Produced by Al Haines
[Frontispiece: The Fathers of Confederation. After a painting by
Robert Harris.]
THE FATHERS OF CONFEDERATION
A Chronicle of the Birth of the Dominion
by
A. H. U. COLQUHOUN
TORONTO
GLASGOW, BROOK & COMPANY
1916
_Copyright in all Countries subscribing to
the Berne Convention_
TO
COLONEL GEORGE T. DENISON
WHOSE LIFE-WORK IS PROOF THAT
LOYALTY TO THE EMPIRE IS
FIDELITY TO CANADA
{ix}
CONTENTS
Page
I. THE DAWN OF THE MOVEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
II. OBSTACLES TO UNION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
III. THE EVE OF CONFEDERATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
IV. THE HOUR AND THE MEN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
V. THE CHARLOTTETOWN CONFERENCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
VI. THE QUEBEC CONFERENCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
VII. THE RESULTS OF THE CONFERENCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
VIII. THE DEBATES OF 1865 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
IX. ROCKS IN THE CHANNEL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
X. 'THE BATTLE OF UNION' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
XI. THE FRAMING OF THE BILL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
XII. THE FIRST DOMINION MINISTRY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
XIII. FROM SEA TO SEA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
XIV. THE WORK OF THE FATHERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
INDEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
{xi}
ILLUSTRATIONS
THE FATHERS OF CONFEDERATION . . . . . . . . . . . . _Frontispiece_
After the painting by Robert Harris.
WILLIAM SMITH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _facing page_ 4
From a portrait in the Parliament Buildings, Ottawa.
SIR ALEXANDER T. GALT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " " 16
From a photograph by Topley.
GEORGE BROWN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " " 32
From a photograph in the possession of Mrs Freeland
Barbour, Edinburgh.
SIR GEORGE CARTIER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " " 42
From a painting in the Chateau de Ramezay.
SIR JOHN A. MACDONALD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " " 80
From the painting by A. Dickson Patterson.
SIR CHARLES TUPPER, BART. . . . . . . . . . . . . . " " 116
From a photograph by Elliott and Fry, London.
ALEXANDRE ANTONIN TACHE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " " 166
From a photograph lent by Rev. L. Messier, St Boniface.
AN ELECTION CAMPAIGN--GEORGE BROWN ADDRESSING AN AUDIENCE
OF FARMERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " " 180
From a colour drawing by C. W. Jefferys.
{1}
CHAPTER I
THE DAWN OF THE MOVEMENT
The sources of the Canadian Dominion must be sought in the period
immediately following the American Revolution. In 1783 the Treaty of
Paris granted independence to the Thirteen Colonies. Their vast
territories, rich resources, and hardy population were lost to the
British crown. From the ruins of the Empire, so it seemed for the
moment, the young Republic rose. The issue of the struggle gave no
indication that British power in America could ever be revived; and
King George mournfully hoped that posterity would not lay at his door
'the downfall of this once respectable empire.'
But, disastrous as the war had proved, there still remained the
fragments of the once mighty domain. If the treaty of peace had shorn
the Empire of the Thirteen Colonies and the great region south of the
Lakes, it had left unimpaired the provinces to the east and {2}
north--Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, and Canada--while still farther north
and west an unexplored continent in itself, stretching to the Pacific
Ocean, was either held in the tight grip of the Hudson's Bay Company or
was shortly to be won by its intrepid rival, the North-West Company of
Montreal. There were not lacking men of prescience and courage who
looked beyond the misfortunes of the hour, and who saw in the dominions
still vested in the crown an opportunity to repair the shattered empire
and restore it to a modified splendour. A general union of the
colonies had been mooted before the Revolution. The idea naturally
cropped up again as a means of consolidating what was left. Those who
on the king's side had borne a leading part in the conflict took to
heart the lesson it conveyed. Foremost among these were Lord
Dorchester, whom Canada had long known as Guy Carleton, and William
Smith, the Loyalist refugee from New York, who was appointed chief
justice of Lower Canada. Each had special claims to be consulted on
the future government of the country. During the war Dorchester's
military services in preserving Canada from the invaders had been of
supreme value; and his occupation {3} of New York after the peace,
while he guided and protected the Loyalist emigration, had furnished a
signal proof of his vigour and sagacity. William Smith belonged to a
family of distinction in the old colony of New York. He possessed
learning and probity. His devotion to the crown had cost him his
fortune. It appears that it was with him, rather than with Dorchester,
that the plan originated of uniting the British provinces under a
central government. The two were close friends and had gone to England
together. They came out to Quebec in company, the one as
governor-general, the other as chief justice. The period of confusion,
when constructive measures were on foot, suggested to them the need of
some general authority which would ensure unity of administration.
And so, in October 1789, when Grenville, the secretary of state, sent
to Dorchester the draft of the measure passed in 1791 to divide Quebec
into Upper and Lower Canada, and invited such observations as
'experience and local knowledge may suggest,' Dorchester wrote:
I have to submit to the wisdom of His Majesty's councils, whether it
may not be {4} advisable to establish a general government for His
Majesty's dominions upon this continent, as well as a governor-general,
whereby the united exertions of His Majesty's North American Provinces
may more effectually be directed to the general interest and to the
preservation of the unity of the Empire. I inclose a copy of a letter
from the Chief Justice, with some additional clauses upon this subject
prepared by him at my request.
