LORD ELGIN

by

SIR JOHN GEORGE BOURINOT

THE MAKERS OF CANADA

EDITED BY DUNCAN CAMPBELL SCOTT, F. R. S. C. , AND PELHAM EDGAR, PH. D. 

Edition De Luxe

Toronto, 1903

[Illustration: "Elgin a Kincardine. "]

EDITORS' NOTE

The late Sir John Bourinot had completed and revised the followingpages some months before his lamented death. The book represents moresatisfactorily, perhaps, than anything else that he has written theauthor's breadth of political vision and his concrete mastery ofhistorical fact. The life of Lord Elgin required to be written by onepossessed of more than ordinary insight into the interesting aspectsof constitutional law. That it has been singularly well presented mustbe the conclusion of all who may read this present narrative. 

CONTENTS

Chapter Page

 I: EARLY CAREER 1

 II: POLITICAL CONDITION IN CANADA 17

 III: POLITICAL DIFFICULTIES 41

 IV: THE INDEMNIFICATION ACT 61

 V: THE END OF THE LAFONTAINE-BALDWIN MINISTRY, 1851 85

 VI: THE HINCKS-MORIN MINISTRY 107

 VII: THE HISTORY OF THE CLERGY RESERVES (1791-1854) 143

VIII: SEIGNIORIAL TENURE 171

 IX: CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES 189

 X: FAREWELL TO CANADA 203

 XI: POLITICAL PROGRESS 227

 XII: A COMPARISON OF SYSTEMS 239

 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE 269

 INDEX 271

CHAPTER I

EARLY CAREER

The Canadian people have had a varied experience in governorsappointed by the imperial state. At the very commencement of Britishrule they were so fortunate as to find at the head of affairs Sir GuyCarleton--afterwards Lord Dorchester--who saved the country during theAmerican revolution by his military genius, and also proved himself anable civil governor in his relations with the French Canadians, thencalled "the new subjects, " whom he treated in a fair and generousspirit that did much to make them friendly to British institutions. Onthe other hand they have had military men like Sir James Craig, hospitable, generous, and kind, but at the same time incapable ofunderstanding colonial conditions and aspirations, ignorant of theprinciples and working of representative institutions, and too readyto apply arbitrary methods to the administration of civil affairs. Then they have had men who were suddenly drawn from some inconspicuousposition in the parent state, like Sir Francis Bond Head, and allowedby an apathetic or ignorant colonial office to prove their want ofdiscretion, tact, and even common sense at a very critical stage ofCanadian affairs. Again there have been governors of the highest rankin the peerage of England, like the Duke of Richmond, whoseadministration was chiefly remarkable for his success in aggravatingnational animosities in French Canada, and whose name would now bequite forgotten were it not for the unhappy circumstances of hisdeath. [1] Then Canadians have had the good fortune of the presence ofLord Durham at a time when a most serious state of affairsimperatively demanded that ripe political knowledge, that cooljudgment, and that capacity to comprehend political grievances whichwere confessedly the characteristics of this eminent Britishstatesman. Happily for Canada he was followed by a keen politician andan astute economist who, despite his overweening vanity and histendency to underrate the ability of "those fellows in thecolonies"--his own words in a letter to England--was well able togauge public sentiment accurately and to govern himself accordinglyduring his short term of office. Since the confederation of theprovinces there has been a succession of distinguished governors, somebearing names famous in the history of Great Britain and Ireland, somebringing to the discharge of their duties a large knowledge of publicbusiness gained in the government of the parent state and her wideempire, some gifted with a happy faculty of expressing themselves withease and elegance, and all equally influenced by an earnest desire tofill their important position with dignity, impartiality, andaffability. 

But eminent as have been the services of many of the governors whosememories are still cherished by the people of Canada, no one amongthem stands on a higher plane than James, eighth earl of Elgin andtwelfth earl of Kincardine, whose public career in Canada I propose torecall in the following narrative. He possessed to a remarkable degreethose qualities of mind and heart which enabled him to cope mostsuccessfully with the racial and political difficulties which met himat the outset of his administration, during a very critical period ofCanadian history. Animated by the loftiest motives, imbued with a deepsense of the responsibilities of his office, gifted with a rare powerof eloquent expression, possessed of sound judgment and infinitediscretion, never yielding to dictates of passion but alwaysdetermined to be patient and calm at moments of violent publicexcitement, conscious of the advantages of compromise and conciliationin a country peopled like Canada, entering fully into the aspirationsof a young people for self-government, ready to concede to FrenchCanadians their full share in the public councils, anxious to build upa Canadian nation without reference to creed or race--thisdistinguished nobleman must be always placed by a Canadian historianin the very front rank of the great administrators happily chosen fromtime to time by the imperial state for the government of her dominionsbeyond the sea. No governor-general, it is safe to say, has comenearer to that ideal, described by Sir Edward Bulwer Lytton, whensecretary of state for the colonies, in a letter to Sir George Bowen, himself distinguished for the ability with which he presided over theaffairs of several colonial dependencies. "Remember, " said LordLytton, to give that eminent author and statesman his later title, "that the first care of a governor in a free colony is to shun thereproach of being a party man. Give all parties, and all theministries formed, the fairest play. .. . After all, men are governed asmuch by the heart as by the head. Evident sympathy in the progress ofthe colony; traits of kindness, generosity, devoted energy, whererequired for the public weal; a pure exercise of patronage; an utterabsence of vindictiveness or spite; the fairness that belongs tomagnanimity: these are the qualities that make governors powerful, while men merely sharp and clever may be weak and detested. "

In the following chapters it will be seen that Lord Elgin fulfilledthis ideal, and was able to leave the country in the full confidencethat he had won the respect, admiration, and even affection of allclasses of the Canadian people. He came to the country when thereexisted on all sides doubts as to the satisfactory working of theunion of 1840, suspicions as to the sincerity of the imperialauthorities with respect to the concession of responsible government, a growing antagonism between the two nationalities which then, asalways, divided the province. A very serious economic disturbance wascrippling the whole trade of the country, and made somepersons--happily very few in number--believe for a short time thatindependence, or annexation to the neighbouring republic, waspreferable to continued connection with a country which so grudginglyconceded political rights to the colony, and so ruthlessly overturnedthe commercial system on which the province had been so longdependent. When he left Canada, Lord Elgin knew beyond a shadow of adoubt that the two nationalities were working harmoniously for thecommon advantage of the province, that the principles of responsiblegovernment were firmly established, and that the commercial andindustrial progress of the country was fully on an equality with itspolitical development. 

The man who achieved these magnificent results could claim an ancestryto which a Scotsman would point with national pride. He could tracehis lineage to the ancient Norman house of which "Robert the Bruce"--aname ever dear to the Scottish nation--was the most distinguishedmember. He was born in London on July 20th, 1811. His father was ageneral in the British army, a representative peer in the Britishparliament from 1790-1840, and an ambassador to several Europeancourts; but he is best known to history by the fact that he seriouslycrippled his private fortunes by his purchase, while in the East, ofthat magnificent collection of Athenian art which was afterwardsbought at half its value by the British government and placed in theBritish Museum, where it is still known as the "Elgin Marbles. " Fromhis father, we are told by his biographer, [2] he inherited "the genialand playful spirit which gave such a charm to his social and parentalrelations, and which helped him to elicit from others the knowledge ofwhich he made so much use in the many diverse situations of his afterlife. " The deep piety and the varied culture of his mother "made heradmirably qualified to be the depository of the ardent thoughts andaspirations of his boyhood. " At Oxford, where he completed hiseducation after leaving Eton, he showed that unselfish spirit andconsideration for the feelings of others which were the recognizedtraits of his character in after life. Conscious of the unsatisfactorystate of the family's fortunes, he laboured strenuously even incollege to relieve his father as much as possible of the expenses ofhis education. While living very much to himself, he never failed towin the confidence and respect even at this youthful age of all thosewho had an opportunity of knowing his independence of thought andjudgment. Among his contemporaries were Mr. Gladstone, afterwardsprime minister; the Duke of Newcastle, who became secretary of statefor the colonies and was chief adviser of the Prince of Wales--nowEdward VII--during his visit to Canada in 1860; and Lord Dalhousie andLord Canning, both of whom preceded him in the governor-generalship ofIndia. In the college debating club he won at once a verydistinguished place. "I well remember, " wrote Mr. Gladstone, manyyears later, "placing him as to the natural gift of eloquence at thehead of all those I knew either at Eton or at the University. " He tooka deep interest in the study of philosophy. In him--to quote theopinion of his own brother, Sir Frederick Bruce, "the Reason andUnderstanding, to use the distinctions of Coleridge, were both largelydeveloped, and both admirably balanced. . .. He set himself to work toform in his own mind a clear idea of each of the constituent parts ofthe problem with which he had to deal. This he effected partly byreading, but still more by conversation with special men, and by thatextraordinary logical power of mind and penetration which not onlyenabled him to get out of every man all he had in him, but whichrevealed to these men themselves a knowledge of their own imperfectand crude conceptions, and made them constantly unwilling witnesses orreluctant adherents to views which originally they were prepared tooppose. .. . " The result was that, "in an incredibly short time heattained an accurate and clear conception of the essential factsbefore him, and was thus enabled to strike out a course which he couldconsistently pursue amid all difficulties, because it was in harmonywith the actual facts and the permanent conditions of the problem hehad to solve. " Here we have the secret of his success in grapplingwith the serious and complicated questions which constantly engagedhis attention in the administration of Canadian affairs. 

After leaving the university with honour, he passed several years onthe family estate, which he endeavoured to relieve as far as possiblefrom the financial embarrassment into which it had fallen ever sincehis father's extravagant purchase in Greece. In 1840, by the death ofhis eldest brother, George, who died unmarried, James became heir tothe earldom, and soon afterwards entered parliament as member for theborough of Southampton. He claimed then, as always, to be a LiberalConservative, because he believed that "the institutions of ourcountry, religious as well as civil, are wisely adapted, when duly andfaithfully administered, to promote, not the interest of any class orclasses exclusively, but the happiness and welfare of the great bodyof the people"; and because he felt that, "on the maintenance of theseinstitutions, not only the economical prosperity of England, but, whatis yet more important, the virtues that distinguish and adorn theEnglish character, under God, mainly depend. "

During the two years Lord Elgin remained in the House of Commons hegave evidence to satisfy his friends that he possessed to an eminentdegree the qualities which promised him a brilliant career in Britishpolitics. Happily for the administration of the affairs of Britain'scolonial empire, he was induced by Lord Stanley, then secretary ofstate for the colonies, to surrender his prospects in parliament andaccept the governorship of Jamaica. No doubt he was largely influencedto take this position by the conviction that he would be able torelieve his father's property from the pressure necessarily entailedupon it while he remained in the expensive field of national politics. On his way to Jamaica he was shipwrecked, and his wife, a daughter ofMr. Charles Cumming Bruce, M. P. , of Dunphail, Stirling, suffered ashock which so seriously impaired her health that she died a fewmonths after her arrival in the island when she had given birth to adaughter. [3] His administration of the government of Jamaica wasdistinguished by a strong desire to act discreetly and justly at atime when the economic conditions of the island were still seriouslydisturbed by the emancipation of the negroes. Planter and black alikefound in him a true friend and sympathizer. He recognized thenecessity of improving the methods of agriculture, and did much by theestablishment of agricultural societies to spread knowledge among theignorant blacks, as well as to create a spirit of emulation among thelandlords, who were still sullen and apathetic, requiring muchpersuasion to adapt themselves to the new order of things, and makeefforts to stimulate skilled labour among the coloured population whomthey still despised. Then, as always in his career, he was animated bythe noble impulse to administer public affairs with a sole regard tothe public interests, irrespective of class or creed, to elevate mento a higher conception of their public duties. "To reconcile theplanter"--I quote from one of his letters to Lord Stanley--"to theheavy burdens which he was called to bear for the improvement of ourestablishments and the benefit of the mass of the population, it wasnecessary to persuade him that he had an interest in raising thestandard of education and morals among the peasantry; and this beliefcould be imparted only by inspiring a taste for a more artificialsystem of husbandry. " "By the silent operation of such salutaryconvictions, " he added, "prejudices of old standing are removed; thefriends of the negro and of the proprietary classes find themselvesalmost unconsciously acting in concert, and conspiring to completethat great and holy work of which the emancipation of the slave wasbut the commencement. "

At this time the relations between the island and the home governmentswere always in a very strained condition on account of the difficultyof making the colonial office fully sensible of the financialembarrassment caused by the upheaval of the labour and social systems, and of the wisest methods of assisting the colony in its straits. Asit too often happened in those old times of colonial rule, the homegovernment could with difficulty be brought to understand that theeconomic principles which might satisfy the state of affairs in GreatBritain could not be hastily and arbitrarily applied to a countrysuffering under peculiar difficulties. The same unintelligent spiritwhich forced taxation on the thirteen colonies, which complicateddifficulties in the Canadas before the rebellion of 1837, seemed forthe moment likely to prevail, as soon as the legislature of Jamaicapassed a tariff framed naturally with regard to conditions existingwhen the receipts and expenditures could not be equalized, and thefinancial situation could not be relieved from its extreme tension inany other way than by the imposition of duties which happened to be inantagonism with the principles then favoured by the imperialgovernment. At this critical juncture Lord Elgin successfullyinterposed between the colonial office and the island legislature, andobtained permission for the latter to manage this affair in its ownway. He recognized the fact, obvious enough to any one conversant withthe affairs of the island, that the tariff in question was absolutelynecessary to relieve it from financial ruin, and that any strenuousinterference with the right of the assembly to control its own taxesand expenses would only tend to create complications in the governmentand the relations with the parent state. He was convinced, as he wroteto the colonial office, that an indispensable condition of hisusefulness as a governor was "a just appreciation of the difficultieswith which the legislature of the island had yet to contend, and ofthe sacrifices and exertions already made under the pressure of noordinary embarrassments. "

Here we see Lord Elgin, at the very commencement of his career as acolonial governor, fully alive to the economic, social, and politicalconditions of the country, and anxious to give its people everylegitimate opportunity to carry out those measures which theybelieved, with a full knowledge and experience of their own affairs, were best calculated to promote their own interests. We shall seelater that it was in exactly the same spirit that he administeredCanadian questions of much more serious import. 

Though his government in Jamaica was in every sense a success, hedecided not to remain any longer than three years, and so wrote in1845 to Lord Stanley. Despite his earnest efforts to identify himselfwith the island's interests, he had led on the whole a retired and sadlife after the death of his wife. He naturally felt a desire to seekthe congenial and sympathetic society of friends across the sea, andperhaps return to the active public life for which he was in so manyrespects well qualified. In offering his resignation to the colonialsecretary he was able to say that the period of his administration hadbeen "one of considerable social progress"; that "uninterruptedharmony" had "prevailed between the colonists and the localgovernment"; that "the spirit of enterprise" which had proceeded fromJamaica for two years had "enabled the British West Indian colonies toendure with comparative fortitude, apprehensions and difficultieswhich otherwise might have depressed them beyond measure. "

It was not, however, until the spring of 1846 that Lord Elgin was ableto return on leave of absence to England, where the seals of officewere now held by a Liberal administration, in which Lord Grey wascolonial secretary. Although his political opinions differed fromthose of the party in power, he was offered the governor-generalshipof Canada when he declined to go back to Jamaica. No doubt at thisjuncture the British ministry recognized the absolute necessity thatexisted for removing all political grievances that arose from thetardy concession of responsible government since the death of LordSydenham, and for allaying as far as possible the discontent thatgenerally prevailed against the new fiscal policy of the parent state, which had so seriously paralyzed Canadian industries. It was a happyday for Canada when Lord Elgin accepted this gracious offer of hispolitical opponents, who undoubtedly recognized in him the possessionof qualities which would enable him successfully, in all probability, to grapple with the perplexing problems which embarrassed publicaffairs in the province. He felt (to quote his own language at apublic dinner given to him just before his departure for Canada) thathe undertook no slight responsibilities when he promised "to watchover the interests of those great offshoots of the British race whichplant themselves in distant lands, to aid them in their efforts toextend the domain of civilization, and to fulfill the first behest ofa benevolent Creator to His intelligent creatures--'subdue the earth';to abet the generous endeavour to impart to these rising communitiesthe full advantages of British laws, British institutions, and Britishfreedom; to assist them in maintaining unimpaired--it may be instrengthening and confirming--those bonds of mutual affection whichunite the parent and dependent states. "

Before his departure for the scene of his labours in America, hemarried Lady Mary Louisa Lambton, daughter of the Earl of Durham, whose short career in Canada as governor-general and high commissionerafter the rebellion of 1837 had such a remarkable influence on thepolitical conditions of the country. Whilst we cannot attach too muchimportance to the sage advice embodied in that great state paper onCanadian affairs which was the result of his mission to Canada, wecannot fail at the same time to see that the full vindication of thesound principles laid down in that admirable report is to be found inthe complete success of their application by Lord Elgin. The minds ofboth these statesmen ran in the same direction. They desired to giveadequate play to the legitimate aspirations of the Canadian people forthat measure of self-government which must stimulate an independenceof thought and action among colonial public men, and at the same timestrengthen the ties between the parent state and the dependency bycreating that harmony and confidence which otherwise could not existin the relations between them. But while there is little doubt thatLord Elgin would under any circumstances have been animated by a deepdesire to establish the principles of responsible government inCanada, this desire must have been more or less stimulated by thetender ties which bound him to the daughter of a statesman whoseopinions where so entirely in harmony with his own. In Lord Elgin'stemperament there was always a mingling of sentiment and reason, asmay be seen by reference to his finest exhibitions of eloquence. Wecan well believe that a deep reverence for the memory of a great man, too soon removed from the public life of Great Britain, combined withthe natural desire to please his daughter when he wrote these words toher:--

 "I still adhere to my opinion that the real and effectual vindication of Lord Durham's memory and proceedings will be the success of a governor-general of Canada who works out his views of government fairly. Depend upon it, if this country is governed for a few years satisfactorily, Lord Durham's reputation as a statesman will be raised beyond the reach of cavil. "

Now, more than half a century after he penned these words andexpressed this hope, we all perceive that Lord Elgin was theinstrument to carry out this work. 

Here it is necessary to close this very brief sketch of Lord Elgin'searly career, that I may give an account of the political and economicconditions of the dependency at the end of January, 1847, when hearrived in the city of Montreal to assume the responsibilities of hisoffice. This review will show the difficulties of the politicalsituation with which he was called upon to cope, and will enable us toobtain an insight into the high qualifications which he brought to theconduct of public affairs in the Canadas. 

CHAPTER II

POLITICAL CONDITION IN CANADA

To understand clearly the political state of Canada at the time LordElgin was appointed governor-general, it is necessary to go back for anumber of years. The unfortunate rebellions which were precipitated byLouis Joseph Papineau and William Lyon Mackenzie during 1837 in thetwo Canadas were the results of racial and political difficultieswhich had gradually arisen since the organization of the two provincesof Upper and Lower Canada under the Constitutional Act of 1791. In theFrench section, the French and English Canadians--the latter always aninsignificant minority as respects number--had in the course of timeformed distinct parties. As in the courts of law and in thelegislature, so it was in social and everyday life, the FrenchCanadian was in direct antagonism to the English Canadian. Manymembers of the official and governing class, composed almostexclusively of English, were still too ready to consider FrenchCanadians as inferior beings, and not entitled to the same rights andprivileges in the government of the country. It was a time of passionand declamation, when men of fervent eloquence, like Papineau, mighthave aroused the French as one man, and brought about a generalrebellion had they not been ultimately thwarted by the efforts of themoderate leaders of public opinion, especially of the priests who, inall national crises in Canada, have happily intervened on the side ofreason and moderation, and in the interests of British connection, which they have always felt to be favourable to the continuance andsecurity of their religious institutions. Lord Durham, in hismemorable report on the condition of Canada, has summed up veryexpressively the nature of the conflict in the French province. "Iexpected, " he said, "to find a contest between a government and apeople; I found two nations warring in the bosom of a single state; Ifound a struggle, not of principles, but of races. "

While racial antagonisms intensified the difficulties in FrenchCanada, there existed in all the provinces political conditions whicharose from the imperfect nature of the constitutional system concededby England in 1791, and which kept the country in a constant ferment. It was a mockery to tell British subjects conversant with Britishinstitutions, as Lieutenant-Governor Simcoe told the Upper Canadiansin 1792, that their new system of government was "an image andtranscript of the British constitution. " While it gave to the peoplerepresentative institutions, it left out the very principle which wasnecessary to make them work harmoniously--a government responsible tothe legislature, and to the people in the last resort, for the conductof legislation and the administration of affairs. In consequence ofthe absence of this vital principle, the machinery of governmentbecame clogged, and political strife convulsed the country from oneend to the other. An "irrepressible conflict" arose between thegovernment and the governed classes, especially in Lower Canada. Thepeople who in the days of the French régime were without influence andpower, had gained under their new system, defective as it was inessential respects, an insight into the operation of representativegovernment, as understood in England. They found they were governed, not by men responsible to the legislature and the people, but bygovernors and officials who controlled both the executive andlegislative councils. If there had always been wise and patientgovernors at the head of affairs, or if the imperial authorities couldalways have been made aware of the importance of the grievances laidbefore them, or had understood their exact character, the differencesbetween the government and the majority of the people'srepresentatives might have been arranged satisfactorily. But, unhappily, military governors like Sir James Craig only aggravated thedangers of the situation, and gave demagogues new opportunities forexciting the people. The imperial authorities, as a rule, weresincerely desirous of meeting the wishes of the people in a reasonableand fair spirit, but unfortunately for the country, they were toooften ill-advised and ill-informed in those days of slowcommunication, and the fire of public discontent was allowed tosmoulder until it burst forth in a dangerous form. 

In all the provinces, but especially in Lower Canada, the people sawtheir representatives practically ignored by the governing body, theirmoney expended without the authority of the legislature, and thecountry governed by irresponsible officials. A system which gavelittle or no weight to public opinion as represented in the House ofAssembly, was necessarily imperfect and unstable, and the naturalresult was a deadlock between the legislative council, controlled bythe official and governing class, and the house elected by the people. The governors necessarily took the side of the men whom they hadthemselves appointed, and with whom they were acting. In the maritimeprovinces in the course of time, the governors made an attempt now andthen to conciliate the popular element by bringing in men who hadinfluence in the assembly, but this was a matter entirely within theirown discretion. The system of government as a whole was worked indirect contravention of the principle of responsibility to themajority in the popular house. Political agitators had abundantopportunities for exciting popular passion. In Lower Canada, Papineau, an eloquent but impulsive man, having rather the qualities of anagitator than those of a statesman, led the majority of hiscompatriots. 

For years he contended for a legislative council elected by thepeople: and it is curious to note that none of the men who were at thehead of the popular party in Lower Canada ever recognized the fact, asdid their contemporaries in Upper Canada, that the difficulty would bebest solved, not by electing an upper house, but by obtaining anexecutive which would only hold office while supported by a majorityof the representatives in the people's house. In Upper Canada theradical section of the Liberal party was led by Mr. William LyonMackenzie, who fought vigorously against what was generally known asthe "Family Compact, " which occupied all the public offices andcontrolled the government. 

In the two provinces these two men at last precipitated a rebellion, in which blood was shed and much property destroyed, but which neverreached any very extensive proportions. In the maritime provinces, however, where the public grievances were of less magnitude, thepeople showed no sympathy whatever with the rebellious elements of theupper provinces. 

Amid the gloom that overhung Canada in those times there was one gleamof sunshine for England. Although discontent and dissatisfactionprevailed among the people on account of the manner in which thegovernment was administered, and of the attempts of the minority toengross all power and influence, there was still a sentiment in favourof British connection, and the annexationists were relatively few innumber. Even Sir Francis Bond Head--in no respect a man ofsagacity--understood this well when he depended on the militia tocrush the outbreak in the upper province; and Joseph Howe, the eminentleader of the popular party, uniformly asserted that the people ofNova Scotia were determined to preserve the integrity of the empire atall hazards. As a matter of fact, the majority of leading men, outsideof the minority led by Papineau, Nelson and Mackenzie, had aconviction that England was animated by a desire to act consideratelywith the provinces and that little good would come from precipitatinga conflict which could only add to the public misfortunes, and thatthe true remedy was to be found in constitutional methods of redressfor the political grievances which undoubtedly existed throughoutBritish North America. 

The most important clauses of the Union Act, which was passed by theimperial parliament in 1840 but did not come into effect untilFebruary of the following year, made provision for a legislativeassembly in which each section of the united provinces was representedby an equal number of members--forty-two for each and eighty-four forboth; for the use of the English language alone in the written orprinted proceedings of the legislature; for the placing of the publicindebtedness of the two provinces at the union as a first charge onthe revenues of the united provinces; for a two-thirds vote of themembers of each House before any change could be made in therepresentation. These enactments, excepting the last which provedeventually to be in their interest, were resented by the FrenchCanadians as clearly intended to place them in a position ofinferiority to the English Canadians. Indeed it was with naturalindignation they read that portion of Lord Durham's report whichexpressed the opinion that it was necessary to unite the two races onterms which would give the domination to the English. "Withouteffecting the change so rapidly or so roughly, " he wrote, "as to shockthe feelings or to trample on the welfare of the existing generation, it must henceforth be the first and steady purpose of the Britishgovernment to establish an English population, with English laws andlanguage, in this province, and to trust its government to none but adecidedly English legislature. "

French Canadians dwelt with emphasis on the feet that their provincehad a population of 630, 000 souls, or 160, 000 more than Upper Canada, and nevertheless received only the same number of representatives. French Canada had been quite free from the financial embarrassmentwhich had brought Upper Canada to the verge of bankruptcy before theunion; in fact the former had actually a considerable surplus when itsold constitution was revoked on the outbreak of the rebellion. It was, consequently, with some reason, considered an act of injustice to makethe people of French Canada pay the debts of a province whose revenuehad not for years met its liabilities. Then, to add to these decidedgrievances, there was a proscription of the French language, which wasnaturally resented as a flagrant insult to the race which firstsettled the valley of the St. Lawrence, and as the first blow levelledagainst the special institutions so dear to French Canadians andguaranteed by the Treaty of Paris and the Quebec Act. Mr. LaFontaine, whose name will frequently occur in the following chapters of thisbook, declared, when he presented himself at the first election underthe Union Act, that "it was an act of injustice and despotism"; but, as we shall soon see, he became a prime minister under the very act hefirst condemned. Like the majority of his compatriots, he eventuallyfound in its provisions protection for the rights of the people, andbecame perfectly satisfied with a system of government which enabledthem to obtain their proper position in the public councils andrestore their language to its legitimate place in the legislature. 

But without the complete grant of responsible government it wouldnever have been possible to give to French Canadians their legitimateinfluence in the administration and legislation of the country, or toreconcile the differences which had grown up between the twonationalities before the union and seemed likely to be perpetuated bythe conditions of the Union Act just stated. Lord Durham touched theweakest spot in the old constitutional system of the Canadianprovinces when he said that it was not "possible to secure harmony inany other way than by administering the government on those principleswhich have been found perfectly efficacious in Great Britain. " Hewould not "impair a single prerogative of the crown"; on the contraryhe believed "that the interests of the people of these provincesrequire the protection of prerogatives which have not hitherto beenexercised. " But he recognized the fact as a constitutional statesmanthat "the crown must, on the other hand, submit to the necessaryconsequences of representative institutions; and if it has to carry onthe government in unison with a representative body, it must consentto carry it on by means of those in whom that representative body hasconfidence. " He found it impossible "to understand how any Englishstatesman could have ever imagined that representative andirresponsible government could be successfully combined. " To supposethat such a system would work well there "implied a belief that FrenchCanadians have enjoyed representative institutions for half a centurywithout acquiring any of the characteristics of a free people; thatEnglishmen renounce every political opinion and feeling when theyenter a colony, or that the spirit of Anglo-Saxon freedom is utterlychanged and weakened among those who are transplanted across theAtlantic. "

No one who studies carefully the history of responsible governmentfrom the appearance of Lord Durham's report and Lord John Russell'sdespatches of 1839 until the coming of Lord Elgin to Canada in 1847, can fail to see that there was always a doubt in the minds of theimperial authorities--a doubt more than once actually expressed in theinstructions to the governors--whether it was possible to work the newsystem on the basis of a governor directly responsible to the parentstate and at the same time acting under the advice of ministersdirectly responsible to the colonial parliament. Lord John Russell hadbeen compelled to recognize the fact that it was not possible togovern Canada by the old methods of administration--that it wasnecessary to adopt a new colonial policy which would give a largermeasure of political freedom to the people and ensure greater harmonybetween the executive government and the popular assemblies. Mr. Poulett Thomson, afterwards Lord Sydenham, was appointedgovernor-general with the definite objects of completing the union ofthe Canadas and inaugurating a more liberal system of colonialadministration. As he informed the legislature of Upper Canadaimmediately after his arrival, in his anxiety to obtain its consent tothe union, he had received "Her Majesty's commands to administer thegovernment of these provinces in accordance with the well understoodwishes and interests of the people. " When the legislature of theunited provinces met for the first time, he communicated twodespatches in which the colonial secretary stated emphatically that, "Her Majesty had no desire to maintain any system or policy among herNorth American subjects which opinion condemns, " and that there was"no surer way of gaining the approbation of the Queen than bymaintaining the harmony of the executive with the legislativeauthorities. " The governor-general was instructed, in order "tomaintain the utmost possible harmony, " to call to his councils and toemploy in the public service "those persons who, by their position andcharacter, have obtained the general confidence and esteem of theinhabitants of the province. " He wished it to be generally made knownby the governor-general that thereafter certain heads of departmentswould be called upon "to retire from the public service as often asany sufficient motives of public policy might suggest the expediencyof that measure. " It appears, however, that there was always areservation in the minds of the colonial secretary and of governorswho preceded Lord Elgin as to the meaning of responsible governmentand the methods of carrying it out in a colony dependent on the crown. Lord Sydenham himself believed that the council should be one "for thegovernor to consult and no more"; that the governor could "not beresponsible to the government at home and also to the legislature ofthe province, " for if it were so "then all colonial government becomesimpossible. " The governor, in his opinion, "must therefore be theminister [i. E. , the colonial secretary], in which case he cannot beunder control of men in the colony. " But it was soon made clear to soastute a politician as Lord Sydenham that, whatever were his own viewsas to the meaning that should be attached to responsible government, he must yield as far as possible to the strong sentiment whichprevailed in the country in favour of making the ministry dependent onthe legislature for its continuance in office. The resolutions passedby the legislature in support of responsible government wereunderstood to have his approval. They differed very little inwords--in essential principle not at all--from those first introducedby Mr. Baldwin. The inference to be drawn from the political situationof that time is that the governor's friends in the council thought itadvisable to gain all possible credit with the public in connectionwith the all-absorbing question of the day, and accordingly brought inthe following resolutions in amendment to those presented by theLiberal chief:--

 "1. That the head of the executive government of the province, being within the limits of his government the representative of the sovereign, is responsible to the imperial authority alone, but that nevertheless the management of our local affairs can only be conducted by him with the assistance, counsel, and information of subordinate officers in the province. 

 "2. That in order to preserve between the different branches of the provincial parliament that harmony which is essential to the peace, welfare, and good government of the province, the chief advisers of the representative of the sovereign, constituting a provincial administration under him, ought to be men possessed of the confidence of the representatives of the people; thus affording a guarantee that the well-understood wishes and interests of the people--which our gracious sovereign has declared shall be the rule of the provincial government--will on all occasions be faithfully represented and advocated. 

 "3. That the people of this province have, moreover, the right to expect from such provincial administration the exercise of their best endeavours, that the imperial authority, within its constitutional limits, shall be exercised in the manner most consistent with their well-understood wishes and interests. "

It is quite possible that had Lord Sydenham lived to complete his termof office, the serious difficulties that afterwards arose in thepractice of responsible government would not have occurred. Giftedwith a clear insight into political conditions and a thoroughknowledge of the working of representative institutions, he would haveunderstood that if parliamentary government was ever to be introducedinto the colony it must be not in a half-hearted way, or with suchreservations as he had had in his mind when he first came to theprovince. Amid the regret of all parties he died from the effects of afall from his horse a few months after the inauguration of the union, and was succeeded by Sir Charles Bagot, who distinguished himself in ashort administration of two years by the conciliatory spirit which heshowed to the French Canadians, even at the risk of offending theultra loyalists who seemed to think, for some years after the union, that they alone were entitled to govern the dependency. 

The first ministry after that change was composed of Conservatives andmoderate Liberals, but it was soon entirely controlled by the former, and never had the confidence of Mr. Baldwin. That eminent statesmanhad been a member of this administration at the time of the union, buthe resigned on the ground that it ought to be reconstructed if it wasto represent the true sentiment of the country at large. When SirCharles Bagot became governor the Conservatives were very sanguinethat they would soon obtain exclusive control of the government, as hewas known to be a supporter of the Conservative party in England. Itwas not long, however, before it was evident that his administrationwould be conducted, not in the interests of any set of politicians, but on principles of compromise and justice to all political parties, and, above all, with the hope of conciliating the French Canadians andbringing them into harmony with the new conditions. One of his firstacts was the appointment of an eminent French Canadian, M. Vallièresde Saint-Réal, to the chief-justiceship of Montreal. Otherappointments of able French Canadians to prominent public positionsevoked the ire of the Tories, then led by the Sherwoods and Sir AllanMacNab, who had taken a conspicuous part in putting down the rebellionof 1837-8. Sir Charles Bagot, however, persevered in his policy ofattempting to stifle racial prejudices and to work out the principlesof responsible government on broad national lines. He appointed anable Liberal and master of finance, Mr. Francis Hincks, to theposition of inspector-general with a seat in the cabinet. Theinfluence of the French Canadians in parliament was now steadilyincreasing, and even strong Conservatives like Mr. Draper were forcedto acknowledge that it was not possible to govern the provinceon the principle that they were an inferior and subject people, whose representatives could not be safely entrusted with anyresponsibilities as ministers of the crown. Negotiations for theentrance of prominent French Canadians in opposition to the governmentwent on without result for some time, but they were at lastsuccessful, and the first LaFontaine-Baldwin cabinet came intoexistence in 1842, largely through the instrumentality of Sir CharlesBagot. Mr. Baldwin was a statesman whose greatest desire was thesuccess of responsible government without a single reservation. Mr. LaFontaine was a French Canadian who had wisely recognized thenecessity of accepting the union he had at first opposed, and ofmaking responsible government an instrument for the advancement of theinterests of his compatriots and of bringing them into unison with allnationalities for the promotion of the common good. The otherprominent French Canadian in the ministry was Mr. A. N. Morin, whopossessed the confidence and respect of his people, but was wanting inthe energy and ability to initiate and press public measures which hisleader possessed. 

The new administration had not been long in office when thegovernor-general fell a victim to an attack of dropsy, complicated byheart disease, and was succeeded by Sir Charles Metcalfe, who had heldprominent official positions in India, and was governor of Jamaicaprevious to Lord Elgin's appointment. No one who has studied hischaracter can doubt the honesty of his motives or his amiablequalities, but his political education in India and Jamaica renderedhim in many ways incapable of understanding the political conditionsof a country like Canada, where the people were determined to work outthe system of parliamentary government on strictly British principles. He could have obtained little assistance from British statesmen had hebeen desirous of mastering and applying the principles of responsiblegovernment to the dependency. Their opinions and instructions werestill distinguished by a perplexing vagueness. They would not believethat a governor of a dependency could occupy exactly the same relationwith respect to his responsible advisers and to political parties asis occupied with such admirable results by the sovereign of England. It was considered necessary that a governor should make himself aspowerful a factor as possible in the administration of publicaffairs--that he should be practically the prime minister, responsible, not directly to the colonial legislature, but to theimperial government, whose servant he was and to whom he shouldconstantly refer for advice and assistance whenever in his opinion theoccasion arose. In other words it was almost impossible to remove fromthe mind of any British statesman, certainly not from the colonialoffice of those days, the idea that parliamentary government meant onething in England and the reverse in the colonies, that Englishmen athome could be entrusted with a responsibility which it was inexpedientto allow to Englishmen or Frenchmen across the sea. The colonialoffice was still reluctant to give up complete control of the localadministration of the province, and wished to retain a veto by meansof the governor, who considered official favour more desirable thanthe approval of any colonial legislature. More or less imbued withsuch views, Sir Charles Metcalfe was bound to come into conflict withLaFontaine and Baldwin, who had studied deeply the principles andpractice of parliamentary government, and knew perfectly well thatthey could be carried out only by following the precedents establishedin the parent state. 

It was not long before the rupture came between men holding views sodiametrically opposed to each other with respect to the conduct ofgovernment. The governor-general decided not to distribute thepatronage of the crown under the advice of his responsible ministry, as was, of necessity, the constitutional practice in England, but toignore the latter, as he boldly declared, whenever he deemed itexpedient. "I wish, " he wrote to the colonial secretary, "to make thepatronage of the government conducive to the conciliation of allparties by bringing into the public service men of the greatest meritand efficiency without any party distinction. " These were noblesentiments, sound in theory, but entirely incompatible with theoperation of responsible government. If patronage is to be properlyexercised in the interests of the people at large, it must be done bymen who are directly responsible to the representatives of the people. If a governor-general is to make appointments without reference to hisadvisers, he must be more or less subject to party criticism, withouthaving the advantage of defending himself in the legislature, or ofhaving men duly authorized by constitutional usage to do so. Therevival of that personal government which had evoked so much politicalrancour, and brought governors into the arena of party strife beforethe rebellion, was the natural result of the obstinate andunconstitutional attitude assumed by Lord Metcalfe with respect toappointments to office and other matters of administration. 

