frontier is not menaced by the Americans; but Upper Canada, by the
last accounts from Sir George Arthur, is in a very unsatisfactory
state, both as to domestic dissensions and border incursions. I am
anxious, therefore, to proceed there as soon as possible."[35]
Lord Durham left Montreal on July 10th, arrived in Kingston late on
the night of the 11th, and then proceeded to Niagara. At Niagara Sir
George Arthur met him. From Niagara Lord Durham journeyed to Toronto
where Sir George was also present to receive him formally, along with
the mayor and corporation and the citizens of the provincial capital.
On the 19th of July Durham returned to Kingston and thence down the
St. Lawrence to Montreal where he arrived on July 24th. His visit
to Upper Canada had been short but he had covered a great deal of
territory and seems to have been pleased with what he saw.
If one of Lord Durham's objects in making his hurried trip to Upper
Canada was to obtain a better understanding with Sir George Arthur he
must have been disappointed since shortly after his return to Lower
Canada their relations became somewhat strained. The reason for this
was the action of Sir George Arthur and his Executive Council in
sentencing to death Samuel Chandler and Benjamin Waite for their part
in the Short Hills affair. The families of these men had appealed to
Durham "for an extension of the Royal mercy" and "for the grant to
them of Her Majesty's pardon."[36] Durham asked Arthur for
particulars, reminding him that Lord Glenelg had written on the 3rd
of April asking that "the utmost lenity, compatible with public
safety, should be exercised towards the insurgents."
To this Sir George Arthur replied on August 20th, complaining that
Durham's action was "depriving the officer administering the
Government of Upper Canada of the powers expressly vested in him by
the Royal Commission."[37] Arthur also claimed that Durham "had
misapprehended the intention of the instruction of the Secretary of
State" and Lord Glenelg had in a despatch of July 12th referred him
"to the power of pardoning for treason vested in the officers
administering this government under your Lordship's commission as
Governor-in-Chief."
Durham in his turn maintained that all he wished was to exercise the
superintending authority he possessed as Governor-General. He
admitted that Arthur had the power of pardoning for treason delegated
to him, but would argue that that power was exempt from "the general
subordination to instructions from the Governor-General."[38] Durham
then proceeds to give his opinion of Sir George Arthur's policy in
the following terms.
"Your Excellency's explanation of the policy which you had determined
on adopting with regard to the prisoners convicted at Niagara does
not immediately strike me as indicating a course so obviously correct
that I can dispense with the information which I required in my
despatch of the 16th instant. I cannot quite admit the propriety of
selecting some one subject of Her Majesty to share the fate of
Morreau, the leader of the expedition, who happened to be a citizen
of the United States. The fate of Her Majesty's subjects should be
determined on a view of their own conduct, and of the circumstances
which have led the juries to accompany their verdict of guilty, in
every case, with a recommendation to mercy."
A further despatch of Lord Durham to Arthur on September 18th went
into the case of Jacob Beamer in some detail. Beamer had been
singled out by the Executive Council as the scape goat and was alone
to suffer the death penalty. To this Durham would not agree but
requested that the case be referred to Lord Glenelg. This despatch
is interesting since it shows that the Executive Council of Upper
Canada was at this time none too friendly towards Lord Durham and was
quite willing to stir up strife between the Governor-General and the
Lieutenant-Governor.
In the meantime the correspondence between Arthur and Durham had
continued at some length and not always with the best of feeling.
But no actual breach seems to have occurred and at length the vexed
problem of the political prisoners seemed likely of solution. A
general amnesty was to be proclaimed for all except a certain few who
were to be named in the proclamation. But by this time Lord Durham
was preparing to return to England.
Among the despatches sent by Sir George Arthur to the Earl of Durham
is one dated July 9th, 1838, which deals with the political condition
of Upper Canada. This letter establishes without a doubt the close
adherence of Sir George Arthur to the Family Compact party, all the
more so because Sir George tries to claim his independence of all
party affiliations. It also shows that the Lieutenant-Governor had
received instructions from the Home Government "to pursue the policy
and measures of Sir Francis Head." This Arthur apparently had
attempted to do in so far as his support of the dominant party in the
province was concerned. He had fallen in completely with their way
of thinking and had failed to distinguish between reformers and
rebels. He even warned Lord Sydenham that Dr. Egerton Ryerson was "a
dangerous man" chiefly because Ryerson supported Mr. Bidwell, who had
been Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and had been forced to leave
the province on account of persecution by Sir Francis Head and his
Executive Council after MacKenzie's Rebellion. In this letter of
July 9th Sir George Arthur attempts to combat the opinions of Mr.
