These instances could not all be incorrect, and their similarity shows that the form and proportions of the Union Jack of James I., as given in the Massachusetts document, were those which were subsequently used in the actual flags officially displayed at sea and on shore.

In all these Union Jacks the white of St. George is of the same width as the cross of St. Andrew, and from these evidences of the form of the flag, derived from such varied sources, we may fairly conclude that the allotment to the white border to St. George in the Union Jack, of a proportion equal to that then given to a national cross, had not only early authority, but also wide usage.

These were two-crossed Jacks. When the time came, in 1800, for the construction of the three-crossed Union Jack, the designers of the "draft" and the committee of selection would have been acquainted with the details of those previous flags. It is, indeed, stated that the various existing flags were submitted for their inspection. When, therefore, they gave the broad white border to St. George the same width as that of each of the crosses of St. Andrew and St. Patrick, namely, as the instructions stated, one-third of the red cross, they were only continuing the width and proportion allotted to it in the Union Jacks which had preceded, and with the actual examples to which they were accustomed.

The broad white of St. George, as we now see it, was not dependent upon any heraldic description, but is an heirloom of national descent, and was evidently continued by the designers of 1801 in its full proportion of the Union flag, not only to represent, as previously, the white ground of the English Jack, but also for the additional reason that it represents the white ground of the Irish Jack, which they were then adding to the Union flag. By this method the proportionate representation of the Jacks of the three kingdoms was intended and justified.

Another objection raised to the proportions of the present flag, by those on the side of the heraldic interpretation of the "blazon," is that the individual crosses are of less width in proportion to the size of the flag than they should be according to heraldic rules, and that, therefore, the dividing of the flag is incorrect.

We need again to be reminded that the flag makers were not simply placing three "crosses" upon a single flag, but were joining three "Jacks" into one Union Jack; yet it may be satisfactory to see that in the doing of this they have really fulfilled the rules of heraldry.

According to the received rules of strict heraldry, in emblazoning a shield or a banner, a cross should be given one-third, and a saltire be given one-fifth of the width. On a shield this measurement of width is taken across the top, and on a banner or a flag it is measured perpendicularly along the flagstaff.

Applying this rule and measurement to our present Union Jack, and taking, as in fact they are, the red cross of St. George and its two borders as one cross, and the two saltire crosses of St. Andrew and St. Patrick and their two borders as one saltire, we shall find that the heraldic rules have been actually complied with by the official "draft" and by the regulations (Fig. 51), and that the combined cross is one-third, and the combined saltire one-fifth, of the width of the flag.

Sizes of the Crosses according to the Admiralty Regulations.

It is possible that this form of compliance with the heraldic rules was fully intended; yet, even were it not so, it is at all events a happy coincidence which might be taken as a conformity to these rules, and thus the flag which has been confirmed in its shape by the usage and glory of centuries should be cheerfully accepted by the heraldically inclined as being completely satisfactory.

It is not to the point for them to say it might look better if it were made some other way, for that would be merely a matter of opinion; or that if the heralds had had the making of it they would have made it differently, but it was not of their making, that having been settled by the Council in the selected draft of which the heralds worded a description, or, as some state, a misdescription; but it cannot fail to be admitted by all, that, as now made, it has been made, in all its parts, in the way ordered by the successive Councils, in whom authority was vested for its designing and issue.

The proportions of the crosses and of the borders of our Union Jack are thus not only technically correct, but, of still higher importance, they also preserve in detailed sequence the historical proportions of the three nations and of the three national Jacks, which were, in 1801, joined together in completed union.

Our noble flag, with its centuries of loyal history, might well, therefore, be held sacred and free from any objections on theoretical proportions.

CHAPTER XXII.

UNDER THE THREE CROSSES IN CANADA.

In 1801 the "new" three-cross union had entered into the upper corner of the red ensign of British rule. The Canadians, both French and English, had been faithful to its two-crossed predecessor, and now again their patriotism was to be put to the test.

