REFORM IN THE SADDLE
On Parliament Hill at Ottawa is a monument of bronze and marble. It
represents two men standing in close converse; and, in spite of the
dull and untempering effect of modern coats and trousers, the monument
is an artistic success worthy of the noble eminence on which it stands
above the broad-bosomed river and looking towards the distant hills.
It is designed to keep in memory LaFontaine, the man of French blood,
and Baldwin, the man of English blood, who worked together as leaders
in the first parliament of reunited Canada. That they so worked
together for the good of their common country deserves commemoration in
enduring brass; for, happily, ever since their time English and French
have been found working side by side and vying in fraternal efforts
towards the same glorious end.
LaFontaine and Baldwin are typical Canadian {67} politicians of the new
order. They carried on a government under modern conditions.
Sydenham's work had been done once for all. In spite of ignorance, and
errors, and worse, the parliamentarians had really learned the lessons
of procedure which he had so deftly taught, and they now settled down
to the regular game of Ins and Outs, according to established and
accepted rules. The irreconcilables were gradually tamed as wild
animals are--by hunger first, and then by being fed with sufficient
quantities of the loaves and fishes. Power, office, good permanent
positions, fat salaries, proved strong sedatives of yeasty aspirations
towards vague political ideals. There were still to be grave
difficulties, crises, reactions towards the old order of things; but
the cardinal principle of popular government was finally accepted, and,
ever since 1841, has been in continuous operation, as part and parcel
of the constitution.
If Canadian politicians had, in the words of the Shorter Catechism,
been left to the freedom of their own will, it is difficult to see how
they could ever have brought about either the union of the jarring
provinces, or established the principles of popular government. It is
not apparent how half a dozen {68} irreconcilable little factions could
have combined to thwart the sullen determination of John Neilson's
French-Canadian party to wreck the Union. There was a crying need for
intervention by a true statesman from without, who, with his eyes
unblinded by local prejudices and passions, could take his stand above
all parties, and, in benevolent despotism, lead them into concerted
action for their own good and the good of the country. Equally clamant
was the need of information and instruction. Sometimes Canadians are
inclined to write the tale of the building of the nation as if that
splendid fabric were all the work of their own hands, as if 'our own
arm had brought salvation unto us.' This is manifest fallacy. Without
a Durham to diagnose the malady and a Sydenham to apply the remedy, the
condition of the body politic must have been past cure. At least, no
other physicians could avail. Now, it was a matter of treatment and
careful nursing, and being instructed, we were capable of following the
doctor's orders.
The Reform leaders were very unlike each other in character and
antecedents. Robert Baldwin was the son of William Warren Baldwin,
whose father (also a Robert Baldwin) {69} belonged to the humbler class
of landed gentry in Ireland. Tempted, like so many others of his
class, by the bait of cheap land, he came to Canada to 'farm.' His son
William studied medicine at Edinburgh, became a doctor, and, with Irish
powers of adaptation, soon exchanged physic for the more profitable
pursuit of law. Robert the grandson was born in York (now Toronto) in
1804. He became one of 'Johnny' Strachan's pupils at the Grammar
School, achieving in time the distinction of being 'head boy'; after
which he studied law in the old, leisurely, articled-clerk system, and
finally became his father's partner. An opportune legacy enabled his
father to buy a large property outside 'muddy York,' on which, in
accordance with hereditary landholding instinct, he endeavoured to
establish his family, after the old-world fashion. A broad
thoroughfare in Toronto preserves the name of Baldwin's ambition,
'Spadina.'
Like his father, Robert Baldwin was a Moderate Reformer. He entered
public life (1829) in his native town as draftsman of a petition to
George IV in what was known as the Willis affair. In the same year he
was elected to the Assembly as member for York. {70} Unseated on a
technicality, he was at once re-elected, and took his seat in the House
the following year. In the new elections, however, following the
demise of George IV in 1830, when the House was dissolved, Baldwin was
defeated. He had recently entered into partnership with his wife's
brother, who was also his own cousin, Robert Baldwin Sullivan, a
handsome Irishman with more than a touch of Irish brilliancy. Sullivan
played no small part in the politics of the time. He is the author of
the wittiest pamphlet ever evoked by Canadian party struggles.
