|
The abortive rebellions
in the two Provinces, like the war of 1812, had the immediate effect of
stimulating political activity, and entirely diverting the current of
public affairs. The skill and address of Mr. C. Poulett Thompson
(afterwards Lord Sydenham of Toronto) surmounted the grave objections
advanced in both Provinces against the project of re-union. The Home
Government saw clearly enough that there was no prospect of permanent
contentment unless by undoing the Constitutional Act of 1791. In Lower
Canada, the representative system was under suspension, and the
government carried on by a Special Council. The aim of the colonial
office, therefore, was by a union of the Provinces, to give the British
and loyal population a majority in the Legislature. It was supposed that
by establishing, from the outset, an equality of representation,
although Upper Canada was really inferior to the Lower Province in
numbers and revenue, some security would be given for the ascendency of
the English-speaking race. A minority in Lower Canada, chiefly
representing the eastern townships, was British, and it was naturally
supposed that they would unite with the members from Upper Canada. It
seemed clearly the purpose of the Imperial Government if possible to
swamp the French malcontents, and make the future Parliament
predominatingly British. Hence the violent opposition to the union in
Lower Canada. However, as the people there had no voice in the matter,
their protests counted for little.
In Upper Canada, it might
have been thought that the advantages to be reaped from the proposed
measure were obvious enough. The finances of the Province were in a
woful condition. Lower Canada collected the customs duties at Quebec,
and although some sort of provision had been made for an equitable
division of the fiscal revenue, as a matter of fact, the Upper Province
reaped little or no benefit from it; on the other hand it had no power
to levy import duties. The Union Bill by giving each section equal
representation, and charging debts upon the Consolidated Revenue Fund of
the United Province, gave the west a balance of profit out of the new
partnership to which it had no equitable claim. On the other hand, the
dominant party saw with dismay the prospect of a coalition, in a single
Assembly, of the Reform elements in both Provinces. They well knew that
the boon of responsible government vaguely promised would before long be
made a reality. They trembled for the loyalty and religion of Canada,
and feared that the Union Bill would prove to be a revolution in
disguise. It must be confessed that, apart from personal and party
considerations, there was no small cause for apprehension. The prospect
of having a compact body of French Canadians, ready to throw in the
weight of their influence with an Upper Canadian minority was not an
inviting one. In after years the cry of "French domination,"
however, was heard not from the Conservative, but the Liberal side.
At that time, the loyal
party apprehended "the greatest danger to our civil and political
institutions, and even to our connexion with the parent state."
[From Sir Allan McNab’s Address, as Speaker on behalf of the Assembly
(13th of January, 1840. Christie, v. 345.] They only yielded
because it was evident that the Imperial Government was bent upon the
prosecution of the measure. An attempt was made by Mr. Sherwood to
expunge the equality clause, and substitute a provision by which Lower
Canada would have fifty members, and Upper Canada sixty-two as before.
This amendment was rejected by a vote of thirty-six to nineteen. The
discussion need not trouble us further here; it may suffice to mention
that the measure, as drawn up by Sir James Stuart, passed almost as he
drafted it. [By far the best summary of the Upper Canada objections will
be found in a brochure addressed to the Colonial Secretary, Lord
John Russell, by Chief Justice Robinson, entitled, Canada and the
Canada Bill, pp. 198. London, 1840. The Lower Canadian case will be
found in Christie, vol. v.: Garneau, B. xvi., ch. iii; Turcotte, Le
Canada Sous l’Union, Introduction. The dispatches of Lord John
Russell and Mr. Poulett Thompson are given in McMullen, History,
ch. xxii.]
The Governor-General had
been raised to the peerage in August, 1840, and on the 14th of June,
1841, he opened the first session of the first Canadian Parliament at
Kingston, which had been selected as the seat of government, in the
previous year, it should be noted, two important questions were
temporarily adjusted. The Clergy Reserves were apportioned amongst the
religious bodies, one-half to the Churches of England and Scotland, the
other to recognised "Christian denominations," in proportion
to their private contributions, vested rights being secured. The other
event was the formal concession of the principles of responsible
government by the Crown. His Excellency, in reply to an Address from the
House, declared "that he had been commanded by Her Majesty to
administer the government in accordance with the well understood wishes
of the people; and to pay their feelings, as expressed through their
representatives, the deference that was justly due to them." Thus
for a time, at all events, all burning questions were adjusted.
Attorney-General Hagerman, who had opposed the Union Bill, was
dismissed, and Mr. Draper appointed in his place.
The new House was largely
Unionist and Liberal, and a French Canadian Reformer was elected
Speaker. [Amongst the Upper Canada section are to be found the names of
James Johnston, J. Sandfield Macdonald, Sir Allan N. McNab, J. McGill
Strachan, Malcolm Cameron, James Morris, David Thorburn, E.C. Campbell,
John Gilchrist, Donald McDonald, Alex McLean, and Isaac Buchanan; and
from Lower Canada, John Hamilton, Colin Robertson, Robt. Christie, Henry
Black, David Burnet, John Neilson, and Michael McCulloch, all Scots.
Turcotte, p. 66. Of the twenty-four Legislative Councillors, we may note
the names of Robert S. Jamieson, William Morris, Alexander Fraser, Peter
McGill, James Crooks, John Fraser, Adam Fergusson, John Hamilton (now a
Senator), John Macaulay, John Macdonell, Adam Ferrie, and Thomas McKay
– exactly one-half of the body. Ibid. p. 70.] The speech from
the Throne was eminently practical, being chiefly filled with the
recommendation of measures to develop the resources of the country by
public works, especially the improvement of river navigation. It
announced that the Imperial Government was prepared to guarantee a loan
of a million and a half of dollars in aid of public works, and concluded
with an appeal in favour of an effective system of elementary
instruction for the people. Mr. Cameron moved the Address in reply to
the speech from the Throne; but it was not destined to pass without
debate and opposition. The Lower Canadians felt that now, at the first
opportunity, it was necessary to protest against the Union, or
"forever after hold their peace." The Hon. John Neilson, whose
career has been already sketched, was selected as their spokesman. The
amendment expressed regret "that the more populous section of the
Province, which formerly constituted Lower Canada, by section of an Act
of 1791, had not been consulted upon the governmental constitution
substituted for that which was established under the said Act; and that
there are features in the measure which now settles the Government of
Canada, which are incompatible with justice and hostile to the common
rights of British subjects." [Turcotte: Le Canada, &c.,
vol. i., p. 74.] Mr. Neilson’s speech was marked by its moderation.
His motion was supported by the Hon. Robert Baldwin (who had resigned
the Attorney-Generalship), and Messrs. Hincks, Price, Durand, and other
Upper Canadian Reformers. It was, however, defeated by a vote of fifty
to twenty-five. Mr. Neilson made a second attempt on the question of a
loan proposed by the Government. This amendment, which was really the
double-majority principle in embryo, was supported by Messrs. Baldwin
and Hincks. Another made also by the member for Quebec in more general
terms, received the support of Sir Allan McNab and Mr. Sherwood,
Conservatives, and was only defeated by thirty-four to twenty-nine. At
the close of the Session, Lord Sydenham, who had been in delicate
health, received injuries by a fall from his horse, which caused his
death in September, 1841. He was an eminently wise and conciliatory
ruler, and died amidst the sincere regrets of all Canadians without
distinction of party.
It now seems well to take
up some of the more prominent Scots of the time in order, and trace
their careers in biographical form. The first name upon the list is that
of a Scoto-Canadian of the true Highland stock of Glengarry. The Hon.