The parent kingdom of Great Britain had for nineteen years been engaged in its mighty struggle with the great Napoleon for the supremacy of Europe, and the time seemed opportune to a section of the people of the United States for gaining an advantage over the nation from which they had separated their allegiance, and also for striking a blow at the neighbouring people who had refused to become absorbed with them, and had so successfully resisted their previous invasion.

The quarrel was none of Canada's making, nor was it one in which she had any share, yet, although the ostensible reason which had been alleged as the cause of offence was repealed before hostilities had been commenced, war was declared at Washington on the 18th of June, 1812.[147]

The population of the United States at that time amounted to no less than eight millions, while in Canada, from end to end, there were but four hundred thousand souls, all told.

The Canadians did not hesitate, though their country was to be the scene of war, and their homes to be the stake for which the nations were to strive. Aid they could not expect from their British friends across the sea, already strained to the utmost in the long conflict with the armies of Europe; their reliance must be upon their own stout hearts and strong right arms. But this was enough, for

So they rallied with eagerness beneath their Country's and Britain's Union flag.

Only four thousand five hundred regular trained soldiers were in Canada in 1812, and in them are included men of the Newfoundland and Glengarry regiments, recruited locally in the colonies; and thus the brunt of the defence was to fall upon the stalwart but untrained militia of the countryside.

The tide of invasion advanced north against Canada from the United States. For three years, from 1812 to 1815, the contest went on. Our French Canadians again bravely took up their arms, and this time, under the new three-crossed Jack, again drove the United States invaders back, making the names of Chateauguay and Chrystler's Farm ring down through history in token of the victories which they won beneath it in defence of their Canadian liberties and homes. So, too, their English-speaking brothers of Upper Canada won equal victories for this same Union Jack. At Mackinac, Captain Roberts,[148] with his Indians and Canadian voyageurs, raised it above the captured American fort. At the capitulation of Fort Detroit to Brock and Tecumseh, the American soldiers laid down their arms before it, and all Michigan was surrendered. At Queenston Heights, under the glorious Brock, at Stoney Creek and Beaver Dams, Niagara and Lundy's Lane, the American invader was sent in quick retreat from Canadian soil, and at the conclusion of the three years' war, after all the varying fluctuations in reverse and success between the contending forces, there was, at its end, not a foot of Canada, occupied or sullied by the foot of the foreign foe.

Thus all along their frontier shores, from Mackinac to far St. John, the Canadians stood shoulder to shoulder in one bold, united line, and held the larger half of North America for the British crown.

Again, when Fenian hordes and restless soldiers, who had been disbanded from the armies of the American Civil War, were assembled and drilled under the protection of the United States, and launched in raids against Canadian homes, the Canadian volunteers mustered around their Union Jack, and along the Niagara frontier, in 1866, and at Eccles Hill, in the Province of Quebec, in 1870, again drove the southern invader back, and held their native soil inviolate beneath its three-crossed folds.

Such was the British patriotism of which the flag was the Union signal, and now another parliamentary union is to be included in the career of the Union Jack in Canada.

Up to 1867 the Eastern British Provinces in North America had remained under separate local governments, such as had been established in the previous century; but in this year Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Upper and Lower Canada were all united in the one "Dominion" of Canada, then extending only as far as Lake Superior. This "Act of Confederation" was passed in London, at Westminster, by the Parliament of Great Britain, and thus again the Union Parliament of the Union Jack was parent to a new Union Parliament established in united Canada. Each Province continues to have its own "Provincial Assembly," in which legislation is conducted on matters pertaining to its own local or home rule, but all general powers are centred in the Dominion Parliament of Canada. Hitherto the spirit of the flag had been solely that of union with the Motherland; thereafter it had an added and local meaning, for it became also the symbol of Canadian union, the patriot flag of the new daughter nation which had thus been brought into existence in the outer British American realm. Inspired by this union, the older Provinces thus combined began to extend their borders, and soon Manitoba and the Hudson Bay Territories of the central prairies[150] were added, in 1869, and British Columbia joined in 1871, followed by Prince Edward Island in 1873, to make the enlarged Dominion of Canada, now stretching across the continent of America from sea to sea.