Isaac Buchanan, a reformer, who had been presenting his views on the
Upper Canadian political situation to Lord Durham. According to
Arthur, Mr. Buchanan was endeavouring to prejudice Durham's mind
"against some of the most respectable and most highly esteemed men in
the province," and the Lieutenant-Governor hastened to defend his
friends. One or two sentences from this despatch deserve quotation
as showing Arthur's attitude towards the self-constituted aristocracy
of Upper Canada.
"In this Colony, as in other countries, respectable station, united
with superior talents and good conduct, gives a certain degree of
influence which is natural and salutary, and it would be of all
things ungracious and discouraging, as well as impolitic, if the
Government were to manifest a jealousy of an influence so honorably
acquired. It is, so far as I have been able to judge, most
unobtrusively exercised and I am satisfied, from what I have
experienced, that so far as he can conscientiously do so, your
Lordship will have the most cordial co-operation of the Chief Justice
and of all the Family Compact, in all its ramifications throughout
the Province."[39]
In this same despatch Arthur informs Durham that he had "amicably
discussed with the Leaders of each Denomination, the long contested
Clergy Reserves Question," and had the intention of "bringing in a
Bill to reinvest those lands in the Crown" if better means could not
be found of providing a settlement. He also thought that he would be
able to carry any measure he desired successfully through the
Provincial Parliament. It should be remembered that the ultra-tory
assembly of 1836, at whose elections Sir Francis Head so
distinguished himself, was still in existence and that Sir George
Arthur thought that it would pass any measure brought forward by the
government. Already on a previous occasion Sir George had written to
the Governor-General on the same subject of the Clergy Reserves and
had expressed a hope that asperities had been already softened and
that at the next meeting of the Legislature he would be able to see
this long-pending contest terminated upon nearly the same principle
as it had been settled in Van Diemen's Land during his administration
there. But in this pious hope Arthur reckoned without the opposition
of the Reformers.
The aim of Sir George Arthur and the Executive Council was "to secure
the removal of the Clergy Reserves question from the hostile arena of
the Upper Canada Legislature to the friendly atmosphere of the
English House of Commons, and the still more friendly tribunal of the
House of Lords--where the bench of bishops would be sure to defend
the claims of the Church to their royal patrimony."[40] This project
the Reformers and opponents of the Clergy Reserves were determined to
resist to the uttermost. A long controversy raged during 1838 and
1839. In December, 1837, a bill had been brought forward to reinvest
the Reserves in the Crown, but a despatch from the Home Government
which arrived soon after showed that the British Parliamentary
authorities had no desire to interfere in the settlement of this
vexed question. During 1838 Sir George Arthur still hoped that the
scheme for reinvesting the Clergy Reserves in the Crown would carry
as the references in his despatches, cited above, show. Such a bill
would have suited the members of the Executive Council and Family
Compact generally. It would have meant that the Church of England
would have still profited at the expense of the other denominations.
As it was, in 1837 out of a total of £10,852 11s 8d the Church of
England received £7,291 5s Od, the Church of Scotland £1,425, the
United Synod of Upper Canada £636 6s 8d, and the Roman Catholic
clergy £1,000.[41] The Wesleyan Methodists and other denominations
did not receive one penny from the "one-seventh of all Crown lands
set aside for the support of a Protestant clergy."
Upon the reassembling of the Upper Canadian Legislature in February,
1839, Sir George Arthur stated that "the settlement of this vitally
important question ought not to be longer delayed" and hoped that the
contending parties could be amicably adjusted, but added meaningly
that if all their efforts failed it would only remain to reinvest the
Reserves in the hands of the Crown. Various bills on the subject
were introduced and finally the Legislative Council amended one sent
to it by the Assembly in such a way as to put complete control of the
Clergy Reserves in the hands of the Imperial Parliament. This bill
as amended was passed in the Assembly in a thin house by a majority
of one. Sir George Arthur and his party had triumphed by a narrow
margin. But the royal assent was never given to the bill owing to an
objection raised in England that the Upper Canadian Legislature,
being a subordinate authority, could not make such a delegation to
the Imperial Parliament.
