening of Friday, October 1 – Saturday, October 2, 1875
While the Archbishop was pondering whether or not to postpone the procession, the meeting requested by the Orange Lodge took place on the night of Friday, October 1st, at St. Lawrence Hall. The Hall was packed, and hundreds who could not obtain admission stood outside. About a half a dozen policemen were inside the Hall to help maintain order.
The meeting was not specifically an Orange Lodge meeting, and it was to be open to the public, but the Lodge utterly dominated the attendance. Prominent Lodge members, including the Mayor, (who would be named as chair of the meeting) stood on the stage in front of the attendees and presided over the meeting. By the estimation of a reporter who attended the event, there were not half a dozen Catholics in attendance.8
The meeting began with the Mayor telling the meeting that, as chairman, he would not state his opinions as strongly as he might had he stood alone on the stage. Another prominent Orangemen then kicked off the meeting proper by stating that they would read all the resolutions in order to discuss them. The resolutions had been reduced to four, and they were not the ones the Orange Lodge had voted on Wednesday night. There were new resolutions, designed to preserve the peace of the city. They were, however, not compromises, though some claimed they were. At heart, they promised that if the Catholics would not hold processions, they would not be assaulted for having a procession.
- Reolved, -That this meeting is profoundly moved by the disgrace brought upon the usually peaceful city of Toronto by the recent conflicts which have taken place in the streets of the city between certain processionists called Pilgrims, and other classes of the population opposed to them in religious opinion; and that every good citizen must deplore the riotous and disorderly conduct which took place; and that all should use all legitimate and proper means to prevent a repetition of it.
- Resolved,- that in the present excited state of public feeling, this meeting can scarcely hope that either of the opposing elements will give way to the other; and with the view of discountenancing the appearance of a triumph by either party, this meeting entrusts both parties to give way by abandoning all appearance of public processions and gatherings, and by attending as individuals their respective churches on the Lord’s day in the usual quiet and unobtrusive manner.
- Resolved,- That copies of these resolutions be sent by his Worship the Mayor, to the Roman Catholic Archbishop, and to the Orange and Young Briton District Managers, respectfully calling upon them to prevent, so far as their power lies, all ostentatious display on the Sabbath day, and thus prove their good sense and Christian feeling by eschewing all things calculated to give offence, and by cultivating all things conciliatory and peaceful.
- Resolved,- That should all attempts to preserve the public peace unfortunately prove ineffectual, his Worship the Mayor be respectfully requested to the Riot Act and to command all disorderly persons to disperse, and, if necessary, call out the civil and military powers to preserve the public peace of the city of Toronto.
After reading the resolutions, the founder of the Orange Lodge in Canada himself, Col Gowan, began to speak to the audience in surprisingly conciliatory terms. He said that he had been speaking to some Catholics “in a Christian and friendly spirit.” He had been informed that most of the pilgrimages had already taken place, and the Catholics believed that, for the good of their souls, the pilgrimages must be completed. That statement was met with jeers.
The significance of those jeers should be appreciated: Throughout the week, the newspapers had been putting their own constructions and interpretations on the riot of the week before. The heads of the various orders likewise attempted to place their own version of what happened. However, so far none of the people who had rioted had spoken and had their words recorded, until now. That jeer was the first time they spoke, and their voices would grow louder over the course of the meeting.
Gowan continued by claiming that if the pilgrimages must be completed, then certainly every man would desire that they occur at a time that would be as unobtrusive as possible, or perhaps even postponed, that human life not be lost. The sanctity of the Sabbath Day must be preserved. The archbishop should "appreciate the kindly feelings of the Protestants of the city."9 Some mention was made of the advance of Ultramontism in Europe. If there was to be a pilgrimage, and blood spilled and lives lost, then let the blame lie with those who were responsible. He hoped both sides would use every conciliatory gesture towards each other, and the Lord Mayor would see the civil authority would be exerted against those who broke the law. He concluded here, moved that the first resolution would be adopted, and stated that he hoped a Roman Catholic in the audience would second it.
However, none of the half dozen Catholics in attendance did so. The motion was still seconded and nearly unanimously adopted. Only one man dissented, and he was thoroughly hissed for it. The Mayor then said that if better order could not be kept, they would have to pick a new chairman.