All the members of the LaFontaine-Baldwin government, with theexception of Mr. Dominick Daly, resigned in consequence of thegovernor's action. Mr. Daly had no special party proclivities, andfound it to his personal interests to remain his Excellency's soleadviser. Practically the province was without an administration formany months, and when, at last, the governor-general was forced bypublic opinion to show a measure of respect for constitutional methodsof government, he succeeded after most strenuous efforts in forming aConservative cabinet, in which Mr. Draper was the only man ofconspicuous ability. The French Canadians were represented by Mr. Viger and Mr. Denis B. Papineau, a brother of the famous rebel, neither of whom had any real influence or strength in Lower Canada, where the people recognized LaFontaine as their true leader and ablestpublic man. In the general election which soon followed thereconstruction of the government, it was sustained by a smallmajority, won only by the most unblushing bribery, by bitter appealsto national passion, and by the personal influence of thegovernor-general, as was the election which immediately preceded therising in Upper Canada. In later years, Lord Grey[4] remarked thatthis success was "dearly purchased, by the circumstance that theparliamentary opposition was no longer directed against the advisersof the governor but against the governor himself, and the Britishgovernment, of which he was the organ. " The majority of the governmentwas obtained from Upper Canada, where a large body of people weremisled by appeals made to their loyalty and attachment to the crown, and where a large number of Methodists were influenced by theextraordinary action of the Rev. Egerton Ryerson, a son of a UnitedEmpire Loyalist, who defended the position of the governor-general, and showed how imperfectly he understood the principles and practiceof responsible government. In a life of Sir Charles Metcalfe, [5] whichappeared shortly after his death, it is stated that thegovernor-general "could not disguise from himself that the governmentwas not strong, that it was continually on the brink of defeat, andthat it was only enabled to hold its position by resorting to shiftsand expedients, or what are called tactics, which in his inmost soulLord Metcalfe abhorred. "

The action of the British ministry during this crisis in Canadianaffairs proved quite conclusively that it was not yet prepared toconcede responsible government in its fullest sense. Both LordStanley, then secretary of state for the colonies, and Lord JohnRussell, who had held the same office in a Whig administration, endorsed the action of the governor-general, who was raised to thepeerage under the title of Baron Metcalfe of Fernhill, in the countyof Berks. Earthly honours were now of little avail to the new peer. Hehad been a martyr for years to a cancer in the face, and when itassumed a most dangerous form he went back to England and died soonafter his return. So strong was the feeling against him among a largebody of the people, especially in French Canada, that he was bitterlyassailed until the hour when he left, a dying man. Personally he wasgenerous and charitable to a fault, but he should never have been sentto a colony at a crisis when the call was for a man versed in thepractice of parliamentary government, and able to sympathize with theaspirations of a people determined to enjoy political freedom inaccordance with the principles of the parliamentary institutions ofEngland. With a remarkable ignorance of the political conditions ofthe province--too often shown by British statesmen in those days--sogreat a historian and parliamentarian as Lord Macaulay actually wroteon a tablet to Lord Metcalfe's memory:--"In Canada, not yet recoveredfrom the calamities of civil war, he reconciled contending factions toeach other and to the mother country. " The truth is, as written by SirFrancis Hincks[6] fifty years later, "he embittered the party feelingthat had been considerably assuaged by Sir Charles Bagot. "

Lord Metcalfe was succeeded by Lord Cathcart, a military man, who waschosen because of the threatening aspect of the relations betweenEngland and the United States on the question of the Oregon boundary. During his short term of office he did not directly interfere inpolitics, but carefully studied the defence of the country and quietlymade preparations for a rupture with the neighbouring republic. Theresult of his judicious action was the disappearance of much of thepolitical bitterness which had existed during Lord Metcalfe'sadministration. The country, indeed, had to face issues of vitalimportance to its material progress. Industry and commerce wereseriously affected by the adoption of free trade in England, and theconsequent removal of duties which had given a preference in theBritish markets to Canadian wheat, flour, and other commodities. Theeffect upon the trade of the province would not have been so serioushad England at this time repealed the old navigation laws which closedthe St. Lawrence to foreign shipping and prevented the extension ofcommerce to other markets. Such a course might have immediatelycompensated Canadians for the loss of those of the motherland. Theanxiety that was generally felt by Canadians on the reversal of theBritish commercial policy under which they had been able to build up avery profitable trade, was shown in the language of a very largelysigned address from the assembly to the Queen. "We cannot but fear, "it was stated in this document, "that the abandonment of theprotective principle, the very basis of the colonial commercialsystem, is not only calculated to retard the agricultural improvementof the country and check its hitherto rising prosperity, but seriouslyto impair our ability to purchase the manufactured goods of GreatBritain--a result alike prejudicial to this country and the parentstate. " But this appeal to the selfishness of British manufacturershad no influence on British statesmen so far as their fiscal policywas concerned. But while they were not prepared to depart in anymeasure from the principles of free trade and give the colonies apreference in British markets over foreign countries, they becameconscious that the time had come for removing, as far as possible, allcauses of public discontent in the provinces, at this critical periodof commercial depression. British statesmen had suddenly awakened tothe mistakes of Lord Metcalfe's administration of Canadian affairs, and decided to pursue a policy towards Canada which would restoreconfidence in the good faith and justice of the imperial government. "The Queen's representative"--this is a citation from a Londonpaper[7] supporting the Whig government--"should not assume that hedegrades the crown by following in a colony with a constitutionalgovernment the example of the crown at home. Responsible governmenthas been conceded to Canada, and should be attended in its workingswith all the consequences of responsible government in the mothercountry. What the Queen cannot do in England the governor-generalshould not be permitted to do in Canada. In making imperialappointments she is bound to consult her cabinet; in making provincialappointments the governor-general should be bound to do the same. "

The Oregon dispute had been settled, like the question of the Maineboundary, without any regard to British interests in America, and itwas now deemed expedient to replace Lord Cathcart by a civil governor, who would be able to carry out, in the valley of the St. Lawrence, thenew policy of the colonial office, and strengthen the ties between theprovince and the parent state. 

As I have previously stated, Lord John Russell's ministry made a wisechoice in the person of Lord Elgin. In the following pages I shallendeavour to show how fully were realized the high expectations ofthose British statesmen who sent him across the Atlantic at thiscritical epoch in the political and industrial conditions of theCanadian dependency. 

CHAPTER III

POLITICAL DIFFICULTIES

Lord Elgin made a most favourable impression on the public opinion ofCanada from the first hour he arrived in Montreal, and hadopportunities of meeting and addressing the people. His genial manner, his ready speech, his knowledge of the two languages, his obviousdesire to understand thoroughly the condition of the country and topursue British methods of constitutional government, were allcalculated to attract the confidence of all nationalities, classes, and creeds. The supporters of responsible government heard withinfinite pleasure the enunciation of the principles which would guidehim in the discharge of his public duties. "I am sensible, " he said inanswer to a Montreal address, "that I shall but maintain theprerogative of the Crown, and most effectually carry out theinstructions with which Her Majesty has honoured me, by manifesting adue regard for the wishes and feelings of the people and by seekingthe advice and assistance of those who enjoy their confidence. "

At this time the Draper Conservative ministry, formed under suchpeculiar circumstances by Lord Metcalfe, was still in office, and LordElgin, as in duty bound, gave it his support, although it was clear tohim and to all other persons at all conversant with public opinionthat it did not enjoy the confidence of the country at large, and mustsoon give place to an administration more worthy of popular favour. Herecognized the fact that the crucial weakness in the politicalsituation was "that a Conservative government meant a government ofUpper Canadians, which is intolerable to the French, and a Radicalgovernment meant a government of French, which is no less hateful tothe British. " He believed that the political problem of "how to governunited Canada"--and the changes which took place later showed he wasright--would be best solved "if the French would split into a Liberaland Conservative party, and join the Upper Canada parties which bearcorresponding names. " Holding these views, he decided at the outset togive the French Canadians full recognition in the reconstruction orformation of ministries during his term of office. And under allcircumstances he was resolved to give "to his ministers allconstitutional support, frankly and without reserve, and the benefitof the best advice" that he could afford them in their difficulties. In return for this he expected that they would, "in so far as it ispossible for them to do so, carry out his views for the maintenance ofthe connection with Great Britain and the advancement of the interestsof the province. " On this tacit understanding, they--thegovernor-general and the Draper-Viger cabinet--had "acted togetherharmoniously, " although he had "never concealed from them that heintended to do nothing" which would "prevent him from workingcordially with their opponents. " It was indispensable that "the headof the government should show that he has confidence in the loyalty ofall the influential parties with which he has to deal, and that heshould have no personal antipathies to prevent him from acting withleading men. "

Despite the wishes of Lord Elgin, it was impossible to reconstruct thegovernment with a due regard to French Canadian interests. Mr. Caronand Mr. Morin, both strong men, could not be induced to becomeministers. The government continued to show signs of disintegration. Several members resigned and took judgeships in Lower Canada. Even Mr. Draper retired with the understanding that he should also go on thebench at the earliest opportunity in Upper Canada. Another effort wasmade to keep the ministry together, and Mr. Henry Sherwood became itshead; but the most notable acquisition was Mr. John AlexanderMacdonald as receiver-general. From that time this able man took aconspicuous place in the councils of the country, and eventuallybecame prime minister of the old province of Canada, as well as of thefederal dominion which was formed many years later in British NorthAmerica, largely through his instrumentality. From his first entranceinto politics he showed that versatility of intellect, that readinessto adapt himself to dominant political conditions and make themsubservient to the interests of his party, that happy faculty ofmaking and keeping personal friends, which were the most strikingtraits of his character. His mind enlarged as he had greaterexperience and opportunities of studying public life, and the man whoentered parliament as a Tory became one of the most LiberalConservatives who ever administered the affairs of a colonialdependency, and, at the same time, a statesman of a comprehensiveintellect who recognized the strength of British institutions and theadvantage of British connection. 

The obvious weakness of the reconstructed ministry was the absence ofany strong men from French Canada. Mr. Denis B. Papineau was in nosense a recognized representative of the French Canadians, and did noteven possess those powers of eloquence--that ability to give forth"rhetorical flashes"--which were characteristic of his reckless buthighly gifted brother. In fact the ministry as then organized was amere makeshift until the time came for obtaining an expression ofopinion from the people at the polls. When parliament met in June, 1847, it was quite clear that the ministry was on the eve of itsdownfall. It was sustained only by a feeble majority of two votes onthe motion for the adoption of the address to the governor-general. The opposition, in which LaFontaine, Baldwin, Aylwin, and Chauveauwere the most prominent figures, had clearly the best of the argumentin the political controversies with the tottering ministry. Even inthe legislative council resolutions, condemning it chiefly on theground that the French province was inadequately represented in thecabinet, were only negatived by the vote of the president, Mr. McGill, a wealthy merchant of Montreal, who was also a member of theadministration. 

Despite the weakness of the government, the legislature was calledupon to deal with several questions which pressed for immediateaction. Among the important measures which were passed was oneproviding for the amendment of the law relating to forgery, which wasno longer punishable by death. Another amended the law with respect tomunicipalities in Lower Canada, which, however, failed to satisfy thelocal requirements of the people, though it remained in force foreight years, when it was replaced by one better adapted to theconditions of the French province. The legislature also discussed theserious effects of free trade upon Canadian industry, and passed anaddress to the Crown praying for the repeal of the laws whichprevented the free use of the St. Lawrence by ships of all nations. But the most important subject with which the government was calledupon to deal was one which stifled all political rivalry and nationalprejudices, and demanded the earnest consideration of all parties. Canada, like the rest of the world, had heard of an unhappy landsmitten with a hideous plague, of its crops lying in pestilentialheaps and of its peasantry dying above them, of fathers, mothers, andchildren ghastly in their rags or nakedness, of dead unburied, and theliving flying in terror, as it were, from a stricken battlefield. Thisdreadful Irish famine forced to Canada upwards of 100, 000 persons, thegreater number of whom were totally destitute and must have starved todeath had they not received public or private charity. The miseries ofthese unhappy immigrants were aggravated to an inconceivable degree bythe outbreak of disease of a most malignant character, stimulated bythe wretched physical condition and by the disgraceful state of thepest ships in which they were brought across the ocean. In those daysthere was no effective inspection or other means taken to protect frominfection the unhappy families who were driven from their old homes bypoverty and misery. From Grosse Isle, the quarantine station on theLower St. Lawrence, to the most distant towns in the western province, many thousands died in awful suffering, and left helpless orphans toevoke the aid and sympathy of pitying Canadians everywhere. Canada wasin no sense responsible for this unfortunate state of things. Theimperial government had allowed this Irish immigration to go onwithout making any effort whatever to prevent the evils that followedit from Ireland to the banks of the St. Lawrence and the Great Lakes. It was a heavy burden which Canada should never have been called uponto bear at a time when money was scarce and trade was paralyzed by theaction of the imperial parliament itself. Lord Elgin was fully aliveto the weighty responsibility which the situation entailed upon theBritish government, and at the same time did full justice to theexertions of the Canadian people to cope with this sad crisis. Thelegislature voted a sum of money to relieve the distress among theimmigrants, but it was soon found entirely inadequate to meet theemergency. 

Lord Elgin did not fail to point out to the colonial secretary "thesevere strain" that this sad state of things made, not only uponcharity, but upon the very loyalty of the people to a government whichhad shown such culpable negligence since the outbreak of the famineand the exodus from the plague-stricken island. He expressed theemphatic opinion that "all things considered, a great deal offorbearance and good feeling had been shown by the colonists underthis trial. " He gave full expression to the general feeling of thecountry that "Great Britain must make good to the province theexpenses entailed on it by this visitation. " He did full justice tothe men and women who showed an extraordinary spirit ofself-sacrifice, a positive heroism, during this national crisis. "Nothing, " he wrote, "can exceed the devotion of the nuns and RomanCatholic priests, and the conduct of the clergy and of many of thelaity of other denominations has been most exemplary. Many lives havebeen sacrificed in attendance on the sick, and administering to theirtemporal and spiritual need. .. . This day the Mayor of Montreal, Mr. Mills, died, a very estimable man, who did much for the immigrants, and to whose firmness and philanthropy we chiefly owe it, that theimmigrant sheds here were not tossed into the river by the people ofthe town during the summer. He has fallen a victim to his zeal onbehalf of the poor plague-stricken strangers, having died of shipfever caught at the sheds. " Among other prominent victims were Dr. Power, Roman Catholic Bishop of Toronto, Vicar-General Hudon of thesame church, Mr. Roy, curé of Charlesbourg, and Mr. Chaderton, aProtestant clergyman. Thirteen Roman Catholic priests, if not more, died from their devotion to the unhappy people thus suddenly thrownupon their Christian charity. When the season of navigation was nearlyclosed, a ship arrived with a large number of people from the Irishestates of one of Her Majesty's ministers, Lord Palmerston. Thenatural result of this incident was to increase the feeling ofindignation already aroused by the apathy of the British governmentduring this national calamity. Happily Lord Elgin's appeals to thecolonial secretary had effect, and the province was reimbursedeventually for the heavy expenses incurred by it in its efforts tofight disease, misery and death. English statesmen, after thesepainful experiences, recognized the necessity of enforcing strictregulations for the protection of emigrants crossing the ocean, against the greed of ship-owners. The sad story of 1847-8 cannot nowbe repeated in times when nations have awakened to theirresponsibilities towards the poor and distressed who are forced toleave their old homes for that new world which offers them well-paidwork, political freedom, plenty of food and countless comforts. 

In the autumn of 1847, Lord Elgin was able to seek some relief fromhis many cares and perplexities of government, in a tour of thewestern province, where, to quote his own words, he met "a mostgratifying and encouraging reception. " He was much impressed with themany signs of prosperity which he saw on all sides. "It is indeed aglorious country, " he wrote enthusiastically to Lord Grey, "and afterpassing, as I have done within the last fortnight, from the citadel ofQuebec to the falls of Niagara, rubbing shoulders the while with itsfree and perfectly independent inhabitants, one begins to doubtwhether it be possible to acquire a sufficient knowledge of man ornature, or to obtain an insight into the future of nations, withoutvisiting America. " During this interesting visit to Upper Canada, heseized the opportunity of giving his views on a subject which may beconsidered one of his hobbies, one to which he devoted much attentionwhile in Jamaica, and this was the formation of agriculturalassociations for the purpose of stimulating scientific methods ofhusbandry. 

Before the close of the first year of his administration Lord Elginfelt that the time had come for making an effort to obtain a strongerministry by an appeal to the people. Accordingly he dissolvedparliament in December, and the elections, which were hotly contested, resulted in the unequivocal condemnation of the Sherwood cabinet, andthe complete success of the Liberal party led by LaFontaine andBaldwin. Among the prominent Liberals returned by the people of UpperCanada were Baldwin, Hincks, Blake, Price, Malcolm Cameron, Richards, Merritt and John Sandfield Macdonald. Among the leaders of the sameparty in Lower Canada were LaFontaine, Morin, Aylwin, Chauveau andHolmes. Several able Conservatives lost their seats, but Sir AllanMacNab, John A. Macdonald, Mr. Sherwood and John Hillyard Cameronsucceeded in obtaining seats in the new parliament, which was, infact, more notable than any other since the union for the ability ofits members. Not the least noteworthy feature of the elections was thereturn of Mr. Louis J. Papineau, and Mr. Wolfred Nelson, rebels of1837-8, both of whom had been allowed to return some time previouslyto the country. Mr. Papineau's career in parliament was not calculatedto strengthen his position in impartial history. He proved beyond adoubt that he was only a demagogue, incapable of learning lessons ofwise statesmanship during the years of reflection that were given himin exile. He continued to show his ignorance of the principles andworkings of responsible government. Before the rebellion which he sorashly and vehemently forced on his credulous, impulsive countrymen, so apt to be deceived by flashy rhetoric and glittering generalities, he never made a speech or proposed a measure in support of the systemof parliamentary government as explained by Baldwin and Howe, and evenW. Lyon Mackenzie. His energy and eloquence were directed towards theestablishment of an elective legislative council in which hiscompatriots would have necessarily the great majority, a supremacythat would enable him and his following to control the wholelegislation and government, and promote his dominant idea of a _NationCanadienne_ in the valley of the St. Lawrence. After the union he madeit the object of his political life to thwart in every way possiblethe sagacious, patriotic plans of LaFontaine, Morin, and otherbroad-minded statesmen of his own nationality, and to destroy thatsystem of responsible government under which French Canada had becomea progressive and influential section of the province. 

As soon as parliament assembled at the end of February, the governmentwas defeated on the vote for the speakership. Its nominee, Sir AllanMacNab, received only nineteen votes out of fifty-four, and Morin, theLiberal candidate, was then unanimously chosen. When the address inreply to the governor-general's speech came up for consideration, Baldwin moved an amendment, expressing a want of confidence in theministry, which was carried by a majority of thirty votes in a houseof seventy-four members, exclusive of the speaker, who votes only incase of a tie. Lord Elgin received and answered the address as soon asit was ready for presentation, and then sent for LaFontaine andBaldwin. 

He spoke to them, as he tells us himself, "in a candid and friendlytone, " and expressed the opinion that "there was a fair prospect, ifthey were moderate and firm, of forming an administration deservingand enjoying the confidence of parliament. " He added that "they mightcount on all proper support and assistance from him. " When they "dwelton difficulties arising out of pretensions advanced in variousquarters, " he advised them "not to attach too much importance to suchconsiderations, but to bring together a council strong inadministrative talent, and to take their stand on the wisdom of theirmeasures and policy. " The result was the construction of a powerfulgovernment by LaFontaine with the aid of Baldwin. "My presentcouncil, " Lord Elgin wrote to the colonial secretary, "unquestionablycontains more talent, and has a firmer hold on the confidence ofparliament and of the people than the last. There is, I think, moreover, on their part, a desire to prove, by proper deference forthe authority of the governor-general (which they all admit has in mycase never been abused), that they were libelled when they wereaccused of impracticability and anti-monarchical tendencies. " Theseclosing words go to show that the governor-general felt it wasnecessary to disabuse the minds of the colonial secretary and hiscolleagues of the false impression which the British government andpeople seemed to entertain, that the Tories and Conservatives werealone to be trusted in the conduct of public affairs. He saw at oncethat the best way of strengthening the connection with Great Britainwas to give to the strongest political party in the country its trueconstitutional position in the administration of public affairs, andidentify it thoroughly with the public interests. 

The new government was constituted as follows:

 Lower Canada. --Hon. L. H. LaFontaine, attorney-general of Lower Canada; Hon. James Leslie, president of the executive council; Hon. R. E. Caron, president of the legislative council; Hon. E. P. Taehé, chief commissioner of public works; Hon. I. C. Aylwin, solicitor-general for Lower Canada; Hon. L. M. Viger, receiver-general. 

 Upper Canada. --Hon. Robert Baldwin, attorney-general of Upper Canada; Hon. R. B. Sullivan, provincial secretary; Hon. F. Hincks, inspector-general; Hon. J. H. Price, commissioner of crown lands; Hon. Malcolm Cameron, assistant commissioner of public works; Hon. W. H. Blake, solicitor-general. 

The LaFontaine-Baldwin ministry must always occupy a distinguishedplace in the political history of the Canadian people. It was thefirst to be formed strictly in accordance with the principles ofresponsible government, and from its entrance into public life must bedated a new era in which the relations between the governor and hisadvisers were at last placed on a sound constitutional basis, in whichthe constant appeals to the imperial government on matters of purelyprovincial significance came to an end, in which local self-governmentwas established in the fullest sense compatible with the continuanceof the connection with the empire. It was a ministry notable not onlyfor the ability of its members, but for the many great measures whichit was able to pass during its term of office--measures calculated topromote the material advancement of the province, and above all todispel racial prejudices and allay sectional antagonisms by theadoption of wise methods of compromise, conciliation and justice toall classes and creeds. 

In Lord Elgin's letters of 1848 to Earl Grey, we can clearly see howmany difficulties surrounded the discharge of his administrativefunctions at this time, and how fortunate it was for Canada, as wellas for Great Britain, that he should have been able to form agovernment which possessed so fully the confidence of both sections ofthe province, irrespective of nationality. The revolution of Februaryin Paris, and the efforts of a large body of Irish in the UnitedStates to evoke sympathy in Canada on behalf of republicanism werematters of deep anxiety to the governor-general and other friends ofthe imperial state. "It is just as well, " he wrote at this time toLord Grey, "that I should have arranged my ministry, and committed theflag of Great Britain to the custody of those who are supported by thelarge majority of the representatives and constituencies of theprovince, before the arrival of the astounding news from Europe whichreached us by the last mail. There are not wanting here persons whomight, under different circumstances, have attempted by seditiousharangues, if not by overt acts, to turn the example of France, andthe sympathies of the United States to account. "

Under the circumstances he pressed upon the imperial authorities thewisdom of repealing that clause of the Union Act which restricted theuse of the French language. "I am for one deeply convinced, " and herehe showed he differed from Lord Durham, "of the impolicy of all suchattempts to denationalize the French. Generally speaking, they producethe opposite effect from that intended, causing the flame of nationalprejudice and animosity to burn more fiercely. " But he went on to say, even were such attempts successful, what would be the inevitableresult:

 "You may perhaps Americanize, but, depend upon it, by methods of this description you will never Anglicize the French inhabitants of the province. Let them feel, on the other hand, that their religion, their habits, their prepossessions, their prejudices, if you will, are more considered and respected here than in other portions of this vast continent, who will venture to say that the last hand which waves the British flag on American ground may not be that of a French Canadian?"[8]

Lord Elgin had a strong antipathy to Papineau--"Guy Fawkes Papineau, "as he called him in one of his letters--who was, he considered, "actuated by the most malignant passions, irritated vanity, disappointed ambition and national hatred, " always ready to wave "alighted torch among combustibles. " Holding such opinions, he seizedevery practical opportunity of thwarting Papineau's persistent effortsto create a dangerous agitation among his impulsive countrymen. Heshared fully the great desire of the bishops and clergy to stem theimmigration of large numbers of French Canadians into the UnitedStates by the establishment of an association for colonizationpurposes. Papineau endeavoured to attribute this exodus to the effectsof the policy of the imperial government, and to gain control of thisassociation with the object of using it as a means of stimulating afeeling against England, and strengthening himself in French Canada bysuch insidious methods. Lord Elgin, with that intuitive sagacity whichhe applied to practical politics, recognized the importance ofidentifying himself with the movement initiated by the bishops andtheir friends, of putting himself "in so far as he could at its head, "of imparting to it "as salutary a direction as possible, and thuswresting from Papineau's hands a potent instrument of agitation. " Thispolicy of conciliating the French population, and anticipating thegreat agitator in his design, was quite successful. To use LordElgin's own language, "Papineau retired to solitude and reflection athis seigniory, 'La Petite Nation, '" and the governor-general was ableat the same time to call the attention of the colonial secretary to apresentment of the grand jury of Montreal, "in which that body advertsto the singularly tranquil, contented state of the province. "

It was at this time that Lord Elgin commenced to give utterance to theviews that he had formed with respect to the best method of giving astimulus to the commercial and industrial interests that were soseriously crippled by the free trade policy of the British government. So serious had been its effects upon the economic conditions of theprovince that mill-owners, forwarders and merchants had been ruined"at one fell swoop, " that the revenue had been reduced by the loss ofthe canal dues paid previously by the shipping engaged in the tradepromoted by the old colonial policy of England, that private propertyhad become unsaleable, that not a shilling could be raised on thecredit of the province, that public officers of all grades, includingthe governor-general, had to be paid in debentures which were notexchangeable at par. Under such circumstances it was not strange, saidthe governor-general, that Canadians were too ready to makeunfavourable comparisons between themselves and their republicanneighbours. "What makes it more serious, " he said, "is that all theprosperity of which Canada is thus robbed is transplanted to the otherside of the line, as if to make Canadians feel more bitterly how muchkinder England is to the children who desert her, than to those whoremain faithful. It is the inconsistency of imperial legislation, andnot the adoption of one policy rather than another, which is the baneof the colonies. "

He believed that "the conviction that they would be better off if theywere annexed, " was almost universal among the commercial classes atthat time, and the peaceful condition of the province under all thecircumstances was often a matter of great astonishment even tohimself. In his letters urging the imperial government to find animmediate remedy for this unfortunate condition of things, heacknowledged that there was "something captivating in the project offorming this vast British Empire into one huge _Zollverein_, with freeinterchange of commodities, and uniform duties against the worldwithout; though perhaps without some federal legislation it might havebeen impossible to carry it out. "[9] Undoubtedly, under such a system"the component parts of the empire would have been united by bondswhich cannot be supplied under that on which we are now entering, " buthe felt that, whatever were his own views on the subject, it was thenimpossible to disturb the policy fixed by the imperial government, andthat the only course open to them, if they hoped "to keep thecolonies, " was to repeal the navigation laws, and to allow them "toturn to the best possible account their contiguity to the States, thatthey might not have cause for dissatisfaction when they contrastedtheir own condition with that of their neighbours. "

Some years, however, passed before the governor-general saw his viewsfully carried out. The imperial authorities, with that extraordinaryindifference to colonial conditions which too often distinguished themin those times, hesitated until well into 1849 to follow his advicewith respect to the navigation laws, and the Reciprocity Treaty wasnot successfully negotiated until a much later time. He had thegratification, however, before he left Canada of seeing the beneficialeffects of the measures which he so earnestly laboured to promote inthe interests of the country. 

CHAPTER IV

THE INDEMNIFICATION ACT

The legislature opened on January 18th, 1849, when Lord Elgin had thegratification of informing French Canadians that the restrictionsimposed by the Union Act on the use of their language in the publicrecords had been removed by a statute of the imperial parliament. Forthe first time in Canadian history the governor-general read thespeech in the two languages; for in the past it had been the practiceof the president of the legislative council to give it in French afterit had been read in English from the throne. The session was memorablein political annals for the number of useful measures that wereadopted. In later pages of this book I shall give a short review ofthese and other measures which show the importance of the legislationpassed by the LaFontaine-Baldwin ministry. For the present I shallconfine myself to the consideration of a question which created anextraordinary amount of public excitement, culminated in thedestruction of valuable public property, and even threatened the lifeof the governor-general, who during one of the most trying crises inCanadian history, displayed a coolness and patience, an indifferenceto all personal considerations, a political sagacity and a strictadherence to sound methods of constitutional government, which entitlehim to the gratitude of Canadians, who might have seen their countrytorn asunder by internecine strife, had there been then a weak andpassionate man at the head of the executive. As it will be seen later, he, like the younger Pitt in England, was "the pilot who weathered thestorm. " In Canada, the storm, in which the elements of racialantagonism, of political rivalry and disappointment, of spoiledfortunes and commercial ruin raged tumultuously for a while, threatened not only to drive Canada back for years in its politicaland material development, but even to disturb the relations betweenthe dependency and the imperial state. 

The legislation which gave rise to this serious convulsion in thecountry was, in a measure, an aftermath of the rebellious risings of1837 and 1838 in Upper and Lower Canada. Many political grievances hadbeen redressed since the union, and the French Canadians had begun tofeel that their interests were completely safe under a system ofgovernment which gave them an influential position in the publiccouncils. The restoration of their language to its proper place in acountry composed of two nationalities standing on a sure footing ofequal political and civil rights, was a great consolation to theFrench people of the east. The pardon extended to the rash men whowere directly concerned in the events of 1837 and 1838, was also wellcalculated to heal the wounds inflicted on the province during thattroublous period. It needed only the passage of another measure toconceal the scars of those unhappy days, and to bury the past in thatoblivion in which all Canadians anxious for the unity and harmony ofthe two races, and the satisfactory operation of politicalinstitutions, were sincerely desirous of hiding it forever. Thismeasure was pecuniary compensation from the state for certain lossesincurred by people in French Canada in consequence of the wantondestruction of property during the revolt. The obligation of the stateto give such compensation had been fully recognized before and afterthe union. 

The special council of Lower Canada and the legislature of UpperCanada had authorized the payment of an indemnity to those loyalinhabitants in their respective provinces who had sustained lossesduring the insurrections. It was not possible, however, before theunion, to make payments out of the public treasury in accordance withthe ordinance of the special council of Lower Canada and the statuteof the legislature of Upper Canada. In the case of both provincesthese measures were enacted to satisfy the demands that were made forcompensation by a large number of people who claimed to have sufferedlosses at the outbreak of the rebellions, or during the raids from theUnited States which followed these risings and which kept the countryin a state of ferment for months. The legislature of the unitedprovinces passed an act during its first session to extendcompensation to losses occasioned in Upper Canada by violence on thepart of persons "acting or assuming to act" on Her Majesty's behalf"for the suppression of the said rebellion or for the prevention offurther disturbances. " Funds were also voted out of the publicrevenues for the payment of indemnities to those who had met with thelosses set forth in this legislation affecting Upper Canada. It was, on the whole, a fair settlement of just claims in the westernprovince. The French Canadians in the legislature supported themeasure, and urged with obvious reason that the same considerationshould be shown to the same class of persons in Lower Canada. It wasnot, however, until the session of 1845, when the Draper-Vigerministry was in office, that an address was passed to thegovernor-general, Lord Metcalfe, praying him to take such steps aswere necessary "to insure to the inhabitants of that portion of thisprovince, formerly Lower Canada, an indemnity for just losses sufferedduring the rebellions of 1837 and 1838. " The immediate result was theappointment of commissioners to make inquiry into the losses sustainedby "Her Majesty's loyal subjects" in Lower Canada "during the lateunfortunate rebellion. " The commissioners found some difficulty inacting upon their instructions, which called upon them to distinguishthe cases of those "who had joined, aided or abetted the saidrebellion, from the cases of those who had not done so, " and theyaccordingly applied for definite advice from Lord Cathcart, whoseadvisers were still the Draper-Viger ministry. The commissioners wereofficially informed that "it was his Excellency's intention that theyshould be guided by no other description of evidence than thatfurnished by the sentences of the courts of law. " They were furtherinformed that it was only intended that they should form a generalestimate of the rebellion losses, "the particulars of which must formthe subject of more minute inquiry hereafter, under legislativeauthority. "

During the session of 1846 the commissioners made a report which gavea list of 2, 176 persons who made claims amounting in the aggregate to£241, 965. At the same time the commissioners expressed the opinionthat £100, 000 would be adequate to satisfy all just demands, anddirected attention to the fact that upwards of £25, 503 were actuallyclaimed by persons who had been condemned by a court-martial for theirparticipation in the rebellion. The report also set forth that theinquiry conducted by the commissioners had been necessarily imperfectin the absence of legal power to make a minute investigation, and thatthey had been compelled largely to trust to the allegations of theclaimants who had laid their cases before them, and that it was onlyfrom data collected in this way that they had been able to come toconclusions as to the amount of losses. 

When the Draper-Viger ministry first showed a readiness to take up theclaims of Lower Canada for the same compensation that had been grantedto Upper Canada, they had been doubtless influenced, not solely by theconviction that they were called upon to perform an act of justice, but mainly by a desire to strengthen themselves in the Frenchprovince. We have already read that their efforts in this directionentirely failed, and that they never obtained in that section anysupport from the recognized leaders of public opinion, but wereobliged to depend upon Denis B. Papineau and Viger to keep up apretence of French Canadian representation in the cabinet. It is, then, easy to believe that, when the report of the commissioners camebefore them, they were not very enthusiastic on the subject, orprepared to adopt vigorous measures to settle the question on someequitable basis, and remove it entirely from the field of politicaland national conflict. 

They did nothing more than make provision for the payment of £9, 986, which represented claims fully investigated and recognized asjustifiable before the union, and left the general question ofindemnity for future consideration. Indeed, it is doubtful if theConservative ministry of that day, the mere creation of Lord Metcalfe, kept in power by a combination of Tories and other factions in UpperCanada, could have satisfactorily dealt with a question which requiredthe interposition of a government having the confidence of bothsections of the province. One thing is quite certain. This ministry, weak as it was, Tory and ultra-loyalist as it claimed to be, hadrecognized by the appointment of a commission, the justice of givingcompensation to French Canada on the principles which had governed thesettlement of claims from Upper Canada. Had the party which supportedthat ministry been influenced by any regard for consistency orprinciple, it was bound in 1849 to give full consideration to thequestion, and treat it entirely on its merits with the view ofpreventing its being made a political issue and a means of arousingracial and sectional animosities. As we shall now see, however, partypassion, political demagogism, and racial hatred prevailed above allhigh considerations of the public peace and welfare, when parliamentwas asked by the LaFontaine-Baldwin ministry to deal seriously andpractically with the question of indemnity to Lower Canada. 

The session was not far advanced when LaFontaine brought forward aseries of resolutions, on which were subsequently based a bill, whichset forth in the preamble that "in order to redeem the pledge given tothe sufferers of such losses . .. It is necessary and just that theparticulars of such losses, not yet paid and satisfied, should formthe subject of more minute inquiry under legislative authority (see p. 65 _ante_) and that the same, so far only as they may have arisen fromthe total or partial, unjust, unnecessary or wanton destruction ofdwellings, buildings, property and effects . .. Should be paid andsatisfied. " The act provided that no indemnity should be paid topersons "who had been convicted of treason during the rebellion, orwho, having been taken into custody, had submitted to Her Majesty'swill, and been transported to Bermuda. " Five commissioners were to beappointed to carry out the provisions of the act, which also provided£400, 000 for the payment of legal claims. 

Then all the forces hostile to the government gathered their fullstrength for an onslaught on a measure which such Tories as Sir AllanMacNab and Henry Sherwood believed gave them an excellent opportunityof arousing a strong public sentiment which might awe thegovernor-general and bring about a ministerial crisis. The issue wasnot one of public principle or of devotion to the Crown, it was simplya question of obtaining a party victory _per fas aut nefas_. Thedebate on the second reading of the bill was full of bitterness, intensified even to virulence. Mr. Sherwood declared that the proposalof the government meant nothing else than the giving of a reward tothe very persons who had been the cause of the shedding of blood andthe destruction of property throughout the country. Sir Allan MacNabwent so far in a moment of passion as to insult the French Canadianpeople by calling them "aliens and rebels. " The solicitor-general, Mr. Hume Blake, [10] who was Irish by birth, and possessed a great power ofinvective, inveighed in severe terms against "the family compact" asresponsible for the rebellion, and declared that the stigma of"rebels" applied with complete force to the men who were thenendeavouring to prevent the passage of a bill which was a simple actof justice to a large body of loyal people. Sir Allan MacNab instantlybecame furious and said that if Mr. Blake called him a rebel it wassimply a lie. 

Then followed a scene of tumult, in which the authority of the chairwas disregarded, members indulged in the most disorderly cries, andthe people in the galleries added to the excitement on the floor bytheir hisses and shouts. The galleries were cleared with the greatestdifficulty, and a hostile encounter between Sir Allan and Mr. Blakewas only prevented by the intervention of the sergeant-at-arms, whotook them into custody by order of the House until they gaveassurances that they would proceed no further in the unseemly dispute. When the debate was resumed on the following day, LaFontaine broughtit again to the proper level of argument and reason, and showed thatboth parties were equally pledged to a measure based on considerationsof justice, and declared positively that the government would takeevery possible care in its instructions to the commissioner; that norebel should receive any portion of the indemnity, which was intendedonly as a compensation to those who had just claims upon the countryfor the losses that they actually sustained in the course of theunfortunate rebellion. At this time the Conservative and ultra-loyalpress was making frantic appeals to party passions and racialprejudices, and calling upon the governor-general to intervene andprevent the passage of a measure which, in the opinion of loyalCanadians, was an insult to the Crown and its adherents. Publicmeetings were also held and efforts made to arouse a violent feelingagainst the bill. The governor-general understood his duty too well asthe head of the executive to interfere with the bill while passingthrough the two Houses, and paid no heed to these passionate appealsdictated by partisan rancour, while the ministry pressed the questionto the test of a division as soon as possible. The resolutions and theseveral readings of the bill passed both Houses by large majorities. The bill was carried in the assembly on March 9th by forty-seven votesagainst eighteen, and in the legislative council on the 15th, byfifteen against fourteen. By an analysis of the division in thepopular chamber, it will be seen that out of thirty-one members fromUpper Canada seventeen supported and fourteen opposed the bill, whileout of ten Lower Canadian members of British descent there were sixwho voted yea and four nay. The representatives of French Canada as amatter of course were arrayed as one in favour of an act of justice totheir compatriots. During the passage of the bill its opponentsdeluged the governor-general with petitions asking him either todissolve the legislature or to reserve the bill for the considerationof the imperial government. Such appeals had no effect whatever uponLord Elgin, who was determined to adhere to the well understood rulesof parliamentary government in all cases of political controversy. 

