ALTHOUGH covering a
period of rapid growth, the ten years between 1854 and 1864 are, in
their political aspect, among the least satisfactory in Canadian
annals. It is worth pondering that in an age often accused of
materialism, popular enthusiasm and a spirit of self-sacrifice are
much more easily aroused over religious and constitutional
questions, which affect no man's pocket but touch his convictions or
sentiment, than over the prosaic details of administrative honesty
and economy. With the achievement of responsible government, the
secularization of the Clergy Reserves and of the University of
Toronto, and the abolition of seigniorial tenure, a group of great
questions passed into the background, and not for some time did new
problems of equal magnitude definitely present themselves. The
question of railway construction, probably the most important before
the House during these years, remained in the realm of commerce, and
did not rise to that vital connection with the national ideal and
the national aspiration reached in later years by the construction
of the Canadian Pacific Railway. The consequence was a distinct
lowering in the tone of political life, and in the political methods
considered lawful or at least pardonable; a lowering of tone which
did not pass away till great constitutional questions again
presented themselves.
During these years of
party bickering and intrigue the difficulties inherent in the
legislative union of 1841 were gradually demonstrated. Brown,
Macdonald and other Canadian statesmen were brought face to face
with this inadequacy, and forced to search for a remedy. The problem
in large measure arose from the short-sighted attempt of the framers
of the Act of Union to subject the French to the English-speaking
population. In 1837 the inhabitants of Lower Canada had numbered six
hundred thousand as compared with four hundred thousand in the Upper
Province, yet each had been assigned an equal number of members in
the united legislature. Though this injustice roused deep anger
among the French, by 1854 they had found that, by holding themselves
together as a solid phalanx, they were able, through the divisions
among the English, to obtain an equal, if not a preponderating,
influence. In the end the constitutional provision contrived for
their subjection proved to their advantage. Owing to emigration the
population of the Upper Province increased so rapidly that in 1852
it was sixty thousand larger than that of Lower Canada, and in 1861
almost three hundred thousand, a result which the prescience of Lord
Durham had foreseen. "I am averse," he had written in his famous
report, "to every plan that has been proposed for giving an equal
number of members to the two provinces, in order to attain the
temporary end of outnumbering the French, because I think the same
object will be attained without any violation of the principles of
representation and without any such appearance of injustice in the
scheme as would set public opinion, both in England and America,
strongly against it; and because, when emigration shall have
increased the English population in the Upper Province, the adoption
of such a principle would operate to defeat the very purpose it is
intended to serve. It appears to me that any such electoral
arrangement founded on the present provincial divisions, would tend
to defeat the purposes of union, and perpetuate the idea of
disunion."
The increasing
discrepancy allowed George Brown to fan the flame of racial and
religious antagonism, and it was not long before he controlled a
majority of the constituencies in Ontario. His solution of the
difficulty was that proposed by Lord Durham, and adopted in1848 by
Papineau, of ignoring the division into Upper and Lower Canada and
dividing the members among the constituencies of the united province
"as near as may be in accordance with population." Against this the
French-Canadians urged that the union of 1841 amounted to a compact;
that the essence of the understanding was that the two provinces
should be on a legislative equality; that without such protection
one province might become entirely dominant over the other; and that
in any case the complaint came with an ill grace from the province
which had welcomed this very legislative equality as offering their
best security against French domination. Their leaders were not slow
to realize the strength of their position. "Nous aeons l'avantage;
profitons-en," said Mr. T. J. Loranger to his constituents, while
Mr. Cartier calmly told the House that the extra sixty thousand
Upper Canadians had no more right to be counted than so many codfish
in the Bay of Gasp.
On Macdonald the
influence of this period was both for good and for evil. It
increased in him that laxity of political methods noted by Sir
Alexander Campbell; it led him to think "fighting fire with fire" a
venial political sin; but it also brought out to the full his
marvellous adroitness, his power of managing men and shaping
coalitions. The skill with which he guided the tangled negotiations
from 1864 to 1867 was won in the conflict of the previous ten years.
