|
There were other Scots in
the Commons who perhaps should be noticed here; but it is necessary to
hasten onward, giving brief references to a few gentlemen who figured in
the Local Legislature at this period. Mr. Archibald McKellar, who had
been a prominent member of the Opposition in the Ontario Assembly during
Mr. Sandfield Macdonald’s Administration, became Commissioner of
Agriculture and Public Works in the succeeding Government. He was born
in the neighbourhood of Inverary, Argyleshire, in February, 1816, his
mother being a McNab. A year after his parents removed to this country,
and settled in the County of Elgin, in Ontario. Mr. McKellar was reared
a farmer, and, after his marriage, set up for himself on the banks of
the Thames, in the County of Kent. In those days counties were grouped
together, and as early as 1842, he was elected to the Council of the
united Counties of Kent, Lambton and Essex, and served as Reeve of the
Township of Raleigh for several years. In 1857 Kent was separated from
the other counties, and Mr. McKellar became Reeve of Chatham. A Liberal
in politics, he nevertheless cast a Conservative vote in 1841, the only
one he is said to have given during his life. In 1857, at a critical
juncture in public affairs, Mr. McKellar was elected to represent Kent
in the Provincial Assembly. He had three years before contested the seat
unsuccessfully, but this time he was firmly established, maintaining
himself for ten years, until the Union. In 1867, however, he was
defeated by Mr. Rufus Stephenson, the majority against him being nearly
a hundred. In the same year he entered the Local Assembly, having been
elected by a majority of seventy, as member for Bothwell, a county set
off from the eastern side of Kent. In 1871, as already stated, Mr.
McKellar was made a member of the Executive Council. Three years after
he became Commissioner of Agriculture and Provincial Secretary, Mr.
Fraser taking the bureau of Public Works. During his term of office, Mr.
McKellar was the author of some public measure of importance to the
farming community, especially the Drainage Act. In August, 1875, he
became Sheriff of the County of Wentworth, an office he still
holds. On his retirement from public life, the hon. gentleman received
many flattering letters of respect from his numerous friends,
irrespective of party. Mr. McKellar has three sons living, one of whom
is Registrar of Kent, the other two farmers "on the old
homestead."
Lieut.-Colonel Alexander
D. Ferrier was also a member of the first Ontario Legislature His
father, originally from Linlithgowshire, died in 1833,Collector of
Customs at Quebec, Mr. Ferrier was born at Edinburgh in 1813.
Having made his home in the County of Wellington, Ontario; he served in
the Municipal Council for some years, and was the County Clerk for many
years. From 1838 until the abolition of the court, he was Commissioner
of the Court of Requests. During the rebellion, Mr. Ferrier saw active
service on the frontier, and was up to 1862 an officer in the sixth
Battalion. There, as in other cases, the military instinct was
hereditary, as his grandfather had been a Major-General in the British
army, and his grand-uncle a Lieutenant in the navy, who had in charge
the detachment which drew up the cannon from the river to the plains of
Abraham, under Wolfe. At the general election in 1871, Mr. Ferrier
dropped out of the list, and resigned his clerkship also. After three
years spent in Scotland, he returned to Fergus where, we believe, he
still resides, a magistrate of the county, and an elder of the
Presbyterian Church, highly respected by all who know him.
Thomas Grahame, J. P.,
who represented West York in the first Ontario Assembly, is a son of the
soil, having been born in Vaughan, in the year 1840. His father,
however, came from Dumfries-shire, but subsequently returned to
Scotland. Mr. Grahame was educated at Upper Canada College and the
University of Toronto. He served in the County Council for some years,
and was elected in 1867 over two competitors by a pleurality of
seventy-three. At the expiration of the term he gave place to Mr.
Patterson. The number of Scots in the first two Local Assemblies of
Ontario was so large that space will not admit of a detailed account of
them and a simple mention of their names must suffice. One gentleman,
however, who appeared upon the scene in 1872 deserves special notice.
Mr. James Bethune
belonged to the old Highland stock of Glengarry. His father was for many
years Sheriff of Stormont, Dundas, and Glengarry, and the son was born
in the last of these united Counties in July, 1840. Having been educated
in arts at Queen’s College, Kingston, Mr. Bethune entered the
University of Toronto in law, and graduated as LL.B. in 1861. The
following year he was called to the bar of Ontario, and some years later
became a barrister of Quebec. After three years’ practice, Mr. Bethune
was appointed County Crown Attorney, but resigned in order to become a
candidate for Stormont in the Local Assembly in 1871. He was
unsuccessful then; but on the unseating of the sitting member, he
secured a return. In 1875, his old opponent, Mr. William Colquhoun,
again tried conclusions with him, but was defeated by over a hundred and
thirty votes. At the general election of 1879, Mr. Bethune declined to
stand, and the Local House lost in him one of its most able and
intelligent members. In politics he has always been a Reformer, although
by no means a subservient partisan. His character is sternly honest and
independent, and whereever he is known he is highly esteemed. As a
lawyer Mr. Bethune has been eminently successful; indeed his
indefatigable industry and abilities could hardly fail in any walk of
life.
