THE election which
brought Macdonald into parliament was very distinctly connected with
the struggle for the establishment of responsible government. The
theory of that system, understood to have been recommended by Lord
Durham, had, it was generally assumed, been accepted by the imperial
government in framing the Union Act of 1840. But it proved more easy
to have the principle of responsible government adopted in theory
than fully carried out in practice. Even Lord Sydenham, who had been
sent out to complete the work of union, found it difficult to
believe that a governor-general could be responsible to the
government at home and also to the legislature of the colony, but
nevertheless he so far concealed his doubts as to gain credit at the
time for being a true disciple of Lord Durham.
When Lord Sydenham
was cut off by a premature death in September, 1841, he was
succeeded by Sir Charles Bagot, under whose management progress was
made in strengthening the power of the assembly. Recognizing the
necessity of governing through men who enjoyed public confidence, he
introduced the Reform leaders, Mr. Baldwin and Mr. LaFontaine, into
the administration, though without formally placing its control in
their hands. It was a serious blow to continuity of policy when Sir
Charles Bagot was compelled by ill-health to resign the post of
governor-general after having held it only one year. His successor,
Sir Charles Metcalfe, was a man of high principle and patriotic
purpose, but of less tact than his two predecessors. His ideas of
government had been derived chiefly from service in tropical
countries, where a large dependent population was to be kept under
control. In both the East and West Indies he had filled important
posts and had acquitted himself with great credit. But the training
thus received was not the best preparation for the duties of a
constitutional ruler, and still less for inaugurating a system
professedly founded on new ideas in colonial administration. While
admitting that his advisers should be taken from those who commanded
the confidence of parliament, he strenuously resisted the claim of
his advisers that the royal patronage in the matter of appointments
to office should be regarded and used as an instrument for the
advancement of party interests. The result was that the Reform
members of the government which he found in power, headed by Mr.
Robert Baldwin and Mr. LaFontaine, resigned in the autumn of 1843 in
consequence of his having appointed a certain person to a local
office without their advice or consent. As the resigning ministers
commanded an overwhelming majority in parliament, and as the
governor-general remained fixed in his opinion that to accede to
their demands would not only impair the dignity of the Crown, but
lower the tone of public life, the constitutional difficulty seemed
well-nigh insuperable.
The conflict which
followed evoked the greatest bitterness of party feeling, and put a
severe strain upon the whole system of government. The
governor-general's first attempts to form a new administration
failed, and for a short time he had the assistance of only a single
minister, Mr. Dominick Daly. A little later he secured the powerful
aid of Mr. (afterwards chief-justice) Draper, of Upper Canada, and
that of Mr. Viger, representing Lower Canada. For some time the
government was carried on by means of this skeleton of a regular
cabinet. Meanwhile party passion was stirred to its depths
throughout the country. Reformers denounced Sir Charles Metcalfe as
a despot; the Conservative party acclaimed him as the upholder of
the true balance of the constitution. Behind the diatribes, inspired
mainly by party feeling, which pictured opponents of either side as
unscrupulous or malignant, it is possible now in the cold light of
history to recognize the sincerity of conviction in both parties to
this great struggle. While the memories of rebellion were still
fresh and its embers still smouldering—when men who had taken part
in the late uprising continued to wield great popular influence, and
while much doubt existed as to the motives or aims of the extreme
men of the Reform party, it is little wonder that Conservatives as a
whole looked to the representative of the Crown as the true
safeguard of their most valued traditions, and so rallied to his
support. There is a type of mind, and that not the least worthy of
respect, which rates loyalty as high as liberty.
The iron of the
American revolution, from which they or their fathers had suffered
so much, rankled in the hearts of the United Empire Loyalists, and
they dreaded, more than anything else, a repetition in their new
country of what had taken place in the old colonies. On the other
hand, the constitutional argument of the Reformers was sound and
their ideal inspiring. In their ranks were men whose ability was
combined with genuine sincerity of purpose. In the end they
triumphed, but they would have triumphed more speedily had not the
violence of followers thrown doubt upon the loyalty of their
purpose. The one redeeming feature in this great struggle lay in the
fact that it compelled the combatants to clearly think out their
political principles.
For almost nine
months Sir Charles Metcalfe carried on the government with the few
ministers who were found willing to take office without adequate
support in the legislature. Then, in the autumn of 1844, having
watched the development of opinion in Western Canada and judging the
moment favourable, he determined to appeal to the people. After a
bitterly contested struggle it was found when the smoke of battle
had cleared away that, notwithstanding the almost solid opposition
of the French-Canadians, the governor and his administration had
been supported by a small majority.
