act for transferring the funds in dispute had passed the houses of
parliament, and received the royal assent. Whether from extreme
liberality or total inadvertence, it was so worded as to preclude the
imperial treasury from ever exercising any control over them, leaving
thus no room for negotiation with the Assembly. Lord Aylmer was
instructed, however, to demand in return a grant of permanent salaries
to the judges, who were also, according to the Assembly’s desire, to be
made independent of the crown; and a similar provision was asked for the
governor, and a few of the chief executive officers. This matter being
referred to the Assembly, they began, on the 20th of January, 1832, with
the first particular. On providing that the judges should be independent
of the crown, and, with the exception of the Chief Justice, should not
sit in the executive or legislative councils, it was determined that
permanent salaries should be paid to them. But, at the same time, a
motion of Mr. Neilson was carried by a large majority, that these should
be drawn in the first instance from the casual and territorial revenues,
which Lord Goderich had expressly reserved to the crown. Lord Aylmer
considered it, therefore, necessary to send home the bill, yet with an
advice to accept the terms, as the best there was any likelihood of
obtaining. It was rejected, however, on two grounds: first, that it did
not render the judges really independent of the Assembly, but left an
annual vote still necessary. We cannot help suspecting that there was an
unhappy misconception. The terms of the bill are, “that the salaries
shall be secured to them in a fixed and permanent manner;” and “shall be
taken and paid out of the proceeds of the casual and territorial revenue
now appropriated by acts of the provincial parliament, for defraying the
charges of the administration of justice, and the support of the civil
government, and out of any other public revenue of the province which
may be or come into the hands of the receiver-general.” It would appear
that, according to the plain meaning of language, these terms involved a
full warrant for payment. Probably Lord Goderich had legal advice, and
some technical terms, usual in British acts, might be wanting; but a
provincial legislature could scarcely be expected to be fully aware of
these niceties. The legislative body, the governor, and we doubt not
also the Assembly, had considered this as a permanent settlement; the
latter, had it been so acted on, probably would not, and certainly could
not reasonably have objected. The other ground was the encroachment upon
the casual and territorial revenue, which, in this indirect manner, was
considered peculiarly offensive, though Lord Goderich had been fully
apprised of their determination against any agreement in which this
article was not included.
The next question which came before the Assembly was—the demand of a
permanent provision for the governor, and a certain number of the
leading executive officers. After a long debate, however, it was carried
by a large majority in the negative. This decision placed the Assembly
completely at issue with the crown, and has been represented as a breach
of faith on their part. They had not, it is true, come under any formal
engagement; yet the report of the committee of 1828, which decidedly
connected this arrangement with the cession of the disputed revenues,
had always been referred to by them as embracing almost every thing
desired; and to this part of it they had never hinted any objection. On
the 6th of December, 1830, they had passed resolutions, insisting,
indeed, on the control of the entire revenue; but expressing an
intention, were this gained, to grant the permanent provision now
demanded. That preliminary claim certainly embraced also the casual and
territorial branches still withheld; yet these were not of great amount,
and the present bill, like that relating to the judges, might have been
so framed as to be inoperative without these funds being embraced by it.
No reason was assigned; but the view of the Assembly is stated to have
been, that the executive, not being dependent on them for a naval and
military establishment, would, in case of such a permanent settlement,
have been entirely free from that control which they sought to exercise
over it. They passed, however, a vote of annual supply, which Lord
Goderich, though much dissatisfied with the tenor of their proceedings,
thought it expedient to sanction.
