Canada under British Rule - Sir John George Bourinot (any book recommendations .TXT) 📗
- Author: Sir John George Bourinot
Book online «Canada under British Rule - Sir John George Bourinot (any book recommendations .TXT) 📗». Author Sir John George Bourinot
the opposition, unable to speak or even to rise without the helping arm of some attentive friend. On the 30th October, 1893, Sir John Abbott, probably the ablest commercial lawyer in Canada, who had been premier of Canada since the death of Sir John Macdonald, followed his eminent predecessors to the grave, and was succeeded by Sir John Thompson, minister of justice in the Conservative government since September, 1885. A great misfortune again overtook the Conservative party on the 12th December, 1894, when Sir John Thompson died in Windsor Castle, whither he had gone at her Majesty's request to take the oath of a privy councillor of England--high distinction conferred upon him in recognition of his services on the Bering Sea arbitration. Sir John Thompson was gifted with a rare judicial mind, and a remarkable capacity for the lucid expression of his thoughts, which captivated his hearers even when they were not convinced by arguments clothed in the choicest diction. His remains were brought across the Atlantic by a British frigate, and interred in his native city of Halifax with all the stately ceremony of a national funeral. The governor-general, Lord Stanley of Preston, now the Earl of Derby, called upon the senior privy councillor in the cabinet, Sir Mackenzie Bowell, to form a new ministry. He continued in office until April, 1896, when he retired in favour of Sir Charles Tupper, who resigned the position of high commissioner for Canada in England to enter public life as the recognised leader of the Liberal-Conservative party. This eminent Canadian had already reached the middle of the eighth decade of his life, but age had in no sense impaired the vigour or astuteness of his mental powers. He has continued ever since, as leader of the Liberal-Conservative party, to display remarkable activity in the discussion of political questions, not only as a leader of parliament, but on the public platform in every province of the Dominion.
During the session of 1891 the political career of Sir Hector Langevin, the leader of the Liberal-Conservative party in French Canada, was seriously affected by certain facts disclosed before the committee of privileges and elections. This committee had been ordered by the house of commons to inquire into charges made by Mr. Israel Tarte against another member of the house, Mr. Thomas McGreevy, who was accused of having used his influence as a commissioner of the Quebec harbour, a government appointment, to obtain fraudulently from the department of public works, presided over by Sir Hector for many years, large government contracts in connection with the Quebec harbour and other works. The report of the majority of the committee found Mr. McGreevy guilty of fraudulent acts, and he was not only expelled from the house but was subsequently imprisoned in the Ottawa common gaol after his conviction on an indictment laid against him in the criminal court of Ontario. With respect to the complicity of the minister of public works in these frauds the committee reported that it was clear that, while the conspiracy had been rendered effective by reason of the confidence which Sir Hector Langevin placed in Mr. McGreevy and in the officers of the department, yet the evidence did not justify them in concluding that Sir Hector knew of the conspiracy or willingly lent himself to its objects. A minority of the committee, on the other hand, took the opposite view of the transactions, and claimed that the evidence showed the minister to be cognisant of the facts of the letting of the contracts, and that in certain specified cases he had been guilty of the violation of a public trust by allowing frauds to be perpetrated. The report of the majority was carried by a party vote, with the exception of two Conservative members who voted with the minority. Sir Hector Langevin had resigned his office in the government previous to the inquiry, and though he continued in the house for the remainder of its constitutional existence, he did not present himself for re-election in 1896 when parliament was dissolved.
Unhappily it was not only in the department of public works that irregularities were discovered. A number of officials in several departments were proved before the committee of public accounts to have been guilty of carelessness or positive misconduct in the discharge of their duties, and the government was obliged, in the face of such disclosures, to dismiss or otherwise punish several persons in whom they had for years reposed too much confidence.
On the 20th and 21st of June, 1893, a convention of the most prominent representative Liberals of the Dominion was held in the city of Ottawa; and Sir Oliver Mowat, the veteran premier of Ontario, was unanimously called upon to preside over this important assemblage. Resolutions were passed with great enthusiasm in support of tariff reform, a fair measure of reciprocal trade with the United States, a sale of public lands only to actual settlers upon reasonable terms of settlement, an honest and economical administration of government, the right of the house of commons to inquire into all matters of public expenditure and charges of misconduct against ministers, the reform of the senate, the submission of the question of prohibition to a vote of the people, and the repeal of the Dominion franchise act passed in 1885, as well as of the measure of 1892, altering the boundaries of the electoral districts and readjusting the representation in the house of commons. This convention may be considered the commencement of that vigorous political campaign, which ended so successfully for the Liberal party in the general election of 1896.