When the bill had passed all its stages in the two Houses by largemajorities of both French and English Canadians, the governor-generalcame to the legislative council and gave the royal assent to themeasure, which was entitled "An Act to provide for the indemnificationof parties in Lower Canada whose property was destroyed during therebellion in the years 1837 and 1838. " No other constitutional coursecould have been followed by him under all the circumstances. In hisletters to the colonial secretary he did not hesitate to express hisregret "that this agitation should have been stirred, and that anyportion of the funds of the province should be diverted now from muchmore useful purposes to make good losses sustained by individuals inthe rebellion, " but he believed that "a great deal of property wascruelly and wantonly destroyed" in Lower Canada, and that "thisgovernment, after what their predecessors had done, and with Papineauin the rear, could not have helped taking up this question. " He sawclearly that it was impossible to dissolve a parliament just electedby the people, and in which the government had a large majority. "If Ihad dissolved parliament, " to quote his own words, "I might haveproduced a rebellion, but assuredly I should not have procured achange of ministry. The leaders of the party know that as well as Ido, and were it possible to play tricks in such grave concerns, itwould have been easy to throw them into utter confusion by merelycalling upon them to form a government. They were aware, however, thatI could not for the sake of discomfiting them hazard so desperate apolicy; so they have played out their game of faction and violencewithout fear of consequences. "

His reasons for not reserving the bill for the consideration of theBritish government must be regarded as equally cogent by every studentof our system of government, especially by those persons who believein home rule in all matters involving purely Canadian interests. Inthe first place, the bill for the relief of a corresponding class ofpersons in Upper Canada, "which was couched in terms very nearlysimilar, was not reserved, " and it was "difficult to discover asufficient reason, so far as the representative of the Crown wasconcerned, for dealing with the one measure differently from theother. " And in the second place, "by reserving the bill he should onlythrow upon Her Majesty's government or (as it would appear to thepopular eye in Canada) on Her Majesty herself, a responsibility whichrests and ought to rest" upon the governor-general of Canada. If hepassed the bill, "whatever mischief ensues may probably be repaired, "if the worst came to the worst, "by the sacrifice" of himself. If thecase were referred to England, on the other hand, it was notimpossible that Her Majesty might "only have before her thealternative of provoking a rebellion in Lower Canada, by refusing herassent to a measure chiefly affecting the interests of the _habitants_and thus throwing the whole population into Papineau's hands, or ofwounding the susceptibilities of some of the best subjects she has inthe province. "

A Canadian writer at the present time can refer only with a feeling ofindignation and humiliation to the scenes of tumult, rioting andincendiarism, which followed the royal assent to the bill ofindemnity. When Lord Elgin left Parliament House--formerly the Ste. Anne market--a large crowd insulted him with opprobrious epithets. Inhis own words he was "received with ironical cheers and hootings, anda small knot of individuals, consisting, it has since beenascertained, of persons of a respectable class in society, pelted thecarriage with missiles which must have been brought for that purpose. "A meeting was held in the open air, and after several speeches of avery inflammatory character had been made, the mob rushed to theparliament building, which was soon in flames. By this disgraceful actof incendiarism most valuable collections of books and documents weredestroyed, which, in some cases, could not be replaced. Supporters ofthe bill were everywhere insulted and maltreated while the excitementwas at its height. LaFontaine's residence was attacked and injured. His valuable library of books and manuscripts, some of them very rare, was destroyed by fire--a deplorable incident which recalls the burningand mutilation of the rich historical collections of Hutchinson, thelast loyalist governor of Massachusetts, at the commencement of theAmerican revolution in Boston. 

A few days later Lord Elgin's life was in actual danger at the handsof the unruly mob, as he was proceeding to Government House--then theold Château de Ramezay on Notre Dame Street--to receive an addressfrom the assembly. On his return to Monklands he was obliged to take acircuitous route to evade the same mob who were waiting with theobject of further insulting him and otherwise giving vent to theirfeelings. 

The government appears to have been quite unconscious that the publicexcitement was likely to assume so dangerous a phase, and hadaccordingly taken none of those precautions which might have preventedthe destruction of the parliament house and its valuable contents. Indeed it would seem that the leaders of the movement against the billhad themselves no idea that the political storm which they had raisedby their inflammatory harangues would become a whirlwind so entirelybeyond their control. Their main object was to bring about aministerial crisis. Sir Allan MacNab, the leader of the opposition, himself declared that he was amazed at the dangerous form which thepublic indignation had at last assumed. He had always been a devotedsubject of the sovereign, and it is only just to say that he couldunder no circumstances become a rebel, but he had been carried away byhis feelings and had made rash observations more than once under thebelief that the bill would reward the same class of men whom he andother loyalists had fought against in Upper Canada. Whatever he feltin his heart, he and his followers must always be held as muchresponsible for the disturbances of 1849 as were Mackenzie andPapineau for those of 1837. Indeed there was this difference betweenthem: the former were reckless, but at least they had, in the opinionof many persons, certain political grievances to redress, while thelatter were simply opposing the settlement of a question which theywere bound to consider fairly and impartially, if they had any respectfor former pledges. Papineau, Mackenzie and Nelson may well have founda measure of justification for their past madness when they found thefriends of the old "family compact" and the extreme loyalists of 1837and 1838 incited to insult the sovereign in the person of herrepresentative, to create racial passion and to excite an agitationwhich might at any moment develop into a movement most fatal to Canadaand her connection with England. 

Happily for the peace of the country, Lord Elgin and his councillorsshowed a forbearance and a patience which could hardly have beenexpected from them during the very serious crisis in which they livedfor some weeks. "I am prepared, " said Lord Elgin at the very momenthis life was in danger, "to bear any amount of obloquy that may becast upon me, but, if I can possibly prevent it, no stain of bloodshall rest upon my name. " When he remained quiet at Monklands anddecided not to give his enemies further opportunities for outbursts ofpassion by paying visits to the city, even if protected by a militaryforce, he was taunted by the papers of the opposition with cowardicefor pursuing a course which, we can all now clearly see, was in theinterests of peace and order. When at a later time LaFontaine's housewas again attacked after the arrest of certain persons implicated inthe destruction of the parliament house, and one of the assailants waskilled by a shot fired from inside, he positively refused to consentto martial law or any measures of increased rigour until a furtherappeal had been made to the mayor and corporation of the city. Theissue proved that he was clearly right in his opinion of the measuresthat should be taken to restore order at this time. The law-abidingcitizens of Montreal at once responded to a proclamation of the mayorto assist him in the maintenance of peace, and the coroner's jury--onemember being an Orangeman who had taken part in the funeral of thedeceased--brought in a unanimous verdict, acquitting LaFontaine of allblame for the unfortunate incident that had occurred during theunlawful attack on his residence. 

The Montreal disturbances soon evoked the indignation of the trulyloyal inhabitants of the province. Addresses came to thegovernor-general from all parts to show him that the riots werelargely due to local causes, "especially to commercial distress actingon religious bigotry and national hatred. " He had also thegratification of learning that his constitutional action was fullyjustified by the imperial government, as well as supported inparliament where it was fully discussed. When he offered to resign hisoffice, he was assured by Lord Grey that "his relinquishment of thatoffice, which, under any circumstances, would be a most serious blowto Her Majesty's service and to the province, could not fail, in thepresent state of affairs, to be most injurious to the public welfare, from the encouragement which it would give to those who have beenconcerned in the violent and illegal opposition which has been offeredto your government. " In parliament, Mr. Gladstone, who seems never tohave been well-informed on the subject, went so far as to characterizethe Rebellion Losses Bill as a measure for rewarding rebels, but bothLord John Russell, then leader of the government, and his greatopponent, Sir Robert Peel, gave their unqualified support to themeasure. The result was that an amendment proposed by Mr. Herries infavour of the disallowance of the act was defeated by a majority of141. 

This action of the imperial authorities had the effect ofstrengthening the public sentiment in Canada in support of Lord Elginand his advisers. The government set to work vigorously to carry outthe provisions of the law, appointing the same commissioners as hadacted under the previous ministry, and was able in a very short timeto settle definitely this very disturbing question. It was deemedinexpedient, however, to keep the seat of government at Montreal. After a very full and anxious consideration of the question, it wasdecided to act on the recommendation of the legislature that it shouldthereafter meet alternately at Toronto and Quebec, and that the nextsession should be held at Toronto in accordance with this arrangementThis "perambulating system" was tried for several years, but it provedso inconvenient and expensive that the legislature in 1858 passed anaddress to Her Majesty praying her to choose a permanent capital. Theplace selected was the city of Ottawa, on account of its situation onthe frontier of the two provinces, the almost equal division of itspopulation into French and English, its remoteness from the Americanborders, and consequently its comparative security in time of war. Some years later it became the capital of the Dominion of Canada--theconfederation of provinces and territories extending across thecontinent. 

In the autumn of 1849 Lord Elgin made a tour of the western part ofthe province of Upper Canada for the purpose of obtaining someexpression of opinion from the people in the very section where theBritish feeling was the strongest. On this occasion he was attendedonly by an aide-de-camp and a servant, as an answer to those who wereconstantly assailing him for want of courage. Here and there, as heproceeded west, after leaving French Canada, he was insulted by a fewOrangemen, notably by Mr. Ogle R. Gowan, who appeared on the wharf atBrockville with a black flag, but apart from such feeble exhibitionsof political spite he met with a reception, especially west ofToronto, which proved beyond cavil that the heart and reason of thecountry, as a whole, were undoubtedly in his favour, and that nowherewas there any actual sympathy with the unhappy disturbances inMontreal. He had also the gratification soon after his return fromthis pleasant tour to receive from the British government an officialnotification that he had been raised to the British peerage under thetitle of Baron Elgin of Elgin in recognition of his distinguishedservices to the Crown and empire in America. 

But it was a long time before Lord Elgin was forgiven by a smallclique of politicians for the part he had taken in troubles whichended in their signal discomfiture. The political situation continuedfor a while to be aggravated by the serious commercial embarrassmentwhich existed throughout the country, and led to the circulation of amanifesto, signed by leading merchants and citizens of Montreal, urging as remedies for the prevalent depression a revival of colonialprotection by England, reciprocal free trade with the United States, afederal union or republic of British North America, and evenannexation to the neighbouring states as a last resort. This documentdid not suggest rebellion or a forceable separation from England. Iteven professed affection for the home land; but it encouraged the ideathat the British government would doubtless yield to any colonialpressure in this direction when it was convinced that the step wasbeyond peradventure in the interest of the dependency. The manifestorepresented only a temporary phase of sentiment and is explained bythe fact that some men were dissatisfied with the existing conditionof things and ready for any change whatever. The movement found noactive or general response among the great mass of thinking people;and it was impossible for the Radicals of Lower Canada to persuadetheir compatriots that their special institutions, so dear to theirhearts, could be safely entrusted to their American republicanneighbours. All the men who, in the thoughtlessness of youth or in amoment of great excitement, signed the manifesto--notably the Molsons, the Redpaths, Luther H. Holton, John Rose, David Lewis MacPherson, A. A. Dorion, E. Goff Penny--became prominent in the later public andcommercial life of British North America, as ministers of the Crown, judges, senators, millionaires, and all devoted subjects of theBritish sovereign. 

When Lord Elgin found that the manifesto contained the signatures ofseveral persons holding office by commission from the Queen, he madean immediate inquiry into the matter, and gave expression to thedispleasure of the Crown by removing from office those who confessedthat they had signed the objectionable document, or declined to giveany answer to the queries he had addressed to them. His action on thisoccasion was fully justified by the imperial government, whichinstructed him "to resist to the utmost any attempt that might be madeto bring about a separation of Canada from the British dominions. " Butwhile Lord Elgin, as the representative of the Queen, was compelled bya stern sense of duty to condemn such acts of infidelity to theempire, he did not conceal from himself that there was a great deal inthe economic conditions of the provinces which demanded an immediateremedy before all reason for discontent could disappear. He did notfail to point out to Lord Grey that it was necessary to remove thecauses of the public irritation and uneasiness by the adoption ofmeasures calculated to give a stimulus to Canadian industry andcommerce. "Let me then assure your Lordship, " he wrote in November1849, "and I speak advisedly in offering this assurance, that thedissatisfaction now existing in Canada, whatever may be the forms withwhich it may clothe itself, is due mainly to commercial causes. I donot say that there is no discontent on political grounds. Powerfulindividuals and even classes of men are, I am well aware, dissatisfiedwith the conduct of affairs. But I make bold to affirm that so generalis the belief that, under the present circumstances of our commercialcondition, the colonists pay a heavy pecuniary fine for their fidelityto Great Britain, that nothing but the existence of an unwonted degreeof political contentment among the masses has prevented the cry forannexation from spreading like wildfire through the province. " He thenproceeded again to press upon the consideration of the government thenecessity of following the removal of the imperial restrictions uponnavigation and shipping in the colony, by the establishment of areciprocity of trade between the United States and the British NorthAmerican Provinces. The change in the navigation laws took place in1849, but it was not possible to obtain larger trade with the UnitedStates until several years later, as we shall see in a future chapterwhen we come to review the relations between that country and Canada. 

Posterity has fully justified the humane, patient and discreetconstitutional course pursued by Lord Elgin during one of the mosttrying ordeals through which a colonial governor ever passed. He hadthe supreme gratification, however, before he left the province, offinding that his policy had met with that success which is its besteulogy and justification. Two years after the events of 1849, he wasable to write to England that he did not believe that "the function ofthe governor-general under constitutional government as the moderatorbetween parties, the representative of interests which are common toall the inhabitants of the country, as distinct from those that dividethem into parties, was ever so fully and so frankly recognized. " Hewas sure that he could not have achieved such results if he had hadblood upon his hands. His business was "to humanize, not to harden. "One of Canada's ablest men--not then in politics--had said to him:

 "Yes, I see it all now, you were right, a thousand times right, though I thought otherwise then. I own that I would have reduced Montreal to ashes before I would have endured half of what you did, "

and he added, "I should have been justified, too. " "Yes, " answeredLord Elgin, "you would have been justified because your course wouldhave been perfectly defensible; but it would not have been the bestcourse. Mine was a better one. " And the result was this, in his ownwords:

 "700, 000 French reconciled to England, not because they are getting rebel money; I believe, indeed that no rebels will get a farthing; but because they believe that the British governor is just. 'Yes, ' but you may say, 'this is purchased by the alienation of the British. ' Far from it, I took the whole blame upon myself; and I will venture to affirm that the Canadian British were never so loyal as they are at this hour; [this was, remember, two years after the burning of Parliament House] and, what is more remarkable still, and more directly traceable to this policy of forbearance, never, since Canada existed, has party spirit been more moderate, and the British and French races on better terms than they are now; and this in spite of the withdrawal of protection, and of the proposal to throw on the colony many charges which the imperial government has hitherto borne. "

Canadians at the beginning of the twentieth century may also say asLord Elgin said at the close of this letter, _Magna est Veritas_. 

CHAPTER V

THE END OF THE LAFONTAINE-BALDWIN MINISTRY, 1851

The LaFontaine-Baldwin government remained in office until October, 1851, when it was constitutionally dissolved by the retirement of theprime minister soon after the resignation of his colleague from UpperCanada, whose ability as a statesman and integrity as a man had givensuch popularity to the cabinet throughout the country. It has beenwell described by historians as "The Great Ministry. " During itsexistence Canada obtained a full measure of self-government in allprovincial affairs. Trade was left perfectly untrammeled by the repealin June, 1849, of the navigation laws, in accordance with the urgentappeals of the governor-general to the colonial secretary. Theimmediate results were a stimulus to the whole commerce of theprovince, and an influx of shipping to the ports of the St. Lawrence. The full control of the post-office was handed over to the Canadiangovernment. This was one of the most popular concessions made to theCanadian people, since it gave them opportunities for cheapercirculation of letters and newspapers, so necessary in a new andsparsely settled country, where the people were separated from eachother in many districts by long distances. One of the grievances ofthe Canadians before the union had been the high postage imposed onletters throughout British North America. The poor settlers were notable to pay the three or four shillings, and even more, demanded forletters mailed from their old homes across the sea, and it was notunusual to find in country post-offices a large accumulation of deadletters, refused on account of the expense. The management of thepostal service by imperial officers was in every way mostunsatisfactory; it was chiefly carried on for the benefit of a fewpersons, and not for the convenience or consolation of the many whowere always anxious for news of their kin in the "old country. " Afterthe union there was a little improvement in the system, but it was notreally administered in the interests of the Canadian people until itwas finally transferred to the colonial authorities. When thisdesirable change took place, an impulse was soon given to thedissemination of letters and newspapers. The government organized apost-office department, of which the head was a postmaster-generalwith a seat in the cabinet. 

Other important measures made provision for the introduction of thedecimal system into the provincial currency, the taking of a censusevery ten years, the more satisfactory conduct of parliamentaryelections and the prevention of corruption, better facilities for theadministration of justice in the two provinces, the abolition ofprimogeniture with respect to real estate in Upper Canada, and themore equitable division of property among the children of anintestate, based on the civil law of French Canada and old France. 

Education also continued to show marked improvement in accordance withthe wise policy adopted since 1841. Previous to the union populareducation had been at a very low ebb, although there were a number ofefficient private schools in all the provinces where the children ofthe well-to-do classes could be taught classics and many branches ofknowledge. In Lower Canada not one-tenth of the children of the_habitants_ could write, and only one-fifth could read. In UpperCanada the schoolmasters as a rule, according to Mrs. AnnaJameson, [11] were "ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-paid, or not paid atall. " In the generality of cases they were either Scotsmen orAmericans, totally unfit for the positions they filled. As late as1833 Americans or anti-British adventurers taught in the greaterproportion of the schools, where the pupils used United Statestext-books replete with sentiments hostile to England--a wretchedstate of things stopped by legislation only in 1846. Year by yearafter the union improvements were made in the school system, with theobject of giving every possible educational facility to rich and pooralike. 

In the course of time elementary education became practically free. The success of the system in the progressive province of Upper Canadalargely rested on the public spirit of the municipalities. It wasengrafted on the municipal institutions of each county, to whichprovincial aid was given in proportion to the amount raised by localassessment. The establishment of normal schools and public librarieswas one of the useful features of school legislation in those days. The merits of the system naturally evoked the sympathy and praise ofthe governor-general, who was deeply interested in the intellectualprogress of the country. The development of "individual self-relianceand local exertion under the superintendence of a central authorityexercising an influence almost exclusively moral is the rulingprinciple of the system. "

Provision was also made for the imparting of religious instruction byclergymen of the several religious denominations recognized by law, and for the establishment of separate schools for Protestants or RomanCatholics whenever there was a necessity for them in any localdivision. On the question of religious instruction Lord Elgin alwaysentertained strong opinions. After expressing on one occasion his deepgratification at the adoption of legislation which had "enabled UpperCanada to place itself in the van among the nations in the importantwork of providing an efficient system of education for the wholecommunity, " he proceeded to commend the fact that "its foundation waslaid deep in the framework of our common Christianity. " He showed thenhow strong was the influence of the moral sense in his character:

 "While the varying opinions of a mixed religious society are scrupulously respected. .. . It is confidently expected that every child who attends our common schools shall learn there that he is a being who has an interest in eternity as well as in time; that he has a Father towards whom he stands in a closer and more affecting and more endearing relationship than to any earthly father, and that that Father is in heaven. "

But since the expression of these emphatic opinions the tendency oflegislation in the majority of the provinces--but not in FrenchCanada, where the Roman Catholic clergy still largely control theirown schools--has been to encourage secular and not religiouseducation. It would be instructive to learn whether either morality orChristianity has been the gainer. 

It is only justice to the memory of a man who died many years after hesaw the full fruition of his labours to say that Upper Canada owes adebt of gratitude to the Rev. Egerton Ryerson for his services inconnection with its public school system. He was far from being a manof deep knowledge or having a capacity for expressing his views withterseness or clearness. He had also a large fund of personal vanitywhich made him sometimes a busybody when inaction or silence wouldhave been wiser for himself. We can only explain his conduct inrelation to the constitutional controversy between Lord Metcalfe andthe Liberal party by the supposition that he could not resist theblandishments of that eminent nobleman, when consulted by him, butallowed his reason to be captured and then gave expression to opinionsand arguments which showed that he had entirely misunderstood theseriousness of the political crisis or the sound practice of theparliamentary system which Baldwin, LaFontaine and Howe had so longlaboured to establish in British North America. The books he wrote cannever be read with profit or interest. His "History of the UnitedEmpire Loyalists" is probably the dullest book ever compiled by aCanadian, and makes us thankful that he was never able to carry outthe intention he expressed in a letter to Sir Francis Hincks ofwriting a constitutional history of Canada. But though he made nofigure in Canadian letters, and was not always correct in his estimateof political issues, he succeeded in making for himself a reputationfor public usefulness in connection with the educational system ofUpper Canada far beyond that of the majority of his Canadiancontemporaries. 

The desire of the imperial and Canadian governments to bury inoblivion the unhappy events of 1837 and 1838 was very emphaticallyimpressed by the concession of an amnesty in 1849 to all the personswho had been engaged in the rebellions. In the time of Lord Metcalfe, Papineau, Nelson, and other rebels long in exile, had been allowed toreturn to Canada either by virtue of special pardons granted by theCrown under the great seal, or by the issue of writs of _nolleprosequi. _ The signal result of the Amnesty Act passed in 1849 by theCanadian legislature, in accordance with the recommendation in thespeech from the throne, was the return of William Lyon Mackenzie, whohad led an obscure and wretched life in the United States ever sincehis flight from Upper Canada in 1837, and had gained an experiencewhich enabled him to value British institutions more highly than thoseof the republic. 

An impartial historian must always acknowledge the fact that Mackenziewas ill-used by the family compact and English governors during hispolitical career before the rebellion, and that he had sound views ofconstitutional government which were well worthy of the seriousconsideration of English statesmen. In this respect he showed moreintelligence than Papineau, who never understood the true principlesof parliamentary government, and whose superiority, compared with thelittle, pugnacious Upper Canadian, was the possession of a statelypresence and a gift of fervid eloquence which was well adapted toimpress and carry away his impulsive and too easily deceivedcountrymen. If Mackenzie had shown more control of his temper andconfined himself to such legitimate constitutional agitation as wasstirred up by a far abler man, Joseph Howe, the father of responsiblegovernment in the maritime provinces, he would have won a far higherplace in Canadian history. He was never a statesman; only an agitatorwho failed entirely throughout his passionate career to understand thetemper of the great body of Liberals--that they were in favour not ofrebellion but of such a continuous and earnest enunciation of theirconstitutional principles as would win the whole province to theiropinions and force the imperial government itself to make the reformsimperatively demanded in the public interests. [12] But, while wecannot recognize in him the qualities of a safe political leader, weshould do justice to that honesty of purpose and that spirit ofunselfishness which placed him on a far higher plane than many ofthose men who belonged to the combination derisively called the"family compact, " and who never showed a willingness to consider otherinterests than their own. Like Papineau, Mackenzie became a member ofthe provincial legislature, but only to give additional evidence thathe did not possess the capacity for discreet, practical statesmanshippossessed by Hincks and Baldwin and other able Upper Canadians whocould in those days devote themselves to the public interests withsuch satisfactory results to the province at large. 

It was Baldwin who, while a member of the ministry, succeeded incarrying the measure which created the University of Toronto, andplaced it on the broad basis on which it has rested ever since. Hismeasure was the result of an agitation which had commenced before theunion. Largely through the influence of Dr. Strachan, the firstAnglican bishop of Upper Canada, Sir Peregrine Maitland, whenlieutenant-governor, had been induced to grant a charter establishingKing's College "at or near York" (Toronto), with universityprivileges. Like old King's in Nova Scotia, established before thebeginning of the century, it was directly under the control of theChurch of England, since its governing body and its professors had tosubscribe to its thirty-nine articles. It received an endowment of thepublic lands available for educational purposes in the province, andevery effort was made to give it a provincial character thoughconducted entirely on sectarian principles. The agitation whicheventually followed its establishment led to some modifications in itscharacter, but, for all that, it remained practically under thedirection of the Anglican bishop and clergy, and did not obtain thesupport or approval of any dissenters. After the union a large edificewas commenced in the city of Toronto, on the site where thelegislative and government buildings now stand, and an energeticmovement was made to equip it fully as a university. 

When the Draper-Viger ministry was in office, it was proposed to meetthe growing opposition to the institution by establishing a universitywhich should embrace three denominational colleges--King's College, Toronto, for the Church of England, Queen's College, Kingston, for thePresbyterians, and Victoria College, Cobourg, for the Methodists--butthe bishop and adherents of the Anglican body strenuously opposed themeasure, which failed to pass in a House where the Tories were in theascendant. Baldwin had himself previously introduced a bill of asimilar character as a compromise, but it had failed to meet with anysupport, and when he came into office he saw that he must go muchfurther and establish a non-sectarian university if he expected tocarry any measure on the subject in the legislature. The result wasthe establishment of the University of Toronto, on a strictlyundenominational foundation. Bishop Strachan was deeply incensed atwhat he regarded as a violation of vested rights of the Church ofEngland in the University of King's College, and never failed foryears to style the provincial institution "the Godless university. " Inthis as in other matters he failed to see that the dominant sentimentof the country would not sustain any attempt on the part of a singledenomination to control a college which obtained its chief supportfrom public aid. Whilst every tribute must be paid to the zeal, energy, and courage of the bishop, we must at the same time recognizethe fact that his former connection with the family compact and hisinability to understand the necessity of compromise in educational andother matters did much injury to a great church. 

He succeeded unfortunately in identifying it with the unpopular andaristocratic party, opposed to the extension of popular government andthe diffusion of cheap education among all classes of people. Withthat indomitable courage which never failed him at a crisis he set towork to advance the denomination whose interests he had always atheart, and succeeded by appeals to English aid in establishing TrinityCollege, which has always occupied a high position among Canadianuniversities, although for a while it failed to arouse sympathy in thepublic mind, until the feelings which had been evoked in connectionwith the establishment of King's had passed away. An effort is now(1901) being made to affiliate it with the same university which thebishop had so obstinately and bitterly opposed, in the hope of givingit larger opportunities for usefulness. Its complete success of latehas been impeded by the want of adequate funds to maintain thosedepartments of scientific instruction now imperatively demanded inmodern education. When this affiliation takes place, the friends ofTrinity, conversant with its history from its beginning, believe thatthe portrait of the old bishop, now hanging on the walls ofConvocation Hall, should be covered with a dark veil, emblematic ofthe sorrow which he would feel were he to return to earth and see whatto him would be the desecration of an institution which he built as agreat remonstrance against the spoliation of the church in 1849. 

The LaFontaine-Baldwin ministry also proved itself fully equal to thedemands of public opinion by its vigorous policy with respect to thecolonization of the wild lands of the province, the improvement of thenavigation of the St. Lawrence, and the construction of railways. Measures were passed which had the effect of opening up and settlinglarge districts by the offer of grants of public land at a nominalprice and very easy terms of payment. In this way the governmentsucceeded in keeping in the country a large number of French Canadianswho otherwise would have gone to the United States, where the variedindustries of a very enterprising people have always attracted a largenumber of Canadians of all classes and races. 

The canals were at last completed in accordance with the wise policyinaugurated after the union by Lord Sydenham, whose commercialinstincts at once recognized the necessity of giving western tradeeasy access to the ocean by the improvement of the great waterways ofCanada. It had always been the ambition of the people of Upper Canadabefore the union to obtain a continuous and secure system ofnavigation from the lakes to Montreal. The Welland Canal between LakesErie and Ontario was commenced as early as 1824 through the enterpriseof Mr. William Hamilton Merritt--afterwards a member of theLaFontaine-Baldwin ministry--and the first vessel passed its locks in1829; but it was very badly managed, and the legislature, after havingaided it from time to time, was eventually obliged to take control ofit as a provincial work. The Cornwall Canal was also undertaken at anearly day, but work had to be stopped when it became certain that thelegislature of Lower Canada, then controlled by Papineau, would notrespond to the aspirations of the west and improve that portion of theSt. Lawrence within its provincial jurisdiction. 

Governor Haldimand had, from 1779-1782, constructed a very simpletemporary system of canals to overcome the rapids called the Cascades, Cedars and Côteau, and some slight improvements were made in theseprimitive works from year to year until the completion of theBeauharnois Canal in 1845. The Lachine Canal was completed, after afashion, in 1828, but nothing was done to give a continuous rivernavigation between Montreal and the west until 1845, when theBeauharnois Canal was first opened. The Rideau Canal originated in theexperiences of the war of 1812-14, which showed the necessity of asecure inland communication between Montreal and the country on LakeOntario; but though first constructed for defensive purposes, it hadfor years decided commercial advantages for the people of UpperCanada, especially of the Kingston district. The Grenville canal onthe Ottawa was the natural continuation of this canal, as it ensureduninterrupted water communication between Bytown--now the city ofOttawa--and Montreal. 

The heavy public debt contracted by Upper Canada prior to 1840 hadbeen largely accumulated by the efforts of its people to obtain theactive sympathy and cooperation of the legislature of French Canada, where Papineau and his followers seemed averse to the development ofBritish interests in the valley of the St. Lawrence. After the union, happily for Canada, public men of all parties and races awoke to thenecessity of a vigorous canal policy, and large sums of money wereannually expended to give the shipping of the lakes safe andcontinuous navigation to Montreal. At the same time the channel ofLake St. Peter between Montreal and Quebec was improved by the harbourcommissioners of the former city, aided by the government. Before theLaFontaine-Baldwin cabinet left office, it was able to see thecomplete success of this thoroughly Canadian or national policy. Theimprovement of this canal system--now the most magnificent in theworld--has kept pace with the development of the country down to thepresent time. 

It was mainly, if not entirely, through the influence of Hincks, finance minister in the government, that a vigorous impulse was givento railway construction in the province. The first railroad in BritishNorth America was built in 1837 by the enterprise of Montrealcapitalists, from La Prairie on the south side of the St. Lawrence asfar as St. John's on the Richelieu, a distance of only sixteen miles. The only railroad in Upper Canada for many years was a horse tramway, opened in 1839 between Queenston and Chippewa by the old portage roadround the falls of Niagara. In 1845 the St. Lawrence and AtlanticRailway Company--afterwards a portion of the Grand TrunkRailway--obtained a charter for a line to connect with the Atlanticand St. Lawrence Railway Company of Portland, in the State of Maine. The year 1846 saw the commencement of the Lachine Railway. In 1849 theGreat Western, the Northern, and the St. Lawrence and AtlanticRailways were stimulated by legislation which gave a provincialguarantee for the construction of lines not less than seventy-fivemiles in length. In 1851 Hincks succeeded in passing a measure whichprovided for the building of a great trunk line connecting Quebec withthe western limits of Upper Canada. It was hoped at first that thisroad would join the great military railway contemplated between Quebecand Halifax, and then earnestly advocated by Howe and other public menof the maritime provinces with the prospect of receiving aid from theimperial government. If these railway interests could be combined, anIntercolonial railroad would be constructed from the Atlantic seaboardto the lakes, and a great stimulus given not merely to the commercebut to the national unity of British North America, In case, however, this great idea could not be realized, it was the intention of theCanadian government to make every possible exertion to induce Britishcapitalists to invest their money in the great trunk line by a liberaloffer of assistance from the provincial exchequer, and themunicipalities directly interested in its construction. 

The practical result of Hincks's policy was the construction of theGrand Trunk Railway of Canada, not by public aid as originallyproposed, but by British capitalists. The greater inter-colonialscheme failed in consequence of the conflict of rival routes in themaritime provinces, and the determination of the British government togive its assistance only to a road that would be constructed at a longdistance from the United States frontier, and consequently availablefor military and defensive purposes--in fact such a road as wasactually built after the confederation of the provinces with the aidof an imperial guarantee. The history of the negotiations between theCanadian government and the maritime provinces with respect to theIntercolonial scheme is exceedingly complicated. An angry controversyarose between Hincks and Howe; the latter always accused the former ofa breach of faith, and of having been influenced by a desire topromote the interests of the capitalists concerned in the Grand Trunkwithout reference to those of the maritime provinces. Be that as itmay, we know that Hincks left the wordy politicians of Nova Scotia andNew Brunswick to quarrel over rival routes, and, as we shall seelater, went ahead with the Grand Trunk, and had it successfullycompleted many years before the first sod on the Intercolonial routewas turned. 

In addition to these claims of the LaFontaine-Baldwin government to beconsidered "a great ministry, " there is the fact that, through thefinancial ability of Hincks, the credit of the province steadilyadvanced, and it was at last possible to borrow money in the Londonmarket on very favourable terms. The government entered heartily intothe policy of Lord Elgin with respect to reciprocity with the UnitedStates, and the encouragement of trade between the different provincesof British North America. It was, however, unable to dispose of twogreat questions which had long agitated the province--the abolition ofthe seigniorial tenure, which was antagonistic to settlement andcolonization, and the secularization of the clergy reserves, grantedto the Protestant clergy by the Constitutional Act of 1791. Thesequestions will be reviewed at some length in later chapters, and allthat it is necessary to say here is that, while the LaFontaine-Baldwincabinet supported preliminary steps that were taken in the legislaturefor the purpose of bringing about a settlement of these vexatioussubjects, it never showed any earnest desire to take them up as partsof its ministerial policy, and remove them from political controversy. 

Indeed it is clear that LaFontaine's conservative instincts, whichbecame stronger with age and experience of political conditions, forced him to proceed very slowly and cautiously with respect to amovement that would interfere with a tenure so deeply engrafted in thesocial and economic structure of his own province, while as a RomanCatholic he was at heart always doubtful of the justice of divertingto secular purposes those lands which had been granted by GreatBritain for the support of a Protestant clergy. Baldwin was also slowto make up his mind as to the proper disposition of the reserves, andcertainly weakened himself in his own province by his reluctance toexpress himself distinctly with respect to a land question which hadbeen so long a grievance and a subject of earnest agitation among themen who supported him in and out of the legislature. Indeed when hepresented himself for the last time before his constituents in 1857, he was emphatically attacked on the hustings as an opponent of thesecularization of the reserves for refusing to give a distinct pledgeas to the course he would take on the question. This fact, taken inconnection with his previous utterances in the legislature, certainlygives force to the opinion which has been more than once expressed byCanadian historians that he was not prepared, any more than LaFontainehimself, to divert funds given for an express purpose to one of anentirely different character. Under these circumstances it is easy tocome to the conclusion that the LaFontaine-Baldwin ministry was notwilling at any time to make these two questions parts of itspolicy--questions on which it was ready to stand or fall as agovernment. 

The first step towards the breaking up of the ministry was theresignation of Baldwin following upon the support given by a majorityof the Reformers in Upper Canada to a notion presented by William LyonMackenzie for the abolition of the court of chancery and the transferof its functions to the courts of common law. The motion was voteddown in the House, but Baldwin was a believer in the doctrine that aminister from a particular province should receive the confidence andsupport of the majority of its representatives in cases where ameasure affected its interests exclusively. He had taken some pride inthe passage of the act which reorganized the court, reformed oldabuses in its practice, and made it, as he was convinced, useful inlitigation; but when he found that his efforts in this direction werecondemned by the votes of the very men who should have supported himin the province affected by the measure, he promptly offered hisresignation, which was accepted with great reluctance not only byLaFontaine but by Lord Elgin, who had learned to admire and respectthis upright, unselfish Canadian statesman. A few months later he wasdefeated at an election in one of the ridings of York by an unknownman, largely on account of his attitude on the question of the clergyreserves. He never again offered himself for parliament, but lived incomplete retirement in Toronto, where he died in 1858. Then the peoplewhom he had so long faithfully served, after years of neglect, becameconscious that a true patriot had passed away. 

LaFontaine placed his resignation in the hands of thegovernor-general, who accepted it with regret. No doubt the former haddeeply felt the loss of his able colleague, and was alive to thegrowing belief among the Liberal politicians of Upper Canada that thegovernment was not proceeding fast enough in carrying out the reformswhich they considered necessary. LaFontaine had become a Conservativeas is usual with men after some experience of the responsibilities ofpublic administration, and probably felt that he had better retirebefore he lost his influence with his party, and before the elementsof disintegration that were forming within it had fully developed. After his retirement he returned to the practice of law, and in 1853he became chief justice of the court of appeal of Lower Canada on thedeath of Sir James Stuart. At the same time he received from the Crownthe honour of a baronetcy, which was also conferred on the chiefjustice of Upper Canada, Sir John Beverley Robinson. 

Political historians justly place LaFontaine in the first rank ofCanadian statesmen on account of his extensive knowledge, his soundjudgment, his breadth of view, his firmness in political crises, andabove all his desire to promote the best interests of his countrymenon those principles of compromise and conciliation which alone canbind together the distinct nationalities and creeds of a countrypeopled like Canada. As a judge he was dignified, learned andimpartial. His judicial decisions were distinguished by the samelucidity which was conspicuous in his parliamentary addresses. He diedten years later than the great Upper Canadian, whose honoured namemust be always associated with his own in the annals of a memorableepoch, when the principles of responsible government were at last, after years of perplexity and trouble, carried out in their entirety, and when the French Canadians had come to recognize as a truth thatunder no other system would it have been possible for them to obtainthat influence in the public councils to which they were fullyentitled, or to reconcile and unite the diverse interests of a greatprovince, divided by the Ottawa river into two sections, the oneFrench and Roman Catholic, and the other English and Protestant. 

CHAPTER VI

THE HINCKS-MORIN MINISTRY. 

When LaFontaine resigned the premiership the ministry was dissolvedand it was necessary for the governor-general to choose his successor. After the retirement of Baldwin, Hincks and his colleagues from UpperCanada were induced to remain in the cabinet and the latter became theleader in that province. He was endowed with great natural shrewdness, was deeply versed in financial and commercial matters, had a completecomprehension of the material conditions of the province, andrecognized the necessity of rapid railway construction if the peoplewere to hold their own against the competition of their very energeticneighbours to the south. His ideas of trade, we can well believe, recommended themselves to Lord Elgin, who saw in him the very man heneeded to help him in his favourite scheme of bringing aboutreciprocity with the United States. At the same time he was now themost prominent man in the Liberal party so long led by Baldwin andLaFontaine, and the governor-general very properly called upon him toreconstruct the ministry. He assumed the responsibility and formed thegovernment known in the political history of Canada as theHincks-Morin ministry; but before we consider its _personnel_ andreview its measures, it is necessary to recall the condition ofpolitical parties at the time it came into power. 

During the years Baldwin and LaFontaine were in office, the politicsof the province were in the process of changes which eventually led toimportant results in the state of parties. The _Parti Rouge_ wasformed in Lower Canada out of the extreme democratic element of thepeople by Papineau, who, throughout his parliamentary career since hisreturn from exile, showed the most determined opposition toLaFontaine, whose measures were always distinguished by a spirit ofconservatism, decidedly congenial to the dominant classes in FrenchCanada where the civil and religious institutions of the country hadmuch to fear from the promulgation of republican principles. 

