Lord Elgin

by John George Bourinot

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

The government had decided to have a short session, pass a few necessary measures and then appeal to the country. The secularization of the reserves, and the question of the seigniorial tenure were not to be taken up until the people had given an expression of opinion as to the ministerial policy generally. As soon as the legislature met, Cauchon, already prominent in public life, proposed an amendment to the address, expressing regret that the government had no intention "to submit immediately a measure to settle the question of the seigniorial tenure." Then Sicotte, who had not long before declined to enter the ministry, moved to add the words "and one for the secularization of the clergy reserves." These two amendments were carried by a majority of thirteen in a total division of seventy-one votes. While the French Liberals continued to support Morin, all the Upper Canadian opponents of the government, Conservatives and Clear Grits, united with a number of Hincks's former supporters and Rouges in Lower Canada to bring about this ministerial defeat. The government accordingly was obliged either to resign or ask the governor-general for a dissolution. It concluded to adhere to its original determination, and go at once to the country. The governor-general consented to prorogue the legislature with a view to an immediate appeal to the electors. When the Usher of the Black Rod appeared at the door of the assembly chamber, to ask the attendance of the Commons in the legislative council, a scene of great excitement occurred. William Lyon Mackenzie made one of his vituperative attacks on the government, and was followed by John A. Macdonald, who declared its course to be most unconstitutional. When at last the messenger from the governor-general was admitted by order of the speaker, the House proceeded to the council chamber, where members were electrified by another extraordinary incident. The speaker of the assembly was John Sandfield Macdonald, an able Scotch Canadian, in whose character there was a spirit of vindictiveness, which always asserted itself when he received a positive or fancied injury. He had been a solicitor-general of Upper Canada in the LaFontaine-Baldwin government, and had never forgiven Hincks for not having promoted him to the attorney-generalship, instead of W.B. Richards, afterwards an eminent judge of the old province of Canada, and first chief justice of the Supreme Court of the Dominion. Hincks had offered him the commissionership of crown lands in the ministry, but he refused to accept any office except the one on which his ambition was fixed. Subsequently, however, he was induced by his friends to take the speakership of the legislative assembly, but he had never forgiven what he considered a slight at the hands of the prime minister in 1851. Accordingly, when he appeared at the Bar of the Council in 1853, he made an attempt to pay off this old score. As soon as he had made his bow to the governor-general seated on the throne, Macdonald proceeded to read the following speech, which had been carefully prepared for the occasion in the two languages:

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

It is said by those who were present on this interesting occasion that His Excellency was the most astonished person in the council chamber. Mr. Fennings Taylor, the deputy clerk with a seat at the table, tells us in a sketch of Macdonald that Lord Elgin's face clearly marked "deep displeasure and annoyance when listening to the speaker's address," and that he gave "a motion of angry impatience when he found himself obliged to listen to the repetition in French of the reproof which had evidently galled him in English." This incident was in some respects without parallel in Canadian parliamentary history. There was a practice, now obsolete in Canada as in England, for the speaker, on presenting the supply or appropriation bill to the governor-general for the royal assent, to deliver a short address directing attention to the principal measures passed during the session about to be closed.[14] This practice grew up in days when there were no responsible ministers who would be the only constitutional channel of communication between the Crown and the assembly. The speaker was privileged, and could be instructed as "the mouth-piece" of the House, to lay before the representative of the Sovereign an expression of opinion on urgent questions of the day. On this occasion Mr. Macdonald was influenced entirely by personal spite, and made an unwarrantable use of an old custom which was never intended, and could not be constitutionally used, to insult the representative of the Crown, even by inference. Mr. Macdonald was not even correct in his interpretation of the constitution, when he positively declared that an act was necessary to constitute a session. The Crown makes a session by summoning and opening parliament, and it is always a royal prerogative to prorogue or dissolve it at its pleasure even before a single act has passed the two Houses. Such a scene could never have occurred with the better understanding of the duties of the speaker and of the responsibilities of ministers advising the Crown that has grown up under a more thorough study of the practice and usages of parliament, and of the principles of responsible government. This little political episode is now chiefly interesting as giving an insight into one phase of the character of a public man, who afterwards won a high position in the parliamentary and political life of Canada before and after the confederation of 1867, not by the display of a high order of statesmanship, but by the exercise of his tenacity of purpose, and by reason of his reputation for a spiteful disposition which made him feared by friend and foe.