The new parliament,
of which Macdonald was now a member, met in Montreal on November
28th, 1844. Although Lord Metcalfe and his administration had been
sustained in the election, the division of parties was so close in
the first session that, even on critical questions, ministers only
maintained themselves in power by a majority of six votes at the
utmost, and often less. The principal parties themselves were
divided into groups which rendered still more unstable this balance
of power. Already could be seen approaching the shadow of that
deadlock which was later to hasten the development of Canadian
institutions. The atmosphere in which the young politician moved was
one of the utmost uncertainty; one in which personal jealousies,
racial prejudices and the clash of conflicting political theories
combined to create a situation from which it was difficult to say
what might emerge.
In reality it was a
period of transition. Old conceptions of government were slowly
dying—new ones were struggling towards birth. The imperial
parliament, as has been said before, had recognized the theory of
responsible government; yet the representatives of the Crown
hesitated to give it full play. Subsequent events appear to indicate
that this hesitation was a mistake, but there was much to excuse it.
The memory of 1837, the year which saw treasonable utterances
followed by treasonable acts, was still fresh in men's minds. It was
kept fresh by the reckless expressions of extreme men in the Reform
party by which doubt was cast upon the high aims of the leaders of
the party, themselves loyal men, such as LaFontaine and Baldwin. The
high-handed course, as many regarded it, of Sir Charles Metcalfe, in
neglecting the advice of his constitutional advisers, and afterwards
in governing the country by a ministry which did not possess the
confidence of parliament, could only be justified on the ground of
necessity; but the popular vote which followed his appeal to the
people showed that a large section of the community, and of that
portion of it particularly which was most interested in political
problems as such, felt that arbitrary government was not the only
danger that might threaten the State. It seemed that party, drawing
everything to itself and using the patronage of the Crown for the
solidifying of its power, might in the end prove a more
conscienceless and far more costly tyranny than any that could
reasonably be apprehended from a personal governor. To many the real
question of the hour appeared to be whether enough time had elapsed
since the Rebellion of 1837 to justify the application in its
fullest sense of the principle of responsible government.
Macdonald's election
address, as already mentioned, lays special stress on the
maintenance of the imperial connection. That it was threatened from
different quarters, as he suggests, is evident from the records of
the time. A small wing of the Reform party favoured annexation to
the United States; another advocated an independent republic; a
section of the French population remained irreconcilable in its
objection to British rule. Under the circumstances we cannot wonder
that, whatever principles of government were alleged to be at stake,
there were those who made it their first duty to stand by the
queen's representative.
The Conservative
government which Macdonald had been elected to support was not only
without a large majority in the legislature, but was not in itself
strong. Its guiding spirit and ablest member, Mr. W. H. Draper, was
in the Upper House. The ministers who had seats in the Lower House
had not learned the necessity for united action and mutual support,
and not infrequently were found opposing each other in debate and
even in divisions. So great was the consequent party disorganization
that Mr. Draper was finally compelled to resign his place in the
council and seek a seat in the assembly, in order that he might
exercise more effective leadership. Even there his task was scarcely
less difficult. The French representatives of Lower Canada were
combined with the Radicals of Upper Canada in opposition. One event
of the session is noteworthy as illustrating the shifts to which
parties were driven to maintain their position. The Union Act of
1840 provided that all the proceedings of the legislature should be
printed in the English language only. This was felt to be a hardship
by Lower Canadians, few of whom knew any language but French. In
order to strengthen their French alliance, the Radicals of Upper
Canada had planned to propose the removal of this restriction,
counting upon getting the credit for the change if the motion were
carried, or on having a cry against the government should it oppose
the motion. In some way the Opposition plan leaked out, and
ministers prepared with the utmost secrecy to cut the ground from
under their feet by bringing in the proposal as a government
measure. This they did, much to the surprise and chagrin of their
opponents.
For three sessions
the Draper government managed, though with frequent cabinet changes,
to hold its own. During this time Lord Metcalfe, to give him the
title bestowed upon him in 1845, had resigned, worn out by the
terrible disease from which he had long suffered. He left Canada in
November of that year, and was succeeded for a short period by Lord
Cathcart, commander-in-chief of the forces in Canada.
For the first few
sessions Macdonald took little part in the discussions of the
legislature. "Scarcely five speeches in five sessions " was his own
account of himself. It would seem that he had no inclination to take
a leading part in the fierce political frays by which this period
was distinguished, but preferred to feel his way towards some solid
ground of political conduct. One who remembered him in those days
describes him, amid the disputes going on around him, as "looking
half careless and half contemptuous. Sometimes in the thick of the
melee he was busy in and out of the library. I scarce ever remember
then seeing him about the House that he was not searching up some
case either then impending or to come up at a later date. He was for
a great part of his time, too, buried in a study of constitutional
history." His example of speaking little, but quietly making himself
familiar with parliamentary forms and business, and establishing a
position for himself by assiduous attention to the ordinary duties
of a member, may well be recommended to young members fresh from the
excitement of the hustings, and inclined to attach an exaggerated
value to their own parliamentary utterances. How strong a position
he was making for himself soon became apparent.