Next year (1833) the Assembly still granted only an annual bill, in
which, according to a requisition of Lord Goderich, they stated the
purposes to which each particular sum was to be applied. They added,
without its being asked or wished, the individuals to whom it was to be
paid; and appended a number of conditions, chiefly bearing, that such
persons should not hold any other situation, and should not be members
of the executive or legislative councils. This was considered
objectionable, because public officers were thus suddenly deprived of
situations which they had long held, without any consideration of their
claims to compensation; also, because those regulations ought not to
have been tacked to a money bill, but made the subject of a separate
enactment. On these grounds this bill was negatived by the Legislative
Council; and Lord Stanley, who had been placed at the head of the
Colonial Office, intimated that, had it reached him, he could not have
advised his Majesty to assent to it. In the same session, a measure was
introduced for securing independence and permanent provision to the
judges, in a form calculated to obviate Lord Goderich’s chief
objections; but on the motion of M. Papineau it was rejected, and the
speeches of the leaders of the Assembly are said to have implied, that
it was no longer considered advisable to exempt these functionaries from
their control.
The breach now continually widened. Lord Stanley, considering the
conduct of the Canadians as manifesting a resolution to engross the
whole power of the state, directed the funds, not yet made over by
parliament, to be employed in the partial payment of the civil officers;
and he is said to have determined to bring in a bill for repealing the
act by which the concession had been made. Meantime the Assembly had
raised, and placed in the front of their demands, a new article, which
almost entirely precluded all hope of accommodation; namely, the
abolition of the present Legislative Council, and the substitution of
one elected like themselves by the body of the people. Such an
arrangement was without example in any British colony; and the existing
state of political feeling in the mother country would have rendered it
scarcely possible for ministers to propose it in parliament. It had been
first started in March, 1831, when Lord Aylmer had just gone out, with
the announced intention of acting upon the report of 1828, and
redressing, if possible, every grievance hitherto complained of. There
seemed, therefore, room to suspect that the conciliatory disposition
shown, instead of producing final satisfaction, had only prompted to
higher demands, through the belief that by perseverance they would
finally obtain whatever they chose to ask. Yet, though a resolution of
the committee to that effect was approved by the members, it was not
expressly included in the list of grievances then presented. But on the
20th of March, 1833, a petition to the King, signed by M. Papineau,
speaker of the House of Assembly, strenuously urged this measure, and
the calling of a body of delegates to arrange the conditions. The
leading ones proposed were, a qualification in the electors of £10 in
the country, and of £20 in towns; a certain income to qualify the
councillor, and the duration of his functions for six years. Lord
Stanley, in reply, said this was an object to which, deeming it
altogether inconsistent with the very existence of monarchical
institutions, he could never advise his Majesty to consent; and he
particularly objected to the proposed mode of effecting it, by what he
termed “a national convention.” A counter address, however, by the
Legislative Council, was censured as intemperate in its language, and
appearing to ascribe generally to his Majesty’s subjects, of one origin,
views inconsistent with their allegiance. In conclusion, he alluded to
“the possibility that events might unhappily force upon parliament the
exercise of its supreme authority to compose the internal dissensions of
the colonies, and which might lead to a modification of the charter of
the Canadas.”
This despatch was submitted to the Assembly, and its entire tenor,
particularly the implied threat at the close, excited the highest
indignation in that body. They declined this year (1834) to pass any
bill of supply whatever, and employed the session in preparing another
long list of grievances. They complained that, while those formerly
urged were still unredressed, there had been added the partial payment
of the civil officers without their consent. They made a preparatory
demand of the elective Legislative Council, without which nothing would
be accepted as satisfactory. Lord Aylmer’s conduct was reprobated as
violent, unconstitutional, and contemptuous, and his recall urgently
demanded. The published correspondence assuredly does not bear out this
charge. His addresses to the Assembly are particularly courteous; and he
recommends generally to the government at home concessions so extensive,
that Lord Goderich, himself considered liberal towards the colonies,
refused to accede to them. The petition, however, was presented to
parliament, and a committee appointed for its consideration.
