EARLY EVENTS OF THE NEW REIGN.
First Council of the Queen--Her Address to the Assembled
Dignitaries--Admirable Demeanour of the young
Sovereign--Proclamation of Queen Victoria--Condition of the Empire
at the Time of her Accession--Character of Lord Melbourne, the
Prime Minister--His Training of the Queen in Constitutional
Principles--Question of the Royal Prerogative and the choosing of
the Ministry--Removal of the Queen to Buckingham Palace--First
Levee--Her Majesty’s Speech on the Dissolution of
Parliament--Amelioration of the Criminal Laws--Results of the
General Election--Meeting of the New Legislature--The Civil List
fixed--Relations of the Queen towards the Duchess of Kent--Daily
Life of her Majesty--Royal Visit to the City--Insurrection in the
Two Canadas--Measures of the Government, and Suppression of the
Revolt--The Melbourne Administration and Lord Durham--Reform of the
Canadian Constitution.
We now resume our narrative of what happened on the first day of the new
reign--the 20th of June, 1837. At eleven o’clock in the forenoon--the
appointed hour--Queen Victoria, attended by the chief officers of the
household, entered the Council Chamber, and seated herself on a throne
which had been placed there. The Lord Chancellor (Cottenham) then
administered the customary oath taken by the sovereigns of England on
their accession, in which they promise to govern according to the laws.
The Princes, Peers, Privy Councillors, and Cabinet Ministers, next took
the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, kneeling before the throne; and
the first name on the list was that of Ernest, King of Hanover, known to
Englishmen as the Duke of Cumberland. The Queen caused these
distinguished persons to be sworn in as members of the Council, and the
Cabinet Ministers, having surrendered their seals of office, immediately
received them back from her Majesty, and kissed her hand on their
reappointment. Having ordered the necessary alterations in the official
stamps and form of prayer, the Council drew up and signed the
Proclamation of her Majesty’s accession, which was publicly read on the
following day. But one of the principal incidents of that memorable
Council was the reading by the Queen (previously to the surrender of the
seals by the Ministers, and their reappointment) of an address which ran
as follows:--
“The severe and afflicting loss which the nation has sustained by the
death of his Majesty, my beloved uncle, has devolved upon me the duty of
administering the government of this Empire. This awful responsibility
is imposed upon me so suddenly, and at so early a period, that I should
feel myself utterly oppressed by the burden, were I not sustained by the
hope that Divine Providence, which has called me to this work, will give
me strength for the performance of it, and that I shall find, in the
purity of my intentions, and in my zeal for the public welfare, that
support and those resources which usually belong to a more mature age
and longer experience. I place my firm reliance upon the wisdom of
Parliament, and upon the loyalty and affection of my people. I esteem
it also a peculiar advantage that I succeed to a sovereign whose
constant regard for the rights and liberties of his subjects, and whose
desire to promote the amelioration of the laws and institutions of the
country, have rendered his name the object of general attachment and
veneration. Educated in England, under the tender and affectionate care
of a most affectionate mother, I have learned from my infancy to respect
and love the constitution of my native country. It will be my
[Illustration: GATEWAY OF ST. JAMES’S PALACE]
unceasing study to maintain the reformed religion as by law established,
securing at the same time, to all, the full enjoyment of religious
liberty; and I shall steadily protect the rights, and promote to the
utmost of my power the happiness and welfare, of all classes of my
subjects.”
The demeanour of the Queen on this difficult and agitating occasion is
described as composed and dignified. She received the homage of the
nobility without any undue excitement, and her delivery of the address
was an admirable specimen of the clear and impressive reading to which
her Majesty has since accustomed the public. Occasionally she glanced
towards Lord Melbourne for guidance; but this occurred very seldom, and
for the most part her self-possession was extraordinary. The quietude
of manner was now and then broken by touches of natural feeling which
moved the hearts of all present. Her Majesty was particularly
considerate to the Royal Dukes, her uncles; and when the Duke of Sussex
(who was infirm) presented himself to take the
[Illustration: QUEEN VICTORIA AT THE TIME OF HER ACCESSION.]
oath of allegiance, and was about to kneel, she anticipated his action,
kissed his cheek, and said, with great tenderness of tone and gesture,
“Do not kneel, my uncle, for I am still Victoria, your niece.”
