METCALFE AND THE REFORMERS
The Browns arrived in Canada in the period of reconstruction following
the rebellion of 1837-8. In Lord Durham's Report the rising in Lower
Canada was attributed mainly to racial animosity--"two nations warring
in the bosom of a single state"--"a struggle not of principles but of
races." The rising in Upper Canada was attributed mainly to the
ascendency of the "family compact"--a family only in the official
sense. "The bench, the magistracy, the high offices of the episcopal
church, and a great part of the legal profession, are filled by their
adherents; by grant or purchase they have acquired nearly the whole of
the waste lands of the province; they are all-powerful in the
chartered banks, and till lately shared among themselves almost
exclusively all offices of trust and profit. The bulk of this party
consists, for the most part, of native born inhabitants of the colony,
or of emigrants who settled in it before the last war with the United
States; the principal members of it belong to the Church of England,
and the maintenance of the claims of that Church has always been one
of its distinguishing characteristics." Reformers discovered that even
when they triumphed at the polls, they could not break up this
combination, the executive government remaining constantly in the
hands of their opponents. They therefore agitated for the
responsibility of the executive council to the legislative assembly.
Lord Durham's remedy was to unite Upper and Lower Canada, and to grant
the demand for responsible government. He hoped that the union would
in time dispose of the racial difficulty. Estimating the population of
Upper Canada at four hundred thousand, the English inhabitants of
Lower Canada at one hundred and fifty thousand, and the French at four
hundred and fifty thousand, "the union of the two provinces would not
only give a clear English majority, but one which would be increased
every year by the influence of English immigration; and I have little
doubt that the French, when once placed by the legitimate course of
events and the working of natural causes, in a minority, would abandon
their vain hopes of nationality."
The future mapped out by Lord Durham for the French-Canadians was one
of benevolent assimilation. He under-estimated their tenacity and
their power of adapting themselves to new political conditions. They
not only retained their distinctive language and customs, but gained
so large a measure of political power that in time Upper Canada
complained that it was dominated by its partner. The union was
effected soon after the report, but the granting of responsible
government was long delayed. From the submission of Lord Durham's
Report to the time of Lord Elgin, the question of responsible
government was the chief issue in Canadian politics. Lord Durham's
recommendations were clear and specific. He maintained that harmony
would be restored "not by weakening but strengthening the influence of
the people on its government; by confining within much narrower bounds
than those hitherto allotted to it, and not by extending, the
interference of the imperial authorities on the details of colonial
affairs." The government must be administered on the principles that
had been found efficacious in Great Britain. He would not impair a
single prerogative of the Crown, but the Crown must submit to the
necessary consequences of representative institutions, and must govern
through those in whom the representative body had confidence.
These principles are now so well established that it is hard to
realize how bold and radical they appeared in 1839. Between that time
and 1847, the British government sent out to Canada three governors,
with various instructions. Whatever the wording of these instructions
was, they always fell short of Durham's recommendations, and always
expressed a certain reluctance to entrusting the government of Canada
unreservedly to representatives of the people.
From 1842 to 1846 the government in Great Britain was that of Sir
Robert Peel, and it was that government which set itself most
strongly against the granting of autonomy to Canada. It was
Conservative, and it probably received from correspondents in Canada a
good deal of misinformation and prejudiced opinion in regard to the
aims of the Reformers. But it was a group of men of the highest
character and capacity, concerning whom Gladstone has left on record a
remarkable testimony. "It is his conviction that in many of the most
important rules of public policy, that government surpassed generally
the governments which have succeeded it, whether Liberal or
Conservative. Among them he would mention purity in patronage,
financial strictness, loyal adherence to the principle of public
economy, jealous regard to the rights of parliament, a single eye to
the public interest, strong aversion to extension of territorial
responsibilities, and a frank admission of the rights of foreign
countries as equal to those of their own."
With this high estimate of the general character of the Peel
government must be coupled the undoubted fact that it entirely
misunderstood the situation in Canada, gave its support to the party
of reaction, and needlessly delayed the establishment of
self-government. We may attribute this in part to the distrust
occasioned by the rebellion; in part to the use of partisan channels
of information; but under all this was a deeper cause--inability to
conceive of such a relation as exists between Great Britain and Canada
to-day. In that respect Peel and his colleagues resembled most of the
public men of their time. They could understand separation; they could
understand a relation in which the British government and its agents
ruled the colonies in a kindly and paternal fashion; but a union under
which the colonies were nations in all but foreign relations passed
their comprehension. When the colonies asked for complete
self-government it was supposed that separation was really desired.
