These poor halfbreeds would never have taken up arms against the Government had not a miscreant of their own nation [Riel], profiting by their discontent, excited them thereto. He gained their confidence by a false and hypocritical piety, and having drawn them from the beneficent influence of their clergy, he brought them to look upon himself as a prophet, a man inspired by God and specially charged with a mission in their favour, and forced them to take up arms.
Riel's own letters disclose no appreciation on his part of the enormity of his offences, or of the grave peril in which he stood. The whole collection produces a most unfavourable impression of the man, and one rises from its examination with a wish that those who were wont to proclaim Riel a patriot and hero could see for themselves what manner of man he really was. The papers will ultimately find their resting-place in the Dominion Archives and will become available to future historians.
The political effect of the execution of Riel was quite in accordance with Sir John Macdonald's expectations. In the province of Quebec the greatest excitement prevailed. At many meetings the prime minister and his French-Canadian colleagues were burned in effigy. Sir John had postponed an intended visit to England until after the execution. So intense was the popular feeling, that when the time came for sailing he thought it prudent to avoid Montreal and Quebec and to board his ship at Rimouski. This circumstance afforded material to the editor of the Mail, Mr Edward Farrer, for an amusing article, bearing the alliterative title, 'The Murderer's Midnight Mizzle, or the Ruffian's Race for Rimouski.'
All this happened in November. In the preceding January Sir John had taken part at Montreal in a magnificent demonstration to celebrate the fortieth anniversary of his entrance into public life. If ever a public man enjoyed the acclaim of the populace, the Conservative chieftain did so on that occasion. If my memory serves me rightly, the crowd took the horses out of his carriage and drew him in triumph from the place of meeting to his hotel. Not quite ten months later, when slipping almost secretly past Montreal, Macdonald alluded to this as an apt illustration of the fickleness of public opinion. The immediate consequence of this popular frenzy in Quebec was the defeat of the Conservative Government of the province, the rise of Honoré Mercier, the Liberal leader, to power, and the loss of many Conservative seats in the subsequent Dominion elections. Indeed, Sir John Macdonald never recovered his ground in the province of Quebec. Riel's execution wrought organic political changes which are visible to this day.
The parliamentary opponents of the Government were naturally not slow to take advantage of the situation, but their first move was frustrated by Sir John Macdonald in a manner worthy to rank as a piece of political strategy with the 'Double Shuffle' itself. At the first available moment after the meeting of parliament in February 1886, the member for Montmagny[[20]] moved this resolution: 'That this House feels it its duty to express its deep regret that the sentence of death passed upon Louis Riel convicted of high treason was allowed to be carried into execution.' Scarcely were the words out of his mouth before Sir Hector Langevin rose, anticipating Blake, the leader of the Opposition, by a fraction of a second, and moved the 'previous question,' thus shutting off all amendments, and compelling a vote to be taken on the resolution as it stood. The Opposition had naturally counted upon having an opportunity to present an amendment so framed as to censure the Government for maladministration, without categorically condemning the execution itself. In this design, however, they were frustrated. Blake was completely outgeneralled, and as Sir Hector had been fortunate enough to catch the speaker's eye first, there was no help for it. Blake himself, his French-Canadian supporters, and some others, voted for the condemnation of the Government, but for some of the most prominent members of the Opposition this was an impossibility. Many prominent Liberals—including Mackenzie, Cartwright, Mulock, Paterson, Sutherland, Fisher, and Davies—supported the Ministry against their own leader. By a vote of 146 to 52 the House rejected Landry's motion.