Difficulties, of course, were met in this consolidating of the territories, but the sign of Union was flying from the flagstaff, and the new-born patriotism surmounted them all. In March, 1885, when the spirit of discontent arose among the Metis of the North-West, and a rebellion broke out, the courage of the united Canadians was aroused with electric flash, and the volunteer battalions from the Maritime Atlantic shores, from French-speaking Quebec, from the great Ontario lakes, and from all parts of the Dominion, vied with one another in bearing the privations of forced marches across the frozen lakes, or over the pathless prairies, to reach the scene of action, and join in maintaining the supremacy of their native union. The rebellion was quickly suppressed; but the events at Fish Creek, Batoche and on the banks of the Saskatchewan left gaps in the loyal ranks.

Three medals[151] have been granted by their sovereign to commemorate the gallantry of the Canadians who thus fought beneath the Union Jack: In 1812-15, for union with the Motherland (62); in 1866-70, for service in defence of their country during the Fenian raids (63); and in 1885, for union within Canada itself (64). Such are some of the events which have given rise to the stirring patriotism evinced by Canadians for their national flag, and which have kept aflame the passionate fervour of their loyalty not only at home, but when they joined hands in 1900 with their brothers-in-arms from British Isles and Colonies to fight and die for union in South Africa.

Four times within the century—in 1775, 1812, 1866, and 1870—have Canadians raised their Union Jack in defence of home and native land, and once, in 1885, for maintenance of union within themselves.

As Canadians see it waving above their school-houses, and on the ships, or over their homes, they read in the crosses the stories that they tell, and remember that the deep red tones in its folds have been freshened and coloured by the heart-blood of Canada's sons, poured out for it in ungrudging loyalty on their own loved soil. The sons of the parent nations have carried it in many a far-off strife, but in their own island homes, "compassed by the inviolate sea," they sleep secure, and never have had to fight beneath it in defence of native land. It is in this regard that Canadians can cherish this flag even more than they who first carried it, and their sons may now rightly wear it as their very own, for the Union Jack is so bound up with love of country, defence of home, and all that is glorious in Canada's history, that it is the union flag of Canada itself.

CHAPTER XXIII.

THE FLAG OF FREEDOM.

These stories of martial and constitutional advance are not all the story that this Union Jack tells. There is something more than mere valorous devotion which should be aroused in the expression of loyalty for a flag. Such a devotion might be found even under a despot's sway, for racial and reckless valour may, with some, take the place of thoughtful allegiance.

The story of an ideal flag should declare a supreme idea, an idea which has been so well expressed as being the "divine right of liberty in man. Not lawlessness, not license, but organized institutional liberty—liberty through law, and law for liberty."[152]

When a flag records, by the unmistakable story of its life, how this desired freedom has been not simply alleged, but granted in actual fact to all who have reached the soil of its dominion, and, further, tells how the amplest dream of self-government is realized by those who dwell beneath its sway, then, indeed, is that flag to be cherished with the most passionate devotion, and valued in the most critical estimation.

Such a flag becomes an inspiration not only to the heart, but to the mind, and men may well be willing to risk their all, and life itself, for the maintenance of its unsullied honour. Such a flag is the Union Jack in Canada.

This three-crossed Jack in Canada is not only the national ensign of the British race, but it is more, for Canadians have made it the real "flag of freedom in America."

It is the proudest ascription of the Union Jack of the Empire that

This fact is true to-day of the Jack throughout all the British territories, but it has not always been so, and we may, with much interest, trace the condition of the slave under the flag in Great Britain, in the Colonies, in the United States, and in Canada.

It has been the happy lot of the Motherland, the cradle of the liberties of the earth, that freedom has been enjoyed for many centuries upon her own home soil; but even there legal doubts existed until 1772 about the position of persons who, being slaves in other lands, had reached her shores, when the notable decision of Lord Mansfield declared that, "When a slave has landed on the soil of the British Isles that slave is free." Although this legal definition had been reached, the abolition, by statute, of slavery under the Union Jack was not enacted by the British Parliament until 1811; and even after that, as this Act did not apply outside the British Isles, slavery continued in the outer realms to such an extent that in 1820 there were no fewer than 340,000 slaves under British rule in the Island of Jamaica alone.