The Hon. Christopher
Finlay Fraser, Q.C., first entered the Assembly in 1871. The son of a
Scottish Highlander, he was born in Brockville, in October, 1839. The
family were engaged, during Mr. Fraser’s boyhood in the struggle for
existence, but he was a bright, ambitious youth, eager to acquire an
education in order that he might push his own fortunes. Early in life he
served an apprenticeship to the printing business in the office of the
Brockville Recorder, a Reform journal, conducted with spirit by
Mr. D. Wylie, a Scot of whom it will be necessary to speak hereafter. In
1859, the interval having been employed in self-improvement, Mr. Fraser
entered the office of the Hon. A. N. Richards, Q. C., as a law student,
and was called to the bar in 1864. Having always taken a deep interest
in Provincial affairs, he became a candidate for Brockville in 1867, but
was defeated by Mr. Fitzsimmons; the majority against him, however, was
only twenty-six. He had made a strong impression upon the electors, and
was content to bide his time. At the general election of 1871, Mr.
Fraser applied to another constituency, South Grenville, but again
suffered defeat. His successful rival having died early in the following
year, this time the tide had changed in his favour. Unfortunately his
return was disputed, and Mr. Fraser lost his seat, but only to be
returned to the Assembly in October. In November, 1873 he was appointed
to the Executive Council as Provincial. Secretary—an office he
exchanged for the Commissionership of Public Works in April, 1874, which
he still holds. The hon. gentleman is possessed of singular ability and
eloquence, and has proved himself a reliable member of the Ontario
Legislature. In religion, Mr. Fraser is a Catholic, and was one of the
founders of the Catholic League in the Province. In 1879, he had the
misfortune to be rejected for South Grenville, the majority against him
being one hundred and thirty-seven. He had, however, received a seat for
Brockville, having been elected over an opponent by more than a hundred
votes. Of late the hon. gentleman’s health has suffered, but he is
still equal to the onerous duties of his office.
Mr. John Carnegie, the
son of a Scot, sat in the first Ontario Assembly, but suffered defeat in
1871. He was born in the Township of Douro, in the County of
Peterborough, and was intimately associated with the interests of
agriculture. His majority for West Peterborough in 1867 was only
eighteen, and in 1871, he lost the seat by an adverse majority of
fifty-three. His successful rival, Mr. Thomas McCulloch Fairbairn, born
at Bowmanville, in 1840, is the son of a Lowland Scotsman. He entered
the legal profession, having been called to the bar in 1865. For some
years he served as a Master in Chancery. Mr. Fairbairn gave place to Mr.
Cox at the election of 1875, at which he was not a candidate. Of the
other legislators of this period who were either Scots or of Scottish
parentage, were Messrs. Christie, of North Wentworth; Craig, of
Glengarry; Finlayson, of North Brant; Gibson, of West Huron; Gow, of
South Wellington; Graham, of West Hastings; Grange, of Lennox; McCall,
of South Norfolk; Macdonald, of South Leeds; McKim, of North Wellington;
McLeod, of West Durham; McRae, of North Victoria; Monteith, of North
Perth; Oliver, of South Oxford; Sinclair, of North Bruce; Smith, of
North Middlesex, and one or two others. The Speaker of the Assembly was
Lieut.-Colonel, the Hon. James George Currie, M. P. P. for Welland. His
father, Lachlan, settled from Scotland in the County of Linco1n, but he
was born at Toronto, in 1827, and educated at Niagara. By profession,
Mr. Currie is a lawyer. He is Lieut.-Colonel commanding the 19th
Battalion, and served for three or four years Warden of the County. In
1857 he was an unsuccessful candidate for Niagara. In 1862, on the death
of the Hon. W. H. Merritt, he was elected by acclamation to the
Legislative Council by the Niagara Division, but resigned in 1865.
Mr. Currie was opposed to
Confederation, and for a time withdrew from public life. In 1871,
however, he opposed the sitting Member for Welland, and was returned to
the local House by a majority of about one hundred and thirty. When the
House met in December, he was selected as Speaker, but resigned in the
spring of 1873.
In a previous chapter,
the Frasers of Quebec were mentioned in connection with the conquest of
the Province. The Hon. John Fraser de Berry, who sat in the Legislative
Council until 1877, or thereabouts, was the Lord of the clan Fraser, and
took the name of De Berry from the seigniory he had acquired. He was
descended from Simon Fraser, Lord Lovat, a Jacobite in the rebellion of
1745. A son of the same name fought under Wolfe, and was wounded
severely at the taking of Quebec. He remained in the Province after the
capitulation, and received the seigniory of Montmorency with other
property. At the time of the American invasion he distinguished himself
as captain of the 84th or Royal Highland Emigrant Regiment. He was also
a Judge in the Province. The Hon. Mr. Fraser’s father, Dr. Simon
Fraser, was an officer in the 42nd or Black Watch, and saw active
service from 1795 to 1803, having been present when Sir Ralph
Abercrombie was slain at Alexandria in 1801. During that memorable
action about three-fourths of this gallant Highland Regiment were either
killed or wounded. The son was born at St. Martin’s, Quebec, in
November, 1816, and married, in 1842, his cousin, Elizabeth Fraser de
Berry, and added the name of the seigniory to his own. Being the lineal
descendant of the head of the family, he became chief of the clan
Fraser, and aided by his pen and influence in its formal organization.
From his French connections, Mr. Fraser was made President of the St.
Jean Baptiste Society—a striking instance of the fusion of old
nationalities which has been previously noted. In 1858, he contested the
Montarville Division for the Legislative Council unsuccessfully, but in
1867 was nominated as a life member of that body.