Immediately after the prorogation, parliament was dissolved and the Hincks-Morin ministry presented itself to the people, who were now called upon to elect a larger number of representatives under the act passed in 1853. Of the constitutionality of the course pursued by the government in this political crisis, there can now be no doubt. In the first place it was fully entitled to demand a public judgment on its general policy, especially in view of the fact, within the knowledge of all persons, that the opposition in the assembly was composed of discordant elements, only temporarily brought together by the hope of breaking up the government. In the next place it felt that it could not be justified by sound constitutional usage in asking a parliament in which the people were now imperfectly represented, to settle definitely such important questions as the clergy reserves and the seigniorial tenure. Lord Elgin had himself no doubt of the necessity for obtaining a clear verdict from the people by means of "the more perfect system of representation" provided by law. In the debate on the Representation Bill in 1853, John A. Macdonald did not hesitate to state emphatically that the House should be governed by English precedents in the position in which it would soon be placed by the passage of this measure. "Look," he said, "at the Reform Bill in England. That was passed by a parliament that had been elected only one year before, and the moment it was passed, Lord John Russell affirmed that the House could not continue after it had declared that the country was not properly represented. How can we legislate on the clergy reserves until another House is elected, if this bill passes? A great question like this cannot be left to be decided by a mere accidental majority. We can legislate upon no great question after we have ourselves declared that we do not represent the country. Do these gentlemen opposite mean to say that they will legislate on a question affecting the rights of people yet unborn, with the fag-end of a parliament dishonoured by its own confessions of incapacity?" Hincks in his "Reminiscences," printed more than three decades later than this ministerial crisis, still adhered to the opinion that the government was fully justified by established precedent in appealing to the country before disposing summarily of the important questions then agitating the people. Both Lord Elgin and Sir John A. Macdonald—to give the latter the title he afterwards received from the Crown—assuredly set forth the correct constitutional practice under the peculiar circumstances in which both government and legislature were placed by the legislation increasing the representation of the people.

The elections took place in July and August of 1854, for in those times there was no system of simultaneous polling on one day, but elections were held on such days and as long as the necessities of party demanded.[15] The result was, on the whole, adverse to the government. While it still retained a majority in French Canada, its opponents returned in greater strength, and Morin himself was defeated in Terrebonne, though happily for the interests of his party he was elected by acclamation at the same time in Chicoutimi. In Upper Canada the ministry did not obtain half the vote of the sixty-five representatives now elected to the legislature by that province. This vote was distributed as follows: Ministerial, 30; Conservatives, 22; Clear Grits, 7; and Independents, 6. Malcolm Cameron was beaten in Lambton, but Hincks was elected by two constituencies. One auspicious result of this election was the disappearance of Papineau from public life. He retired to his pretty chateau on the banks of the Ottawa, and the world soon forgot the man who had once been so prominent a figure in Canadian politics. His graces of manner and conversation continued for years to charm his friends in that placid evening of his life so very different from those stormy days when his eloquence was a menace to British institutions and British connection. Before his death, he saw Lower Canada elevated to an independent and influential position in the confederation of British North America which it could never have reached as that Nation Canadienne which he had once vainly hoped to see established in the valley of the St. Lawrence.

The Rouges, of whom Papineau had been leader, came back in good form and numbered nineteen members. Antoine A. Dorion, Holton, and other able men in the ranks of this once republican party, had become wise and adopted opinions which no longer offended the national and religious susceptibilities of their race, although they continued to show for years their radical tendencies which prevented them from ever obtaining a firm hold of public opinion in a practically Conservative province, and becoming dominant in the public councils for any length of time.