At last, in 1833, the glorious Act of Emancipation was passed by the British Parliament, and the same freedom which had existed on the soil of the parent kingdom was extended to all races who lived anywhere under the Union Jack. The people of the parent isles gave further proof that this was done, not solely in the pursuit of an ideal, but out of real good-will, for they were not content with proclaiming freedom to the slave, but themselves purchased his emancipation by paying one hundred million dollars to his owners in those colonies in which, up to that time, slavery had existed with their consent. In the true spirit of British fair-play they thus scouted the idea of exercising their own compassion and good-will at any other person's expense.

Such has been the story of freedom under the Union Jack on the other continents. Let us see how its history compares with that of other flags on the continent of America.

The stories of the flags of Mexico and the republics of South America are so changing and unsettled that they may not be counted in the consideration, and the flag of Spain in Cuba never became an exponent of freedom. The sole competitor for the title of "the flag of the free" is the Stars and Stripes of the United States of North America.

The thirteen colonies of North America were, at the time of Lord Mansfield's decision in 1772, colonies of the British crown, and moved, no doubt, by a desire to emulate their brothers in Great Britain, and following their example, the representatives of the colonies met at Philadelphia, on 27th September, 1774, and in Continental Congress "declared against the slave-trade, and forbade any further importation of slaves into British America." Being supporters of the Union Jack, and following its ideals, they made, as Britons, a first step in the right direction, but no freedom was given to those already in the country.

It was, no doubt, under the influence of this spirit of British freedom, and with British hearts, that, when they were separating from their British allegiance, they stated in their Declaration of Independence (4th July, 1776):

Yet at the very time when this claim was made, that all men were born equal, well-nigh a million blacks were held in these same States in bondage,[154] and this sounding declaration of "liberty" did not bring freedom to a single slave.

Indeed, when, eleven years afterwards, in 1787, the representatives of the thirteen States met[155] in federal convention, and adopted the "Constitution of the United States," the existence of slavery under the Stars and Stripes was recognized and its continuance guaranteed.

The framers of the constitution were evidently conscious of the fact that the statements of their "declaration" were not in actual accordance with their actions, and therefore the provisions in their "constitution" concerning slavery were stated in a veiled and secret form, the words "slave" and "slavery" being carefully excluded. In this way the clauses of the American constitution have a different interpretation from that which their wording would apparently convey, for the existence of one class of their population in slavery was duly recognized, although not specifically mentioned.

The leaven of English freedom evinced in 1774 had continued to work among some of the States, even after their separation from the Crown, and emancipation had been begun in Vermont in 1777, in Pennsylvania in 1780, and was impending in some of the others, but had by no means been accepted in all.[156]

In arranging the proportionate representation of the several States in the union congress it became necessary to apportion the number of members of congress to be elected by each State, and in arranging this representation a concession was made to the slave-owning States whereby their slaves were to be recognized in estimating the number of their population.

The Article[157] enacts:

By the apparently simple but very pregnant words, "all other persons," of whom three-fifths were to be added, were meant the slaves, who, although they were not themselves accorded any citizenship or right to vote, were thus counted in determining the number of the representatives who were to be accredited to and elected by the State in which they were held in slavery.

As slavery was, in 1787, legal in some of the States and illegal in others, it also became necessary, in order to gain the acceptance of the union by the slave-owning States, that provision should be made for the legal return to their owners of any slaves who might escape from a slave-owning to a free State, and a clause guaranteeing the rendition of fugitive slaves was therefore embodied in the constitution. It was enacted:

It is stated on the authority of Madison,[159] "the father of the constitution," that the words used in each case in the original drafts of these clauses was "servitude," but it was afterwards changed to "service."

The expulsion of the words, although it might appear better to the eye, did not alter the fact that the whole of the States, which then framed their Union, although they did not all practise slavery, yet every one of them then consented to its perpetuation. Thus it came that slavery existed legally under the Stars and Stripes from 1787 until 1865, when happily it was terminated[160] by the proclamation of Lincoln and the constitutional amendment.