Some were for letting them go in peace. Others were for holding them
by political and commercial bonds. Of the latter class, Stanley,
colonial secretary under Peel, was a good type. He believed in
"strong" governors; he believed in a system of preferential trade
between Great Britain and the colonies, and his language might have
been used, with scarcely any modification, by the Chamberlain party in
the recent elections in Great Britain. When, in 1843, he introduced
the measure giving a preference to Canadian wheat, he expressed the
hope that it would restore content and prosperity to Canada; and when
that preference disappeared with the Corn Laws, he declared that the
basis of colonial union was destroyed.
From the union to September, 1842, no French-Canadian name appears in
a Canadian government. French-Canadians were deeply dissatisfied with
the terms of the union; there was a strong reluctance to admitting
them to any share of power, and they complained bitterly that they
were politically ostracized by Sydenham, the first governor. His
successor, Bagot, adopted the opposite policy, and earned the severe
censure of the government at home.
On August 23rd, 1842, Sir Robert Peel wrote to Lord Stanley in terms
which indicated a belief that Governor Bagot was experiencing great
difficulty in carrying on the government. He spoke of a danger of
French-Canadians and Radicals, or French-Canadians and Conservatives,
combining to place the government in a minority. He suggested various
means of meeting the danger, and said, "I would not voluntarily throw
myself into the hands of the French party through fear of being in a
minority."
Before instructions founded on this letter could reach the colony, the
governor had acted, "throwing himself," in the words of Peel's
biographer, "into the hands of the party tainted by disaffection."
What had really happened was that on September 16th, 1842, the
Canadian government had been reconstructed, the principal change being
the introduction of Lafontaine and Baldwin as its leading members.
This action aroused a storm in Canada, where Bagot was fiercely
assailed by the Tories for his so-called surrender to rebels. And that
view was taken also in England.
On October 18th, 1842, Mr. Arbuthnot wrote to Sir Robert Peel: "The
Duke [Wellington] has been thunderstruck by the news from Canada.
Between ourselves, he considers what has happened as likely to be
fatal to the connection with England; and I must also, in the very
strictest confidence, tell you that he dreads lest it should break up
the cabinet here at home."
On October 21st, Sir Robert Peel wrote to Lord Stanley, pointing out
the danger of the duke's strong and decisive condemnation: "In various
quarters the Duke of Wellington denouncing the arrangement as a tame
surrender to a party tainted with treason, would produce an impression
most dangerous to the government, if it could get over the effects
produced by the first announcement of his retirement, on the ground of
avowed difference of opinion." After reading Sir Charles Bagot's
explanations, he admitted that the governor's position was
embarrassing. "Suppose," he said in a subsequent letter, "that Sir C.
Bagot was reduced to such difficulties that he had no alternative but
to take the best men of the French-Canadian party into his councils,
and that it was better for him to do this before there was a hostile
vote; still, the manner in which he conducted his negotiations was a
most unwise one. He makes it appear to the world that he courted and
rejoiced in the necessity for a change in his councils." On October
24th the Duke of Wellington wrote expressing his agreement with Peel,
and adding: "However, it appears to me that we must consider the
arrangement as settled and adopted by the legislature of Canada. It
will remain to be considered afterwards what is to be done with Sir
Charles Bagot and with his measures."
The question was solved by the death of the governor who had been
unfortunate enough to arouse the storm, and to create a ministerial
crisis in Great Britain. It is believed that his end was hastened by
the news from England. He fell ill in November, grew steadily worse,
and at last asked to be recalled, a request which was granted. At his
last cabinet council he bade an affectionate farewell to his
ministers, and begged them to defend his memory. His best vindication
is found in the failure of Metcalfe's policy, and in the happy results
of the policy of Elgin.