John Sandfield Macdonald was born at St. Raphael on the 12th of
December, 1812. His grandfather had come to this country in 1786 with
one of those Highland migrations which together made up the Glengarry
colony. The future Premier had the misfortune to lose his mother at an
early age, and, as the future sketched out for him did not please young
Sandfield, he struck out a path for himself, with characteristic
independence and self-reliance. On two occasions he ran away from home
in search of fortune, and was brought back. He finally engaged himself
to a storekeeper, with whom he remained two years. At Cornwall, he made
a similar engagement; but the fire of ambition burnt fiercely within
him, and he determined, by vigorous efforts, to enter a liberal
profession. In 1832, although in his twentieth year, young Macdonald
entered the Cornwall Grammar School, at that time directed by Dr.
Urquhart. By sheer dint of plodding, in two years he was proclaimed
"dux" of the school. In 1835, he had passed his preliminary
examination before the Law Society, and entered the office of Mr.
(afterwards Chief Justice) McLean, as an articled clerk. When his
principal was elevated to the Bench, Mr. Macdonald served the balance of
his time with Mr. Draper, the future Chief Justice of the Court of
Appeal. In 1840, he was called to the Bar, and commenced to practise in
the town of Cornwall.
He was hardly well in
harness before he was invited to the representation of his native county
(Glengarry) in Parliament. Mr. Fennings Taylor has remarked that this
was no ordinary compliment to be paid to one so little known in
connection with public affairs. However, the constituency was not hard
to please, and so long as it could secure one of the real old stock,
cared very little whether he called himself a Conservative or Reformer.
[Portraits of British Canadians, p. 96; Morgan, p. 537.] Mr.
Macdonald never issued an election address, but was returned in 1841
nominally as a Conservative. Parties, however, were at that time in so
chaotic a state, that it mattered little what a member styled himself.
Messrs. Baldwin and Draper were members of the same Government, and a
new member had some difficulty in fixing his political attitude. At all
events his first vote was given against the amendments of Mr. Neilson.
Sometimes he was to be found with the Upper Canadian Conservatives, and
sometimes with the Reformers; but his general attitude was one of
opposition. On the question of responsible government there was, at
least, an approach to unanimity. Resolutions on the subject were
proposed by Mr. Baldwin, but were replaced by others drawn by Mr.
Harrison, and the question was to all appearance finally settled. In
1843, the course pursued by Lord Metcalfe, to which it will be necessary
to return again, separated Mr. Macdonald from his old friends, and he
thenceforward acted as a Reformer, of the independent sort. At this
crisis Mr. Macdonald certainly acted with great courage, since the
Glengarry Highlanders were, when aroused, strictly loyal Conservatives.
Yet notwithstanding their inclination to the side of authority, their
representative carried them with him when he espoused the cause of the
ex-ministers. His Gaelic and English harangues fired the Celtic blood,
and Glengarry became, like its member, Reform to the backbone. The
people of that county, nineteen-twentieths of whom were Highlanders,
were not in the habit of doing things by halves, and having chosen their
standard-bearer, like their forbears, they were singularly indifferent
to the hue of the colours he bore into action. [A more extended account
of the Glengarry folk will be given hereafter.] They not only returned
their old member by a larger majority, but became permanently a Liberal
constituency.
It was not until December
1849 that Mr. Macdonald took office. At that date he succeeded the Hon.
W. H. Blake, who had been made Chancellor, as Solicitor General West, in
the Baldwin-Lafontaine administration. In 1851 when Mr. Baldwin retired
and was succeeded by Mr. (now Sir F.) Hincks, contrary to general
expectation, Mr. Sandfield Macdona1d was not appointed Attorney-General.
Whether he declined the office, or, as would appear more likely, was
intentionally passed over, is not clear. That he was entitled to the
post by traditional usage is certain; and his resignation of the
Solicitor Generalship would seem to show that he felt piqued. When a new
Parliament assembled in 1852, he was elected Speaker, on motion of Mr.
Hincks, by a vote of fifty-five to twenty-three. In 1854, the Houses had
not been convened until the latest day allowed by law. A vote of
non-confidence on the Address caused an immediate prorogation and the
House was dissolved. Hence arose a serious constitutional question.
"The law provides that a session must be held within periods not
later than twelve months of one another; and Parliamentary usage has
established that, to constitute a session, one bill, at least, must be
passed through all its stages of both Houses." [Portraits,
p. 99] Mr. Fennings Taylor seems to think that, in protesting against
this breach of law and custom, Mr. Speaker Macdonald intended to
administer a grave reproof to the Governor-General. It rather appears
that he was simply performing his duty as the mouthpiece of the
Assembly, although he may probably have had as a secondary and
subordinate object to pay off the Government for old scores. They had
rejected him as a colleague, and the opportunity now presented itself of
snubbing them. In temperate language the Speaker addressed His
Excellency at the bar of the Council. "It has been, "he said,
"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 to thus address your Excellency,"
because no act or judgment had been passed. He then pointed out that the
passage of an Act is necessary to constitute a session and that
Parliament had been prevented from accomplishing this, by the abrupt
summons of the Governor-General. "At the same time," he
concluded, "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 the august personage whom you represent in
these Provinces, that no answer has been returned to your gracious
Speech from the Throne."
There can be little doubt
that the Speaker was really within his right in making this protest. It
is said that Lord Elgin showed manifest signs of impatience during the
delivery of this address; but that may well be attributed to the
vexation felt by an eminently constitutional ruler, at having been
betrayed into a false step by his advisers. During the opening session
of the new Parliament, Mr. Macdonald showed clearly that it was not the
Governor-General but the Premier at whom his shafts were aimed. The
elections had left the Government in a minority in Upper Canada, and the
new element of opposition in the person and following of Mr. George
Brown, had been materially strengthened. On the election of Speaker, the
Hincks-Morin Government found itself in a minority of two, Mr. Sicotte
being elected over Mr. Cartier, the ministerial candidate. The necessary
consequence was the resignation of the Cabinet, and the formation of the
McNab-Morin Government in its place.
Mr. Macdonald now became
an independent member of the Opposition. He never entirely sympathized
with the western section of his party. He was, to begin with, a Roman
Catholic, and saw with regret the attitude assumed by those with whom he
generally acted, towards his Church. Moreover he was opposed to the
principle of representation based upon population, and preferred the
adoption of the "double majority," under which the Government
of the day must resign or appeal to the people, if it failed to command
the support of a parliamentary majority from both sections of the
Province. He thus stood isolated from his friends, and the influence he
exerted was solely due to his individual force of character. When the
two-days’ Ministry of 1858 was formed, Mr. Brown selected the
honourable gentleman as Attorney General West. As we shall see
hereafter, there was no sacrifice of principle on either part, since the
principle of local autonomy was to be granted, with "some joint
authority" for affairs in common to both Provinces.
In 1862, Mr. Macdonald
playfully described himself as the political Ishmael [Portraits,
n., p. 102.] yet in the same year, when the Cartier-Macdonald
administration was unexpectedly defeated on the second reading of the
Militia Bill, [The vote stood, yeas 54, nays, 61.] he was called upon by
Lord Monck to form a Government. Mr. Brown was not a member of this
Parliament, having been defeated at Toronto, and Mr. Macdonald was
naturally chosen as the leader of his party. This attempt to form an
administration was as courageous as that of the late Lord Derby in
England ten years before; since it was felt that there was no promise
for it in the future. On the 8th of May, 1863, a direct vote of
non-confidence was proposed by Mr. (Sir) John A. Macdonald and carried
by sixty-four to fifty-nine—a majority of five. The House was at once
prorogued with a view to dissolution. Here a fatal mistake was committed—that
described by Mr. Lincoln as swapping horses while crossing a stream. The
Lower Canada section was entirely remodelled, Mr. Dorion succeeding Mr.