The new party was composed chiefly of young Frenchmen, then in thefirst stage of their political growth--notably A. A. Dorion, J. B. E. Dorion (_l'enfant terrible_), R. Doutre, Dessaules, Labrèche, Viger, and Laflamme; L. H. Holton, and a very few men of British descent werealso associated with the party from its commencement. Its organ was_L'Avenir_ of Montreal, in which were constantly appearing violentdiatribes and fervid appeals to national prejudice, always peculiar toFrench Canadian journalism. It commenced with a programme in which itadvocated universal suffrage, the abolition of property qualificationfor members of the legislature, the repeal of the union, the abolitionof tithes, a republican form of government, and even, in a moment ofextreme political aberration, annexation to the United States. It wasa feeble imitation of the red republicanism of the French revolution, and gave positive evidences of the inspiration of the hero of thefight at St. Denis in 1837. Its platform was pervaded not only byhatred of British institutions, but with contempt for the clergy andreligion generally. Its revolutionary principles were at oncerepudiated by the great mass of French Canadians and for years it hadbut a feeble existence. It was only when its leading spiritsreconstructed their platform and struck out its most objectionableplanks, that it became something of a factor in practical Canadianpolitics. In 1851 it was still insignificant numerically in thelegislature, and could not affect the fortunes of the Liberal party inLower Canada then distinguished by the ability of A. N. Morin, P. J. O. Chauveau, R. E. Caron, E. P. Taché, and L. P. Drummond. The recognizedleader of this dominant party was Morin, whose versatile knowledge, lucidity of style, and charm of manner gave him much strength inparliament. His influence, however, as I have already said, was toooften weakened by an absence of energy and of the power to lead atnational or political crises. 

Parties in Upper Canada also showed the signs of change. The old Toryparty had been gradually modifying its opinions under the influence ofresponsible government, which showed its wisest members that ideasthat prevailed before the union had no place under the new, progressive order of things. This party, nominally led by Sir AllanMacNab, that staunch old loyalist, now called itself Conservative, andwas quite ready, in fact anxious, to forget the part it took inconnection with the rebellion-losses legislation, and to win thatsupport in French Canada without which it could not expect to obtainoffice. The ablest man in its councils was already John AlexanderMacdonald, whose political sagacity and keenness to seize politicaladvantages for the advancement of his party, were giving him the leadamong the Conservatives. The Liberals had shown signs ofdisintegration ever since the formation of the "Clear Grits, " whosemost conspicuous members were Peter Perry, the founder of the Liberalparty in Upper Canada before the union; William McDougall, an eloquentyoung lawyer and journalist; Malcolm Cameron, who had been assistantcommissioner of public works in the LaFontaine-Baldwin government; Dr. John Rolph, one of the leaders of the movement that ended in therebellion of 1837; Caleb Hopkins, a western farmer of considerableenergy and natural ability; David Christie, a well-knownagriculturist; and John Leslie, the proprietor of the Toronto_Examiner_, the chief organ of the new party. It was organized as aremonstrance against what many men in the old Liberal party regardedas the inertness of their leaders to carry out changes considerednecessary in the political interests of the country. Its very name wasa proof that its leaders believed there should be no reservation inthe opinion held by their party--that there must be no alloy orforeign metal in their political coinage, but it must be clear Grit. Its platform embraced many of the cardinal principles of the originalReform or Liberal party, but it also advocated such radical changes asthe application of the elective principle to all classes of officials(including the governor-general), universal suffrage, vote by ballot, biennial parliaments, the abolition of the courts of chancery andcommon pleas, free trade and direct taxation. 

The Toronto _Globe_, which was for a short time the principal exponentof ministerial views, declared that many of the doctrines enunciatedby the Clear Grits "embody the whole difference between a republicanform of government and the limited monarchy of Great Britain. " _TheGlobe_ was edited by George Brown, a Scotsman by birth, who came withhis father in his youth to the western province and entered intojournalism, in which he attained eventually signal success by hisgreat intellectual force and tenacity of purpose. His support of theLaFontaine-Baldwin ministry gradually dropped from a moderateenthusiasm to a positive coolness, from its failure to carry out theprinciples urged by _The Globe_--especially the secularization of theclergy reserves. Then he commenced to raise the cry of Frenchdomination and to attack the religion and special institutions ofFrench Canada with such virulence that at last he became "agovernmental impossibility, " so far as the influence of that provincewas concerned. He supported the Clear Grits in the end, and becametheir recognized leader when they gathered to themselves all thediscontented and radical elements of the Liberal party which had forsome years been gradually splitting into fragments. The power of theClear Grits was first shown in 1851, when William Lyon Mackenziesucceeded in obtaining a majority of Reformers in support of hismotion for the abolition of the court of chancery, and forced theretirement of Baldwin, whose conservatism had gradually brought himinto antagonism with the extremists of his old party. 

Although relatively small in numbers in 1851, the Clear Grits had theability to do much mischief, and Hincks at once recognized theexpediency of making concessions to their leaders before theydemoralized or ruined the Liberal party in the west. Accordingly, heinvited Dr. Rolph and Malcolm Cameron to take positions in the newministry. They consented on condition that the secularization of theclergy reserves would be a part of the ministerial policy. Hincks thenpresented the following names to the governor-general:

 Upper Canada. --Hon. F. Hincks, inspector-general; Hon. W. B. Richards, attorney-general of Upper Canada; Hon. Malcolm Cameron, president of the executive council; Hon. John Rolph, commissioner of crown lands; Hon. James Morris, postmaster-general. 

Lower Canada. --Hon. A. N. Morin, provincial secretary, Hon. L. P. Drummond, attorney-general of Lower Canada; Hon. John Young, commissioner of public works; Hon. R. E. Caron, president oflegislative council; Hon. E. P. Taché, receiver-general. 

Later, Mr. Chauveau and Mr. John Ross were appointedsolicitors-general for Lower and Upper Canada, without seats in thecabinet. 

Parliament was dissolved in November, when it had completed itsconstitutional term of four years, and the result of the elections wasthe triumph of the new ministry. It obtained a large majority in LowerCanada, and only a feeble support in Upper Canada. The most notableacquisition to parliament was George Brown, who had been defeatedpreviously in a bye-election of the same year by William LyonMackenzie, chiefly on account of his being most obnoxious to the RomanCatholic voters. He was assuming to be the Protestant champion injournalism, and had made a violent attack on the Roman Catholic faithon the occasion of the appointment of Cardinal Wiseman as Archbishopof Westminster, an act denounced by extreme Protestants throughout theBritish empire as an unconstitutional and dangerous interference bythe Pope with the dearest rights of Protestant England. As soon asBrown entered the legislature he defined his political position bydeclaring that, while he saw much to condemn in the formation of theministry and was dissatisfied with Hincks's explanations, he preferredgiving it for the time being his support rather than seeing thegovernment handed over to the Conservatives. As a matter of fact, hesoon became the most dangerous adversary that the government had tomeet. His style of speaking--full of facts and bitterness--and hiscontrol of an ably conducted and widely circulated newspaper made hima force in and out of parliament. His aim was obviously to break upthe new ministry, and possibly to ensure the formation of some newcombination in which his own ambition might be satisfied. As we shallshortly see, his schemes failed chiefly through the more skilfulstrategy of the man who was always his rival--his successfulrival--John A. Macdonald. 

During its existence the Hincks-Morin ministry was distinguished byits energetic policy for the promotion of railway, maritime andcommercial enterprises. It took the first steps to stimulate theestablishment of a line of Atlantic steamers by the offer of aconsiderable subsidy for the carriage of mails between Canada andGreat Britain. The first contract was made with a Liverpool firm, McKean, McLarty & Co. , but the service was not satisfactorilyperformed, owing, probably--according to Hincks--to the war withRussia, and it was necessary to make a new arrangement with theMessrs. Allan, which has continued, with some modification, until thepresent time. 

The negotiations for the construction of an intercolonial railwayhaving failed for the reasons previously stated, (p. 100), Hincks madesuccessful applications to English capitalists for the construction ofthe great road always known as the Grand Trunk Railway of Canada. Itobtained a charter authorizing it to consolidate the lines from Quebecto Richmond, from Quebec to Rivière du Loup, and from Toronto toMontreal, which had received a guarantee of $3, 000 a mile inaccordance with the law passed in 1851. It also had power to build theVictoria bridge across the St. Lawrence at Montreal, and lease theAmerican line to Portland. By 1860, this great national highway wascompleted from Rivière du Loup on the lower St. Lawrence as far asSarnia and Windsor on the western lakes. Its early history wasnotorious for much jobbery, and the English shareholders lost thegreater part of the money which they invested in this Canadianundertaking. [13] It cost the province from first to last upwards of$16, 000, 000 but it was, on the whole, money expended in the interestsof the country, whose internal development would have been verygreatly retarded in the absence of rapid means of transit between eastand west. The government also gave liberal aid to the Great WesternRailway, which extended from the Niagara river to Hamilton, London andWindsor, and to the Northern road, which extended north from Toronto, both of which, many years later, became parts of the Grand Trunksystem. 

In accordance with its general progressive policy, the Hincks-Morinministry passed through the legislature an act empoweringmunicipalities in Upper Canada, after the observance of certainformalities, to borrow money for the building of railways by the issueof municipal debentures guaranteed by the provincial government. Underthis law a number of municipalities borrowed large sums to assistrailways and involved themselves so heavily in debt that the provincewas ultimately obliged to come to their assistance and assume theirobligations. For years after the passage of this measure, Lower Canadareceived the same privileges, but the people of that province werenever carried away by the enthusiasm of the west and never burdenedthemselves with debts which they were unable to pay. The law, however, gave a decided impulse at the outset to railway enterprise in UpperCanada, and would have been a positive public advantage had it beencarried out with some degree of caution. 

The government established a department of agriculture to which weregiven control of the taking of a decennial census, the encouragementof immigration, the collection of agricultural and other statistics, the establishment of model farms and agricultural schools, the holdingof annual exhibitions and fairs, and other matters calculated toencourage the cultivation of the soil in both sections of theprovince. Malcolm Cameron became its first minister in connection withhis nominal duties as president of the executive council--a positionwhich he had accepted only on condition that it was accompanied bysome more active connection with the administration of public affairs. 

For three sessions the LaFontaine-Baldwin ministry had made vainefforts to pass a law increasing the representation of the twoprovinces to one hundred and thirty or sixty-five members for eachsection. As already stated the Union Act required that such a measureshould receive a majority of two-thirds in each branch of thelegislature. It would have become law on two occasions had it not beenfor the factious opposition of Papineau, whose one vote would havegiven the majority constitutionally necessary. When it was againpresented in 1853 by Mr. Morin, it received the bitter opposition ofMr. Brown, who was now formulating the doctrine of representation bypopulation which afterwards became so important a factor in provincialpolitics that it divided west from east, and made governmentpractically impossible until a federal union of the British NorthAmerican provinces was brought about as the only feasible solution ofthe serious political and sectional difficulties under which Canadawas suffering. A number of prominent Conservatives, including Mr. JohnA. Macdonald, were also unfavourable to the measure on the ground thatthe population of Upper Canada, which was steadily increasing overthat of Lower Canada, should be equitably considered in anyreadjustment of the provincial representation. The French Canadians, who had been forced to come into the union hi 1841 with the samerepresentation as Upper Canada with its much smaller population, werenow unwilling to disturb the equality originally fixed while agreeingto an increase in the number of representatives from each section. The bill, which became law in 1853, was entirely in harmony withthe views entertained by Lord Elgin when he first took office asgovernor-general of Canada. In 1847 he gave his opinion to thecolonial secretary that "the comparatively small number of membersof which the popular bodies who determine the fate of provincialadministrations" consisted was "unfavourable to the existence of ahigh order of principle and feeling among official personages. " When adefection of two or three individuals from a majority of ten or so putan administration in peril, "the perpetual patchwork and traffickingto secure this vote and that (not to mention other evils) so engrossesthe time and thoughts of ministers that they have not leisure formatters of greater moment" He clearly saw into the methods by whichhis first unstable ministry, which had its origin in Lord Metcalfe'stime, was alone able to keep its feeble majority. "It must beremembered, " he wrote in 1847, "that it is only of late that thepopular assemblies in this part of the world have acquired the rightof determining who shall govern them--of insisting, as we phrase it, that the administration of affairs shall be conducted by personsenjoying their confidence. It is not wonderful that a privilege ofthis kind should be exercised at first with some degree ofrecklessness, and that while no great principles of policy are atstake, methods of a more questionable character for winning andretaining the confidence of these arbiters of destiny should beresorted to. "

While the Hincks government was in office, the Canadian legislaturereceived power from the imperial authorities--as I shall showlater--to settle the question of the clergy reserves on condition thatprotection should be given to those members of the clergy who had beenbeneficiaries under the Constitutional Act of 1791. A measure waspassed for the settlement of the seigniorial tenure question on anequitable basis, but it was defeated in the legislative council by alarge majority amongst which we see the names of several seigneursdirectly interested in the measure. It was not fully discussed in thatchamber on the ground that members from Upper Canada had not had asufficient opportunity of studying the details of the proposedsettlement and of coming to a just conclusion as to its merits. Theaction of the council under these circumstances was severelycriticized, and gave a stimulus to the movement that had been steadilygoing on for years among radical reformers of both provinces in favourof an elective body. 

The result was that in 1854 the British parliament repealed theclauses of the Union Act of 1840 with respect to the upper House, andgave full power to the Canadian legislature to make such changes as itmight deem expedient--another concession to the principle of localself-government. It was not, however, until 1856, that the legislaturepassed a bill giving effect to the intentions of the imperial law, andthe first elections were held for the council. Lord Elgin was alwaysfavourable to this constitutional change. "The position of the secondchamber of our body politic"--I quote from a despatch of March, 1853--"is at present wholly unsatisfactory. The principle of electionmust be introduced in order to give to it the influence which it oughtto possess, and that principle must be so applied as to admit of theworking of parliamentary government (which I for one am certainly notprepared to abandon for the American system) with two electivechambers. .. When our two legislative bodies shall have been placed onthis improved footing, a greater stability will have been imparted toour constitution, and a greater strength. " Lord Elgin's view wasadopted and the change was made. 

It is interesting to note that so distinguished a statesman as LordDerby, who had been colonial secretary in a previous administration, had only gloomy forebodings of the effects of this elective systemapplied to the upper House. He believed that the dream that he had ofseeing the colonies form eventually "a monarchical government, presided over by one nearly and closely allied to the present royalfamily, " would be proved quite illusory by the legislation inquestion. "Nothing, " he added, "like a free and regulated monarchycould exist for a single moment under such a constitution as thatwhich is now proposed for Canada. From the moment that you pass thisconstitution, the progress must be rapidly towards republicanism, ifanything could be more really republican than this bill. " As a matterof fact a very few years later than the utterance of these gloomywords, Canada and the other provinces of British North America enteredinto a confederation "with a constitution similar in principle to thatof the United Kingdom"--to quote words in the preamble of the Act ofUnion--and with a parliament of which the House of Commons is aloneelective. More than that, Lord Derby's dream has been in a measurerealized and Canada has seen at the head of her executive agovernor-general--the present Duke of Argyle--"nearly and closelyallied to the present royal family" of England, by his marriage to thePrincess Louise, the fourth daughter of Queen Victoria, whoaccompanied her husband to Ottawa. 

One remarkable feature of the Imperial Act dealing with this questionof the council, was the introduction of a clause which gave authorityto a mere majority of the members of the two Houses of the legislatureto increase the representation, and consequently removed thatsafeguard to French Canada which required a two-thirds vote in eachbranch. As the legislature had never passed an address or otherwiseexpressed itself in favour of such an amendment of the Union Act, there was always a mystery as to the way it was brought about. GeorgesÉtienne Cartier always declared that Papineau was indirectlyresponsible for this imperial legislation. As already stated, theleader of the Rouges had voted against the bill increasing therepresentation, and had declaimed like others against the injusticewhich the clause in the Union Act had originally done to FrenchCanada. "This fact, " said Cartier, "was known in England, and whenleave was given to elect legislative councillors, the amendmentcomplained of was made at the same time. It may be said then, that ifPapineau had not systematically opposed the increase ofrepresentation, the change in question would have never been thoughtof in England. " Hincks, however, was attacked by the French Canadianhistorian, Garneau, for having suggested the amendment while inEngland in 1854. This, however, he denied most emphatically in apamphlet which he wrote at a later time when he was no longer inpublic life. He placed the responsibility on John Boulton, who calledhimself an independent Liberal and who was in England at the same timeas Hincks, and probably got the ear of the colonial secretary or oneof his subordinates in the colonial office, and induced him tointroduce the amendment which passed without notice in a House wherevery little attention was given, as a rule, to purely colonialquestions. 

In 1853 Lord Elgin visited England, where he received unqualifiedpraise for his able administration of Canadian affairs. It was on thisoccasion that Mr. Buchanan, then minister of the United States inLondon, and afterwards a president of the Republic, paid this tributeto the governor-general at a public dinner given in his honour. 

"Lord Elgin, " he said, "has solved one of the most difficult problemsof statesmanship. He has been able, successfully and satisfactorily, to administer, amidst many difficulties, a colonial government over afree people. This is an easy task where the commands of a despot arelaw to his obedient servants, but not so in a colony where the peoplefeel that they possess the rights and privileges of native-bornBritons. Under his enlightened government, Her Majesty's NorthAmerican provinces have realized the blessings of a wise, prudent andprosperous administration, and we of the neighbouring nation, thoughjealous of our rights, have reason to be abundantly satisfied with hisjust and friendly conduct towards ourselves. He has known how toreconcile his devotion to Her Majesty's service with a proper regardto the rights and interests of a kindred and neighbouring people. Would to heaven we had such governors-general in all the Europeancolonies in the vicinity of the United States!"

On his return from England Lord Elgin made a visit to Washington andsucceeded in negotiating the reciprocity treaty which he had always atheart. It was not, however, until a change of government occurred inCanada, that the legislature was able to give its ratification to thisimportant measure. This subject is of such importance that it will befully considered in a separate chapter on the relations between Canadaand the United States during Lord Elgin's term of office. 

In 1854 the Roman Catholic inhabitants of Quebec and Montreal weredeeply excited by the lectures of a former monk, Father Gavazzi, whohad become a Protestant and professed to expose the errors of thefaith to which he once belonged. Much rioting took place in bothcities, and blood was shed in Montreal, where the troops, which hadbeen called out, suddenly fired on the mob. Mr. Wilson, the mayor, whowas a Roman Catholic, was accused of having given the order to fire, but he always denied the charge, and Hincks, in his "Reminiscences, "expresses his conviction that he was not responsible. He was persuadedthat "the firing was quite accidental, one man having discharged hispiece from misapprehension, and others having followed his exampleuntil the officers threw themselves in front, and struck up thefirelocks. " Be this as it may, the Clear Grits in the West promptlymade use of this incident to attack the government on the ground thatit had failed to make a full investigation into the circumstances ofthe riot. As a matter of fact, according to Hincks, the government didtake immediate steps to call the attention of the military commandantto the matter, and the result was a court of inquiry which ended inthe removal of the regiment--then only a few days in Canada--toBermuda for having shown "a want of discipline. " Brown inveighed verybitterly against Hincks and his colleagues, as subject to RomanCatholic domination in French Canada, and found this unfortunateaffair extremely useful in his systematic efforts to destroy thegovernment, to which at no time had he been at all favourable. 

Several changes took place during 1853 in the _personnel_ of theministry, which met parliament on June 13th, with the followingmembers holding portfolios:

 Hon. Messrs. Hincks, premier and inspector-general; John Ross, formerly solicitor-general west in place of Richards, elevated to the bench, attorney-general for Upper Canada; James Morris, president of the legislative council, in place of Mr. Caron, now a judge; John Rolph, president of the executive council; Malcolm Cameron, postmaster-general; A. N. Morin, commissioner of crown lands; L. P. Drummond, attorney-general for Lower Canada; Mr. Chauveau, formerly solicitor east, provincial secretary; J. Chabot, commissioner of public works in place of John Young, resigned on account of differences on commercial questions; and E. P. Taché, receiver-general. Dunbar Ross became solicitor-general east, and Joseph C. Morrison, solicitor-general west. 

The government had decided to have a short session, pass a fewnecessary measures and then appeal to the country. The secularizationof the reserves, and the question of the seigniorial tenure were notto be taken up until the people had given an expression of opinion asto the ministerial policy generally. As soon as the legislature met, Cauchon, already prominent in public life, proposed an amendment tothe address, expressing regret that the government had no intention"to submit immediately a measure to settle the question of theseigniorial tenure. " Then Sicotte, who had not long before declined toenter the ministry, moved to add the words "and one for thesecularization of the clergy reserves. " These two amendments werecarried by a majority of thirteen in a total division of seventy-onevotes. While the French Liberals continued to support Morin, all theUpper Canadian opponents of the government, Conservatives and ClearGrits, united with a number of Hincks's former supporters and Rougesin Lower Canada to bring about this ministerial defeat. The governmentaccordingly was obliged either to resign or ask the governor-generalfor a dissolution. It concluded to adhere to its originaldetermination, and go at once to the country. The governor-generalconsented to prorogue the legislature with a view to an immediateappeal to the electors. When the Usher of the Black Rod appeared atthe door of the assembly chamber, to ask the attendance of the Commonsin the legislative council, a scene of great excitement occurred. William Lyon Mackenzie made one of his vituperative attacks on thegovernment, and was followed by John A. Macdonald, who declared itscourse to be most unconstitutional. When at last the messenger fromthe governor-general was admitted by order of the speaker, the Houseproceeded to the council chamber, where members were electrified byanother extraordinary incident. The speaker of the assembly was JohnSandfield Macdonald, an able Scotch Canadian, in whose characterthere was a spirit of vindictiveness, which always asserted itselfwhen he received a positive or fancied injury. He had been asolicitor-general of Upper Canada in the LaFontaine-Baldwin government, and had never forgiven Hincks for not having promoted him to theattorney-generalship, instead of W. B. Richards, afterwards an eminentjudge of the old province of Canada, and first chief justice ofthe Supreme Court of the Dominion. Hincks had offered him thecommissionership of crown lands in the ministry, but he refused toaccept any office except the one on which his ambition was fixed. Subsequently, however, he was induced by his friends to take thespeakership of the legislative assembly, but he had never forgivenwhat he considered a slight at the hands of the prime minister in1851. Accordingly, when he appeared at the Bar of the Council in 1853, he made an attempt to pay off this old score. As soon as he had madehis bow to the governor-general seated on the throne, Macdonaldproceeded to read the following speech, which had been carefullyprepared for the occasion in the two languages:

 "May it please your Excellency: It has been the immemorial custom of the speaker of the Commons' House of Parliament to communicate to the throne the general result of the deliberations of the assembly upon the principal objects which have employed the attention of parliament during the period of their labours. It is not now part of my duty thus to address your Excellency, inasmuch as there has been no act passed or judgment of parliament obtained since we were honoured by your Excellency's announcement of the cause of summoning of parliament by your gracious speech from the throne. The passing of an act through its several stages, according to the law and custom of parliament (solemnly declared applicable to the parliamentary proceedings of this province, by a decision of the legislative assembly of 1841), is held to be necessary to constitute a session of parliament. This we have been unable to accomplish, owing to the command which your Excellency has laid upon us to meet you this day for the purpose of prorogation. At the same time I feel called upon to assure your Excellency, on the part of Her Majesty's faithful Commons, that it is not from any want of respect to yourself, or to the August personage whom you represent in these provinces, that no answer has been returned by the legislative assembly to your gracious speech from the throne. "

It is said by those who were present on this interesting occasion thatHis Excellency was the most astonished person in the council chamber. Mr. Fennings Taylor, the deputy clerk with a seat at the table, tellsus in a sketch of Macdonald that Lord Elgin's face clearly marked"deep displeasure and annoyance when listening to the speaker'saddress, " and that he gave "a motion of angry impatience when he foundhimself obliged to listen to the repetition in French of the reproofwhich had evidently galled him in English. " This incident was in somerespects without parallel in Canadian parliamentary history. There wasa practice, now obsolete in Canada as in England, for the speaker, onpresenting the supply or appropriation bill to the governor-generalfor the royal assent, to deliver a short address directing attentionto the principal measures passed during the session about to beclosed. [14] This practice grew up in days when there were noresponsible ministers who would be the only constitutional channel ofcommunication between the Crown and the assembly. The speaker wasprivileged, and could be instructed as "the mouth-piece" of the House, to lay before the representative of the Sovereign an expression ofopinion on urgent questions of the day. On this occasion Mr. Macdonaldwas influenced entirely by personal spite, and made an unwarrantableuse of an old custom which was never intended, and could not beconstitutionally used, to insult the representative of the Crown, evenby inference. Mr. Macdonald was not even correct in his interpretationof the constitution, when he positively declared that an act wasnecessary to constitute a session. The Crown makes a session bysummoning and opening parliament, and it is always a royal prerogativeto prorogue or dissolve it at its pleasure even before a single acthas passed the two Houses. Such a scene could never have occurred withthe better understanding of the duties of the speaker and of theresponsibilities of ministers advising the Crown that has grown upunder a more thorough study of the practice and usages of parliament, and of the principles of responsible government. This little politicalepisode is now chiefly interesting as giving an insight into one phaseof the character of a public man, who afterwards won a high positionin the parliamentary and political life of Canada before and after theconfederation of 1867, not by the display of a high order ofstatesmanship, but by the exercise of his tenacity of purpose, and byreason of his reputation for a spiteful disposition which made himfeared by friend and foe. 

Immediately after the prorogation, parliament was dissolved and theHincks-Morin ministry presented itself to the people, who were nowcalled upon to elect a larger number of representatives under the actpassed in 1853. Of the constitutionality of the course pursued by thegovernment in this political crisis, there can now be no doubt. In thefirst place it was fully entitled to demand a public judgment on itsgeneral policy, especially in view of the fact, within the knowledgeof all persons, that the opposition in the assembly was composed ofdiscordant elements, only temporarily brought together by the hope ofbreaking up the government. In the next place it felt that it couldnot be justified by sound constitutional usage in asking a parliamentin which the people were now imperfectly represented, to settledefinitely such important questions as the clergy reserves and theseigniorial tenure. Lord Elgin had himself no doubt of the necessityfor obtaining a clear verdict from the people by means of "the moreperfect system of representation" provided by law. In the debate onthe Representation Bill in 1853, John A. Macdonald did not hesitate tostate emphatically that the House should be governed by Englishprecedents in the position in which it would soon be placed by thepassage of this measure. "Look, " he said, "at the Reform Bill inEngland. That was passed by a parliament that had been elected onlyone year before, and the moment it was passed, Lord John Russellaffirmed that the House could not continue after it had declared thatthe country was not properly represented. How can we legislate on theclergy reserves until another House is elected, if this bill passes? Agreat question like this cannot be left to be decided by a mereaccidental majority. We can legislate upon no great question after wehave ourselves declared that we do not represent the country. Do thesegentlemen opposite mean to say that they will legislate on a questionaffecting the rights of people yet unborn, with the fag-end of aparliament dishonoured by its own confessions of incapacity?" Hincksin his "Reminiscences, " printed more than three decades later thanthis ministerial crisis, still adhered to the opinion that thegovernment was fully justified by established precedent in appealingto the country before disposing summarily of the important questionsthen agitating the people. Both Lord Elgin and Sir John A. Macdonald--to give the latter the title he afterwards received fromthe Crown--assuredly set forth the correct constitutional practiceunder the peculiar circumstances in which both government andlegislature were placed by the legislation increasing therepresentation of the people. 

The elections took place in July and August of 1854, for in thosetimes there was no system of simultaneous polling on one day, butelections were held on such days and as long as the necessities ofparty demanded. [15] The result was, on the whole, adverse to thegovernment. While it still retained a majority in French Canada, itsopponents returned in greater strength, and Morin himself was defeatedin Terrebonne, though happily for the interests of his party he waselected by acclamation at the same time in Chicoutimi. In Upper Canadathe ministry did not obtain half the vote of the sixty-fiverepresentatives now elected to the legislature by that province. Thisvote was distributed as follows: Ministerial, 30; Conservatives, 22;Clear Grits, 7; and Independents, 6. Malcolm Cameron was beaten inLambton, but Hincks was elected by two constituencies. One auspiciousresult of this election was the disappearance of Papineau from publiclife. He retired to his pretty chateau on the banks of the Ottawa, andthe world soon forgot the man who had once been so prominent a figurein Canadian politics. His graces of manner and conversation continuedfor years to charm his friends in that placid evening of his life sovery different from those stormy days when his eloquence was a menaceto British institutions and British connection. Before his death, hesaw Lower Canada elevated to an independent and influential positionin the confederation of British North America which it could neverhave reached as that _Nation Canadienne_ which he had once vainlyhoped to see established in the valley of the St. Lawrence. 

The Rouges, of whom Papineau had been leader, came back in good formand numbered nineteen members. Antoine A. Dorion, Holton, and otherable men in the ranks of this once republican party, had become wiseand adopted opinions which no longer offended the national andreligious susceptibilities of their race, although they continued toshow for years their radical tendencies which prevented them from everobtaining a firm hold of public opinion in a practically Conservativeprovince, and becoming dominant in the public councils for any lengthof time. 

The fifth parliament of the province of Canada was opened by LordElgin on February 5th, 1854, and the ministry was defeated immediatelyon the vote for the speakership, to which Mr. Sicotte--a dignifiedcultured man, at a later time a judge--was elected. On this occasionHincks resorted to a piece of strategy which enabled him to punishJohn Sandfield Macdonald for the insult he had levelled at thegovernor-general and his advisers at the close of the previousparliament. The government's candidate was Georges Étienne Cartier, who was first elected in 1849 and who had already become conspicuousin the politics of his province. Sicotte was the choice of theOpposition in Lower Canada, and while there was no belief among thepoliticians that he could be elected, there was an understanding amongthe Conservatives and Clear Grits that an effort should be made in hisbehalf, and in case of its failure, then the whole strength of theopponents of the ministry should be so directed as to ensure theelection of Mr. Macdonald, who was sure to get a good Reform vote fromthe Upper Canadian representatives. These names were duly proposed inorder, and Cartier was defeated by a large majority. When the clerk atthe table had called for a vote for Sicotte, the number who stood upin his favour was quite insignificant, but before the Nays were taken, Hincks arose quickly and asked that his name be recorded with theYeas. All the ministerialists followed the prime minister and votedfor Sicotte, who was consequently chosen speaker by a majority ofthirty-five. But all that Hincks gained by such clever tactics was thehumiliation for the moment of an irascible Scotch Canadian politician. The vote itself had no political significance whatever, and thegovernment was forced to resign on September 8th. The vote in favourof Cartier had shown that the ministry was in a minority of twelve inUpper Canada, and if Hincks had any doubt of his political weakness itwas at once dispelled on September 7th when the House refused to grantto the government a short delay of twenty-four hours for the purposeof considering a question of privilege which had been raised by theOpposition. On this occasion, Dr. Rolph, who had been quite restlessin the government for some tune, voted against his colleagues and gaveconclusive evidence that Hincks was deserted by the majority of theReform party in his own province, and could no longer bring thatsupport to the French Canadian ministerialists which would enable themto administer public affairs. 

The resignation of the Hincks-Morin ministry begins a new epoch in thepolitical annals of Canada. From that time dates the disruption of theold Liberal party which had governed the country so successfully since1848, and the formation of a powerful combination which was made up ofthe moderate elements of that party and of the Conservatives, whichafterwards became known as the Liberal-Conservative party. This newparty practically controlled public affairs for over three decadesuntil the death of Sir John A. Macdonald, to whose inspiration itlargely owed its birth. With that remarkable capacity for adaptinghimself to political conditions, which was one of the secrets of hisstrength as a party leader, he saw in 1854 that the time had come forforming an alliance with those moderate Liberals in the two provinceswho, it was quite clear, had no possible affinity with the ClearGrits, who were not only small in numbers, but especially obnoxious tothe French Canadians, as a people on account of the intemperateattacks made by Mr. Brown in the Toronto _Globe_ on their reveredinstitutions. 

The representatives who supported the late ministry were still inlarger numbers than any other party or faction in the House, and itwas obvious that no government could exist without their support. SirAllan MacNab, who was the oldest parliamentarian, and the leader ofthe Conservatives--a small but compact party--was then invited by thegovernor-general to assist him by his advice, during a crisis when itwas evident to the veriest political tyro that the state of parties inthe assembly rendered it very difficult to form a stable governmentunless a man could be found ready to lay aside all old feelings ofpersonal and political rivalry and prejudice and unite all factions ona common platform for the public advantage. All the politicalconditions, happily, were favourable for a combination on a basis ofconciliation and compromise. The old Liberals in French Canada underthe influence of LaFontaine and Morin had been steadily inclining toConservatism with the secure establishment of responsible governmentand the growth of the conviction that the integrity of the cherishedinstitutions of their ancient province could be best assured by movingslowly (_festina lente_), and not by constant efforts to make radicalchanges in the body politic. The Liberals, of whom Hincks was leader, were also very distrustful of Brown, and clearly saw that he couldhave no strength whatever in a province where French Canada must havea guarantee that its language, religion, and civil law, were safe inthe hands of any government that might at any time be formed. Thewisest men among the Conservatives also felt that the time had arrivedfor adopting a new policy since the old questions which had onceevoked their opposition had been at last settled by the voice of thepeople, and could no longer constitutionally or wisely be made mattersof continued agitation in or out of parliament. "The question thatarose in the minds of the old Liberals, " as it was said many yearslater by Thomas White, an able journalist and politician, [16]

 "was this: shall we hand over the government of this country to the men who, calling themselves Liberals, have broken up the Liberal party by the declaration of extravagant views, by the enunciation of principles far more radical and reckless than any we are prepared to accept, and by a restless ambition which we cannot approve? Or shall we not rather unite with the Conservatives who have gone to the country declaring, in reference to the great questions which then agitated it, that if the decision at the polls was against them, they would no longer offer resistance to their settlement, but would, on the contrary, assist in such solution of them as would forever remove them from the sphere of public or political agitation. "

With both Liberals and Conservatives holding such views, it was easyenough for John A. Macdonald to convince even Sir Allan MacNab thatthe time had come for forgetting the past as much as possible, andconstituting a strong government from the moderate elements of the oldparties which had served their turn and now required to be remodelledon a wider basis of common interests. Sir Allan MacNab recognized thenecessity of bringing his own views into harmony with those of theyounger men of his party who were determined not to allow such anopportunity for forming a powerful ministry to pass by. The politicalsituation, indeed, was one calculated to appeal to both the vanity andself-interest of the veteran statesman, and he accordingly assumed theresponsibility of forming an administration. He communicatedimmediately with Morin and his colleagues in Lower Canada, and when hereceived a favourable reply from them, his next step was to makearrangements, if possible, with the Liberals of Upper Canada. Hinckswas only too happy to have an opportunity of resenting the oppositionhe had met with from Brown and the extreme Reformers of the westernprovince, and opened negotiations with his old supporters on theconditions that the new ministry would take immediate steps for thesecularization of the clergy reserves, and the settlement of theseigniorial tenure, and that two members of the administration wouldbe taken from his own followers. The negotiations were successfullyclosed on this basis of agreement, and on September 11th the followingministers were duly sworn into office:

 Upper Canada. --Hon. Sir Allan MacNab, president of the executive council and minister of agriculture; Hon. John A. Macdonald, attorney-general of Upper Canada; Hon. W. Cayley, inspector-general; Hon. R. Spence, postmaster-general; Hon. John Ross, president of the legislative council. 

 Lower Canada. --Hon. A. N. Morin, commissioner of crown lands; Hon. L. P. Drummond, attorney-general for Lower Canada; Hon. P. J. O. Chauveau, provincial secretary; Hon. E. P. Taché, receiver-general; Hon. J. Chabot, commissioner of public works. 

The new cabinet contained four Conservatives, and six members of theold ministry. Henry Smith, a Conservative, became solicitor-generalfor Upper Canada, and Dunbar Ross continued in the same office forLower Canada, but neither of them had seats in the cabinet. TheLiberal-Conservative party, organized under such circumstances wasattacked with great bitterness by the leaders of the discordantfactions, who were greatly disappointed at the success of thecombination formed through the skilful management of Messrs. J. A. Macdonald, Hineks and Morin. 

The coalition was described as "an unholy alliance" of men who hadentirely abandoned their principles. But an impartial historian mustrecord the opinion that the coalition was perfectly justified byexisting political conditions, that had it not taken place, a stablegovernment would in all probability have been for some timeimpossible, and that the time had come for the reconstruction ofparties with a broad generous policy which would ignore issues at lastdead, and be more in harmony with modern requirements. It might withsome reason be called a coalition when the reconstruction of partieswas going on, but it was really a successful movement for theannihilation of old parties and issues, and for the formation on theirruins of a new party which could gather to itself the best materialsavailable for the effective conduct of public affairs on the patrioticplatform of the union of the two races, of equal rights to all classesand creeds, and of the avoidance of purely sectional questionscalculated to disturb the union of 1841. 

The new government at once obtained the support of a large majority ofthe representatives from each section of the province, and wassustained by the public opinion of the country at large. During thesession of 1854 measures were passed for the secularization of thereserves, the removal of the seigniorial tenure, and for theratification of the reciprocity treaty with the United States. As Ihave only been able so far in this historical narrative to refer in avery cursory manner to these very important questions, I propose nowto give in the following chapter a succinct review of their historyfrom the time they first came into prominence down to their settlementat the close of Lord Elgin's administration in Canada. 