Another important question of the time was the adoption of an Act for the Dominion making a uniform qualification of voters. The British North America Act laid down that, until the parliament of Canada otherwise provided, the provincial laws relating to the qualification to vote at elections should apply to elections for members of the House of Commons. Since 1867 parliament had gone on using the provincial lists of voters, but for some years Sir John Macdonald had chafed under this anomaly. It seemed to him obvious that the parliament of Canada should determine its own electorate, and that the franchise should, as far as possible, be uniform throughout the Dominion. The system in vogue, under which members of the House of Commons were elected under half a dozen different systems, over which parliament had no control, was in his opinion not merely abnormal, but derogatory to the dignity of the superior body. In defence of this system the practice in the United States was sometimes pointed to, but in this matter there was no real analogy between Canada and the United States. The American Union is in reality a federation of sovereign states, of which Congress is the creation. This being the case, it is not incongruous that these states should retain control over congressional elections. But the Canadian provinces are not sovereign; on the contrary, they are, in a real sense, subordinate to the central government.
Sir John Macdonald had also observed, with ever-growing concern, a disposition on the part of some of the provincial legislatures to amend their electoral franchises in a democratic direction. Now, the necessity of a property qualification for the right to vote was ever a first principle with him—the central dogma of his political faith. He said with much energy that no man who favoured manhood suffrage without a property qualification had a right to call himself a Conservative. Once, when Sir John was dwelling on his favourite doctrine in the House of Commons, a member interrupted him to know if he might ask a question. 'Certainly,' replied Sir John. 'Well,' said the member, 'many years ago, during the gold fever, I went out to California, and while there working in the diggings I acquired an interest in a donkey. Under it I voted. Before the next election came round the donkey died, and then I had no vote.... Who voted on the first election, I or the donkey?' It was on the tip of Sir John's tongue to retort that it didn't much matter which, but he forbore, and merely joined in the general laughter.
In conformity with these views Sir John Macdonald introduced his Electoral Franchise Bill in 1883, not with the object of carrying it through parliament that session, but merely for the purpose of placing it before the members. The same thing happened in 1884. But in 1885 the Bill was introduced in earnest. It provided, as far as practicable, for a uniform qualification of voters throughout the Dominion based on property, and also for the registration of voters by revising officers to be appointed by the federal Government. The measure encountered a desperate resistance from the Opposition. For the first time in the parliament of the Dominion there was organized obstruction. On one occasion the House of Commons sat from Thursday afternoon until Saturday midnight, and although this record has since been beaten, it was felt at the time to be a most trying experience. Obstruction was naked and unashamed. Members read long passages from The Pilgrim's Progress, or Robinson Crusoe, or any other work that happened to appeal to them. One day—the passage is hopelessly buried in Hansard and I cannot find it, but I remember the occasion very vividly—Sir John rose at the opening of the day's proceedings and addressed a few grave and measured words to the Opposition. Starting with the remark that he could only suppose their extraordinary and unparalleled conduct to be the outcome of a misapprehension as to 'my supposed infirmities and my advancing years,' he told them that they were vastly mistaken if they supposed they could tire him out by such methods. He declared that as long as he, and those who acted with him, enjoyed the confidence of the people, they did not intend to resign their functions into the hands of the minority. He begged them, in conclusion, to reflect upon the unwisdom of their course, 'lest what has begun as a farce may end in a tragedy.'
These serious words did not appear to produce any immediate effect, and the debates dragged on through the hot summer months. In the end, however, patience and firmness prevailed, and the Franchise Act reached the statute-book, where it remained until it was repealed twelve years later by the Government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. The apprehensions of the Opposition with regard to the revising officers were not realized. In Ontario these positions were offered to the county court judges, or to the junior judges, and were accepted by nearly all of them. In the province of Quebec, where there are no county court judges, such appointments were not possible; but the law provided that where the returning officer was not a judge, he must be a barrister or notary of not less than five years' standing, and an appeal in all cases lay from him to a judge. Sir John Macdonald carefully supervised these appointments, which in the great majority of cases were quite unexceptionable. The administration of the Act was no doubt expensive. This was the strongest criticism heard against it; but in the opinion of the Government of that day it was essential to the idea of a united Dominion that the parliament of Canada should determine and control the conditions of acquiring the right to vote for members of its own House of Commons.