A compromise bill which was devised to meet the approval of the
majority of people in Upper Canada was submitted to the House of
Assembly in January, 1840, but it was the work not of Sir George
Arthur, but of Lord Durham's successor, Mr. Poulett Thomson (Lord
Sydenham). It provided that the remainder of the land should be sold
and that the annual proceeds of the fund, when realized, be
distributed one half to the Church of England and the Presbyterians
and one half to the other denominations who wished to share it. This
bill was passed in Upper Canada and sent to England where it met its
death blow in the House of Lords. The vexatious Clergy Reserves
problem still remained unsettled.
In the matter of the Clergy Reserves, Sir George Arthur had shown
himself the uncompromising ally of the Family Compact. He was to
show it once more in his attitude towards the reunion of the
provinces and the introduction of Responsible Government.
The reunion of the provinces was urged by Lord Durham in his Report
and was favoured by a large majority of the inhabitants of Upper
Canada. It was opposed by the Family Compact, supported as usual by
Sir George Arthur. But the feeling for union was so strong that on
March 23rd, 1839, three resolutions in favour of the reunion of the
provinces were carried by the Upper Canadian Legislature. Four days
later, on March 27th, fourteen qualifying resolutions were passed by
the Assembly. These resolutions, if embodied in the Act of Union,
would have placed the balance of power in the hands of the British
population of the united province.
A committee of the Legislative Council was appointed at the same time
to inquire into Lord Durham's Report and to put forward their side of
the case. This was very ably done in a document dated May 11th,
1839, and approved by the Legislative Council. In this report on the
Report Lord Durham's "great panacea for all political disorders
'Responsible Government'"[42] was attacked and certain inaccurate
statements were challenged. The blame for the recent troubles in
Upper Canada was cast entirely upon the Reformers and the question
propounded: "Is it because reformers, or a portion of them, can
command the sympathies of the United States, and of Lower Canadian
rebels, that the internal affairs of a British colony must be
conducted so as to please them?"
With these sentiments Sir George Arthur heartily concurred. He was
entirely opposed to "Responsible Government" and still feared
disaffection in the provinces. During the early months of 1839 the
trials of the political prisoners had continued and had attracted
much attention on both sides of the border. There was still
considerable excitement in the province and riots occurred in some
places. In one of these which took place at Stone's Tavern, Percy
Township, Northumberland County, on June 5th, 1839, the reformers
carried "a red flag on which were written or printed the words, 'Lord
Durham and Reform.'"[43] Incidents such as this increased Sir George
Arthur's mistrust of Lord Durham's schemes for the better government
of Canada, and on July 2nd we find him writing to the Marquis of
Normanby, Lord Glenelg's successor, as follows:
"I have all along informed Her Majesty's Government that it is absurd
to think of Upper Canada as containing a whole community of
loyalists. There is a considerable section of persons who are
disloyal to the core; reform is on their lips, but separation is in
their hearts. These men having, for the last two or three years,
made a 'responsible government' their watchword, are now
extravagantly elated because the Earl of Durham has recommended that
measure.
"They regard it as an unerring means to get rid of all British
connexion, while the Earl of Durham, on the contrary, has recommended
it as a measure for cementing the existing bond of union with the
mother country."
These few sentences throw great light on Sir George Arthur's attitude
on the question of 'Responsible Government.' As usual, the Reformers
are annexationists. It was the usual tactics of the dominant party
to call them so and to include as disloyal all those who favoured the
cause of Reform. Of course Sir George Arthur, from the nature of his
position, was supposed to be moderate in his political views, but he
does yeoman service for the Family Compact in trying to impress upon
the authorities in England that the Reformers were disloyal. It is
impossible to state what percentage of the Reformers were actually
disloyal, but it must be remembered, as Egerton Ryerson has told us,
the great body of the Reformers took no part in MacKenzie's Rebellion
except to suppress it. The bulk of moderate opinion in the province
sided neither with the annexationists nor with the Family Compact,
but readily embraced the suggestions set forth in Lord Durham's
Report. With these moderate reformers Sir George Arthur was soon at
variance.