CHAPTER VII

THE HISTORY OF THE CLERGY RESERVES, (1791-1854)

For a long period in the history of Canada the development of severalprovinces was more or less seriously retarded, and the politics of thecountry constantly complicated by the existence of troublesomequestions arising out of the lavish grants of public lands by theFrench and English governments. The territorial domain of FrenchCanada was distributed by the king of France, under the inspiration ofRichelieu, with great generosity, on a system of a modified feudaltenure, which, it was hoped, would strengthen the connection betweenthe Crown and the dependency by the creation of a colonialaristocracy, and at the same time stimulate the colonization andsettlement of the valley of the St. Lawrence; but, as we shall see inthe course of the following chapter, despite the wise intentions ofits promoters, the seigniorial tenure gradually became, after theconquest, more or less burdensome to the _habitants_, and animpediment rather than an incentive to the agricultural developmentand peopling of the province. Even little Prince Edward Island wastroubled with a land question as early as 1767, when it was stillknown by the name St. John, given it in the days of French rule. Sixty-seven townships, containing in the aggregate 1, 360, 600 Englishacres, were conveyed in one day by ballot, with a few reservations tothe Crown, to a number of military men, officials and others, who hadreal or supposed claims on the British government. In this wholesalefashion the island was burdened with a land monopoly which was notwholly removed until after the union with the Canadian Dominion in1873. Though some disputes arose in Nova Scotia and New Brunswickbetween the old and new settlers with respect to the ownership oflands after the coming of the Loyalists, who received, as elsewhere, liberal grants of land, they were soon settled, and consequently thesemaritime provinces were not for any length of time embarrassed by theexistence of such questions as became important issues in the politicsof Canada. Extravagant grants were also given to the United EmpireLoyalists who settled on the banks of the St. Lawrence and Niagararivers in Upper Canada, as some compensation for the great sacrificesthey had made for the Crown during the American revolution. Largetracts of this property were sold either by the Loyalists or theirheirs, and passed into the hands of speculators at very insignificantprices. Lord Durham in his report cites authority to show that not"one-tenth of the lands granted to United Empire Loyalists had beenoccupied by the persons to whom they were granted, and in a greatproportion of cases not occupied at all. " The companies which werealso in the course of time organized in Great Britain for the purchaseand sale of lands in Canada, also received extraordinary favours fromthe government. Although the Canada Company, which is still inexistence, was an important agency in the settlement of the provinceof Upper Canada, its possession of immense tracts--some of them, theHuron Block, for instance, locked up for years--was for a time a greatpublic grievance. 

But all these land questions sank into utter insignificance comparedwith the dispute which arose out of the thirty-sixth clause of theConstitutional Act of 1791, which provided that there should bereserved for the maintenance and support of a "Protestant clergy, " inthe provinces of Upper and Lower Canada, "a quantity of land equal invalue to a seventh part of grants that had been made in the past, ormight be made in the future. " Subsequent clauses of the same act madeprovision for the erection and endowment of one or more rectories inevery township or parish, "according to the establishment of theChurch of England, " and at the same time gave power to the legislatureof the two provinces "to vary or repeal" these enactments of the lawwith the important reservation that all bills of such a charactercould not receive the royal assent until thirty days after they hadbeen laid before both Houses of the imperial parliament. Whenever itwas practicable, the lands were reserved under the act among thosealready granted to settlers with the intention of creating parishes assoon as possible in every settled township throughout the province. However, it was not always possible to carry out this plan, inconsequence of whole townships having been granted _en bloc_ to theLoyalists in certain districts, especially in those of the Bay ofQuinté, Kingston and Niagara, and it was therefore necessary to carryout the intention of the law in adjoining townships where no lands ofany extent had been granted to settlers. 

The Church of England, at a very early period, claimed, as the only"Protestant clergy" recognized by English law, the exclusive use ofthe lands in question, and Bishop Mountain, who became in 1793Anglican bishop of Quebec, with a jurisdiction extending over allCanada, took the first steps to sustain this assertion of exclusiveright. Leases were given to applicants by a clerical corporationestablished by the Anglican Church for the express purpose ofadministering the reserves. For some years the Anglican claim passedwithout special notice, and it is not until 1817 that we see the germof the dispute which afterwards so seriously agitated Upper Canada. Itwas proposed in the assembly to sell half the lands and devote theproceeds to secular purposes, but the sudden prorogation of thelegislature by Lieutenant-Governor Gore, prevented any definite actionon the resolutions, although the debate that arose on the subject hadthe effect of showing the existence of a marked public grievance. Thefeeling at this time in the country was shown in answers given tocirculars sent out by Robert Gourlay, an energetic Scottish busy-body, to a number of townships, asking an expression of opinion as to thecauses which retarded improvement and the best means of developing theresources of the province. The answer from Sandwich emphatically setforth that the reasons of the existing depression were the reserves ofland for the Crown and clergy, "which must for long keep the country awilderness, a harbour for wolves, and a hindrance to compact and goodneighbourhood; defects in the system of colonization; too great aquantity of land in the hands of individuals who do not reside in theprovince, and are not assessed for their property. " The selectcommittee of the House of Commons on the civil government of Canadareported in 1828 that "these reserved lands, as they are at presentdistributed over the country, retard more than any other circumstancethe improvement of the colony, lying as they do in detached portionsof each township and intervening between the occupations of actualsettlers, who have no means of cutting roads through the woods andmorasses which thus separate them from their neighbours. " It appears, too, that the quantity of land actually reserved was in excess of thatwhich appears to have been contemplated by the Constitutional Act. "Aquantity equal to one-seventh of all grants, " wrote Lord Durham in hisreport of 1839, "would be one-eighth of each township, or of all thepublic land. Instead of this proportion, the practice has been eversince the act passed, and in the clearest violation of its provisions, to set apart for the clergy in Upper Canada, a seventh of all theland, which is a quantity equal to a sixth of the land granted. .. . InLower Canada the same violation of the law has taken place, with thisdifference--that upon every sale of Crown and clergy reserves, a freshreserve for the clergy has been made, equal to a fifth of suchreserves. " In that way the public in both provinces was systematicallyrobbed of a large quantity of land, which, Lord Durham estimated, wasworth about £280, 000 at the time he wrote. He acknowledges, however, that the clergy had no part in "this great misappropriation of thepublic property, " but that it had arisen "entirely from heedlessmisconception, or some other error of the civil government of theprovince. " All this, however, goes to show the maladministration ofthe public lands, and is one of the many reasons the people of theCanadas had for considering these reserves a public grievance. 

When political parties were organized in Upper Canada some years afterthe war of 1812-14, which had for a while united all classes andcreeds for the common defence, we see on one side a Tory compact forthe maintenance of the old condition of things, the control ofpatronage, and the protection of the interests of the Church ofEngland; on the other, a combination of Reformers, chiefly composed ofMethodists, Presbyterians, and Baptists, who clamoured for reforms ingovernment and above all for relief from the dominance of the AnglicanChurch, which, with respect to the clergy reserves and other matters, was seeking a _quasi_ recognition as a state church. As the Puritansof New England at the commencement of the American Revolutioninveighed against any attempt to establish an Anglican episcopate inthe country as an insidious attack by the monarchy on their civil andreligious liberty--most unjustly, as any impartial historian must nowadmit[17]--so in Upper Canada the dissenters made it one of theirstrongest grievances that favouritism was shown to the Anglican Churchin the distribution of the public lands and the public patronage, tothe detriment of all other religious bodies in the province. Thebitterness that was evoked on this question had much to do withbringing about the rebellion of 1837. If the whole question could havebeen removed from the arena of political discussion, the Reformerswould have been deprived of one of their most potent agencies tocreate a feeling against the "family compact" and the government atToronto. But Bishop Strachan, who was a member of both the executiveand legislative councils--in other words, the most influential memberof the "family compact"--could not agree to any compromise which wouldconciliate the aggrieved dissenters and at the same time preserve alarge part of the claim made by the Church of England. Such acompromise in the opinion of this sturdy, obstinate ecclesiastic, would be nothing else than a sop to his Satanic majesty. It was alwayswith him a battle _à l'outrance, _ and as we shall soon see, in the endhe suffered the bitterness of defeat. 

In these later days when we can review the whole question without anyof the prejudice and passion which embittered the controversy while itwas a burning issue, we can see that the Church of England had stronghistorical and legal arguments to justify its claim to the exclusiveuse of the clergy reserves. When the Constitutional Act of 1791 waspassed, the only Protestant clergy recognized in British statutes werethose of the Church of England, and, as we shall see later, those ofthe established Church of Scotland. The dissenting denominations hadno more a legal status in the constitutional system of England thanthe Roman Catholics, and indeed it was very much the same thing insome respects in the provinces of Canada. So late as 1824 thelegislative council, largely composed of Anglicans, rejected a billallowing Methodist ministers to solemnize marriages, and it was notuntil 1831 that recognized ministers of all denominations were placedon an equality with the Anglican clergy in such matters. Theemployment of the words "Protestant Clergy" in the act, it was urgedwith force, was simply to distinguish the Church of England clergyfrom those of the Church of Rome, who, otherwise, would be legallyentitled to participate in the grant. 

The loyalists, who founded the province of Upper Canada, establishedformally by the Constitutional Act of 1791, were largely composed ofadherents of the Church of England, and it was one of the dearestobjects of Lieutenant-Governor Simcoe to place that body on a stablebasis and give it all the influence possible in the state. Aconsiderable number had also settled in Lower Canada, and received, asin other parts of British North America, the sympathy and aid of theparent state. It was the object of the British government to make theconstitution of the Canadas "an image and transcript" as far aspossible of the British system of government. In no better way couldthis be done, in the opinion of the framers of the Constitutional Act, than by creating a titled legislative council;[18] and though thiseffort came to naught, it is noteworthy as showing the tendency atthat time of imperial legislation. If such a council could beestablished, then it was all important that there should be areligious body, supported by the state, to surround the politicalinstitutions of the country with the safeguards which a conservativeand aristocratic church like that of England would give. The erectionand endowment of rectories "according to the establishment of theChurch of England"--words of the act to be construed in connectionwith the previous clauses--was obviously a part of the original schemeof 1791 to anglicize Upper Canada and make it as far as possible areflex of Anglican England. 

It does not appear that at any time there was any such feeling ofdissatisfaction with respect to the reserves in French Canada asexisted throughout Upper Canada, The Protestant clergy in the formerprovince were relatively few in number, and the Roman Catholic Church, which dominated the whole country, was quite content with its ownlarge endowments received from the bounty of the king or privateindividuals during the days of French occupation, and did not care tomeddle in a question which in no sense affected it. On the other hand, in Upper Canada, the arguments used by the Anglican clergy in supportof their claims to the exclusive administration of the reserves wereconstantly answered not only in the legislative bodies, but in theLiberal papers, and by appeals to the imperial government. It wascontended that the phrase "Protestant clergy" used in theConstitutional Act, was simply intended to distinguish all Protestantdenominations from the Roman Catholic Church, and that, had there beenany intention to give exclusive rights to the Anglican Church, itwould have been expressly so stated in the section reserving thelands, just as had been done in the sections specially providing forthe erection and endowment of Anglican rectories. 

The first successful blow against the claims of the English Church inCanada was struck by that branch of the Presbyterian Church known inlaw as the Established Church of Scotland. It obtained an opinion fromthe British law officers in 1819, entirely favourable to its ownparticipation in the reserves on the ground that it had been fullyrecognized as a state church, not only in the act uniting the twokingdoms of England and Scotland, but in several British statutespassed later than the Constitutional Act whose doubtful phraseologyhad originated the whole controversy. While the law officers admittedthat the provisions of this act might be "extended also to the Churchof Scotland, if there are any such settled in Canada (as appears tohave been admitted in the debate upon the passing of the act), " yetthey expressed the opinion that the clauses in question did not applyto dissenting ministers, since they thought that "the term 'Protestantclergy' could apply only to Protestant clergy recognized andestablished by law. " We shall see a little farther on the truth of theold adage that "lawyers will differ" and that in 1840, twenty-oneyears later than the expression of the opinion just cited, eminentBritish jurists appeared to be more favourable to the claims ofdenominations other than the Church of Scotland. 

Until 1836--the year preceding the rebellion--the excitement withrespect to the reserves had been intensified by the action of Sir JohnColborne, lieutenant-governor of Upper Canada, who, on the eve of hisdeparture for England, was induced by Bishop Strachan to sign patentscreating and endowing forty-four rectories[19] in Upper Canada, representing more than 17, 000 acres of land in the aggregate or about486 for each of them. One can say advisedly that this action was mostindiscreet at a time when a wise administrator would have attempted toallay rather than stimulate public irritation on so serious aquestion. Until this time, says Lord Durham, the Anglican clergy hadno exclusive privileges, save such as might spring from theirefficient discharge of their sacred duties, or from the energy, ability or influence of members of their body--notably BishopStrachan, who practically controlled the government in religious andeven secular matters. But, continued Lord Durham, the last public actof Sir John Colborne made it quite understood that every rectorpossessed "all the spiritual and other privileges enjoyed by anEnglish rector, " and that though he might "have no right to levytithes" (for even this had been made a question), he was "in all otherrespects precisely in the same position as a clergyman of theestablished church in England. " "This is regarded, " added Lord Durham, "by all other teachers of religion in this country as having at oncedegraded them to a position of legal inferiority to the clergy of theChurch of England; and it has been most warmly resented. In theopinion of many persons, this was the chief predisposing cause of therecent insurrection, and it is an abiding and unabated cause fordiscontent. "

As soon as Sir John Colborne's action was known throughout theprovince, public indignation among the opponents of the clergyreserves and the Church of England took the forms of public meetingsto denounce the issue of the patents, and of memorials to the imperialgovernment calling into question their legality and praying for theirimmediate annulment. An opinion was obtained from the law officers ofthe Crown that the action taken by Sir John Colborne was "not validand lawful, " but it was given on a mere _ex parte_ statement of thecase prepared by the opponents of the rectories; and the same eminentlawyers subsequently expressed themselves favourably as to thelegality of the patents when they were asked to reconsider the wholequestion, which was set forth in a very elaborate report preparedunder the direction of Bishop Strachan. It is convenient to mentionhere that this phase of the clergy reserve question again came beforeable English counsel at the Equity Bar, when Hincks visited London in1852. After they had given an opinion unfavourable to the Colbornepatents on the case as submitted to them by the Canadian primeminister, it was deemed expedient to submit the whole legal questionto the Court of Chancery in Upper Canada, which decided unanimously, after a full hearing of the case, that the patents were valid. Butthis decision was not given until 1856, when the whole matter of thereserves had been finally adjusted, and the validity of the creationof the rectories was no longer a burning question in Upper Canada. 

When Poulett Thomson came to Canada in the autumn of 1839 asgovernor-general, he recognized the necessity of bringing about animmediate settlement of this very vexatious question, and ofpreventing its being made a matter of agitation after the union of thetwo provinces. The imperial authorities had already disallowed an actpassed by the legislature of Upper Canada of 1838 to reinvest theclergy reserves in the Crown, and it became necessary for LordSydenham--to give the governor-general's later title--to propose asettlement in the shape of a compromise between the various Protestantbodies interested in the reserves. Lord Sydenham was opposed to theapplication of these lands to general education as proposed in severalbills which had passed the assembly, but had been rejected by thelegislative council owing to the dominant influence of BishopStrachan. "To such a measure, " says Lord Sydenham's biographer, [20]"he was opposed; first because it would have taken away the only fundexclusively devoted to purposes of religion, and secondly, because, even if carried in the provincial legislature, it would evidently nothave obtained the sanction of the imperial parliament. He thereforeentered into personal communication with the leading individuals amongthe principal religious communities, and after many interviews, succeeded in obtaining their support to a measure for the distributionof the reserves among the religious communities recognized by law, inproportion to their respective numbers. "

Lord Sydenham's efforts to obtain the consent "of leading individualsamong the principal religious communities" did not succeed inpreventing a strong opposition to the measure after it had passedthrough the legislature. Dr. Ryerson, a power among the Methodists, denounced it, after he had at the outset shown an inclination tosupport it, and the Bishop of Toronto was also among its mostdetermined opponents. Lord Sydenham's well-meaning attempt to settlethe question was thwarted at the very outset by the reference of thebill to English judges, who reported adversely on the ground that thepower "to vary or repeal" given in the Constitutional Act of 1791 wasonly prospective, and did not authorize the provincial legislature todivert the proceeds of the lands already sold from the purposeoriginally contemplated in the imperial statute. The judges alsoexpressed the opinion on this occasion that the words "Protestantclergy" were large enough to include and did include "other clergythan those of the Church of Scotland. " In their opinion these wordsappeared, "both in their natural force and meaning, and still morefrom the context of the clauses in which they are found, to be thereused to designate and intend a clergy opposed in doctrine anddiscipline to the clergy of the Church of Rome, and rather to aim atthe encouragement of the Protestant religion in opposition to theRomish Church, than to point exclusively to the clergy of the Churchof England. " But as they did not find on the statute book theacknowledgment by the legislature of any other clergy answering thedescription of the law, they could not specify any other except theChurch of Scotland as falling within the imperial statute. 

Under these circumstances the imperial government at once passedthrough parliament a bill (3 and 4 Vict. , c. 78) which re-enacted theCanadian measure with the modifications rendered necessary by thejudicial opinion just cited. This act put an end to futurereservations, and at the same time recognized the claims of all theProtestant bodies to a share in the funds derived from the sales ofthe lands. It provided for the division of the reserves into twoportions--those sold before the passing of the act and those sold at alater time. Of the previous sales, the Church of England was toreceive two-thirds and the Church of Scotland one-third. Of futuresales, the Church of England would receive one-third and the Church ofScotland one-sixth, while the residue could be applied by thegovernor-in-council "for purposes of public worship and religiousinstruction in Canada, " in other words, that it should be dividedamong those other religious denominations that might make applicationat any time for a share in these particular funds. 

This act, however, did not prove to be a settlement of this disturbingquestion. If Bishop Strachan had been content with the compromise madein this act, and had endeavoured to carry out its provisions as soonas it was passed, the Anglican Church would have obtained positiveadvantages which it failed to receive when the question was againbrought into the arena of angry discussion. In 1844 when HenrySherwood was solicitor-general in the Draper-Viger Conservativegovernment he proposed an address to the Crown for the passing of anew imperial act, authorizing the division of the land itself insteadof the income arising from its sales. His object was to place thelands, allotted to the Church of England, under the control of thechurch societies, which could lease them, or hold them for any lengthof time at such prices as they might deem expedient. In the course ofthe debate on this proposition, which failed to receive the assent ofthe House, Baldwin, Price, and other prominent men expressed regretthat any attempt should be made to disturb the settlement made by theimperial statute of 1840, which, in their opinion, should be regardedas final. 

A strong feeling now developed in Upper Canada in favour of a repealof the imperial act, and the secularization of the reserves. ThePresbyterians--apart from the Church of Scotland--were now influencedby the Scottish Free Church movement of 1843 and opposed to publicprovision for the support of religious denominations. The spirit whichanimated them spread to other bodies, and was stimulated by theuncompromising attitude still assumed by the Anglican bishop, who wasanxious, as Sherwood's effort proved, to obtain advantages for hischurch beyond those given it by the act of 1840. When theLaFontaine-Baldwin ministry was formed, the movement for thesecularization of the reserves among the Upper Canadian Liberals, orReformers as many preferred to call their party, became so pronouncedas to demand the serious consideration of the government; but therewas no inclination shown by the French Canadians in the cabinet todisturb the settlement of 1840, and the serious phases of theRebellion Losses Bill kept the whole question for some time in thebackground. After the appearance of the Clear Grits in Upper Canadianpolitics, with the secularization of the reserves as the principalplank in their platform, the LaFontaine-Baldwin cabinet felt thenecessity of making a concession to the strong feeling which prevailedamong Upper Canadian Reformers. As they were divided in opinion on thequestion and could not make it a part of the ministerial policy, Price, commissioner of Crown lands, was induced in the session of 1850to introduce on his sole responsibility an address to the Crown, praying for the repeal of the imperial act of 1840, and the passage ofanother which would authorize the Canadian legislature to dispose ofthe reserves as it should deem most expedient, but with the distinctunderstanding that, while no particular sect should be considered ashaving a vested right in the property, the emoluments derived byexisting incumbents should be guaranteed during their lives. Mr. Price--the same gentleman who had objected some years previously tothe reopening of the question--showed in the course of his speech theimportance which the reserves had now attained. The number of acresreserved to this time was 2, 395, 687, and of sales, under two statutes, 1, 072, 453. These sales had realized £720, 756, of which £373, 899 4s. 4d. Had been paid, and £346, 856 15s. 8d. Remained still due. Countingthe interest on the sum paid, a million of pounds represented thevalue of the lands already sold, and when they were all disposed ofthere would be realized more than two millions of pounds. Price alsopointed out the fact that only a small number of persons had derivedadvantages from these reserves. Out of the total population of 723, 000souls in Upper Canada, the Church of England claimed 171, 000 and theChurch of Scotland 68, 000, or a total of 239, 000 persons who receivedthe lion's share, and left comparatively little to the remainingpopulation of 484, 000 souls. Among the latter the Roman Catholicscounted 123, 707 communicants and received only £700 a year; theWesleyans, with 90, 363 adherents, received even a still more wretchedpittance. Furthermore 269, 000 persons were entirely excluded from anyshare whatever in the reserves. In the debate on the resolutions forthe address LaFontaine did not consider the imperial act a finality, and was in favour of having the reserves brought under the control ofthe Canadian legislature, but he expressed the opinion mostemphatically that all private rights and endowments conferred underthe authority of imperial legislation should be held inviolate, and sofar as possible, carried into effect. Baldwin's observations wereremarkable for their vagueness. He did not object to endowment forreligious purposes, although he was opposed to any union betweenchurch and state. While he did not consider the act of 1840 as a finalsettlement, inasmuch as it did not express the opinion of the Canadianpeople, he was not then prepared to commit himself as to the mode inwhich the property should he disposed of. Hincks affirmed that therewas no desire on the part of members of the government to evade theirresponsibilities on the question, but they were not ready to adopt theabsurd and unconstitutional course that was pressed on them by theClear Grits, of attempting to repeal an imperial act by a Canadianstatute. 

Malcolm Cameron and other radical Reformers advocated the completesecularization of the reserves, while Cayley, Macdonald, and otherConservatives, urged that the provisions of the imperial act of 1840should be carried out to the fullest extent, and that the funds, thenor at a future time at the disposal of the government "for thepurposes of public worship and religious instruction" under the act, should be apportioned among the various denominations that had notpreviously had a share in the reserves. When it came to a division, itwas clear that there was no unanimity on the question among theministers and other supporters. Indeed, the summary given above of theremarks made by LaFontaine, Baldwin, and Hincks, affords conclusiveevidence of the differences of opinion that existed between them andof their reluctance to express themselves definitely on the subject. The majority of the French members, Messrs. LaFontaine, Cauchon, Chabot, Chauveau, LaTerrière and others, voted against the resolutionwhich affirmed that "no religious denomination can be held to havesuch vested interest in the revenue derived from the proceeds of thesaid clergy reserves as should prevent further legislation withreference to the disposal of them, but this House is nevertheless ofopinion that the claims of existing incumbents should be treated inthe most liberal manner. " Baldwin and other Reformers supported thisclause, which passed by a majority of two. The address was finallyadopted on a division of forty-six Yeas and twenty-three Nays--"theminority containing the names of a few Reformers who would not consentto pledge themselves to grant, for the lives of the existingincumbents, the stipends on which they had accepted theircharges--some perhaps having come from other countries to fill themand having possibly thrown up other preferments. "[21] The address wasduly forwarded to England by Lord Elgin, with a despatch in which heexplained at some length the position of the whole question. Inaccordance with the principle which guided him throughout hisadministration of Canadian affairs--to give full scope to the right ofthe province to manage its own local concerns--he advised Lord Grey torepeal the imperial act of 1840 if he wished "to preserve the colony. "Lord Grey admitted that the question was one exclusively affecting thepeople of Canada and should be decided by the provincial legislature. It was the intention of the government, he informed Lord Elgin, tointroduce a bill into parliament for this purpose; but action had tobe deferred until another year when, as it happened unfortunately forthe province, Lord John Russell's ministry was forced to resign, andwas succeeded by a Conservative administration led by the Earl ofDerby. 

The Canadian government soon ascertained from Sir John Pakington, thenew colonial secretary, that the new advisers of Her Majesty were not"inclined to give their consent and support to any arrangement theresult of which would too probably be the diversion to other purposesof the only public fund . .. Which now exists for the support of divineworship and religious instruction in the colony. " It was alsointimated by the secretary of state that the new government was quiteready to entertain a proposal for reconsidering the mode ofdistributing the proceeds of the sales of the reserves, while notready to agree to any proposal that might "divert forever from itssacred object the fund arising from that portion of the public landsof Canada which, almost from the period of the British conquest ofthat province, has been set apart for the religious instruction of thepeople. " Hincks, who was at that time in England, at once wrote to SirJohn Pakington, in very emphatic terms, that he viewed "with graveapprehension the prospect of collision between Her Majesty'sgovernment and the parliament of Canada, on a question regarding whichsuch strong feelings prevailed among the great mass of thepopulation. " The people of Canada were convinced that they were"better judges than any parties in England of what measures would bestconduce to the peace and welfare of the province. " As respects theproposal "for reconsidering the mode of distributing the income of theclergy reserves, " Hincks had no hesitation in saying that "it would bereceived as one for the violation of the most sacred constitutionalrights of the people. "

As soon as the Canadian legislature met in 1852, Hincks carried anaddress to the Crown, in which it was urged that the question of thereserves was "one so exclusively affecting the people of Canada thatits decision ought not to be withdrawn from the provinciallegislature, to which it properly belongs to regulate all mattersconcerning the domestic interests of the province. " The hope wasexpressed that Her Majesty's government would lose no time in givingeffect to the promise made by the previous administration andintroduce the legislation necessary "to satisfy the wishes of theCanadian people. " In the debate on this address, Moria, the leader ofthe French section of the cabinet, clearly expressed himself in favourof the secularization of the reserves in accordance with the viewsentertained by his Upper Canadian colleagues. It was consequentlyclear that the successors of the LaFontaine-Baldwin ministry werefully pledged to a vigorous policy for the disposal of this vexatiousdispute. 

A few months after Lord Elgin had forwarded this address to the Crown, the Earl of Derby's administration was defeated in the House ofCommons, and the Aberdeen government was formed towards the close of1852, with the Duke of Newcastle as secretary of state for thecolonies. One of Sir John Pakington's last official acts was toprepare a despatch unfavourable to the prayer of the assembly's lastaddress, but it was never sent to Canada, though brought down toparliament. At the same time the Canadian people heard of thisdespatch they were gratified by the announcement that the newministers had decided to reverse the policy of their predecessors andto meet the wishes of the Canadian legislature. Accordingly, in thesession of 1853, a measure was passed by the imperial parliament togive full power to the provincial legislature to vary or repeal all orany part of the act of 1840, and to make all necessary provisionsrespecting the clergy reserves or the proceeds derived from the same, on the express condition that there should be no interference with theannual stipends or allowances of existing incumbents as long as theylived. The Hincks-Morin ministry was then urged to bring in at once ameasure disposing finally of the question, in accordance with thelatest imperial act; but, as we have read in a previous chapter, itcame to the opinion after anxious deliberation that the existingparliament was not competent to deal with so important a question. Italso held that it was a duty to obtain an immediate expression ofopinion from the people, and the election of a House in which thecountry would be fully represented in accordance with the legislationincreasing the number of representatives in the assembly. 

The various political influences arrayed against Hincks in UpperCanada led to his defeat, and the formation of the MacNab-MorinLiberal-Conservative government, which at once took steps to settlethe question forever. John A. Macdonald commenced this new epoch inhis political career by taking charge of the bill for thesecularization of the reserves. It provided for the payment of allmoneys arising from the sales of the reserves into the hands of thereceiver-general, who would apportion them amongst the severalmunicipalities of the province according to population. All annualstipends or allowances, charged upon the reserves before the passageof the imperial act of 1853, were continued during the lives ofexisting incumbents, though the latter could commute their stipends orallowances for their value in money, and in this way create a smallpermanent endowment for the advantage of the church to which theybelonged. 

After nearly forty years of continuous agitation, during which theprovince of Upper Canada had been convulsed from the Ottawa to LakeHuron, and political parties had been seriously embarrassed, thequestion was at last removed from the sphere of party and religiouscontroversy. The very politicians who had contended for the rights ofthe Anglican clergy were now forced by public opinion and theirpolitical interests to take the final steps for its settlement. BishopStrachan's fight during the best years of his life had ended inthorough discomfiture. As the historian recalls the story of thatfight, he cannot fail to come to the conclusion that the settlement of1854 relieved the Anglican Church itself of a controversy which, aslong as it existed, created a feeling of deep hostility that seriouslyaffected its usefulness and progress. Even Lord Elgin was compelled towrite in 1851 "that the tone adopted by the Church of England here hasalmost always had the effect of driving from her even those who wouldbe most disposed to co-operate with her if she would allow them. " Atlast freed from the political and the religious bitterness which wasso long evoked by the absence of a conciliatory policy on the part ofher leaders, this great church is able peacefully to teach the noblelessons of her faith and win that respect among all classes which wasnot possible under the conditions that brought her into directconflict with the great mass of the Canadian people. 

CHAPTER VIII

SEIGNIORIAL TENURE

The government of Canada in the days of the French régime bore a closeresemblance to that of a province of France. The governor wasgenerally a noble and a soldier, but while he was invested with largemilitary and civil authority by the royal instructions, he had ever byhis side a vigilant guardian in the person of the intendant, whopossessed for all practical purposes still more substantial powers, and was always encouraged to report to the king every matter thatmight appear to conflict with the principles of absolute governmentlaid down by the sovereign. The superior council of Canada possessedjudicial, administrative and legislative powers, but its action waslimited by the decrees and ordinances of the king, and its decisionswere subject to the veto of the royal council of the parent state. Theintendant, generally a man of legal attainments, had the special rightto issue ordinances which had the full effect of law--in the words ofhis commission "to order everything as he shall see just and proper. "These ordinances regulated inns and markets, the building and repairsof churches and presbyteries, the construction of bridges, themaintenance of roads, and all those matters which could affect thecomfort, the convenience, and the security of the community at large. While the governmental machinery was thus modelled in a large measureon that of the provincial administration of France, the territory ofthe province was subject to a modified form of the old feudal systemwhich was so long a dominant condition of the nations of Europe, andhas, down to the present time left its impress on their legal andcivil institutions, not even excepting Great Britain itself. Longbefore Jacques Cartier sailed up the River St. Lawrence this systemhad gradually been weakened in France under the persistent efforts ofthe Capets, who had eventually, out of the ruin of the feudatories, built up a monarchy which at last centralized all power in the king. The policy of the Capets had borne its full, legitimate fruit by thetime Louis XIV ascended the throne. The power of the great nobles, once at the head of practically independent feudatories, had beeneffectually broken down, and now, for the most part withdrawn from theprovinces, they ministered only to the ambition of the king, andcontributed to the dissipation and extravagance of a voluptuous court. 

But while those features of the ancient feudal system, which werecalculated to give power to the nobles, had been eliminated by thecentralizing influence of the king, the system still continued in theprovinces to govern the relations between the _noblesse_ and thepeasantry who possessed their lands on old feudal conditions regulatedby the customary or civil law. These conditions were, on the whole, still burdensome. The noble who spent all his time in attendance onthe court at Versailles or other royal palaces could keep his purseequal to his pleasures only by constant demands on his feudal tenants, who dared no more refuse to obey his behests than he himself venturedto flout the royal will. 

Deeply engrafted as it still was on the social system of the parentstate, the feudal tenure was naturally transferred to the colony ofNew France, but only with such modifications as were suited to theconditions of a new country. Indeed all the abuses that might hindersettlement or prevent agricultural development were carefully loppedoff. Canada was given its _seigneurs_, or lords of the manor, whowould pay fealty and homage to the sovereign himself, or to the feudalsuperior from whom they directly received their territorial estate, and they in their turn leased lands to peasants, or tillers of thesoil, who held them on the modified conditions of the tenure of oldFrance. It was not expedient, and indeed not possible, to transfer awhole body of nobles to the wilderness of the new world--they were asa class too wedded to the gay life of France--and all that could bedone was to establish a feudal tenure to promote colonization, and atthe same time possibly create a landed gentry who might be a shadowyreflection of the French _noblesse_, and could, in particular cases, receive titles directly from the king himself. 

This seigniorial tenure of New France was the most remarkable instancewhich the history of North America affords of the successful effort ofEuropean nations to reproduce on this continent the ancientaristocratic institutions of the old world. In the days when the Dutchowned the Netherlands, vast estates were partitioned out to certain"patroons, " who held their property on _quasi_ feudal conditions, andbore a resemblance to the _seigneurs_ of French Canada. This manorialsystem was perpetuated under English forms when the territory wasconquered by the English and transformed into the colony of New York, where it had a chequered existence, and was eventually abolished asinconsistent with the free conditions of American settlement. In theproprietary colony of Maryland the Calverts also attempted toestablish a landed aristocracy, and give to the manorial lords certainrights of jurisdiction over their tenants drawn from the feudal systemof Europe. For Carolina, Shaftesbury and Locke devised a constitutionwhich provided a territorial nobility, called _landgraves_ and_caciques_, but it soon became a mere historical curiosity. Even inthe early days of Prince Edward Island, when it was necessary tomature a plan of colonization, it was gravely proposed to the Britishgovernment that the whole island should be divided into "hundreds, " asin England, or into "baronies, " as in Ireland, with courts-baron, lords of manors, courts-leet, all under the direction of a lordparamount; but while this ambitious aristocratic scheme was notfavourably entertained, the imperial authorities chose one which wasmost injurious in its effects on the settlement of this fertileisland. 

It was Richelieu who introduced this modified form of the feudalsystem into Canada, when he constituted, in 1627, the whole of thecolony as a fief of the great fur-trading company of the HundredAssociates on the sole condition of its paying fealty and homage tothe Crown. It had the right of establishing seigniories as a part ofits undertaking to bring four thousand colonists to the province andfurnish them with subsistence for three years. Both this company andits successor, the Company of the West Indies, created a number ofseigniories, but for the most part they were never occupied, and theking revoked the grants on the ground of non-settlement, when heresumed possession of the country and made it a royal province. Fromthat time the system was regulated by the _Coutume de Paris_, by royaledicts, or by ordinances of the intendant. 

The greater part of the soil of Canada was accordingly held _en fief_or _en seigneurie_. Each grant varied from sixteen _arpents_--an_arpent_ being about five-sixths of an English acre--by fifty, to tenleagues by twelve. We meet with other forms of tenure in the partitionof land in the days of the French régime--for instance, _franc aleunoble_ and _franc aumone_ or _mortmain_, but these were exceptionalgrants to charitable, educational, or religious institutions, and weresubject to none of the ordinary obligations of the feudal tenure, butrequired, as in the latter case, only the performance of certaindevotional or other duties which fell within their special sphere. Some grants were also given in _franc aleu roturier_, equivalent tothe English tenure of free and common socage, and were generally madefor special objects. [22]

The _seigneur_, on his accession to the estate, was required to payhomage to the king, or to his feudal superior from whom he derived hislands. In case he wished to transfer by sale or otherwise hisseigniory, except in the event of direct natural succession, he had topay under the _Coutume de Paris_--which, generally speaking, regulatedsuch seigniorial grants--a _quint_ or fifth part of the whole purchasemoney to his feudal superior, but he was allowed a reduction _(rabat)_of two-thirds if the money was promptly paid down. In special cases, land transfers, whether by direct succession or otherwise, weresubject to the rule of _Vixen le_ _français_, which required thepayment of _relief_, or one year's revenue, on all changes ofownership, or a payment of gold (_une maille d'or_). It was obligatoryon all seigniors to register their grants at Quebec, to concede orsub-infeudate them under the rule of _jeu de fief_, and settle themwith as little delay as practicable. The Crown also reserved in mostcases its _jura regalia_ or _regalitates_, such as mines and minerals, lands for military or defensive purposes, oak timber and masts for thebuilding of the royal ships. It does not, however, appear thatmilitary service was a condition on which the seigniors of Canada heldtheir grants, as was the case in France under the old feudal tenure. The king and his representative in his royal province held such powersin their own hands. The seignior had as little influence in thegovernment of the country as he had in military affairs. He might bechosen to the superior council at the royal pleasure, and was bound toobey the orders of the governor whenever the militia were called out. The whole province was formed into a militia district, so that in timeof war the inhabitants might be obliged to perform military serviceunder the royal governor or commander-in-chief of the regular forces. A captain was appointed for each parish--generally conterminous with aseigniory--and in some cases there were two or three. These captainswere frequently chosen from the seigniors, many of whom--in theRichelieu district entirely--were officers of royal regiments, notablyof the Carignan-Salières. The seigniors had, as in France, the rightof dispensing justice, but with the exception of the Seminary of StSulpice of Montreal, it was only in very rare instances they exercisedtheir judicial powers, and then simply in cases of inferiorjurisdiction _(basse justice)_. The superior council and intendantadjudicated in all matters of civil and criminal importance. 

The whole success of the seigniorial system, as a means of settlingthe country, depended on the extent to which the seigniors were ableto grant their lands _en censive_ or _en roture_. The _censitaire_ whoheld his lands in this way could not himself sub-infeudate. Thegrantee _en roture_ was governed by the same rules as the one _encensive_ except with respect to the descent of lands in cases ofintestacy. All land grants to the _censitaires_--or as they preferredto call themselves in Canada, _habitants_--were invariably shaped likea parallelogram, with a narrow frontage on the river varying from twoto three _arpents_, and with a depth from four to eight _arpents_. These farms, in the course of time assumed the appearance of acontinuous settlement on the river and became known in localphraseology as _Côtes_--for example, Côte de Neiges, Côte St. Louis, Côte St. Paul, and many other picturesque villages on the banks of theSt. Lawrence. In the first century of settlement the governmentinduced the officers and soldiers of the Carignan-Salières regiment tosettle lands along the Richelieu river and to build palisaded villagesfor the purposes of defence against the war-like Iroquois; but, in therural parts of the province generally, the people appear to havefollowed their own convenience with respect to the location of theirfarms and dwellings, and chose the banks of the river as affording theeasiest means of intercommunication. The narrow oblong grants, made inthe original settlement of the province, became narrower still as theoriginal occupants died and their property was divided among the heirsunder the civil law. Consequently at the present day the traveller whovisits French Canada sees the whole country divided into extremelylong and narrow parallelograms each with fences and piles of stones asboundaries in innumerable cases. 