The Hon. Joseph Gibb
Robertson, who has been Provincial Treasurer under several
Administrations, was born at Stuartfield, Aberdeenshire, on New Year’s
Day, 1820. His father was a Congregational minister for thirty years in
that place, and for a quarter of a century at Sherbrooke, in Quebec. In
1832, the mother having died, father and son removed to Canada, where
the latter received his educational training. In youth, Mr. Robertson
was engaged in farming, but subsequently turned his attention to
mercantile pursuits at Sherbrooke, and also, for a brief period, at
Chicago, as agent for the home establishment. He retired from business
some years since. He has always been an active and public spirited
worker in the Eastern Townships, and has served for eighteen years as
Mayor of the town. He had previously been Secretary-Treasurer of the
county from 1847 to 1853. In other capacities, Mr. Robertson has been of
essential utility, having presided over insurance, railway, and
agricultural corporations. He was first elected to the Provincial
Assembly from Sherbrooke at Confederation, and has ever since held his
seat there, being usually elected by acclamation. In 1869 he entered Mr.
Chauveau’s Cabinet, and has also served in the Ouimet, De
Boucherville, and Chapleau Administrations. On the last occasion, there
was a contest; but Mr. Robertson triumphed by a majority of over six
hundred and fifty. He is chiefly known in connection with the finances
of the Province, which he has successfully administered for some years.
A journalist has remarked: "It is no easy matter to compass the
Treasurer on a matter of business; he is a shrewd, cool-headed
Scotchman, who will not be readily led into a trap, as many a man who
has had his eye upon the ‘soft thing’ supposed to be at the
disposition of Ministers of the Crown, and has attempted to trade upon
conjectural weakness, will readily and painfully recollect." Mr.
Robertson is a Conservative, respected by all parties for his sterling
integrity and business talents. It may be added, that he adheres to the
Church his father served so long, and is a staunch advocate of the
temperance cause.
The Hon. John J. Ross,
M.D., at present Speaker of the Quebec Legislative Council, should be a
Scot by descent, although there is no accessible record of the fact. His
grandfather, George McIntosh Ross, was a West India merchant, who
married a French-Canadian lady, so that the lines of nationality are
somewhat blurred. Mr. Ross was born at St. Anne’s, and educated at
Quebec College, entering afterwards the medical profession. As a
physician and surgeon, he stands high in the Province, and has long been
President of the Medical College. He has also taken a deep interest in
agriculture. In 1861 he was selected as the representative of Chambly in
the Legislative Assembly of Canada, and retained his seat until the
Union. At the general elections, after confederation, Mr. Ross was sent
both to the Commons and the Provincial Assembly. From the former he
retired in 1874, and from the latter in 1877, when he was elevated to
the Legislative Council. In 1873, the hon. gentleman was called to the
Executive Council, and made Speaker of the Upper House, a position he
retained for about a year and a ha1f. Again, early in 1876, he was
re-appointed, and remained in office until the Government of M. De
Boucherville was summarily dismissed by Lieut.-Governor Letellier in
March, 1878. Finally, in the autumn of 1879 he once more resumed the
office, which he still holds. Dr. Ross, in 1875, was elected
Vice-President of the North Shore Railway. A reference to the dates will
show that in politics he is a Conservative, having, like Mr. Robertson,
served in more than one Administration.
Lieut.-Colonel Alexander
Walker Ogilvie only served in the first Quebec Assembly; but he has been
recently raised to the Senate in place of the Hon. Mr. Penny, deceased.
Mr. Ogilvie’s parents removed to Canada at the beginning of the
century. His father was an officer of the Lachine Cavalry, and saw
active service during the wars of 1812 and 1837. The son was born near
the City of Montreal, in May, 1827. He has long been the senior member
of the firm of A. W. Ogilvie & Co., the proprietors of an extensive
milling establishment. During a long and active life Mr. Ogilvie has
served as Alderman of Montreal, and a Governor of the City Hospital,
Lieut.-Colonel of Volunteers, President of the Hochelaga Agricultural
Society, of the Working Men’s Benefit Society, and also of the St.
Andrew’s Society. In 1867 he was returned to the Local House for
Montreal by acclamation, but only sat during one term. The Hon. Mr.
Ogilvie delivered his maiden speech at Ottawa, as seconder of the
Address in answer to the Speech from the Throne, in the Senate, in
February, 1882.
The number of Scots of
the Maritime Provinces who sat in the Local Assemblies was large at this
period, especially in Nova Scotia, but the mere enumeration of their
names would serve no useful purpose. At the close of the chapter, there
will be an opportunity afforded for a few sketches of the more prominent
of them. Meanwhile it is necessary to return to the chronicle proper,
and trace the course of events at Ottawa during an eventful crisis.
Lord Dufferin arrived, as
already stated, early in 1872, and assumed the reins of Government. The
term of the first Dominion Parliament was drawing to a close, and the
general elections were at hand. A dissolution took place early in the
autumn, and the elections terminated in a triumph for the Government.
[Stewart: Canada under Lord Dufferin, p. 115; Leggo: History
of Lord Dufferin’s Administration, p. 108.] In the new House, Sir
John Macdonald could boast of a majority of about forty. His candidate
for the Speakership, Mr. James Cockburn, was elected unanimously on the
7th of March, 1873, and Parliament duly opened with éclat by the new
Governor-General. During the previous autumn charges of extensive
bribery and corruption were freely made on both sides; but for the
present, everything appeared placid on the Parliamentary horizon.