Sicotte as Attorney General East. The Cabinet thus acquired a distinctly
Rouge and Radical tinge. Moreover, Mr. Macdonald distinctly abandoned
his double majority stand-point by choosing his eastern colleagues from
the ranks of the minority. Of course it was open to him to plead that he
trusted to obtain a majority in Lower Canada at the approaching
elections, but he must have felt that there was little prospect of his
doing so.
When the new House
assembled it was found that although Ministers were in a majority in
Upper Canada, they had made little progress in the sister Province. On
the choice of Speaker, Mr. Macdonald had a majority of eight. A motion
of want of confidence, pressed to a division, was lost by a vote of
sixty-one to sixty-four. By avoiding the shoals in its way, the
Government managed to tide over this Session; but in 1864 it became
evident that the end was near. The Premier attempted to strengthen the
Lower Canadian wing of his party, by making overtures to Sir Etienne
Taché; but these were declined. A split in the party on the question of
representation by population made matters still worse, and Mr. Macdonald
finally resigned, to be succeeded by Sir K. Tache. However, the new
Government found itself in as awkward a position as its predecessor, for
it was in turn defeated on a trivial question by a vote of sixty to
fifty-eight. It was now clear to both parties that a new departure was
necessary. Hence the Coalition Ministry, of which more will be said
hereafter. The project of a confederated British North America was
introduced and carried, Mr. Sandfield Macdonald and thirty-two others
voting against it.
In 1867, the first year
of the Dominion, a new sphere of usefulness was opened up for Mr.
Macdonald. He became Premier of the Province of Ontario, the head of a
Coalition Government. For four years he laboured with diligence and
ability in the organization of the various departments of legislation
and administration. Too, little praise has been awarded him for the
energy and power he displayed during this period. Party feeling,
however, had again grown high, and after the elections of 1871, finding
himself in a minority, Mr. Macdonald bade adieu to office for ever. He
remained in Parliament, however, until his death, which took place on
June 2nd, 1872, at Cornwall. Mr. Macdonald was tall and spare in frame,
and for many years suffered from lung disease. Considering the infirm
state of his health, the vigour and strength he displayed were
astonishing. That he possessed extraordinary administrative powers will
be admitted by all parties. He was eminently blunt and straightforward
in the expression of opinion, as became one of the good old Highland
stock. Personally he attached to himself hosts of friends; but
politically, he was too independent to make a good party leader. That
his aims were upright, and his personal character singularly above the
suspicion of public wrong-doing, is beyond dispute. At the time of his
decease he was "the Father of the House," having sat in it
continuously for more than thirty years.
The next Scot of the
first Union Parliament of 1841, who calls for special mention, is the
Hon. Malcolm Cameron, member for Lanark. His father, Angus Cameron, was
a hospital sergeant; he himself was born on the 28th of April, 1808. The
future Legislative Councillor had a somewhat romantic youth. In 1816,
his father settled at Perth, where he appears to have kept an inn.
Perhaps it was there that young Malcolm acquired that distaste for the
liquor traffic which made him so prominent an advocate of total
abstinence later in life. When only twelve years of age he went on a
farm and kept the ferry across the Mississippi River. He was thrown much
into the company of Radical Scots, and soon imbibed their political
opinions. On his father’s death, he obtained a situation at Laprairie,
but, being badly treated, left it in 1824, and made his way to Montreal
in the depth of winter. On his arrival there with both cheeks frozen, he
was hired as a stable-boy, and thus earned enough to take him home to
Upper Canada. He now went to school and studied hard, shortly after
being engaged as clerk in the distillery of the Hon. A. Graham. Neither
of his parents had been intemperate; but his mother had early trained
him in the principles of total abstinence, and he was proof against
temptation. He spent four years in this place, occupying all his spare
time in study. In 1833, when on business, he visited Scotland, and
married his cousin, Miss McGregor, of Glasgow. Three years after, he was
elected for Lanark in the Upper Canadian Parliament, and immediately
took an active part in the opposition to Sir F. Bond Head. He was a warm
admirer of Lord Sydenham, and is said to have been offered the post of
Inspector-General in the first Cabinet after the Union. Under Sir
Charles Bagot, he effected great improvements in Custom-house management
as Inspector of Revenue, and became Assistant Commissioner of Public
Works in the Baldwin-Lafontaine Administration of 1848. He was
subsequently made President of the Council. In the Tache-Morin
Government of 1853, he served as Postmaster-General, and afterwards as
Minister of Agriculture. Mr. Cameron sat in the House for twenty-six
years, and was elected ten times for various constituencies: Lanark,
Kent, Lambton and Huron. In 1860, he was chosen as representative of the
St. Clair Division in the Council. Mr. Cameron withdrew from public life
on accepting the office of Queen’s Printer, which he held for some
years. He subsequently offered as a candidate for one of the ridings of
Ontario, but was defeated. Mr. Cameron’s connection with the press
extended fitfully over many years. He founded the Bathurst Courier at
Perth in 1834, and conducted it for three years; assisted in
establishing the North American, edited by Mr. (the Hon.) Wm.
McDougall, as the organ of the "Clear Grits;"" and the Huron
Signal, conducted with distinguished ability by Thomas McQueen at
Goderich. Malcolm Cameron was proud of his success, and he had some
reason for pride. He owed nothing to wealth or connections, but was
strictly the builder of his own fortunes. His open, frank countenance
and demeanour won for him many staunch friends; his business tact
recommended him to party leaders; and whenever the opportunity offered,
he was a faithful and diligent public servant. In the temperance
movement he was a host in himself, throwing himself into it with more
fervid enthusiasms than into politics. He died at Ottawa at the age of
sixty-eight, on the sixth of June, 1876.
An account has already
been given of Sir Allan McNab’s early life and military career. It
only remains to sketch briefly his political life. A staunch
Conservative, from first to last, he was not a blind partizan; for, on
more occasions than one Sir Allan proved his independence, and also a
ready willingness to acknowledge mistakes, as in the Mackenzie case. His
first connection with political life was, on the surface, ill-omened;
but in reality the first step to success. In the year 1829, he was
examined before a committee of the Assembly, in the matter of the
"Hamilton outrage" already referred to. Dr. Rolph submitted an
awkward question which Mr. McNab refused to answer. This being reported
to the House, Dr. Baldwin moved that he had been guilty of contempt, and
Mr. Mackenzie followed up this motion by another, that the witness be
committed to gaol during pleasure. Of course he remained there until the
close of the session; but at the general election, 1830, he was returned
for Wentworth with the Hon. John Wilson, as colleague. Up to the time of
the Union he sat for the same constituency, and during the last House
was its Speaker.
In 1841, he contested the
city of Hamilton, with the Hon. S. B. Harrison, Lord Sydenham’s chief
Minister, defeated him, and continued to represent that city until his
retirement in 1857. At the time of the Rebellion he was Speaker, and
went into the field in command of "the men of Gore"— the
name of the district of which Wentworth and Hamilton formed part. To the
affair of the Caroline allusion has already been made; it is only
necessary to add that Mr. McNab was knighted for his services during the
insurrection. He soon after became Queen’s Counsel, and conducted
Crown business at county assizes. In Parliament after the Union, he was
a determined opponent of the Government, and for a time allied himself
with the French Canadians against the Government and the Governor. He
had been defeated in the struggle for the Speakership, and felt somewhat
sore at the time. In September, 1842, the Conservative members of the
Cabinet resigned, and the party united under Sir Allan in opposition.