Meantime, Lord Stanley retired from power, and was succeeded in the
colonial department by Mr. Spring Rice. This gentleman renounced the
design entertained by his predecessor, of recalling the revenues yielded
to the Assembly, and gave intimation, it is said, that he would follow a
more conciliatory course. He only asked a little time, till he could
make himself master of the subject; and thus the popular leaders were
induced to delay taking any strong measures. They bitterly complained,
however, that the administration was carried on as before. Lord Aylmer
was continued in the government; and, though the Canadian funds were not
intrenched upon, a sum of £31,000 was advanced from the military chest
for payment of the civil servants, by which their responsibility to the
Assembly was equally evaded. Before Mr. Rice had matured his plan, he
was removed from office by the accession of Sir Robert Peel to power. He
stated that he had it completed, and was ready to submit it to the
cabinet on the very day when this change occurred; an assertion which
Mr. Roebuck treats with evident scepticism, though seemingly without any
adequate ground.
Sir Robert, on assuming the reins of office, early directed his
attention to the disturbed state of Canada. After some deliberation, he
determined to send out a commissioner, with power to examine on the
spot, and redress without delay, every real grievance which should be
proved to exist. Even the casual and territorial revenues were to be
surrendered, on condition of the settlement of a civil list for at least
seven years. The elective Legislative Council, however, and the entire
management of the public lands could not be conceded. Viscount
Canterbury, the late speaker, was first invited to fill this important
appointment; and, on his declining, it was conferred on Earl Amherst.
This arrangement, however, was nullified by the vote which led to the
resignation of Sir Robert, and the return of Lord Melbourne to power.
The restored ministry followed up, with certain modifications, the plan
of their predecessors. A commission was sent out for inquiry only, and
without the power of decision, composed of the following individuals:
the Earl of Gosford, Sir Charles Edward Grey, and Sir George Gipps. The
first, an Irish nobleman, professing principles decidedly liberal,
succeeded Lord Aylmer as governor. Lord Glenelg, now the Colonial
Secretary, drew up for their guidance a series of instructions, in which
he considered the claim to the disposal of the entire revenue somewhat
exorbitant, and not warranted by British example; yet was willing, for
the sake of peace, to consent to it on certain conditions. These
were—an independent provision for the judges, and salaries for the
civil officers, fixed for a certain number of years; ten being mentioned
as particularly suitable. With regard to the uncleared lands, the whole
proceeds arising from their sale were to be placed at the disposal of
the Assembly; but government could not consent to part with the
management of them, or annul the contract made with the Land Company,
though they would be ready to guard against all abuses, and even to
receive any suggestions on the subject. The existing pensions were also
to be retained, but the future power of granting them would be
surrendered. In regard to the critical question of the elective
legislative council, it was said: “The King is most unwilling to admit
as open to debate, the question—whether one of the vital principles of
the provincial government shall undergo alteration?” The right of
petition, however, was fully recognized; and his Majesty would not
“absolutely close the avenue to inquiry,” even where, “for the present,
he saw no reasonable ground of doubt.”
“The Earl of Gosford, having arrived in Canada, lost no time in calling
a meeting of the legislature, who were convoked on the 27th of October,
1835; and, in his opening speeches, he professed the most conciliatory
views, particularly towards the French, or popular party. He avowed the
opinion, that “to be acceptable to the great body of the people, is one
of the most essential elements of fitness for public station.” He
intimated his readiness to place the whole revenue at the disposal of
the Assembly, on the conditions formerly stated. All the other
grievances were to be carefully examined and redressed; and allusion was
made to “still graver matters,” respecting which the commissioners “were
not precluded from entering into an inquiry.”
The Legislative Council returned an answer, which, in all respects, was
extremely moderate. They generally concurred in the sentiments of the
speech, deprecated the idea that difference of origin should affect
political rights, which ought to be equal to all his Majesty’s subjects.
But the House of Assembly, while holding conciliatory language, advanced
much more lofty pretensions. The change in the Legislative Council was
repeatedly pressed, as absolutely essential to the tranquillity and
contentment of the province. The entire control of the public revenue
was referred to, not as a boon, but an incontestable and essential
right; and, while they stated their readiness to consider attentively
any measure tending to facilitate the exercise of this right, they
avoided all mention of conditions to be performed in return.