In the summer of 1894 there was held in the city of Ottawa a conference of delegates from eight self-governing colonies in Australasia, South Africa, and America, who assembled for the express purpose of discussing questions which affected not merely their own peculiar interests, but touched most nearly the unity and development of the empire at large The imperial government was represented by the Earl of Jersey, who had been a governor of one of the Australian colonies. After very full discussion the conference passed resolutions in favour of the following measures:
(1) Imperial legislation enabling the dependencies of the empire to enter into agreements of commercial reciprocity, including the power to make differential tariffs with Great Britain or with one another. (2) The removal of any restrictions in existing treaties between Great Britain and any foreign power, which prevent such agreements of commercial reciprocity. (3) A customs arrangement between Great Britain and her colonies by which trade within the empire might be placed on a more favourable footing than that which is carried on with foreign countries. (4) Improved steamship communication between Canada, Australasia, and Great Britain. (5) Telegraph communication by cable, free from foreign control, between Canada and Australia. These various resolutions were brought formally by the Earl of Jersey to the notice of the imperial government, which expressed the opinion, through the Marquess of Ripon, then secretary of state for the colonies, that the "general economic results" of the preferential trade recommended by the conference "would not be beneficial to the empire." Lord Ripon even questioned the desirability of denouncing at that time the treaties with Belgium and Germany--a subject which had engaged the attention of the Canadian parliament in 1892, when the government, of which Sir John Abbott was premier, passed an address to the Queen, requesting that immediate steps be taken to free Canada from treaty restrictions "incompatible with the rights and powers conferred by the British North America act of 1867 for the regulation of the trade and commerce of the Dominion." Any advantages which might be granted by Great Britain to either Belgium or the German Zollverein under these particular treaties, would also have to be extended to a number of other countries which had what is called the "favoured nations clause" in treaties with England. While these treaty stipulations with regard to import duties did not prevent differential treatment by the United Kingdom in favour of British colonies, or differential treatment by British colonies in favour of each other, they did prevent differential treatment by British colonies in favour of the United Kingdom. As we shall presently see, when I come to review the commercial policy of the new Dominion government three years later, the practical consequence of these treaties was actually to force Canada to give for some months not only to Germany and Belgium, but to a number of other countries, the same commercial privileges which they extended in 1897 to the parent state.
Among the difficult questions, which have agitated the Dominion from time to time and perplexed both Conservative and Liberal politicians, are controversies connected with education. By the British North America act of 1867 the legislature of each province may exclusively make laws in relation to education, but at the same time protection is afforded to denominational or dissentient schools by giving authority to the Dominion government to disallow an act clearly infringing the rights or privileges of a religious minority, or to obtain remedial legislation from parliament itself according to the circumstances of the case. From 1871 until 1875 the government of the Dominion was pressed by petitions from the Roman Catholic inhabitants of New Brunswick to disallow an act passed by the provincial legislature in relation to common schools on the ground that it was an infringement of certain rights which they enjoyed as a religious body at the time of confederation. The question not only came before the courts of New Brunswick and the Canadian house of commons, but was also submitted to the judicial committee of the imperial privy council; but only with the result of showing beyond question that the objectionable legislation was clearly within the jurisdiction of the legislature of New Brunswick, and could not be constitutionally disallowed by the Dominion government on the ground that it violated any right or privilege enjoyed by the Roman Catholics at the time of union. A solution of the question was, however, subsequently reached by an amicable arrangement between the Roman Catholics and Protestants, which has ever since worked most satisfactorily in that province.