The conditions on which the _censitaire_ held his land from theseignior were exceedingly easy during the greater part of the Frenchregime. The _cens et rentes_ which he was expected to pay annually, onSt. Martin's day, as a rule, varied from one to two _sols_ for eachsuperficial _arpent_, with the addition of a small quantity of corn, poultry, and some other article produced on the farm, which might becommuted for cash, at current prices. The _censitaire_ was alsoobliged to grind his corn at the seignior's mill (_moulin banal_), andthough the royal authorities at Quebec were very particular inpressing the fulfilment of this obligation, it does not appear to havebeen successfully carried out in the early days of the colony onaccount of the inability of the seigniors to purchase the machinery, or erect buildings suitable for the satisfactory performance of aservice clearly most useful to the people of the rural districts. Theobligation of baking bread in the seigniorial oven was not generallyexacted, and soon became obsolete as the country was settled and each_habitant_ naturally built his own oven in connection with his home. The seigniors also claimed the right to a certain amount of statutelabour (_corvée_) from the _habitants_ on their estates, to one fishout of every dozen caught in seigniorial waters, and to a reservationof wood and stone for the construction and repairs of the manor house, mill, and church in the parish or seigniory. In case the _censitaire_wished to dispose of his holding during his lifetime, it was subjectto the _lods et ventes_, or to a tax of one-twelfth of the purchasemoney, which had to be paid to the seignior, who usually as a favourremitted one-fourth on punctual payment. The most serious restrictionon such sales was the _droit de retraite_, or right of the seignior topreempt the same property himself within forty days from the date ofthe sale. 

There was no doubt, at the establishment of the seigniorial tenure, adisposition to create in Canada, as far as possible, an aristocraticclass akin to the _noblesse_ of old France, who were a social orderquite distinct from the industrial and commercial classes, though theydid not necessarily bear titles. Under the old feudal system thepossession of land brought nobility and a title, but in the modifiedseigniorial system of Canada the king could alone confer titulardistinctions. The intention of the system was to induce men of goodsocial position--like the _gentils-hommes_ or officers of the Carignanregiment--to settle in the country and become seigniors. However, thelatter were not confined to this class, for the title was rapidlyextended to shopkeepers, farmers, sailors, and even mechanics who hada little money and were ready to pay for the cheap privilege ofbecoming nobles in a small way. Titled seigniors were very rare at anytime in French Canada. In 1671, Des Islets, Talon's seigniory, waserected into a barony, and subsequently into an earldom (Countd'Orsainville). Francois Berthelot's seigniory of St. Laurent on theIsland of Orleans was made in 1676 an earldom, and that of Portneuf, René Robineau's, into a barony. The only title which has come down tothe present time is that of the Baron de Longueuil, which was firstconferred on the distinguished Charles LeMoyne in 1700, and has beenofficially recognized by the British government since December, 1880. 

The established seigniorial system bore conclusive evidence of thesame paternal spirit which sent shiploads of virtuous young women(sometimes _marchandises mêlées_) to the St. Lawrence to become wivesof the forlorn Canadian bachelors, gave trousseaux of cattle andkitchen utensils to the newly wed, and encouraged by bounties theproduction of children. The seigniories were the ground on which thesepaternal methods of creating a farming community were to be developed, but despite the wise intentions of the government the whole machinerywas far from realizing the results which might reasonably have beenexpected from its operation. The land was easily acquired and cheaplyheld, facilities were given for the grinding of grain and the makingof flour; fish and game were quickly taken by the skilful fishermanand enterprising hunter, and the royal officials generally favouredthe _habitants_ in disputes with the seigniors. 

Unlike the large grants made by the British government after theconquest to loyalists, Protestant clergy, and speculators--grantscalculated to keep large sections of the country in a state ofwildness--the seigniorial estates had to be cultivated and settledwithin a reasonable time if they were to be retained by the occupants. During the French dominion the Crown sequestrated a number ofseigniories for the failure to observe the obligation of cultivation. As late as 1741 we find an ordinance restoring seventeen estates tothe royal domain, although the Crown was ready to reinstate the formeroccupants the moment they showed that they intended to perform theirduty of settlement. But all the care that was taken to encouragesettlement was for a long time without large results, chiefly inconsequence of the nomadic habits of the young men on the seigniories. The fur trade, from the beginning to the end of French dominion, was aserious bar to steady industry on the farm. The young _gentilhomme_ aswell as the young _habitant_ loved the free life of the forest andriver better than the monotonous work of the farm. He preferred toooften making love to the impressionable dusky maiden of the wigwamrather than to the stolid, devout damsel imported for his kind bypriest or nun. A raid on some English post or village had far moreattraction than following the plough or threshing the grain. Thisadventurous spirit led the young Frenchman to the western prairieswhere the Red and Assiniboine waters mingle, to the foot-hills of theRocky Mountains, to the Ohio and Mississippi, and to the Gulf ofMexico. But while Frenchmen in this way won eternal fame, theseigniories were too often left in a state of savagery, and even those_seigneurs_ and _habitants_ who devoted themselves successfully topastoral pursuits found themselves in the end harassed by the constantcalls made upon their military services during the years the Frenchfought to retain the imperial domain they had been the first todiscover and occupy in the great valleys of North America. Still, despite the difficulties which impeded the practical working of theseigniorial system, it had on the whole an excellent effect on thesocial conditions of the country. It created a friendly and evenparental relation between _seigneur, curé, _ and _habitant_, who oneach estate constituted as it were a seigniorial family, united toeach other by common ties of self-interest and personal affection. Ifthe system did not create an energetic self-reliant people in therural communities, it arose from the fact that it was not associatedwith a system of local self-government like that which existed in thecolonies of England. The French king had no desire to see such asystem develop in the colonial dependencies of France. Hisgovernmental system in Canada was a mild despotism intended to createa people ever ready to obey the decrees and ordinances of royalofficials, over whom the commonality could exercise no controlwhatever in such popular elective assemblies as were enjoyed by everycolony of England in North America. 

During the French régime the officials of the French governmentfrequently repressed undue or questionable exactions imposed, orattempted to be imposed, on the _censitaires_ by greedy or extravagantseigniors. It was not until the country had been for some time in thepossession of England that abuses became fastened on the tenure, andretarded the agricultural and industrial development of the province. The _cens et rentes_ were unduly raised, the _droit de banalité_ waspressed to the extent that if a _habitant_ went to a better or moreconvenient mill than the seignior's, he had to pay tolls to both, thetransfer of property was hampered by the _lods el ventes_ and the_droit de retraite_, and the claim always made by the seigniors to theexclusive use of the streams running by or through the seigniories wasa bar to the establishment of industrial enterprise. Questions of lawwhich arose between the _seigneur_ and _habitant_ and were referred tothe courts were decided in nearly all cases in favour of the former. In such instances the judges were governed by precedent or by a strictinterpretation of the law, while in the days of French dominion theintendants were generally influenced by principles of equity in thedisputes that came before them, and by a desire to help the weakerlitigant, the _censitaire_. 

It took nearly a century after the conquest before it was possible toabolish a system which had naturally become so deeply rooted in thesocial and economic conditions of the people of French Canada. As theabuses of the tenure became more obvious, discontent becamewidespread, and the politicians after the union were forced at last torecognize the necessity of a change more in harmony with modernprinciples. Measures were first passed better to facilitate theoptional commutation of the tenure of lands _en roture_ into that of_franc aleu roturier_, but they never achieved any satisfactoryresults. LaFontaine did not deny the necessity for a radical change inthe system, but he was too much wedded to the old institutions of hisnative province to take the initiative for its entire removal. Mr. Louis Thomas Drummond, who was attorney-general in both theHincks-Morin and MacNab-Morin ministries, is deserving of honourablemention in Canadian history for the leading part he took in settlingthis very perplexing question. I have already shown that his firstattempt in 1853 failed in consequence of the adverse action of thelegislative council, and that no further steps were taken in the matteruntil the coming into office of the MacNab or Liberal-Conservativegovernment in 1854, when he brought a bill into parliament to a largeextent a copy of the first. This bill became law after it had receivedsome important amendments in the upper House, where there were a numberof representatives of seigniorial interests, now quite reconciled tothe proposed change and prepared to make the best of it. It abolishedall feudal rights and duties in Lower Canada, "whether hearing upon the_censitaire_ or _seigneur_, " and provided for the appointment ofcommissioners to enquire into the respective rights of the partiesinterested. In order to enable them to come to correct conclusions withrespect to these rights, all questions of law were first submitted to aseigniorial court composed of the judges of the Queen's Bench andSuperior Court in Lower Canada. The commissioners under this law wereas follows:--

 Messrs. Chabot, H. Judah, S. Lelièvre, L. Archambault, N. Dumas, J. G. Turcotte, C. Delagrave, P. Winter, J. G. Lebel, and J. B. Varin. 

The judges of the seigniorial court were:--

 Chief Justice Sir Louis H. LaFontaine, president; Judges Bowen, Aylwin, Duval, Caron, Day, Smith, Vanfelson, Mondelet, Meredith, Short, Morin, and Badgley. 

Provision was also made by parliament for securing compensation to theseigniors for the giving up of all legal rights of which they weredeprived by the decision of the commissioners. It took five years ofenquiry and deliberation before the commissioners were able to completetheir labours, and then it was found necessary to vote other funds tomeet all the expenses entailed by a full settlement of the question. 

The result was that all lands previously held _en fief, en arrièrefief, en censive_, or _en roture_, under the old French system, werehenceforth placed on the footing of lands in the other provinces, thatis to say, free and common socage. The seigniors received liberalremuneration for the abolition of the _lods et ventes, droit debanalité_, and other rights declared legal by the court. The _cens etventes_ had alone to be met as an established rent (_renteconstituée_) by the _habitant_, but even this change was so modifiedand arranged as to meet the exigencies of the _censitaires_, theprotection of whose interests was at the basis of the whole lawabolishing this ancient tenure. This radical change cost the countryfrom first to last over ten million dollars, including a largeindemnity paid to Upper Canada for its proportion of the fund takenfrom public revenues of the united provinces to meet the claims of theseigniors and the expenses of the commission. The money was well spentin bringing about so thorough a revolution in so peaceable andconclusive a manner. The _habitants_ of the east were now as free asthe farmers of the west. The seigniors themselves largely benefited bythe capitalization in money of their old rights, and by theuntrammelled possession of land held _en franc aleu roturier_. Although the seigniorial tenure disappeared from the social system ofFrench Canada nearly half a century ago, we find enduring memorials ofits existence in such famous names as these:--Nicolet, Verchères, Lotbinière, Berthier, Rouville, Joliette, Terrebonne, Sillery, Beaupré, Bellechasse, Portneuf, Chambly, Sorel, Longueuil, Boucherville, Chateauguay, and many others which recall the seigniorsof the old régime. 

CHAPTER IX

CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES

In a long letter which he wrote to Earl Grey in August, 1850, LordElgin used these significant words: "To render annexation by violenceimpossible, or by any other means improbable as may be, is, as I haveoften ventured to repeat, the polar star of my policy. " To understandthe full significance of this language it is only necessary to referto the history of the difficulties with which the governor-general hadto contend from the first hour he came to the province and began hisefforts to allay the feeling of disaffection then too prevalentthroughout the country--especially among the commercial classes--andto give encouragement to that loyal sentiment which had been severelyshaken by the indifference or ignorance shown by British statesmen andpeople with respect to the conditions and interests of the Canadas. Hewas quite conscious that, if the province was to remain a contentedportion of the British empire, it could be best done by giving fullplay to the principles of self-government among both nationalities whohad been so long struggling to obtain the application of theparliamentary system of England in the fullest sense to the operationof their own internal affairs, and by giving to the industrial andcommercial classes adequate compensation for the great losses whichthey had sustained by the sudden abolition of the privileges whichEngland had so long extended to Canadian products--notably, flour, wheat and lumber--in the British market. 

Lord Elgin knew perfectly well that, while this discontent existed, the party which favoured annexation would not fail to find sympathyand encouragement in the neighbouring republic. He recalled the factthat both Papineau and Mackenzie, after the outbreak of their abortiverebellion, had many abettors across the border, as the infamous raidsinto Canada clearly proved. Many people in the United States, nodoubt, saw some analogy between the grievances of Canadians and thosewhich had led to the American revolution. "The mass of the Americanpeople, " said Lord Durham, "had judged of the quarrel from a distance;they had been obliged to form their judgment on the apparent groundsof the controversy; and were thus deceived, as all those are apt to bewho judge under such circumstances, and on such grounds. The contestbore some resemblance to that great struggle of their own forefathers, which they regard with the highest pride. Like that, they believed itto be the contest of a colony against the empire, whose misconductalienated their own country; they considered it to be a contestundertaken by a people professing to seek independence of distantcontrol, and extension of popular privileges. " More than that, thestriking contrast which was presented between Canada and the UnitedStates "in respect to every sign of productive industry, increasingwealth, and progressive civilization" was considered by the people ofthe latter country to be among the results of the absence of apolitical system which would give expansion to the energies of thecolonists and make them self-reliant in every sense. Lord Durham'spicture of the condition of things in 1838-9 was very painful toCanadians, although it was truthful in every particular. "On theBritish side of the line, " he wrote, "with the exception of a fewfavoured spots, where some approach to American prosperity isapparent, all seems waste and desolate. " But it was not only "in thedifference between the larger towns on the two sides" that we couldsee "the best evidence of our own inferiority. " That "painful andundeniable truth was most manifest in the country districts throughwhich the line of national separation passes for one thousand miles. "Mrs. Jameson in her "Winter Studies and Summer Rambles, " written onlya year or two before Lord Durham's report, gives an equallyunfavourable comparison between the Canadian and United States sidesof the western country. As she floated on the Detroit river in alittle canoe made of a hollow tree, and saw on one side "a city withits towers, and spires, and animated population, " and on the other "alittle straggling hamlet with all the symptoms of apathy, indolence, mistrust, hopelessness, " she could not help wondering at this"incredible difference between the two shores, " and hoping that someof the colonial officials across the Atlantic would be soon sent "tobehold and solve the difficulty. "

But while Lord Durham was bound to emphasize this unsatisfactory stateof things he had not lost his confidence in the loyalty of the mass ofthe Canadian people, notwithstanding the severe strain to which theyhad been subject on account of the supineness of the Britishgovernment to deal vigorously and promptly with grievances of whichthey had so long complained as seriously affecting their connectionwith the parent state and the development of their material resources. It was only necessary, he felt, to remove the causes of discontent tobring out to the fullest extent the latent affection which the mass ofFrench and English Canadians had been feeling for British connectionever since the days when the former obtained guarantees for theprotection of their dearest institutions and the Loyalists of theAmerican Revolution crossed the frontier for the sake of Crown andempire. "We must not take every rash expression of disappointment, "wrote Lord Durham, "as an indication of a settled aversion to theexisting constitution; and my own observation convinces me that thepredominant feeling of all the British population of the NorthAmerican colonies is that of devoted attachment to the mother country. I believe that neither the interests nor the feelings of the peopleare incompatible with a colonial government, wisely and popularlyadministered. " His strong conviction then was that if connection withGreat Britain was to be continuous, if every cause of discontent wasto be removed, if every excuse for interference "by violence on thepart of the United States" was to be taken away, if Canadianannexationists were no longer to look for sympathy and aid among theirrepublican neighbours, the Canadian people must be given the fullcontrol of their own internal affairs, while the British government ontheir part should cease that constant interference which onlyirritated and offended the colony. "It is not by weakening, " he said, "but strengthening the influence of the people on the government; byconfining within much narrower bounds than those hitherto allotted toit, and not by extending the interference of the imperial authoritiesin the details of colonial affairs, that I believe that harmony is tobe restored, where dissension has so long prevailed; and a regularityand vigour hitherto unknown, introduced into the administration ofthese provinces. " And he added that if the internal struggle forcomplete self-government were renewed "the sympathy from without wouldat some time or other re-assume its former strength. "

Lord Elgin appeared on the scene at the very time when there was somereason for a repetition of that very struggle, and a renewal of thatvery "sympathy from without" which Lord Durham imagined. The politicalirritation, which had been smouldering among the great mass ofReformers since the days of Lord Metcalfe, was seriously aggravated bythe discontent created by commercial ruin and industrial paralysisthroughout Canada as a natural result of Great Britain's ruthlessfiscal policy. The annexation party once more came to the surface, andcontrasts were again made between Canada and the United Statesseriously to the discredit of the imperial state. "The plea ofself-interest, " wrote Lord Elgin in 1849, "the most powerful weapon, perhaps, which the friends of British connection have wielded in timespast, has not only been wrested from my hands but transferred since1846 to those of the adversary. " He then proceeded to contrast thecondition of things on the two sides of the Niagara, only "spanned bya narrow bridge, which it takes a foot passenger about three minutesto cross. " The inhabitants on the Canadian side were "for the mostpart United Empire Loyalists" and differed little in habits or modesof thought and expression from their neighbours. Wheat, their stapleproduct, grown on the Canadian side of the line, "fetched at that timein the market from 9d. To 1s. Less than the same article grown on theother. " These people had protested against the Montreal annexationmovement, but Lord Elgin was nevertheless confident that the largemajority firmly believed "that their annexation to the United Stateswould add one-fourth to the value of the produce of their farms. " Indealing with the causes of discontent Lord Elgin came to exactly thesame conclusion which, as I have just shown, was accepted by LordDurham after a close study of the political and material conditions ofthe country. He completed the work of which his eminent predecessorhad been able only to formulate the plan. By giving adequate scope tothe practice of responsible government, he was able to remove allcauses for irritation against the British government, and preventannexationists from obtaining any sympathy from that body of Americanpeople who were always looking for an excuse for a movement--such aviolent movement as suggested by Lord Elgin in the paragraph givenabove--which would force Canada into the states of the union. Havinglaid this foundation for a firm and popular government, he proceededto remove the commercial embarrassment by giving a stimulus toCanadian trade by the repeal of the navigation laws, and the adoptionof reciprocity with the United States. The results of his efforts weresoon seen in the confidence which all nationalities and classes of theCanadian people felt in the working of their system of government, inthe strengthening of the ties between the imperial state and thedependency, and in the decided stimulus given to the shipping andtrade throughout the provinces of British North America. 

I have already in the previous chapters of this book dwelt on themethods which Lord Elgin so successfully adopted to establishresponsible government in accordance with the wishes of the Canadianpeople, and it is now only necessary to refer to his strenuous effortsduring six years to obtain reciprocal trade between Canada and theUnited States. It was impossible at the outset of his negotiations toarouse any active interest among the politicians of the republic aslong as they were unable to see that the proposed treaty would be tothe advantage of their particular party or of the nation at large. Noparty in congress was ready to take it up as a political question andgive it that impulse which could be best given by a strong partisanorganization. The Canadian and British governments could not get up a"lobby" to press the matter in the ways peculiar to professionalpoliticians, party managers, and great commercial or financialcorporations. Mr. Hincks brought the powers of his persuasive tongueand ingenious intellect to bear on the politicians at Washington, buteven he with all his commercial acuteness and financial knowledge wasunable to accomplish anything. It was not until Lord Elgin himselfwent to the national capital and made use of his diplomatic tact andamenity of demeanour that a successful result was reached. Nogovernor-general who ever visited the United States made so deep animpression on its statesmen and people as was made by Lord Elginduring this mission to Washington, and also in the course of thevisits he paid to Boston and Portland where he spoke with great effecton several occasions. He won the confidence and esteem of statesmenand politicians by his urbanity, dignity, and capacity for business. He carried away his audiences by his exhibition of a high order ofeloquence, which evoked the admiration of those who had beenaccustomed to hear Webster, Everett, Wendell, Philipps, Choate, andother noted masters of oratory in America. 

He spoke at Portland after his success in negotiating the treaty, andwas able to congratulate both Canada and the United States on thesettlement of many questions which had too long alienated peoples whoought to be on the most friendly terms with each other. He was nownear the close of his Canadian administration and was able to sum upthe results of his labours. The discontent with which the people ofthe United States so often sympathized had been brought to an end "bygranting to Canadians what they desired--the great principle ofself-government" "The inhabitants of Canada at this moment, " he wenton to say, "exercise as much influence over their own destinies andgovernment as do the people of the United States. This is the onlycause of misunderstanding that ever existed; and this cannot arisewhen the circumstances which made them at variance have ceased toexist. "

The treaty was signed on June 5th, 1854, by Lord Elgin on the part ofGreat Britain, and by the Honourable W. L. Marcy, secretary of state, on behalf of the United States, but it did not legally come into forceuntil it had been formally ratified by the parliament of GreatBritain, the congress of the United States, and the severallegislatures of the British provinces. It exempted from customs dutieson both sides of the line certain articles which were the growth andproduce of the British colonies and of the United States--theprincipal being grain, flour, breadstuffs, animals, fresh, smoked, andsalted meats, fish, lumber of all kinds, poultry, cotton, wool, hides, ores of metal, pitch, tar, ashes, flax, hemp, rice, and unmanufacturedtobacco. The people of the United States and of the British provinceswere given an equal right to navigate the St. Lawrence river, theCanadian canals and Lake Michigan. No export duty could be levied onlumber cut in Maine and passing down the St. John or other streams inNew Brunswick. The most important question temporarily settled by thetreaty was the fishery dispute which had been assuming a troublesomeaspect for some years previously. The government at Washington thenbegan to raise the issue that the three mile limit to which theirfishermen could be confined should follow the sinuosities of thecoasts, including bays; the object being to obtain access to thevaluable mackerel fisheries of the Bay of Chaleurs and other watersclaimed to be exclusively within the territorial jurisdiction of themaritime provinces. The imperial government generally sustained thecontention of the provinces--a contention practically supported by theAmerican authorities in the case of Delaware, Chesapeake, and otherbays on the coasts of the United States--that the three mile limitshould be measured from a line drawn from headland to headland of allbays, harbours, and creeks. In the case of the Bay of Fundy, however, the imperial government allowed a departure from this generalprinciple when it was urged by the Washington government that one ofits headlands was in the territory of the United States, and that itwas an arm of the sea rather than a bay. The result was that foreignfishing vessels were shut out only from the bays on the coasts of NovaScotia and New Brunswick within the Bay of Fundy. All these questionswere, however, placed in abeyance, for twelve years, by the ReciprocityTreaty of 1854, which provided that the inhabitants of the UnitedStates could take fish of any kind, except shell fish, on the seacoasts, and shores, in the bays, harbours, and creeks of any Britishprovince, without any restriction as to distance, and had alsopermission to land on these coasts and shores for the purpose ofdrying their nets and curing their fish. The same privilegeswere extended to British citizens on the eastern sea coasts andshores of the United States, north of the 36th parallel of northlatitude--privileges of no practical value to the people of BritishNorth America compared with those they gave up in their own prolificwaters. The farmers of the agricultural west accepted with greatsatisfaction a treaty which gave their products free access totheir natural market, but the fishermen and seamen of the maritimeprovinces, especially of Nova Scotia, were for some time dissatisfiedwith provisions which gave away their most valuable fisheries withoutadequate compensation, and at the same time refused them theprivilege--a great advantage to a ship-building, ship-owningprovince--of the coasting trade of the United States on the same termswhich were allowed to American and British vessels on the coasts ofBritish North America. On the whole, however, the treaty eventuallyproved of benefit to all the provinces at a time when trade requiredjust such a stimulus as it gave in the markets of the United States. The aggregate interchange of commodities between the two countriesrose from an annual average of $14, 230, 763 in the years previous to1854 to $33, 492, 754 gold currency, in the first year of its existence;to $42, 944, 754 gold currency, in the second year; to $50, 339, 770 goldcurrency in the third year; and to no less a sum than $84, 070, 955 atwar prices, in the thirteenth year when it was terminated by theUnited States in accordance with the provision, which allowed eitherparty to bring it to an end after a due notice of twelve months at theexpiration of ten years or of any longer time it might remain inforce. Not only was a large and remunerative trade secured between theUnited States and the provinces, but the social and friendlyintercourse of the two countries necessarily increased with theexpansion of commercial relations and the creation of common interestsbetween them. Old antipathies and misunderstandings disappeared underthe influence of conditions which brought these communities togetherand made each of them place a higher estimate on the other's goodqualities. In short, the treaty in all respects fully realized theexpectations of Lord Elgin in working so earnestly to bring it to asuccessful conclusion. 

However, it pleased the politicians of the United States, in a momentof temper, to repeal a treaty which, during its existence, gave abalance in favour of the commercial and industrial interests of therepublic, to the value of over $95, 000, 000 without taking into accountthe value of the provincial fisheries from which the fishermen of NewEngland annually derived so large a profit. Temper, no doubt, had muchto do with the action of the United States government at a time whenit was irritated by the sympathy extended to the Confederate States bymany persons in the provinces as well as in Great Britain--notably byMr. Gladstone himself. No doubt it was thought that the repeal of thetreaty would be a sort of punishment to the people of British NorthAmerica. It was even felt--as much was actually said in congress--thatthe result of the sudden repeal of the treaty would be the growth ofdiscontent among those classes in Canada who had begun to depend uponits continuance, and that sooner or later there would arise a cry forannexation with a country from which they could derive such largecommercial advantages. Canadians now know that the results have beenvery different from those anticipated by statesmen and journalists onthe other side of the border. Instead of starving Canada and forcingher into annexation, they have, by the repeal of the ReciprocityTreaty, and by their commercial policy ever since, materially helpedto stimulate her self-reliance, increase her commerce with othercountries, and make her largely a self-sustaining, independentcountry. Canadians depend on themselves--on a self-reliant, enterprising policy of trade--not on the favour or caprice of anyparticular nation. They are always quite prepared to have the mostliberal commercial relations with the United States, but at the sametime feel that a reciprocity treaty is no longer absolutely essentialto their prosperity, and cannot under any circumstances have anyparticular effect on the political destiny of the Canadianconfederation whose strength and unity are at length so well assured. 

CHAPTER X

FAREWELL TO CANADA

Lord Elgin assumed the governor-generalship of Canada on January 30th, 1847, and gave place to Sir Edmund Head on December 19th, 1854. Theaddress which he received from the Canadian legislature on the eve ofhis departure gave full expression to the golden opinions which he hadsucceeded in winning from the Canadian people during his ableadministration of nearly eight years. The passionate feeling which hadbeen evoked during the crisis caused by the Rebellion Losses Bill hadgradually given way to a true appreciation of the wisdom of the coursethat he had followed under such exceptionally trying circumstances, and to the general conviction that his strict observance of the trueforms and methods of constitutional government had added strength anddignity to the political institutions of the country and placed Canadaat last in the position of a semi-independent nation. The charm of hismanner could never fail to captivate those who met him often in sociallife, while public men of all parties recognized his capacity forbusiness, the sincerity of his convictions, and the absence of aspirit of intrigue in connection with the administration of publicaffairs and his relations with political parties. He receivedevidences on every side that he had won the confidence and respect andeven affection of all nationalities, classes, and creeds in Canada. Inthe very city where he had been maltreated and his life itselfendangered, he received manifestations of approval which were fullcompensation for the mental sufferings to which he was subject in thatunhappy period of his life, when he proved so firm, courageous andfar-sighted. In well chosen language--always characteristic of hispublic addresses--he spoke of the cordial reception he had met with, when he arrived a stranger in Montreal, of the beauty of itssurroundings, of the kind attention with which its citizens had onmore than one occasion listened to the advice he gave to their variousassociations, of the undaunted courage with which the merchants hadpromoted the construction of that great road which was so necessary tothe industrial development of the province, of the patriotic energywhich first gathered together such noble specimens of Canadianindustry from all parts of the country, and had been the means ofmaking the great World's Fair so serviceable to Canada; and then as herecalled the pleasing incidents of the past, there came to his mind athought of the scenes of 1849, but the sole reference he allowedhimself was this: "And I shall forget--but no, what I might have toforget is forgotten already, and therefore I cannot tell you what Ishall forget. "

The last speech which he delivered in the picturesque city of Quebecgave such eloquent expression to the feelings with which he leftCanada, is such an admirable example of the oratory with which he sooften charmed large assemblages, that I give it below in full for theperusal of Canadians of the present day who had not the advantage ofhearing him in the prime of his life. 

"I wish I could address you in such strains as I have sometimesemployed on similar occasions--strains suited to a festive meeting;but I confess I have a weight on my heart and it is not in me to bemerry. For the last time I stand before you in the official characterwhich I have borne for nearly eight years. For the last time I amsurrounded by a circle of friends with whom I have spent some of themost pleasant days of my life. For the last time I welcome you as myguests to this charming residence which I have been in the habit ofcalling my home. [23] I did not, I will frankly confess it, know whatit would cost me to break this habit, until the period of my departureapproached, and I began to feel that the great interests which have solong engrossed my attention and thoughts were passing out of my hands. I had a hint of what my feelings really were upon this point--a prettybroad hint too--one lovely morning in June last, when I returned toQuebec after my temporary absence in England, and landed in the covesbelow Spencerwood (because it was Sunday and I did not want to make adisturbance in the town), and when with the greetings of the oldpeople in the coves who put their heads out of the windows as I passedalong, and cried 'Welcome home again, ' still ringing in my ears, Imounted the hill and drove through the avenue to the house door, I sawthe drooping trees on the lawn, with every one of which I was sofamiliar, clothed in the tenderest green of spring, and the riverbeyond, calm and transparent as a mirror, and the ships fixed andmotionless as statues on its surface, and the whole landscape bathedin that bright Canadian sun which so seldom pierces our murkyatmosphere on the other side of the Atlantic. I began to think thatpersons were to be envied who were not forced by the necessities oftheir position to quit these engrossing interests and lovely scenes, for the purpose of proceeding to distant lands, but who are able toremain among them until they pass to that quiet corner of the gardenof Mount Hermon, which juts into the river and commands a view of thecity, the shipping, Point Levi, the Island of Orleans, and the rangeof the Laurentine; so that through the dim watches of that tranquilnight which precedes the dawning of the eternal day, the majesticcitadel of Quebec, with its noble tram of satellite hills, may seem torest forever on the sight, and the low murmur of the waters of St. Lawrence, with the hum of busy life on their surface, to fallceaselessly on the ear. I cannot bring myself to believe that thefuture has in store for me any interests which will fill the place ofthose I am now abandoning. But although I must henceforward be to youas a stranger, although my official connection with you and yourinterests will have become hi a few days matter of history, yet Itrust that through some one channel or other, the tidings of yourprosperity and progress may occasionally reach me; that I may hearfrom time to time of the steady growth and development of thoseprinciples of liberty and order, of manly independence in combinationwith respect for authority and law, of national life in harmony withBritish connection, which it has been my earnest endeavour, to theextent of my humble means of influence, to implant and to establish. Itrust, too, that I shall hear that this House continues to be what Ihave ever sought to render it, a neutral territory, on which personsof opposite opinions, political and religious, may meet together inharmony and forget their differences for a season. And I have goodhope that this will be the case for several reasons, and, amongothers, for one which I can barely allude to, for it might be animpertinence in me to dwell upon it But I think that without anybreach of delicacy or decorum I may venture to say that many yearsago, when I was much younger than I am now, and when we stood towardseach other in a relation somewhat different from that which hasrecently subsisted between us, I learned to look up to Sir Edmund Headwith respect, as a gentleman of the highest character, the greatestability, and the most varied accomplishments and attainments. And now, ladies and gentlemen, I have only to add the sad word--Farewell. Idrink this bumper to the health of you all, collectively andindividually. I trust that I may hope to leave behind me some who willlook back with feelings of kindly recollection to the period of ourintercourse; some with whom I have been on terms of immediate officialconnection, whose worth and talents I have had the best means ofappreciating, and who could bear witness at least, if they please todo so, to the spirit, intentions, and motives with which I haveadministered your affairs; some with whom I have been bound by theties of personal regard. And if reciprocity be essential to enmity, then most assuredly I can leave behind me no enemies. I am aware thatthere must be persons in so large a society as this, who think thatthey have grievances to complain of, that due consideration has not inall cases been shown to them. Let them believe me, and they ought tobelieve me, for the testimony of a dying man is evidence, even in acourt of justice, let them believe me, then, when I assure them, inthis the last hour of my agony, that no such errors of omission orcommission have been intentional on my part. Farewell, and God blessyou. " Before I proceed to review some features of his administrationin Canada, to which it has not been possible to do adequate justice inprevious chapters of this book, I must very briefly refer to theeminent services which he was able to perform for the empire before heclosed his useful life amid the shadows of the Himalayas. On hisreturn to England he took his seat in the House of Lords, but he gavevery little attention to politics or legislation. On one occasion, however, he expressed a serious doubt as to the wisdom of sending toCanada large bodies of troops, which had come back from the Crimea, onthe ground that such a proceeding might complicate the relations ofthe colony with the United States, and at the same time arrest itsprogress towards self-independence in all matters affecting itsinternal order and security. 

This opinion was in unison with the sentiments which he had oftenexpressed to the secretary of state during his term of office inAmerica. While he always deprecated any hasty withdrawal of imperialtroops from the dependency as likely at that time to imperil itsconnection with the mother country, he believed most thoroughly ineducating Canadians gradually to understand the large measure ofresponsibility which attached to self-government. He was of opinion"that the system of relieving colonists altogether from the duty ofself-defence must be attended with injurious effects upon themselves. ""It checks, " he continued, "the growth of national and manly morals. Men seldom think anything worth preserving for which they are neverasked to make a sacrifice. " His view was that, while it was desirableto remove imperial troops gradually and throw the responsibility ofself-defence largely upon Canada, "the movement in that directionshould be made with due caution. " "The present"--he was writing to thesecretary of state in 1848 when Canadian affairs were still in anunsatisfactory state--"is not a favourable moment for experiments. British statesmen, even secretaries of state, have got into the habitlately of talking of the maintenance of the connection between GreatBritain and Canada with so much indifference, that a change of systemin respect to military defence incautiously carried out, might bepresumed by many to argue, on the part of the mother country, adisposition to prepare the way for separation. " And he added threeyears later:

 "If these communities are only truly attached to the connection and satisfied of its permanence (and as respects the latter point, opinions here will be much influenced by the tone of statesmen at home), elements of self-defence, not moral elements only, but material elements likewise, will spring up within them spontaneously as the product of movements from within, not of pressure from without. Two millions of people in a northern latitude can do a good deal in the way of helping themselves, when their hearts are in the right place. "

Before two decades of years had passed away, the foresight of thesesuggestions was clearly shown. Canada had become a part of a BritishNorth American confederation, and with the development of its materialresources, the growth of a national spirit of self-reliance, the newDominion, thus formed, was able to relieve the parent state of theexpenses of self-defence, and come to her aid many years later whenher interests were threatened in South Africa. If Canada has been ableto do all this, it has been owing to the growth of that spirit ofself-reliance--of that principle of self-government--which Lord Elgindid his utmost to encourage. We can then well understand that LordElgin, in 1855, should have contemplated with some apprehension theprospect of largely increasing the Canadian garrisons at a time whenCanadians were learning steadily and surely to cultivate the nationalhabit of depending upon their own internal resources in their workingout of the political institutions given them by England after years ofagitation, and even suffering, as the history of the country until1840 so clearly shows. It is also easy to understand that Lord Elginshould have regarded the scheme in contemplation as likely to create afeeling of doubt and suspicion as to the motives of the imperialgovernment in the minds of the people of the United States. Herecalled naturally his important visit to that country, where he hadgiven eloquent expression, as the representative of the British Crown, to his sanguine hopes for the continuous amity of peoples allied toeach other by so many ties of kindred and interest, and had alsosucceeded after infinite labour in negotiating a treaty so wellcalculated to create a common sympathy between Canada and therepublic, and stimulate that friendly intercourse which would dispelmany national prejudices and antagonisms which had unhappily arisenbetween these communities in the past. The people of the United Statesmight well, he felt, see some inconsistency between such friendlysentiments and the sending of large military reinforcements to Canada. 

In the spring of 1857 Lord Elgin accepted from Lord Palmerston adelicate mission to China at a very critical time when the affair ofthe lorcha "Arrow" had led to a serious rupture between that countryand Great Britain. According to the British statement of the case, inOctober, 1856, the Chinese authorities at Canton seized the lorchaalthough it was registered as a British vessel, tore down the Britishflag from its masthead, and carried away the crew as prisoners. On theother hand the Chinese claimed that they had arrested the crew, whowere subjects of the emperor, as pirates, that the British ownershiphad lapsed some time previously, and that there was no flag flying onthe vessel at the time of its seizure. The British representatives inChina gave no credence to these explanations but demanded not only aprompt apology but also the fulfilment of "long evaded treatyobligations. " When these peremptory demands were not at once compliedwith, the British proceeded in a very summary manner to blow upChinese forts, and commit other acts of war, although the Chinese onlyoffered a passive resistance to these efforts to bring them to termsof abject submission. Lord Palmerston's government was condemned inthe House of Commons for the violent measures which had been taken inChina, but he refused to submit to a vote made up, as he satiricallydescribed it, "of a fortuitous concourse of atoms, " and appealed tothe country, which sustained him. While Lord Elgin was on his way toChina, he heard the news of the great mutiny in India, and received aletter from Lord Canning, then governor-general, imploring him to sendsome assistance from the troops under his direction. He at once sent"instructions far and wide to turn the transports back and giveCanning the benefit of the troops for the moment. " It is impossible, say his contemporaries, to exaggerate the importance of the aid whichhe so promptly gave at the most critical time in the Indian situation. "Tell Lord Elgin, " wrote Sir William Peel, the commander of the famousNaval Brigade at a later time, "that it was the Chinese expeditionwhich relieved Lucknow, relieved Cawnpore, and fought the battle ofDecember 6th. " But this patriotic decision delayed somewhat theexecution of Lord Elgin's mission to China. It was nearly four monthsafter he had despatched the first Chinese contingent to the relief ofthe Indian authorities, that another body of troops arrived in Chinaand he was able to proceed vigorously to execute the objects of hisvisit to the East. After a good deal of fighting and bullying, Chinesecommissioners were induced in the summer of 1859 to consent to signthe Treaty of Tientsin, which gave permission to the Queen of GreatBritain to appoint, if she should see fit, an ambassador who mightreside permanently at Pekin, or visit it occasionally according to thepleasure of the British government, guaranteed protection toProtestants and Roman Catholics alike, allowed British subjects totravel to all parts of the empire, under passports signed by Britishconsuls, established favourable conditions for the protection of tradeby foreigners, and indemnified the British government for the lossesthat had been sustained at Canton and for the expenses of the war. 

Lord Elgin then paid an official visit to Japan, where he was wellreceived and succeeded in negotiating the Treaty of Yeddo, which was adecided advance on all previous arrangements with that country, andprepared the way for larger relations between it and England. On hisreturn to bring the new treaty to a conclusion, he found that thecommissioners who had gone to obtain their emperor's full consent toits provisions, seemed disposed to call into question some of theprivileges which had been already conceded, and he was consequentlyforced to assume that peremptory tone which experience of the Chinesehas shown can alone bring them to understand the full measure of theirresponsibilities in negotiations with a European power. However, hebelieved he had brought his mission to a successful close, andreturned to England in the spring of 1859. 