Notwithstanding the high ground thus taken, the intercourse between the
popular leaders and the governor was extremely friendly. He admitted
them to his table and his intimacy, and treated them on every occasion
with much kindness. They were understood to represent the great body of
the people, whom he had expressed his desire to conciliate; and he
professed liberal views to those who would understand that term in its
widest sense. So decided was the impression produced, that the opposite
party loaded him with the bitterest invectives, and even threw out
menaces of insurrection; while the leaders of the Assembly went so far
as to intimate, that they would relieve the immediate financial
embarrassments by granting the three years arrears, and a half year in
advance. They attached to the grant somewhat hard conditions, which,
however, were not rejected; and, on the remark being made, that these
would ensure its rejection by the Legislative Council, an intimation is
said to have been given, that it would be accepted directly by address,
without being liable to the veto of that body.
This good understanding was suddenly interrupted. The governor’s
language above cited, in regard to the Elective Council, had been very
different from that of his instructions; not pledging him, indeed, to
the measure, yet such as, combined with his other conduct, conveyed to
both parties the idea that it was determined upon. This course is
defended as the only one by which the supplies, so urgently wanted,
could be obtained; and it was hoped, that, by a continued conciliatory
course, the Assembly might, when the real intention of the cabinet could
no longer be concealed, be induced to waive their demand. Any degree of
duplicity in a government, however, must, when discovered, lower its
dignity, irritate the deceived parties, and, at the same time, give them
an impression of their strength, which had driven those in authority to
such an expedient. Unhappily, all these effects followed before any of
the expected fruits had been reaped. Sir Francis Bond Head had, at the
same time, been sent out to Upper Canada; and, being a very
straightforward person, and seemingly unapprized of Lord Gosford’s
intentions, had made public a part of his instructions, including that
momentous passage already quoted, relative to the Legislative Council.
It was such as, though not wholly precluding discussion on the object,
left to the popular leaders scarcely a hope of its attainment. Their
rage knew no bounds; they complained, not only of disappointment in
their favourite object, but of a deception by which they had been nearly
misled. It was now determined not to grant the three years’ arrears, but
merely a supply for the current half year, allowing only that short
period to comply with their demands. This slender boon, too, was clogged
with conditions, which, as had been foreseen, induced the upper house to
reject it; so that the session, in all respects very stormy, passed over
without any provision whatever being made for the public service. The
Legislative Council felt naturally indignant at the violent attempts
meditated for its overthrow; and instead of studying to show these to be
unmerited, the members vented their resentment by rejecting almost every
bill sent up from the Assembly. Among these was the vote, continuing the
funds for national education, which were thus entirely withdrawn. All
the political elements were disturbed, and in violent collision with
each other.
The commissioners, in March 1836, viewing this state of things, and
seeing no prospect of obtaining money to carry on the government,
without immediately yielding to every demand of the lower house,
considered it indispensable to obtain it without their consent. This,
they thought, would be best accomplished by parliament repealing the act
passed on the motion of Lord Goderich, by which funds to the amount of
£38,000 had been made over to the Assembly. This would, indeed, excite
bitter resentment; but, with the other reserved revenues, it would, at
least, enable the government to proceed without any grants from that
body. Lord Glenelg was not forward to act on this recommendation. He
wrote to the Earl of Gosford, expressing a hope, on grounds which do not
very distinctly appear, that the violent resolution complained of had
been induced by the partial and imperfect knowledge of the instructions,
and that a communication of the whole might lead to more favourable
views. He expressed a wish, therefore, that the provincial parliament
should be again called, and an opportunity afforded for retracting
before recourse was had to extreme measures. The meeting was accordingly
held on the 22d of September, 1838; but the majority soon presented an
address to the governor, denying that, according to the apprehension
expressed in his speech, they laboured under any kind of misconception;
they saw nothing to make them change their views, or prevent them from
insisting on the same demands, particularly that of the Elective
Council. They adverted in an indignant manner to certain pretended
authorities, as they termed the commission, and maintained that they
themselves were the legitimate and authorized organ of all classes of
inhabitants; that they had used their power in such a manner as ought to
have secured confidence; and to them, not to a few strangers, ought to
have been committed the fate of the country. They declared it their
imperative duty to adhere to the contents of their last address—“and to
them do we adhere.” They finally expressed a resolution not only to do
nothing more in regard to supply, but to adjourn their deliberations
altogether, unless government should commence the great work of justice
and reform, particularly in regard to the second branch of the
legislature.