At the close of the
session of 1846 we find Mr. Draper advising the governor-general
that reconstruction of the ministry is necessary, giving as a reason
the lack of loyalty and steady support on the part of some of his
most prominent colleagues during the previous sessions. In his
difficulty he turns to Macdonald as one already able to assist him
in an exceptional way and recommends him to the governor-general,
Lord Cathcart, for office in the following terms:-
"In reference to the
situation of commissioner of Crown lands, Mr. Draper humbly submits
that a man of activity of mind, and familiar with business details,
is imperatively required in the department. Mr. Draper would think a
great advantage gained if Mr. J. A. Macdonald, the member for
Kingston, would take the office."
In his reply the
governor-general says that he "has a very high opinion of Mr. J. A.
Macdonald, and his appointment to office in the administration would
afford him much satisfaction." This correspondence took place in
June, 1846, but circumstances intervened to prevent the immediate
carrying out of the proposal thus made.
Soon after the
arrival of Lord Elgin, early in 1847, Mr. Draper writes to urge the
young member to come to Montreal in order that the new governor may
hear "from others than executive councillors the state of parties,"
and expressing complete confidence in his "judgment and discretion."
It is extremely significant, and interesting also, to find that he
looks to Macdonald's presence to counteract in Lord Elgin "the
feelings of distrust that mistaking ultra-Toryism for Conservatism
(i.e. selfishness for patriotism) might give rise to." The
distinction here drawn seems to prove conclusively that neither
Draper nor Macdonald, Conservatives though they certainly were,
sympathized with the political creed of the so-called Family
Compact. If further proof were needed it is found in a letter of May
6th, 1847, from the Hon. W. Morris, urging him not to refuse the
office of receiver-general. Mr. Morris says, . . . "If you will not
put your shoulder to the wheel, you assist those who, it may be,
desire to regain power which you and I helped to deprive them of: I
mean the 'family.'"
The correspondence at
this period indicates clearly that Macdonald was in no hurry to gain
a place in the ministry, but only took office finally as a matter of
public duty. He became receiver-general in May, 1847, and so began
the official career which was destined to continue so long. In the
general reconstruction of the government which took place at this
time, Mr. Draper, who through these critical years had acted as its
acknowledged head, accepted a judgeship and withdrew from public
life. The great abilities and lofty character which had enabled him
to conduct the affairs of the country through a peculiarly trying
period, continued to dignify his career upon the bench, where he
attained and held until his death the position of chief-justice. The
fact that such a man, not extreme in his Conservative views, devoted
to the interests of his country and with the highest personal sense
of honour, should have given steady support to Sir Charles Metcalfe
through the stormy period of his rule, proves that the political
arguments of the day were not all on one side, as certain writers
have been disposed to represent them.
Mr. Henry Sherwood
succeeded to the nominal leadership of the party, as a concession to
its extreme Tory wing. The reconstructed ministry, known as the
Sherwood-Daly government, had but a short life. Two critical
questions chiefly absorbed its attention. The first was that of
university endowment, then as keenly disputed a question as even
that of the Clergy Reserves. Macdonald himself believed that the
defeat of the government in the coming elections was certain unless
this difficulty could be settled. Writing to Mr. Morris on May
9th,1847, when accepting the office of receiver-general, he adds: "I
suppose Mr. Draper will, whatever happens, remain in the ministry
till the end of the session; and it appears to me that, with him in
the House of Assembly, and yourself in the L. C., some disposition
of the university question might be made, which would be
satisfactory to the country, and at the same time remove a great
stumbling block from our path. Many questions of more real
importance may arise, but none which operates more strongly on the
principles or prejudices of the public, and if the Conservatives
hope to retain power, they must settle it before the general
election."
His idea of a
satisfactory settlement was then, as so often in later life with
respect to other questions, conceived in a large spirit of
compromise, and he succeeded in impressing his views upon his
colleagues. The administration proposed to take over King's College,
hitherto controlled entirely by the Church of England, and, in
founding a university, to subsidize the Church of England college to
the extent of £3,000 a year; and the Presbyterian College at
Kingston, the Roman Catholic College at the same place and the
Wesleyan College at Cobourg each with half that sum annually. This
proposal was satisfactory to the Presbyterians, Roman Catholics and
Methodists, and was at first accepted by Dr. Strachan, then at the
head of King's College, as a reasonable compromise. Macdonald
accordingly introduced a bill to give effect to the scheme, but at
the last moment Dr. Strachan withdrew his consent and the bill was
dropped. The position of the government was greatly weakened by this
inability to carry out its own policy.
