BROWN'S FIRST PARLIAMENT
In the autumn of 1851 parliament was dissolved, and in September Mr.
Brown received a requisition from the Reformers of Kent to stand as
their candidate, one of the signatures being that of Alexander
Mackenzie, afterwards premier of Canada. In accepting the nomination
he said that he anticipated that he would be attacked as an enemy of
the Roman Catholic Church; that he cordially adhered to the principles
of the Protestant reformation; that he objected to the Roman Catholic
Church trenching on the civil rights of the community, but that he
would be ashamed to advocate any principle or measure which would
restrict the liberty of any man, or deprive him on account of his
faith of any right or advantage enjoyed by his fellow-subjects. In his
election address he advocated religious equality, the entire
separation of Church and State, the secularization of the clergy
reserves, the proceeds to go to national schools, which were thus to
be made free. He advocated, also, the building of a railway from
Quebec to Windsor and Sarnia, the improvement of the canals and
waterways, reciprocity with the Maritime Provinces and the United
States, a commission for the reform of law procedure, the extension
of the franchise and the reform of representation. Representation by
population afterwards came to be the watchword of those who demanded
that Upper Canada should have a larger representation than Lower
Canada; but as yet this question had not arisen definitely. The
population of Upper Canada was nearly doubled between 1842 and 1851,
but it did not appear until 1852 that it had passed the lower province
in population.
The advocacy of free schools was an important part of the platform.
During the month of January, 1852, the _Globe_ contained frequent
articles, reports of public meetings, and letters on the subject. It
was contended by some of the opponents of free schools that the poor
could obtain free education by pleading their poverty; but the _Globe_
replied that education should not be a matter of charity, but should
be regarded as a right, like the use of pavements. The matter was made
an issue in the election of school trustees in several places, and in
the Toronto election the advocates of free schools were successful.
It will be convenient to note here that Brown's views on higher
education corresponded with his views on public schools. In each case
he opposed sectarian control, on the ground that it would dissipate
the energies of the people, and divide among half a dozen sects the
money which might maintain one efficient system. These views were
fully set forth in a speech made on February 25th, 1853, upon a bill
introduced by Mr. Hincks to amend the law relating to the University
of Toronto. Brown denounced the measure as a surrender to the
sectaries. There were two distinct ideas, he said, in regard to higher
education in Upper Canada. One was that a university must be connected
with a Church and under the management of the clergy, without whose
control infidelity would prevail. The Reform party, led by Mr. Baldwin
and Mr. Hincks, had denounced these views as the mere clap-trap of
priestcraft. They held that there should be one great literary and
scientific institution, to which all Canadians might resort on equal
terms. This position was founded, not on contempt for religion, but on
respect for religion, liberty, and conscience. "To no one principle
does the Liberal party owe so many triumphs as to that of
non-sectarian university education." Until 1843 Anglican control
prevailed; then various unsuccessful efforts at compromise were made,
and finally, in 1849, after twenty years of agitation, the desire of
the Liberal party was fulfilled, and a noble institute of learning
established. This act alone would have entitled Robert Baldwin to the
lasting gratitude of his countrymen.
Continuing, Brown said that the Hincks bill was reactionary--that the
original draft even contained a reference to the godless character of
the institution--that the plan would fritter away the endowment by
dividing it among sects and among localities. He opposed the abolition
of the faculties of law and medicine. Rightly directed, the study of
law was ennobling, and jurists should receive an education which would
give them broad and generous views of the principles of justice. The
endowment of the university ought to be sufficient to attract eminent
teachers, and to encourage students by scholarships. "We are laying
the foundations of a great political and social system. Our vote
to-day may deeply affect, for good or evil, the future of the country.
I adjure the House to pause ere destroying an institution which may
one day be among the chief glories of a great and wise people."
Brown was elected by a good majority. The general result of the
election was favourable to the Hincks-Morin administration. A large
part of the interval between the election and the first session of the
new parliament was spent by Mr. Hincks in England, where he made some
progress in the settlement of the clergy reserve question, and where
he also made arrangements for the building of the Grand Trunk Railway
from Montreal westward through Upper Canada. Negotiations for the
building of the Intercolonial Railway, connecting Lower Canada with
the Maritime Provinces, fell through, and the enterprise was delayed
for some years.
It was a matter of some importance that the first parliament in which
Mr. Brown took part was held in the city of Quebec. He had entered on
a course which made Catholics and French-Canadians regard him as their
enemy, and in Quebec French and Catholic influence was dominant. Brown
felt keenly the hostility of his surroundings, and there are frequent
references in his speeches and in the correspondence of the _Globe_ to
the unfriendly faces in the gallery of the chamber, and to the social
power exercised by the Church. "Nothing," says the Hon. James Young,
"could exceed the courage and eloquence with which Brown stood up
night after night, demanding justice for Upper Canada in the face of a
hostile majority on the floor of the chamber and still more hostile
auditors in the galleries above. So high, indeed, did public feeling
run on some occasions that fears were entertained for his personal
safety, and his friends occasionally insisted after late and exciting
debates, lasting often till long after midnight, on accompanying
him."[7] Mr. Young adds that these fears were not shared by Mr. Brown,
and that they proved to be groundless. Mr. Brown, in fact, did not
regard the Quebec influence as a personal grievance, but he argued
that on public grounds the legislature ought not to meet in a city
where freedom of speech might be impaired by local sentiment. That he
harboured no malice was very finely shown when parliament met four
years afterwards in Toronto. He had just concluded a powerful speech.
The galleries were crowded, this time with a friendly audience, which
at length broke into applause. Brown checked the demonstration. "I
have addressed none," he said, "but members of this House, and trust
that members from Lower Canada will not be overawed by any
manifestation of feeling in this chamber. I shall be ready on all
occasions to discourage it. In Lower Canada I stood almost alone in
supporting my views, and I well know how painful these manifestations
are to a stranger in a strange place. I do sincerely trust that
gentlemen of French origin will feel as free to speak here as if they
were in Quebec."
Brown made his maiden speech during the debate on the address. It is
described in a contemporary account as "a terrible onslaught on the
government." An idea of violence conveyed in this and other comments
would appear to have been derived from the extreme energy of Brown's
gestures. The printed report of the speech does not give that
impression. Though severe, it was in the main historical and
argumentative. It contained a review of the political history of
Canada from the time of the rupture between Metcalfe and his
ministers, up to the time when the principle of responsible government
was conceded. Brown argued that Reformers were bound to stand by that
principle, and to accept all its obligations. In his judgment it was
essential to the right working of responsible government that parties
should declare their principles clearly and stand or fall by them. If
they held one set of principles out of office and another set in
office they would reduce responsible government to a farce. He
acknowledged the services which Hincks and Morin had rendered in
fighting for responsible government; but he charged them with
betraying that principle by their own conduct in office. Two systems
of government, he said, were being tested on this continent. The
American system contained checks and balances. The British system
could be carried on only by the observance of certain unwritten laws,
and especially a strict good faith and adherence to principle. Brown,
as a party man, adhered firmly to Burke's definition of party: "A body
of men united for promoting by their joint endeavours the national
interest, upon some particular principle on which they are all
agreed." Office-holding, with him, was a minor consideration. "There
is no theory in the principle of responsible government more vital to
its right working than that parties shall take their stand on the
prominent questions of the day, and mount to office or resign it
through the success or failure of principles to which they are
attached. This is the great safeguard for the public against clap-trap
professions."
FOOTNOTES:
[7] Young's _Public Men and Public Life in Canada_, p. 83.