An event ‘to maximize attention’

“A ‘Lover of Beauty’ on his way to Yale: Revisiting the 1868 Yale Convention”
An essay by Sam Kiiskila

[Editor’s Note: This was Sam Kiiskila’s notable UVic research paper, written in March 2025, for HSTR 324B: British Columbia from 1849–1900.]

*

Introduction

Conventional wisdom generally points to 1867 as the year the modern nation of Canada was born. The union of three British colonies—the Province of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick—helped to provide political coherence to a disparate set of territories and guard against an expanding American empire, at least so goes the story. While the historical accuracy of this narrative is debatable, it nonetheless represents a fleeting snapshot of a society that was to constitutively change in just a few short years. The entrance of colonial British Columbia to the Dominion of Canada, a mere four years later, in 1871, secured a fledgling nation’s claim to the west and saw its own long and colourful past become part of a broader national story.

Despite its status as a province of national importance, boasting the third-largest population and economy, British Columbia nevertheless suffers from a deficit of its own coming-of-age narratives. Indeed, while confederation is often portrayed retrospectively as a mere matter of logistics (the colony had accumulated a sizeable debt from the Cariboo Wagon Road project, and Britain looked increasingly likely to scale back financial supports), union with Canada was but one option of many on the table. Certainly, while those more practical considerations played a role, there was also a political impetus for that 1871 entrance, one embodied by future premier Amor De Cosmos’s pressure group, the League of Confederation, and its associated efforts to stir up support for its namesake.

This paper will examine the culmination of the League’s efforts: the 1868 Yale Convention. Despite a plaque commemorating the event as “doing much to stimulate” support for confederation located in its titular town,¹ the convention is little known in the minds of the public. Observers of BC history present differing views but often describe Yale in laudatory terms, that is, as a British Columbian counterpart to the Charlottetown and Quebec Conferences or a pivotal moment in the fight for responsible government.² Its modest commemorative sign and relative obscurity might lead one to infer otherwise. As such, this study will focus on the backdrop to the convention, particularly the colonial political situation; the events at Yale, including notable participants and resolutions passed; and the aftermath, i.e., how one might interpret these histories. Though opinions on the true significance of the convention will vary, a mere revisiting of its goings-on allows for a test of that provocative hypothesis—might Yale have actually represented a western analogue to that fabled Quebec Conference?

Reaction and Reform

The formal life of British Columbia as a colony was a rather short affair. Following an independent stint from 1858 onward, the mainland was united with Vancouver Island in 1866, itself a Crown colony established in 1849. The early pre-confederation politics of both were dominated by the Hudson’s Bay Company (HBC) and, by extension, Governor James Douglas. Having climbed the ranks of that enterprise, which controlled most of modern-day British Columbia on account of a 1670 charter, Douglas served as governor of both the (pre-unification) mainland and Island colonies in the 1850s and 1860s. As an administrator, he governed true to form, that is, as a company man—even after relinquishing his post as HBC head. During his years in charge of Vancouver Island, Douglas oversaw a flurry of treaty-making and the emergence of several staple industries: coal mining, forestry, farming, and fishing.³ The 1858 discovery of gold in the Fraser likewise forced the Imperial government’s hand, resulting in the creation of a mainland Crown colony also governed by Douglas.⁴ An ensuing inflow of gold seekers necessitated a number of bureaucratic and logistical changes, including the establishment of a police force alongside a slew of other administrative positions, like gold commissioner. Victoria, for its part, would serve as a pitstop for the torrent of Californian miners.⁵

To paraphrase former US president Calvin Coolidge, the business of colonial British Columbia was business. Though Douglas has posthumously earned a reputation as a patriarch of British Columbia, he encountered his fair share of criticism in public life. One prominent opponent was the previously named Amor De Cosmos (born William Alexander Smith), a Nova Scotian by birth who burnished his reformist credentials under the (informal) tutelage of Joseph Howe.⁶ Like Howe—and William Lyon Mackenzie, for that matter—De Cosmos made his case against the government through the written word. His newspaper, the British Colonist, served as a frequent venue for his screeds targeting the ruling elite of Vancouver Island, colloquially dubbed the “Family-Company Compact.” In fairness to De Cosmos, from the establishment of the colony in 1849, the company and the government were, in effect, one and the same. The first Legislative Council, which the Imperial government requested be composed of “freeholders,” was stacked with company elites on account of there being an insufficient pool of settlers to draw from. The elected Legislative Assembly, which Douglas and his confidants actively resisted the formation of, also operated at the behest of the HBC through political skulduggery, not limited to intimidation campaigns, libel, and gerrymandering.⁷