When he said, as he frequently did in later life, that his greatest
triumphs were achieved before Confederation, he must have been
thinking of the days when, with George Brown dominant in Ontario and
Cartier supreme in Quebec, he was yet the most prominent and the
most powerful man in the House. Mr. Pope has well described his
appearance at this epoch:-
"Without pretension
to oratory in the strict sense of the word, the intimate knowledge
of public affairs, joined to the keen powers of argument, humour and
sarcasm, the ready wit, the wealth of illustration and brilliant
repartee, gave to his speeches, set off as they were by a striking
presence and singularly persuasive style, a potency which was
well-nigh irresistible. Those of us who knew Sir John Macdonald only
when his voice had grown weak, his figure become stooped, his hair
thin and grey and his face seamed with lines of anxious care, and
remember the power which under these disadvantages of age he
exercised over the minds and hearts of men, can well understand how
it came to pass that, in the days of his physical prime, he
inspired, not merely his followers with a devotion which is almost
without parallel in political annals, but drew to his side first one
and then another of his opponents, until he could truly say at the
end of his days that he had the proud satisfaction of knowing that
almost every leading man who had begun political life as his
opponent ended by being his colleague and friend."
To show how with all
his brilliancy, his adroitness, his sometimes excessive fertility of
resource, he was gradually forced to acknowledge the union of 1841
unworkable, is the object of this chapter.
The political events
of these years, which in some ways read like a series of secondary
and disconnected incidents, nevertheless compelled public men to
look beyond party intrigue for some firm foundation of
constitutional principle.
In January, 1855, Mr.
Morin accepted a seat upon the bench. A reconstruction of the
cabinet followed. [The MacNab-Tache ministry was constituted as
follows: The Hon. Sir A. N. MacNab, president of the council and
minister of agriculture (first minister); the Hon. W. Cayley,
inspector-general; the Hon. Robert Spence, postmaster-general; the
Hon. Joseph Cauchon, commissioner of Crown lands; the Hon. Francois
Lemieux, chief commissioner of public works; the Hon. G. E. Cartier,
provincial secretary; the Hon. E. P. Tache, receiver-general; the
Hon. J. A. Macdonald, attorney-general (Upper Canada); the Hon. L.
T. Drummond, attorney-general (Lower Canada); the Hon. John Ross,
(without portfolio)] Mr. Morin's place was taken by Colonel
(afterwards Sir E. P.) Tache, an honest and dignified country
gentleman, chiefly remembered to-day as the author of the saying
that "if ever this ceases to be a British country, the last shot in
the maintenance of British rule in America will be fired by a
French-Canadian." Though Colonel Tache had been in the cabinet since
1848, his heart was never wholly given to politics, and hence it was
all the more easy for Macdonald, who held the portfolio of
attorney-general west, to become the real leader of the party. The
most significant addition to the cabinet was that of Georges Etienne
Cartier, who now for the first time became associated with Macdonald
in a ministry. The cooperation of these two men was to be a
principal factor in Canadian politics for many a year.
Sir Allan MacNab in
saying "ours is a policy of railways," outlined the chief work of
the session, during which numerous railways were incorporated. The
year 1855 was also marked by the removal of the seat of government
from Quebec to Toronto and by the renewal of violent discussion on
the question of where it should be permanently fixed, a question
destined to cause much heartburning ere it was settled. During 1856
a bill was passed making the legislative council elective, a
constitutional change which had been rendered possible by the
passing of an imperial Act, in accordance with the prayer of an
address from the legislative assembly in the session of 1853. A
similar bill had been passed by the assembly the year before, but
had been rejected by the council. It is an interesting fact that
while Macdonald supported this measure, George Brown opposed it.
Macdonald's judgment as to the value of an elected council had
changed before the time of the Confederation conference in Quebec in
1864, when he argued vigorously for a nominated Upper House.
