Canadian Scenery, Volume 1 (of 2)

by Nathaniel Parker Willis

This despatch was submitted to the Assembly, and its entire tenor, particularly the implied threat at the close, excited the highest indignation in that body. They declined this year (1834) to pass any bill of supply whatever, and employed the session in preparing another long list of grievances. They complained that, while those formerly urged were still unredressed, there had been added the partial payment of the civil officers without their consent. They made a preparatory demand of the elective Legislative Council, without which nothing would be accepted as satisfactory. Lord Aylmer’s conduct was reprobated as violent, unconstitutional, and contemptuous, and his recall urgently demanded. The published correspondence assuredly does not bear out this charge. His addresses to the Assembly are particularly courteous; and he recommends generally to the government at home concessions so extensive, that Lord Goderich, himself considered liberal towards the colonies, refused to accede to them. The petition, however, was presented to parliament, and a committee appointed for its consideration.

Meantime, Lord Stanley retired from power, and was succeeded in the colonial department by Mr. Spring Rice. This gentleman renounced the design entertained by his predecessor, of recalling the revenues yielded to the Assembly, and gave intimation, it is said, that he would follow a more conciliatory course. He only asked a little time, till he could make himself master of the subject; and thus the popular leaders were induced to delay taking any strong measures. They bitterly complained, however, that the administration was carried on as before. Lord Aylmer was continued in the government; and, though the Canadian funds were not intrenched upon, a sum of £31,000 was advanced from the military chest for payment of the civil servants, by which their responsibility to the Assembly was equally evaded. Before Mr. Rice had matured his plan, he was removed from office by the accession of Sir Robert Peel to power. He stated that he had it completed, and was ready to submit it to the cabinet on the very day when this change occurred; an assertion which Mr. Roebuck treats with evident scepticism, though seemingly without any adequate ground.

Sir Robert, on assuming the reins of office, early directed his attention to the disturbed state of Canada. After some deliberation, he determined to send out a commissioner, with power to examine on the spot, and redress without delay, every real grievance which should be proved to exist. Even the casual and territorial revenues were to be surrendered, on condition of the settlement of a civil list for at least seven years. The elective Legislative Council, however, and the entire management of the public lands could not be conceded. Viscount Canterbury, the late speaker, was first invited to fill this important appointment; and, on his declining, it was conferred on Earl Amherst. This arrangement, however, was nullified by the vote which led to the resignation of Sir Robert, and the return of Lord Melbourne to power.

The restored ministry followed up, with certain modifications, the plan of their predecessors. A commission was sent out for inquiry only, and without the power of decision, composed of the following individuals: the Earl of Gosford, Sir Charles Edward Grey, and Sir George Gipps. The first, an Irish nobleman, professing principles decidedly liberal, succeeded Lord Aylmer as governor. Lord Glenelg, now the Colonial Secretary, drew up for their guidance a series of instructions, in which he considered the claim to the disposal of the entire revenue somewhat exorbitant, and not warranted by British example; yet was willing, for the sake of peace, to consent to it on certain conditions. These were—an independent provision for the judges, and salaries for the civil officers, fixed for a certain number of years; ten being mentioned as particularly suitable. With regard to the uncleared lands, the whole proceeds arising from their sale were to be placed at the disposal of the Assembly; but government could not consent to part with the management of them, or annul the contract made with the Land Company, though they would be ready to guard against all abuses, and even to receive any suggestions on the subject. The existing pensions were also to be retained, but the future power of granting them would be surrendered. In regard to the critical question of the elective legislative council, it was said: “The King is most unwilling to admit as open to debate, the question—whether one of the vital principles of the provincial government shall undergo alteration?” The right of petition, however, was fully recognized; and his Majesty would not “absolutely close the avenue to inquiry,” even where, “for the present, he saw no reasonable ground of doubt.”