Macdonald always
attributed to the obstinacy of Dr. Strachan the serious results for
the Church of England, as well as for the government, which followed
upon the failure of this measure. On the overthrow of the government
and the accession to power of the Reform party under Mr. Baldwin and
Mr. LaFontaine, King's College and its property were secularized,
becoming the University of Toronto; and Dr. Strachan was compelled
to raise with painful effort the means for founding a new Anglican
university. That the University of Trinity College has fully
justified its existence few will doubt, but it may fairly be
questioned whether the Church would not have gained in power,
without the sacrifice of principle, if it had accepted at this
critical time the guidance of the practical politician rather than
that of the unyielding cleric.
The spirit of
reasonable compromise has now, after the lapse of more than half a
century, prevailed, and the fact that the goal of a great university
for Ontario with affiliated denominational colleges, has at length
been reached, appears to prove the wisdom of Macdonald's policy in
1847.
In Lower Canada the
outlook for the Conservative party was even worse. There the
complicated question of compensation for losses incurred during the
rebellion had become of paramount interest, and had made the French
voters almost a unit in opposition to a ministry which was not
prepared to meet their demands.
The result was that
when the dissolution came in the last days of 1847, the government
to which Macdonald belonged met with overwhelming defeat at the
polls, though he himself secured his seat at Kingston. The
Conservative party, shattered by its own divisions and without any
leader with the capacity to organize and hold it together, went into
opposition with an exceedingly dreary outlook. Several years were to
elapse before the organizing ability and political genius of one of
its youngest members were to give it new cohesion and new vitality.
Meanwhile, in
opposition and associated with an unpopular party, he was to receive
the discipline of patience, self-control and careful study of
political principles and popular opinion, on which alone great
parliamentary capacity and success can be established. Through the
tedious years of party strife and intrigue which followed, Macdonald
often thought of withdrawing from political life. A flood of light
is thrown upon his attitude of mind by a letter written to him by
his friend, Alexander Campbell, in March, 1855, and printed in Mr.
Pope's memoirs of his chief. Speaking with all the intimacy of
private friendship, Campbell says: "You will remember that
throughout your long apparently hopeless opposition I always
deprecated your retirement from parliament, as you often threatened
to do. . . You were never so desponding as to prospects political as
before and during the last canvass and election here. The disgusting
electioneering arts you felt compelled to resort to, the defeat of
many of your schemes as to candidates, the defection of some who
promised to stand . . . the defeat at the polls of many others . . .
all these influenced you . . . do you recollect? 'The party is
nowhere—damned everlastingly. I will go down and get the Bank Bill
passed and retire. I am resolved upon it.' And now you rule Canada;
what a change!" Macdonald at this date held the position of
attorney-general west in the government of Sir Allan MacNab, and was
generally recognized as the most important man in the cabinet.
The Reform party came
into power in February, 1848, with the support of every French
constituency in Quebec and a smaller but sufficient majority from
Upper Canada. With Mr. LaFontaine as leader from the Lower Province
and 11Ir. Baldwin from the Upper, an administration was formed which
continued in office for more than three years. That period proved a
turning-point not only in Canadian, but in all colonial history.
Four years before, under Lord Metcalfe, the two leaders had, as we
have seen, resigned office on a question which they believed to
involve the essential principle of responsible government. Now they
returned to office, not merely with the endorsement of the popular
vote but with a governor-general at the head of affairs who was bent
upon giving their party a fair trial. Lord Elgin had come to his
post with a fixed determination, the result of mature deliberation,
to put into practice, without reservation of any kind, the principle
of responsible government, that is, to be guided in his
administration of the country by the will of the people as expressed
through a majority in the legislature. Before leaving England he had
carefully discussed the whole question with the colonial secretary,
Lord Grey, who had shown him the despatch sent to Sir John Harvey,
then governor of Nova Scotia, in which the operation of the
principle was clearly and exhaustively considered.
To Lord Elgin the
empire owes a peculiar debt of gratitude for having finally
established this great principle, which harmonizes colonial autonomy
with an imperial system. But in accomplishing this task his
resolution was subjected to a test under which the courage and
endurance of a weaker man would have broken down. One of the first
acts of the new administration was to bring in what was known as the
Rebellion Losses Bill. To understand the situation created by the
introduction of that bill the antecedent circumstances must be
recalled.
The rebellion in both
provinces had been put down in 1838; Lord Durham's report had been
made in 1839; the Act of Union was put into effect on February 10th,
1841. Soon after the provinces were united, an Act had been passed
to provide compensation "to certain loyal inhabitants who had
suffered losses by the destruction of property at the hands of the
rebels during the suppression of the rebellion." This Act was at
first only applied to losses incurred in Upper Canada, and the funds
were supplied exclusively from Upper Canadian sources.