The meeting continued to the second resolution, discussion of which was interrupted by some noise down at the lower end of the hall, which was dealt with by the police. Reverend Sanson now discussed the second resolution, beginning by saying that if the Catholics insisted on having a procession, he hoped the Protestants would simply stay home. As he continued, his speech was frequently interrupted by cries and cheers from the audience. As The Mail describes the scene of the growing restlessness of the crowd:
He (Sanson) was certain that if the “pilgrims” were actuate by the same spirit, they would either abstain from making an offensive demonstration, or else change the route. If they persisted in walking, however, the protestants would gain a grand moral triumph if they allowed others the same liberty they claimed for themselves. (Loud cheers.) He thought it very wrong that the Young Britons as a body should be charged with the offence of breaking the law last Sunday. (Enthusiastic cheers.) He called upon all good men to their respective churches and to leave the procession to take its own course and it would die out. (Cries of “Nonsense.”) Let the fault rest with those who made themselves offensive, and not with the Orangemen. He hoped that his hearers, rather than have a collision, would give way. (Loud cries of “No, no.”) He did not mean to give way to matters of principal; but there was no principal involved. (Cries- “What about the procession?”) Mr. Sanson continued: We call upon the Roman Catholics in this resolution to abandon it; and at all events, if not inconsistent, to make it as little offensive as possible. He then went on to say that it must be left to Roman Catholics to do their duty, but Protestants should see to it that they did not break the law.”10
The possibility of a compromise between the two parties was growing more and more distant, if it was ever a true possibility at all. One was going to have to stay home if violence was to be averted. To the men in the audience, they would only agree to the Catholics staying home.
Dr. Smith seconded the motion, and became more strident than Sanson in calling for the Catholics to stay home. He did not, as did Sanson, state that if the Catholics should march, then the Protestants should simply ignore them.
He said we were brought face to face with a great fact. He described the disturbance as the most brutal and disgraceful he had ever beheld. He did not offer an opinion as to whether the pilgrimage was an obtrusion of religious views of an idolatrous character. (Author's note: sounds like he just did) Roman Catholics had a perfect right in their opinions. But they had not a right to obtrude them in public streets. He would bow his knee to no mortal but her Majesty; but he would entreat his Grace and every Catholic priest to forego the procession. If there were a disturbance on Sunday this meeting would not be responsible. In the name of God, he asked his audience, both Protestant and Roman Catholic to adopt and carry out the resolution. (Cheers.)11
The next speaker, Major Bennett, raised the issue of Montreal and the Guibord affair, and the state of Protestants in Montreal. He encouraged the Orangemen to be true to their oath and uphold the law of the land, and also reminded them that the law of the land can be changed through the ballot.
Major BENNET denied that there was any premeditated attack upon the procession as stated in some papers. When it was recollected that the mandate of her Majesty was disobeyed, and what was occurring in Europe, it was not to be wondered that something should take place when the innovations were introduced here. He affirmed the Orangemen were not a bloodthirsty lot, but, on the contrary, they were sworn to obey the laws of the country, and also to be slow to take offence, and offering none. (Cheers.) He wanted the Orangemen and Young Britons to show that, although their brethren were not allowed to walk in Montreal, yet they would allow the pilgrimage to walk their way. (Loud cries of “No, no.”) He knew very well that Orangemen would not go out to break the peace of the city in acting against the laws of the country. If the laws were wrong, then let Orangemen by their votes see that they were made right.12
Bennett's last line was aimed at one of the contentious points: the law of the land, as it currently stood, allowed processions on Sundays. He was encouraging the Orangemen to obey the law, but reminded them that the law can be changed. Yet the orangemen yelled in protest at the idea that the Protestants would show their superiority over the Catholics by permitting the Catholics to proceed in a Protestant city. This resolution had called on the Catholics to stay home and not proceed through the city, or for the Protestants to stay home should the Catholics proceed. The Orangemen in the hall, unlike their nominal leaders on the stage, would only support the Catholics staying home. This was made crystal clear when the resolution was voted on: only perhaps half a dozen supported the resolution, the rest filled the hall with cries of "No! No!"
The Orangemen on the stage were appalled that the men in the hall were not following their lead. This type of dissension seemed not merely unknown to them, but unthinkable. Col. Gowan was shocked at the dissent.
Did his hearers, he asked, have any confidence in the resolution, or in those who prepared them? (Cries- “Not a bit.”) He had never betrayed them; but if such sentiments governed them, he denounced them totally. (Uproar.) He reminded the Orangemen of their solemn oaths to obey the law, and he said any man who opposed the resolution was acting in open violation of his Orange oath. He could not conceive that those who cried “No, no,” were Orangemen; they must be men in disguise; if they were Orangemen, they were void of Orange principles.13
After these words, there was an uproar in the hall. In the confusion, one R. Taylor made his way onto the stage and demanded of Gowan the one thing the men in the hall wished to know: Could Gowan, or any of the others on stage guarantee that the Catholic procession would be stopped? This is what the audience wanted to know, as Protestants and Orangemen. He was cheered loudly and long.