Although Douglas renounced his position at the HBC to serve concurrently as governor of both the Island and mainland, this notion of an all-powerful Family-Company Compact proved potent fodder for De Cosmos’s—and others’—political aspirations. Established in 1858, the first issue of the Colonist on December 11th set the tone for what was to come. In a piece entitled “Gov. Douglas’ Administration,” published shortly after the founding of the first colony of British Columbia that August, De Cosmos wrote:

We do believe that no man ever had a more favourable opportunity to distinguish himself as a statesman than Gov. Douglas. Everything conspired in his favor. Gold was discovered in British Columbia. Tens of thousands came eager to engage in the introduction of all the appliances of civilization, and thus lay in a few weeks the foundation of a nation in a land almost unknown. Nothing was required but mind to organize, and the disposition to use it. Gov. Douglas was the most prominent person here at this auspicious season. He was the only one who could with color of right interfere. Had he then taken due advantage of that happy combination of circumstances, history would have ranked him with Clive and with Hastings; he would have received the merited honor of adding a bright jewel to the British Crown. Had he then proved himself a statesman, he would have been clearly entitled to a special reward at the hands of his Sovereign. To day he would have been the most popular man in these colonies. His life would have been honored; his death lamented, and his name imperishable. Unfortunately for these colonies Gov. Douglas was not equal to the occasion. He wanted to serve his country with honor, and at the same time preserve the grasping interests of the Hudson’s Bay Company inviolate. In trying to serve two masters he was unsuccessful as a statesman. – “Gov. Douglas’ Administration,” British Colonist, December 11, 1858

Nevertheless, De Cosmos was not above flattery when it suited him. In an 1863 piece, also likely penned by him, the Colonist wished Douglas well following news of his impending retirement, describing him in glowing terms with a declaration that “nothing will be remembered of his administration of the government that will tend to tarnish the name of Douglas.”⁸ In the span of a few short years, the governor had gone from a failed statesman (one who passed up the opportunity to rank with Clive and Hastings, no less) to a man of unexampled character—a rhetorical turnaround perhaps unsurprising given the media magnate’s increasing ambitions.

After (nominally) departing the Colonist’s editorial board in 1862, De Cosmos entered the political arena through his election to the Legislative Assembly the following year. Setting his sights on one of the two causes that would define his legacy, De Cosmos fittingly introduced a resolution in the assembly calling for the legislative union of Vancouver Island and mainland British Columbia within months of assuming his seat.⁹ Crucial to this arrangement, in his mind at least, was the introduction to this expanded colony a form of responsible government.¹⁰ That is, like his contemporaries Howe and Mackenzie, De Cosmos sought an executive branch responsible to the elected representatives, like himself.

The eventual union of the two colonies in 1866 was nonetheless a product of compromise. De Cosmos, engaged in a protracted political battle with Governor Frederick Seymour, dropped any pretensions of democratic reform and settled for a legislative union of the Island and mainland.¹¹ At any rate, there was little time—or reason—to celebrate: the united colony absorbed the debts of both the mainland and the Island, amounting to some $1,002,983 and $293,698, respectively.¹² Accordingly, the new Legislative Council’s earliest meetings were seized with the dire economic straits. Following a first session dealing with the hotly-contested question of proclaiming a new capital (itself a major cause for concern given the dwindling economic activity post-gold rush), the council’s second meeting unsurprisingly debated the viability of confederation.¹³ Although De Cosmos had failed in his crusade for responsible government, union had been achieved, though it did little to address the colony’s economic woes.