On the whole, that day was the most memorable in the Queen’s life, and
its effects were seen next morning in an aspect of pallor and fatigue.
An inexperienced girl, only just eighteen, had been invested with a
power which carried with it the gravest responsibilities towards
innumerable millions; and she had for the first time to discharge the
duties of the State--duties of which she could have had no practical
knowledge until then--under the affliction of a personal loss, for there
can be no doubt that she was attached to her uncle, the late King. The
lonely height of regal splendour was never more sharply or intensely
felt than by that young Princess in the first hours of her grandeur and
her burden. It is true that the death of King William was not
unexpected, and that his niece had for some years been familiarised with
the fact that, in the ordinary course of nature, she would one day
succeed to the crown. But death is always surprising when it comes, and
the new monarch had seen little of the ceremonial life of courts before
her elevation to the throne. Owing to the temporary failure of health to
which we have alluded, the Princess had not been made fully aware of her
destiny until after she had entered her twelfth year. She had probably
thought but little of the future in the intervening time; and at
eighteen she was called upon to administer the affairs of a vast Empire,
full of varied races, of complex interests, and of unsettled problems.
The new sovereign was proclaimed under the title of “Alexandrina
Victoria”; but the first name has not been officially used since that
day. The appearance of the Queen at one of the windows of St. James’s
Palace, on the morning of June 21st, was greeted with immense enthusiasm
by a vast crowd of people who had assembled to hear the Proclamation
read, but who did not anticipate that the sovereign would present
herself. At ten o’clock, the guns in the Park fired a salute, and
immediately afterwards her Majesty stood conspicuously before her
subjects. Dressed very simply in deep mourning, her fair hair and clear
complexion came out the more effectively for their black surroundings.
With visible emotion, and with her face bathed in tears, she listened to
the reading of the Proclamation, supported by Lord Melbourne on the one
side, and by Lord Lansdowne on the other, both dressed in court costume;
while close at hand was the Duchess of Kent. The court-yard of
the Palace was filled with a brilliant assemblage of high
functionaries, consisting of Garter King-at-Arms, heralds and
pursuivants, officers-of-arms on horseback, sergeants-at-arms, the
sergeant-trumpeter, the Knights-Marshal and their men, the Duke of
Norfolk as Earl-Marshal of England, and others--all clad in the
picturesque dresses and wearing the insignia of their offices. At the
conclusion of the Proclamation the Queen threw herself into the arms of
her mother, and gave free vent to her feelings, while the band played
the National Anthem, the Park and Tower guns discharged their salvos,
and the spectators burst into repeated acclamations.
In some respects, the accession of Queen Victoria took place at a
fortunate time. England was at peace with all foreign Powers; her
colonies were undisturbed, with the exception of Canada, where some
long-seated discontents were on the eve of breaking out into a rebellion
which for a while proved formidable; and, about three years before,
slavery had ceased in all British possessions. At home, several of the
more difficult questions of politics and statecraft had been settled,
either permanently or for a time, in the two preceding reigns; so that
large sections of the people, formerly disloyal, or at least unfriendly
to the existing order, were well disposed towards a form of government
which no longer appeared in the light of an oppression. The repeal of
the Test and Corporation Acts, in 1828, had conciliated the Dissenters;
the removal of Roman Catholic disabilities, in 1829, had abolished one
of the grievances of Ireland. By the Reform Bill of 1832--the temporary
defeat of which had very nearly plunged the country into revolution--the
middle classes had obtained a considerable accession of political power.