When the cheers died down, Gowan joked that he was not Archbishop Lynch, and the audience laughed at that. He claimed he did not have control over the consciences of the Catholics like Lynch did. The resolution asked the Catholics to forego their procession, but the meeting would not or could not force them to do so. But, he concluded, if they could make the Catholics forego them, they would. Several people in the audience cried out "Now you're talking!" at that.14
But Taylor was not mollified with that answer. He once again raised the situation in Montreal to justify what was happening in Toronto.
Mr. TAYLOR said that if the Roman Catholics stayed in their chapels, there would be no disturbance. The Roman Catholics had “the right” of Montreal, and Protestants had “the right” of this city, and would keep it. (Cheers.) He had gone against Roman Catholics before, and would be willing to do the same tomorrow, if necessary.15
Mr. Fleming, who had previously only spoke to second the first motion, spoke again, raising the passions of the audience by bringing up rumours that were reported in some of the papers: that Fenians were coming from out of town to raise trouble here. The audience cheered and supported him throughout his short speech.
Mr. A. FLEMING said he appeared before his brother Orangemen to advise peace and good will; but if the Buffalo and Cleveland Fenians come to parade over here, as announced in some of the papers, his hearers would be no men if they permitted the procession. (Prolonged and enthusiastic cheers.) he disclaimed most solemnly any desire to play upon their feelings, but if the gauntlet were thrown down he, for one, would take it up or fall. (Loud applause.) There was a great deal more of the matter than the simple parade; he was not ashamed nor afraid to make this statement. While he advocated all that the resolution implied, he protested against being intimidated by “these cut-throats.” He could not as a Briton or member of the Tenth Royals submit to it. (Cheers.)16
The men on the stage must have felt they were losing control of the meeting. Reverend Sanson at this point tried to bring the meeting back on track. He called for the resolution to be voted on again. This time, about a hundred voted for it, and they were immediately called 'Fenians' by the rest of the men in the hall.
The third resolution, that called upon the Orange Lodge, the Catholics and the Young Britons to prevent all ostentatious displays on Sundays, thus eschewing things 'calculated to give offense', was brought forth. Once again, the Protestants imply couldn't believe that the Catholics were not deliberately trying to goad them with their processions. Though the resolution called upon all to avoid displays, only one group was putting on a display at that time.
Like the others, people spoke to this resolution as well, and the audience responded.
Mr. John HEWITT. He trusted that the meeting would be able to be a moral force to show that Protestant usages and sentiments must prevail in this city. Nobody present desired that any of their Roman Catholic fellow citizens should be killed. (“No, no.”) They were present in a spirit of reconciliation; not by riot, but by calm, deliberate action to appeal to the minds of those interested. Roman Catholics should be satisfied with equal rights, but they should not expect special privileges. (Loud cheers.) How would it be if the great Methodist body went on pilgrimages from one church to another? (One of the audience- “It would look well.” Laughter.) The meeting would have done its duty. Roman Catholics would have to be satisfied with equal rights, and the moral sentiments of the Protestants of this country must be respected.17
Not surprisingly, this resolution passed unanimously. If the Catholics persisted in having a procession, those in the audience were ready to do all their power to stop it.
The last resolution, calling on the Mayor, in the case that violence once again broke out, he should invoke the Riot Act. A Mr. Crane in moving the motion to be adopted, noted that it seemed to him that the members seemed disinclined to follow their superior officers.
Mr. J. CAMPTON seconded the motion. He said he was glad to see that the meeting was changing from a fiery to a calm character. The resolution which raised so much opposition must have been misunderstood. He was satisfied that if Young Britons only thought of what was taught in their lodges, viz- peace and kindness to all parties- they would do their duty. Orangemen talked of next year going to walk in Montreal; how could they expect to be unmolested if they attempted to stop the procession on Sunday? He trusted there would be no disturbance. If the volunteers were called out, it would be very hard for them to have to fire upon men who belonged to an institution of which they themselves were members; and perhaps they would not feel like protecting the Roman Catholic procession and then a great deal of blood might be shed. He hoped that all Young Britons at least would be found going to church next Sunday, instead of parading the streets.
Before the motion was put to the meeting, the MAYOR asked the audience to consider the position in which it was probable he would be placed.18
The resolution was passed unanimously, and the Mayor said he was glad for the result.
After that it was time for final speeches and dismissal. A motion was made to thank the Mayor for his services at the meeting, which was passed. However, as was typical of the contentious nature of the meeting, they couldn’t even have a final speech and be dismissed without dissent arising.