Nevertheless, a portentous storm was brewing which, in the end,
overwhelmed the Government.
In June, 1872, an Act had
been passed, which provided for the construction of the Pacific Railway
by a Company, "having a subscribed capital of at least ten millions
of dollars." The Speech from the Throne delivered by Lord Dufferin
announced that such a Company had been formed, under authority given to
the Government by statute. The Canada Pacific, under the Presidency of
Sir Hugh Allan, had been preferred to the Inter-Oceanic, organized by
the Hon. D. L. Macpherson. Attempts were made to amalgamate the two
schemes, but the rival Presidents stood in the way, and no arrangement
was arrived at. Under these circumstances the Ministers resolved to form
an independent company, with Sir Hugh Allan at its head.
According to the new President’s original design, capital was to be
subscribed from the United States; but to this Sir John Macdonald would
by no means agree, if for no other reason, at all events, because it
would be directly in the teeth of the statute. Sir Hugh Allan having at
length announced that he had cut adrift from his American associates,
the charter was awarded to him, and there seemed no obstacle in the way
of an early prosecution of the work. Parliament at once ratified the
agreement, and apparently all cause for anxiety was over.
On the 2nd of April, Mr.
Huntington, M.P., accused the Government of having been parties to a
compact whereby certain Americans—whose agent Mr. G.W. McMullen
appears to have been a man of straw—agreed with Sir Hugh Allan to
advance money to construct the Pacific Railway, the company to be
ostensibly a Canadian one, as provided for by Act of Parliament; and
further that the Government had consented to give the charter to Sir
Hugh Allan’s Company on condition that the latter should aid them by
liberal contributions to the election fund necessary for 1872. The hon.
gentleman concluded by a motion setting out the alleged facts, and
ordering a committee of investigation. This resolution was treated by
the Premier as one of non-confidence; and, when put to the vote, it was
defeated by a majority of thirty-one. On the 8th, however, Sir John
Macdonald himself moved for a Committee, which was duly appointed by the
House. Two members belonged to the Opposition, three were supporters of
the Government. New difficulties at once arose. It was scarcely likely
that so important an enquiry could be conducted during the brief space
as the remainder of a Session; and, secondly, the Committee had, no
power to take evidence under oath. Mr. Mackenzie pointed out the
necessity for some device to overcome these obstacles. The Premier
readily consented, although he doubted whether Parliament had the power
to exact sworn testimony. He promised, however, in the event of failure
to secure the necessary authority, that a Commission should issue with
full powers.
The Oaths Bill was
passed, but promptly vetoed by the Imperial Government. The Committee
had sat in the meantime, but was unable to carry on its inquiry, in the
absence of Sir George Cartier and Mr. Abbott. A resolution was adopted
at once in the Commons to provide for an adjournment until the 2nd of
July, if the House should then be in session. In order, therefore, to
give the Committee an opportunity of prosecuting its labours, the House
adjourned, instead of being prorogued, until the 13th of August. It was
on the 27th of June that an announcement arrived of the disallowance of
the Oaths Bill. The Government promptly resolved to appoint the members
of the Committee as a Royal Commission; but as Messrs. Blake and Dorion
objected, the Committee was virtually dissolved. It had, indeed, met;
but as the majority refused to receive unsworn testimony, its work was
at an end, and an adjournment resolved upon until the 13th of August. A
day or two afterwards the documents in the hands of Mr. Huntington were
made public. It would be travelling too far afield to reproduce even a
digest of this correspondence, and its general purport only need be
stated.
Sir Hugh Allan had been
for some time in correspondence with the redoubtable McMullen of
Chicago, clearly with a view to securing the aid of American
capitalists. He discovered, however, that the Government would not
charter any but a Canadian company, yet hoped to get over the difficulty
"in some way or other." He spoke of amounts of money he had
disbursed already, and of further expediture in prospect. It is not
necessary to inquire too curiously how this correspondence was obtained.
Perhaps the 1ess said upon that subject the better, since amateur
detective service is seldom conducted with much scrupulousness. Sir Hugh
Allan, at any rate, admitted that he had disbursed, or would soon
disburse, as much as $300,000 for some purpose or other only
indistinctly hinted at. To what use this money had been put was the
crucial question.
The gallant knight’s
own version of the matter appeared in the form of an affidavit sworn to
before the Mayor of Montreal. [This document will be found in Stewart,
pp. 164-176; and an important review of the whole matter in Lord
Dufferin’s dispatch (No. 197) published entire in Leggo, pp. 140-173.]
The gist of this important paper may be readily given in a few words.
Sir Hugh stated that he had for some time been associated with American
promoters, but soon ascertained that the Government would not sanction
their association with Canadians in the project. He admitted that he had
aided the friends of his scheme during the elections, simply from a
natural desire to secure their election. He thought that he had a
perfect right to do that and denied that he paid or lent any money on
condition that he and his Company should receive the charter.
Even after the lapse of
nine years it is hardly possible to disentangle the knot which both
parties managed to tie between them. On one side, the then Government
have been stigmatized as "contract-sellers" and
"charter-mongers "—an implied charge which the entire facts
and correspondence certainly do not appear to warrant. There seems no
reason to doubt the word of Sir Hugh Allan, when he states that he
merely aided his parliamentary supporters, not to secure the control of
the enterprise, but to prevent its being jeopardized after he had
finally gained the assent of the Government. When the history of 1873
comes to be written in a calm and dispassionate spirit, we are inclined
to think that the "Pacific Scandal" will shrink to
insignificant proportions. At the same time a valuable lesson was
painfully impressed upon our public men—a warning which will probably
serve for all time to come.