The events connected with the retirement of Bagot, which were not
fully understood until the publication of Sir Robert Peel's papers a
few years ago, throw light upon the reasons which determined the
selection of Sir Charles Metcalfe. Metcalfe was asked by Lord Stanley
whether he would be able and disposed to assume "most honourable and
at the same time very arduous duties in the public service." Metcalfe
wrote to Captain Higginson, afterwards his private secretary: "I am
not sure that the government of Canada is a manageable affair, and
unless I think I can go to good purpose I will not go at all." Sir
Francis Hincks says: "All Sir Charles Metcalfe's correspondence prior
to his departure from England is indicative of a feeling that he was
going on a forlorn hope expedition," and Hincks adds that such
language can be explained only on the assumption that he was sent out
for the purpose of overthrowing responsible government. It is
certainly established by the Peel correspondence that the British
government strongly disapproved of Sir Charles Bagot's policy, and
selected Sir Charles Metcalfe as a man who would govern on radically
different lines. It is perhaps putting it rather strongly to say that
he was intended to overthrow responsible government. But he must have
come to Canada filled with distrust of the Canadian ministry, filled
with the idea that the demand for responsible government was a cloak
for seditious designs, and ready to take strong measures to preserve
British connection. In this misunderstanding lay the source of his
errors and misfortunes in Canada.
It is not therefore necessary to enter minutely into the dispute which
occasioned the rupture between Metcalfe and his advisers. On the
surface it was a dispute over patronage. In reality Baldwin and
Lafontaine were fighting for autonomy and responsible government;
Metcalfe, as he thought, was defending the unity of the empire. He was
a kindly and conscientious man, and he held his position with some
skill, always contending that he was willing to agree to responsible
government on condition that the colonial position was recognized, the
prerogative of the Crown upheld, and the governor not dominated by
one political party.
The governor finally broke with his advisers in November, 1843. For
some months he was to govern, not only without a responsible ministry,
but without a parliament, for the legislature was immediately
prorogued, and did not meet again before dissolution. His chief
adviser was William Henry Draper, a distinguished lawyer, whose
political career was sacrificed in the attempt to hold an impossible
position. Reformers and Tories prepared for a struggle which was to
continue for several years, and which, in spite of the smallness of
the field, was of the highest importance in settling a leading
principle of government.
On March 5th, 1844, as a direct consequence of the struggle, appeared
the first issue of the Toronto _Globe_, its motto taken from one of
the boldest letters of Junius to George III: "The subject who is truly
loyal to the chief magistrate will neither advise nor submit to
arbitrary measures." The leading article was a long and careful review
of the history of the country, followed by a eulogy on the
constitution enjoyed by Great Britain since "the glorious revolution
of 1688," but denied to Canada. Responsible government was withheld;
the governor named his councillors in defiance of the will of the
legislature. Advocates of responsible government were stigmatized by
the governor's friends as rebels, traitors, radicals and republicans.
The _Globe_ proclaimed its adherence to Lord Durham's recommendation,
and said: "The battle which the Reformers of Canada will right is not
the battle of a party, but the battle of constitutional right against
the undue interference of executive power." The prospectus of the
paper contained these words: "Firmly attached to the principles of the
British Constitution, believing the limited monarchy of Great Britain
the best system of government yet devised by the wisdom of man, and
sincerely convinced that the prosperity of Canada will best be
advanced by a close connection between it and the mother country, the
editor of the _Globe_ will support all measures which will tend to
draw closer the bonds of a mutually advantageous union."
On March 25th, 1844, the campaign was opened with a meeting called by
the Toronto Reform Association. Robert Baldwin, "father of responsible
government," was in the chair, and William Hume Blake was the orator
of the night. The young editor of the _Globe_, a recruit among
veterans, seems to have made a hit with a picture of a ministry framed
on the "no party" plan advocated by Governor Metcalfe. In this
imaginary ministry he grouped at the same council table Robert Baldwin
and his colleague Francis Hincks; Sir Allan MacNab, the Tory leader;
William Henry Draper, Metcalfe's chief adviser; John Strachan, Bishop
of Toronto; and Dr. Ryerson, leader of the Methodists and champion of
the governor. His Excellency is on a chair raised above the warring
elements below. Baldwin moves that King's College be opened to all
classes of Her Majesty's subjects. At once the combination is
dissolved, as any one who remembers Bishop Strachan's views on that
question will understand.