The MAYOR expressed his pleasure at the speeches made. He thought the speech of Mr. Campton, the O.Y.B. District Master, was especially to be commended. If he (the Mayor) had any knowledge of Orangemen, they did not wish to provoke the law of the country; on the contrary, it was their duty to protect them. No one believed that he and the gentlemen around him would truckle to popery; but in the present there was no principle involved; if there were, he would advise them to stand by that principle. Roman Catholics asked the privilege of marching through our streets on the Sabbath Day in a peaceful and orderly manner. They did not carry banners or have music. HE did not advocate Sunday processions, but the prejudices of others should be considered a little least. He asked his hearers to give Roman Catholics the privilege of walking; that was all they asked, as he understood it. He had made strict enquiries, and he found there were no flags or music. (Cries of “There were;”) it might be. If Protestants denied Roman Catholics these privileges, how could they themselves sk for privileges? Were they not all of the same flesh and blood? (Cries of “No, no.”- Great laughter.) They had a right to walk as the law allowed them to do so, although he held that the laws were wrong., and the Legislature should be petitioned ti have them altered. His Worship then made a strong appeal to the audience not to disobey the law, but to assist him to carry it out. He asked them to consider what his position would be if he were forced to call out the police, and worse than that, the military. (Cries of “Stop the procession”) His official position forced him to carry out the law. If there were any law against the procession- the smallest crack through which he could creep- he would soon stop it. (Cheers and laughter) But there was no such thing, and he was bound to deal justly with everybody. He looked upon the Orangemen to keep the peace, to go quietly to their several churches, or to stay in their houses, and not to be the originators of a row. In concluding his remarks, he dwelt upon the probable awful consequences of a riot.
A Mr. BOYD managed to get upon the platform, and said he objected to what the Mayor had state about the inoffensive nature of the procession last Sunday. He (the speaker) declared that there were both banners and music.
After cheers for the Queen, the meeting broke up. 19
The meeting achieved exactly nothing in terms of preventing another riot. The Orange Lodge was deeply divided between the leadership and the rank and file members over this issue. The leadership advised the members to stay home, but they would have none of it. The only way to avoid trouble was for the Catholics to stay home and not march.
The next day, Mayor Medcalfe sent Archbishop Lynch the resolutions of Friday night’s meeting, as he had been directed. Archbishop Lynch did not respond to the letter, or even acknowledge receiving it. However, in consultation with the chief of police he altered the route of the procession and dropped St Patrick’s from the itinerary.
Instead, Archbishop Lynch sent his decision on whether or not to delay the procession to Mayor Medcalfe.
ST MICHAEL’S PALACE, Oct 2nd.
To his Worship the Mayor, Chairman Board of Police Commissioners:
SIR- If the civil authorities are prepared to protect the processionists on next Sunday, we will permit them to visit the various churches all unarmed. Processions will commence at two o’clock.
I am, Sir,
Your obdt. servant,
(Signed,) +JOHN JOSEPH LYNCH.
Archbishop of Toronto.20
He also wrote a letter to be read at his parishes.
REV SIR- You will please forbid in my name the jubilee pilgrims of your parish to carry any arms or to use any force whatsoever, such as stone throwing, during the pilgrimage, under penalty of losing by their disobedience and disorderly conduct every blessing and indulgence attached to the jubilee. They must act as the soldiers of the Theban Legion, who permitted themselves to be cut down, and thus suffer martyrdom for faith and piety. The pilgrims must rely entirely on the power of the Government to protect them in their civil rights as subjects of her Majesty.
Yours faithfully,
+JOHN JOSEPEH LYNCH
Archbishop of Toronto,
St Michael’s palace, Oct 2, 187521
The meeting of the previous night had failed to convince the Protestants to stay in their homes should the Catholics have their procession, and the Catholics were determined to have it. The government began preparing for the worst. At about four o’clock on Saturday, judge Duggan sent Lieutenant-Col. Durie a requisition for a hundred horse and five hundred infantry to be ready for duty by one o’clock on Sunday. Durie gave the orders accordingly. the men were from the Queen’s Own Rifles and the 10th Royals. The Queen’s Own men were under the command of Lieutenant-Colonel Otter and the 10th were commanded by Lieutenant Colonel Stollery, and they were to assemble at the new fort. The Cavalry were of the Governor General’s Body Guard under the command of Captain Denison assembled at the old fort. The police were also gathering in full force.
It is a sign of how much Toronto had changed that the Archbishop was willing to entrust the safety of his flock to the protection of the police. It was a sign of how little Toronto had changed that they needed the protection. The events of the week before had come to take on meanings for may throughout the city. For Archbishop Lynch, the procession raised the question: did the law rule Toronto, or did the mob? For the Orangemen, the faced the question of who was in charge of the city? Perhaps Mayor Medcalf found himself wondering something similar. The Catholics also wondered what their position was within the city. For the first time the forces of the city were mobilized specifically to protect the Catholics. Just twenty years earlier that would have been unthinkable. Now the reforms and changes to the city that had been fought over in the proceeding decades would be put to the test. Could the Catholics expect fair treatment under the law? On the morrow, all questions would be answered.
No comments:
Post a Comment