Matters had now reached an extremity, which seemed to render it no
longer possible to delay an interposition. The stoppage of the supplies,
like the granting of them, was no doubt a right inherent in a
representative assembly. Yet it is one, the exercise of which is
attended with such formidable evils, that the Commons of England, during
more than a century, had merely kept it in the back ground as a last
resort, and never brought it into actual operation. The constitutional
character of the measure became still more questionable, when employed,
not to control the abuses of the executive, but to overthrow a separate
and co-ordinate branch of the legislature, deriving its existence from
the same source with the Assembly itself. This was a mighty change,
amounting to a kind of revolution, and to be effected only with the
utmost deliberation. The stopping the whole machine of government, and
not allowing even an interval of time to effect it, was a measure of
extreme violence. Had the popular leaders listened to the dictates of
prudence and moderation, they might, availing themselves of the
conciliatory disposition shown by the new governor, have obtained all
their substantial objects. They would have gained the chief control in
the executive, after which the Legislative Council, whom they
continually reproached with subserviency to the latter branch, were not
likely to persevere in unavailing opposition.
Ministers now determined no longer to delay measures for counteracting
the proceedings of the violent party, and placing the executive
government in a state of regular action. Parliament having assembled,
and the reports of the commissioners laid on the table, Lord John
Russell, on the 6th of March, 1837, moved a series of resolutions, on
which acts were to be founded. After a statement of the actual posture
of affairs, it was proposed that the sum of £142,000 should be taken out
of the provincial funds locked up by the Assembly, and applied to the
payment of the judges and other civil officers, down to the 10th of
April. It was afterwards agreed, not, as the commissioners had
recommended, to resume any part of the ceded monies, but, by a strict
economy, to carry on the government from that date with the casual and
territorial revenues, which circumstances had now raised to about
£28,000. The elective Legislative Council, and the direct responsibility
of the executive one to the Assembly, were both declared inexpedient;
though it was stated as desirable, that considerable improvements should
be made in the composition of both. These suggestions gave occasion to
very warm debates. The Tories, while they supported the proposals of
government, accused them of an imprudent indulgence and want of energy,
which had emboldened the factious party to proceed to extremities. On
the other hand, a small but active section of the popular leaders
justified all the claims and proceedings of the Canadian Assembly,
denounced the resolutions as unconstitutional and tyrannical, and
predicted as their result civil war and the loss of the colonies. The
motion of Mr. Leader, however, in favour of an Elective Council, was
negatived by 318 to 56, and the cabinet measures were carried by
overwhelming majorities;—but the death of William IV. intervened before
they could be embodied in acts of parliament. The necessity of a
dissolution, and the unwillingness to begin the government of a young
and popular Queen by a scheme of coercion, induced ministers to
substitute the expedient of advancing the amount by way of loan from the
British revenue, in the prospect of being ultimately reimbursed from the
provincial funds.
As an interval was to elapse between the passing of the resolutions and
their being acted on, Lord Gosford was instructed to make a last trial
of the Assembly, in hopes that, seeing such a vast majority in
parliament against them, they might be induced of themselves to vote the
money, and thus save the necessity of any unwonted interference.
Already, however, several violent demonstrations had taken place.
Meetings were held in the counties of Montreal and Richelieu, in which
it was affirmed, that the votes of the Commons had put an end to all
hopes of justice; and that no further attempts should be made to obtain
redress from the imperial parliament. They considered the government as
now only one of force, to be submitted to from necessity during their
present weakness; and in order to reduce as far as possible its power,
they declared that all consumption of British manufactures, and of all
articles paying taxes, ought to be discontinued; and, finally, that a
general convention should be held, to consider what further measures
were advisable.