In the next year it
became evident that the coalition could not be held together under
the leadership of Sir Allan MacNab. The dissatisfaction of the
Reform wing of his party—,, Baldwin Reformers" as they were
called—grew deeper and deeper. Though advancing years had modified
his opinions, Sir Allan was emphatically a Tory, his ideal of
government was that of a strengthened and purified Family Compact,
and he had a penchant, unhappily not confined to Tories, of giving
vacant positions solely to his own numerous hangers-on. Against this
unequal distribution of patronage the Reform wing of the coalition
loudly protested. Sir Allan was further handicapped and sometimes
incapacitated by violent attacks of gout. But nothing was further
from his thoughts than resignation, and the problem of superseding
him was not easily solved. It would serve no useful purpose to
detail the involved intrigues of this period. When Sir Allan had
been displaced he inveighed both in public and in private against
his successor. Had there been sufficient foundation for his attacks,
the opponents of Macdonald would no doubt have been justified in
taunting him with ingratitude, and there would have been some excuse
for George Brown when he bitterly told him that his political path
was marked out by gravestones. Yet the charge was unfounded, and the
part which Macdonald played was really considerate and generous. His
virtual leadership was universally recognized; he doubtless felt in
himself powers far greater than those possessed by Sir Allan MacNab
even at his prime; he saw that the party was going to pieces, and
felt that no one but himself had the power to hold it together; but
neither in word or deed was he untrue to his old chief, nor did he
prompt or assist the intrigues against him. A confidential letter
written in 1854 to his most intimate party friend makes this clear.
"You say truly that we are a good deal handicapped with 'old blood.'
Sir Allan will not be in our way, however. He is very reasonable and
requires only that we should not in his 'sere and yellow leaf' offer
him the indignity of casting him aside. This I would never assent
to, for I cannot forget his services in days gone by." There is
nothing to show that Macdonald departed from this view. He would
have preferred to wait till advancing years and infirmities rendered
Sir Allan's resignation necessary, but events forced him to the
front.
During the session of
1856 Sir Allan's gout grew worse, and so too did the temper with
which he repelled all suggestions of resignation. At last the vexed
question of the seat of government gave to the malcontents their
chance. In April an Act was passed providing that after 1859 Quebec
should be the permanent capital. In May, when an item of $200,000
for the construction of buildings at Quebec was included among the
supplementary estimates, the majority of the members from Upper
Canada supported an amendment stating "that the course of the
administration with reference to the seat of government and other
important public questions has disappointed the just expectations of
the great majority of the people of this province." Though the
government was sustained by the votes of its Lower Canadian
supporters, Messrs. Morrison and Spence, the Upper Canadian
Reformers in the cabinet, at once resigned on the ground that they
were not supported in their own province, and were followed by the
Conservatives, Messrs. Cayley and Macdonald. In this resignation was
involved the question of the "double majority." "It is worthy of
note," says Mr. Pope, "that while almost every member of a
government forty years ago regarded an adverse sectional vote as a
serious blow to the existing administration, few could be found to
affirm directly the soundness of the ,double majority'
principle—that is, that no ministry should be held to possess the
confidence of parliament unless it could command a majority in each
section of the province."
There can be little
doubt that in a legislative union, such as was that of Upper and
Lower Canada, an adverse vote of one section no more entailed
resignation than would an adverse vote of Scottish or Irish members
involve the resignation of a British premier. When Robert Baldwin
resigned in 1851 he did so, not on the ground of the "double
majority" principle, but because in a question affecting the
interests of Upper Canada alone and especially those of the legal
profession, he, the attorney-general, had been put in a minority by
the legal members from Upper Canada; and he distinctly advised his
colleagues in the cabinet, who were not so deeply interested in the
bill, not to follow his example. The only prominent upholder of the
"double majority" as a constitutional theory was Mr. Sandfield
Macdonald, who, regarding the union as a compact, held that the
consent of a majority of the representatives of both sections of the
compact was necessary to its continuance. But even he, when premier,
threw overboard this theory. Yet in practice the social, racial,
religious and historic questions involved made it impossible to rule
permanently a united Canada without a majority in both sections.
Hence while none of the four ministers who resigned admitted the
constitutional necessity of the "double majority," and while
Macdonald expressly saved his face by declaring "that he did not
think that the 'double majority' should be adopted as a rule," all
gave reasons for their action practically admitting it. Mr. Spence
and Mr. Morrison explained their course on the ground that the wing
of the coalition which they represented had withdrawn its support
from the government; Mr. Cayley and Mr. Macdonald on the plea that
after the defection of so large a body as the "Baldwin Reformers"
"any attempt to carry on the government would be futile." Unable to
fill their places, Sir Allan MacNab resigned. The governor-general,
Sir Edmund Walker Head, called upon Colonel Tache to form a
government, which the assistance of Macdonald alone enabled him to
do, and on May 24th, 1856, the TacheMacdonald administration assumed
control. The stop-gap of 1844 was now leader of his party in Upper
Canada and premier of the province in all but name.