Another young Irishman with whom Baldwin became closely associated was
Francis Hincks, who also left his mark on the history of Canada. The
son of a Presbyterian minister, he had received a good general
education, and a sound and extensive business training in Belfast.
Coming to Toronto by way of the West Indies, he became interested in
various local business concerns and speedily proved his outstanding
capacity for all matters of commerce and finance. Besides being the
manager of a bank and the secretary of an insurance company, Hincks
carried on at his house in Yonge Street, next door to Robert Baldwin's
(number 21), a {71} general warehousing business; and, as if these
enterprises did not afford sufficient scope for his energy, he launched
a weekly newspaper, the _Examiner_, in the interests of Reform. The
successful man of business soon became the expert in finance, to whom
all eyes turned in difficulty. In 1833 he was appointed one of the
inspectors of the Welland Canal accounts in a parliamentary
investigation, so swiftly had he come to the front. Though much unlike
in temperament, he and Baldwin were agreed in their views of political
reform, siding with the Moderates as against the Mackenzie faction of
extremists. When in 1836 the Constitutional Reform Society of Upper
Canada was organized, with William Warren Baldwin as president, Hincks
became the secretary. The main objects of this society were to secure
'responsible advisers to the governor,' and the abolition of the
forty-four rectories established by Sir John Colborne in accordance
with the well-known provisions of the Constitutional Act. The success
of any organization often depends on one man, the secretary, and in
this capacity Hincks evinced his wonted ability and extraordinary
energy.
These two men, Robert Baldwin, with his {72} high principle and solid
character, and Francis Hincks, with his talent for affairs, are figures
of prime importance in this critical stage of the experiment called
responsible government.
But the new province of Canada, as a union of French and English
populations, demanded, as a natural consequence, a union in leadership.
The French-Canadian politician, who in his own province represented
Moderate Reform, was Louis Hippolyte LaFontaine. His grandfather had
been a member of the old Assembly of Lower Canada; his father was a
farmer at Boucherville in Chambly, where Louis Hippolyte was born in
1804. Educated at the college of Montreal, he afterwards studied law
and began to practise in that city. In 1830 he was elected member for
Terrebonne, and soon showed himself in the House to be a thoroughgoing
follower of Papineau and an agitator for radical change. But when
reform passed over into rebellion and an appeal to armed force, he
tried to dissuade his compatriots from their mad enterprise, and also
approached the governor, Lord Gosford, with a proposal to assemble
parliament, in order to prevent further violence. He then went to
England, from {73} motives which do not seem clear. Fearing arrest in
that country for his share in the agitation before the rebellion, he
fled to France. He did not, in fact, return to Canada until May 1838,
when he was caught in the widespread net of arrests and spent several
painful and indignant months in the Montreal jail, demanding release,
but in vain. Incarceration for a political offence is a rare event in
the career of a chief justice and an English baronet, as this prisoner
was to be later. Arrested on suspicion, he was released without trial.
On the tragic collapse of the extremists LaFontaine became the hope of
the moderate men among the French-Canadian politicians. Like the most
of his compatriots, he was strongly opposed to the union of the
Canadas, as threatening the extinction of his nationality; but seeing
no possible alternative to union, he made it his fixed policy to win,
by constitutional methods, whatever could be won for his people. In
appearance he was strikingly like the first Napoleon, the resemblance
being noticed by the old soldiers when he visited the Hotel des
Invalides at Paris. A contemporary cartoon, representing him flinging
money to the habitants, shows the likeness, even to the {74} lock of
hair on the forehead, more plainly than his portrait. His few years of
leadership in parliament, though of great importance to the country,
formed only an episode in a larger legal career.
In the elections of 1841 LaFontaine was defeated; it is said, by
illegal methods. Baldwin was returned for two constituencies, York and
Hastings, and Hincks for Oxford, on the strength of his articles in the
_Examiner_. Bitterly disappointed as LaFontaine was at his defeat and
the means by which it was accomplished, he could see no hope of redress
except by constitutional means. For the present he could do no more
than protest angrily at the injustice. He was, however, not long
excluded from the House. Through the good offices of Baldwin he was
elected for the fourth riding of York, an act of courtesy and common
sense which was not to lose its reward.
Such was the posture of affairs when Sydenham died.
[Illustration: Sir Charles Bagot. From an engraving in the Dominion
Archives.]