Then followed the Metcalfe period, and after the elections of 1844, the
result of the Governor-General’s personal exertions became apparent;
since the member for Hamilton was elected Speaker, notwithstanding his
ignorance of the French language, in preference to Mr. Morin. In 1848,
Sir Allan once more found himself leader of the Opposition, and next
year took an active part in the struggle against the Rebellion Losses
Bill. When Lord Elgin appended his signature to it, the embittered party
despatched their leader to England to secure, if possible, the
disallowance of the Act; but he failed. On the defeat of the Hincks-Morin
government in 1854, Sir Allan became Premier, with Mr. Morin as his
chief Lower Canadian colleague in a coalition ministry. In 1855, Sir
Etienne Taché succeeded to the Lower Canada leadership, and in 1856,
Sir Allan "not willingly," says Mr. Fennings Taylor, but from
some differences of opinion with his colleagues, resigned. The
ostensible cause was the failure of the government to obtain an Upper
Canadian majority on the question of the seat of government. On an
amendment moved by Mr. Holton, Sir Allan had a gross majority of
twenty-three, but failed to secure a sufficient vote from the upper
Province. [Turcotte, ii., p. 293. The vote stood, Yeas, 70, nays, 47:
but of the forty-seven, thirty-three were Upper Canadian members, whilst
in the majority there were only twenty-seven.] Messrs. Spence and
Morrison at once resigned, and Mr. (Sir) John A. Macdonald followed
their example. Sir Allan McNab then retired, making way for his old
colleague, the Attorney-General. That he was deeply hurt is shown by a
remark made in the House that his colleagues had shown a want of
confidence in him. Next year disappointment or ill health, perhaps both,
led him to resign his seat for Hamilton, with a view to taking up his
permanent residence in England. [Mr. Taylor says: "In 1857, His
battles and the gout, Had so knocked his hull about, that he left
Canada." Portraits, p. 320. Apropos of the gout, an
authentic anecdote of Sir Allan McNab may be added. While he and the
late Chancellor Vankoughnet were fellow passengers on an Allan steamer,
in what was supposed to be imminent danger of sinking, the knight, being
unable to move or aid himself on account of the gout, appealed to his
friend’s sympathy thus: "My dear Van., I know you will not desert
me – let us go down together."] His farewell address to the
constituency was written with much dignity and feeling. It concluded
with words which really disclose the brave old knight’s generous but
somtimes wrong-headed nature: "One word before we part, and that
is, if in times of trial and great excitement I have erred, I trust you
will kindly ascribe it to an error of the head and not of the
heart." [Portraits, p. 320: Morgan, p. 478.] After his
futile contest at Brighton, Sir Allan returned to Canada, and was
elected to the Legislative Council for the Western Division in the room
of Col. Prince, who had accepted the office of judge in the Algoma
District. In 1856 he had been raised to the baronetcy, and made
aide-de-camp to the Prince of Wales, in 1860. At the time of his death
at Dundurn Castle Hamilton, on the 8th of August, 1862, he was Speaker
of the Upper House. Sir Allan makes a grand figure in early Upper
Canadian history, and, with all his faults, mostly, as he said, those of
the head, his memory deserves to be held in deep respect because of his
singleness of purpose, his blunt honesty and goodness of heart.
The Hon. William Morris,
one of the Legislative Councillors of 1841, has already been alluded to
in connection with the war. In 1820, he became a member of the Upper
Canada Parliament, and in the same year received a testimonial in plate
from the Glasgow creditors of his father as a mark of gratitude for the
honourable manner in which he and his brother Alexander, who was in
business at Perth, had discharged in full all the debts of the estate.
Mr. Morris at once took up his position as champion of the Church of
Scotland. He claimed, on its behalf, a fair share in the Clergy Reserve
fund, and, as we know, carried his point. After being returned for
Lanark, in 1836, he was elevated to the Legislative Council. In 1837, as
already stated, he was active in reorganizing the county militia, for
the spirit of 1812 was still strong in his bosom. Under Lord Metcalfe,
during 1844-46, as Receiver-General, he approved himself a
"valuable public servant." For the next two years, he was
President of the Council, and retired from public life when his party
surrendered in 1848. In 1853, he was stricken down by a painful disease,
which proved mortal at last, and died at Montreal, on the 29th of June,
1858, leaving behind him a spotless name for integrity, and a public and
private record of which no Scot need feel ashamed.
The Hon. James Morris, a
son of the Alexander mentioned above, was also in the Assembly of 1841.
He was born at Paisley, in Scotland, in 1798, and was brought out to
Canada when only three years of age. In 1837, he was returned to the
Assembly. In 1838 he was a commissioner on the St. Lawrence canals, and
in 1844 became a member of the Legislative Council. Under Lord Elgin, in
1851, he served as Postmaster-General—the first who held the office
after the transference of the postal revenues to the Province. Mr.
Morris at once set himself to the work of reform. He visited Washington,
and entered into a postal treaty with the United States. The average
rate of inland postage had hitherto been sixteen cents; he at once
established a uniform rate of five cents. In 1853 and 1854, the hon.
gentleman was Speaker of the Legislative Council, and in the two days’
government of 1858, he again occupied the same position. In 1864, Mr.
Morris had an important part in the negotiations which resulted in the
formation of the Coalition Government, but did not take office. He died
at Brockville on the 29th of September, 1865. A staunch Reformer, he was
also a man of unblemished probity and considerable administrative
ability.
The Hon. Adam Fergusson
was one of the original Legislative Councillors from the Union. He never
took office, but will always be remembered in the western peninsula for
the stimulus he gave to rational and scientific agriculture. Born at
Edinburgh, in March, 1783, he was the son of Neil Fergusson, of Woodhill.
The family was of the old Highland stock, long established in Perthshire,
and his farmer tastes were hereditary. Like his father, he became an
advocate, as many of the gentry do in Scotland, without any intention of
practicing. His heart was in the country, and, from first to last, the
land had the first place in his extra-domestic affections. In 1833, he
came out to Canada, and, in connection with Mr. James Webster, of Guelph,
founded the village of Fergus, in what is now the county of Wellington,
at the junction of the Irvine and Grand Rivers. His own residence was in
the neighbourhood of Hamilton, where he lived on an estate to which he
naturally gave the name of the property, held in right of his mother by
his father, Neil. He was known far and wide as "the laird of
Woodhill"—a landed proprietor remarkable for his thorough
acquaintance with husbandry, as well as for his benevolent and generous
disposition. In person, he was tall, the picture of health and activity,
and to the last he adhered to the old-fashioned dress which, a century
ago, marked out the gentleman farmer.
In 1839, he was called to
the Legislative Council of Upper Canada; in 1841, to the same body under
the Union, and he continued to sit there up to the time of his death. In
politics Mr. Fergusson was a Whig at home, in Canada he called himself a
Constitutional Reformer. He never tolerated, still less advocated
extreme measures although he invariably acted with the Liberal party.
[Mr. Fennings Taylor, to whose Portraits we are indebted for most
of the facts here given, makes the shrewd remark that "the English
Whig, like Colonel Prince, for example, will generally be found voting
with Canadian Conservatives; while the Scotch Whig, like the subject of
our sketch, will as generally be found voting with Canadian
Reformers."] Lord Sydenham found in him an ardent supporter, and
throughout his public career he was a moderate Reformer. It is
principally, however, as an agriculturist that he will hereafter be
known. On the first Board of Agriculture he sat as a Director, and to
him, with others, is due the credit of establishing the Agricultural
Association, of which he was repeatedly President. To him, also, we owe
the establishment of a chair of Agriculture in University College,
Toronto. He died on the 26th of September, 1862, highly respected by all
who knew him. His son, Adam Johnston Fergusson, may be briefly noticed
here. Born at Balthayvock House, Perthshire, in 1815, he came out with
his father, in 1833, and became a barrister. In 1849, he was returned
for Waterloo, and in 1854 for the South Riding of Wellington, on the
partition of the counties. In 1860, he was elected for Brock Division to
the Legislative Council, and, in 1863, succeeded Mr. Morris, as
Receiver-General. When the Cabinet was re-constructed, in May of that
year, he became Provincial Secretary, and retained his office until the
fall of the Macdonald-Dorion Cabinet. In 1862, he took the additional
name of Blair, on coming into possession of the maternal estates. In
1866, he was once more in office, replacing Mr. Brown, and in 1867, he
became a Senator and President of the Council in the Dominion Cabinet.