*

“A ‘lover of beauty’ on his way to Yale”

Amidst a backdrop of considerable debt, political instability, and geographic isolation, many observers have opined that British Columbia’s union with Canada was a foregone conclusion: going it alone any further was simply not viable as a matter of logistics or practicality. While this argument may contain a kernel of truth, it would be a mistake to assume no alternatives were entertained at the elite and popular levels. According to historian Walter Sage, there were essentially three options open to the newly united colony: remain independent, join the United States, or enter Canada.¹⁴ John Sebastian Helmcken, the Speaker of the Legislative Council and son-in-law of former governor Douglas, was one example of the first set. Though often mistakenly identified as an annexationist, Helmcken was—in his own words—an “Anti-confederationist” who merely wanted the colony to be “let alone.”¹⁵ By the same token, Governor Seymour was staunchly opposed to union (with Canada, that is), using his office to block the confederates legislatively and lobby the Imperial government against their cause.¹⁶ The small but notable annexationist movement made its case through newspapers and petitions, attracting some notable personalities like Joseph Pemberton, an influential HBC man and surveyor who suggested that union with the Americans would relieve the mother country, Britain, of a burdensome dependent in a most patriotic fashion.¹⁷

The political arm of the confederation movement picked up steam in 1867. In the spring of that year, De Cosmos engaged in two political gambits to advance the confederation cause: direct contact (though via a dilatory Governor Seymour) with authorities in eastern Canada and a resolution on the council floor shortly thereafter to admit British Columbia to the forthcoming North American union.¹⁸ The latter, subsequently dubbed the “Confederation Resolution” in some quarters, was unanimously adopted by the Legislative Council on the 18th of March, suggesting a sufficient appetite for union. Yet despite assuring the council that he had received the resolution and would act accordingly, Seymour was not enthused with the prospect of confederation and did little to see it through.¹⁹ The public fervour for union only intensified as July 1st, 1867, came and went. “To deprive the Confederacy of British Columbia,” lamented one commentator on that auspicious date, “would be to destroy the hopes of Messrs Macdonald, Cartier, Tilley, Tupper, and other prominent Confederationists.”²⁰ Nevertheless, the fight continued into the new year. On April 24th, 1868, De Cosmos introduced an elaborate address to the Queen in the legislature that laid out the demands of the unionists, with debt forgiveness and a wagon road featuring prominently in the requests. But by this time, anti-confederate sentiment had calloused, at least among the elite. The motion was withdrawn following an intervention by a familiar cast of characters, Helmcken being among them.²¹

Just a year shy of the first anniversary of confederation, in May 1868, the campaign for union was buoyed by the formation of the League of Confederation (or Confederate League), a collective that sought to circumvent the obstructionism and indifference of the colonial elite to their cause.²² Primarily the brainchild of De Cosmos, the League’s inaugural documents articulated their objectives in no uncertain terms:

We, the undersigned, hereby constitute ourselves a Political Association to promote Confederation with Canada and secure Representative Institutions for British Columbia and pledge ourselves to use all the constitutional means in our power to secure the immediate admission of British Columbia into the Dominion of Canada upon terms equitable and expedient, and also to establish to British Columbia, without delay, representative institutions with Responsible government.
 -Confederate League, Declaration, constitution, list of officers of the Confederate League, 1868

Though De Cosmos’s firebrand contemporary John Robson (himself following an eerily similar career trajectory from polemical columnist to politician) initially opposed the initiative, he was later persuaded to join the League following Seymour’s handling of Victoria assuming the status of capital in the newly united colony.²³ Thus, the League, established in Victoria and with branches across the colony (thanks to De Cosmos’s politicking in the mainland communities of New Westminster, Yale, Lytton, Clinton, and the Cariboo), quickly set about holding a conference to promote the causes of confederation and responsible government.²⁴ An advertising blitz targeted the newspapers of the day, with incessant bulletins posted in the Colonist and British Columbian announcing a forthcoming meeting of delegates to be held on September 14th in Yale.²⁵ After the selection of representatives from various corners of the colony (See Table 1), delegates converged on the town; De Cosmos, travelling aboard the Enterprise alongside his fellow Islanders, arrived on the mainland the Saturday before Monday’s inaugural session of the convention.²⁶ After a mad dash to find lodgings in the town’s hotels, a select few delegates attended a Sunday service given by Yale’s own Reverend David Holmes.²⁷ That Monday, following some formalities—the election of a chairman, secretaries, and the formation of a general committee—the first session debated the terms “upon which it deemed immediate admission to the Dominion of Canada expedient.”²⁸ The convention had officially begun.