The next governor-general of Canada was Sir Charles Bagot, the Tory
nominee of the now Tory government of Great Britain. Bagot's familiar
portrait in the full insignia of the Order of the Bath shows us the
{75} handsome, thoroughbred face of a typical English gentleman.
Although Queen Victoria doubted his ability for the post, her distrust
was unfounded. Bagot was a man of broad experience and calm wisdom.
He possessed poise and real kindness of heart, as well as real
courtesy; but he seems also to have been too sensitive to criticism and
to opposition. He reached Kingston, the seat of his government, in
January 1842. Visits to the various centres of Canada, according to
the practice of his predecessors, soon gave him an understanding of
popular opinion and feeling; and, although he was expected by the
extreme Conservatives to bring back the old, halcyon, _ante bellum_
days, he was most careful to follow the lines of Sydenham's policy.
Towards the French he was amiable and conciliatory and made several
appointments of French Canadians to positions of trust and emolument.
Ever ready to meet courtesy half-way, the French gave their new
governor their entire confidence.
During the eight months before parliament should reassemble Bagot
wisely set about learning for himself the actual conditions of his new
government. Like Sydenham, he was to act as his own prime minister,
and {76} his initial difficulty was in forming a suitable Cabinet to
act with him. He offered Hincks the post of inspector-general,
corresponding in effect to minister of Finance, and Hincks accepted it.
He offered the post of solicitor-general to Richard Cartwright
(grandfather of the Sir Richard Cartwright of a later day), who refused
it because Hincks was in the Cabinet. The position was finally filled
by Henry Sherwood, who was, like Cartwright, a Conservative. To
LaFontaine the governor offered the attorney-generalship in the most
courteous terms, but, for a number of reasons, LaFontaine declined to
accept it. Bagot's plan was to form a coalition government, which
should embrace all interests; but the Reformers refused to take their
place in a Cabinet which contained men of the opposite party. So
William Henry Draper, who had acted under Sydenham, continued as leader
of a composite Cabinet under Bagot.
The House met at Kingston on September 8, 1842. In the game of Ins and
Outs the debate on the Address is recognized as a trial of strength, as
a method of ascertaining which party is in a majority. It was found
that the Draper government did not command the confidence of the House;
and, after a spirited {77} fight, Draper resigned and made way for a
new ministry, led by LaFontaine and Baldwin. The principle involved,
which seems now the merest common sense, was then scouted as government
'by dint of miserable majorities.' Sullivan was the senior member in
the new ministry, though it is known by the names of its leaders. It
included Hincks and five other members of the previous Cabinet.
In accordance with another rule of the political game the new ministers
had to seek re-election. LaFontaine was peaceably returned for his
'pocket borough,' the fourth riding of York, but the candidacy of
Baldwin for Hastings had another issue. In those good old days of open
voting an election was no such tame affair as walking into a booth and
marking a cross on a piece of paper opposite a name. An election
lasted for days or even weeks. There was only one polling-place for
the district, and an election was rarely held without an election row.
It seems impossible that it is of Canada one reads: 'A number of
shanty-men having no votes were hired by Mr Baldwin's party to create a
disturbance. They did so and ill-treated Mr Murney's supporters. The
latter, however, {78} rallied and drove their dastardly assailants from
the field. Two companies of the 23rd Regiment were sent from Kingston
to keep the peace, and polling was most unjustly discontinued for one
day.' Free fights between bands of rival voters armed with clubs,
swords, and firearms, injuries from which men were not expected to
recover, order restored by the intervention of the military--these were
no unusual incidents in an old-time Canadian election. The contest in
Hastings was of this description, and Baldwin was defeated. He stood
for election in the second riding of York, and he was again defeated.
Finally LaFontaine did for him what he had done for LaFontaine. The
French member for Rimouski resigned his seat, and Baldwin was returned
for it in January 1843. The French leader and the English leader had
thus given unmistakable proofs of their sincere desire to be friends
and to work together for the common weal. French and English were
found at last working in harmony, side by side. They had formed the
first colonial ministry on the approved constitutional model.
