AT length the British
government recognized that the problem of Lower Canada had really to be
faced. Lord Durham, with an able staff, was despatched to Canada,
clothed with extraordinary powers. He was given a very free hand to
adopt such measures as were necessary to restore tranquillity, and to
report upon the most effective means of governing the colony for the
future. But though his powers were wider than those of any governor
since Dorchester, he managed to travel beyond them, involving himself
and the home government in a very awkward dilemma. The Opposition taking
full advantage of this, Lord Durham's recall was rendered inevitable,
after a meteoric course of some five months.
I his is not the place
to discuss the authorship of Lord Durham's Report, but a study of it, in
the light of the documents from the conquest down to the time of its
appearance, shows that those who prepared the materials for it, as the
result of those "various and extensive inquiries into the institutions
and administration of these provinces" which Lord Durham had set on
foot, had carefully gone over the history of their subject. They were
evidently familiar not only with the leading public documents, whether
printed or in manuscript, but had apparently gone over much private and
confidential correspondence which has only qui te recently been opened
to general research. In addition they had taken much pains to obtain
from the most representative persons the various views and policies
entertained by different sections of Canadian opinion.
As was to be expected,
each party in Canada accepted as just and enlightened those portions of
the Report which dealt favourably with their views and aspirations, but
were inclined to regard the more unfavourable criticisms as largely due
to false information or as the fruits of groundless prejudice. Although
originality and novelty seemed to many to be striking features of Lord
Durham's Report, yet in reality there is very little m it which is not
found in previous reports or elsewhere. It is in fact one of its
strongest features that it adhered closely to the facts as they had been
carefully ascertained in the past, or as they were to be discovered at
the time by any open-eyed and fair-minded investigator, seeking only to
make a survey of the actual crisis and of the. historic conditions which
led up to it. It is this unprejudiced attitude towards the whole
Canadian problem as an absorbingly interesting historic experiment in
practical politics, which gives to the Durham Report its freshness and
vitality.
The first portion of it
is devoted to the problem of Lower Canada, in which is brought out the
folly of the earlier British governors who, on plausible but
shortsighted grounds, turned aside the first normal movement towards a
unified British colony. In its present English sections, it is true,
this would have been much more thoroughly penetrated with the
French-Canadian institutions than it is to-day, but still in a blended
harmony with the British system of public law and government, as in the
original Dutch colony of New York, or the more modern state of
Louisiana. But, the mistake once made by the introduction of the Quebec
Act, the Report demonstrates, with ample detail and from every line of
approach, that, without attempting to change the foundation lines of the
old policy, a new one was attempted to be engrafted upon it. This policy
was doomed to utter failure and to ensure an ultimate conflict of races.
Now that the conflict had issued in physical violence, the English
element demanded that the struggle of rival races be ended, and that, as
the obvious future of the continent was an Anglo-Saxon one, this must be
recognized in policy as well as in fact. " tower Canada must be English,
at the expense, if necessary, of not being British."
The next important
question taken up by the Report was the defective constitutional system,
as revealed in both provinces by the friction and periodic deadlock
developed between the different sections of the legislature and with the
executive government. It demonstrated the impossibility of working an
assembly which could not directly affect the executive, and the futility
of attempting to secure harmonious and acceptable government where the
executive was completely removed from popular control and from all
opportunity for explaining or justifying its actions before the
representatives of the people. It was also shown that the members of the
executive government held a vested interest m their offices, to the
extent of expecting full compensation for removal or readjustment, and
that class privilege was so highly developed as to be regarded as an
indispensable bulwark of British supremacy and Canadian loyalty. The
natural consequences of this condition of affairs were revealed in the
experience of the Canadas, where a lack of responsibility and efficiency
was shown in every department of government, the legislature as well as
the executive, the assembly as well as the council. The outcome of this
part of the investigation was the advocacy of a form of mutual
responsibility as between the different factors of the government, so
that they should be required to act in harmony, rendering it impossible
for one to fall permanently out of touch with the other.
Among the other
important features of Canadian government touched upon with more or less
detail, was the lack of municipal institutions to take charge of the
details of local administration and to familiarize the people with the
essentials of responsible government. The provincial finances of
necessity received special attention; in Upper Canada in particular they
had fallen into hopeless confusion, alike as to the sources of revenue
and its administration and expenditure. There was a chronic
interprovincial dispute also, relative to the proportion of revenue due
to each province from the proceeds of the customs duties levied in Lower
Canada, and also as to the relative obligations of the two provinces
towards improving the system of water communication by way of the St.