Long before, indeed ever
since the dawn of the railway era, stories of corruption had been told
from time to time. In 1873, they culminated in the fall of a powerful
administration. It is unnecessary, indeed to our view, it would be most
unjust, to predicate conscious guilt on the part of Ministers. They
accepted aid in return for an act of policy they had performed from
strictly patriotic motives; yet it was not unnatural that the motive for
granting the railway charter should be confused in the popular mind with
the profit which accrued from it to the party in power. The public sense
of morality was wounded by the apparent juxtaposition of two facts which
were not logically connected. The storm that ensued was, no doubt, a
salutary outbreak, and the political wreck which strewed the shore may
serve as a warning to all future ministeria1 pilots who steer too
closely to the shoals.
In the incidents of this
painful investigation there is little upon which either party can
congratulate itself. The informer was admittedly a blackmailer; the
letters used were stolen; and the advantage secured from the publication
was certainly a triumph obtained at the expense of honour. On the other
hand, Ministers lay under the imputation, more or less justified, of
using a great public work for party ends, and the money they obtained
was unquestionably used in some localities for something more than
legitimate election expenses. It is perhaps well that the episode
occurred; still its aspects for the time were far from gratifying, and
it certainly delayed for years the completion of a noble Canadian
enterprise.
The sequel of the
business need not delay us long. The Oaths Bill, as already stated, had
been disa11owed, and therefore, when Parliament met, pursuant to the
motion of adjournment, there was no report forthcoming. On the following
day a Royal Commission was appointed, which proceeded to take evidence
during the recess. When the Commons met, Mr. Mackenzie had anticipated
the issue of the Royal Commission by a motion which affirmed that
Parliament alone could investigate charges of corruption against
Ministers, and that the appointment of any other tribunal by the
Executive would be a breach of privilege. The Governor-General after
receiving courteously a protest from the Opposition, prorogued the
Houses until October. That he acted constitutionally, there can be no
reasonable doubt. The charges had not been proven against his Ministers,
and they retained the confidence of the majority in a new Parliament.
Consequently it was his duty to act upon their advice. To have done
otherwise would have been to assume their guilt before even the initial
steps had been taken towards proving it. Responsible government would be
a farce, if the Governor-General were to consult the opinions of a
minority.
Parliament once more
assembled on the 23rd of October. The Commission meanwhile had met and
was prepared with its report. Mr. Huntington had refused to attend
because he regarded the appointment of that tribunal a violation of the
privileges of Parliament. When the Address had been moved and seconded,
Mr. Mackenzie, the Opposition leader, presented an amendment affirming
that "His Excellency’s advisers have deserved the severest
censure of the House" by their course in reference to the
investigation of the charges preferred by Mr. Huntington. The debate
lasted for six days during which some forty members spoke. It soon
became evident that the ministerial phalanx was about to breakup. Some
members of it had already thrown down their arms, and others were
palpably weakening. Under these circumstances Sir John Macdonald bowed
before the storm, and, on the 5th of November, announced his own
resignation and that of his colleagues.
The Reform party was now
in power both in the Dominion and in the chief Province of Ontario. The
month of December 1871 had been marked by the defeat of Mr. Sandfield
Macdonald’s Government at Toronto on the question of railway
subsidies, and Mr. Blake reigned in his stead. Both he and Mr. Mackenzie
were compelled to elect between the two legislatures in 1872, and they
naturally withdrew to the larger arena. The blow inflicted by Mr.
Costigain’s Act appeared at first a fatal one to Reform interests in
Ontario, but the resignation by Vice-Chancellor Mowat of his office, and
the assumption of party leadership was the opening of a long term of
power for the Liberals, extending over about ten years. On November the
7th, Mr. Mackenzie had succeeded in forming an Administration. It is not
necessary to discuss its personnel, since all the Scots who were
Ministers have already been noted in other pages.
There can be no doubt
that the new Premier had a difficult task before him. The protracted
investigation of the year had left public business in a backward state.
The problem of Pacific Railway construction had yet to be faced
in some manner, since the faith of the Dominion was p1edged in the
matter. Yet in spite of their anxiety to go to work, the awkward fact
stared Ministers in the face that the existing House of Commons could
hardly be considered as properly constituted. If the fact generally
admitted were true that large sums of money had been spent to secure the
majority, nothing could purify Parliament but a dissolution. The
Premier, therefore, advised His Excellency to that effect and the
general elections took place generally on the twenty-second of January,
1874. The result was a large majority for the new Government; and
nothing remained but to settle down to the work before it. There was,
however, another obstacle in the way of satisfactory legislation. A
Liberal House of Commons had been secured; but the majority in the
Senate remained Conservative although the few vacancies which occurred
were filled by Reformers like the Hon. George Brown and the Hon. R. W.
Scott. Immediately after his appointment to office Mr. Mackenzie
endeavoured to "redress the balance" by an appeal to the Crown
for power to name six additional senators under a provision made in the
British North America Act, Sec. 26. It was natural, under the
circumstances, to suppose that the Colonial Secretary, at that time a
Liberal, would at once give his consent. But Lord Kimberley peremptorily
declined on the ground that the Crown "could not be advised to take
the responsibility of interfering with the constitution of the Senate,
except upon an occasion where it had been made apparent that a
difference had arisen between the two Houses of so serious and permanent
a character that the Government could not be carried on."