Such is the story of the slave's "freedom" under the national flag of the United States.

We may now turn to the story of his freedom under the Union Jack in Canada.

We have seen that slavery, excepting on the soil of Great Britain, was not abolished in all other parts of the British Empire until 1833, and not in the United States until 1865. In 1792, long before either of these dates, self-government had been granted to Canada, and, under the two-crossed Jack, at the first meetings which were held by the parliament in Upper Canada, slavery was abolished on July 9th, 1793.[161] This was before our present Union Jack came into existence, so that in Canada alone, of all the outer lands over which this flag of 1801 has ever been raised, beginning from the very day on which it first was displayed, this three-crossed Jack has always, as in the Motherland, proclaimed freedom to the slave.

Canadians in this way feel added honour in the flag, and that it is more particularly their own; for on the continent of America, whether he came from the British West Indies, from the southern continent, from Cuba, or the United States, in all of which he was still the chattel of his owner, so soon as the slave reached the soil of Canada, and came under the colours of our Union Jack, that moment he was free.

The deep significance which this early law of Canada had given to the flag has often been attested by coloured men before their fellow-citizens and the world, and particularly by Frederick Douglas, the great coloured orator of the United States. While dilating upon the great advantage which had come to his own people since freedom had at last been granted to them in the United States, he would nevertheless contrast their condition with that existing in the neighbouring Canadian land, where the black child sits in the public schools by the side of his little white brother, and travels with him in the same carriage on the trains, and where the law is administered with impartiality for both white and black alike.[162]

In telling words he would revert to the time "when there was but one flag in America under which the fugitive slave could be secure. When the slave had escaped from the control of his owner, and was making his way through the intervening States to the free land of the north, whether he gained the summit of the highest mountains or hid in the recesses of the deepest valleys, the fugitive could find no safe resting place. If he mingled in the teeming throngs of their busiest cities, he feared detection; if he sought solitude on their widest prairies, beneath the silent stars, he was in dread of being tracked; not until he had sighted the red-crossed Jack, and, crossing the northern lakes, had touched the strand of Canada's shore, could the slave fall upon his knees and know that at last he was free."

Thus pure, unsullied in its life-story, this three-crossed Union Jack of Canada is the only flag on the continent of America which has always and ever been the "flag of freedom," a flag under which all men, as their birthright, have been born equal and free.

Canadians may well, therefore, be proud of their flag, for what truer glory can be claimed for any other flag—than this, which spells out FREEDOM in its every fold?

CHAPTER XXXIV.

THE FLAG OF LIBERTY.

There is yet the other ideal phase in which the Union Jack in the outer realms of the Empire and in Canada reigns supreme—that of "liberty to the people." The inborn hope which buds and blossoms in the hearts of a growing people as their energies evolve and their circumstances advance, finds its fruitage in the possession of mastery over their own homes, and thus a nation's desire for liberty is concentrated in the absorbing dream of self-government.

It was this spirit which spoke in the old English colonies in America when they averred, in their address to King George III., that they were "being degraded from the pre-eminent rank of English freemen." The condition of a citizen in the old homeland was their highest ideal of the liberties of a people, and the only one with which, even in those times, they considered comparison could worthily be made.

The history of the Union Jack in the parent land has been connected, as we have seen, not solely with national allegiance, but yet more with parliamentary government; and its several parts have been combined in union to evidence the advent of union under representative institutions.

Such, too, has been the history of its expansion among the great groups of colonies of the British Empire which dot the outer world, a development of true democratic government which can best be realized by a comparison between the forms of government in Canada and that in the United States.

The creation of the constitution of England was not confined to a single date, nor was it the product of the men of a single period; its growth has been spread, like that of its flag, over century after century, as each successive phase of the ideal dream has become harmonized with the existing requirements of the day. Formed largely upon usage and upon precedent, it reflects the current views of the people, and, therefore, has never been restricted to invariable forms of words.

There are milestones such as Magna Charta, the Petition of Rights, the Habeas Corpus Act, the Act of Settlement, and the other landmarks which measure the way towards constitutional liberty; but as with the Union Jack, so, too, with the liberties of the British form of government, the story of the combinations is not the record of a revolution, but the gradual process of a reasoning evolution.