The sanguinary rigour of the criminal laws had been partially mitigated;
and, in September, 1835, an Act was passed for reforming the government
of municipal corporations. The great Constitutional question, touching
on the relation of the sovereign towards the Cabinet, had been virtually
settled, during the same year, in harmony with those Parliamentary
claims which were at any rate in accordance with the current of popular
feeling. France--the great hotbed of revolution--was comparatively
tranquil; and nothing in the general state of the world betokened the
advent of any serious troubles.
Lord Melbourne, who held the office of Prime Minister at the time of the
Queen’s accession, was an easy-tempered man of the world, well versed in
political affairs, but possessed of little power as a speaker, and
distinguished rather for tact than high statesmanship. He had entered
public life in 1805 as an adherent of Charles James Fox, and therefore
as a Whig of the most pronounced type; it was as leader of the Whigs
that he now held power; but in the latter part of the reign of George
IV. he had taken office under the Conservative Administrations of Mr.
Canning, Lord Goderich, and the Duke of Wellington. In truth, he cared
more for government than for legislation, and was therefore well
disposed to join any set of politicians who seemed capable of conducting
the affairs of the country with firmness and sense. Still, his most
natural and permanent inclinations were towards a moderate Whiggism,
very different, however, from the quasi-Radicalism of Fox, which he had
adopted in the days of his youth. In 1830 he accepted the seals of the
Home Office in the Government of Earl Grey; and this brought him back to
the old connection. On the retirement of Lord Grey, in July, 1834, he
succeeded to the Premiership; but in the following November the King
dismissed the Ministry without any reference to the wishes of
Parliament, and placed the Government in the hands of Sir Robert Peel.
This was the occasion of that Constitutional struggle which, in
consequence of the House of Commons gaining the day, has fixed the later
practice in accordance with what are usually regarded as popular
principles. Sir Robert Peel encountered so much opposition that, in
April, 1835, he was compelled to resign, and Lord Melbourne for the
second time became First Lord of the Treasury.
It was from this versatile, well-informed, but not very profound
statesman that her Majesty received her first practical instructions in
the theory and working of the British Constitution. That Lord Melbourne
discharged his office with ability, devotion, and conscientiousness, is
generally admitted; but it may be questioned whether he did not,
however unintentionally, give something of a party bias to her Majesty’s
conceptions of policy, and whether his teachings did not too much
depress the regal power in England. It is in truth only within the
present reign that it has come to be a fixed principle in English
affairs that the Ministers for the time being are to be chosen from the
majority of the
[Illustration: LORD MELBOURNE.]
House of Commons, without the least regard to the sovereign’s desires.
Melbourne himself, as we have seen, suffered from William’s assertion of
his independence in the matter of choosing his Ministers; and it was
perhaps not unnatural that he should wish to establish a contrary
practice, by instilling into the mind of his illustrious pupil the
conviction that absolute submission to the Parliamentary majority (or
rather to the majority in the Lower House) was the only Constitutional
course. But in fact that very course was an innovation; and to Lord
Melbourne, more than to any other man, is the innovation attributable.
There had undoubtedly been a movement in this direction since the latter
end of the seventeenth century; but it had been occasional rather
[Illustration: PROCLAMATION OF THE QUEEN AT ST. JAMES’S PALACE. (_See p.
22._)]
than continuous, and was frequently checked by reactions towards the
other practice.
From an early date in the Middle Ages, the King of England was assisted
in the task of governing by the Privy Council, the members of which body
did not, at the utmost, much exceed twelve. All were appointed by the
sovereign, and each was removable at his pleasure. In process of time,
the number of councillors became so great that their capacity for the
despatch of business was seriously impaired; and in 1679 Charles II.