In Lower Canada the
special council also made, by ordinance, partial provision for
recompensing Loyalists for property destroyed by rebels. But under
neither of these arrangements was provision made for compensating
those whose property had been either purposely or incidentally
destroyed by the authorities who were engaged in suppressing the
rebellion. An Act, passed immediately after the union in 1841,
extended the right of compensation to these cases, but only in Upper
Canada. No move was made to deal with the claims in Lower Canada
till February, 1845, when the assembly passed an address to the
governor-general, Sir Charles Metcalfe, asking that means should be
taken "in order to insure to the inhabitants of that part of the
province formerly Lower Canada, indemnity for just losses during the
rebellion of 1837 and 1838." Commissioners were accordingly
appointed with instructions "to enquire into the losses sustained by
Her Majesty's loyal subjects, in that part of the province of Canada
which formerly constituted the province of Lower Canada, during the
late unnatural rebellion.... and arising and growing out of the said
rebellion." Distinction was here made between those who had aided
the rebellion and those who had not. On applying for more particular
instructions from the governor-general as to the methods of making
this distinction the commissioners were told that it was not His
Excellency's intention that the commissioners should be guided by
any other description of evidence than that furnished by the courts
of law. The commission reported in 1846, presenting a list of 2,176
applicants for compensation who claimed 9241,965 in all. The opinion
was added that many of these claims were inadmissible, and that
£100,000 would be sufficient to meet all that were reasonable. Many
of the applications for extravagant compensation were made by
persons deeply engaged in the rebellion. The Draper government which
had appointed the commission, apparently to conciliate French
feeling, took no action on this report, and the matter was allowed
to drift. The opportunity thus given to their opponents to hold out
the hope of compensation as a lure to the French voters of Lower
Canada greatly contributed to the success of the Reform party in
1848. The new ministry was bound to realize the expectation of its
followers, and so the famous Rebellion Losses Bill was duly
presented to the legislature. The Act proposed to extend
compensation to the Lower Province, and to all sufferers except
persons actually convicted of high treason, or those who, on their
own confession of rebellion, had been transported to Bermuda and
consequently had no sentence standing against them. The great
majority of the rebels had never been brought to trial ; and so
loyal men who had risked their lives and made the greatest
sacrifices to crush the rebellion had now to face the possibility of
paying to a large number of rebels what seemed to them a public
reward for disloyalty. On the other hand the government, and later
the governor-general, took the ground that the action of the Draper
administration had made this further step inevitable. The proposal
was fiercely debated in the legislature, and still more fiercely
throughout the country. Macdonald took an active part in opposing
the bill, denouncing it as shameful in principle, protesting against
the introduction of so important a measure without full notice, and
also against the unseemly haste with which it was pushed through the
legislature without adequate explanation of the real intentions of
the government. So vehement was the discussion, and so strongly
personal the language used in debate, that Macdonald sent a hostile
message to Solicitor-general Blake, for which he was promptly taken
into custody by the sergeant-at-arms. Finally by a vote of
forty-seven to eighteen the bill passed the Lower House, while in
the legislative council the division stood twenty to eighteen.
All eyes were now
turned upon the governor-general in whose power it was to assent to
the bill, reserve it for the consideration of the imperial
government, or, refusing assent, to dissolve parliament in order to
secure a direct popular decision upon the question. Lord Elgin
weighed these alternatives with the utmost care. About the actual
merits of the bill he did not feel called upon to decide; indeed he
is said to have described it as "a questionable measure." In his
eyes the real issue was the constitutional one. Was a parliamentary
majority to be recognized as expressing the will of the people?
An analysis of the
vote showed that there was a majority in favour of the bill in both
provinces, which, considering the constitution of the assembly and
the solidarity of interest existing between the government and its
supporters was not surprising. In Upper Canada out of thirty-one who
voted on the third reading seventeen were for and fourteen against;
in Lower Canada the French vote was a unit, which of itself gave a
decisive majority, while of the ten members of British birth six
voted for and four against the bill. A more conclusive test case in
constitutional government cannot well be imagined. But people were
not calmly considering the matter from a constitutional point of
view. Even before the bill had been passed petitions had poured in
from every side praying for its reservation or for a dissolution.
Lord Elgin was convinced, rightly or wrongly, that there was not the
slightest prospect of a new election changing the balance of
parties. He thought it would be pusillanimous in himself to adopt
the alternative course of reservation, since he would thus be
throwing upon the imperial government a responsibility which it was
his own business as governor-general to assume. So, after mature
consideration, he came down to parliament and gave his consent to
the bill. Everybody was aware that the political atmosphere was in a
high state of tension, but no one foresaw the violence of the storm
which now burst upon the head of the governor-general. His carriage
was pelted as he left the parliament buildings; on the same night
the buildings themselves, with the valuable records which they
contained, were destroyed by fire—the work of an infuriated mob. The
riots continued for several days, and much additional damage was
done. The governor-general, though attacked and insulted a second
time when he entered the city to receive an address of confidence
and sympathy from the legislative body, resolutely declined military
protection, declared that no drop of blood should be shed in giving
him protection, and patiently awaited the justification of his
course which time was to bring. The common sense of the people soon
began to reassert itself, and addresses sent from many parts of the
country showed Lord Elgin that he had the support of a large body of
the electors. Responsible government had in a very real sense
received its baptism of fire and stood the test.