Though telegraph lines were broken at the time of the convention, a reconstruction of sorts is made possible through various newspaper clippings and the policy declarations and minutes provided by the League.²⁹ The first session on the 14th enumerated fifteen conditions to which a hypothetical union with Canada ought to conform, introduced by a preamble again stressing the importance of responsible government. In clause I, the delegates declare that governments “should exist by the free and just consent of the governed” and accordingly describe the opposite, despotism, as the case in British Columbia.³⁰ To remedy the current situation—namely an exorbitant debt, disregard of the public interest, and bloated bureaucracy—the convention-goers proclaim “immediate entry” to the Dominion of Canada as the proper course of action.

Table 1

List of Delegates to the Yale Convention, September 1868

Delegate	Constituency
Robert Wallace	Victoria
Amor De Cosmos	Victoria
Dr. Brouse	Lake La Hache
Henry Holbrook	New Westminster
Arthur Walter Shaw Black	New Westminster
David Withrow	New Westminster
Alex Rose	Yale
D. W. Miller	New Westminster
R. Smith	Lytton
Charles Evans	Yale
Adam McLardy	Yale
Henry Havolock	Yale
James E. McMillan	Victoria
J. G. Norris	Victoria
Mifflin Wistar Gibbs	Salt Spring
E. H. Babbitt	Cariboo
W. C. King	Cariboo
J. C. Armstrong	Quesnel
F. J. Barnard	Williams Lake
Thomas Fulton	Metchosin
H. Featherstone	Lillooet
J. B. Thompson	Esquimalt
W. Fisher	Esquimalt
Hugh Nelson	Burrard Inlet
James Donnelley	Harrison River

The following conditions, i.e., the actual “terms” of this union, deal with familiar themes.³¹ Term no. two, for example, clarifies that the federal government is to assume the public debt of the colony, with no. four holding that all Crown lands and mineral rights are to remain within the exclusive purview of the proposed province.³² Others deal with more specific wants, such as no. seven’s provision for an “overland” wagon road extending from Lake Superior to the Fraser, or the tenth’s demand that British Columbia be represented (at all times) by at least two and three members in the Senate and House of Commons, respectively. Said conditions were mostly an extension of what had already been established by confederation activists. Indeed, a present reporter for the British Columbian noted they “are, for the most part, the same as those embodied in the Confederation Address which was moved during the last Session of the Legislative Council,” save for a slight modification to the overland road term and the addition of another proposing a free port on the pacific (no. nine).³³

The next meeting of the convention took place the following day, Tuesday, September 15th, at 10 a.m. This session elaborated on the rationale for responsible government and representative institutions in greater detail, regardless of whether British Columbia should join Canada. As clause V argues:

The establishment of Representative Institutions, without the simultaneous inauguration of Responsible Government, would be only a partial and very imperfect remedy for the evils produced by the present form of Government; and that unless the Governor were required to govern in accordance with the advice and consent of an Executive Council holding seats in the Legislature, and commanding the confidence and support of a majority of the representatives of the people, there would never be that degree of harmony between the Executive and the representatives of the people that is essential to the successful working of the Government and the rational contentment of the country. 
– Confederate League, Minutes of a preliminary meeting of the delegates, elected by the various districts of British Columbia convened at Yale pursuant to the following call: “Yale Convention,” 1868, 5–6.

Other clauses agreed to at this sitting enumerated a series of grievances, in particular lambasting the salaries of various public servants and the expenditures of their offices. Clauses X through XXI target a number of such positions for cuts and reforms, including the Governor, Colonial Secretary, the Office of Lands and Works, the Treasury, the Auditor, the Registrar of Titles, and so on. Perhaps in a slight to Seymour, the monies allocated to the Governor’s department were to be halved.³⁴

The final meeting of the Yale Convention on the 16th continued the theme of economic and political reform: defences of “capitalists” and retrenchment abound, perhaps reflecting De Cosmos’s own philosophical predilections. Clause XXX, for example, suggests that miners be granted rights to quartz veins with only modest government oversight, unlike the current “onerous” regulatory regime.³⁵ Clause XXXI is similarly fascinating. Expressing a desire to “preserve” the “Indian” population, the delegates rejected the reserve system and argued for a new model: settlers should be allowed to cultivate said protected lands in exchange for the remuneration of Indigenous peoples.³⁶

