Lord Elgin - Sir John George Bourinot (distant reading .txt) 📗

severely criticized, and gave a stimulus to the movement that had been steadily going on for years among radical reformers of both provinces in favour of an elective body.

The result was that in 1854 the British parliament repealed the clauses of the Union Act of 1840 with respect to the upper House, and gave full power to the Canadian legislature to make such changes as it might deem expedient--another concession to the principle of local self-government. It was not, however, until 1856, that the legislature passed a bill giving effect to the intentions of the imperial law, and the first elections were held for the council. Lord Elgin was always favourable to this constitutional change. "The position of the second chamber of our body politic"--I quote from a despatch of March, 1853--"is at present wholly unsatisfactory. The principle of election must be introduced in order to give to it the influence which it ought to possess, and that principle must be so applied as to admit of the working of parliamentary government (which I for one am certainly not prepared to abandon for the American system) with two elective chambers... When our two legislative bodies shall have been placed on this improved footing, a greater stability will have been imparted to our constitution, and a greater strength." Lord Elgin's view was adopted and the change was made.

It is interesting to note that so distinguished a statesman as Lord Derby, who had been colonial secretary in a previous administration, had only gloomy forebodings of the effects of this elective system applied to the upper House. He believed that the dream that he had of seeing the colonies form eventually "a monarchical government, presided over by one nearly and closely allied to the present royal family," would be proved quite illusory by the legislation in question. "Nothing," he added, "like a free and regulated monarchy could exist for a single moment under such a constitution as that which is now proposed for Canada. From the moment that you pass this constitution, the progress must be rapidly towards republicanism, if anything could be more really republican than this bill." As a matter of fact a very few years later than the utterance of these gloomy words, Canada and the other provinces of British North America entered into a confederation "with a constitution similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom"--to quote words in the preamble of the Act of Union--and with a parliament of which the House of Commons is alone elective. More than that, Lord Derby's dream has been in a measure realized and Canada has seen at the head of her executive a governor-general--the present Duke of Argyle--"nearly and closely allied to the present royal family" of England, by his marriage to the Princess Louise, the fourth daughter of Queen Victoria, who accompanied her husband to Ottawa.

One remarkable feature of the Imperial Act dealing with this question of the council, was the introduction of a clause which gave authority to a mere majority of the members of the two Houses of the legislature to increase the representation, and consequently removed that safeguard to French Canada which required a two-thirds vote in each branch. As the legislature had never passed an address or otherwise expressed itself in favour of such an amendment of the Union Act, there was always a mystery as to the way it was brought about. Georges Étienne Cartier always declared that Papineau was indirectly responsible for this imperial legislation. As already stated, the leader of the Rouges had voted against the bill increasing the representation, and had declaimed like others against the injustice which the clause in the Union Act had originally done to French Canada. "This fact," said Cartier, "was known in England, and when leave was given to elect legislative councillors, the amendment complained of was made at the same time. It may be said then, that if Papineau had not systematically opposed the increase of representation, the change in question would have never been thought of in England." Hincks, however, was attacked by the French Canadian historian, Garneau, for having suggested the amendment while in England in 1854. This, however, he denied most emphatically in a pamphlet which he wrote at a later time when he was no longer in public life. He placed the responsibility on John Boulton, who called himself an independent Liberal and who was in England at the same time as Hincks, and probably got the ear of the colonial secretary or one of his subordinates in the colonial office, and induced him to introduce the amendment which passed without notice in a House where very little attention was given, as a rule, to purely colonial questions.

In 1853 Lord Elgin visited England, where he received unqualified praise for his able administration of Canadian affairs. It was on this occasion that Mr. Buchanan, then minister of the United States in London, and afterwards a president of the Republic, paid this tribute to the governor-general at a public dinner given in his honour.

"Lord Elgin," he said, "has solved one of the most difficult problems of statesmanship. He has been able, successfully and satisfactorily, to administer, amidst many difficulties, a colonial government over a free people. This is an easy task where the commands of a despot are law to his obedient servants, but not so in a colony where the people feel that they possess the rights and privileges of native-born Britons. Under his enlightened government, Her Majesty's North American provinces have realized the blessings of a wise, prudent and prosperous administration, and we of the neighbouring nation, though jealous of our rights, have reason to be abundantly satisfied with his just and friendly conduct towards ourselves. He has known how to reconcile his devotion to Her Majesty's service with a proper regard to the rights and interests of a kindred and neighbouring people. Would to heaven we had such governors-general in all the European colonies in the vicinity of the United States!"

On his return from England Lord Elgin made a visit to Washington and succeeded in negotiating the reciprocity treaty which he had always at heart. It was not, however, until a change of government occurred in Canada, that the legislature was able to give its ratification to this important measure. This subject is of such importance that it will be fully considered in a separate chapter on the relations between Canada and the United States during Lord Elgin's term of office.

In 1854 the Roman Catholic inhabitants of Quebec and Montreal were deeply excited by the lectures of a former monk, Father Gavazzi, who had become a Protestant and professed to expose the errors of the faith to which he once belonged. Much rioting took place in both cities, and blood was shed in Montreal, where the troops, which had been called out, suddenly fired on the mob. Mr. Wilson, the mayor, who was a Roman Catholic, was accused of having given the order to fire, but he always denied the charge, and Hincks, in his "Reminiscences," expresses his conviction that he was not responsible. He was persuaded that "the firing was quite accidental, one man having discharged his piece from misapprehension, and others having followed his example until the officers threw themselves in front, and struck up the firelocks." Be this as it may, the Clear Grits in the West promptly made use of this incident to attack the government on the ground that it had failed to make a full investigation into the circumstances of the riot. As a matter of fact, according to Hincks, the government did take immediate steps to call the attention of the military commandant to the matter, and the result was a court of inquiry which ended in the removal of the regiment--then only a few days in Canada--to Bermuda for having shown "a want of discipline." Brown inveighed very bitterly against Hincks and his colleagues, as subject to Roman Catholic domination in French Canada, and found this unfortunate affair extremely useful in his systematic efforts to destroy the government, to which at no time had he been at all favourable.

Several changes took place during 1853 in the _personnel_ of the ministry, which met parliament on June 13th, with the following members holding portfolios:


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