Dr. Ryerson, whose name was used by Brown in this illustration, was a
leader among the Methodists, and had fought stoutly for religious
equality against Anglican privilege. But he had espoused the side of
the governor-general, apparently taking seriously the position that it
was the only course open to a loyal subject. In a series of letters
published in the summer of 1844, he warned the people that the Toronto
Reform Association was leading them to the edge of a precipice. "In
the same manner," he said, "I warned you against the Constitutional
Reform Association, formed in 1834. In 1837 my warning predictions
were realized, to the ruin of many and the misery of thousands. What
took place in 1837 was but a preface of what may be witnessed in
1847." The warning he meant to convey was that the people were being
drawn into a conflict with the imperial authorities. "Mr. Baldwin," he
said, "practically renounces the imperial authority by refusing to
appeal to it, and by appealing through the Toronto Association to the
people of Canada. If the people of Canada are the tribunal of judgment
on one question of constitutional prerogative, they are so on every
question of constitutional prerogative. Then the governor is no
longer responsible to the imperial authority, and Canada is an
independent country. Mr. Baldwin's proceeding, therefore, not only
leads to independence but involves (unconsciously, I admit, from
extreme and theoretical views), a practical declaration of
independence before the arrival of the 4th of July!"
In this language Dr. Ryerson described with accuracy the attitude of
the British government. That government had, as we have seen,
disapproved of Governor Bagot's action in parting with so large a
measure of power, and it was fully prepared to support Metcalfe in
pursuing the opposite course. Dr. Ryerson was also right in saying
that the government of Great Britain would be supported by parliament.
In May, 1844, the affairs of Canada were discussed in the British
House of Commons, and the governor's action was justified by Peel, by
Lord Stanley, and by Lord John Russell. The only dissentient voices
were those of the Radicals, Hume and Roebuck.
Metcalfe and his chiefs at home can hardly be blamed for holding the
prevailing views of the time, which were that the changes contemplated
by Durham, by Bagot, and by Baldwin were dangerous and revolutionary.
The idea that a colony could remain connected with Great Britain under
such a system of autonomy as we enjoy to-day was then conceived by
only a few men of exceptional breadth and foresight, among whom Elgin
was one of the most eminent.
The wise leadership of Baldwin and Lafontaine and the patience and
firmness of the Reformers are attested by their conduct in very trying
circumstances. Finding their demand for constitutional reform opposed
not only by the Canadian Tories, but by the governor-general and the
imperial government and parliament, they might have become
discouraged, or have been tempted into some act of violence. Their
patience must have been sorely tried by the persistent malice or
obstinate prejudice which stigmatized a strictly constitutional
movement as treason. They had also to endure the trial of a temporary
defeat at the polls, and an apparent rejection of their policy by the
very people for whose liberties they were contending.
In the autumn of 1844 the legislature was dissolved and a fierce
contest ensued. Governor Metcalfe's attitude is indicated by his
biographer.[1] "The contest," he says, "was between loyalty on the one
side and disaffection to Her Majesty's government on the other. That
there was a strong anti-British feeling abroad, in both divisions of
the province [Upper and Lower Canada] Metcalfe clearly and painfully
perceived. The conviction served to brace and stimulate him to new
exertions. He felt that he was fighting for his sovereign against a
rebellious people." The appeal was successful; Upper Canada was swept
by the loyalty cry, and in various polling places votes were actually
cast or offered for the governor-general. The _Globe_ described a
conversation that occurred in a polling place in York: "Whom do you
vote for?" "I vote for the governor-general." "There is no such
candidate. Say George Duggan, you blockhead." "Oh, yes, George Duggan;
it's all the same thing." There were candidates who described
themselves as "governor-general's men"; there were candidates whose
royalist enthusiasm was expressed in the name "Cavaliers." In the
Montreal election petition it was charged that during two days of
polling the electors were exposed to danger from the attacks of bands
of fighting men hired by the government candidates or their agents,
and paid, fed, and armed with "bludgeons, bowie-knives, and pistols
and other murderous weapons" for the purpose of intimidating the
Liberal electors and preventing them from gaining access to the polls;
that Liberals were driven from the polls by these fighting men, and by
cavalry and infantry acting under the orders of partisan magistrates.