In the month of August, 1839, Sir George received a series of
resolutions supporting Lord Durham's Report and Responsible
Government passed at a meeting of freeholders and inhabitants of the
Gore District held on July 27th. This meeting resolved that the
House of Assembly did not represent the wishes or sentiments of the
province "particularly in its late Report of its committee,
purporting to be the Report of the House of Assembly in answer to
Lord Durham's Report on the State of the Province." It also resolved
"that the Report of the Earl of Durham, in all its material points,
has been received by an overwhelming majority of the people of Upper
Canada with the most abundant gratification" and "that this meeting
is of opinion that a responsible government, as recommended in Lord
Durham's Report, is the only means of restoring confidence, allaying
discontent, or perpetuating the connexion between Great Britain and
this colony."[44]
All this was wormwood and gall to Sir George Arthur, who hastened to
reply to this address. In his answer he attacks Responsible
Government and states "that the proposed plan would lead to a state
of things inconsistent with the relations of this colony, as a
dependency of the British Crown." This was a bold statement for the
Lieutenant-Governor to make and it was soon to land him into
difficulties since the British authorities were prepared to carry out
Lord Durham's schemes. Mr. Poulett Thomson was selected as
Governor-General and under him Sir George Arthur was once more to act
as a subordinate Lieutenant-Governor.[45]
It was a curious arrangement, since Arthur was known to be opposed to
the very scheme of government which Poulett Thomson was being sent
out to initiate. But Sir George Arthur was not unwilling to
co-operate with the new Governor-General. He met Poulett Thomson at
Montreal on October 25th and conferred with him on the subject of
Upper Canada. It was decided that the Legislature of that province
should be summoned for December 3rd and that Poulett Thomson would
visit Upper Canada about the 18th of November. The Governor-General
was determined to open the session of the Legislature in person.
This determination on his part was largely the outcome of his
conversations with Sir George Arthur, who strongly urged upon him the
desirability of so doing.
As a result of this meeting between the Governor-General and
Lieutenant-Governor, Poulett Thomson was present to open the
Legislature on December 3rd. After that date Sir George Arthur's
power in Upper Canada became entirely secondary to that of Poulett
Thomson. He still acted as Lieutenant-Governor in the absence of the
Governor-General but his term of real authority in Upper Canada ended
on November 22nd, 1839, when the new Governor-General assumed the
government of the upper province.
Sir George Arthur remained in Upper Canada until 1841, when the Act
of Union came into force and the two provinces surrendered their
separate existence. He then returned to England where his services
in Canada were recognized by the bestowal upon him of a baronetcy.
In June, 1842, he was appointed Governor of the Bombay Presidency in
India, which office he held until his retirement in 1846. Had his
health warranted the acceptance of so difficult a post he might then
have become Governor-General of India. After returning to England
Sir George Arthur was made a Privy Councillor and was honoured by the
University of Oxford with the honorary degree of Doctor of Civil Law.
He died on September 19th, 1854.
Sir George Arthur was a true type of the old colonial governor. He
was unfortunate in that he was unable to realize that the days of
colonial dependency were numbered, and that the future belonged to
the advocates of self-government. His long experience as a colonial
governor under the old regime, probably told against Arthur in his
administration of Upper Canada just as it was of value to him as
Governor of Bombay. His support of the Family Compact was as natural
and sincere as his mistrust of Responsible Government. Of his
uprightness and integrity there could be no doubt. Although his
treatment of the political prisoners shows him to have been
merciless, on occasion he was known as a gentle and kind man. He
tried to do what he considered right but he lacked vision.
Throughout his administration in Upper Canada he was attempting to
bolster up a dying cause. His one fatal defect was that he could not
see that the political future of Canada lay in the proper
interpretation and elaboration of the principles laid down in Lord
Durham's Report.
WALTER SAGE.
[1] Arthur to Glenelg, 29 March, 1838.
[2] Head's Narrative, p. 32.
[3] Canadian Archives. Q 406, Pt. I, p. 175.
[4] D. N. B., Vol. I, p. 604.
[5] Report of Transportation Committee, 1838. Quoted in Molesworth's
_Speeches_, Appendix, p. 465.
[6] D. N. B., Article on Sir George Arthur.
[7] Canadian Archives, Q 406, Pt. I, p. 226.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid., p. 232.
[10] Ibid., p. 227.
[11] Molesworth: _Speeches_, p. 112.
[12] Kingsford: _History of Canada_, Vol. X, p. 472.
[13] Cf. Arthur to Glenelg, April 14th, 1838, Canadian Archives G,
494.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Arthur to Glenelg: April 14th, 1838.
[16] Both numbers are given--the higher number, 30,000, by MacKenzie.
[17] Glenelg to Arthur, No. 70, 22 May, 1838; Brit. Parl. paper, 2,
1839, p. 279.
[18] Glenelg to Arthur, No. 82, 30th May, 1838; op. cit. pp. 279-80.
[19] Ibid.
[20] E. A. Theller, Canada in 1837-8, 2 vols., Philadelphia, 1841.
[21] Theller, Canada in 1837-8, Vol. I, p. 261.