When, at the end of the eighteenth century, our neighbours in the United States framed their new constitution, they based it on the information and usages of that day when responsible government was almost unknown. Creating an elective King under the name of President, they endowed him with distinct and executive powers, which, as then, he still exercises, largely of his own private will, or only in consultation with a Cabinet which is nominated by and is responsible only to himself, whose members are not members of the House of Representatives, nor are they elected by the people.

How entirely he acts of his own motion, without the instructions or the initiation of Congress, was only too evidently shown in the recent Venezuela-Guiana incident,[163] when President Cleveland's message was promulgated with all the individual vehemence of an autocrat, and if it had not been for the temperate forbearance of the British Cabinet, war would have resulted.

The President of the United States, having been elected for a definite term of years, represents the opinion which prevailed at the time of his election; and no matter how much the opinion of the nation may change in the interval, or his policy be objected to, he continues to rule until his allotted term of four years shall have expired, even though he and his Cabinet be in absolute conflict with the expressed will of the people, as indicated in the elections which are constantly in progress.[164]

It is true there are provisions in the constitution for checking his course, or for his impeachment, but in cases in which this has been attempted to be enforced the trial has lasted longer than his term. His appointment as chief of the nation having been the result of an election contest, the President represents not the whole people, but only the political party which happened to be in the majority at the time of his election.

Being, then, the elected representative of a definite political party, his acts are expected by those who have elected him to be used towards continuing their party in power, and thus the person from time to time holding the position of President becomes a distinct vehicle for the exercise of party political warfare instead of being an impartial administrator.

His veto being thus supreme, all legislation has to be conducted with a view to what will meet, or will not meet, the personal views of the President, as has been most plainly shown in the framing of Tariffs for Customs and Taxation.

This written constitution of the United States, admirable though it may have been thought at the time, and an improvement upon the then existing state of things, was born over a century ago, in the times of autocratic government, and though thus out of date, it has remained ever since practically unchanged; in fact, with the exception of the amendment respecting slavery, it is identically the same.

During this same hundred years, as civilization has advanced, education enlightened the masses, intelligence expanded among the people, and experience been gained, there has grown up that marvellous form of self-government under which we Canadians and our brother colonists live—the British Constitutional Monarchy. In this British Empire, in the colonial parliaments, as in the Imperial Parliament, the King or Sovereign represents all the people, not a party, and is the permanent chairman of the nation. The will of Parliament, tempered by his continued counsel, is his will. The ministers of the Crown, who, with the Premier as their head, form the Executive, are elected by the people, and sit in the same House of Commons with the other elected representatives. Debating with them on the issues of the day, they are responsible to their fellow-members for the measures which they introduce;[165] and when they fail to carry these measures, and cease to secure the support of the majority of the people's representatives, as then sitting in Parliament, the ministry must resign, and is succeeded at the call of the sovereign, or in a self-governed Dominion, of the Governor-General, by another Cabinet, which shall represent that majority; or, should the matter be considered of sufficient importance, the whole Parliament is forthwith dissolved by the Sovereign, or his representative, as the neutral and unbiased centre of impartial power. All the members return for re-election by their constituencies, and the question at issue is quickly submitted for decision by the ballots of the electors. Thus the acts of the Premier or chief minister, and of his Cabinet, and also of the party of which he is leader, and the whole Parliament, are at once subject to the opinion of the people without waiting for the completion of their term.[166]

Further, indeed, than this, if a member of the Cabinet should die or resign during the term of any parliament his successor must, upon his appointment, return to his individual constituency and be re-elected, so that the opinion of the people may be taken upon the general policy of the Cabinet and upon his own special fitness for his appointment.

The Governor-General of Canada, as also the governors in the other self-governed colonies, does not, as so many of the people of the United States imagine, govern the country, acting with absolute power under the direction of the Government of Great Britain; for in every way, except for the purposes of imperial advice and the declaration of war, Canada is practically an Independent Dominion, as sings the empire poet,[167]