The fifth parliament of the province of Canada was opened by Lord Elgin on February 5th, 1854, and the ministry was defeated immediately on the vote for the speakership, to which Mr. Sicotte—a dignified cultured man, at a later time a judge—was elected. On this occasion Hincks resorted to a piece of strategy which enabled him to punish John Sandfield Macdonald for the insult he had levelled at the governor-general and his advisers at the close of the previous parliament. The government's candidate was Georges Étienne Cartier, who was first elected in 1849 and who had already become conspicuous in the politics of his province. Sicotte was the choice of the Opposition in Lower Canada, and while there was no belief among the politicians that he could be elected, there was an understanding among the Conservatives and Clear Grits that an effort should be made in his behalf, and in case of its failure, then the whole strength of the opponents of the ministry should be so directed as to ensure the election of Mr. Macdonald, who was sure to get a good Reform vote from the Upper Canadian representatives. These names were duly proposed in order, and Cartier was defeated by a large majority. When the clerk at the table had called for a vote for Sicotte, the number who stood up in his favour was quite insignificant, but before the Nays were taken, Hincks arose quickly and asked that his name be recorded with the Yeas. All the ministerialists followed the prime minister and voted for Sicotte, who was consequently chosen speaker by a majority of thirty-five. But all that Hincks gained by such clever tactics was the humiliation for the moment of an irascible Scotch Canadian politician. The vote itself had no political significance whatever, and the government was forced to resign on September 8th. The vote in favour of Cartier had shown that the ministry was in a minority of twelve in Upper Canada, and if Hincks had any doubt of his political weakness it was at once dispelled on September 7th when the House refused to grant to the government a short delay of twenty-four hours for the purpose of considering a question of privilege which had been raised by the Opposition. On this occasion, Dr. Rolph, who had been quite restless in the government for some tune, voted against his colleagues and gave conclusive evidence that Hincks was deserted by the majority of the Reform party in his own province, and could no longer bring that support to the French Canadian ministerialists which would enable them to administer public affairs.

The resignation of the Hincks-Morin ministry begins a new epoch in the political annals of Canada. From that time dates the disruption of the old Liberal party which had governed the country so successfully since 1848, and the formation of a powerful combination which was made up of the moderate elements of that party and of the Conservatives, which afterwards became known as the Liberal-Conservative party. This new party practically controlled public affairs for over three decades until the death of Sir John A. Macdonald, to whose inspiration it largely owed its birth. With that remarkable capacity for adapting himself to political conditions, which was one of the secrets of his strength as a party leader, he saw in 1854 that the time had come for forming an alliance with those moderate Liberals in the two provinces who, it was quite clear, had no possible affinity with the Clear Grits, who were not only small in numbers, but especially obnoxious to the French Canadians, as a people on account of the intemperate attacks made by Mr. Brown in the Toronto Globe on their revered institutions.

The representatives who supported the late ministry were still in larger numbers than any other party or faction in the House, and it was obvious that no government could exist without their support. Sir Allan MacNab, who was the oldest parliamentarian, and the leader of the Conservatives—a small but compact party—was then invited by the governor-general to assist him by his advice, during a crisis when it was evident to the veriest political tyro that the state of parties in the assembly rendered it very difficult to form a stable government unless a man could be found ready to lay aside all old feelings of personal and political rivalry and prejudice and unite all factions on a common platform for the public advantage. All the political conditions, happily, were favourable for a combination on a basis of conciliation and compromise. The old Liberals in French Canada under the influence of LaFontaine and Morin had been steadily inclining to Conservatism with the secure establishment of responsible government and the growth of the conviction that the integrity of the cherished institutions of their ancient province could be best assured by moving slowly (festina lente), and not by constant efforts to make radical changes in the body politic. The Liberals, of whom Hincks was leader, were also very distrustful of Brown, and clearly saw that he could have no strength whatever in a province where French Canada must have a guarantee that its language, religion, and civil law, were safe in the hands of any government that might at any time be formed. The wisest men among the Conservatives also felt that the time had arrived for adopting a new policy since the old questions which had once evoked their opposition had been at last settled by the voice of the people, and could no longer constitutionally or wisely be made matters of continued agitation in or out of parliament. "The question that arose in the minds of the old Liberals," as it was said many years later by Thomas White, an able journalist and politician,[16]