Canada under British Rule 1760-1900

by John George Bourinot

In the history of the past there is much to deplore, the blunders of English ministers, the want of judgment on the part of governors, the selfishness of "family compacts," the arrogance of office-holders, the recklessness of Canadian politicians. But the very trials of the crisis through which Canada passed brought out the fact, that if English statesmen had mistaken the spirit of the Canadian people, and had not always taken the best methods of removing grievances, it was not from any studied disposition to do these countries an injustice, but rather because they were unable to see until the very last moment that, even in a colony, a representative system must be worked in accordance with those principles that obtained in England, and that it was impossible to direct the internal affairs of dependencies many thousand miles distant through a colonial office, generally managed by a few clerks.

Of all the conspicuous figures of these memorable times, which already seem so far away from Canadians of the present day, who possess so many political rights, there are several who stand out more prominently than all others, and represent the distinct types of politicians, who influenced the public mind during the first half of the nineteenth century, when responsible government was in slow process of evolution from the political struggles which arose in the operation of representative institutions. Around the figure of Louis Joseph Papineau there has always been a sort of glamour which has helped to conceal his vanity, his rashness and his want of political sagacity, which would, under any circumstances, have prevented his success as a safe statesman, capable of guiding a people through a trying ordeal. His eloquence was fervid and had much influence over his impulsive countrymen, his sincerity was undoubted, and in all likelihood his very indiscretions made more palpable the defects of the political system against which he so persistently and so often justly declaimed. He lived to see his countrymen enjoy power and influence under the very union which they resented, and to find himself no longer a leader among men, but isolated from a great majority of his own people, and representing a past whose methods were antagonistic to the new régime that had grown up since 1838. It would have been well for his reputation had he remained in obscurity on his return from exile in 1847, when he and other rebels of 1837 were wisely pardoned, and had he never stood again on the floor of the parliament of Canada, as he did from 1848 until 1854, since he could only prove, in those later times, that he had never understood the true working of responsible government. While the Lafontaine-Baldwin ministry were in power, he revived an agitation for an elective legislative council and declared himself utterly hostile to responsible government; but his influence was at an end in the country, and he could make little impression on the assembly. The days of reckless agitation had passed, and the time for astute and calm statesmanship had come. Lafontaine and Morin were now safer political guides for his countrymen. He soon disappeared entirely from public view, and in the solitude of his picturesque château, amid the groves that overhang the Ottawa River, only visited from time to time by a few staunch friends, or by curious tourists who found their way to that quiet spot, he passed the remainder of his days with a tranquillity in wondrous contrast to the stormy and eventful drama of his life. The writer often saw his noble, dignified figure—erect even in age—passing unnoticed on the streets of Ottawa, when perhaps at the same time there were strangers, walking through the lobbies of the parliament house, asking for his portrait.

William Lyon Mackenzie is a far less picturesque figure in Canadian history than Papineau, who possessed an eloquence of tongue and a grace of demeanour which were not the attributes of the little peppery, undignified Scotchman who, for a few years, played so important a part in the English-speaking province. With his disinterestedness and unselfishness, with his hatred of political injustice and oppression, Canadians who remember the history of the constitutional struggles of England will always sympathise. Revolt against absolutism and tyranny is permissible in the opinion of men who love political freedom, but the conditions of Upper Canada were hardly such as justified the rash insurrection into which he led his deluded followers, many to misery and some to death. Mackenzie lived long enough to regret these sad mistakes of a reckless period of his life, and to admit that "the success of the rebellion would have deeply injured the people of Canada," whom he believed he was then serving, and that it was the interest of the Canadian people to strengthen in every way the connection with England. Like Papineau, he returned to Canada in 1849 to find himself entirely unequal to the new conditions of political life, where a large constitutional knowledge, a spirit of moderation and a statesmanlike conduct could alone give a man influence in the councils of his country. One historian has attempted to elevate Dr. Rolph at his expense, but a careful study of the career of those two actors will lead fair-minded readers to the conclusion that even the reckless course followed at the last by Mackenzie was preferable to the double-dealing of his more astute colleague. Dr. Rolph came again into prominence as one of the founders of the Clear Grits, who formed in 1849 an extreme branch of the Reform party. Dr. Rolph's qualities ensured him success in political intrigue, and he soon became a member of the Hincks-Morin government, which was formed on the reconstruction of the Lafontaine-Baldwin ministry in 1851, when its two moderate leaders were practically pushed aside by men more in harmony with the aggressive elements of the Reform party. But Mr. Mackenzie could never win such triumphs as were won by his wily and more manageable associate of old times. He published a newspaper—The Weekly Message—replete with the eccentricities of the editor, but it was never a financial success, while his career in the assembly from 1851 until 1858 only proved him almost a nullity in public affairs. Until his death in 1861 his life was a constant fight with poverty, although his closing years were somewhat soothed by the gift of a homestead. He might have received some public position which would have given him comfort and rest, but he would not surrender what he called his political freedom to the men in office, who, he believed, wished to purchase his silence—the veriest delusion, as his influence had practically disappeared with his flight to the United States.