The final, thirty-seventh clause (XXXVII) of the convention sends a direct message to the actors who short-circuited earlier attempts at confederation: the recent refusal of the Legislative Council to pass an address to the Queen (referring to an April 24th, 1868 motion moved by De Cosmos but stalled by Helmcken) is described in typically theatrical style as “opposed to the well-understood wishes of the people of British Columbia.”³⁷ In closing, the delegates agreed to prepare and transmit a series of addresses to communicate their resolutions to Her Majesty, the Governor General, and the Governor, as well as a petition to the Imperial parliament. A final sub-clause calls for the creation of an Executive Committee to convene further summits and to liaise with Imperial, Canadian, and local governments. On September 24th, 1868, a full list of the preambles and resolutions agreed upon at the convention were granted a lavish two-page billing in the Colonist.³⁸

*

The Aftermath

Public and elite responses to the convention were, to put it generously, mixed. Victoria, having accumulated a hefty population of annexationists, punished De Cosmos by failing to return him to the Legislative Council in the subsequent election.³⁹ A controversy concerning the delegate selection process also did little to improve public perception of the event. A select few Victorians (essentially a conglomerate of notable anti-confederates) took umbrage with unelected members purporting to represent their community at the convention, claims rebutted with an argument the League was, in fact, selecting members to represent their organization itself and not the city.⁴⁰

Reception was more positive on the mainland. A glowing review of the proceedings in the New Westminster-based British Columbian lauded the delegates for their dignity and hailed the event for rising above the rancour of the legislature.⁴¹ Robson, for his part, was re-elected to represent New Westminster in the council; Francis Jones Barnard, representing Williams Lake in the convention and Yale in the legislature, also appears to have maintained the support of his constituents.⁴² In other words, the convention appears to have mainly hardened preexisting views (at least as they were at that time) on confederation: Victoria as strongly opposed and the mainland increasingly unionist. Whatever the case, it appears to have raised those tensions more than it “stimulated” popular support for confederation, as grandly suggested by that 1970 plaque.

However, this is not to say Yale had no supporters in the capital. As one observer in the Colonist, “J.,” commented at the time:

I have been a strong opponent to Confederation, and I am one of those people whose opinion is not easily altered, but I must candidly confess if it were possible to get from the Canadian Government one-half of the benefits that the Convention demands, I for one would go in for Union. I wish my fellow townsmen would calmly and carefully read over the resolutions which were proposed at Yale, they are thirty-seven; if they will do so (divesting themselves of all party feelings) they will come to the conclusion that there is nothing in these resolutions but what every well-wisher of British Columbia would wish to see carried out.
– “Confederation,” British Colonist, September 28, 1868.

While views of the convention—and confederation itself—varied across the colony and within individual communities, the power to act ultimately rested with the colonial government. Like the public, elite officeholders reacted to the conference by hardening their resolve. Seymour, in his usual form, forwarded an account of its proceedings to higher-ups in Downing Street (i.e., Richard Grenville) but made sure to include newspaper clippings from adversaries of the convention; he further added to his communique that its most prominent supporters (De Cosmos, for one) were defeated in the subsequent council elections.⁴³ Helmcken expressed his opposition to the goings-on at Yale more explicitly. The doctor was, after all, a prominent signatory to the public petition that condemned the League’s self-selection of representatives from Victoria.⁴⁴ He later commented that the convention “excited a good deal of ridicule, because a coloured man [Gibbs, Salt Spring] was one of the members,” adding that its actual influence is ultimately hard to say.⁴⁵

As a testament to the general ambivalence many held for the convention, it took the death of Seymour for confederation to again become part of the political agenda. Though different motivations have been ascribed to the former governor, one convincing theory was provided by the historian and jurist F.W. Howay in 1920. Seymour, initially indifferent, first became skeptical of federation after communicating with HBC representatives concerned about their title to Rupert’s Land; his subsequent throttling of the confederates is thus attributed by Howay to his want of saving both of their vaunted colonial positions.⁴⁶ Indeed, it appears the Family-Company compact continued to dictate the politics of British Columbia even as it made its meandering way into the Dominion. One John A. Macdonald was not a fan, responding to a February 1869 move by Seymour to delay consideration of confederation yet again with a plan for his recall, lest his tenure (Seymour’s, that is) end on its own terms.⁴⁷ While the popularity of union certainly waxed and waned—and indeed varied from community to community—many opportunities to proceed presented themselves, but Seymour seized none. His passing in the summer of 1869 cleared the way for the appointment of a pro-confederation successor, Anthony Musgrave, a favourite of Macdonald’s.⁴⁸