He died in office towards the close of the year.
The Hon. John Hamilton,
"the father of the Senate," still lives and attends punctually
to his legislative duties. His father, the Hon. Robert Hamilton, was, we
believe, born in Scotland. The Senator himself first saw the light at
Queenston, Ontario, in 1801. His wife, one of the Macphersons of
Inverness, survived until 1873. Mr. Hamilton was president of the
Commercial Bank for seventeen years, and also for some time of the St.
Andrew’s Society of Kingston. Appointed to the Legislative Counci1 in
1841, and to the Senate in 1867, he has now occupied a seat in one or
other Upper House for forty years. He is still hale and hearty at the
age of eighty years. Another veteran, who passed. away some years since
was the Hon. James Leslie. His father, Capt. James Leslie, of the 15th
Foot, was Assistant Quarter-Master in Wolfe’s army at the taking of
Quebec. The future Senator was born at Kair, Kincardineshire, in1786,
and received his education at Aberdeen. He was for many years a merchant
at Montreal. Served with the Montreal Volunteers during the war of 1812,
and remained an officer until 1862, when he retired as
Lieutenant-Colonel, retaining his rank. Mr. Leslie represented Montreal
in the Lower Canada Assembly from 1824 until the Union, and sat for
Verchères from 1844 to 1848, when he was called to the Legislative
Council. In 1867 he became a Senator and remained a member until his
death. Mr. Leslie only held office during a brief period, as President
of the Council from March to September, 1848, and Provincial Secretary
thenceforward until October, 1851. He died in 1873 at the advanced age
of eighty-seven. [Le Moine: The Scot in New France, Appendix C.]
One of the most fiercely
contested elections in 1841 was that of Toronto. The candidates were
Henry Sherwood and George Monro, Conservatives, and the Hon. J. H. Dunn
and Isaac Buchanan, Liberals. There was thus a Scot on each side. Mr.
Monro, who only died a few years since, was a well-known and highly
respected citizen, who filled in Toronto the office of Mayor during
1840. On this occasion he was unsuccessful, but he was returned for the
third division of York, at a by-election, succeeding Mr. J. E. Small. He
retained his seat, however, only until the election of 1847, when he was
defeated by the late Chancellor Blake. The Hon. Isaac Buchanan has made
a more conspicuous figure in public life. He was born at Glasgow on the
21st of July, 1810. His father was a merchant; but the son appears to
have been originally marked out for a professional career. He was just
on the eve of entering college when accident changed the whole course of
his life, and he entered the office of a mercantile firm. The father
appears to have been somewhat disappointed; still, with the shrewd
common sense of the Lowland Scot, he yielded. Mr. Buchanan entered the
service at fifteen, and before he was twenty he had become a partner and
the whole of the Canadian department was placed under his control. In
1830 he removed to Canada, after a short residence in New York. His
first place of settlement was Montreal; he then, in 1831, established a
branch in Toronto. The business was subsequently extended to Hamilton
and London. The firm of Buchanan, Harris & Co. was soon well known,
by its success not only in Canada, but in Great Britain. In politics Mr.
Buchanan was extremely moderate. He had no sympathy with the Rebellion,
although he held strong opinions about the Clergy Reserves, and was
every inch a Reformer. In 1841 occurred the memorable contest for
Toronto, already alluded to. Those who remember it are never tired of
recalling the stirring incidents of the time. Political passion rose to
fever-heat, and not a little violence was the result. In those days
party colours were worn, and processions with bands formed a salient
feature in the canvass. There was only one polling-place, and it was
kept open for the reception of votes from nine on Monday morning until
five on Saturday evening. During the whole of that interval the old-time
weapons of intimidation and violence were kept in use, as well as
another which we can hardly flatter ourselves the country has yet
relegated to the museum of political curiosities—bribery. "Who is
this Mr. Buchanan?" asked a placard, and answered its own question,
"He was only a shop-boy the other day." Mr. Buchanan knew how
to turn this reproach to account. Holding up the placard in his hands,
he exclaimed from the hustings: "These gentlemen," pointing to
his opponents, "accuse me of being one of yourselves."
The result of the
struggle was the return of Messrs. Dunn and Buchanan. The latter had no
personal object to serve in entering the House. On the contrary, he
became a candidate at considerable sacrifice of private interests. At
the opening of the canvass he had publicly offered to retire in Mr.
Sherwood’s favour, if he would only pledge himself to vote for
responsible government. So far from being an extreme partisan, he
presided at a dinner given to Sir George Arthur, the
Lieutenant-Governor, who was a staunch Conservative. His short career as
a legislator—for he resigned early in the Parliamentary term—was
marked by sturdy independence. In 1844 he remained aloof, although his
sympathies appear to have been given to Lord Metcalfe. In 1854 he
unsuccessfully contested Hamilton with Sir Allan McNab; but in 1857, on
the gallant knight’s retirement, he was duly elected for that city,
and again in the years 1861 and 1863.
Mr. Buchanan supported
the Macdonald-Sicotte Cabinet, voting with the minority against Mr. J.
A. Macdonald’s motion of non-confidence. But on a similar motion in
1863 against the Macdonald-Dorion government, he voted yea. In 1864 he
entered the Tache-Macdonald coalition as President of the Council, but
made way for Mr. Brown in the same year. In 1865 he retired from
Parliamentary life, and was succeeded by Mr. Chas. Magill. Space will
not admit of an extended sketch of Mr. Buchanan. To do him full justice,
it would be necessary to give an exposition of his views on the tariff
and the currency. From early life up to this moment, he has been a busy
man, endowed with singular power of character and indomitable
perseverance. It will be matter of surprise to most readers to find that
so little advantage has been taken of his rare business and
administrative abilities. That he would have been no mere figurehead in
a working department of government is clear from the record of his whole
life. Perhaps the strong will which chafes at routine, the love of
carrying out cherished convictions on subjects of public importance, and
a certain want of pliability in his moral texture, had something to do
with this apparent neglect. However this may be, Mr. Buchanan, as the
builder-up of his own fortunes, is a man of whom any country may be
proud. He has never preferred self to principle, place to the manly
independence which he most deeply prizes. Whether one agrees or not with
his opinions on currency or other matters, there is no mistaking the
sterling earnestness and single-mindedness of the man. It is pleasing to
record that, now, although he has passed the allotted span of three
score and ten, Mr. Buchanan is still in full vigour, active and
combative yet, as he was forty years ago when he fought the Family
Compact in its stronghold at the chief city of Upper Canada.
In what may be termed Sir
Charles Metcalfe’s Parliament of 1844, we find, for the first time,
the name of John Alexander Macdonald, as member for Kingston. The future
Premier of the Dominion deserves a larger notice than circumstances will
admit of in this work; still it may be possible, within reasonable
compass, to give a sketch of the career and salient characteristics of a
statesman who, at this moment, occupies the most prominent position in
the Government of Canada. [The writer has drawn upon Fennings Taylor: Portraits,
p. 25; Morgan: Celebrated Canadians, p. 581; The Canadian
Portrait Gallery, edited by J.C. Dent, vol. i. p. 5; Weekly
Globe, Jan. 28th, 1876; The Canadian Parliamentary
Companion, and the general histories and writings of the period.]