Two or three
significant results of this reprehensible and disastrous outbreak
are to be recorded. In the first place Montreal ceased to be the
seat of government. It was generally conceded that it would be wrong
to subject the executive and parliament to further risk of being
exposed to such outrages. Another troublesome question was thus
introduced into the politics of the country. The keenest rivalry at
once arose among the other Canadian cities to gain the place which
Montreal had forfeited. Kingston had for over three years after the
union been the capital, and Macdonald as its representative now made
vigorous efforts to have the old dignity restored. The greater
influence of Quebec and Toronto prevailed, but so keen was the
struggle between these two centres that it was found necessary to
divide the honour, and for sixteen years the sessions of parliament
shifted at intervals of four years from one to the other. This
inconvenient and costly arrangement which, however, may have had
some indirect advantages in enlarging the views and diminishing the
prejudices of the members of the legislature, lasted till the year
1865, when the seat of government was finally removed to Ottawa.
The excitement of the
public mind outlasted the days of riot, and the tide of popular
passion found outlets for itself in two widely different directions.
A considerable number of the leading citizens of Montreal,
influenced partly by what they considered the disastrous legislation
lately passed—partly by the extreme commercial depression then
prevailing throughout the country in consequence of England's
adoption of a free trade policy, which deprived them of the
preference in British markets to which they had been
accustomed—issued a manifesto in which was advocated a friendly
separation from the mother country and annexation to the United
States. The men who signed this manifesto had mostly been the
strictest Loyalists in the dark days of rebellion; many of them
became in later life the vigorous champions of imperial connection;
and so this famous document must be looked upon rather as an
outbreak of petulance under provocation and excitement than as the
serious purpose of men who had carefully thought out the situation.
Strongly as Macdonald had felt in regard to the recent course of
events, he refused to join in this annexation declaration, though
pressed to do so, and though many of his political associates were
concerned in it. On the other hand, a saner movement, which looked
to constructive statesmanship as a remedy for the ills from which
the country suffered, enlisted his entire sympathy. The British
American League was formed in Montreal, and soon branches were
established in many parts of the country. Permanent connection with
the mother country, the union of all the North American colonies,
protection to home industries, and economy in public expenditure
were the chief features in the policy of the League, as the first
three, at least, subsequently became the distinctive aims of the
great party which Macdonald led. The new association formed a safety
valve for the effervescence of the time; discussion of public
questions on a more rational basis went on; and it was not long
before all thought of annexation, even in Montreal, had entirely
died away.
The commissioners
appointed under the Rebellion Losses Act carried out their work with
strict moderation, and without recognizing the extravagant claims of
those who had taken part in the rebellion. The government was
severely blamed for not making its policy clear in this regard and
not taking steps to guard against the threatened riot. Lord Elgin
soon after made a tour through Upper Canada, and received many
proofs that, however much the course of the government was
criticized, the sober second judgment of the people endorsed the
position which he had taken. It is of interest to note that when the
subject of the Rebellion Losses Bill came up for consideration in
the British parliament, the division of opinion was almost as
striking there as in Canada itself. Lord Lyndhurst came down to the
House of Lords at the close of his great career to denounce the bill
as placing a premium upon disloyalty, and he was supported in this
view by the fiery eloquence of Lord Brougham. The same attitude was
taken in the House of Commons by Mr. Gladstone and other conspicuous
members of parliament, but the government of the day, led by Lord
John Russell, steadily supported the action of Lord Elgin and
bestowed on him decisive marks of approval.
There is evidence
that in this fierce conflict of opinion Macdonald acted as a
moderating force. One of the many meetings to protest against the
bill and against the action of the governor-general was held in his
own constituency of Kingston. The resolutions passed and the
speeches made on this occasion have been collected from the press
reports of the time. The resolutions were strong; the speeches
vehement and uncompromising. But it was only towards the close of
the meeting that Macdonald, who had hitherto taken no part in the
proceedings, came forward in response to a general demand for a
speech. He said that he had been listening carefully to the
discussion in order that, as their representative, he might hear the
free expression of their opinion upon the state of the country
rather than to prescribe any particular course to them. While
expressing his general agreement with the terms of the resolutions
and the sentiments of the speakers, he directed his remarks chiefly
to an arraignment of the general policy of the government. If we
remember that in later life he reckoned among the members of
cabinets which served under him men who had taken a prominent part
in the Rebellion of 1837, and at the same time men who had signed
the annexation manifesto of 1849, we can understand what his
moderating and conciliating influence had yet to accomplish. In 1840
Lord Sydenham had written: "I am satisfied that the mass of the
people are sound—moderate in their demands, and attached to British
institutions—but they have been oppressed by a miserable little
oligarchy on the one hand and excited by a few factious demagogues
on the other. I can make a middle reforming party, I feel sure,
which will put down both." What was a hope and an aspiration in Lord
Sydenham, Macdonald was to translate into fact.