The long-awaited entrance of British Columbia into Canada finally came in 1871, shepherded by an unlikely set of delegates: Lands Commissioner Joseph Trutch, Helmcken, and Robert Carrall, a pro-confederation (though anti-responsible government) councillor.⁴⁹ De Cosmos, who had since secured a post-Yale political comeback, was not made a part of the official deputation, though he continued to press for the inclusion of responsible government in any potential deal through his latest venture, the Victoria Daily Standard.⁵⁰ His wishes were nevertheless well represented by H. E. Seelye, a newspaperman who joined the other negotiators as a “People’s Delegate” to advance the reformist cause during the intergovernmental deliberations.⁵¹ After much debate about whether responsible government was to be included as a condition of entrance or to be implemented afterward, it eventually made its way onto the docket as the fourteenth term of union.⁵² It thus fell to Trutch, as the province’s first lieutenant governor, to steer the administration during the interregnum and beyond.⁵³ In any case, the ultimate terms of union British Columbia had achieved were generous, including a transcontinental railway—a considerable upgrade from the desired wagon road—and, indeed, the shouldering of the colony’s debt.

*

Closing Words

The Yale Convention occupies a perhaps uncomfortable place in BC political history. Its relative obscurity naturally inspires a range of interpretations, not limited to the notion of a lost analogue to the Quebec Conference or, conversely, a mere historical footnote. In many respects, the convention was unremarkable: it itemized a list of theoretical demands that were already well-known, resonated primarily with the already converted, and proved disastrous in the short term for its main instigator, De Cosmos. To that point, confederation was only achieved after institutional roadblocks, namely Seymour and Helmcken, were no longer part of the equation (the former dying and the latter changing his tune).

One theory is that Yale represented a dress rehearsal of sorts for the negotiations three years later. The eventual terms of union, including the adoption of responsible government, a railway, and debt relief, at first suggest the convention served as some kind of blueprint. Again, there are problems with this hypothesis. For one, its primary movers, Robson and De Cosmos, were excluded from the colonial delegation to Ottawa, the latter being viewed as too eccentric and the former unwilling to leave his post at the Colonist.⁵⁴ Second, this explanation does not account for the fluctuations in pro-confederation sentiment that occurred both before and after the holding of the convention. It is unlikely that its goings-on represented any kind of roadmap for Trutch, Helmcken, and Carrall, especially after it had inspired such lukewarm responses—or worse, in the case of De Cosmos’s intermittent electoral defeat.

How, then, might the convention be fairly remembered? One alternative explanation is that it, like the Confederate League itself, constituted an elaborate pressure campaign. Time and again, the efforts of confederationists were frustrated by colonial officeholders, from those opposed to union for ideological reasons and others with a vested interest in preserving the system as it was. Therefore, after waging rhetorical war in the bylines of newspapers, grandstanding in electoral campaigns, and devising various schemes in the legislature, the confederation movement thought it best to take its cause to the people, hoping to maximize its pressure on the government through an ostentatious display in Yale. This plan, spearheaded by De Cosmos, represented a logical continuation of his approach and reflected his well-established flair for the theatrical. The only problem was that the convention was again hampered by those same oppositional forces, Helmcken and Seymour, achieved little of import, and promptly faded into obscurity. Though the convention may not have been British Columbia’s counterpart to the Quebec Conference, it speaks to the power of that time-honoured negotiation tactic: making a scene. One might recall Governor Seymour’s begrudging transmission of the resolutions to Downing Street as evidence of its real intent. To put it another way, the convention kept the flame of confederation burning during one of its darkest hours.

All this is to say that confederation with Canada, while always more plausible than annexation or continued independence, did not play out as preordained. Rather, the process was one of continuous false starts, dashed hopes, rancorous debates, and elite interference. The Yale Convention, for its part, represented but one flashpoint—a notable one, but a flashpoint, nonetheless. Not a conference in the sense of Quebec, where high-stakes “nation-building” ideas were fine-tuned, Yale was a display of power and unity for a confederationist movement that felt disempowered by recent failures. Certainly, the meat had already been put on the confederation bone by that point, as evidenced by the aborted April 1868 address to the Queen in the Legislative Council. Yale then was designed to maximize attention, illustrated by its ceaseless advertisements in local newspapers, colony-wide delegation, and florid, De Cosmosian rhetoric.