It is, perhaps, doubtful
whether the addition of half a dozen Liberals would have adjusted
satisfactorily the grievance, since the casualties, which occured during
their four years’ tenure of office, left the party nevertheless a
minority in the Upper House. That Mr. Mackenzie was hampered in his
legislative efforts by the adverse attitude of the Senate was made
manifest on more occasions than one. The parliamentary Session which
opened late in March served to prove the strength of the Ministerial
majority; but, as might have been expected, nothing of great importance
was effected. One of the Government’s earliest acts naturally was to
strengthen the precautions against electoral corruption; and, in
addition to that, an attempt was made to secure a reciprocity treaty
with the United States, which, although conducted with characteristic
ability by the Hon. Mr. Brown, signally failed. Another measure of
importance was the establishment of Supreme Court for the Dominion, a
tribunal duly constituted in the following year.
With regard to the
Pacific Railway, there appears to have been a division in the Cabinet.
Mr. Blake had always been opposed to the construction of the work; but
he retired from the Government within three months. Mr. Mackenzie
impressed with the magnitude of this undertaking, proposed that instead
of handing it over to a company, the work should be let out by contract
in sections. He further advised that meanwhile advantage should be taken
of the water communication between the great lakes and the heart of the
continent. Accordingly the first move was made at the mouth of the
Kaministiquia river, which debouches into Thunder Bay at the extreme
west of Lake Superior—to be followed by other water connections
stretching towards Red River.
Simultaneously the
Finance Minister was compelled to announce an approaching deficit, and
the necessity of increasing the fiscal duties. Meanwhile the troops and
militia under Sir Garnet Wolseley had found little difficulty in
purifying the North-West of the rebel element. His march resembled
rather a dress parade under difficulties of a physical kind, rather than
active warfare. The affairs of the North-West, however, although they
were naturally a prominent feature of the period now under consideration
will be more conveniently reviewed in a subsequent chapter.
From time to time
disputes have arisen touching Dominion and Provincial jurisdiction
respectively. One of these presented itself in connection with the New
Brunswick School Law. In the British North America Act special
provisions had been made for the protection of the Catholic minority in
Canada West, and of the Protestant minority in Canada East; but no
such statutory safeguard was given in the other Provinces. The majority
in New Brunswick had made the school tax compulsory, and refused all aid
to denominational schools. An effort was made to induce the Dominion
Government to disallow the Act, but without success. The decision
arrived at was confirmed on appeal to the Judicial Committee of the
Privy Council, and the School Law went into operation. The new
Government proposed in 1875 an address to the Crown praying that Her
Majesty would use her influence with the New Brunswick Legislature on
behalf of the minority. This step was exceedingly doubtful on
constitutional grounds, but probably commended itself to Ministers for
party reasons. At all events it proved a futile measure as might have
been anticipated. The people of New Brunswick were angry at an
interference which was admittedly unjustified by law or general policy,
and, therefore maintained their old attitude. There were obviously only
two alternatives: either to veto the Act in due course, or, having
allowed it, to refrain from any further action upon the subject.
The exercise of the
prerogative in such cases is always a matter of delicacy. It is clearly
unadvisable to resort to its use, saving under exceptional
circumstances, where the subject matter of the measure falls within
Provincial jurisdiction. Still, as Mr. Todd has pointed out, the power
reserved to the Governor-General in Council has been used in more than
one case, not on account of defective jurisdiction, but simply from
general considerations of public policy. The Prince Edward Island Land
Acts, and more recently the Streams and Rivers Bill of Ontario, are
cases in point. Into this constitutional question, something may be said
hereafter; it is enough to state that as a general rule the Federal
Government will not interfere with Provincial autonomy except for
substantial cause. The right of disallowance is unquestionable; yet its
employment must necessarily be cautious and infrequent.
The negotiations
conducted with British Columbia by Mr. Edgar have already been referred
to, and need not occupy farther attention. The scheme ultimately agreed
to was marred for the time, by the rejection of the Esquimalt and
Nancimo Railway Bill in the Senate. The "better terms" both
there and in Manitoba were assented to as usual, and that is all that
need be said about the matter. In 1876 the Hon. David Laird was appointed
to the Lieutenant-Governorship of the North-West Territories, and the
Hon. Mr. Cauchon to that of Manitoba in the following year in place of
the Hon. Alex. Morris, whose term of office had expired. During 1877,
the Fishery Commission finished its labours, and Sir Alexander Galt had
the satisfaction of deciding in his country’s favour so far as
regarded compensation.
During the same year the
movement in favour of protective duties assumed form, and began to
attract public favour. There would be little utility in entering here
upon the economical question involved; still it may be well to state
concisely the issue about to be presented to the electors. The United
States, before the abrogation of the reciprocity treaty, partly from
necessity, partly from choice, levied exorbitant fiscal duties upon
goods imported from abroad. The stimulus given by protection, however,
had unquestionably injured Canadian manufactures. The people of the
Dominion were dependent upon the Americans for all but the rudest
fabrics. A country whose resources were practically unlimited was
enabled by the nursing process to outbid native Canadian producers in
their own market. Nor did our neighbours depend solely upon import
duties. By a skilfully arranged system of drawbacks and bonuses they
could throw their goods upon the market here, and, according to the
current phrase, "slaughter" it. The result, of course, was the
destruction of many industries, which were certainly as well suited to
our soil as to that of our neighbours. Capital was attracted abroad, our
citizens were driven into exile, and immigrant workmen were absorbed by
the United States. Add to these unpleasant signs of the times a serious
and wide-spread commercial depression, and there is small reason for
surprise at the political reaction soon to take place.