Lawrence route, the great commercial highway of both provinces.
The vexed question of
the Clergy Reserves was also dealt with, though the conclusion reached
was not very favourable to the idea of an endowed national church as a
bulwark of monarchy. The Report advocated that the revenues from these
lands should be placed at the disposal of the legislature of each
province. It was implied also that the revenue had better be devoted to
the advancement of intellectual culture, rather than to the fostering of
unchristian church rivalry.
The backward progress
of the Canadas and of the Maritime Provinces was dealt with at
considerable length, and a striking contrast was drawn between the
Canadian and American sides of the boundary line as regards commercial
enterprise, the development of natural resources, and the attraction of
capital and population, especially from the British Islands. In Canada,
however, this was a subject as painful as it was obvious, and those who
were represented as chiefly responsible for the condition of the Canadas
resented the comparison as utterly unpatriotic, and as evincing
republican and anti-British sympathies. Other matters dealt with at
considerable length, in connection with the economic difficulties of the
Canadas, were immigration, land-granting and land-jobbing generally.
Finally, as a means of
putting an end to a system which had resulted in the present crisis, and
as the beginning of improved racial conditions, though unfortunately at
a very late date and requiring many years to remedy the evils already
rooted in the colony, the reunion of the provinces was strongly
advocated, but on such a basis that the French-Canadians should be
prevented from commanding the majority of the votes in the united
legislature. For the French-Canadians were to be given to understand,
once and for all, that their dream of an independent nationality was
impossible, and that in a thorough union with the Anglo-Saxon element
their whole future was bound up. In this united country they must look
for a larger field in which their talents might have freer scope than
would ever have been possible m the narrower and more uncertain range of
an independent French dominion.
When Lord Durham's
Report was published, though naturally unpalatable to the
French-Canadians, for a time at least, it was scarcely other than was to
be anticipated after the late crisis which had resulted in the
suspension of representative government in Lower Canada. There was
therefore but little discussion of it on the part of the French. The
English element in Lower Canada were so satisfied with its general
conclusions, and especially with the recommendation of the reunion of
the provinces, which was expected to redeem them from bondage, political
and economic, that they passed over in silence, and many of them
doubtless with a consciousness of their essential truth, the criticisms
passed upon the objectionable constitutional methods employed by the
legislative and executive councils in Lower Canada. As a matter of fact,
many of the most abnormal uses made of both assembly and council in
Lower Canada were but the natural and inevitable expression of the
radical racial struggle there.
In Upper Canada,
however, the party of loyalty, who were in their own eyes and in those
of their friends the representatives of British authority and the
defenders of the country against republicanism and rebellion, found
their methods and system severely criticized, and their principles of
government declared impossible of continuance. It is true that the
methods of their opponents were as unsparingly criticized, and were
shown to be equally impossible; but the central principles which they
advocated, though with some confusion of ideas, were regarded as looking
in the right direction, and pointing the way towards a more stable and
workable form of government. To the champions of prerogative the Report
brought dismay, followed by anger and denunciation and the now familiar
representation of the home government as itself tainted with disloyalty
when its policy may not happen to harmonize with this or that colonial
party which has made its particular interests the touchstone of imperial
principles, and has assumed loyalty as one of its party cries. The
favourite amusement of the baser sort of Loyalists in Upper Canada was
to burn in efligy those members of the imperial cabinet who were
suspected of being disloyal to the Family Compact's conception of
imperialism.
The party of reform,
struggling to dissociate themselves from the few misguided enthusiasts
who had endeavoured to excite the people to rebellion in the name of
reform, hailed Lord Durham's Report with unqualified delight. The
criticisms of the Report on the crude methods of Reformers in conducting
practical politics, and in their lack of appreciation of what organized
government of the British type involved, were lost in their joy at
finding both the methods and principles of the Family Compact condemned,
and the central principles for which they had contended, however
blindly, recognized as in essence correct. Their spirits revived; Lord
Durham's Report became their Bible, with its golden texts from which
they preached, often with no very refined exegesis, the gospel of
responsible government. Those who accepted the policy of the Durham
Report were known by their opponents as Durhamites, with various aliases
such as rebels, republicans, Yankees, traitors, with a long and
frequently picturesque line of qualifying epithets not at all of a
flattering nature. The Reformers replied in kind, and the Family Compact
and their supporters had quite as many aliases with suitable qualifying
terms, suggestive of corruption, tyranny, and oppression. Increasing
torrents of mingled argument, declamation, and abuse being brought forth
and finding a ready demand, the newspapers multiplied under the stimulus
of the controversy.