The difficulties inseparable from such an undertaking are by no
means small. Most of the biographies already published are loudly
eulogistic or largely caustic. Yet it would seem possible to give a fair
account of the subject, without yielding to the temptations of partisan
prejudice. Sir John A. Macdonald was born in Sutherland-shire, Scotland,
on the 11th January, 1815. When he was only in his sixth year, his
father, Mr. Hugh Macdonald, removed to Canada, and settled in business
at Kingston. There the son was educated at the Royal Grammar School,
under Dr. Wilson, and Mr. Baxter. It is noted that at school he was a
proficient in mathematics, but gave no promise of future eminence in any
walk of life. Having determined to study law, he entered the office of
Mr. George Mackenzie, and was admitted to the bar, at the age of
twenty-one, in the year 1836. His eloquent defence of Von Schulz, the
leader of the rebels at the Windmill affair, first brought him before
the public; and in 1846 he became Queen’s Counsel.
In 1844, as already
mentioned, Mr. Macdonald was elected for Kingston, and continued to sit
for it under the Union, and after Confederation, until 1878, when, for
the first time, he suffered defeat. In the Assembly of 1844, the new
member appeared as a Conservative supporter of Lord Metcalfe. His party
considered that Messrs. Baldwin and Lafontaine had misconstrued the
principle of responsible government, and were bent upon utterly
destroying the prerogatives of the Crown. It is impossible to conjecture
what might have happened, had the Governor-General failed to carry the
electorate with him at this crisis. The probability is that he would at
once have thrown up his commission; if not, he must certainly have been
recalled. All, however, went on swimmingly; his Excellency had a good
working majority in the House, and had already obtained a Ministry after
his own heart. Sir Allan McNab was elected Speaker of the Assembly. Mr.
Baldwin moved several amendments to the address, in one of which he
directly proposed a censure upon the Governor and his advisers. This
amendment was lost by a vote of forty-two to thirty-six [Turcotte, i. p.
170-173; McMullen, p. 500.] - Mr. J. A. Macdonald voting with the
majority. This Session was the first held at Montreal, whither the seat
of Government had been transferred from Kingston. The Governor-General
was raised to the peerage shortly after, under the title of Baron
Metcalfe.
During his first
Parliamentary years Mr. Macdonald intruded himself but seldom upon the
attention of the House. Like a prudent politician who aims at future
success in public life, he was content to serve his apprenticeship, by
noting all that went on around him with that keen insight into men and
measures which has characterized him throughout his long career. In
1847, he was called upon to accept the Receiver-Generalship, in the
Sherwood-Daly administration. On this occasion he was only ten months in
office. The general elections of 1847-8 caused a total bouleversement.
The first contest took place upon the Speakership. The Conservative
candidate was Sir Allan McNab, the former Speaker; Mr. Morin was put
forward by Mr. Baldwin and the Reformers. The latter was elected by a
vote of fifty-four to nineteen. A vote of non-confidence was carried by
a similar vote, and Mr. Macdonald, with his colleagues, found themselves
out of office. During the heated discussions on the Rebellion Losses
Bill, Mr. Macdonald spoke with vehemence against the measure. But
parliamentary opposition was of no avail, and the measure passed by a
large majority.
So soon as this storm had
blown over, Mr. Macdonald set himself to work at the task of party
organization. Circumstances unquestionably favoured his efforts. The
retirement of Messrs. Baldwin and Lafontaine was the signal for a schism
in the Reform ranks. Mr. Brown entered Parliament at this time, and,
with that inflexible sense of principle which always swayed him,
proclaimed war to the uttermost against Reformers, who, in his opinion,
had proved false to reform principles. For some time the strange
spectacle was seen of an Opposition coalition between the Conservatives
and the recalcitrant Liberals. In 1854, Mr. Cauchon moved an amendment
on the Address, to which a further amendment, friendly, not hostile, was
moved by Mr. Sicotte. The latter was carried by a vote of forty-two to
twenty-nine. The division list shows that politics, like adversity,
sometimes bring strange bed-fellows together. In the majority were to be
found Messrs. Brown and J. A. Macdonald, Mr. W. L. Mackenzie and Sir
Allan McNab, Mr. Sandfield Macdonald and Mr. Murney. The immediate
consequence was a dissolution. The results of the Opposition compact
were soon to appear. [During this debate, Mr. Macdonald made a trenchant
attack upon the Ministry, from which two sentences may be quoted:
"It was well known that the system of the present Government had
been that of a most rampant corruption, and, appealing to the most
sordid and the basest motives of men: in every part of the country their
money was for use, and offices were offered in return for offices
brought to their aid. . .Now, a Government should be free from
suspicion, and should feel a stain on their escutheon like a wound on
their person." And, again: "There may be Walpoles among them;
but there are no Pitts; they are all steeped to the lips in corruption;
they have no bond of union, but the bond of common plunder."]
The Government candidate,
Mr. Cartier, was rejected by a majority of three, and Mr. Sicotte chosen
by a large majority. So the Hincks-Morin Government passed away.
Evidently no resource was open to the leaders other than a coalition.
Sir Allan McNab was therefore chosen as Upper Canada chief of the
Cabinet, whilst Mr. Morin, who continued to possess the confidence of
his own section remained in office. Of this administration, Mr. J. A.
Macdonald was the Attorney-General, West. The Reform element was
represented by Messrs. Spence and Ross, the latter a son-in-law of Mr.
Baldwin; but the new Upper Canada Reformers, "Clear Grits," as
they were termed, were left out in the cold, and opposed the new
Government as vigorously as they had opposed its predecessor. In 1855,
the personnel of the Ministry was changed, so far as Lower Canada
was concerned, Messrs. Cartier, Cauchon and Lemieux coming in, and
Messrs. Morin, Chahot and Chauveau retiring. The policy of the
administration, however, remained the same, and to it the country owes
two great measures of reform, the secularization of the clergy reserves
and the abolition of the seignorial tenure in Lower Canada. In both
cases, vested interests were conserved or paid for, and two subjects
which had vexed Canadian political life for many years were removed for
ever from the arena.
Thus an Administration,
for the most part Conservative, had successfully accomplished the
settlement of the two most serious questions before the public—after
the Reform party had given them up in despair. There can be little doubt
that to Sir John Macdonald must be attributed the education of his party
on the subject of the reserves. Many of them, no doubt—including Sir
Allan McNab—took part in their secularization with reluctance. But the
Attorney-General saw, with that unerring prescience which has always
been a salient characteristic of his political type and temper, that the
popular demand could be resisted no longer. He has often been compared
with the late Lord Beaconsfield, in personal appearance and political
idiosyncrasy. [Mr. Taylor refers to a conversation with Mr. G. A. Sala,
the London correspondent, at the ball given to the Maritime Province
delegates in 1864. "Who is he?" asked Mr. Sala, when Sir John
entered the room. "How like Disraeli," was his comment.
"A very remarkable man, I should think; one would enquire his name
anywhere."] Whatever likeness there may have been in the former
respect, there is certainly some reason for tracing the analogy in
public life. Sir John has been termed a Tory; but he never really was
one, in any strict sense. No public man has ever been more persistent
and outspoken in the expression of his own views; yet he has always
recognised the demand for progress; in short, he is Liberal
Conservative, ready to adopt reforms when the country is ripe for them.
Instead of the maxim, "Go a-head at all hazards," his motto
is, "Hasten, but ‘hasten slowly’ and deliberately, pari
passu with public opinion." In a recent biography by no means
favourable, as a whole, is recognised this distinguishing trait in his
character; and it points, not only to the reforms already noted, but to
the readiness with which he accepted the proposal to render the
Legislative Council elective. [Canadian Portrait Gallery, i. p.