The Government, by wisely
retrenching all controllable expenditure, had done its utmost to relieve
public burdens; yet it was quite evident that, in view of those
undertakings to which the Dominion was pledged, there was a limit to
this economical policy. The Minister of Finance had increased the tariff
rate without marked success. Year after year, deficit followed deficit,
and although the debt was growing heavy, Canada’s credit seemed to be
seriously imperilled. It did not much matter which party was in power, a
way of escape from pressure must be found. The salient point of
difference between the two sides was simply theoretical. The Government,
taking its stand on orthodox economical principles, would listen to no
modification of the fiscal system which even glanced in the direction of
a protective policy. Free trade, subject to the necessities of the
revenue, was uncompromisingly the Liberal shibboleth. From the
exigencies of the time, it might happen that native industries would be
fostered; but any purpose to foster them was distinctly repudiated.
Protection was a heresy, except in so far as it was an incident, the
contingent result of a high tariff imposed for other reasons. The
Liberals contended, and with considerable reason, that it was a mistake
to attempt any control of the markets. To buy in the cheapist and sell
in the dearest was a cherished maxim; and if our neighbours refused to
give Canadians access to their market, it was simply following a
mistaken example to refuse them ours. We are not arguing this economical
issue, but merely stating it.
The period of depression
to which allusion has been made unquestionably predisposed the people,
irrespective of party, to favour a protective policy. Manufacturing
enterprises and even agriculture—the staple industry of the western
part of Canada—were under a cloud; and when, therefore, the Opposition
came forward with the National Policy, it was almost certain that the
electors would grasp at the gleam of hope it afforded them. This is not
the place to discuss whether they were right or wrong; or even whether
their expectations have been justified by the event. Such matters have
been discussed with ample fulness by others in speech and by pen. Our
humbler duty seems to be a record of facts, with such a representation
of diverse opinions as may enable the reader to appreciate opponents,
from their own standpoints.
When the Houses met in
February, 1878, evidences of the coming struggle were apparent. It was
not for the first time that the Opposition leader had brought fiscal
matters to the fore. In the previous Session, Sir John Macdonald
proposed a motion expressing regret that the Government, while
increasing taxation, had done so without compensating advantages to
Canadian industries. That resolution urged a modification of the tariff
with this view. Now, in the last Session of the House, he submitted an
amendment to the Address, advocating "a national policy" to
benefit and foster all the interests, agricultural, mining, and
manufacturing. The House, of course, rejected the motion by the decisive
vote of one hundred and fourteen to seventy-seven. There was some
wavering in the ranks of the majority, however, and signs of the coming
storm were not wanting in the parliamentary atmosphere.
Still the Government
firmly maintained its attitude, and appeared to feel confident that the
approaching electoral struggle would end in a signal triumph. During the
natural unrest on the eve of battle, legislation proceeded slowly.
Indeed, there seems nothing of note to record during this last session
of the third Dominion Parliament, except a matter which strictly
speaking was only of Provincial interest—the dismissal by
Lieutenant-Governor Letellier of Quebec, of his administration. The
question at issue involved a constitutional problem of no slight
importance. The De Boucherville Cabinet at Quebec undoubtedly possessed
the confidence of a legislative majority. Nevertheless the
Lieutenant-Governor dismissed them, alleging cause for so doing. He
claimed that they had treated him with disrespect by submitting to the
House measures which involved expenditure and, therefore, required his
personal sanction, without. having previously consulted him. Of his
right to dismiss his advisers there can be no doubt. The monarch or
viceroy is empowered by the principles of the constitution to select his
Ministers at pleasure, subject, however, to the necessity of finding a
Legislature which will repose confidence in them. [See Todd: Parliamentary
Government in the Colonies, pp. 406-25.] Mr. Letellier was relieved
of responsibility by Mr. Joly, who formed a new Cabinet, and at once
appealed to the people.
The case is only of
importance from its issue. Sir John Macdonald contended, with some
force, that the Lieutenant-Governor’s act constituted a violent
exercise of the prerogative, and that he ought to be dismissed. As Mr.
Todd remarks, the matter was treated on both sides as a party question.
Consequently in 1878, the Liberal majority of thirty-four rejected the
Opposition leader’s motion. In the following year the relative
positions of the parties were materially changed, and a resolution
censuring Mr. Letellier passed the new House by a majority of
eighty-five. His Excellency the Governor-General demurred to the step
proposed by his advisers, and urged that it would be wrong to dismiss
the Lieutenant-Governor "for acts for which Mr. Joly had declared
himself to be responsible to the Provincial Legislature." In short,
the Marquis of Lorne objected to the dismissal as "a dangerous
precedent." The matter was then referred to England for decision.
Mr. Jo1y desired an appeal to the Judicial Committee, but this course
the Imperial Government declined to recommend.
The controversy was
finally settled by a despatch from the Colonial Office in which Sir M.