The Compact party found
it highly necessary to make a formal reply to Durham's Report, as the
very citadel of their enemies. This was accomplished through the medium
of two reports, one from a select committee of the House of Assembly of
Upper Canada on the state of the provinces, the other a report of the
select committee of the legislative council on Lord Durham's Report.
These are very interesting documents, and show that, whatever the
defects of the Family Compact, its representative members were certainly
not lacking in ability. In the report from the assembly much space is
devoted to a detailed recital of the depredations committed by escaped
rebels from Canada, and by the various groups of sympathizers on the
American side of the border. These are adroitly used to give colour to
the attitude of the whole American people and their government.
Altogether they painted a most unflattering picture of the people of the
United States and their republican institutions, which are represented
as exciting feelings of disgust in all right-minded Englishmen. This
recital is employed to exalt the devotion of those who have saved Canada
from the clutches of such an enemy, and who are made to suffer outrage
and aggression solely because of their loyalty to their country. They
served also to offset that contrast, unfavourable to Canada as compared
with the United States, which was presented in Lord Durham's Report, and
which they endeavoured to represent as an unwarrantable slur upon the
mass of the Canadian people. Incidentally, too, the respectable people
of the province, who are the vast majority of course, are represented as
supporters of the views and feelings of the critics of Lord Durham and
his Report.
Having painted such a
dark picture of republican institutions and of their debasing effect
upon human nature, what must be the character of any misguided Canadian
who should look with a favourable eye upon that particular form of
republicanism known as responsible government ? When they have occasion
to refer to Mr. Buller, Lord Durham's chief secretary, whom they
evidently regard as the chief author of the Report, he is represented as
a believer in republican institutions, an American sympathizer, and an
advocate of anti-British and anti-monarchical principles. It requires no
further argument, therefore, to prove his baseness and the lost
character of any who should favour his views.
In their specific
criticism of the Report, they represent the disappointment with which
the loyal portion of the Canadian population learned of the selection of
Lord Durham for the critical mission entrusted to him. He was known to
be too favourable to those political views which alone had brought upon
Canada all its misfortunes, but, as we have said, their chief
compliments are paid to Mr. Buller, the open advocate of the views of
Papineau and Mackenzie. They excuse themselves from go in 4 into details
on many of the most essential features in the Report; they will merely
bike up typical features. They do not object to being represented as the
party of wealth, power, land grants, government offices, and all other
good things, but express surprise that these possessions should not be
taken as prima facie evidence that they are the very people who ought to
be in power. Assuming that the faction designated the Family Compact was
supported by the great majority of the people of Upper Canada, they
claimed that it was highly improper to represent " the great body of the
people of the country as a 4 Compact, " and solemnly proceed to show
that the chief office-holders in the executive government were not
specially connected through hereditary descent. They even endeavoured to
make common cause with the Reformers against the Durham Report,
indicating that the latter were not treated with proper courtesy,
inasmuch as they, too, came under certain criticisms, their ranks being
represented as containing some who have a leaning towards the
institutions of the United States rather than tlio.se of the Mother
Country.
Altogether the reply
was a very adroit performance, and though it does not appear to have
checked the cause of reform very much, yet it brought corn-fort to many
of the faithful to whom Lord Durham's Report came as a most
disconcerting blow in their hour of triumph. As regarded the specific
recommendations of the Report with reference to the future government of
the Canadas, they touched upon two points only, the legislative union of
the provinces, and the responsibility of the officers of government to
the legislature. The first they were prepared to accept under certain
special conditions which will be referred to later. But the second was
regarded as "inconsistent with the dependence of these provinces as
colonies upon the Mother Country."