12.] In his own governmental department, the Attorney-General was
equally bent upon necessary reforms. To him were due the Common Law
Procedure Act, the remodelling of the County Courts, and other purely
legal improvements. No Government, perhaps, within living memory, placed
so many valuable measures on the statute-book as this one; for, in spite
of modifications, it was substantially the same from 1854 onwards. The
merit, as well as the responsibility incurred, belongs, in great part,
to Sir John Macdonald, who was at once the head and the soul of the
Cabinet. [A list of the legislative and administrative work accomplished
by Sir John will be found in any late volume of the Canadian
Parliamentary Companion.]
During the period
immediately under review, three elements of discord, not by any means
connected together, were introduced. The railway era set in, and with it
frequent charges of corruption. "My politics," Sir Allan McNab
had said, "is railways," and the projectors of lines beset the
lobbies of Parliament. The Grand Trunk and the Northern lines were the
subjects of more than one investigation from time to time. In the second
place, there was a strong sectarian movement at work which evidently
affected the electorate of Upper Canada. The Corrigan murder case was,
perhaps, one of the chief reasons for a crusade, not indeed begun then,
but powerfully stimulated by that notable failure of justice. As early
as 1834, the cry was raised against ecclesiastical corporations,
separate schools, and other Roman Catholic institutions. Finally, the
agitation for representation based on population made significant
progress. Even before the results of the census of 1851 were made known,
the claim for increased Upper Canadian representation was raised. The
western Province was reaping what it had sowed in 1841, when the
equality system was established. It had now the advantage of Lower
Canada, both in respect to wealth and population, and demanded that the
balance should be at once redressed. Sir John Macdonald could not see
his way clear to the immediate adoption of the principle, because the
preponderance of his own Province did not yet appear so marked as to
call for re-adjustment in the parliamentary system. Moreover, the Lower
Canadians beheld in a maintenance of equal representation, the only
security for their laws, institutions, language and religion.
Abstractedly viewed, they were prepared to acknowledge the justice of
the demand; but they wanted guarantees for their cherished privileges as
French Catholics.
It was evident from the
first that, sooner or later, some change was inevitable; yet it cost
years of heated agitation to secure the precise remedy needed under the
perplexing circumstances. Mr. Brown, with a western majority at his
back, would have nothing but "representation by population."
Mr. Sandfield Macdonald with a small band of followers, advocated the
double majority; the mass of the Lower Canadian members with a minority
from Upper Canada, voted down both propositions, apparently because
there seemed no tertium quid which could satisfy both sections of
the Province. To the Attorney-General West, the first necessity appeared
to be that of carrying on the Government. There was no pretence that any
Cabinet formed upon the lines laid down by Mr. Brown would carry a
majority with it in the House or in the country. The Rouges or Liberal
Lower Canadians, were almost as unanimously opposed to the new theory of
representation as their Bleu opponents. The Eastern and some of the
Western members from Upper Canada occupied the same position; and there
was nothing hopeful in an agitation which, at best, promised only a
dead-lock. This was the Liberal Conservative view of the situation; the
other side will be displayed when we come to treat of Messrs. Brown,
Mackenzie, and their friends.
But whilst, on the
cardinal issue, there was not much hope of a satisfactory adjustment of
rival opinions, there were side questions which threatened to put the
existence of the Government in jeopardy at any moment. In November,
1857, on the retirement of Sir E. Taché, the Attorney-General West
became Premier in name as well as in fact, and the struggle was at once
precipitated. At the general election in that year, the Reform
Opposition received considerable accessions to its strength, numerical
and other. Mr. Brown was returned for Toronto as well as North Oxford,
and a number of able coadjutors found their way into Parliament at the
same time, amongst them Messrs. T. D’Arcy McGee, Mowat, Connor,
Wallbridge, and, shortly after, Mr. Macdougall who was returned for Mr.
Brown’s Oxford seat. On the representation question, the Opposition
leader only mustered thirty-two on a division. Messrs. J. H. Cameron,
Buchanan, and Malcolm Cameron voted nay, not because they opposed the
principle, but because they considered its discussion premature. [Turcotte,
ii. p.333.] The Lower Canadian members grounded their resistance to the
proposal of Mr. Brown upon the assumption that the settlement of 1840
was in the nature of a federal compact, which must be adhered to, with
the alternative of a dissolution of partnership.
A more favourable
opportunity for overthrowing the Macdonald-Cartier Government occurred
on the seat of government question. The conflicting claims of Quebec,
Montreal, Ottawa, Kingston and Toronto had led Parliament to cut the
gordian knot by referring the question to the Queen. Chiefly from
strategic considerations, Ottawa had been selected, and then an
opportunity was open to all the expectant capitals to unite against the
Government. The single claim of any one city was readily disposed of;
but when all united upon Mr. Piche’s amendment that "in the
opinion of the House, Ottawa ought not to be the seat of
Government," all the recalcitrants could make common cause, and the
amendment was carried by sixty-four to fifty. Of course this was, in no
sense, a party vote; still, Ministers regarded themselves as in honour
bound to adhere to the decision of the Crown, after Parliament had
deliberately invoked it, and at once resigned.
Then followed the episode
of the Brown-Dorion Government which only lasted from August 2nd to 4th.
To it a reference will be made in a sketch of its Premier. Mr. Brown
resigned, because the Governor-General, Sir Edmund Head, refused a
dissolution. The House had, in the meantime, passed a vote of
non-confidence, in the absence of Ministers, and there was nothing to
prevent the old Government returning to office. The necessity of going
back to their constituents, however, was a disagreeable one, and what
has been called "the double shuffle" was resorted to. The
members of the Macdonald-Cartier Cabinet accepted different offices from
those previously occupied; then resigned these, and re-occupied their
old positions, the name of the Administration only being changed to that
of the Cartier-Macdonald Government. This was done, under colour of an
Act, certainly intended to apply only to mere casual transfers from one
office to another. According to the text of the statute, however, any
member resigning an office and within a month accepting another, was
freed from the necessity of seeking re-election; and there was certainly
no limit put to the number of those who might so pass from one office to
another. If one, why not twelve? It was the double resignation of office
and return to it which certainly appeared to shock the moral sense of
the community. A biographer says, and we can readily believe his
statement, that Sir John Macdonald was entirely opposed to the
"shuffle," and only yielded, contrary to his own judgment,
when he found his colleagues bent upon it. At all events the Legislature
and the judges in both Superior Courts of common law sustained the
Ministers, and the affair blew over. [Legislative Assembly Journals,
1858, pp.973-6; Upper Canada Q.B. Reports, xvii. p. 310; C.P. Reports,
viii. p. 479 – cited by Todd: Parliamentary Government in the
British Colonies, p. 537. n.]
In 1859, the question of
the seat of government necessarily presented itself once more. Mr.
Sicotte had left the Cabinet, because he differed from his colleagues on
the subject, and the adverse vote of the previous session remained on
the journals. Some of the members of the former majority, however, were
brought over, and the Ministry triumphed by a majority of five. The
discussion throughout is a salient example of the dangers always
imminent when local interests are temporarily united on the surface,
even though they are diametrically opposed to each other at bottom. The
only striking event of the Session was the refusal of the Legislative
Council to adopt the Supply Bill, by a majority of three. The excitement
over this novel coup lasted but a short time, for the vote was
soon after reversed, and the Bill carried by a majority of four.
During the next Session,
several attempts were made to oust the Government, on the Budget. A
motion of non-confidence was moved, and lost by seventy to forty-four.