The remark that
"Canada is a difficult country to govern" has often been attributed
to him. His glory is that he made the task less difficult by
peaceful means. France was a hard country to govern when Catholic
and Huguenot faced each other—arms in hand—in almost every city and
province, and met on many a battlefield. Blood flowed like water in
those earlier days before solution was found for the troubles of the
State. All honour to Macdonald, Cartier and the statesmen of Canada
who, confronted with equal divergence of religious conviction, and
equal vehemence of political passion, were yet able to reconcile the
conflicting elements, and, without the shedding of blood, to make it
possible for two races to live side by side in harmony, and for two
forms of religious belief to be fair to one another.
The Reform party had
come into power in 1848 with an overwhelming majority, but as has
often happened in parallel cases, lines of cleavage soon began to
appear. In passing the Rebellion Losses Bill and in successfully
asserting the theory of responsible government, the reforming energy
of the leading spirits of the party had largely spent itself.
Perhaps it would be more correct to say that the exercise of power
had deepened in them the sense of responsibility. Certain it is that
Mr. Baldwin and Mr. LaFontaine, taught moderation possibly by the
violence of the agitation through which the country had passed,
declined to push forward other measures which the more extreme
followers of their party considered essential reforms. One more Act
of importance, however, was passed in the session of 1849. Mr.
Baldwin introduced a bill which abolished the faculty of theology in
King's College, and by amending the charter created the University
of Toronto as an institution of secular learning alone. Macdonald
opposed this measure, and again brought forward, as an alternative
solution of the question, his plan of 1847, which provided for the
concurrent endowment of the denominational colleges. With the large
majority behind him Mr. Baldwin had no difficulty in carrying his
measure.
In 1850 the
prosperity of the country, which had been greatly checked by the
loss of a preference in British markets consequent on the adoption
of a free trade policy, began to revive. It was an era of railway
building, and in this work the government assisted not without
energy. In 1849 the negotiations had been begun which, after many
years and many mishaps, ended in the construction of the Grand Trunk
and finally the Intercolonial Railway. In 1851 a steamship service
between Canada and Great Britain was subsidized. In 1854, largely
through the tact of Lord Elgin, a treaty of reciprocity in natural
products was entered into with the United States, and proved of
great value to both countries. By this treaty questions which
afterwards became dominating factors in Canadian politics were held
in abeyance for several years.
But while Canada
revived and was in great measure transformed by these improvements,
the political difficulties of the government increased daily. Two
important sections of their followers split off. The breath of the
revolution of 1848 had blown upon Lower Canada, and a band of
brilliant young men, led by Antoine Dorion, clustered around the
veteran Papineau in a desperate conflict against the almost
unlimited political domination of the priesthood. In the policy of
this Parti Rouge, as they came to be known, there was much that was
noble, and not a little that was chimerical. The story of their
endeavours is told at length in Mr. Willison's Life of Sir Wilfrid
Laurier. It is enough to say here that those who survived came out
of the battle shorn of all that was chimerical, and perhaps
something of what was noble.
In Upper Canada the
same struggle against clerical influence had much to do with
creating what became known as the Clear Grit party. The early
platform of this party was in part directed to reasonable reforms—in
part to what was almost revolutionary. While it embodied much
justified resistance to privilege, the movement in Ontario soon
assumed a religious and racial aspect which aroused the keenest
animosities. The opponents of the Clear Grits were soon able to
fasten on them the epithets of "anti-Catholic" and "anti-French." On
the one hand this prevented them from full fraternization with the
Rouges of Quebec; on the other, even the modified alliance which was
maintained handicapped still more seriously Dorion and his
followers, by enabling the clericals to accuse them of hostility not
only to their religion but to the liberties and privileges of their
native province.
But it was not merely
by internal divisions that the Reform party was weakened. Early in
1851 Mr. Baldwin resigned, nominally in consequence of a vote of the
Ontario members in the a legislature favouring the abolition of the
Court of Chancery which he had established; really, in all
probability, because he found himself out of sympathy with a large
section of his party. Later in the year Mr. LaFontaine accepted a
seat on the bench. They had achieved the great constitutional ends
for which they had laboured. They could no longer satisfy their
extreme followers. They perhaps did not feel themselves the men to
carry out the policy of railway construction which was becoming
necessary. The Liberal government was therefore reorganized towards
the close of the year 1851, under Mr. (afterwards Sir Francis)
Hincks, an able and eminently practical financier, and Mr. A. N.
Morin, and became known as the Hincks-Morin administration. But
Morin refused to conciliate the Rouges and Hincks proved too
moderate for the Grits. Amid ever-increasing difficulties they
struggled on till September, 1854, when they were defeated on a
technicality and resigned. The real cause of their downfall was the
question, at once religious and political, of the Clergy Reserves.