The polls, it was stated, were surrounded by soldiers, field-pieces
were placed in several public squares, and the city was virtually in a
state of siege. The charges were not investigated, the petition being
rejected for irregularity; but violence and intimidation were then
common accompaniments of elections.
In November the governor was able to record his victory thus: Upper
Canada, avowed supporters of his government, thirty; avowed
adversaries, seven; undeclared and uncertain, five. Lower Canada,
avowed supporters, sixteen; avowed adversaries, twenty-one; undeclared
and uncertain, four. Remarking on this difference between Upper
and Lower Canada, he said that loyalty and British feeling
prevailed in Upper Canada and in the Eastern Townships of Lower
Canada, and that disaffection was predominant among the French-Canadian
constituencies.[2] Metcalfe honestly believed he had saved Canada for
the empire; but more mischief could hardly have been done by
deliberate design. In achieving a barren and precarious victory at the
polls, he and his friends had run the risk of creating that
disaffection which they feared. The stigma of disloyalty had been
unjustly affixed to honest and public-spirited men, whose steadiness
alone prevented them, in their resentment, from joining the ranks of
the disaffected. Worse still, the line of political cleavage had been
identified with the line of racial division, and "French-Canadian" and
"rebel" had been used as synonymous terms.
The ministry and the legislative assembly were now such as the
governor had desired, yet the harmony was soon broken. There appeared
divisions in the cabinet, hostile votes in the legislature, and
finally a revolt in the Conservative press. An attempt to form a
coalition with the French-Canadian members drew a sarcastic comment
from the _Globe_: "Mr. Draper has invited the men whom he and his
party have for years stigmatized before the country as rebels and
traitors and destructives to join his administration." Reformers
regarded these troubles as evidence that the experiment in reaction
was failing, and waited patiently for the end. Shortly after the
election the governor was raised to the peerage, an honour which, if
not earned by success in Canada, was fairly due to his honest
intentions. He left Canada at the close of the year 1845, suffering
from a painful disease, of which he died a year afterwards.
Soon after the governor's departure the young editor of the _Globe_
had a curious experience. At a dinner of the St. Andrew's Society,
Toronto, the president, Judge MacLean, proposed the health of Lord
Metcalfe, eulogized his Canadian policy, and insisted that he had not
been recalled, "as certain persons have most impertinently and untruly
assumed and set forth." Brown refused to drink the toast, and asked to
be heard, asserting that he had been publicly insulted from the chair.
After a scene of uproar, he managed to obtain a hearing, and said,
addressing the chairman: "I understand your allusions, sir, and your
epithet of impertinence as applied to myself. I throw it back on you
with contempt, and will content myself with saying that your using
such language and dragging such matters before the society was highly
improper. Lord Metcalfe, sir, has been recalled, and it may yet be
seen that it was done by an enlightened British government for cause.
The toast which you have given, too, and the manner in which it was
introduced, are highly improper. This is not the place to discuss Lord
Metcalfe's administration. There is a wide difference of opinion as to
it. But I refrain from saying one word as to his conduct in this
province. This is not a political but a benevolent society, composed
of persons of very varied political sentiments, and such a toast ought
never to have been brought here. Lord Metcalfe is not now
governor-general of Canada, and I had a right to refuse to do honour
to him or not as I saw fit, and that without any disparagement to his
conduct as a gentleman, even though the person who is president of
this society thinks otherwise." This incident, trivial as it may
appear, illustrates the passion aroused by the contest, and the bold
and resolute character of the young politician.
Lord Metcalfe's successor was Earl Cathcart, a soldier who concerned
himself little in the political disputes of the country, and who had
been chosen because of the danger of war with the United States,
arising out of the dispute over the Oregon boundary. The settlement of
that dispute does not come within the scope of this work; but it may
be noted that the _Globe_ was fully possessed by the belligerent
spirit of the time, and frankly expressed the hope that Great Britain
would fight, not merely for the Oregon boundary, but "to proclaim
liberty to the black population." The writer hoped that the Christian
nations of the world would combine and "break the chains of the slaves
in the United States, in Brazil and in Cuba."
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Kaye's _Life of Metcalfe_, Vol. II., p. 389.
[2] Kaye's _Life of Metcalfe_, Vol. II., p. 390.