“The Earl of Gosford, having arrived in Canada, lost no time in calling a meeting of the legislature, who were convoked on the 27th of October, 1835; and, in his opening speeches, he professed the most conciliatory views, particularly towards the French, or popular party. He avowed the opinion, that “to be acceptable to the great body of the people, is one of the most essential elements of fitness for public station.” He intimated his readiness to place the whole revenue at the disposal of the Assembly, on the conditions formerly stated. All the other grievances were to be carefully examined and redressed; and allusion was made to “still graver matters,” respecting which the commissioners “were not precluded from entering into an inquiry.”

The Legislative Council returned an answer, which, in all respects, was extremely moderate. They generally concurred in the sentiments of the speech, deprecated the idea that difference of origin should affect political rights, which ought to be equal to all his Majesty’s subjects. But the House of Assembly, while holding conciliatory language, advanced much more lofty pretensions. The change in the Legislative Council was repeatedly pressed, as absolutely essential to the tranquillity and contentment of the province. The entire control of the public revenue was referred to, not as a boon, but an incontestable and essential right; and, while they stated their readiness to consider attentively any measure tending to facilitate the exercise of this right, they avoided all mention of conditions to be performed in return. Notwithstanding the high ground thus taken, the intercourse between the popular leaders and the governor was extremely friendly. He admitted them to his table and his intimacy, and treated them on every occasion with much kindness. They were understood to represent the great body of the people, whom he had expressed his desire to conciliate; and he professed liberal views to those who would understand that term in its widest sense. So decided was the impression produced, that the opposite party loaded him with the bitterest invectives, and even threw out menaces of insurrection; while the leaders of the Assembly went so far as to intimate, that they would relieve the immediate financial embarrassments by granting the three years arrears, and a half year in advance. They attached to the grant somewhat hard conditions, which, however, were not rejected; and, on the remark being made, that these would ensure its rejection by the Legislative Council, an intimation is said to have been given, that it would be accepted directly by address, without being liable to the veto of that body.

This good understanding was suddenly interrupted. The governor’s language above cited, in regard to the Elective Council, had been very different from that of his instructions; not pledging him, indeed, to the measure, yet such as, combined with his other conduct, conveyed to both parties the idea that it was determined upon. This course is defended as the only one by which the supplies, so urgently wanted, could be obtained; and it was hoped, that, by a continued conciliatory course, the Assembly might, when the real intention of the cabinet could no longer be concealed, be induced to waive their demand. Any degree of duplicity in a government, however, must, when discovered, lower its dignity, irritate the deceived parties, and, at the same time, give them an impression of their strength, which had driven those in authority to such an expedient. Unhappily, all these effects followed before any of the expected fruits had been reaped. Sir Francis Bond Head had, at the same time, been sent out to Upper Canada; and, being a very straightforward person, and seemingly unapprized of Lord Gosford’s intentions, had made public a part of his instructions, including that momentous passage already quoted, relative to the Legislative Council. It was such as, though not wholly precluding discussion on the object, left to the popular leaders scarcely a hope of its attainment. Their rage knew no bounds; they complained, not only of disappointment in their favourite object, but of a deception by which they had been nearly misled. It was now determined not to grant the three years’ arrears, but merely a supply for the current half year, allowing only that short period to comply with their demands. This slender boon, too, was clogged with conditions, which, as had been foreseen, induced the upper house to reject it; so that the session, in all respects very stormy, passed over without any provision whatever being made for the public service. The Legislative Council felt naturally indignant at the violent attempts meditated for its overthrow; and instead of studying to show these to be unmerited, the members vented their resentment by rejecting almost every bill sent up from the Assembly. Among these was the vote, continuing the funds for national education, which were thus entirely withdrawn. All the political elements were disturbed, and in violent collision with each other.