limited the assembly to thirty members, of whom fifteen were to be the
principal officers of State. Those functionaries had already assumed,
under the name of the “Cabinet,” a species of separate existence, though
only as a part of the larger body to which they belonged. It was not
until shortly after the Restoration that this interior council acquired
much importance; and by many it was regarded as unconstitutional and
dangerous. Even at the present day, the Cabinet, in the striking
language of Macaulay, “still continues to be altogether unknown to the
law: the names of the noblemen and gentlemen who compose it are never
officially announced to the public; no record is kept of its meetings
and resolutions, nor has its existence ever been recognised by any Act
of Parliament.”[5] Nevertheless, the Cabinet, having gained a place in
the machinery of the State, gradually drew to itself greater powers; and
when, in 1693, the Earl of Sunderland persuaded William III. to choose
his Ministers from among the members of the predominant party in the
House of Commons, it is obvious that both the Legislature and the
Government obtained increased importance. Yet the King still allowed
himself considerable latitude, and had certainly no intention of giving
up all power in the matter.
The eighteenth century was mainly divided between the laxity of the
first two Georges--who, as foreigners largely concerned in Continental
affairs, were glad to leave much to their Ministers, especially to so
powerful a man as Sir Robert Walpole, though their powers of initiative
were not entirely abandoned--and the high-prerogative ideas of the third
George, who conceived that the kingly office had been unduly lowered
since the Revolution of 1688, and who resented the supremacy of a few
Whig families. Whatever may be thought of his policy or his motives, it
cannot be denied that George III. was within his right in determining to
have an actual voice in the appointment of his Ministers. A legal
authority says:--“The Cabinet Council, as it is called, consists of
those Ministers of State who are more immediately honoured with his
Majesty’s confidence, and who are summoned to consult upon the important
and arduous discharge of the executive authority. Their number and
selection depend only upon the King’s pleasure; and each member of that
Council receives a summons or message for every attendance.” Such is the
statement of Mr. Edward Christian, Chief Justice of the Isle of Ely, and
Downing Professor of the Laws of England in the University of Cambridge,
in a note to the fourteenth edition of Blackstone’s Commentaries,
published in 1803; and similar expositions appear in much more recent
law-books. Originally, the Cabinet Council was a committee of the Privy
Council: it is now, in effect, very little else than a committee of the
House of Commons; and it was Lord Melbourne’s instructions to the young
Queen which gave it finally, and perhaps irrevocably, that character.
Queen Victoria and her mother left Kensington on the 13th of July, and
proceeded to Buckingham Palace, a residence which George IV. had
favoured, and which William IV. detested and forsook. A levee was held
shortly after her Majesty’s arrival; on which occasion the Queen is said
to have presented a striking appearance, her head glittering with
diamonds, and her breast covered with the insignia of the Garter and
other orders. More important business, however, was approaching, and on
the 17th of the month the Queen went in State to the House of Lords to
dissolve Parliament. Addressing both Houses, her Majesty said:--“I have
been anxious to seize the first opportunity of meeting you, in order
that I might repeat in person my cordial thanks for your condolence upon
the death of his late Majesty, and for the expression of attachment and
affection with which you congratulated me upon my accession to the
throne. I am very desirous of renewing the assurances of my
determination to maintain the Protestant religion as established by law;
to secure to all the free exercise of the rights of conscience; to
protect the liberties, and to promote the welfare, of all classes of the
community. I rejoice that, in ascending the throne, I find the country
in amity with all foreign Powers; and, while I faithfully perform the
engagements of the Crown, and carefully watch over the interests of my
subjects, it will be the constant object of my solicitude to maintain
the blessings of peace.” After alluding to the chief events of the
session, the Queen concluded by observing:--“I ascend the throne with a
deep sense of the responsibility which is imposed upon me; but I am
supported by the consciousness of my own right intentions, and by my
dependence upon the protection of Almighty God. It will be my care to
strengthen our institutions, civil and ecclesiastical, by discreet
improvement, wherever improvement is required, and to do all in my power
to compose and allay animosity and discord. Acting upon these
principles, I shall on all occasions look with confidence to the wisdom
of Parliament and the affection of my people, which form the true
support of the dignity of the Crown, and ensure the stability of the
Constitution.”