The new idea was fiercely assailed. To the British colonial partisan
of that day it {79} seemed the height of absurdity to entrust the
government of the country to men who had done their best to wreck that
government but a few years before. The Tories would have been more
than human if they were not exasperated to see actual rebels like
Girouard, who fought with rebels at St Eustache, offered a position in
the Cabinet. They could not, as yet, accept the hard saying of
Macaulay: 'There is only one cure for the evils which newly-acquired
freedom produces, and that cure is freedom.' How would they have
regarded Britain's three years' war with the Dutch republics of South
Africa and the entrusting of them immediately afterwards to the Boers
and General Louis Botha? For accepting the principle of popular
government, that the majority must rule, Bagot was assailed with an
inhuman vehemence, which astounds the reader of the present day by its
venom and its indecency. Because the governor was a just man and
loyally followed constitutional usage, he was abused as a fool and a
traitor not only in the colony but in England. It is small wonder that
his health began to give way under the strain.
That historical first session of 1842 was {80} very short; it lasted
only a month. Nor could it be said to have accomplished very much in
the way of actual legislation. The criticism of the opposition press
was not ill-founded--that there was much cry and little wool. That the
criticism was made at all shows how much was expected from the
establishment of a principle. Mankind has a pathetic faith in the
efficacy of political machinery, remade or remodelled, to grind out
happiness and bring in the Age of Gold. None the less, a great
political principle had been affirmed, and had been seen in triumphant
action. The new constitution was at last set on its legs, and, at
last, it really did begin to 'march.'
Shortly after the session closed Bagot's administration came to an end.
The governor was no longer young, and the factious opposition in the
colony and the want of support in England wrought upon his health and
spirits. The oncoming of the bitter Canadian winter tried severely the
shaken man. On medical advice he resigned his post, but when his
resignation was accepted he was too ill to travel. He too died at
'Alwington,' Kingston, on May 30, 1843; but the voice of rancorous
detraction was not hushed around {81} his death-bed. 'Imbecile' and
'slave' were among the milder terms of abuse. Bagot was the second
governor in swift succession to render up his life in the discharge of
his duty. And he was not the last. It was as if some blight or curse
rested on the office which made it fatal to the holder. The Canadian
treatment of Bagot, a high-minded gentleman who honestly performed a
thankless task, should make every Canadian hang his head.
Bagot's successor was Sir Charles Metcalfe. He arrived at Kingston
from the American side on March 29, 1843, in a close-bodied sleigh
drawn by four greys. His experience must have been novel since he
landed at Boston and posted overland to reach the capital of the
colony. The whole country was still deep in snow and must have
presented the strangest aspect to a man who had spent his life in the
tropics. He was received at the foot of Arthur Street by an
enthusiastic concourse of citizens, with appropriate ceremony and show.
'A thorough-looking Englishman with a jolly visage,' as he was
characterized by an eye-witness, he made a favourable first impression
upon the people of his government.
{82}
Metcalfe had received his training as a 'writer' in the old East India
Company and must have been a contemporary of Thackeray's Joseph Sedley.
He was born in India, at Lecture House, Calcutta, on January 30, 1785.
Eleven years later he entered Eton, where he at once evinced remarkable
powers of application and a marked distaste for athletic sports, two
traits which would mark him off as an oddity from the herd of English
schoolboys. At the age of sixteen he was back in the land of his
birth. His was a distinguished career. By 1827 he had risen to
membership in the Supreme Council of India. Later he acted as
provisional governor-general, and obtained the Grand Cross of the Bath.
In 1838 he resigned his position and became governor of Jamaica.
Perhaps the most significant incident in his career was his fighting as
a volunteer in the storming of Deeg, on Christmas Day 1804. The
courage which sends a civilian into a desperate hand-to-hand fight, to
which he is not obliged to go, must be above proof. Metcalfe had no
pecuniary interest in his position. He was a wealthy man, who spent
far more than his official salary in the various ways a
governor-general {83} is expected to bestow largesse. His 'jolly
visage' bore the marks of a cruel and incurable disease. He is still
remembered in India as the author of the bill which established the
freedom of the press. The historian Macaulay calls him 'the ablest
civil servant I ever knew in India.' Durham, Sydenham, Bagot,
Metcalfe--Britain had few more distinguished or more able servants of
the state; and they devoted all their powers, without a thought of the
cost to themselves, to solving a vital problem in the maintenance of
the Empire. Their more obvious rewards were obloquy and death.