The Manitoba school question, which agitated the country from 1890 until 1896, was one of great gravity on account of the issues involved. The history of the case shows that, prior to the formation of Manitoba in 1870, there was not in the province any public system of education, but the several religious denominations had established such schools as they thought fit to maintain by means of funds voluntarily contributed by members of their own communion. In 1871 the legislature of Manitoba established an educational system distinctly denominational. In 1890 this law was repealed, and the legislature established a system of strictly non-sectarian schools. The Roman Catholic minority of the province was deeply aggrieved at what they considered a violation of the rights and privileges which they enjoyed under the terms of union adopted in 1870. The first subsection of the twenty-second section of the act of 1870 set forth that the legislature of the province could not pass any law with regard to schools which might "prejudicially affect any right or privilege with respect to denominational schools which any class of persons have, by law or practice, in the province at the time of union." The dispute was brought before the courts of Canada, and finally before the judicial committee of the privy council, which decided that the legislation of 1890 was constitutional inasmuch as the only right or privilege which the Roman Catholics then possessed "by law or practice" was the right or privilege of establishing and maintaining for the use of members of their own church such schools as they pleased. The Roman Catholic minority then availed themselves of another provision of the twenty-second section of the Manitoba act, which allows an appeal to the governor-in-council "from any act or decision of the
During the session of 1891 the political career of Sir Hector Langevin, the leader of the Liberal-Conservative party in French Canada, was seriously affected by certain facts disclosed before the committee of privileges and elections. This committee had been ordered by the house of commons to inquire into charges made by Mr. Israel Tarte against another member of the house, Mr. Thomas McGreevy, who was accused of having used his influence as a commissioner of the Quebec harbour, a government appointment, to obtain fraudulently from the department of public works, presided over by Sir Hector for many years, large government contracts in connection with the Quebec harbour and other works. The report of the majority of the committee found Mr. McGreevy guilty of fraudulent acts, and he was not only expelled from the house but was subsequently imprisoned in the Ottawa common gaol after his conviction on an indictment laid against him in the criminal court of Ontario. With respect to the complicity of the minister of public works in these frauds the committee reported that it was clear that, while the conspiracy had been rendered effective by reason of the confidence which Sir Hector Langevin placed in Mr. McGreevy and in the officers of the department, yet the evidence did not justify them in concluding that Sir Hector knew of the conspiracy or willingly lent himself to its objects. A minority of the committee, on the other hand, took the opposite view of the transactions, and claimed that the evidence showed the minister to be cognisant of the facts of the letting of the contracts, and that in certain specified cases he had been guilty of the violation of a public trust by allowing frauds to be perpetrated. The report of the majority was carried by a party vote, with the exception of two Conservative members who voted with the minority. Sir Hector Langevin had resigned his office in the government previous to the inquiry, and though he continued in the house for the remainder of its constitutional existence, he did not present himself for re-election in 1896 when parliament was dissolved.
Unhappily it was not only in the department of public works that irregularities were discovered. A number of officials in several departments were proved before the committee of public accounts to have been guilty of carelessness or positive misconduct in the discharge of their duties, and the government was obliged, in the face of such disclosures, to dismiss or otherwise punish several persons in whom they had for years reposed too much confidence.
On the 20th and 21st of June, 1893, a convention of the most prominent representative Liberals of the Dominion was held in the city of Ottawa; and Sir Oliver Mowat, the veteran premier of Ontario, was unanimously called upon to preside over this important assemblage. Resolutions were passed with great enthusiasm in support of tariff reform, a fair measure of reciprocal trade with the United States, a sale of public lands only to actual settlers upon reasonable terms of settlement, an honest and economical administration of government, the right of the house of commons to inquire into all matters of public expenditure and charges of misconduct against ministers, the reform of the senate, the submission of the question of prohibition to a vote of the people, and the repeal of the Dominion franchise act passed in 1885, as well as of the measure of 1892, altering the boundaries of the electoral districts and readjusting the representation in the house of commons. This convention may be considered the commencement of that vigorous political campaign, which ended so successfully for the Liberal party in the general election of 1896.