[22] Canadian Archives, Q 406, Pt. I, pp. 177-8.
[23] Arthur to Glenelg, 24 April, 1838, No. 8.
[24] Theller, Canada in 1837-8, Vol. 2, p. 9.
[25] Ibid., p. 10.
[26] Can. Archives, Q. 406, Pt. I, pp. 166-7.
[27] Quoted: Kingsford, X, p. 457.
[28] Lindsay: _Life of W. L. MacKenzie_ (Makers of Canada Series), p.
440, gives the month as September; Kingsford gives December.
[29] Arthur to Glenelg, 24th November, 1838, No. 92.
[30] Parl. Paper, 2, 1839, p. 370.
[31] Cf. Glenelg to Durham, April 3rd, 1838, No. 8, Parl. paper 2, p.
12.
[32] Durham to Arthur, 1 June, 1838; No. 1. Parl. paper, 2, p. 109.
[33] Arthur to Durham, June 9th, No. 1, Parl. paper 2, p. 116.
[34] P.P. 2, p. 125.
[35] Durham to Glenelg, No. 24, P. P. 2, p. 139.
[36] Durham to Arthur, 16 May, 1838, pp. 2, p. 103.
[37] Ibid., Arthur to Durham, 20th Aug., 1838.
[38] Durham to Arthur, Aug. 24th, 1838; Ibid., p. 164.
[39] Arthur to Durham, July 9th, 1838, Can. Archives, G. 494, p. 507.
[40] Ryerson: Story of My Life, p. 225.
[41] These figures are taken from a return to be found in the
Canadian Archives, Q. 407, Pt. I, pp. 108-13.
[42] Egerton and Grant: Canadian Constitutional Development, p. 176.
[43] Parl. papers (Canada), 1840, Pt. II, p. 142.
[44] Parl. paper (Canada), 1840, Pt. II, p. 181.
[45] For a full account of the relations between Poulett Thomson and
Sir George Arthur the reader is referred to Shortt, _Sydenham_, pp.
153-162.
BULLETIN OF THE DEPARTMENTS OF HISTORY AND
POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC SCIENCE IN QUEEN'S
UNIVERSITY, KINGSTON, ONTARIO, CANADA.
No. 1. The Colonial Policy of Chatham, by W. L. Grant.
No. 2. Canada and the Most Favored Nation Treaties, by O. D. Skelton.
No. 3. The Status of Women in New England and New France, by James
Douglas.
No. 4. Sir Charles Bagot: An Incident in Canadian Parliamentary
History, by J. L. Morison.
No. 5. Canadian Bank Inspection, by W. W. Swanson.
No. 6. Should Canadian Cities Adopt Commission Government, by
William Bennett Munro.
No. 7. An Early Canadian Impeachment, by D. A. McArthur.
No. 8. A Puritan at the Court of Louis XIV, by W. L. Grant.
No. 9. British Supremacy and Canadian Autonomy: An Examination of
Early Victorian Opinion Concerning Canadian Self-government, by J. L.
Morison.
No. 10. The Problem of Agricultural Credit in Canada, by H. Michell.
No. 11. St. Alban in History and Legend: A Critical Examination; The
King and His Councillors: Prolegomena to a History of the House of
Lords, by L. F. Rushbrook Williams.
No. 12. Life of the Settler in Western Canada Before the War of
1812, by Adam Shortt.
No. 13. The Grange in Canada, by H. Michell.
No. 14. The Financial Power of the Empire, by W. W. Swanson.
No. 15. Modern British Foreign Policy, by J. L. Morison.
No. 16. Federal Finance, by O. D. Skelton.
No. 17. Craft-Gilds of the Thirteenth Century in Paris, by F. B.
Millett.
No. 18. The Co-operative Store in Canada, by H. Michell.
No. 19, The Chronicles of Thomas Sprott, by Walter Sage.
No. 20. The Country Elevator in the Canadian West, by W. C. Clark.
No. 21. The Ontario Grammar Schools, by W. E. Macpherson.
No. 22. The Royal Disallowance in Massachusetts, by A. G. Borland.
No. 23. The Language Issue in Canada; Notes on the Language Issue
Abroad, by O. D. Skelton.
No. 24. The Neutralization of States, by F. W. Baumgartner.
No. 25. The Neutralization of States, by F. W. Baumgartner.
No. 26. Profit-Sharing and Producers' Co-operation in Canada, by H.
Michell.
No. 27. Should Maximum Prices Prevail? by W. C. Clark.