[Illustration: Sir Charles Metcalfe. After a painting by Bradish]
The misfortune of Metcalfe was that his entire political training had
been gained in governing subject races, Hindus in India and negroes in
Jamaica, races 'so accustomed to be trampled on by the strong that they
always consider humanity as a sign of weakness.' Now old, and fixed in
his mental set, autocratic as an Indian civil servant must be, he came
to deal with a rude, unlicked, white democracy, impatient of control as
Durham discovered, and acutely jealous of its rights. In theory
Metcalfe should have been most sympathetic, for in English politics he
was an advanced Whig, strongly in favour of such {84} popular measures
as abolition of the Corn Laws, vote by ballot, the extension of the
franchise. Besides, he was honestly desirous of playing the
peacemaker. None the less, his administration was marked by a reaction
towards the old Tory state of affairs, and produced a ministerial
crisis which threatened to bring back the reign of Chaos and old Night.
The primal difficulty lay in the governor's mental attitude. He saw
with perfect clearness what had already been done. Durham had
enunciated a theory, which Sydenham had put into effect by being his
own minister, and Bagot had followed resolutely in Sydenham's
footsteps. The group of colonial officials known as the Executive
Council had in the meantime tasted power. They now ventured to speak
of themselves as 'ministers,' as a 'cabinet,' as the 'government,' as
the 'administration'; and these terms, with their corollaries and
implications, had met with general acceptance. But Metcalfe considered
them inadmissible, as limiting too much the power of the governor, and,
as a consequence, the authority he represented. He was determined not
to be a mere figurehead on the ship of state; he would {85} be captain,
in undisputed command. Theoretically, if he were to be guided solely
by the advice of the local ministry, he would be 'responsible' to them
instead of to his sovereign; his office would be a nullity, and the
difference between a colony and an independent state would have
disappeared. Theoretically Metcalfe and the Tory pamphleteers who
supported him were right in their contentions. Complete freedom to
manage its own affairs should, if logic were strictly followed,
separate the colony from the mother country; but the British genius for
compromise has met the difficulty in a thoroughly British way by
avoiding any precise and rigid definition of the relations existing
between the mother country and the daughter state. That 'mere
sentiment' should hold the two more firmly together than the most
deftly worded treaty or legal enactment is proved to the world in these
later days by the sacrifices of Canada to the common cause during the
Great War. But there was little reason for holding this belief in the
forties of the nineteenth century. Conflict between a masterful
governor like Metcalfe, accustomed to the old order, and political
leaders like Baldwin and LaFontaine, trying to {86} bring in a new
order, was inevitable; their modes of thought were diametrically
opposed; the only question was when the clash should come.
The third session of the first parliament of Canada opened towards the
end of September 1843. In an Assembly of eighty-four members the party
of Reform numbered sixty, an overwhelming majority; for the
_rapprochement_ between the sympathetic parties of the two provinces
was now complete. The leader of the opposition was Sir Allan MacNab of
_Caroline_ fame, a typical soldier-politician, narrow but honest in his
views, and, like his countryman Alan Breck, a 'bonny fighter.' It was
a momentous session. Reform was firmly in the saddle at last. No
opposition could hope to defeat whatever measure the government might
choose to bring forward. Nor could the government be reproached, as
before, with merely talking and doing nothing. Much legislation of the
first importance stands to its credit. One of the measures passed at
this session provided that the seat of government should be removed
from Kingston to the commercial metropolis, Montreal. For how short a
time Montreal should have this honour, none could imagine {87} or
foresee. By another wise measure placemen were removed from the
Assembly; that is to say, permanent officials, such as judges and
registrars, could not hold their positions and be members of
parliament. For this important change LaFontaine was responsible, as
well as for another bill which simplified the judicial system of Lower
Canada. An attempt was made to bridle the turbulence of Irish
factions, which had brought to Canada the long-standing, cankered
quarrels of the Old World. A bill was passed to suppress all secret
societies except the Freemasons. It was, of course, aimed straight at
the Orange Society, that vigorous politico-religious organization which
preserves the memory of a Dutch prince and of a battle he fought in the
seventeenth century. To this bill Metcalfe did not assent, but
'reserved' it, as was his undoubted right, for the royal sanction. In
the end that sanction was not given, and the Act did not become law.