Shortly after this,
but during the same session, occurred the dramatic quarrel between
Macdonald and George Brown. The editor of the Globe had been
reproached for inconsistency in attacking the government after
supporting the election of Mac-Nab and Macdonald, as opponents of
Hincks, in 1854. To this he replied that his change was justified by
their subsequent conduct. Swinging his long arms, his characteristic
gesture in moments of vehemence, he made a fierce attack upon what
he termed the "kaleidoscopic politics" of Macdonald. It was the last
of a long series of provocations, and for once the hot-tempered
Highlander forgot alike his caution, his courtesy and his regard for
truth. Springing to his feet he poured out a torrent of invective,
stating that in 1849 Brown, while secretary of a commission
appointed to investigate the condition of the penitentiary at
Kingston, had "falsified the testimony of witnesses, suborned
convicts to commit perjury, and obtained the pardon of murderers
confined in the penitentiary to induce them to give false evidence."
These charges Brown passionately denied, amid frequent and furious
interruptions from Macdonald. On the request of the accused a
commission was appointed, which presented two reports, of which that
of the majority found that irregularities in the compilation of
evidence had been committed by the penitentiary committee, but
refused to decide how far responsibility for this attached to the
secretary; for the graver charges against him no justification was
alleged. The minority report was a complete exculpation of Mr.
Brown. After long and passionate debates, in which Sir Allan MacNab
bluntly declared that there was no evidence against Mr. Brown, [This
opinion was vehemently maintained also by William Lyon Mackenzie,
Sir Allan's antagonist of former days and Mr. Brown's successful
opponent in the Haldimand election.] and that the committee should
have had the manliness to say so, the House was prorogued without
coming to a definite decision, and the matter was not again brought
up. To Macdonald, who seldom lost control of his temper, this lapse
into the region of elemental passion gave a severe lesson, and one
which he did not forget; but the atmosphere of the session must have
been peculiarly electric, for towards the end of June an altercation
with Colonel Rankin, the member for Essex, grew so hot that after
the close of the session a challenge was sent by Macdonald. "I need
hardly say," he writes to his second, "that circumstanced as I am,
any meeting must take place out of Canada, but I am sure you will
pay every regard to Mr. Rankin's convenience in the choice of the
place of meeting." The encounter was averted, Mr. Rankin,
recognizing that he had spoken on wrong information, made a frank
apology, and lived to become one of Macdonald's warmest personal and
political friends. It would seem that an equally frank apology from
Macdonald to Brown might have gone far to mitigate the bitterness of
personal hostility which long marked the relations of the two
combatants.
Another question on
which Macdonald and Brown came into strong opposition and on which
his opponent for some time commanded a majority in Upper Canada, was
the claim made by the Roman Catholics of Upper Canada for a separate
system of schools. This Brown denounced as flat popery, while
Macdonald, though theoretically opposed to the concession, supported
it as necessary to ensure harmony, and also in view of the liberal
treatment extended by the Roman Catholic Church to the Protestant
minority in the province of Quebec. After years of controversy the
Roman Catholics won their claim, and separate schools were finally
established in 1862-3 by the Reform administration of Sandfield
Macdonald.
In 1857 the first
step was taken in a movement big with consequences for Canada. The
imperial government had appointed a committee to investigate the
claims of the Hudson's Bay Company to the northern and western parts
of what is now the Dominion of Canada, and invited the Canadian
government to send a commissioner to take part in the enquiry. The
acquisition by Canada of these vast regions had for some time been
urged by prominent men of both parties, and at Macdonald's instance
Chief-justice Draper was sent to uphold the Canadian claims before
the committee, which he did with boldness and skill. For some years
nothing more was done, but even amid the clash of party warfare
neither George Brown nor Macdonald forgot the vast area of wood and
prairie between Lake Superior and the Rocky Mountains.