[Illustration: William Smith. From a portrait in the Parliament
Buildings, Ottawa]
The letter referred to made a plea for a comprehensive plan bringing
all the provinces together, rather than a scheme to perpetuate local
divisions. It reflected the hopes of the Loyalists then and of their
descendants at a later day. In William Smith's view it was an
imperfect system of government, not the policy of the mother country,
that had brought on the Revolution. There are few historical documents
relating to Canada which possess as much human interest as the
reminiscent letter of the old chief justice, with its melancholy
recital of former mistakes, its reminder that Britons going beyond the
seas would inevitably carry with them their instinct for liberal
government, and its striking prophecy {5} that 'the new nation' about
to be created would prove a source of strength to Great Britain. Many
a year was to elapse before the prophecy should come true. This was
due less to the indifference of statesmen than to the inherent
difficulties of devising a workable plan. William Smith's idea of
confederation was a central legislative body, in addition to the
provincial legislatures, this legislative body to consist of a council
nominated by the crown and of a general assembly. The members of the
assembly were to be chosen by the elective branches of the provincial
legislatures. No law should be effective until it passed in the
assembly 'by such and so many voices as will make it the Act of the
majority of the Provinces.' The central body must meet at least once
every two years, and could sit for seven years unless sooner dissolved.
There were provisions for maintaining the authority of the crown and
the Imperial parliament over all legislation. The bill, however, made
no attempt to limit the powers of the local legislatures and to reserve
certain subjects to the general assembly. It would have brought forth,
as drafted, but a crude instrument of government. The outline of the
measure revealed the honest {6} enthusiasm of the Loyalists for unity,
but as a constitution for half a continent, remote and unsettled, it
was too slight in texture and would have certainly broken down.
Grenville replied at length to Dorchester's other suggestions, but of
the proposed general parliament he wrote this only: 'The formation of a
general legislative government for all the King's provinces in America
is a point which has been under consideration, but I think it liable to
considerable objection.'
Thus briefly was the first definite proposal set aside. The idea,
however, had taken root and never ceased to show signs of life. As
time wore on, the provincial constitutions proved unsatisfactory. At
each outbreak of political agitation and discontent, in one quarter or
another, some one was sure to come forward with a fresh plea for
intercolonial union. Nor did the entreaty always emanate from men of
pronounced Loyalist convictions; it sometimes came from root-and-branch
Reformers like Robert Gourlay and William Lyon Mackenzie.
The War of 1812 furnished another startling proof of the isolated and
defenceless position of the provinces. The relations between Upper
Canada and Lower Canada, never cordial, {7} became worse. In 1814, at
the close of the war, Chief Justice Sewell of Quebec, in a
correspondence with the Duke of Kent (Queen Victoria's father),
disclosed a plan for a small central parliament of thirty members with
subordinate legislatures.[1] Sewell was a son-in-law of Chief Justice
Smith and shared his views. The duke suggested that these legislatures
need be only two in number, because the Canadas should be reunited and
the three Atlantic colonies placed under one government. No one heeded
the suggestion. A few years intervened, and an effort was made to
patch up a satisfactory arrangement between Lower Canada and Upper
Canada. The two provinces quarrelled over the division of the customs
revenue. When the dispute had reached a critical stage a bill was
introduced in the Imperial parliament to unite them. This was in 1822.
But the proposal to force two disputing neighbours to dwell together in
the same house as a remedy for disagreements failed to evoke enthusiasm
from either. The friends of federation then drew together, and Sewell
joined hands with Bishop Strachan {8} and John Beverley Robinson of
Upper Canada in reviving the plea for a wider union and in placing the
arguments in its favour before the Imperial government. Brenton
Halliburton, judge of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (afterwards
chief justice), wrote a pamphlet to help on the cause. The Canada
union bill fell through, the revenue dispute being settled on another
basis, but the discussion of federation proceeded.
To this period belongs the support given to the project by William Lyon
Mackenzie. Writing in 1824 to Mr Canning, he believed that
a union of all the colonies, with a government suitably poised and
modelled, so as to have under its eye the resources of our whole
territory and having the means in its power to administer impartial
justice in all its bounds, to no one part at the expense of another,
would require few boons from Britain, and would advance her interests
much more in a few years than the bare right of possession of a barren,
uncultivated wilderness of lake and forest, with some three or four
inhabitants to the square mile, can do in centuries.
{9} Here we have the whole picture drawn in a few strokes. Mackenzie
had vision and brilliancy. If he had given himself wholly to this
task, posterity would have passed a verdict upon his career different
from that now accepted. As late as in 1833 he declared: 'I have long
desired to see a conference assembled at Quebec, consisting of
delegates freely elected by the people of the six northern colonies, to
express to England the opinion of the whole body on matters of great
general interest.' But instead of pursuing this idea he threw himself
into the mad project of armed rebellion, and the fruits of that folly
were unfavourable for a long time to the dreams of federation. Lord
Durham came. He found 'the leading minds of the various colonies
strongly and generally inclined to a scheme that would elevate their
countries into something like a national existence.' Such a scheme, he
rightly argued, would not weaken the connection with the Empire, and
the closing passages of his Report are memorable for the insight and
statesmanship with which the solid advantages of union are discussed.
If Lord Durham erred, it was in advocating the immediate union of the
two Canadas as the first necessary step, and in announcing as one of
his objects {10} the assimilation to the prevailing British type in
Canada of the French-Canadian race, a thing which, as events proved,
was neither possible nor necessary.
Many of the advocates of union, never blessed with much confidence in
their cause, were made timid by this point of Durham's reasoning. His
arguments, which were intended to urge the advantages of a complete
reform in the system and machinery of government, produced for a time a
contrary effect. Governments might propose and parliaments might
discuss resolutions of an academic kind, while eloquent men with voice
and pen sought to rouse the imaginations of the people. But for twenty
years after the union of the Canadas in 1841 federation remained little
more than a noble aspiration. The statesmen who wielded power looked
over the field and sighed that the time had not yet come.
[1] It has been said that Attorney-General Uniacke of Nova Scotia
submitted, in 1809, a measure for a general union, but of this there
does not appear to be any authentic record.
{11}