The 'reserving' of this bill seems to have occasioned little comment;
but, as will be seen in a subsequent chapter, the refusal of another
governor to 'reserve' another bill caused a storm. Hincks, the man of
finance, gave the country 'protection' against the {88} competition of
the American farmer, a political device which was destined to much
wider use. The all-important matter of education received the
attention of the Assembly. What had been done before was, most
significantly, to make provision for higher education by establishing
'grammar schools' in the different districts, as foundations for the
superstructure of a university. It might have been called a provision
for aristocratic education. Now a measure became law for the better
support of the common schools. This was provision for democratic
education, a necessary corollary to popular government, for if Demos is
to rule, Demos cannot be left in ignorance; the peril of an ignorant
ruler is too frightful.
Then came the difficult problem of the provincial university. It is
interesting to note how the educational history of one Canadian
province is repeated in another. In Nova Scotia, King's College was
founded by the exiled Loyalists from the United States towards the end
of the eighteenth century. It was the child of the Church of England.
The first bishop of Nova Scotia secured for it the support of the
provincial Assembly. Naturally, it was modelled on the {89} great
English university of Oxford, and, like the Oxford of that day, was
designed solely for the education of those within the pale of the
national church. But this provincial university, which has the honour
of being the oldest in the British dominions overseas, was supported by
public funds partly contributed by 'dissenters,' whose creed excluded
them from it. Only at the price of their religious principles could
the 'dissenters' of Nova Scotia obtain the boon of higher education.
Therefore they set to work to found an independent 'academy' of their
own. In Upper Canada events marched down the same road. There,
another privileged 'King's College,' exclusively Anglican, was founded
early in the nineteenth century, and richly endowed with public lands.
The excluded 'dissenters' set about founding colleges of their own; and
thus Queen's College and Victoria College took their rise. Robert
Baldwin had the vision of a comprehensive state university, on a broad
non-denominational basis, in which all these colleges should be
component parts. He brought in a bill to found the University of
Toronto, a measure on which time has set its approving seal. The many
stately buildings which adorn {90} Queen's Park, the long distinguished
roll of graduates, the noble group of affiliated colleges, Knox, St
Michael's, Trinity, Wycliffe, Victoria, attest the wisdom of Baldwin's
far-seeing measure. Bishop Strachan, the doughty Aberdonian champion
of Anglican rights and privileges, led a crusade against this 'godless
institution' and raised the cry of spoliation. The echoes of that
wordy warfare have even now hardly died away. Having failed to prevent
the founding of Toronto, the indefatigable bishop founded a new
Anglican university, Trinity, which in the fullness of time was merged
in the great provincial university. But this is to anticipate.
Baldwin's bill had reached its second reading, when the ministry blew
up.
In the end of November the inevitable clash occurred. Metcalfe was no
believer in responsible government as understood by the Reformers; and
he was determined to uphold the prerogative of the Crown. For one
thing, he was not going to surrender the right of appointment. He had
made several appointments without consulting his ministers. When, on
his own authority, he appointed a clerk of the peace, they determined
to make it a test case. They considered that, by {91} ignoring them,
he had violated an important constitutional principle; and when they
were unable to convince him cf this in a personal conference, they
resigned in a body (with a single exception) on November 26, 1843.
This produced what is known as the Metcalfe Crisis. In a formal
statement before the House the Reformers took the ground that they
could not be 'responsible' for appointments made without their
knowledge. The governor was to act on their advice; but he had acted
without giving them a chance to advise him. Metcalfe, on the other
hand, maintained that the Reformers wanted him to surrender the
patronage of the Crown 'for the purchase of parliamentary support.' He
opposed patronage for party purposes. Let the long history of
political appointments since that day, of patronage committees, attest
that the governor was partly in the right. The formal statements of
both sides in the dispute were at once made public and produced a
popular furore, second in intensity only to that which had led up to
and attended the rebellion. Sydenham's confidence that his work could
not be undone by any successor seemed for a time ill-founded.
The resignation of the ministry was only {92} the opening gun in a
political campaign, the object of which was to drive the governor from
office. On laying the reasons for their action before the House the
ministry received an enthusiastic vote of confidence; but their
resignation took effect, and on the ninth of December the Assembly was
prorogued. Both parties then set the battle in array against the
coming election. An agitation of almost unparalleled violence began.