Although the convention attracted its fair share of critics at the time, situating it in the context of what came before and after suggests it was not a write-off but an effective strategy (at least in theory) for mobilizing confederation supporters and keeping the colonial government on alert. Again, even Seymour was forced to take notice. Perhaps Victoria confectioner (and later American politician) Andrew William Piper summed it up best. His 1868 sugar cartoon, “A ‘Lover of Beauty’ on his way to Yale,” depicting De Cosmos, Gibbs, and John Norris, a delegate for Victoria, frolicking to the convention, speaks to the event’s success as a political spectacle, both then and now. Whether Piper sought to lampoon or celebrate the conference is less clear but ultimately besides the point. In other words, Yale is a testament to the enduring relevance of that old adage: there is no such thing as bad publicity.

*

Sam Kiiskila is a graduate of the University of Victoria where he majored in political science. He currently works in the BC public service and enjoys reading about and researching Canadian political history. In his spare time, he enjoys listening to and playing music, running, and reading. He hopes that he can spark in others an interest in Canada and British Columbia history.

*

The British Columbia Review

Interim Editors, 2023-26: Trevor Marc Hughes (non-fiction), Brett Josef Grubisic (fiction)
Publisher: Richard Mackie

Formerly The Ormsby Review, The British Columbia Review is an on-line book review and journal service for BC writers and readers. The Advisory Board now consists of Jean Barman, Wade Davis, Robin Fisher, Barry Gough, Hugh Johnston, Kathy Mezei, Patricia Roy, and Graeme Wynn. Provincial Government Patron (since September 2018): Creative BC. Honorary Patron: Yosef Wosk. Scholarly Patron: SFU Graduate Liberal Studies. The British Columbia Review was founded in 2016 by Richard Mackie and Alan Twigg.