Towards the end of
this year, 1857, failing health forced Colonel Tache to resign. The
governor-general at once sent for the attorney-general west, who
soon succeeded in forming a government in conjunction with his
friend Georges Etienne Cartier, henceforth his constant ally, and on
November 26th, 1857, John Alexander Macdonald became premier of the
Province of Canada. Little could he then have dreamed that
thirty-three years later he would still be prime minister of Canada,
but of a Canada which had expanded into a great Dominion stretching
from ocean to ocean. He at once dissolved the House and appealed to
the people on the issues, forced on by Brown, of separate schools
and representation by population. His views on the school question
have already been stated; on that of representation by population he
argued that the union of 1841 was of the nature of a compact, and
that so fundamental a change could not be carried without the
dissolution of the union. He was also opposed to it as being a tacit
recognition of the principle of universal suffrage, which he always
opposed, contending that property was an essential condition of the
right to vote. In this view he was supported by his colleagues,
though not without great searchings of heart. As early as 1855 one
of them had written to him protesting against "the leeching process
going on toward Upper Canada," and all his skill was taxed to hold
them faithful to his ideas of toleration and of compromise.
The government fared
badly in Upper Canada, where the Liberals obtained a large majority,
but Cartier and the Church swept Quebec, and only a handful of the
Rouges, on whom were visited the sins of George Brown and his party,
survived the storm. But though thus sustained, Macdonald felt keenly
the difficulty of governing Upper Canada by the French vote, and
made overtures for a coalition to a band of moderate Reformers
headed by John Sandfield Macdonald, who had grown tired alike of the
policy and of the personality of Brown. To his namesake Macdonald
offered a choice of positions in the cabinet, with the right to
appoint two colleagues, provided neither was a Grit. But Sandfield
Macdonald was aiming at higher things, and the next day his refusal
came in the characteristic telegram, "No go."
Later in this year,
1858, occurred the two memorable events known as "The Short
Administration" and 16 The Double Shuffle." The vexed question of
the seat of government had been referred to Her Majesty, who, at the
suggestion of Sir Edmund Head, chose Ottawa, then known as Bytown.
Great was the dissatisfaction of Quebec, Montreal, Kingston, and
Toronto, and when the ministry accepted the queen's award, the
Opposition succeeded in carrying the motion that "in the opinion of
this House the city of Ottawa ought not to be the permanent seat of
government of this province." Though sustained later in the day on a
motion of want of confidence, the government announced that they
felt it their duty to resent the slight put by the assembly upon Her
Majesty, and resigned. Called on to form a government, Mr. Brown
accepted the task, and got together a ministry which lasted rather
less than forty-eight hours. The refusal of His Excellency to grant
to the new government a dissolution as a means of testing public
opinion was bitterly criticized by the Reformers, but under the
circumstances was probably justified, since there was little
likelihood that the previous verdict of the electors would be
reversed. Then followed a curious incident.
On the defeat of the
Brown-Dorion government, His Excellency summoned Mr. (afterwards Sir
A. T.) Galt, the member for Sherbrooke, well known as an authority
on finance, and as an advocate of the federal union of the British
North American colonies. But Mr. Galt, though personally popular on
both sides of the House, had no immediate following, and wisely
declined the task. Cartier was then sent for, and in connection with
Macdonald, formed an administration practically the same as that
which had recently resigned, but with Cartier as premier, and
including, as finance minister, Galt, who accepted office on the
express stipulation that federation should be actively supported by
the new ministry. As a result of the well-known rule by which a
newly-appointed minister is compelled to resign and to seek
reelection from his constituents, Brown, Dorion, and their
colleagues were now not in the House. But in order to facilitate
temporary changes of portfolio, it had been enacted that no minister
should be obliged to seek reelection who resigned one portfolio and
in less than a month accepted another. Of this the incoming
ministers took advantage. During the evening of August 6th they took
the oath of office, each assuming a different portfolio from that
which he had before held. Cartier became inspector-general and
Macdonald postmaster-general. Early in the morning of the next day
they resigned their portfolios, and resumed those formerly held,
Cartier becoming attorney-general east and Macdonald
attorney-general west. By this altogether too clever trick they
avoided the expense and uncertainty of an election. But though some
endeavoured to defend it, and though it has been ingeniously
compared to the well-known device by which a member of the imperial
House desiring to resign his seat accepts the stewardship of the
Chiltern Hundreds, there is no doubt that the better judgment of the
community was shocked, and the law has since been amended so as to
render a repetition of the manoeuvre impossible.