In the course of this speech--which was delivered with great clearness
and elocutionary power--the Queen expressed marked pleasure at a further
mitigation of the criminal code, which she hailed as an auspicious
commencement of her reign. The change was assuredly much needed, and the
subject had engaged the attention of eminent statesmen and lawyers for
several years. Jeremy Bentham had exposed the unreasonable and cruel
severity of the punishments attached to comparatively trivial offences;
and Sir Samuel Romilly, seconded by Sir James Mackintosh and Sir Fowell
Buxton, had brought the state of the law before the notice of the
Legislature. For a long while, the disinclination of Parliament to deal
with important reforms kept this crying abuse of justice in the
background; but in 1833 a Royal Commission was issued, for the purpose
of inquiring how far it might be expedient to reduce the written and
unwritten law of the country into one digest, and to report on the best
manner of doing it. In the following year, the Commissioners were
further required to state their opinions on the subject of the
employment of counsel by prisoners, and on capital punishment. At the
present day, it seems almost incredible that until 1836 the accused in
criminal trials were not professionally defended. But still worse was
the merciless spirit with which the rights of property were hedged
about. A case is reported in which a poor Cornish woman, who, urged by
want caused by the impressment of her husband as a seaman, had stolen a
piece of cloth from a tradesman’s door, was hanged for the fact. Indeed,
in the earlier years of the present century, the death-penalty was so
frequent, and attached to so many offences, that numerous criminals were
executed regularly every Monday morning outside Newgate. The extreme
rigour of the law, however, was softened by various Acts of Parliament,
passed from 1824 to 1829, with which the name of Sir Robert Peel is
honourably associated. But much still remained to be done; and the Acts
to which the Queen alluded, and which were introduced into the House of
Commons by Lord John Russell, confined the punishment of death to high
treason, and, with some exceptions, to offences consisting of, or
aggravated by, violence to the person, or tending directly to endanger
life. By the Criminal Law Consolidation Acts of 1861, death is now
confined to treason and wilful murder; so that the reign of Queen
Victoria has been distinguished, amongst other things, by a great and
beneficent reform in the criminal laws of England.
The General Election followed quickly on the dissolution of Parliament,
and the Whigs, who had been losing popularity for some time past,
proceeded to the country with the questionable credit of being supported
by Royal favour. Personally, the Queen liked Lord Melbourne, and readily
adopted the political opinions he advanced. The Ministerialists made the
most of the fact, and it was even said that they went about “placarded
with her Majesty’s name.” But it is not improbable that this very
circumstance told against them in many quarters, by inducing waverers to
believe that the holders of office were endeavouring to influence the
electorate after a manner entirely foreign to constitutional usage. At
any rate, the Government lost seriously in the counties; yet, owing to
their gains among the borough constituencies, and the large amount of
support obtained in Scotland and Ireland, they returned to Westminster
with a small majority, though with an appreciable loss of political
repute. Parliament reassembled on the 20th of November, and on the 12th
of December the Queen sent a message to the House of Commons asking for
a suitable provision for the Duchess of Kent. This was made; the Civil
List was settled, though not without some opposition from the
economists; and the necessary preliminaries of a new reign were
complete. The income of the Queen’s mother was fixed at
[Illustration: BANQUET TO THE QUEEN IN THE GUILDHALL (NOVEMBER 9, 1837).
[_See p. 31._]]
£30,000, as against £22,000 previously; while the Civil List of her
Majesty was settled at £385,000 a year, including £60,000 for the Privy
Purse.
The Queen at once threw herself with business-like precision into the
duties of her high office. She rose at eight, signed despatches until
the breakfast hour, and then sent one of the servants to “invite” the
Duchess of Kent to the Royal table. Such was the rather cold formality
observed by the young monarch; and in other respects the etiquette of a
Court seems to have been followed with rigid exactness. The Duchess
never approached the Queen unless specially summoned, and always
refrained from conversing on affairs of State. These restraints were
considered necessary, in order to prevent any suspicion of undue
influence by the mother over the daughter; but they were very
distressing to the former. The late Mr. Charles C. F. Greville, for many
years Clerk of the Council, was told by the Princess de Lieven that the
Duchess of Kent was “overwhelmed with vexation and disappointment.” The
same authority adds that the Queen behaved with kindness and attention
to her parent, but she had rendered herself quite independent of the
Duchess, who painfully felt her own insignificance. For eighteen years,
she complained to Princess de Lieven, she had made her child the sole
object of all her thoughts and hopes; and now she was taken from her.