In the summer of 1894 there was held in the city of Ottawa a conference of delegates from eight self-governing colonies in Australasia, South Africa, and America, who assembled for the express purpose of discussing questions which affected not merely their own peculiar interests, but touched most nearly the unity and development of the empire at large The imperial government was represented by the Earl of Jersey, who had been a governor of one of the Australian colonies. After very full discussion the conference passed resolutions in favour of the following measures:
(1) Imperial legislation enabling the dependencies of the empire to enter into agreements of commercial reciprocity, including the power to make differential tariffs with Great Britain or with one another. (2) The removal of any restrictions in existing treaties between Great Britain and any foreign power, which prevent such agreements of commercial reciprocity. (3) A customs arrangement between Great Britain and her colonies by which trade within the empire might be placed on a more favourable footing than that which is carried on with foreign countries. (4) Improved steamship communication between Canada, Australasia, and Great Britain. (5) Telegraph communication by cable, free from foreign control, between Canada and Australia. These various resolutions were brought formally by the Earl of Jersey to the notice of the imperial government, which expressed the opinion, through the Marquess of Ripon, then secretary of state for the colonies, that the "general economic results" of the preferential trade recommended by the conference "would not be beneficial to the empire." Lord Ripon even questioned the desirability of denouncing at that time the treaties with Belgium and Germany--a subject which had engaged the attention of the Canadian parliament in 1892, when the government, of which Sir John Abbott was premier, passed an address to the Queen, requesting that immediate steps be taken to free Canada from treaty restrictions "incompatible with the rights and powers conferred by the British North America act of 1867 for the regulation of the trade and commerce of the Dominion." Any advantages which might be granted by Great Britain to either Belgium or the German Zollverein under these particular treaties, would also have to be extended to a number of other countries which had what is called the "favoured nations clause" in treaties with England. While these treaty stipulations with regard to import duties did not prevent differential treatment by the United Kingdom in favour of British colonies, or differential treatment by British colonies in favour of each other, they did prevent differential treatment by British colonies in favour of the United Kingdom. As we shall presently see, when I come to review the commercial policy of the new Dominion government three years later, the practical consequence of these treaties was actually to force Canada to give for some months not only to Germany and Belgium, but to a number of other countries, the same commercial privileges which they extended in 1897 to the parent state.
Among the difficult questions, which have agitated the Dominion from time to time and perplexed both Conservative and Liberal politicians, are controversies connected with education. By the British North America act of 1867 the legislature of each province may exclusively make laws in relation to education, but at the same time protection is afforded to denominational or dissentient schools by giving authority to the Dominion government to disallow an act clearly infringing the rights or privileges of a religious minority, or to obtain remedial legislation from parliament itself according to the circumstances of the case. From 1871 until 1875 the government of the Dominion was pressed by petitions from the Roman Catholic inhabitants of New Brunswick to disallow an act passed by the provincial legislature in relation to common schools on the ground that it was an infringement of certain rights which they enjoyed as a religious body at the time of confederation. The question not only came before the courts of New Brunswick and the Canadian house of commons, but was also submitted to the judicial committee of the imperial privy council; but only with the result of showing beyond question that the objectionable legislation was clearly within the jurisdiction of the legislature of New Brunswick, and could not be constitutionally disallowed by the Dominion government on the ground that it violated any right or privilege enjoyed by the Roman Catholics at the time of union. A solution of the question was, however, subsequently reached by an amicable arrangement between the Roman Catholics and Protestants, which has ever since worked most satisfactorily in that province.
The Manitoba school question, which agitated the country from 1890 until 1896, was one of great gravity on account of the issues involved. The history of the case shows that, prior to the formation of Manitoba in 1870, there was not in the province any public system of education, but the several religious denominations had established such schools as they thought fit to maintain by means of funds voluntarily contributed by members of their own communion. In 1871 the legislature of Manitoba established an educational system distinctly denominational. In 1890 this law was repealed, and the legislature established a system of strictly non-sectarian schools. The Roman Catholic minority of the province was deeply aggrieved at what they considered a violation of the rights and privileges which they enjoyed under the terms of union adopted in 1870. The first subsection of the twenty-second section of the act of 1870 set forth that the legislature of the province could not pass any law with regard to schools which might "prejudicially affect any right or privilege with respect to denominational schools which any class of persons have, by law or practice, in the province at the time of union." The dispute was brought before the courts of Canada, and finally before the judicial committee of the privy council, which decided that the legislation of 1890 was constitutional inasmuch as the only right or privilege which the Roman Catholics then possessed "by law or practice" was the right or privilege of establishing and maintaining for the use of members of their own church such schools as they pleased. The Roman Catholic minority then availed themselves of another provision of the twenty-second section of the Manitoba act, which allows an appeal to the governor-in-council "from any act or decision of the
Free e-book «Canada under British Rule - Sir John George Bourinot (any book recommendations .TXT) 📗» - read online now
Add a comment
Comments (0)