“Only connect.” – E.M. Forster

---

1. This plaque, erected by the Province in 1970, reads in full: “By 1868, the gold rushes that had founded British Columbia were over, the public debt was soaring and many were dissatisfied with the colonial government. On September 14, 1868, 26 delegates from all over the colony met at Yale for a convention of the Confederate League. This convention did much to stimulate popular support for the idea of union with Canada as a solution to the colony’s problems.” ↩︎
2. See, for example: Walter N. Sage, “British Columbia and Confederation,” British Columbia Historical Quarterly 15, no. 1–2 (1951): 83; and Keith Ralston, “They won Responsible government for British Columbia: The story of the Yale Convention,” Pacific Tribune, October 24, 1952. ↩︎
3. Margaret Ormsby, British Columbia: A History, (Toronto: Macmillan of Canada, 1971), 131. ↩︎
4. Ibid., 149–150. ↩︎
5. Barry M. Gough, “’Turbulent Frontiers’ and British Expansion: Governor James Douglas, the Royal Navy, and the British Columbia Gold Rushes,” Pacific Historical Review 41, no. 1 (1972): 20. ↩︎
6. H. Robert Kendrick, “Amor De Cosmos and Confederation,” in British Columbia and Confederation, ed. W. George Shelton, (Victoria: University of Victoria Press, 1967), 68. ↩︎
7. Lionel H. Laing, “The Family-Company Compact,” Washington Historical Quarterly 22, no. 2 (1931): 120–124. ↩︎
8. Gordon Hawkins, The De Cosmos Enigma, (Vancouver: Ronsdale Press, 2015), 69. ↩︎
9. Ibid., 91. ↩︎
10. Ibid., 93. ↩︎
11. Ormsby, British Columbia, 217, 224. ↩︎
12. Ibid., 221. ↩︎
13. Ibid., 222, 224–225. ↩︎
14. Walter N. Sage, “The Critical Period of British Columbia History, 1866–1871,” Pacific Historical Review 1, no. 4 (1932): 429. ↩︎
15. Dorothy Blakey Smith (ed.), The Reminiscences of Doctor John Sebastian Helmcken, (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1975), 247–248. For more on Helmcken’s views about confederation, see Holloway, “Without Conquest or Purchase,” 18–21. ↩︎
16. Walter N. Sage, “The Annexationist Movement in British Columbia,” Transactions of the Royal Society of Canada, Third Series, Volume XXI, Section II, (1927), 104. ↩︎
17. Ibid., 106–107. ↩︎
18. Kendrick, “Amor De Cosmos,” 78; Sage, “The Annexationist Movement,” 433–434. ↩︎
19. Sage, “The Critical Period,” 434. ↩︎
20. “The Birth of the New Nation—Our Prospects as a Member,” British Colonist, July 1, 1867. ↩︎
21. Legislative Council of British Columbia, Minutes of the Legislative Council, 5th Session, Apr 2 to 30, 1868, Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, 143–145. ↩︎
22. Sage, “British Columbia and Confederation,” 83. ↩︎
23. Olive Fairholm, “John Robson and Confederation,” in British Columbia and Confederation, W. George Shelton (ed.), (Victoria: University of Victoria Press, 1967), 112. ↩︎
24. Kendrick, “Amor De Cosmos,” 82; Fairholm, Ibid. ↩︎
25. “Yale Convention—Robert Beaven,” British Columbian, August 26, 1868. ↩︎
26. “The Public Meeting,” British Columbian, September 12, 1868. ↩︎
27. “From Our Special Correspondent,” British Columbian, September 16, 1868. ↩︎
28. Ibid. ↩︎
29. Kendrick, “Amor De Cosmos,” 82. ↩︎
30. Confederate League, Minutes of a preliminary meeting of the delegates, elected by the various districts of British Columbia convened at Yale pursuant to the following call: “Yale Convention,” 1868, 3. ↩︎
31. Though the convention officially produced thirty-seven resolutions, the third clause contained a further fifteen subsections representing the delegates’ desired terms of union. For the purposes of this essay, those conditions are referred to as “terms,” with the more general provisions dubbed “clauses.” The former, i.e., the terms, were established on the first day only; subsequent sessions enumerated clauses only. For clarity, clauses are described in Roman numerals and terms in written form. ↩︎
32. Confederate League, Minutes of a preliminary meeting, 3. ↩︎
33. “Our Special Correspondent,” British Columbian. ↩︎
34. Ibid., 7–8. ↩︎
35. Ibid., 10–11. ↩︎
36. Ibid., 11. ↩︎
37. Kendricks, “Amor De Cosmos,” 82; Confederate League, Minutes of a preliminary meeting, 12. ↩︎
38. “Proceedings of the Yale Convention,” British Colonist, September 24, 1868. ↩︎
39. Hawkins, De Cosmos Enigma, 102. ↩︎
40. Fairholm, “John Robson,” 114; “Confederation and the Self-elected Delegates,” British Colonist, September 17, 1868; “The Delegates of the Confederate League,” British Columbian, September 26, 1868. ↩︎
41. “The Convention,“ British Columbian, September 23, 1868. ↩︎
42. “Yale–Lytton Election,” British Colonist, November 27, 1869. ↩︎
43. Sage, “The Critical Period,” 438; Frederick Seymour, 30 November 1868, CO 60:33, no. 539, 525. The Colonial Despatches of Vancouver Island and British Columbia 1846-1871, Edition 2.4, James Hendrickson (ed.) and the Colonial Despatches project, Victoria, B.C.: University of Victoria. ↩︎
44. “A Card,” British Colonist, September 22, 1868. ↩︎
45. Smith (ed.), The Reminiscences, 246–247. ↩︎
46. “F. W. Howay, “The Attitude of Governor Seymour towards Confederation,” Transactions of the Royal Society of Canada, Third Series, 1920, 48–49. ↩︎
47. Margaret Ormsby, “Frederick Seymour, The Forgotten Governor,” BC Studies 22 (1974): 20–21. ↩︎
48. K. A. Waites, “Responsible Government and Confederation: The Popular Movement for Popular Government,” British Columbia Historical Quarterly 6, no. 2 (1942): 97–123. ↩︎
49. Kendricks, “Amor De Cosmos,” 87. ↩︎
50. Hawkins, De Cosmos Enigma, 104–105. ↩︎
51. Waites, “Responsible Government,” 117. ↩︎
52. Walter Sage, “From Colony to Province: The Introduction of Responsible Government in British Columbia,” BC Historical Quarterly 3, no. 1 (1939): 3–7. ↩︎
53. Ibid., 12–13. ↩︎
54. Kendricks, “Amor De Cosmos,” 87; Sage, “From Colony to Province,” 6. ↩︎