Speaking from his own observations, Mr. Greville remarks:--“In the midst
of all her propriety of mind and conduct, the young Queen begins to
exhibit slight signs of a peremptory disposition, and it is impossible
not to suspect that, as she gains confidence, and as her character
begins to develop, she will evince a strong will of her own.”[6] With
respect to the Queen and the Duchess, it should be recollected that one
in the exalted position of the former is necessarily bound by other than
domestic rules.
At twelve o’clock, the sovereign conferred with her Ministers, and the
serious business of the day at once began. When a document was handed to
her Majesty, she read it without comment until the end was reached, the
Ministers in the meanwhile observing a profound silence. The interval
between the termination of the Council and the dinner-hour was devoted
to riding or walking, and the public had many opportunities of observing
the admirable style in which the Queen sat her horse. At dinner, the
first Lord-in-waiting took the head of the table, opposite to whom was
the chief Equerry-in-waiting. The Queen sat half-way down on the right
hand, and the guests were of course placed according to their respective
ranks. At an early hour, her Majesty left the table for the
drawing-room, where the time was passed in music and conversation. The
sovereign herself was a proficient at the pianoforte, and often showed
her abilities in this respect; and when the gentlemen returned from the
dining-room (which was in about a quarter of an hour), a little singing
would give variety to the evening. Mr. Greville speaks of these banquets
as dull and formal. They were doubtless unavoidably so; for the ceremony
of a Court is not favourable to the charm and vividness of the best
social intercourse.
On the 9th of November--eleven days before the meeting of
Parliament--the Queen went in State to the City, and was present at the
inaugural banquet of the new Lord Mayor, Alderman Cowan. The streets
through which her Majesty passed were densely thronged by people of all
orders, who kept up an almost continual volley of cheers as the Royal
carriages, with their escort, proceeded eastward. The houses were hung
with richly-coloured cloths, green boughs, and such flowers as could be
furnished by the mid-autumn season. Busts of Victoria were reared upon
extemporary pedestals; flags and heraldic devices stretched across the
streets; and London displayed as much festive adornment as was possible
in those days. At Temple Bar, the Lord Mayor and Aldermen were seen
mounted on artillery-horses from Woolwich, each with a soldier at its
head, to restrain any erratic movement that might have troubled the
composure of the City dignitaries. On the arrival of the Queen, the Lord
Mayor dismounted, and, taking the City sword in his hand, delivered the
keys to her Majesty, who at once returned them. Then the Lord Mayor
resumed his horse, and, bearing the sword aloft, rode before the Queen
into the heart of the City, the Aldermen following in the rear of the
Royal carriage. In the open space before St. Paul’s Cathedral, hustings
had been erected, on which were stationed the Liverymen of the City
Companies, and the Christ Hospital (or Blue-coat) boys. One of the
latter presented an address to the Queen, in accordance with ancient
custom, and the whole of the boys then sang the National Anthem. The
Guildhall was magnificently adorned for the occasion; and here an
address was read by the Recorder. A sumptuous banquet followed, and at
night the metropolis was very generally illuminated. On this occasion,
the Queen was accompanied by the Duchesses of Kent, Gloucester, and
Cambridge, and by the Dukes of Cambridge and Sussex, together with
Prince George of Cambridge. The Ambassadors, Cabinet Ministers, and
nobility, followed in a train of two hundred carriages, which are said
to have extended for a mile and a half. The title of Baronet was
conferred on the Lord Mayor, and the two Sheriffs were knighted. It was
long since the City had had so brilliant a day, and the memory of it
survived for many years.