The commissioners, in March 1836, viewing this state of things, and seeing no prospect of obtaining money to carry on the government, without immediately yielding to every demand of the lower house, considered it indispensable to obtain it without their consent. This, they thought, would be best accomplished by parliament repealing the act passed on the motion of Lord Goderich, by which funds to the amount of £38,000 had been made over to the Assembly. This would, indeed, excite bitter resentment; but, with the other reserved revenues, it would, at least, enable the government to proceed without any grants from that body. Lord Glenelg was not forward to act on this recommendation. He wrote to the Earl of Gosford, expressing a hope, on grounds which do not very distinctly appear, that the violent resolution complained of had been induced by the partial and imperfect knowledge of the instructions, and that a communication of the whole might lead to more favourable views. He expressed a wish, therefore, that the provincial parliament should be again called, and an opportunity afforded for retracting before recourse was had to extreme measures. The meeting was accordingly held on the 22d of September, 1838; but the majority soon presented an address to the governor, denying that, according to the apprehension expressed in his speech, they laboured under any kind of misconception; they saw nothing to make them change their views, or prevent them from insisting on the same demands, particularly that of the Elective Council. They adverted in an indignant manner to certain pretended authorities, as they termed the commission, and maintained that they themselves were the legitimate and authorized organ of all classes of inhabitants; that they had used their power in such a manner as ought to have secured confidence; and to them, not to a few strangers, ought to have been committed the fate of the country. They declared it their imperative duty to adhere to the contents of their last address—“and to them do we adhere.” They finally expressed a resolution not only to do nothing more in regard to supply, but to adjourn their deliberations altogether, unless government should commence the great work of justice and reform, particularly in regard to the second branch of the legislature.

Matters had now reached an extremity, which seemed to render it no longer possible to delay an interposition. The stoppage of the supplies, like the granting of them, was no doubt a right inherent in a representative assembly. Yet it is one, the exercise of which is attended with such formidable evils, that the Commons of England, during more than a century, had merely kept it in the back ground as a last resort, and never brought it into actual operation. The constitutional character of the measure became still more questionable, when employed, not to control the abuses of the executive, but to overthrow a separate and co-ordinate branch of the legislature, deriving its existence from the same source with the Assembly itself. This was a mighty change, amounting to a kind of revolution, and to be effected only with the utmost deliberation. The stopping the whole machine of government, and not allowing even an interval of time to effect it, was a measure of extreme violence. Had the popular leaders listened to the dictates of prudence and moderation, they might, availing themselves of the conciliatory disposition shown by the new governor, have obtained all their substantial objects. They would have gained the chief control in the executive, after which the Legislative Council, whom they continually reproached with subserviency to the latter branch, were not likely to persevere in unavailing opposition.

Ministers now determined no longer to delay measures for counteracting the proceedings of the violent party, and placing the executive government in a state of regular action. Parliament having assembled, and the reports of the commissioners laid on the table, Lord John Russell, on the 6th of March, 1837, moved a series of resolutions, on which acts were to be founded. After a statement of the actual posture of affairs, it was proposed that the sum of £142,000 should be taken out of the provincial funds locked up by the Assembly, and applied to the payment of the judges and other civil officers, down to the 10th of April. It was afterwards agreed, not, as the commissioners had recommended, to resume any part of the ceded monies, but, by a strict economy, to carry on the government from that date with the casual and territorial revenues, which circumstances had now raised to about £28,000. The elective Legislative Council, and the direct responsibility of the executive one to the Assembly, were both declared inexpedient; though it was stated as desirable, that considerable improvements should be made in the composition of both. These suggestions gave occasion to very warm debates. The Tories, while they supported the proposals of government, accused them of an imprudent indulgence and want of energy, which had emboldened the factious party to proceed to extremities. On the other hand, a small but active section of the popular leaders justified all the claims and proceedings of the Canadian Assembly, denounced the resolutions as unconstitutional and tyrannical, and predicted as their result civil war and the loss of the colonies. The motion of Mr. Leader, however, in favour of an Elective Council, was negatived by 318 to 56, and the cabinet measures were carried by overwhelming majorities;—but the death of William IV. intervened before they could be embodied in acts of parliament. The necessity of a dissolution, and the unwillingness to begin the government of a young and popular Queen by a scheme of coercion, induced ministers to substitute the expedient of advancing the amount by way of loan from the British revenue, in the prospect of being ultimately reimbursed from the provincial funds.