How little interest was taken in those days in Canadian affairs byBritish public men and people, is shown by some comments of Mr. Waldron on the incidents which signalized Lord Elgin's return fromChina. "When he returned in 1854 from the government of Canada, " thiswriter naively admits, "there were comparatively few persons inEngland who knew anything of the great work he had done in the colony. But his brilliant successes in the East attracted public interest andgave currency to his reputation. " He accepted the position ofpostmaster-general in the administration just formed by LordPalmerston, and was elected Lord Rector of Glasgow; but he had hardlycommenced to study the details of his office, and enjoy the amenitiesof the social life of Great Britain, when he was again called upon bythe government to proceed to the East, where the situation was oncemore very critical. The duplicity of the Chinese in their dealingswith foreigners had soon shown itself after his departure from China, and he was instructed to go back as Ambassador Extraordinary to thatcountry, where a serious rupture had occurred between the English andChinese while an expedition of the former was on its way to Pekin toobtain the formal ratification of the Treaty of Tientsin. The Frenchgovernment, which had been a party to that treaty, sent forces tocoöperate with those of Great Britain in obtaining prompt satisfactionfor an attack made by the Chinese troops on the British at the Peilo, the due ratification of the Treaty of Tientsin, and payment of anindemnity to the allies for the expenses of their military operations. 

The punishment which the Chinese received for their bad faith andtreachery was very complete. Yuen-ming-yuen, the emperor's summerpalace, one of the glories of the empire, was levelled to the groundas a just retribution for treacherous and criminal acts committed bythe creatures of the emperor at the very moment it was believed thatthe negotiations were peacefully terminated. Five days after theburning of the palace, the treaty was fully ratified between theemperor's brother and Lord Elgin, and full satisfaction obtained fromthe imperial authorities at Pekin for their shameless disregard oftheir solemn engagements. The manner in which the British ambassadordischarged the onerous duties of his mission, met with the warmapproval of Her Majesty's government and when he was once more inEngland he was offered by the prime minister the governor-generalshipof India. 

He accepted this great office with a full sense of the arduousresponsibilities which it entailed upon him, and said good-bye to hisfriends with words which showed that he had a foreboding that he mightnever see them again--words which proved unhappily to be too true. Hewent to the discharge of his duties in India in that spirit of modestywhich was always characteristic of him. "I succeeded, " he said, "to agreat man (Lord Canning) and a great war, with a humble task to behumbly discharged. " His task was indeed humble compared with thatwhich had to be performed by his eminent predecessors, notably by EarlCanning, who had established important reforms in the land tenure, wonthe confidence of the feudatories of the Crown, and reorganized thewhole administration of India after the tremendous upheaval caused bythe mutiny. Lord Elgin, on the other hand, was the firstgovernor-general appointed directly by the Queen, and was now subjectto the authority of the secretary of state for India. He couldconsequently exercise relatively little of the powers andresponsibilities which made previous imperial representatives sopotent in the conduct of Indian affairs. Indeed he had not been longin India before he was forced by the Indian secretary to reverse LordCanning's wise measure for the sale of a fee-simple tenure with allits political as well as economic advantages. He was able, however, tocarry out loyally the wise and equitable policy of his predecessortowards the feudatories of England with firmness and dignity and withgood effect for the British government. [24]

In 1863 he decided on making a tour of the northern parts of Indiawith the object of making himself personally acquainted with thepeople and affairs of the empire under his government. It was duringthis tour that he held a Durbar or Royal Court at Agra, which wasremarkable even in India for the display of barbaric wealth and theassemblage of princes of royal descent. After reaching Simla hispeaceful administration of Indian affairs was at last disturbed by thenecessity--one quite clear to him--of repressing an outburst ofcertain Nahabee fanatics who dwelt in the upper valley of the Indus. He came to the conclusion that "the interests both of prudence andhumanity would be best consulted by levelling a speedy and decisiveblow at this embryo conspiracy. " Having accordingly made the requisitearrangements for putting down promptly the trouble on the frontier andpreventing the combination of the Mahommedan inhabitants in thoseregions against the government, he left Simla and traversed the uppervalleys of the Beas, the Ravee, and the Chenali with the object ofinspecting the tea plantations of that district and making inquiriesas to the possibility of trade with Ladâk and China. Eventually, aftera wearisome journey through a most picturesque region, he reachedDhurmsala--"the place of piety"--in the Kangra valley, where appearedthe unmistakable symptoms of the fatal malady which soon caused hisdeath. 

The closing scenes in the life of the statesman have been described inpathetic terms by his brother-in-law, Dean Stanley. [25] Theintelligence that the illness was mortal "was received with a calmnessand fortitude which never deserted him" through all the scenes whichfollowed. He displayed "in equal degrees, and with the most unvaryingconstancy, two of the grandest elements of human character--unselfishresignation of himself to the will of God, and thoughtfulconsideration down to the smallest particulars, for the interests andfeelings of others, both public and private. " When at his own request, Lady Elgin chose a spot for his grave in the little cemetery whichstands on the bluff above the house where he died, "he gentlyexpressed pleasure when told of the quiet and beautiful aspect of theplace chosen, with the glorious view of the snowy range toweringabove, and the wide prospect of hill and plain below. " During thisfatal illness he had the consolation of the constant presence of hisloving wife, whose courageous spirit enabled her to overcome theweakness of a delicate constitution. He died on November 20th, 1863, and was buried on the following day beneath the snow-cladHimalayas. [26]

If at any time a Canadian should venture to this quiet station in theKangra valley, let his first thought be, not of the sublimity of themountains which rise far away, but of the grave where rest the remainsof a statesman whose pure unselfishness, whose fidelity to duty, whosetender and sympathetic nature, whose love of truth and justice, whosecompassion for the weak, whose trust in God and the teachings ofChrist, are human qualities more worthy of the admiration of us allthan the grandest attributes of nature. 

None of the distinguished Canadian statesmen who were members of LordElgin's several administrations from 1847 until 1854, or were thenconspicuous in parliamentary life, now remain to tell us the story ofthose eventful years. Mr. Baldwin died five years before, and SirLouis Hypolite LaFontaine three months after the decease of thegovernor-general of India, and in the roll of their Canadiancontemporaries there are none who have left a fairer record. Mr. Hincks retired from the legislature of Canada in 1855, when heaccepted the office of governor-in-chief of Barbadoes and the WindwardIslands from Sir William Molesworth, colonial secretary in LordPalmerston's government, and for years an eminent advocate of aliberal colonial policy. This appointment was well received throughoutBritish North America by Mr. Hincks's friends as well as politicalopponents, who recognized the many merits of this able politician andadministrator. It was considered, according to the London _Times_, as"the inauguration of a totally different system of policy from thatwhich has been hitherto pursued with regard to our colonies. " "It gavesome evidence, " continued the same paper, "that the more distinguishedamong our fellow-subjects in the colonies may feel that the path ofimperial ambition is henceforth open to them. " It was a direct answerto the appeal which had been so eloquently made on more than oneoccasion by the Honourable Joseph Howe[27] of Nova Scotia, to extendimperial honours and offices to distinguished colonists, and notreserve them, as was too often the case, for Englishmen of inferiormerit. "This elevation of Mr. Hincks to a governorship, " said theMontreal _Pilot_ at the time, "is the most practicable comment whichcan possibly be offered upon the solemn and sorrowful complaints ofMr. Howe, anent the neglect with which the colonists are treated bythe imperial government. So sudden, complete and noble a disclaimer onthe part of Her Majesty's minister for the colonies must have startledthe delegate from Nova Scotia, and we trust that his turn may not befar distant. " Fifteen years later, Mr. Howe himself became alieutenant-governor of Nova Scotia, and an inmate of the verygovernment house to which he was not admitted in the stormy days whenhe was fighting the battle of responsible government against LordFalkland. 

Mr. Hincks was subsequently appointed governor of British Guiana, andat the same time received a Commandership of the Bath as a mark of"Her Majesty's approval honourably won by very valuable and continuedservice in several colonies of the empire. " He retired from theimperial service with a pension in 1869, when his name was included inthe first list of knights which was submitted to the Queen on theextension of the Order of St. Michael and St. George for the expresspurpose of giving adequate recognition to those persons in thecolonies who had rendered distinguished service to the Crown andempire. During his Canadian administration Lord Elgin had impressedupon the colonial secretary that it was "very desirable that theprerogative of the Crown, as the fountain of honour, should beemployed, in so far as this can properly be done, as a means ofattaching the outlying parts of the empire to the throne. " Twoprinciples ought, he thought, "as a general rule to be attended to inthe distribution of imperial honours among colonists. " Firstly theyshould appear "to emanate directly from the Crown, on the advice, ifyou will, of the governors and imperial ministers, but not on therecommendation of the local executive. " Secondly, they "should beconferred, as much as possible, on the eminent persons who are nolonger engaged actively in political life. " The first principle has, generally speaking, guided the action of the Crown in the distributionof honours to colonists, though the governors may receive suggestionsfrom and also consult their prime ministers when the necessity arises. These honours, too, are no longer conferred only on men activelyengaged in public life, but on others eminent in science, education, literature, and other vocations of life. [28]

In 1870 Sir Francis Hincks returned to Canadian public life as financeminister in Sir John Macdonald's government, and held the office until1873, when he retired altogether from politics. Until the last hoursof his life he continued to show that acuteness of intellect, thataptitude for public business, that knowledge of finance and commerce, which made him so influential in public affairs. During his publiccareer in Canada previous to 1855, he was the subject of bitterattacks for his political acts, but nowadays impartial history canadmit that, despite his tendency to commit the province to heavyexpenditures, his energy, enterprise and financial ability did goodservice to the country at large. He was also attacked as having usedhis public position to promote his own pecuniary interests, but hecourted and obtained inquiry into the most serious of suchaccusations, and although there appears to have been some carelessnessin his connection with various speculations, and at times an absenceof an adequate sense of his responsibility as a public man, there isno evidence that he was ever personally corrupt or dishonest. Hedevoted the close of his life to the writing of his "Reminiscences, "and of several essays on questions which were great public issues whenhe was so prominent in Canadian politics, and although none of hismost ardent admirers can praise them as literary efforts of a highorder, yet they have an interest so far as they give us some insightinto disputed points of Canada's political history. He died in 1885 ofthe dreadful disease small-pox in the city of Montreal, and theveteran statesman was carried to the grave without those funeralhonours which were due to one who had filled with distinction so manyimportant positions in the service of Canada and the Crown. All hiscontemporaries when he was prime minister also lie in the grave andhave found at last that rest which was not theirs in the busy, passionate years of their public life. Sir Allan MacNab, who was aspendthrift to the very last, lies in a quiet spot beneath the shadesof the oaks and elms which adorn the lovely park of Dundurn inHamilton, whose people have long since forgotten his weaknesses as aman, and now only recall his love for the beautiful city with whoseinterests he was so long identified, and his eminent services to Crownand state. George Brown, Hincks's inveterate opponent, continued foryears after the formation of the first Liberal-Conservativeadministration, to keep the old province of Canada in a state ofpolitical ferment by his attacks on French Canada and her institutionsuntil at last he succeeded in making government practicallyunworkable, and then suddenly he rose superior to the spirit ofpassionate partisanship and racial bitterness which had so longdominated him, and decided to aid his former opponents in consummatingthat federal union which relieved old Canada of her politicalembarrassment and sectional strife. His action at that time is hischief claim to the monument which has been raised in his honour in thegreat western city where he was for so many years a political force, and where the newspaper he established still remains at the head ofCanadian journalism. 

The greatest and ablest man among all who were notable in Lord Elgin'sdays in Canada, Sir John Alexander Macdonald--the greatest not simplyas a Canadian politician but as one of the builders of the Britishempire--lived to become one of Her Majesty's Privy Councillors ofGreat Britain, a Grand Cross of the Bath, and prime minister fortwenty-one years of a Canadian confederation which stretches for 3, 500miles from the Atlantic to the Pacific ocean. When death at lastforced him from the great position he had so long occupied withdistinction to himself and advantage to Canada, the esteem andaffection in which he was held by the people, whom he had so longserved during a continuous public career of half a century, were shownby the erection of stately monuments in five of the principal citiesof the Dominion--an honour never before paid to a colonial statesman. The statues of Sir John Macdonald and Sir Georges Cartier--statuesconceived and executed by the genius of a French Canadianartist--stand on either side of the noble parliament building wherethese statesmen were for years the most conspicuous figures; and asCanadians of the present generation survey their bronze effigies, letthem not fail to recall those admirable qualities of statesmanshipwhich distinguished them both--above all their assertion of thoseprinciples of compromise, conciliation and equal rights which haveserved to unite the two races in critical times when the tide ofracial and sectional passion and political demagogism has rushed in amad torrent against the walls of the national structure whichCanadians have been so steadily and successfully building for so manyyears on the continent of North America. 

CHAPTER XI

POLITICAL PROGRESS

In the foregoing pages I have endeavoured to review--very imperfectly, I am afraid--all those important events in the political history ofCanada from 1847 to 1854, which have had the most potent influence onits material, social, and political development. Any one who carefullystudies the conditions of the country during that critical period ofCanadian affairs cannot fail to come to the conclusion that thegradual elevation of Canada from the depression which was so prevalentfor years in political as well as commercial matters, to a position ofpolitical strength and industrial prosperity, was largely owing to thesuccess of the principles of self-government which Lord Elgininitiated and carried out while at the head of the Canadian executive. These principles have been clearly set forth in his speeches and inhis despatches to the secretary of state for the colonies as well asin instructive volumes on the colonial policy of Lord John Russell'sadministration by Lord Grey, the imperial minister who so wiselyrecommended Lord Elgin's appointment as governor-general Brieflystated these principles are as follows:--

 That it is neither desirable nor possible to carry on the government of a province in opposition to the opinion of its people. 

 That a governor-general can have no ministers who do not enjoy the full confidence of the popular House, or, in the last resort, of the people. 

 That the governor-general should not refuse his consent to any measure proposed by the ministry unless it is clear that it is of such an extreme party character that the assembly or people could not approve of it. 

 That the governor-general should not identify himself with any party but make himself "a mediator and moderator between all parties. "

That colonial communities should be encouraged to cultivate "anational and manly tone of political morals, " and should look to theirown parliaments for the solution of all problems of provincialgovernment instead of making constant appeals to the colonial officeor to opinion in the mother country, "always ill-informed, andtherefore credulous, in matters of colonial politics. "

That the governor-general should endeavour to impart to these risingcommunities the full advantages of British laws, British institutions, and British freedom, and maintain in this way the connection betweenthem and the parent state. 

We have seen in previous chapters how industriously, patiently, anddiscreetly Lord Elgin laboured to carry out these principles in theadministration of his government. In 1849 he risked his own life thathe might give full scope to the principles of responsible governmentwith respect to the adjustment of a question which should be settledby the Canadian people themselves without the interference of theparent state, and on the same ground he impressed on the imperialgovernment the necessity of giving to the Canadian legislature fullcontrol of the settlement of the clergy reserves. He had no patiencewith those who believed that, in allowing the colonists to exercisetheir right to self-government in matters exclusively affectingthemselves, there was any risk whatever so far as imperial interestswere concerned. One of his ablest letters was that which he wrote toEarl Grey as an answer to the unwise utterances of the prime minister, Lord John Russell, in the course of a speech on the colonies in which, "amid the plaudits of a full senate, he declared that he lookedforward to the day when the ties which he was endeavouring to renderso easy and mutually advantageous would be severed. " Lord Elgin heldit to be "a perfectly unsound and most dangerous theory, that Britishcolonies could not attain maturity without separation, " and in thisconnection he quoted the language of Mr. Baldwin to whom he had readthat part of Lord John Russell's speech to which he took such strongexception. "For myself, " said the eminent Canadian, "if theanticipations therein expressed prove to be well founded, my interestin public affairs is gone forever. But is it not hard upon us while weare labouring, through good and evil report, to thwart the designs ofthose who would dismember the empire, that our adversaries should beinformed that the difference between them and the prime minister ofEngland is only one of time? If the British government has really cometo the conclusion that we are a burden to be cast off, whenever afavourable opportunity offers, surely we ought to be warned. " In LordElgin's opinion, based on a thorough study of colonial conditions, ifthe Canadian or any other system of government was to be successful, British statesmen must "renounce the habit of telling the coloniesthat the colonial is a provisional existence. " They should be taughtto believe that "without severing the bonds which unite them toEngland, they may attain the degree of perfection, and of social andpolitical development to which organized communities of free men havea right to aspire. " The true policy in his judgment was "to throw thewhole weight of responsibility on those who exercise the real power, for after all, the sense of responsibility is the best securityagainst the abuse of power; and as respects the connection, to act andspeak on this hypothesis--that there is nothing in it to check thedevelopment of healthy national life in these young communities. " Hewas "possessed, " he used the word advisedly, "with the idea that itwas possible to maintain on the soil of North America, and in the faceof Republican America, British connection and British institutions, ifyou give the latter freely and trustingly. " The history of Canada fromthe day those words were penned down to the beginning of the twentiethcentury proves their political wisdom. Under the inspiring influenceof responsible government Canada has developed in 1902, not into anindependent nation, as predicted by Lord John Russell and otherBritish statesmen after him, but into a confederation of five millionsand a half of people, in which a French Canadian prime minister givesexpression to the dominant idea not only of his own race but of allnationalities within the Dominion, that the true interest lies not inthe severance but in the continuance of the ties that have so longbound them to the imperial state. 

Lord Elgin in his valuable letters to the imperial authorities, alwaysimpressed on them the fact that the office of a Canadiangovernor-general has not by any means been lowered to that of a meresubscriber of orders-in-council--of a mere official automaton, speaking and acting by the orders of the prime minister and thecabinet. On the contrary, he gave it as his experience that inJamaica, where there was no responsible government, he had "not halfthe power" he had in Canada "with a constitutional and changingcabinet. " With respect to the maintenance of the position and dueinfluence of the governor, he used language which gives a truesolution of the problem involved in the adaptation of parliamentarygovernment to the colonial system. "As the imperial government andparliament gradually withdraw from legislative interference, and fromthe exercise of patronage in colonial affairs, the office of governortends to become, in the most emphatic sense of the term, the linkwhich connects the mother country and the colony, and his influencethe means by which harmony of action between the local and imperialauthorities is to be preserved. It is not, however, in my humblejudgment, by evincing an anxious desire to stretch to the utmostconstitutional principles in his favour, but, on the contrary, by thefrank acceptance of the conditions of the parliamentary system, thatthis influence can be most surely extended and confirmed. Placed byhis position above the strife of parties--holding office by a tenureless precarious than the ministers who surround him--having nopolitical interests to serve but those of the community whose affairshe is appointed to administer--his opinion cannot fail, when all causefor suspicion and jealousy is removed, to have great weight incolonial councils, while he is set at liberty to constitute himself inan especial manner the patron of those larger and higherinterests--such interests, for example, as those of education, and ofmoral and material progress in all its branches--which, unlike thecontests of party, unite instead of dividing the members of the bodypolitic. "

As we study the political history of Canada for the fifty years whichhave elapsed since Lord Elgin enunciated in his admirable letters tothe imperial government the principles which guided him in hisCanadian administration, we cannot fail to see clearly thatresponsible government has brought about the following results, whichare at once a guarantee of efficient home government and of aharmonious cooperation between the dependency and the centralauthority of the empire. 

The misunderstandings that so constantly occurred between thelegislative bodies and the imperial authorities, on account of thelatter failing so often to appreciate fully the nature of thepolitical grievances that agitated the public mind, and on account oftheir constant interference in matters which should have been leftexclusively to the control of the people directly interested, havebeen entirely removed in conformity with the wise policy of makingCanada a self-governing country in the full sense of the phrase. Theseprovinces are as a consequence no longer a source of irritation anddanger to the parent state, but, possessing full independence in allmatters of local concern, are now among the chief sources of England'spride and greatness. 

The governor-general instead of being constantly brought into conflictwith the political parties of the country, and made immediatelyresponsible for the continuance of public grievances, has gained indignity and influence since he has been removed from the arena ofpublic controversy. He now occupies a position in harmony with theprinciples that have given additional strength and prestige to thethrone itself. As the legally accredited representative of thesovereign, as the recognized head of society, he represents whatBagehot has aptly styled "the dignified part of our constitution, "which has much value in a country like ours where we fortunatelyretain the permanent form of monarchy in harmony with the democraticmachinery of our government. If the governor-general is a man ofparliamentary experience and constitutional knowledge, possessing tactand judgment, and imbued with the true spirit of his highvocation--and these high functionaries have been notably so since thecommencement of confederation--he can sensibly influence, in the wayLord Elgin points out, the course of administration and benefit thecountry at critical periods of its history. Standing above all party, having the unity of the empire at heart, a governor-general can attimes soothe the public mind, and give additional confidence to thecountry, when it is threatened with some national calamity, or thereis distrust abroad as to the future. As an imperial officer he haslarge responsibilities of which the general public has naturally novery clear idea, and if it were possible to obtain access to theconfidential and secret despatches which seldom see the light in thecolonial office--certainly not in the lifetime of the men who wrotethem--it would be found how much, for a quarter of a century past, thecolonial department has gained by having had in the Dominion, men, nolonger acting under the influence of personal feeling through beingmade personally responsible for the conduct of public affairs, butactuated simply by a desire to benefit the country over which theypreside, and to bring Canadian interests into union with those of theempire itself. 

The effects on the character of public men and on the body politichave been for the public advantage. It has brought out the bestqualities of colonial statesmanship, lessened the influence of mereagitators and demagogues, and taught our public men to rely onthemselves in all crises affecting the welfare and integrity of thecountry. Responsible government means self-reliance, the capacity togovern ourselves, the ability to build up a great nation. 

When we review the trials and struggles of the past that we may gainfrom them lessons of confidence for the future, let us not forget topay a tribute to the men who have laid the foundations of thesecommunities, still on the threshold of their development, and on whomthe great burden fell; to the French Canadians who, despite theneglect and indifference of their kings, amid toil and privation, amidwar and famine, built up a province which they have made their own bytheir patience and industry, and who should, differ as we may fromthem, evoke our respect for their fidelity to the institutions oftheir origin, for their appreciation of the advantages of Englishself-government, and for their cooperation in all great measuresessential to the unity of the federation; to the Loyalists of lastcentury who left their homes for the sake of "king and country, " andlaid the foundations of prosperous and loyal English communities bythe sea and by the great lakes, and whose descendants have ever stoodtrue to the principles of the institutions which have made Britain freeand great; to the unknown body of pioneers some of whose names perhapsstill linger on a headland or river or on a neglected gravestone, wholet in the sunlight year by year to the dense forests of thesecountries, and built up by their industry the large and thrivingprovinces of this Dominion; above all, to the statesmen--Elgin, Baldwin, LaFontaine, Morin, Howe, and many others--who laid deep andfirm, beneath the political structure of this confederation, thoseprinciples of self-government which give harmony to our constitutionalsystem and bring out the best qualities of an intelligent people. Inthe early times in which they struggled they had to bear much obloquy, and their errors of judgment have been often severely arraigned at thebar of public opinion; many of them lived long enough to see how soonmen may pass into oblivion; but we who enjoy the benefit of theirearnest endeavours, now that the voice of the party passion of theirtimes is hushed, should never forget that, though they are not here toreap the fruit of their labours, their work survives in the energeticand hopeful communities which stretch from Cape Breton to Victoria. 

CHAPTER XII

A COMPARISON OF SYSTEMS

In one of Lord Elgin's letters we are told that, when he had asvisitors to government house in 1850, Sir Henry Bulwer, the elderbrother of Lord Lytton, and British minister to the United States, aswell as Sir Edmund Head, his successor in the governorship of Canada, he availed himself of so favourable an opportunity of reassuring themon many points of the internal policy of the province on which theywere previously doubtful, and gave them some insight into the positionof men and things on which Englishmen in those days were too ignorantas a rule. One important point which he impressed upon them--as hehoped successfully--was this:

 "That the faithful carrying out of the principles of constitutional government is a departure from the American model, not an approximation to it, and, therefore, a departure from republicanism in its only workable shape. "

The fact was: "The American system is our old colonial system, with, in certain cases, the principle of popular election substituted forthat of nomination by the Crown. " He was convinced "that theconcession of constitutional government has a tendency to draw thecolonists" towards England and not towards republicanism; "firstly, because it slakes that thirst for self-government which seizes on allBritish communities when they approach maturity; and secondly becauseit habituates the colonists to the working of a political mechanismwhich is both intrinsically superior to that of the Americans, andmore unlike it than our old colonial system. " In short, he felt verystrongly that "when a people have been once thoroughly accustomed tothe working of such a parliamentary system as ours they never willconsent to resort to this irresponsible mechanism. "

Since these significant words were written half a century ago, Canadians have been steadily working out the principles ofparliamentary government as understood and explained by Lord Elgin, and have had abundant opportunities of contrasting their experienceswith those of their neighbours under a system in many respects thevery reverse of that which has enabled Canada to attain so large ameasure of political freedom and build up such prosperous communitiesto the north of the republic, while still remaining in the closestpossible touch with the imperial state. I propose now to close thisbook with some comparisons between the respective systems of the twocountries, and to show that in this respect as in others Lord Elginproved how deep was his insight into the working of politicalinstitutions, and how thoroughly he had mastered the problem of thebest methods of administering the government of a great colonialdependency, not solely with a regard to its own domestic interests butwith a view of maintaining the connection with the British Crown, ofwhich he was so discreet and able a servant. 

It is especially important to Canadians to study the development ofthe institutions of the United States, with the view of derivingbenefit from their useful experiences, and avoiding the defects thathave grown up under their system. All institutions are more or less ontrial in a country like Canada, which is working out great problems ofpolitical science under decided advantages, since the ground isrelatively new, and the people have before them all the experiences ofthe world, especially of England and the United States, in whosesystems Canadians have naturally the deepest interest. The history ofresponsible government affords another illustration of a truth whichstands out clear in the history of nations, that those constitutionswhich are of a flexible character, the natural growth of theexperiences of centuries, and which have been created by thenecessities and conditions of the times, possess the elements of realstability, and best ensure the prosperity of a people. The greatsource of the strength of the institutions of the United States liesin the fact that they have worked out their government in accordancewith certain principles, which are essentially English in theirorigin, and have been naturally developed since their foundation ascolonial settlements, and whatever weaknesses their system shows havechiefly arisen from new methods, and from the rigidity of theirconstitutional rules of law, which separate too sharply the executiveand the legislative branches of government. Like their neighbours theCanadian people have based their system on English principles, butthey have at the same time been able to keep pace with the progress ofthe unwritten constitution of England, to adapt it to their ownpolitical conditions, and to bring the executive and legislativeauthorities to assist and harmonize with one another. 

Each country has its "cabinet council, " but the one is essentiallydifferent from the other in its character and functions. This term, the historical student will remember, was first used in the days ofthe Stuarts as one of derision and obloquy. It was frequently called"junto" or "cabal, " and during the days of conflict between thecommons and the king it was regarded with great disfavour by theparliament of England. Its unpopularity arose from the fact that itdid not consist of men in whom parliament had confidence, and itsproceedings were conducted with so much secrecy that it was impossibleto decide upon whom to fix responsibility for any obnoxious measure. When the constitution of England was brought back to its originalprinciples, and harmony was restored between the Crown and theparliament, the cabinet became no longer a term of reproach, but aposition therein was regarded as the highest honour in the country, and was associated with the efficient administration of publicaffairs, since it meant a body of men responsible to parliament forevery act of government. [29] The old executive councils of Canada wereobnoxious to the people for the same reason that the councils of theStuarts, and even of George III, with the exception of the régime ofthe two Pitts, became unpopular. Not only do we in Canada, inaccordance with our desire to perpetuate the names of Englishinstitutions use the name "cabinet" which was applied to aninstitution that gradually grew out of the old privy council ofEngland, but we have even incorporated in our fundamental law theolder name of "privy council, " which itself sprang from the original"permanent" or "continual" council of the Norman kings. FollowingEnglish precedent, the Canadian cabinet or ministry is formed out ofthe privy councillors, chosen under the law by the governor-general, and when they retire from office they still retain the purely honorarydistinction. In the United States the use of the term "cabinet" hasnone of the significance it has with us, and if it can be compared atall to any English institutions it might be to the old cabinets whoacknowledged responsibility to the king, and were only so many headsof departments in the king's government. As a matter of fact thecomparison would be closer if we said that the administrationresembles the cabinets of the old French kings, or to quote ProfessorBryce, "the group of ministers who surround the Czar or the Sultan, orwho executed the bidding of a Roman emperor like Constantine orJustinian. " Such ministers like the old executive councils of Canada, "are severally responsible to their master, and are severally calledin to counsel him, but they have not necessarily any relations withone another, nor any duty or collective action. " Not only is theadministration conducted on the principle of responsibility to thepresident alone, in this respect the English king in old irresponsibledays, but the legislative department is itself constructed after theEnglish model as it existed a century ago, and a general system ofgovernment is established, lacking in that unity and elasticity whichare essential to its effective working. On the other hand the Canadiancabinet is the cabinet of the English system of modern times and isformed so as to work in harmony with the legislative department, whichis a copy, so far as possible, of the English legislature. 

The special advantages of the Canadian or English system ofparliamentary government, compared with congressional government, maybe briefly summed up as follows:--

(1) The governor-general, his cabinet, and the popular branch of thelegislature are governed in Canada, as in England, by a system ofrules, conventions and understandings which enable them to work inharmony with one another. The Crown, the cabinet, the legislature, andthe people, have respectively certain rights and powers which, whenproperly and constitutionally brought into operation, give strengthand elasticity to our system of government. Dismissal of a ministry bythe Crown under conditions of gravity, or resignation of a ministrydefeated in the popular House, bring into play the prerogatives of theCrown. In all cases there must be a ministry to advise the Crown, assume responsibility for its acts, and obtain the support of thepeople and their representatives in parliament. As a last resort tobring into harmony the people, the legislature, and the Crown, thereis the exercise of the supreme prerogative of dissolution. A governor, acting always under the advice of responsible ministers, may, at anytime, generally speaking, grant an appeal to the people to test theiropinion on vital public questions and bring the legislature intoaccord with the public mind. In short, the fundamental principle ofpopular sovereignty lies at the very basis of the Canadian system. 

On the other hand, in the United States, the president and his cabinetmay be in constant conflict with the two Houses of Congress during thefour years of his term of office. His cabinet has no direct influencewith the legislative bodies, inasmuch as they have no seats therein. The political complexion of Congress does not affect their tenure ofoffice, since they depend only on the favour and approval of theexecutive; dissolution, which is the safety valve of the English orCanadian system--"in its essence an appeal from the legal to thepolitical sovereign"--is not practicable under the United Statesconstitution. In a political crisis the constitution provides noadequate solution of the difficulty during the presidential term. Inthis respect the people of the United States are not sovereign as theyare in Canada under the conditions just briefly stated. 

(2) The governor-general is not personally brought into collision withthe legislature by the direct exercise of a veto of its legislativeacts, since the ministry is responsible for all legislation and muststand or fall by its important measures. The passage of a measure ofwhich it disapproved as a ministry would mean in the majority of casesa resignation, and it is not possible to suppose that the governorwould be asked to exercise a prerogative of the Crown which has beenin disuse since the establishment of responsible government and wouldnow be a revolutionary measure even in Canada. 

In the United States there is danger of frequent collision between thepresident and the two legislative branches, should a very criticalexercise of the veto, as in President Johnson's time, occur at a timewhen the public mind was deeply agitated. The chief magistrate losesin dignity and influence whenever the legislature overrides the veto, and congress becomes a despotic master for the time being. 

(3) The Canadian minister, having control of the finances and taxesand of all matters of administration, is directly responsible toparliament and sooner or later to the people for the manner in whichpublic functions have been discharged. All important measures areinitiated by the cabinet, and on every question of public interest theministers are bound to have a definite policy if they wish to retainthe confidence of the legislature. Even in the case of privatelegislation they are also the guardians of the public interests andare responsible to the parliament and the people for any neglect inparticular. 

On the other hand in the United States the financial and generallegislation of congress is left to the control of committees, overwhich the president and his cabinet have no direct influence, and thechairman of which may have ambitious objects in direct antagonism tothe men in office. 

(4) In the Canadian system the speaker is a functionary who certainlyhas his party proclivities, but it is felt that as long as he occupiesthe chair all political parties can depend on his justice andimpartiality. Responsible government makes the premier and hisministers responsible for the constitution of the committees and forthe opinions and decisions that may emanate from them. A governmentthat would constantly endeavour to shift its responsibilities oncommittees, even of its own selection, would soon disappear from thetreasury benches. Responsibility in legislation is accordinglyensured, financial measures prevented from being made the footballs ofambitious and irresponsible politicians, and the impartiality anddignity of the speakership guaranteed by the presence in parliament ofa cabinet having the direction and supervision of business. 

On the other hand, in the United States, the speaker of the House ofRepresentatives becomes, from the very force of circumstances, apolitical leader, and the spectacle is presented--in fact from thetime of Henry Clay--so strange to us familiar with English methods, ofdecisions given by him with clearly party objects, and of committeesformed by him with purely political aims, as likely as not with a viewto thwart the ambition either of a president who is looking to asecond term or of some prominent member of the cabinet who haspresidential aspirations. And all this lowering of the dignity of thechair is due to the absence of a responsible minister to lead theHouse. The very position which the speaker is forced to take from timeto time--notably in the case of Mr. Reed[30]--is clearly the result ofthe defects in the constitutional system of the United States, and isso much evidence that a responsible party leader is an absolutenecessity in congress. A legislature must be led, and congress hasbeen attempting to get out of a crucial difficulty by all sorts ofquestionable shifts which only show the inherent weakness of theexisting system. 

In the absence of any provision for the unity of policy between theexecutive and legislative authorities of the United States, it isimpossible for any nation to have a positive guarantee that a treatyit may negotiate with the former can be ratified. The sovereign ofGreat Britain enters into treaties with foreign powers with the adviceand assistance of his constitutional advisers, who are immediatelyresponsible to parliament for their counsel in such matters. In theoryit is the prerogative of the Crown to make a treaty; in practice it isthat of the ministry. It is not constitutionally imperative to refersuch treaties to parliament for its approval--the consent of the Crownis sufficient; but it is sometimes done under exceptionalcircumstances, as in the case of the cession of Heligoland. In anyevent the action of the ministry in the matter is invariably open tothe review of parliament, and the ministry may be censured by anadverse vote for the advice given to the sovereign, and forced toretire from office. In the United States the senate must ratify alltreaties by a two-thirds vote, but unless there is a majority in thatHouse of the same political complexion as the president the treaty maybe refused. No cabinet minister is present, to lead the House, as inEngland, and assume all the responsibility of the president's action. It is almost impossible to suppose that an English ministry wouldconsent to a treaty that would be unpopular in parliament and thecountry. The existence of the government would depend on its action. In the United States both president and senate have dividedresponsibilities. The constitution makes no provision for unity insuch important matters of national obligation. 

The great advantages of the English, or Canadian, system lie in theinterest created among all classes of the people by the discussions ofthe different legislative bodies. Parliamentary debate involves thefate of cabinets, and the public mind is consequently led to study allissues of importance. The people know and feel that they must becalled upon sooner or later to decide between the parties contendingon the floor of the legislature, and consequently are obliged to givean intelligent consideration to public affairs. Let us see whatBagehot, ablest of critics, says on this point:--

 "At present there is business in their attention (that is to say, of the English or Canadian people). They assist at the determining crisis; they assist or help it. Whether the government will go out or remain is determined by the debate and by the division in parliament And the opinion out of doors, the secret pervading disposition of society, has a great influence on that division. The nation feels that its judgment is important, and it strives to judge. It succeeds in deciding because the debates and the discussions give it the facts and arguments. But under the presidential government the nation has, except at the electing moment, no influence; it has not the ballot-box before it; its virtue is gone and it must wait till its instant of despotism again returns. There are doubtless debates in the legislature, but they are prologues without a play. The prize of power is not in the gift of the legislature. No presidential country needs to form daily delicate opinions, or is helped in forming them. "

Then when the people do go to the ballot-box, they cannotintelligently influence the policy of the government. If they vote fora president, then congress may have a policy quite different from his;if they vote for members of congress, they cannot change the opinionsof the president. If the president changes his cabinet at any time, they have nothing to say about it, for its members are not importantas wheels in the legislative machinery. Congress may pass a bill ofwhich the people express their disapproval at the first opportunitywhen they choose a new congress, but still it may remain on thestatute-book because the senate holds views different from the newlyelected House, and cannot be politically changed until after a longseries of legislative elections. As Professor Woodrow Wilson well putsit in an able essay:--[31]

 "Public opinion has no easy vehicle for its judgments, no quick channels for its action. Nothing about the system is direct and simple. Authority is perplexingly subdivided and distributed, and responsibility has to be hunted down in out-of-the-way corners. So that the sum of the whole matter is that the means of working for the fruits of good government are not readily to be found. The average citizen may be excused for esteeming government at best but a haphazard affair upon which his vote and all his influence can have but little effect. How is his choice of representative in congress to affect the policy of the country as regards the questions in which he is most interested if the man for whom he votes has no chance of getting on the standing committee which has virtual charge of those questions? How is it to make any difference who is chosen president? Has the president any great authority in matters of vital policy? It seems a thing of despair to get any assurance that any vote he may cast will even in an infinitesimal degree affect the essential courses of administration. There are so many cooks mixing their ingredients in the national broth that it seems hopeless, this thing of changing one cook at a time. "

Under such a system it cannot be expected that the people will takethe same deep interest in elections and feel as directly responsiblefor the character of the government as when they can at one electionand by one verdict decide the fate of a government, whose policy ongreat issues must be thoroughly explained to them at the polls. Thismethod of popular government is more real and substantial than asystem which does not allow the people to influence congressionallegislation and administrative action through a set of men sitting incongress and having a common policy. 