The first great historical event in the reign of Queen Victoria was the
insurrection in Canada. This proved to be of very serious import, and
undoubtedly showed the existence of much disaffection on the part of the
French-speaking colonists. It is probable that the latter had never
outgrown the mortification of being snatched from their old association
with the mother-country, and subjected to a Protestant kingdom. For
several years after the Treaty of 1763, which made over Canada to Great
Britain as a consequence of the brilliant victories gained by Wolfe and
Amherst, the colony was despotically ruled; but in 1791 a more
representative form of government was established, by which the whole
possession was divided into an Upper and a Lower Province. Each of the
provinces was furnished with a constitution, comprising a Governor, an
Executive Council nominated by the Crown, a Legislative Council
appointed for life in the same way, and a Representative Assembly
elected for four years. This constitution (which had been sanctioned by
an Act of the British Parliament) worked very badly, and in 1837 the
Assemblies of both provinces were at issue with their Governors, and
with the Councils appointed by the monarch. But by far the most serious
state of affairs was that which prevailed in Lower (or Eastern) Canada,
where the population was mainly of French origin, and where,
consequently, the antagonism of race and of religion was chiefly to be
expected. Towards the latter end of the reign of William IV.,
Commissioners were nominated to inquire into the alleged grievances, and
the report of these gentlemen was presented to Parliament early in the
session of 1837. On the 6th of March, Lord John Russell (then Home
Secretary) brought the subject before the attention of the House of
Commons, and, after many prolonged debates, a series of resolutions was
passed, affirming the necessity of certain reforms in the political
state of Canada. These reforms, however, did not go nearly far enough to
satisfy the requirements of the disaffected, and by the close of 1837
the Canadians were in full revolt.
When the Queen opened her first Parliament, on the 20th of November, the
state of Lower Canada was recommended, in the Royal Speech, to the
“serious consideration” of the Legislature. Before any measures could be
taken, intelligence of the outbreak reached England, and, on the 22nd of
December, Lord John Russell informed the House of Commons that the
Legislative Assembly of Lower Canada had been adjourned, on its refusal
to entertain the supplies, or to proceed to business, in consequence of
what were deemed the insufficient proposals of the Imperial Government.
The colonists had undoubtedly some grievances of old standing, and their
constitution required amendment in a popular sense. But a position had
been assumed which the advisers of the Crown could not possibly
tolerate, and the malcontents were now in arms against the just and
legal authority of the sovereign. As early as March, Lord John Russell
had said that, since the 31st of October, 1832, no provision had been
made by the legislators of Lower Canada for defraying the charges of the
administration of justice, or for the support of civil government in the
province. The arrears amounted to a very large sum, which the House of
Assembly refused to vote, while at the same time demanding an elected
Legislative Council, and entire control over all branches of the
Government.
The insurgents of Canada had numerous sympathisers in the United States,
where, under cover of a good deal of extravagant talk about liberty,
many people began to hope that existing complications would effect the
long-desired annexation of the two provinces to the great Federal
Republic. Those who were the most earnest in their views soon passed
from sympathy into action. In the latter days of 1837, a party of
Americans seized on Navy Island, a small piece of territory, situated in
the river Niagara a little above the Falls, and belonging to Canada.
Numbering as many as seven hundred, and having with them twenty pieces
of cannon, these unauthorised volunteers seemed likely to prove
formidable; but their means of offence were soon diminished by an
energetic, though somewhat irregular, proceeding on the part of the
Canadian authorities, acting, as was afterwards well known, under the
orders of Sir Francis Head, the
[Illustration: PRESIDENT VAN BUREN.]
Governor of Upper Canada. A small steamboat owned by the American
invaders, with which they kept up communications with their own side of
the river, and which was laden with arms and ammunition for the
insurgents, was cut adrift from her moorings on the night of December
29th, set on fire, and left to sweep over the cataract. The affair led
to a great deal of diplomatic correspondence between the American and
British Governments; but the preceding violation of Canadian soil by a
body of adventurers precluded the Cabinet of Washington from making any
serious demands on that of London. Ultimately, in the course of 1838,
the President (Mr. Van Buren) issued a proclamation calling on all
persons engaged in schemes for invading Canada to desist from the same,
on pain of such punishments as the law attached to the offence. This
put an end to the difficulty so far as the two countries were concerned;
but the insurrection was not yet entirely suppressed.