The report from the
legislative council was much briefer than that from the assembly, but
expressed practically the same sentiments. The criticism is of the same
character, deals with much the same points, and is delivered in the same
strain. The accuracy of the Report is first assailed as to certain
details of fact and inference, and then, with a wide sweep of the arm,
these defects are communicated to the whole body of the Report. Passing
over, as in the case of the assembly's report, the question of the
Clergy Reserves, they devote special attention to the subject of
responsible government, as most nearly affecting those in control of the
provincial government. They admit it to be a very natural inference that
the system of government in the Mother Country might be extended to all
the British dominions, but they regard it as practically impossible to
preserve the colonial relations on such a basis. They arc convinced that
Lord Durham's plan " must lead to the overthrow of the great colonial
empire of England." Their contrast between the principles of the
existing system and that which Lord Durham would introduce is thus
expressed :—
"According to the
present system, the governor of a colony exercises most of the royal
functions, under the general direction of the ministers of the Crown ;
he is strictly accountable for his conduct, and for the use he makes of
the royal authority; he recommends for office persons in the colony, or
appoints those selected by the minister; and he endeavours to conduct
his government according to the policy of the imperial cabinet, with a
view to the present prosperity and future greatness of a country in
which England has a deep interest; and above all things, with the
intention of preserving, against all opposition, the unity of the
empire. . . .
"According to the
system proposed by the Earl of Durham, the advisers of the lieutenant
governor would not be officers who, in accordance with the policy of the
home government, endeavour to aid the lieutenant-governor in
conciliating the affections of the people; but they must be the
creatures of the prevailing faction or party in the assembly, advising
the governor altogether with a view to the wishes of the House for the
moment, regardless of the opinions of the supreme parliament or those of
the imperial cabinet, and having (though nominally subordinate) the
power of forcing all their measures upon the governor.
"The colonial governor
must, in this case, be left without discretion or responsibility, and
follow whatever changes may occur; in his colony he could take no
directions from the minister of the Crown, nor, indeed, communicate with
the supreme government, unless in the terms dictated by his responsible
advisers, to whose directions he must submit far more completely than
the sovereign to the advice of the cabinet. . . .
"Either this must be
the course pursued by a governor, with responsible advisers, or he must
think for himself, independently of those advisers; and, as a matter of
course, throw himself for information and advice upon irregular and
unknown sources. In such an event, the responsible advisers resign; they
have, perhaps, a majority in the provincial parliament, but they may,
notwithstanding, be very wrong. Then comes a dissolution of the
provincial parliament, and, perhaps, an expression of public opinion, by
a bare majority, against the government, and probably inimical to the
interests of the empire. Who, then, is to yield? The government must, in
fact, retire from the contest, whether right or wrong, or carry on
public affairs without any advisers or public officers.
"This cannot be done;
so that, after all, the governor of the colony must be responsible to
the prevailing party in the colony; and, so far as empire is concerned,
he becomes the sovereign of an independent realm, having no discretion,
and therefore no responsibility.
"Under such a system,
colonial dependence would practically be at end."
This is undoubtedly a
very clever presentation of the central difficulties to be met with in
introducing a system of responsible government. In the light of what has
actually happened it may be said to be technically correct, and yet n
practice untrue. I n-doubtedly, f formally specified and consciously
introduced at one stroke, as was no doubt contemplated by the more
ambitious advocates of responsible government, it would have been
impossible to preserve the colonial relationship. But we have never even
yet had responsible government on those terms. There has never yet been
a specification as to where the line is to be drawn between the
authority of the home government and the independence of the colonial
government. It was, as we shall see, one of Lord Sydenham's chief
triumphs that at the one period in our history when there was a
temptation to draw such a line under persistent questioning, he managed
to introduce the essence of responsible government without being forced
to draw the line. Time was required and the exercise of much tact in so
arranging the transition that while responsible government was being
developed, and the necessary changes in the Canadian administrative
system were being effected, a new and informal bond expressive of the
spirit rather than the letter of the imperial relation should have tune
and opportunity for development. This gradual growth of a new body of
tradition and unwritten custom of the constitution had to proceed some
distance before the existing harmony between the monarchical institution
of the sovereign and the democratic institution of the Canadian cabinet
could be brought into working harmony. This form of government is
demonstrably impossible, according to every a priori principle of law
and politics, before it actually takes shape. In Canada, therefore, the
Family Compact had little difficulty in theoretically demonstrating, as
above, the impossibility of the co-existence of responsible government
and the preservation of the ties of empire with the Mother Country.