I think it does not require any very elaborate argument to show thatwhen men feel and know that the ability they show in parliament may besooner or later rewarded by a seat on the treasury benches, and thatthey will then have a determining voice in the government of thecountry, be it dominion or province, they must be stimulated by akeener interest in public life, a closer watchfulness over legislationand administration, a greater readiness for discussing all publicquestions, and a more studied appreciation of public opinion outsidethe legislative halls. Every man in parliament is a premier _inposse_. While asking my readers to recall what I have already said asto the effect of responsible government on the public men and peopleof Canada, I shall also here refer them to some authorities worthy ofall respect. 

Mr. Bagehot says with his usual clearness:--[32]

 "To belong to a debating society adhering to an executive (and this is no inapt description of a congress under a presidential constitution) is not an object to stir a noble ambition, and is a position to encourage idleness. The members of a parliament excluded from office can never be comparable, much less equal, to those of a parliament not excluded from office. The presidential government by its nature divides political life into two halves, an executive half and a legislative half, and by so dividing it, makes neither half worth a man's having--worth his making it a continuous career--worthy to absorb, as cabinet government absorbs, his whole soul. The statesmen from whom a nation chooses under a presidential system are much inferior to those from whom it chooses under a cabinet system, while the selecting apparatus is also far less discerning. "

An American writer, Prof. Denslow, [33] does not hesitate to expressthe opinion very emphatically that "as it is, in no country do thepeople feel such an overwhelming sense of the littleness of the men incharge of public affairs" as in the United States. And in anotherplace he dwells on the fact that "responsible government educatesoffice-holders into a high and honourable sense of theiraccountability to the people, " and makes "statesmanship a permanentpursuit followed by a skilled class of men. "

Prof. Woodrow Wilson says that, [34] so far from men being trained tolegislation by congressional government, "independence and ability arerepressed under the tyranny of the rules, and practically the favourof the popular branch of congress is concentrated in the speaker and afew--very few--expert parliamentarians. " Elsewhere he shows that"responsibility is spread thin, and no vote or debate can gather it. "As a matter of fact and experience, he comes to the conclusion "themore power is divided the more irresponsible it becomes and the pettycharacter of the leadership of each committee contributes towardsmaking its despotism sure by making its duties interesting. "

Professor James Bryee, it will be admitted, is one of the fairest ofcritics in his review of the institutions of the United States; buthe, too, comes to the conclusion[35] that the system of congressionalgovernment destroys the unity of the House (of representatives) as alegislative body; prevents the capacity of the best members from beingbrought to bear upon any one piece of legislation, however important;cramps debate; lessens the cohesion and harmony of legislation; givesfacilities for the exercise of underhand and even corrupt influence;reduces responsibility; lowers the interest of the nation in theproceedings of congress. 

In another place, [36] after considering the relations between theexecutive and the legislature, he expresses his opinion that theframers of the constitution have "so narrowed the sphere of theexecutive as to prevent it from leading the country, or even its ownparty in the country. " They endeavoured "to make members of congressindependent, but in doing so they deprived them of some of the meanswhich European legislators enjoy of learning how to administer, oflearning even how to legislate in administrative topics. Theycondemned them to be architects without science, critics withoutexperience, censors without responsibility. "

And further on, when discussing the faults of democratic government inthe United States--and Professor Bryce, we must remember, is on thewhole most hopeful of its future--he detects as amongst itscharacteristics "a certain commonness of mind and tone, a want ofdignity and elevation in and about the conduct of public affairs, andinsensibility to the nobler aspects and finer responsibilities ofnational life. " Then he goes on to say[37] that representative andparliamentary system "provides the means of mitigating the evils to befeared from ignorance or haste, for it vests the actual conduct ofaffairs in a body of specially chosen and presumably qualified men, who may themselves intrust such of their functions as need peculiarknowledge or skill to a smaller governing body or bodies selected inrespect of their more eminent fitness. By this method the defects ofdemocracy are remedied while its strength is retained. " The members ofAmerican legislatures, being disjoined from the administrativeoffices, "are not chosen for their ability or experience; they are notmuch respected or trusted, and finding nothing exceptional expectedfrom them, they behave as ordinary men. "

"If corruption, " wrote Judge Story, that astute political student, "ever silently eats its way into the vitals of this Republic, it willbe because the people are unable to bring responsibility home to theexecutive through his chosen ministers. "[38]

As I have already stated in the first pages of this chapter, longbefore the inherent weaknesses of the American system were pointed outby the eminent authorities just quoted, Lord Elgin was able, with thatintuitive sagacity which he applied to the study of politicalinstitutions, to see the unsatisfactory working of the clumsy, irresponsible mechanism of our republican neighbours. 

"Mr. Fillmore, " he is writing in November, 1850, "stands to hiscongress very much in the same relation in which I stood to myassembly in Jamaica. There is the same absence of effectiveresponsibility in the conduct of legislation, the same want ofconcurrent action between the parts of the political machine. Thewhole business of legislation in the American congress, as well as inthe state legislatures, is conducted in the manner in which railwaybusiness was conducted in the House of Commons at a time when it is tobe feared that, notwithstanding the high standard of honour in theBritish parliament, there was a good deal of jobbing. For instance, our reciprocity measure was pressed by us at Washington last sessionjust as a railway bill in 1845 or 1846 would have been pressed inparliament There was no government to deal with. The interests of theunion as a whole, distinct from local and sectional interests, had noorgan in the representative bodies; it was all a question ofcanvassing this member of congress or the other. It is easy toperceive that, under such a system, jobbing must become not theexception but the rule, "--remarks as true in 1901 as in 1850. 

It is important also to dwell on the fact that in Canada thepermanency of the tenure of public officials and the introduction ofthe secret ballot have been among the results of responsiblegovernment. Through the influence and agency of the same system, valuable reforms have been made in Canada in the election laws, andthe trial of controverted elections has been taken away from partisanelection committees and given to a judiciary independent of politicalinfluences. In these matters the irresponsible system of the UnitedStates has not been able to effect any needful reforms. Such measurescan be best carried by ministers having the initiation and directionof legislation and must necessarily be retarded when power is dividedamong several authorities having no unity of policy on any question. 

Party government undoubtedly has its dangers arising from personalambition and unscrupulous partisanship, but as long as men must rangethemselves in opposing camps on every subject, there is no othersystem practicable by which great questions can be carried and theworking of representative government efficiently conducted. Theframers of the constitution of the United States no doubt thought theyhad succeeded in placing the president and his officers above partywhen they instituted the method of electing the former by a body ofselect electors chosen for that purpose in each state, who wereexpected to act irrespective of all political considerations. Apresident so selected would probably choose his officers also on thesame basis. The practical results, however, have been to prove that inevery country of popular and representative institutions partygovernment must prevail. Party elects men to the presidency and to thefloor of the Senate and House of Representatives, and the election tothose important positions is directed and controlled by a politicalmachinery far exceeding in its completeness any party organization inEngland or in Canada. The party convention is now the all importantportion of the machinery for the election of the president, and thesafeguard provided by the constitution for the choice of the best manis a mere nullity. One thing is quite certain, that party governmentunder the direction of a responsible ministry, responsible toparliament and the people for every act of administration andlegislation, can have far less dangerous tendencies than a partysystem which elects an executive not amenable to public opinion forfour years, divides the responsibilities of government among severalauthorities, prevents harmony among party leaders, does not give theexecutive that control over legislation necessary to efficientadministration of public affairs, and in short offers a direct premiumto conflict among all the authorities of the state--a conflict, not somuch avoided by the checks and balances of the constitution as by thepatience, common sense, prudence, and respect for law which presidentsand their cabinets have as a rule shown at national crises. But we canclearly see that, while the executive has lost in influence, congresshas gained steadily to an extent never contemplated by the founders ofthe constitution, and there are thoughtful men who say that the trueinterests of the country have not always been promoted by the change. Party government in Canada ensures unity of policy, since the premierof the cabinet becomes the controlling part of the political machineryof the state; no such thing as unity of policy is possible under asystem which gives the president neither the dignity of agovernor-general, nor the strength of a premier, and splits uppolitical power among any number of would-be party leaders, who adoptor defeat measures by private intrigues, make irresponsiblerecommendations, and form political combinations for purely selfishends. [39]

It seems quite clear then that the system of responsible ministersmakes the people more immediately responsible for the efficientadministration of public affairs than is possible in the UnitedStates. The fact of having the president and the members of congresselected for different terms, and of dividing the responsibilities ofgovernment among these authorities does not allow the people toexercise that direct influence which is ensured, as the experience ofCanada and of England proves, by making one body of men immediatelyresponsible to the electors for the conduct of public affairs atfrequently recurring periods, arranged by well understood rules, so asto ensure a correct expression of public opinion on all importantissues. The committees which assist in governing this country are thechoice of the people's representatives assembled in parliament, andevery four or five years and sometimes even sooner in case of acrisis, the people have to decide on the wisdom of the choice. 

The system has assuredly its drawbacks like all systems of governmentthat have been devised and worked out by the brain of man. In allfrankness I confess that this review would be incomplete were I not torefer to certain features of the Canadian system of government whichseem to me on the surface fraught with inherent danger at some time orother to independent legislative judgment. Any one who has closelywatched the evolution of this system for years past must admit thatthere is a dangerous tendency in the Dominion to give the executive--Imean the ministry as a body--too superior a control over thelegislative authority. When a ministry has in its gift the appointmentnot only of the heads of the executive government in the provinces, that is to say, of the lieutenant-governors, who can be dismissed bythe same power at any moment, but also of the members of the UpperHouse of Parliament itself, besides the judiciary and numerouscollectorships and other valuable offices, it is quite obvious thatthe element of human ambition and selfishness has abundant room foroperation on the floor of the legislature, and a bold and skilfulcabinet is also able to wield a machinery very potent under a systemof party government. In this respect the House of Representatives maybe less liable to insidious influences than a House of Commons atcritical junctures when individual conscience or independent judgmentappears on the point of asserting itself. The House of Commons may bemade by skilful party management a mere recording or registering bodyof an able and determined cabinet. I see less liability to such silentthough potent influences in a system which makes the president and ahouse of representatives to a large degree independent of each other, and leaves his important nominations to office under the control ofthe senate, a body which has no analogy whatever with the relativelyweak branch of the Canadian parliament, essentially weak while itsmembership depends on the government itself. I admit at once that inthe financial dependence of the provinces on the central federalauthority, in the tenure of the office of the chief magistrates of theprovinces, in the control exercised by the ministry over the highestlegislative body of Canada, that is, highest in point of dignity andprecedence, there are elements of weakness; but at the same time itmust be remembered that, while the influence and power of the Canadiangovernment may be largely increased by the exercise of its greatpatronage in the hypothetical cases I have suggested, its action isalways open to the approval or disapproval of parliament and it has tomeet an opposition face to face. Its acts are open to legislativecriticism, and it may at any moment be forced to retire by publicopinion operating upon the House of Commons. 

On the other hand the executive in the United States for four yearsmay be dominant over congress by skilful management. A strongexecutive by means of party wields a power which may be used forpurposes of mere personal ambition, and may by clever management ofthe party machine and with the aid of an unscrupulous majority retainpower for a time even when it is not in accord with the true sentimentof the country; but under a system like that of Canada, where everydefect in the body politic is probed to the bottom in the debates ofparliament, which are given by the public press more fully than is thepractice in the neighbouring republic, the people have a betteropportunity of forming a correct judgment on every matter and givingan immediate verdict when the proper time comes for an appeal to them, the sovereign power. Sometimes this judgment is too often influencedby party prejudices and the real issue is too often obscured byskilful party management, but this is inevitable under every system ofpopular government; and happily, should it come to the worst, there isalways in the country that saving remnant of intelligent, independentmen of whom Matthew Arnold has written, who can come forward and bytheir fearless and bold criticism help the people in any crisis whentruth, honour and justice are at stake and the great mass of electorsfail to appreciate the true situation of affairs. But we may haveconfidence in the good sense and judgment of the people as a wholewhen time is given them to consider the situation of affairs. Shouldmen in power be unfaithful to their public obligations, they willeventually be forced by the conditions of public life to yield theirpositions to those who merit public confidence. If it should everhappen in Canada that public opinion has become so low that public menfeel that they can, whenever they choose, divert it to their ownselfish ends by the unscrupulous use of partisan agencies and corruptmethods, and that the highest motives of public life are forgotten ina mere scramble for office and power, then thoughtful Canadians mightwell despair of the future of their country; but, whatever may be theblots at times on the surface of the body politic, there is yet noreason to believe that the public conscience of Canada is weak orindifferent to character and integrity in active politics. Theinstincts of an English people are always in the direction of the pureadministration of justice and the efficient and honest government ofthe country, and though it may sometimes happen that unscrupulouspoliticians and demagogues will for a while dominate in the partyarena, the time of retribution and purification must come sooner orlater. English methods must prevail in countries governed by anEnglish people and English institutions. 

It is sometimes said that it is vain to expect a high ideal in publiclife, that the same principles that apply to social and private lifecannot always be applied to the political arena if party government isto succeed; but this is the doctrine of the mere party manager, who isalready too influential in Canada as in the United States, and not ofa true patriotic statesman. It is wiser to believe that the nobler theobject the greater the inspiration, and at all events, it is better toaim high than to sink low. It is all important that the body politicshould be kept pure and that public life should be considered a publictrust. Canada is still young in her political development, and thefact that her population has been as a rule a steady, fixedpopulation, free from those dangerous elements which have come intothe United States with such rapidity of late years, has kept herrelatively free from any serious social and political dangers whichhave afflicted her neighbours, and to which I believe they themselves, having inherited English institutions and being imbued with the spiritof English law, will always in the end rise superior. Greatresponsibility, therefore, rests in the first instance upon the peopleof Canada, who must select the best and purest among them to serve thecountry, and, secondly, upon the men whom the legislature chooses todischarge the trust of carrying on the government. No system ofgovernment or of laws can of itself make a people virtuous and happyunless their rulers recognize in the fullest sense their obligationsto the state and exercise their powers with prudence andunselfishness, and endeavour to elevate and not degrade public opinionby the insidious acts and methods of the lowest political ethics. Aconstitution may be as perfect as human agencies can make it, and yetbe relatively worthless while the large responsibilities and powersentrusted to the governing body--responsibilities and powers notembodied in acts of parliament--are forgotten in view of partytriumph, personal ambition, or pecuniary gain. "The laws, " says Burke, "reach but a very little way. Constitute government how you please, infinitely the greater part of it must depend upon the exercise of thepowers which are left at large to the prudence and uprightness ofministers of state. Even all the use and potency of the laws dependupon them. Without them your commonwealth is no better than a schemeupon paper, and not a living, active, effective organization. "

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE

For accounts of the whole career of Lord Elgin see _Letters andJournals of James, Eighth, Earl of Elgin_, etc. , edited by TheodoreWalrond, C. B. , with a preface by his brother-in-law, Dean Stanley(London 2nd. Ed. , 1873); for China mission, _Narrative of the Earl ofElgin's Mission to China and Japan_ by Lawrence Oliphant, his privatesecretary (Edinburgh, 1869); for the brief Indian administration, _TheFriend of India_ for 1862-63. Consult also article in vol. 8 of_Encyclopædia Britannica_, 9th ed. ; John Charles Dent's _CanadianPortrait Gallery_ (Toronto, 1880), vol. 2, which also contains aportrait; W. J. Rattray's _The Scot in British North America_ (Toronto, 1880) vol. 2, pp. 608-641. 

For an historical review of Lord Elgin's administration in Canada, seeJ. C. Dent's _The Last Forty Years, or Canada since the Union of 1841_(Toronto, 1881), chapters XXIII-XXXIV inclusive, with a portrait;Louis P. Turcotte's _Le Canada Sous l'Union_ (Quebec, 1871), chaptersI-IV, inclusive; Sir Francis Hincks's _Reminiscences of His PublicLife_ (Montreal, 1884) with a portrait of the author; Joseph Pope's_Memoirs of the Rt. Hon. Sir John A. Macdonald, G. C. B. _ (Ottawa andLondon, 1894), with portraits of the great statesman, vol. 1, chaptersIV-VI inclusive; Lord Grey's _Colonial Policy of Lord John Russell'sAdministration_ (London, 2nd ed. , 1853), vol. 1; Sir C. B. Adderley's_Review of the Colonial Policy of Lord John Russell's Administration, by Earl Grey, and Subsequent Colonial History_ (London, 1869). 

For accounts of the evolution of responsible government in Canadaconsult the works by Dent, Turcotte, Rattray, Hincks, Grey andAdderley, just mentioned; Lord Durham's _Report on the Affairs ofBritish North America_, submitted to parliament, 1839; Dr. AlpheusTodd's _Parliamentary Government in The British Colonies_ (2nd ed. London, 1894); Bourinot's _Manual of the Constitutional History ofCanada_ (Toronto, 1901); his _Canada under British Rule_ (London andToronto, 1901), chapters VI-VIII inclusive; _Memoir of the Life of theRt. Hon. Lord Sydenham, etc. _, by his brother G. Poulett Scrope, M. P. , (London, 1843), with a portrait of that nobleman; _Life andCorrespondence of Charles Lord Metcalfe_, by J. W. Kaye (London, newed. , 1858). 

For comparisons between the parliamentary government of Great Britainor Canada, and the congressional system of the United States, seeWalter Bagehot's _English Constitution_ and other political essays(New York, 1889); Woodrow Wilson's _Congressional Government_ (Boston, 1885); Dr. James Bryce's _American Commonwealth_ (London, 1888);Bourinot's _Canadian Studies in Comparative Politics_, in _Trans. Roy. Soc. Can. _, vol. VIII, sec. 2 (old ser. ), and in separate form(Montreal, 1891). Other books and essays on the same subject are notedin a bibliography given in _Trans. Roy. Soc. Can. _, vol. XI, old ser. , sec. 2, as an appendix to an article by Sir J. G. Bourinot onParliamentary Government in Canada. 

The reader may also profitably consult the interesting series ofsketches (with excellent portraits) of the lives of Sir FrancisHincks, Sir A. MacNab, Sir L. H. LaFontaine, R. Baldwin, BishopStrachan, L. J. Papineau, John Sandfield Macdonald, Antoine A. Dorion, Sir John A. Macdonald, George Brown, Sir E. P. Taché, P. J. O. Chauveau, and of other men notable from 1847-1854, in the _Portraits of BritishAmericans_ (Montreal 1865-67), by J. Fennings Taylor, who was deputyclerk of the old legislative council, and later of the senate ofCanada, and a contemporary of the eminent men whose careers he brieflyand graphically describes. Consult also Dent's _Canadian PortraitGallery_, which has numerous portraits. 

INDEX

A

Amnesty Act, 91. 

Annexation manifesto, 80, 81. 

Annexation sentiment, the, caused by lack of prosperity and political grievances, 191 f. 

Archambault, L. , 186. 

Aylwin, Hon. I. C. , 45, 50, 53, 187. 

B

Badgley, Judge, 187. 

Bagehot, on public interest in politics, 250, 251; on the disadvantage of the presidential system, 253, 254. 

Bagot, Sir Charles, favourable to French Canadians, 30; 31. 

Baldwin, Hon. Robert, 28; aims of, 31, 45, 50, 51; forms a government with LaFontaine, 52; his measure to create the university of Toronto, 93, 94; resigns office, 103; death of, 104; views on the clergy reserves, 160, 162. 

Blake, Hon. W. H. , 50, 53, 69. 

Boulton, John, 123. 

Bowen, Judge, 187. 

Brown, Hon. George, 110; editor of _Globe_, 111; raises the cry of French domination, leads the clear Grits, 112; enters parliament, 113; his power, 114; urges representation by population, 117; 125, 137, 138; his part in confederation, 225. 

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James, on the disadvantages of congressional government, 255-257. 

Buchanan, Mr. , his tribute to Lord Elgin, 123, 124. 

C

Cameron, John Hillyard, 50, 112. 

Cameron, Malcolm, 50, 53, 110, 113, 117, 126, 134, 163. 

Canada Company, 145. 

Canada, early political conditions in, 17-40; difficulties connected with responsible government in, 26; the principles of responsible government, 228; a comparison of her political system with that of the United States, 241 f. 

Canning, Earl, 217. 

Caron, Hon. R. E. , 43, 53, 109, 113, 126, 187. 

Cartier, Georges Étienne, 135, 136, 226. 

Cathcart, Lord, succeeds Lord Metcalfe as governor-general, 38. 

Cauchon, 126, 164. 

Cayley, Hon. W. , 140, 163. 

Chabot, Hon. J. , 126, 141, 164, 186. 

Chaderton, 48. 

Chauveau, P. J. O. , 46, 50, 109, 113, 126, 141, 164. 

Christie, David, 110. 

Church of England, its claims under the Constitutional Act. , 145, 150 f. 

Church Presbyterian, its successful contention, 153. 

Clergy Reserves, 101, 102, 103, 119, 127; secularization of, 142; the history of, 143, f. ; report of select committee on, 147; Imperial act passed, 158, 159; its repeal urged, 161; value of the reserves, 161-162; full powers granted the provincial legislature to vary or repeal the act of 1840, 167; important bill introduced by Sir John A. Macdonald, 168. 

Colborne, Sir John, his action on the land question, 154; the Colborne patents attacked and upheld, 155, 156. 

Company of the West Indies, 175. 

Craig, Sir James, 1, 19. 

D

Daly, Dominick, 35. 

Day, Judge, 187. 

Delagrave, C. , 187. 

Denslow, Prof. , 254. 

Derby, Lord, his views of colonial development, 121. 

Dessaules, 108. 

Dorchester, Lord, 1. 

Dorion, A. A. , 108, 134. 

Dorion, J. B. E. , 108. 

Doutre, R. , 108. 

Draper, Hon. Mr. , forms a ministry, 35; retires from the ministry, 43. 

Draper-Viger ministry, its weakness 44, some important measures, 45; commission appointed by, 64. 

Drummond, L. P. , 109, 113, 126, 141; his action on the question of seigniorial tenure, 186. 

Dumas, N. , 186. 

Durham, Lord, 2, 14; his report, 15, 23, 25; compared with Elgin, 15; his views on the land question, 144, 145, 148, 154, 155; his views on Canada after the rebellion, 191; his suggestions of remedy, 192, 193. 

Duval, Judge, 187. 

E

Educational Reform, 87-89. 

Elgin, Lord, his qualities, 3-4; conditions in Canada on his arrival, on his departure, birth and family descent, 5; his parentage, 6; his contemporaries at Eton and Oxford, estimate of, by Gladstone, 7; by his brother, 7-8; enters parliament, his political views, 8; appointed governor of Jamaica, death of his wife, 9; mediates between the colonial office and the Jamaica legislature, 12; resigns governorship of Jamaica, returns to England, 13; accepts governor-generalship of Canada, marriage with Lady Mary Louisa Lambton, 14; compared with Lord Durham, 15; creates a favourable impression, recognizes the principle of responsible government, 41; appeals for reimbursement of plague expenses, 48; visits Upper Canada, 49; comments on LaFontaine-Baldwin ministry, 52-53; correspondence with Lord Grey, 55; hostility to Papinean, 56; on the rights of French Canadians, 55-56; his commercial views, 57-60; his course on Rebellion Losses bill, 71-78; attacked by mob, 74; his course sustained by the imperial parliament, 78; visits Upper Canada, 79; raised to the British peerage, 80; his condemnation of annexation manifesto, 81; refers to causes of depressions and irritations, 82; urges reciprocity with United States, urges repeal of navigation laws, 82; his views on education, 88-89; his views on increased representation, 118-119; his views on the Upper House, 120; visits England, 123; tribute from United States minister, 123-124; visits Washington and negotiates reciprocity treaty, 124; advises repeal of the imperial act of 1840, 164, 165; his efforts against annexation, 189-190, 194, 195; his labours for reciprocity, 196; visits the United States, 197; receives an address on the eve of his departure, 203; his reply, 204-205; his last speech in Quebec, 205-208; returns to England, 209; his views on self-defence, 209-212; accepts a mission to China, 212; his action during the Indian mutiny, 213; negotiates the treaty of Tientsin, 214; visits Japan officially, 214; negotiates the treaty of Yeddo, 214; returns to England, 215; becomes postmaster-general under Palmerston, 215; becomes Lord Rector of Glasgow University, 215; returns to China as Ambassador Extraordinary, 215; becomes governor-general of India, 216; tour in northern India, 218; holds Durbar at Agra, 218; Uahabee outbreak, 218; illness and death, 219; views on imperial honours, 222; on British connection, 229, 231; views on the power of his office, 231-232; beneficial results of his policy, 233, 235; on the disadvantages of the United States political system, 257, 258. 

F

Feudal System, the, in Canada, 172, f. 

Free Trade, protest against, from Canada, 39, 45; effects of, on Canada, 57-58. 

French Canadians, resent the Union Act, 23, 24; resent portions of Lord Durham's report, 23; increase of their influence, 31. 

G

Garneau, 123. 

Gavazzi Riots, the, 125. 

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. W. E. , his opinion of Lord Elgin, 7; 78. 

Gore, Lieut. -Governor, 146. 

Gourlay, Robert, 147. 

Grey, Lord, colonial secretary, 13; 36, 77; views on clergy reserves, 165. 

H

Haldimand, Governor, 97. 

Head, Sir Francis Bond, 1, 22. 

Hincks, Sir Francis, appointed inspector-general, 31; 38, 50, 53, 100, 101; views and qualities of 107, forms a ministry, 107; 112, 113, 126, 127, 128, 133, 134, 135, 136; becomes a member of the Liberal--Conservative ministry, 140, 141; views on the clergy reserves, 163, 165, 166, 196; appointed governor of Barbadoes and Windward Isles, appointed governor of British Guiana, 220, 222; receives Commandership of the Bath, 222; retirement, 222; receives knighthood 222; becomes finance minister, 223; final retirement, 223; his character and closing years, 223-224. 

Hincks-Morin, ministry formed, 108; its members, 113; its chief measures, 114-120; reconstructed, 125-126; dissolves, 131; resigns, 136. 

Holmes, 50. 

Holton, L. H. , 108, 134. 

Hopkins, Caleb, 110. 

Howe, Joseph, his assertion of loyalty, 22, 51, 92, 101; on imperial honours and offices, 221; appointed lieutenant-governor of Nova Scotia, 221. 

Hudon, Vicar-General, 48. 

Hundred Associates, 175. 

I

Immigrants, Irish, measures to relieve, 46-47; bring plague to Canada, 47-48. 

Imperial Act, authorizes increased representation, 122. 

J

Jamaica, Lord Elgin, governor of, 9-13. 

Jameson, Mrs. , her comparison of Canada and the United States, 191-192. 

Judah, H. , 186. 

L

Labrèche, 108. 

LaTerrière, 164. 

Laflamme, 108. 

LaFontaine-Baldwin cabinet, 1842, 31; resignation of, 35; the second government, its members, 53; its importance, 54; dissolved, 85; some of its important measures, 85-103. 

LaFontaine, Hon. Hippolyte, and the Union Act, 24; aims of, 32, 44, 45, 50; forms a government with Baldwin, 52; his resolutions, 67-68; attack upon his house, 76; resigns office, 104; becomes chief justice, receives baronetcy, his qualities, 105; views on the clergy reserves, 162, 164; conservative views on seigniorial tenure, 185; 187. 

Lebel, J. G. , 187. 

Lelièvre, S. , 186. 

Leslie, Hon. James, 53. 

Leslie, John, 110. 

Liberal-Conservative Party, the, formed, 137. 

Lytton, Lord, his ideal of a governor, 4. 

M

MacDonald, Rt. Hon. Sir John Alexander, reveals his great political qualities, 43, 44, 50, 110, 114, 118, 127; his argument on the Representation Bill, 132, 137, 139, 140, 163; views on the clergy reserves, 163; takes charge of the bill for secularization of the reserves, 168; monuments to his memory, 225-226. 

Macdonald, John Sandfield, 50; his rebuff to Lord Elgin, 127-129, 135. 

Mackenzie, William Lyon, 17; leader of the radicals, 21; 22, 51; returns to Canada, 91; his qualities, 91-92; 103, 112, 127. 

MacNab, Sir Allan, 31, 50, 51, 68; attitude on Rebellion Losses Bill, 75; 110, 137, 139; becomes a member of the Liberal-Conservative ministry, 140; his coalition ministry, 140; 141, 224. 

McDougall, Hon. William, 110. 

McGill, 45. 

Meredith, Judge, 187. 

Merritt, William Hamilton, 50, 97. 

Metcalf, Sir Charles, succeeds Bagot as governor-general, 32; his defects, 32, 33, 37; breach with LaFontaine-Baldwin ministry, 34, 35; created baron, death of, 37. 

Mills, Mayor, dies of plague, 48. 

Mondelet, Judge, 187. 

Montreal, ceases to be the seat of government, 78. 

Morin, A. N. , 32, 43, 50, 51, 109, 113, 126, 127, 133, 140, 141; favours secularization of the clergy reserves, 166; 187

Morris, Hon. James, 113, 126. 

Morrison, Joseph C. , 126. 

N

Navigation laws, 38, 45; repealed, 83. 

Nelson, Wolfred, 22, 50, 91. 

Newcastle, Duke of, secretary of state for the colonies, 167. 

O

Ottawa, selected as the seat of government, later as the capital of the Dominion, 79. 

P

Pakington, Sir John, adverse to the colonial contention on the clergy reserve question, 165, 167. 

Palmerston, Lord, 212, 213. 

Papineau, Denis B. , 35, 44, 66. 

Papineau, Louis Joseph, 17; aims of, 20, 21; 22; influence of, 50, 51; 56, 66, 90, 91, 117; his final defeat, 134. 

Peel, Sir Robert, 78. 

Price, Hon. J. H. , 50, 53, 160, 161. 

Postal Reform, 85, 86. 

Power, Dr. , 48. 

R

Railway development, under Baldwin and LaFontaine, 99-101; under Hincks and Morin, 114-117. 

Rebellion Losses Bill, history of, 63-78; commission appointed by Draper-Viger ministry, 64; report of commissioners, 65; LaFontaine's resolutions, 67, 68; new commission appointed, attacks on the measure, 68; passage of measure, 70; Lord Elgin's course, 71 f. ; serious results of, 73, 74; 203. 

Reciprocity treaty with United States, urged by Lord Elgin, 82; treaty ratified, 142; signed, 198; its provisions, 198-200; beneficial results, 201; repealed by the United States, 201; results of the repeal, 202. 

Richards, Hon. W. B. , 50, 113, 128. 

Richelieu, introduces feudal system into Canada, 175. 

Richmond, Duke of, 2. 

Robinson, Sir John Beverley, 105. 

Rolph, Dr. John, 110, 112, 113, 126, 136. 

Ross, Mr. Dunbar, 126, 141. 

Ross, Hon. John, 113, 126, 141. 

Roy, Mr. 48. 

Russell, Lord John, 26; supports Metcalfe, 37; 78. 

Ryerson, Rev. Egerton, defends Sir Charles Metcalfe, 36; his educational services, 89, 90; opposes Sydenham's measure, 157. 

S

Saint Réal M. Vallières de, 31. 

Seigniorial Tenure, 101, 102, 119, 126, 142; history of, 171 f. ; originates in the old feudal system, 171-174; introduced by Richelieu into Canada, 175; description of the system of tenure, 175 f; judicial investigation by commission, 186, 187. 

Sherwood, Henry, becomes head of ministry, 43; defeat of Sherwood cabinet, 50, 68, 159. 

Short, Judge, 187. 

Sicotte, 126; elected speaker, 135, 136. 

Simcoe, Lieutenant-Governor, 18. 

Smith, Henry, 141, 187. 

Spence, Hon. R. , 140. 

Stanley, Lord, 9; supports Metcalfe, 37. 

Strachan, Bishop, established Trinity college, 95; refuses compromise on land question, 150, 154, 159; meets with defeat, 169. 

Sullivan, Hon. R. B. , 53. 

Sydenham, Lord, appointed governor-general to complete the union and establish responsible government, 26-29; qualities of, 29; death of, 30; his canal policy, 96-99; his action on the land question, 156, 157. 

T

Taché, Hon. E. P. , 53, 109, 113, 126. 

Trinity College, established, 95. 

Turcotte, J. G. , 186. 

U

Union Act of 1840, its provisions, 22, 23; restrictions concerning use of French language removed, 61, 117; clauses respecting the Upper House repealed, 120. 

United States, comparison of their political system with that of Canada, 241, ff. 

University of Toronto, created from King's College, 94. 

V

Vanfelson, Judge, 187. 

Varin, J. B. , 187. 

Viger, Hon. L. M. , forms a ministry, 35, 53, 66, 108. 

W

Waldron, Mr. , 215. 

White, Thos. , 139. 

Winter, P. , 187. 

Woodrow, Wilson, on the United States system, 252; on political irresponsibility, 254, 255. 

Y

Young, Hon. John, 113, 126. 

NOTES

[1: He was bitten by a tame fox and died of hydrophobia at Richmond, in the present county of Carleton, Ontario. ]

[2: "Letters and Journals of James, eighth Earl of Elgin, etc. " Editedby Theodore Waldron, C. B. For fuller references to works consulted inthe writing of this short history, see _Bibliographical Notes_ at theend of this book. ]

[3: Lady Elma, who married, in 1864, Thomas JohnHowell-Thurlow-Camming Bruce, who was attached to the staff of LordElgin in his later career in China and India, etc. , and became BaronThurlow on the death of his brother in 1874. See "Debrett's Peerage. "]

[4: "The Colonial Policy of Lord John Russell's Administration, " byEarl Grey, London, 1857. See Vol. I, p. 205. ]

[5: The "Life and Correspondence of Charles, Lord Metcalfe, " by JohnW. Kaye, London, 1858. ]

[6: "Reminiscences of his public life, " by Sir Francis Hincks, K. C. M. G. , C. B. , Montreal, 1884]

[7: See "McMullen's History of Canada, " Vol. II (2nd Ed. ), p. 201. ]

[8: These concluding words of Lord Elgin recall a similar expressionof feeling by Sir Étienne Pascal Taché, "That the last gun that wouldbe fired for British supremacy in America would be fired by a FrenchCanadian. "]

[9: Fifty years after these words were written, debates have takenplace in the House of Commons of the Canadian federation in favour ofan imperial Zollverein, which would give preferential treatment toCanada's products in British markets. The Conservative party, when ledby Sir Charles Tupper, emphatically declared that "no measure ofpreference, which falls short of the complete realization of such apolicy, should be considered final or satisfactory. " England, however, still clings to free trade. ]

[10: The father of the Hon. Edward Blake, the eminent constitutionallawyer, who occupied for many years a notable place in Canadianpolitics, and is now (1902) a member of the British House of Commons. ]

[11: See her "Winter Studies and Summer Rambles in Canada. "London, 1838. ]

[12: "I am inclined, " wrote Lord Durham, "to view the insurrectionarymovements which did take place as indicative of no deep-rooteddisaffection, and to believe that almost the entire body of thereformers of this province sought only by constitutional means toattain those objects for which they had so long peaceably struggledbefore the unhappy troubles occasioned by the violence of a fewunprincipled adventurers and heated enthusiasts. "]

[13: For a succinct history of this road see "Eighty Years' Progressor British North America, " Toronto, 1863. ]

[14: "Portraits of British Americans, " Montreal, 1865, vol. 1. , pp. 99-100. See Bourinot's "Parliamentary Procedure, " p. 573_n_. The lastoccasion on which a Canadian speaker exercised this old privilege wasin 1869, and then Mr. Cockburn made only a very brief reference to themeasures of the session. ]

[15: It was not until 1874 when Mr. Alexander Mackenzie was firstminister of a Liberal government that simultaneous polling at ageneral election was required by law, but it had existed some yearspreviously in Nova Scotia. ]

[16: See "The Last Forty Years, or Canada Since the Union of 1841, " byJohn Charles Dent, Toronto, 1881, vol. II. , p. 309. Mr. White becameMinister of the Interior in Sir John Macdonald's government (1885-88)but died suddenly in the midst of a most active and usefuladministrative career. ]

[17: See remarks of Dr. Kingsford in his "History of Canada" (vol. VII. , pp. 266-273), showing how unjust was the clamour raised by theenemies of the church in New England when a movement was in progressfor the establishment of a colonial episcopate simply for purposes ofordination and church government. ]

[18: A clause of the act of 1791 provided that the sovereign might, ifhe thought fit, annex hereditary titles of honour to the right ofbeing summoned to the legislative council in either province, but notitles were ever conferred under the authority of this imperialstatute. ]

[19: Thirteen other patents were left unsigned by thelieutenant-governor and consequently had no legal force. ]

[20: "Memoirs of the Life of the Right Honourable Charles LordSydenham, G. C. B. , " edited by his brother G. Poulett-Scrope, M. P. ;London, 1843. ]

[21: Sir Francis Hincks's "Reminiscences of his Public Life, " p. 283. ]

[22: See on these points an excellent article on the feudal system ofCanada in the _Queen's Quarterly_ (Kingston, January, 1899) by Dr. W. Bennett Munro. Also _Droit de banalité_, by the same, in the report ofthe Am. Hist Ass. , Washington, for 1899, Vol. I. ]

[23: "Spencerwood, " the governor's private residence. ]

[24: See article on Lord Elgin in "Encyclopædia Britannica" (9th ed. ), Vol. VIII. , p. 132. ]

[25: In the "North British Review, " quoted by Waldron, pp. 458-461. ]

[26: Lord Elgin's eldest son (9th Earl) Victor Alexander Brace, whowas born in 1849, at Monklands, near Montreal, was Viceroy of India1894-9. See Debrett's Peerage, arts. Elgin and Thurton for particularsof Lord Elgin's family. ]

[27: See Mr. Howe's eloquent speeches on the organization of theempire, in his "Speeches and Public Letters, " (Boston, 1859), vol. II. , pp. 175-207. ]

[28: See on this subject Todd's "Parliamentary Government in theBritish Colonies, " pp. 313-329. ]

[29: See Todd's "Parliamentary Government in England, " vol. II. , p. 101. ]

[30: He was speaker of the House of Representatives from 1895 to1899. ]

[31: "Congressional Government, " pp. 301, 332. ]

[32:"The English Constitution, " pp. 95, 96. ]

[33: In the _International Review_, March, 1877. ]

[34: "Congressional Government, " p. 94. ]

[35: "The American Commonwealth, " I. , 210 et seq. ]

[36: Ibid. , pp. 304, 305]

[37: ibid. , Chap. 95, vol. III. ]

[38: "Commentaries, " sec. 869. ]

[39: See Story's "Commentaries, " sec. 869. ]