Joseph Howe, unlike the majority of his compeers who struggled for popular rights, was a prominent figure in public life until the very close of his career in 1873. All his days, even when his spirit was sorely tried by the obstinacy and indifference of some English ministers, he loved England, for he knew—like the Loyalists, from one of whom he sprung—it was in her institutions, after all, his country could best find prosperity and happiness. It is an interesting fact that, among the many able essays and addresses which the question of imperial federation has drawn forth, none can equal his great speech on the consolidation of the empire in eloquence, breadth, and fervour. Of all the able men Nova Scotia has produced no one has surpassed that great tribune of the people in his power to persuade and delight the masses by his oratory. Yet, strange to say, his native province has never raised a monument to his memory.

One of the most admirable figures in the political history of the Dominion was undoubtedly Robert Baldwin. Compared with other popular leaders of his generation, he was calm in council, unselfish in motive, and moderate in opinion. If there is any significance in the political phrase "Liberal-Conservative," it could be applied with justice to him. The "great ministry," of which he and Louis Hippolyte Lafontaine—afterwards a baronet and chief justice—were the leaders, left behind it many monuments of broad statesmanship, and made a deep impression on the institutions of the country. In 1851 he resigned from the Reform ministry, of which he had been the Upper Canadian leader, in consequence of a vote of the Reformers of that province adverse to the continuance of the court of chancery, the constitution of which had been improved chiefly by himself. When he presented himself as a candidate before his old constituency he was defeated by a nominee of the Clear Grits, who were then, as always, pressing their opinions with great vehemence and hostility to all moderate men. He illustrated the fickle character of popular favour, when a man will not surrender his principles and descend to the arts of the politician. He lived until 1858 in retirement, almost forgotten by the people for whom he had worked so fearlessly and sincerely.

In New Brunswick the triumph of responsible government must always be associated with the name of Lemuel A. Wilmot, the descendant of a famous United Empire Loyalist stock, afterwards a judge and a lieutenant-governor of his native province. He was in some respects the most notable figure, after Joseph Howe and J.W. Johnston, the leaders of the Liberal and Conservative parties in Nova Scotia, in that famous body of public men who so long brightened the political life of the maritime provinces. But neither those two leaders nor their distinguished compeers, James Boyle Uniacke, William Young, John Hamilton Gray and Charles Fisher, all names familiar to students of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick history, surpassed Mr. Wilmot in that magnetic eloquence which carries an audience off its feet, in versatility of knowledge, in humorous sarcasm, and in conversational gifts, which made him a most interesting personality in social life. He impressed his strong individuality upon his countrymen until the latest hour of his useful career.

In Prince Edward Island, the name most intimately connected with the struggle for responsible government is that of George Coles, who, despite the absence of educational and social advantages in his youth, eventually triumphed over all obstacles, and occupied a most prominent position by dint of unconquerable courage and ability to influence the opinions of the great mass of people.

SECTION 2.—Results of self-government from 1841 to 1864.

The new colonial policy, adopted by the imperial government immediately after the presentation of Lord Durham's report, had a remarkable effect upon the political and social development of the British North American provinces during the quarter of a century that elapsed between the union of the Canadas in 1841 and the federal union of 1867. In 1841 Mr. Harrison, provincial secretary of the upper province in the coalition government formed by Lord Sydenham, brought in a measure which laid the foundations of the elaborate system of municipal institutions which the Canadian provinces now enjoy. In 1843 Attorney-General Lafontaine presented a bill "for better serving the independence of the legislative assembly of this province," which became law in 1844 and formed the basis of all subsequent legislation in Canada.

The question of the clergy reserves continued for some years after the union to perplex politicians and harass governments. At last in 1854 the Hincks government was defeated by a combination of factions, and the Liberal-Conservative party was formed out of the union of the Conservatives and the moderate Reformers. Sir Allan MacNab was the leader of this coalition government, but the most influential member was Mr. John A. Macdonald, then attorney-general of Upper Canada, whose first important act was the settlement of the clergy reserves. Reform ministers had for years evaded the question, and it was now left to a government, largely composed of men who had been Tories in the early part of their political career, to yield to the force of public opinion and take it out of the arena of political agitation by means of legislation which handed over this property to the municipal corporations of the province for secular purposes, and at the same time made a small endowment for the protection of the clergy who had legal claims on the fund. The same government had also the honour of removing the old French seigniorial system, recognised to be incompatible with the modern condition of a country of free government, and injurious to the agricultural development of the province at large. The question was practically settled in 1854, when Mr. Drummond, then attorney-general for Lower Canada, brought in a bill providing for the appointment of a commission to ascertain the amount of compensation that could be fairly asked by the seigniors for the cession of their seigniorial rights. The seigniors, from first to last, received about a million of dollars, and it also became necessary to revise those old French laws which affected the land tenure of Lower Canada. Accordingly in 1856 Mr. George Cartier, attorney-general for Lower Canada in the Taché-Macdonald ministry, introduced the legislation necessary for the codification of the civil law. In 1857 Mr. Spence, post-master-general in the same ministry, brought in a measure to organise the civil service, on whose character and ability so much depends in the working of parliamentary institutions. From that day to this the Canadian government has practically recognised the British principle of retaining public officers without reference to a change of political administration.