The history of this question, of the men and circumstances which
forced it to the front, and of its solution must be dealt with in a
separate chapter.
Note—See page 33.
It is well to
remember that it was not in Canada or by Canadians alone that the
principles of responsible government were in those critical days
being thought out. Never perhaps have they been more accurately
stated than in the despatch here referred to.Sir John Harvey had
asked for definite direction at a constitutional crisis when
vacancies in a weak executive council were to be filled up. Lord
Grey's reply, under date November 3rd, 1846, shows the clear
guidance that came from Downing Street itself to support those
working for true responsible government. He says:—
"I am of opinion that
under all the circumstances of the case, the best course for you to
adopt is to call upon the members of your present executive council
to propose to you the names of the gentlemen whom they would
recommend to supply the vacancies which I understand to exist in the
present board. If they should be successful in submitting to you an
arrangement to which no valid objection arises, you will of course
continue to carry on the government through them, so long as it may
be possible to do so satisfactorily, and as they possess the
necessary support from the legislature. Should the present council
fail in proposing to you an arrangement which it would be proper for
you to accept, it would then be your natural course, in conformity
with the practice in analogous cases in this country, to apply to
the opposite party; and should you be able, through their
assistance, to form a satisfactory council, there will be no
impropriety in dissolving the assembly upon their advice; such a
measure, under those circumstances, being the only mode of escaping
from the difficulty, which would otherwise exist, of carrying on the
government of the province upon the principles of the constitution.
The object with which I recommend to you this course, is that of
making it apparent that any transfer which may take place of
political power from the hands of one party in the province to those
of another, is the result, not of an act of yours, but of the wishes
of the people themselves, as shown by the difficulty experienced by
the retiring party in carrying on the government of the province
according to the forms of the constitution. To this I attach great
importance; I have therefore to instruct you to abstain from
changing your executive council until it shall become perfectly
clear that they are unable, with such fair support from yourself as
they have a right to expect, to carry on the government of the
province satisfactorily, and command the confidence of the
legislature.
"Of whatever party
your council may be composed, it will be your duty to act strictly
upon the principle you have yourself laid down in the memorandum
delivered to the gentlemen with whom you have communicated,—that,
namely, of not identifying yourself with any party but, instead of
this, making yourself both a mediator and a moderator between the
influential of all parties.
"In giving,
therefore, all fair and proper support to your council for the time
being, you will carefully avoid any acts which can possibly be
supposed to imply the slightest personal objection to their
opponents, and also refuse to assent to any measures which may be
proposed to you by your council which may appear to you to involve
an improper exercise of the authority of the Crown for party rather
than for public objects. In exercising, however, this power of
refusing to sanction measures which may be submitted to you by your
council, you must recollect that this power of opposing a check upon
extreme measures proposed by the party for the time in the
government, depends entirely for its efficacy upon its being used
sparingly and with the greatest possible discretion. A refusal to
accept advice tendered to you by your council is a legitimate ground
for its members to tender you their resignation,—a course they would
doubtless adopt should they feel that the subject on which a
difference had arisen between you and themselves was one upon which
public opinion would be in their favour. Should it prove to be so,
concession to their views must sooner or later become inevitable,
since it cannot be too distinctly acknowledged that it is neither
possible nor desirable to carry on the government of any of the
British provinces in North America in opposition to the opinion of
the inhabitants.
"Clearly
understanding, therefore, that refusing to accede to the advice of
your council for the time being, upon a point upon which they
consider it their duty to insist, must lead to the question at issue
being brought ultimately under the decision of public opinion, you
will carefully avoid allowing any matter not of very grave concern,
or upon which you cannot reasonably calculate upon being in the end
supported by that opinion, to be made a subject of such a
difference. And if, unfortunately, such a difference should arise,
you will take equal care that its cause and the grounds of your own
decision are made clearly to appear in written documents capable of
being publicly quoted.
"The adoption of this
principle of action by no means involves the necessity of a blind
obedience to the wishes and opinions of the members of your council;
on the contrary, I have no doubt that, if they see clearly that your
conduct is guided, not by personal favour to any particular men or
party, but by a sincere desire to promote the public good, your
objections to any measures proposed will have great weight with the
council, or, should they prove unreasonable, with the assembly, or,
in last resort, with the public.
"Such are the general
principles upon which the constitution granted to the North American
colonies render it necessary that their government should be
conducted. It is, however, I am well aware, far easier to lay down
these general principles than to determine in any particular case
what is that line of conduct which an adherence to them should
prescribe. In this, your own judgment and a careful consideration of
the circumstances in which you are placed mast be your guide; and I
have only, in conclusion, to assure you that Her Majesty will always
be anxious to put the most favourable construction upon your
conduct, in the discharge of the arduous duties imposed upon you by
the high situation you hold in her service." |