From 1858 to 1862 the
Cartier-Macdonald ministry succeeded in avoiding defeat, no small
accomplishment considering the complications and perturbations of
the time, and the general absence of steadying influences. The
legislative records of this period have little to interest the
reader of to-day. In the summer of 1859 the seat of government was
removed from Toronto to Quebec. In the autumn of 1860 the country
was visited by H. R. H. the Prince of Wales (now King Edward), who
with much pomp opened the Victoria Bridge which spans the St.
Lawrence at Montreal. Throughout the country there was universal
rejoicing, and the loyalty of the Canadian people was abundantly
displayed. The popular pleasure was, however, somewhat marred by an
unseemly contention, in which Macdonald was unwillingly involved.
The Duke of Newcastle, colonial secretary at that time, and the
prince's mentor during the visit, became embroiled with the powerful
Orange order through his refusal to allow the prince to land at
Kingston, Macdonald's constituency, in which the Orangemen were so
strong that it was known as "the Derry of Canada," and where special
Orange decorations had been prepared for the occasion. All
Macdonald's tact was needed to keep on good terms both with his
aggrieved constituents and with the imperial minister.
In 1862 the
government was unexpectedly defeated on a militia bill introduced by
Macdonald for the better organization of the Canadian forces, and
rendered advisable by the war then raging in the United States. He
enjoyed the unwonted sensation of being in a majority in Upper
Canada, but Cartier could not on this occasion keep his followers in
line, the measure being distasteful, on the whole, to the
French-Canadian constituencies. Its defeat caused much surprise and
a certain degree of irritation in England, and undoubtedly furthered
the movement of feeling, which culminated about 1870, in favour of
allowing the colonies to shift for themselves.
There is evidence
that Macdonald had for some time been becoming less pronounced in
his opposition to representation by population. In the
reconstruction of the administration early in 1862 this had been
left an open question, and three colleagues had been introduced into
the cabinet who were known to be in its favour. It is probable that
had not a wider solution been found, in which representation by
population had its due place, he might have devised a combination
for carrying it, embracing safeguards for the rights and privileges
of Lower Canada. Before the finding of that wider solution, two
years were to elapse, during which the wheels of government drave
yet more heavily.
During 1860 and 1861
the influence of George Brown, whom the country was beginning to
regard as an agitator rather than as a statesman, had declined, and
a distinct body of moderate Reformers had been formed under the
leadership of Sandfield Macdonald and Mr. L. V. Sicotte. To these
the governor-general now appealed, and the Sandfield Macdonald-Sicotte
ministry came into being on a policy of retrenchment and of strict
observance of the "double majority." They were opposed at once by
Brown and by the Conservatives, and so were defeated on a vote of
want of confidence moved by Macdonald. Sand-field Macdonald, instead
of resigning, promptly joined forces with Brown, Dorion and the
Rouges, and the government, thus reconstructed, tottered on till
March, 1864. Then, as an important election had gone against them,
and reduced their dubious majority, the government resigned without
waiting for a formal dismissal by parliament. After much
embarrassment the governor-general, Lord Monck, finally succeeded in
inducing Sir E. P. Tache to leave his retirement, and to form a
government in connection with J. A. Macdonald, whose objection to
taking office at all was only overcome with difficulty. This new
administration was in its turn overthrown early in June. Thus in
three years four ministries had been defeated and two general
elections had failed to ease the strain. The two parties were at a
deadlock; the wheels of the union compromise had become clogged
beyond remedy. To these political embarrassments were added
financial difficulties, largely connected with the Grand Trunk
Railway. Faced with complications so various, Canadian statesmen
showed that, in their country's need, the leaders of both parties
could waive their political and personal differences, and seek in a
higher and wider sphere of action the solution of the problems which
in existing conditions had proved so hopeless. |