Naturally, the advocates of responsible government had as little, few of
them indeed as much, insight into what was involved m their policy as
regards British connection as the members of the Family Compact, for the
latter had much more carefully studied that aspect of the matter.
The more ardent
advocates of responsible government looked to it chiefly for the
accomplishment of a practical policy of executive government, under
which only those could be retained in office who could command the
confidence of a majority of the assembly. At the time of Lord Durham's
Report they were much more anxious to be able to drive certain
individuals out of office than to determine the niceties of the
principles upon which their successors should hold office, or what
relation they should bear to the governor-general and the home
government.
Lord Durham's Report
had declared that not a single prerogative of the Crown was to be
impaired. On the contrary, several prerogatives not hitherto exercised
were to be brought into effect, as was indeed accomplished by Lord
Sydenham. On the other hand, the Crown must consent to carry on the
government by means of those in whom the representative body in the
legislature has confidence. If this were simply a matter of persons,
there would of course be little difficulty. The Crown, we may suppose,
has determined on a certain policy involving the exercise of certain
prerogatives. If the only question were, is tins line of policy to be
carried out, and are these prerogatives to be exercised through the
medium of persons in whom the representative body has confidence, or
through those in whom it has not confidence, then the answer furnished
by Lord Durham's Report is clear and distinct. The policy must be
carried out, and the prerogatives exercised by those in whom the
representative body has confidence, whether persona gratice to the Crown
or not. Now it must be admitted that this was the chief problem for the
t/me being. But if the question should arise, as undoubtedly it must and
actually did arise, what is to happen if there is a difference of
opinion between the home government and the colonial legislature as to
concrete measures or a line of policy? Then we have a question of
measures and not of persons. The real difficulty to be faced is that the
representative body in the colony will have confidence only in those
ministers who refuse, when necessary, to accept the policy of the Crown,
or to permit the exercise of objectionable prerogatives. For this
situation it must be confessed that Lord Durham's Report does not offer
a specific solution; it simply vaguely appeals to the practice in
England, and claims that it may be exercised in the colonies as well.
But the British king and government are not constitutionally required to
act im harmony with the policy and prerogatives of any ulterior power,
whereas the government of Canada was assumed by Lord Durham's Report to
be under this restriction. It was plain, therefore, that on these terms
the general reference to the English principles did not fully meet the
Canadian conditions. Technically the Report was certainly open to this
criticism, and there was as yet no adequate reply forthcoming to the
dilemma skilfully presented by the legislative council. The speeches and
articles of the advocates of responsible government who took Lord
Durham's Report as their gospel, got no further than the Report itself
in their efforts to clear up this difficulty. One and all fall back upon
the parallel between the governments of Canada and Britain, and the
necessity for a universal application of the British constitution to all
parts of the British empire.
The Montreal Gazette,
the able exponent of the views of the English element which had held the
ascendency in the executive and legislative councils in Lower Canada,
and which was strongly in favour of the reunion of the provinces but
opposed to responsible government, was particularly clear on the subject
of the many difficulties involved in the formal acceptance of the
principle of responsible government. It defied any of the persons or
papers in favour of this principle, from Lord Durham to the Toronto
Examiner (Mr. Hincks's paper), to say what it was that they meant by
responsible government, and declared that they either did not know or
dared not say. Indeed, in the vast majority of cases it was quite
obvious that they did not know. But it might be reasonably supposed in
the case of a few men, such as Francis Hincks and Joseph Howe, whose
papers, the Examiner of Toronto and the Nova Scotian of Halifax, gave
much the ablest presentations of the principle of responsible
.government, that they did not quite care to declare all that was latent
ui the principle.
Obviously, here was a#
issue which required a practical, rather than a theoretic, solution. It
has not to this day received a theoretic solution, as witness the long
list of failures which have been and are still being produced in the
attempt. So peculiar was the problem that, as in the case of the British
constitution itself, those who were chiefly instrumental in furnishing a
working solution were the least ready to furnish a theoretic statement
of it. As we shall sec, it was left to Lord John Russell and Lord
Sydenham to present a practical solution for Canada by a more adequate
expression of what was involved in practice in the British system as
advocated by Lord Durham's Report. |