In May of that year, Mr. Brown introduced the subject of a Federal Union
between the two Provinces, in the form of resolutions; but the first was
lost by sixty-seven to twenty-six, and the second by seventy-four to
thirty-two, only four Lower Canadians supporting the project in its
entirety. So far Sir John Macdonald and his colleagues had triumphantly
pursued the path they had marked out for themselves; but, in 1861 signs
of party dissatisfaction manifested themselves with unmistakable
clearness. Mr. Sicotte had formally joined the Opposition, and, as the
census returns came in, the representation question once more occupied
the attention of Parliament. Mr. Sandfield Macdonald submitted the
double majority principle to a vote, but was defeated by sixty-four to
forty-six. On a direct vote of non-confidence, Ministers again
succeeded, but their majority was reduced to thirteen. Mr. Ferguson, a
Conservative member, then introduced a Bill to apportion the
representation according to population. A prolonged discussion ensued,
in which Attorney-General Macdonald took a prominent part. He said he
opposed the project before and should do so on this occasion. He
believed that the measure simply meant the overthrow of the existing
Union, because Lower Canada would never consent to it. The Opposition
could not hope to come into power without abandoning the principle of
representation according to population. In 1858, they had abandoned it,
and in the Toronto Convention of 1859 they had deliberately chosen
another remedy. In his view the only solution of the problem was to be
found in a federal union of all the British North American Provinces.
The Bill was thrown out by a vote of sixty-seven to forty-nine, only one
Lower Canadian member, Mr. Somerville, voting with the minority. The
Session was an exceedingly barren one in legislation, so large a part of
it having been taken up in constitutional debates.
Some notable changes were
effected by the general election of 1861, Messrs. Brown, Dorion, Lemieux,
and Thibaudeau, on the one side, and Messrs. Sidney Smith, Gowan and
Morrison on the other, found themselves without seats. The Ministry
itself underwent some modification; but it still possessed a majority.
On the vote for Speaker, the Government candidate was elected by a
majority of thirteen on the 20th of March, 1862. Mr. Macdougall proposed
an amendment to the Address in favour of representation by population;
but it only received the votes of forty-two, all Upper Canadians. But in
May, the Opposition from both sections of the Province, found a common
platform on the Militia Bill, and succeeded in securing its rejection at
the second reading by a vote of sixty-one to fifty-four. The Government
resigned, and the Macdonald-Sicotte Cabinet was at once formed.
Representation by population was abandoned, and the double majority, in
sectional matters, made the cardinal principle in legislation. An
account of the new administration has already been given in the sketch
of its Premier. It needs only to be remarked here that when Mr. Dorion
was substituted for Mr. Sicotte, the double majority principle was
definitively given up, and representation by population left an open
question. In 1864, Sir John returned to office with Sir E. P. Tache as
his chief. Then followed the dead-lock already alluded to, and the
formation of the Coalition Cabinet and Confederation. We are not called
upon to apportion the relative shares of the men who had the merit of
thus extricating the Province from a painful dilemma. The leaders on
both sides felt that the time had come when some remedy must be found
for the chronic ailments of the body politic. The Conservative leader’s
part in the negotiations was an extremely honourable one, and it is
certain that his tact, ability and address were never shown to greater
advantage than at this period. On July 1st, 1867, the Dominion came into
being, and Sir John Macdonald found himself once more Premier, this time
of a larger Canada than before. There for the present we may leave him,
at the head of public affairs. In a future chapter, his subsequent
career, so far as it can fairly be the subject of contemporary review in
an impartial spirit, may be traced. The prominent features of his
character, however, lie before us even now, at this stage.
Whatever may be said of
his political course, it is certain that the Premier possesses some of
the best qualities of a statesman of the first rank. Allusion has been
made to his wonderful power of adaptability to the needs of the time, as
they successively forced themselves upon his notice. No public man in
Canada has ever displayed greater acuteness in divining clearly the duty
which lay immediately before him. Possessed of an insight into most men
and subjects, almost instinctive, he has never been either a fossil Tory
or an impracticable Radical. Possessed of no small power of will, and
capable of fervent adherence to cherished ideas, Sir John has never
failed to yield to the necessities of the case, when once his reason,
foresight, or what you will, yielded to the logic of facts. Rigid
partisans, who pride themselves on consistency call this flexible
temperament by the invidious phrases, pliability or indifference to
principle. But that is simply because they fail to occupy the same
standpoint, and survey public measures over more contracted areas. After
all, the statesmen who have left their mark on the world’s history,
have been the least consistent of the tribe; and it may well be doubted
whether any public man can hope to rise above mediocrity who looks
within to the exclusion of what lies about him. To a greater or less
extent, a leader cannot successfully command, unless he is also content
to be a follower. He merely guides, shapes and measurably alters the
course of the ship of state, but supplies none of its motive power. To
recognise what is possible, to seize the changeful currents of progress
and pass safely by navigable channels is his function; the impulse comes
from without, and he best discharges his duty as a statesman who most
clearly divines the possibilities at any crisis of affairs.
It is to Sir John
Macdonald’s credit that he has never nailed the rudder, or fastened
down the safety-valve. Temperate in his views, he has always been in a
position to yield to arguments drawn from clear and pressing exigencies,
and with all the failings that may be properly laid to his charge, he
has never for a moment been a self-seeker at the expense of his country.
Mr. Fennings Taylor quotes from a speech by Sir James Graham, in which
he tells the electors of Carlisle that the true test of a public man is
whether he has been governed by avarice or ambition at the expense of
the people. ["I tell you, not for myself, but for public men, and
in the interests of the public, do not pry too closely into the flaws of
character of public men; do not hunt too closely into every particular
of their conduct, but look to the general tenor of their lives. Try them
by this test: Has avarice or ambition misled them from the paths of
public duty? Have they gained honours and advantages for themselves at
the cost of the public? Try them by that test."] Sir John Macdonald
is certainly a poorer man today than he would have been had he never
passed the bar of the House. Thoroughly unselfish, he has always devoted
himself to the public interest, as he understood it. As a man, there is
no better-hearted or more genial friend, or companion now in public
life. Apart from political differences, it may safely be affirmed that
he has no personal enemy. His speeches are fluent, sometimes
tumultuously rapid, and delivered with that sort of impetuous fervour
natural to one of his temperament. He can hardly be styled an orator;
yet few men are equipped so fully with an almost magical power of
steadying waverers, and startling opponents. Endowed with a singularly
mobile temperament, he has always known how to adapt his speech to the
audience and to the time. Fertile in illustration, fruitful in ready wit
and happy retort, Sir John has always proved a formidable rival in
debate. Others may have risen to higher levels as mere orators; he has
proved himself a match for every competitor in the unstudied point, pith
and vigour of his addresses. At times, he has seemed to rise above
himself when the occasion called for unusual effort, and proved that it
is possible for him to be truly eloquent, whenever his powers have been
fully drawn upon, and strung up to the top of their bent. How far these
unwonted bursts of oratorical power have been the result of art,
adroitly concealed, it is difficult to say. Certainly Sir John has
triumphed most decisively when he has carried the House or the people
with him by their firm belief in the perfect spontaneity of his
eloquence. It is no part of our duty to hold the balance between the
Premier and his political opponents; but even the latter will admit that
a man who has so triumphantly vindicated his title to be a leader of men
during over thirty years must possess abilities of a high and rare
order. It may be added that the Dominion could miss none of its public
men who would leave so universally recognised a gap in the ranks as Sir
John Macdonald. When the time, which one may fairly hope is far distant,
when his epitaph must be inscribed by the historian’s pen; when the
heated passions of the day are chilled by the dank atmosphere of death,
the services of Sir John will be rated at their just value. His title as
Knight Commander of the Bath was granted for his services at
Confederation, although, perhaps, from habit, we have alluded to him
prematurely by the name he now bears. He is also a member of the
Imperial Privy Council, a D. C. L. of Oxford, an LL. D. of Queen’s;
wears also the insignia of a Spanish Order.
|