Although the worst disaffection was in Lower Canada, both provinces were
disturbed by movements of a disloyal nature. Upper Canada was excited by
the fiery appeals of a Scotsman named William Lyon Mackenzie; Lower
Canada by the incitements of Louis Joseph Papineau, one of the
disaffected French provincials. The two divisions of the colony,
however, were jealous of each other, and this hampered what might
otherwise have been a more dangerous rising. The Radical party in
England supported the cause of the malcontents, and insisted on the
necessity of at once redressing all grievances. The Government of Lord
Melbourne maintained that the rebellion must be first suppressed; and
undoubtedly that was the only course consistent with Imperial authority.
In the autumn of 1837, a small party of English troops was beaten at St.
Denis; but another detachment was successful against the rebels, and the
garrisons of the various cities, though extremely small, held their own
against the rising tide of insurrection. Aided by the Royalists, the
Government force under Sir John Colborne inflicted some severe blows on
the enemy; yet the movement continued throughout the greater part of
1838. On the 16th of January in that year, however, the Earl of Durham
had been appointed Governor-General of the five British colonies of
North America, and Lord High Commissioner for the adjustment of the
affairs of Canada. The liberal policy thus inaugurated, and the
victories obtained over the rebels by Sir John Colborne, Sir Francis
Head, and others, brought the revolt to an end before the close of the
year, and the colony soon afterwards entered on a future of prosperity.
The task of Lord Durham had, nevertheless, been surrounded by many
difficulties, and, although he was sent by the British Government to
carry out measures of leniency and concession, which his personal
inclinations were well inclined to second, he was speedily called to
account by the Imperial Cabinet for an ordinance touching the punishment
of offenders, which, being regarded as in some respects illegal, was
disallowed. Protesting that he had been abandoned by the Government,
Lord Durham resigned on the 9th of October, and the principal conduct of
affairs was left in the hands of Sir John Colborne. The policy of the
High Commissioner had been swayed by truly benevolent and broadly
liberal motives; but he had adopted--perhaps necessarily, considering
the state of affairs with which he had to deal--a highly dictatorial
manner, and the Opposition at home (especially in the Upper House, under
the violent incentives of Lord Brougham) found several opportunities of
effective attack. The Government, being weak and vacillating, said less
in defence of their representative than they might have done; Lord
Durham, in his passionate and imperious way, issued a farewell
proclamation to the people of Canada, which, in effect, amounted to an
appeal from the decisions of the Queen’s advisers--an appeal, that is,
to a community still in rebellion against the Crown; Ministers replied
by recalling their insubordinate servant; and the career of Lord Durham
was at an end. Having left his post without permission--certainly a very
improper proceeding--he was not honoured with the usual salute on
landing, and, in revenge, caused his wife to withdraw from the position
she held in the Queen’s household.
The recall of Lord Durham had been anticipated by his resignation; but
the disgraced official, assisted by his two secretaries, Charles Buller
and Edward Gibbon Wakefield, drew up a report containing the germs of
that system of unity and self-government under which Canada has since
become a loyal, contented, and progressive colony. It was not long
before the Cabinet of Lord Melbourne carried out the suggestions of the
discredited, but still successful, dictator. In 1839, Lord Glenelg, who
had been Colonial Secretary during the dissension with Lord Durham, gave
place to Lord Normanby, and he shortly afterwards to Lord John Russell,
who in 1840 passed a measure for reuniting Upper and Lower Canada, and
establishing a system of colonial freedom. In the same year, Lord Durham
died at the early age of forty-eight; but the principles of his colonial
policy rose triumphant above his tomb.