Public meetings, banquets, speeches, pamphlets, newspapers, all
contributed not so much to agitate as to convulse the country. For all
his easy manner Metcalfe was an indomitable fighter, and into this, his
last fight, he threw himself with an amazing energy. And he did not
have to fight alone. There was no little dislike for the
LaFontaine-Baldwin Cabinet and no slight exultation when it was
supposed to be 'dismissed' by a loyal and manly governor. There is no
doubt that in this struggle Metcalfe overstepped the metes and bounds
within which a colonial governor could rightly act. He abandoned any
attitude of official impartiality. He espoused the cause of one party,
and used his great influence to aid that party to power. In the
meantime he had no executive, or an executive of one; and all {93}
through the summer of 1844 he was tireless in his efforts to persuade
men of standing to accept office under Draper. The crux of the
situation was to obtain French-Canadian support for an English Tory
governor. One prominent Frenchman after another was 'approached,' but
without success. Finally Metcalfe managed to scrape together a
ministry which included such noted French Canadians as 'Beau' Viger and
D. B. Papineau, a brother of the leader of '37. Then, having dissolved
the Assembly, the governor issued writs for a new election. That
election in the autumn of 1844 was attended with great riot and
disorder. Both sides resorted to violence. When the House assembled,
it was found that Metcalfe and the Tories had triumphed. The Reformers
were in the minority. While Lower Canada had returned LaFontaine with
a strong following, the western province had sent a phalanx to support
the governor. Among the other curiosities of this remarkable election
was the defeat of Viger by Wolfred Nelson, lately in arms against Her
Majesty's government. In this contest a young lawyer of Scottish
descent carried Kingston for the Tories. He was destined to go far.
His name was John Alexander Macdonald.
{94}
Metcalfe had triumphed, but he held power by a very narrow majority;
the parties stood forty-six to thirty-eight. In the usual trial of
strength--the election of a Speaker--Sir Allan MacNab was chosen by a
majority of only three votes. And yet Draper, that expert balancer on
the tight rope, managed to carry on a government under these conditions
for three full years. Perceiving that he must secure the support of
the French if his party was to survive at all, he adroitly brought in
favourite Reform measures as if they were his own, thus cutting the
ground from under his opponents' feet. For example, English had been
made the sole official language of the legislature. Now, the astute
party leader managed to get this obnoxious clause in the Act of Union
repealed. He even went further and endeavoured to win over the
French-Canadian party wholesale by offering desirable positions; but in
this intrigue he failed.
In the meantime the Act appointing a new capital had come into effect.
Kingston gave place to Montreal, for a season. The huge Ste Anne's
market building in the west of the city was turned into a parliament
house, destined to the fate of Troy. Here was held {95} the session of
1844-45. Such legislation as was passed had no direct bearing on the
question of responsible government. Before the session ended news came
that the home government intended to raise the governor to the peerage
as Baron Metcalfe of Fern Hill. His brief two years in Canada formed
only an episode in the long career of a distinguished public servant.
He had made his name and spent his life in India. The contemplated
honour was well deserved; and it was designed by the home government as
recognition of his services to the state as a whole, rather than as
special approval of his administration of Canada. But so the Reformers
construed Metcalfe's elevation; and they were furious. Even the
moderate Baldwin was betrayed into unwonted vehemence. What would have
happened, if Metcalfe had remained in office, none can tell. Perhaps a
second civil war. But 'death cut the inextricable knot.' His deadly
disease returned after a delusive interval, as is its hideous custom.
His health failed; the cancer ate into his eye and destroyed the sight.
It was apparent that he could no longer perform the duties of his
office. He asked to be recalled; but the authorities at {96} home,
knowing of his malady, had anticipated his desire. The courage that
sent the boy 'writer' into the deadly assault on Deeg sustained the old
proconsul through the slow torture of the months of life remaining to
him. He quitted Canada in November 1845, a dying man, and, to the
shame of Canada, amid the untimely exultation of his political
opponents. In less than a year he was dead. Macaulay composed his
epitaph. Metcalfe was a man of mark; and he had his share in building
up the British Empire. His name distinguishes a street in Ottawa and a
hall in Calcutta; and his statue stands in the former capital of
Jamaica.
{97}