Hicks-Beach laid down several constitutional maxims. As a general rule,
the internal affairs of the Dominion were to be left to the Government
and Parliament of Canada. A Lieutenant-Governor had an undoubted right
to dismiss his advisers, while maintaining impartiality towards rival
political parties. For any action he may take he is directly responsible
to the Governor-General; while the latter, as in all cases, must
exercise his powers by and with the advice and consent of Ministers. At
the same time it was suggested that His Excellency might fairly ask his
advisers to reconsider their decision, seeing that the removal of a
Lieutenant-Governor, before the expiration of his term of office, was a
serious step not to be lightly taken. Sir John Macdonald, a week after,
decided to insist upon the removal, and his recommendation was carried
into effect. There can be no question that constitutional heresies were
broached on both sides. Each party appears to have preferred success for
itself to sound doctrine; and consequently the matter in dispute was
decided rather from prejudice or bias than by dispassionate reason. Mr.
Letellier’s coup d’etat, as it has been called, was clearly
prompted by party motives, and his removal proceeded from a similar
source. It is much to be regretted that as contested elections are no
longer adjudicated upon by Parliamentary majorities, there is not also
some tribunal for sitting in judgment upon Lieutenant Governors. Since
Mr. Letellier was unquestionably an officer of the Dominion Government,
he was liable to be dismissed by it; yet the act would have been more
palatable if it had not been so clearly traceable to party feeling. From
the dismissal of M. de Boucherville to the removal of the
Lieutenant-Governor on account of it, every act on both sides was
tainted with partizanship.
Before the termination of
this controversy, the general election had taken place on the 17th
of September, 1878. There is probably some reason for a belief that the
result was a surprise to the Opposition as well as to the Government.
The causes already referred to had evidently produced much discontent in
the ranks of those who usually supported Mr. Mackenzie. As generally
happens—for public movements are seldom altogether the offspring of
reason—Ministers were unfairly blamed for much which could not be laid
to their account. The weight of commercial depression was seriously
felt; and like Enceladus under Etna, the electorate longed to secure
ease by turning over upon the other side. Many circumstances served to
aid the reaction; and when the lists were in, the Opposition found
itself triumphant by a substantial majority of more than eighty. The
Province of Ontario, which had hitherto been a Liberal stronghold,
contributed more than one-half of this majority. Mr. Mackenzie, in
accordance with recent usage in England, did not await the formal
meeting of the House of Commons, but handed in his resignation on the
5th of October.
Sir John Macdonald had
lost his alter ego, Sir George Cartier, only a few months before
he resigned in 1873, and felt his bereavement severely. He at once
formed an Administration, however, and assumed his old seat on the
Government benches. The Ministers he associated with himself so far as
the purposes of his work are concerned, have been noticed in other
pages. When the new House assembled early in 1879, there were two
matters of supreme importance to engage the attention of legislators.
The electorate had given a decisive verdict in favour of the National
policy, and it was now a necessary part of the Finance Minister’s duty
to formulate that policy and carry it into practical effect in a new
tariff. Sir Leonard Tilley did not shrink from the task. He at once laid
before the Commons a fresh scale of duties specially framed, not merely
to yield increased revenue, but also to protect native industries. The
present Government succeeded to office at a fortunate
juncture. The turning point between depression and prosperity was
reached shortly after they had been comfortably seated; and whether the
tariff proposed was to be the cause of an impetus to Canadian progress
or not, it was sure, under altered circumstances, to be a concomitant of
it.
From the moment when the
Finance Minister opened his first Budget until now, both parties have
been perpetually disputing as to the amount of credit to be given to the
National Policy. Naturally there has been great exaggeration on either
hand. The Opposition insists that the tariff has not only been
unproductive of good, but wrought positive harm to the Dominion. It is
contended that, with the return of prosperity, matters would have
righted themselves, without the imposition of new taxes. On the other
hand, evidence; more or less admissible, is adduced to show that not
only have old industries been revived, but new ones created, because of
the new fiscal policy. It would be difficult, perhaps impossible, to
strike a fair balance between statements so hopelessly conflicting in
the absence of trustworthy data. That the tide of Canadian prosperity
has risen amazingly during the past three years seems beyond dispute;
what is the main cause of this, however, can hardly be settled with
confidence. The truth, supposing it ascertainable, possibly will be
found to lie in medio. It is natural that the party in power
should assign an exaggerated importance to the tariff; equally natural
that the Opposition should seek some other explanation of obvious facts.
That the National Policy
was adopted at a moment eminently favourable to its success is generally
admitted. Still, after making all necessary deductions and, placing them
to the score of good fortune, it certainly seems that much of the credit
must be conceded to it. Whether persistence in it will prove
advantageous to the community is another question upon which it would be
unwise to enter. Certainly as a temporary measure adopted to secure a
firm and solid foundation for active industry, it appears to have
been a success. Indeed, were it otherwise, as Mr. Mackenzie has frankly
avowed, it would be neither just nor prudent to reverse it abruptly. It
is too early even yet to pass a decisive verdict upon the tariff of
1879, and all that can be expected from the present or any future
Government is a wise relief from the more galling burdens of taxation
when the growing necessities of expenditure, and the more robust vigour
of Canadian manufactures will permit. For the present, it is evident
that, apart from economic predilections, a larger revenue must be
collected, or a serious increase made to the public debt; and now that
the Dominion can afford the sacrifice, it is better to make it, rather
than suffer when the national back is infirm, and its recuperative power
less certain.
|
