Perthshire, Scotland, situated about midway between Perth and Dundee, on
the 9th of November, 1823. He is the third son of the late Rev. William
Proudfoot, who was for many years Superintendent of the Theological
Institute of the United Presbyterian Church, at London, Ontario. The
late Mr. Proudfoot was one of the earliest missionaries sent out to this
country by the United Secession Church, as it was called. He came out
from Scotland with his family in 1832, and after a few months spent at
Little York, removed to London, where he organized a church in which he
officiated until his death, in January, 1851, when he was succeeded by
his second son, the present incumbent. His life was a busy and useful
one, and his services in the cause of theological education have left a
decided impress behind them. He was a man of strong political opinions,
and had before his emigration from Scotland been identified with the
Whig Party. In Canada his sympathies were entirely with the Reformers
throughout their long struggle to obtain Responsible Government and
equal rights for all. During the troubled times of the rebellion he was
subjected to a certain amount of persecution by the Tory Party, but as
he of course had no share in the rebellion, and was a loyal subject to
British connection, he escaped without serious annoyance. Early in 1838
he was informed by some officious friend that he was an object of
suspicion to the ruling powers, and that the Sheriff of the District had
been instructed to watch his movements carefully. With characteristic
intrepidity he at once repaired to the Sheriff's office, and entered
into conversation on the subject with that functionary. He professed his
perfect readiness to be taken into custody. The Sheriff, who held Mr.
Proudfoot's character in high respect, and who well knew that the
Government had nothing to fear from him, begged him to go quietly home
and think no more of the matter. He subsequently aided in establishing a
church in the neighbouring township of Westminster. Not long afterwards
the Theological Institute already referred to was projected. The
Presbyterian Body in this country had no regular seat of advanced
learning at that time, and candidates for the ministry were subjected to
serious drawbacks. Mr. Proudfoot and another clerical gentleman--the
Rev. Alexander Mackenzie--were entrusted with the training of students,
and out of this arrangement the Theological Institute was finally
developed. Many of the leading Presbyterian theologians of Canada
received their training at this establishment, and the name of Mr.
Proudfoot is a grateful remembrance to them at the present day.
The third son, the subject of this sketch, like his elder brothers, was
educated at home by his father, and did not attend any of the public
educational institutions. He chose the law for his profession in life,
and his studies were prosecuted with that end in view. In 1844 he passed
his preliminary examination before the Law Society of Upper Canada, and
immediately afterwards entered the office of Messrs. Blake & Morrison,
barristers, of Toronto, where he spent the five years prescribed as the
period of study for an articled clerk. After his call to the Bar, in
Michaelmas Term, 1849, he entered into partnership with the late Mr.
Charles Jones, and began practice in Toronto. This partnership lasted
about two years, when he was appointed Master and Deputy-Registrar of
the Court of Chancery at Hamilton. He had paid special attention to the
principles of Equity Jurisprudence, and had received much of his
training in those principles from Mr. Blake himself, under whose
supervision the Court of Chancery in this Province had been remodelled,
and who was at this time Chancellor of Upper Canada. He accordingly
removed to Hamilton, and conducted the local business of the Court for
three years, when he resigned his position and devoted himself
exclusively to practice. He formed a partnership with the late Mr.
Samuel Black Freeman and Mr. William Craigie, one of the leading law
firms in Hamilton, under the style of Messrs. Freeman, Craigie &
Proudfoot. Mr. Proudfoot had exclusive charge of the Equity business of
the firm, which attained large dimensions, and became one of the most
profitable in Western Canada. The partnership, which was formed in 1854,
lasted for eight years, and terminated in 1862, when Mr. Proudfoot
withdrew from the firm. He subsequently formed several other
partnerships, he himself continuing to devote himself entirely to
Equity. During the whole of his professional career he was an adherent
of the Reform Party, and used all his influence for the advancement of
Liberal principles. In 1872 he was appointed a Queen's Counsel by the
Ontario Government, but afterwards declined to have the appointment
confirmed by the Government of the Dominion.
His attainments as an Equity lawyer marked him as a fit recipient of
judicial honours, and on the 30th of May, 1874, he was appointed to a
seat on the Chancery Bench, as successor to Mr. Strong, who had been
transferred to the Court of Appeal. His judicial career has thoroughly
justified the wisdom of his appointment. He has presided over many
important cases, and has rendered some very elaborate and profound
judgments on matters connected with ecclesiastical law.
Mr. Proudfoot, in 1853, during his tenure of office as Local Master in
Chancery at Hamilton, married Miss Thomson, a daughter of the late Mr.
John Thomson, of Toronto. This lady, by whom he had a family of six
children, died in 1871. In 1875 he married his second wife, who was Miss
Cook, daughter of the late Mr. Adam Cook, of Hamilton. This lady died in
1878.
THE HON. JOHN JOSEPH CALDWELL ABBOTT,
_B.C.L., D.C.L., Q.C._
Though Mr. Abbott's parliamentary career embraces a period of more than
twenty years, it is not as a legislator that the Canadian of the future
will be likely to remember him. The legislation of 1864 may be said to
have decided his future course, for from that year his rapid rise in his
profession may be dated, and his extraordinary success in the special
branch he had chosen, that of commercial law, first began to develop
itself prominently. Before that year he had won distinction at the Bar
as an able lawyer and a wise counsellor, but he was still undecided with
regard to his future, when a circumstance occurred which promptly
determined him. The Insolvent Act of 1864, which he prepared and carried
through the House with great ability, proved to be the turning point in
his fortunes, and though we have had other legislation on this subject
since then, the principles laid down by Mr. Abbott, when introducing his
measure, have been steadily retained in all later enactments. Before his
bill became law, the only system which existed was the Act under the
civil code, which had been found to be both cumbrous and costly in its
operation. The country had suffered for several years for the want of
something better, and accordingly when Mr. Abbott's Act came into force,
it was regarded by the mercantile community as a sterling piece of
legislation, and one which was well calculated to add materially to the
originator's legal reputation and standing. Mr. Abbott published about
the same time a manual which described fully his Act, with notes and the
tariff of fees for Lower Canada. This book and the measure itself gave
his name wide publicity throughout the Province, and for many years he
was the recognized exponent of the principles of the Act which governed
the law relating to bankruptcy. Merchants flocked to his office to
consult him on a measure which many believed could be explained by no
one else, and this formed the nucleus of a practice which has increased
from that day to this, to enormous proportions. He is still regarded as
the ablest commercial lawyer in the Province of Quebec.
He was born at St. Andrews, in the county of Argenteuil, Lower Canada,
on the 12th of March, 1821. His father was the Reverend Joseph Abbott,
M.A., first Anglican Incumbent of St. Andrews, who emigrated to this
country from England in 1818 as a missionary, and who during his long
residence in Canada added considerably to the literary activity of the
country. He had not been long in Canada before he married Miss Harriet
Bradford, a daughter of the Rev. Richard Bradford, first Rector of
Chatham, Argenteuil County. The first fruit of this union was the
subject of this sketch. The latter was carefully educated at St. Andrews
with a view to a university career, and in due time he was sent to
Montreal, where he entered the University of McGill College. He
distinguished himself highly at this seat of learning, and graduated as
a B.C.L. Shortly after he began the study of law, and in October, 1847,
was called to the Bar of Lower Canada. His professional success has
already been referred to.
His political life began in 1857, when he contested the county of
Argenteuil at the general elections of that year. He was elected a
member of the Canadian Assembly, but was not returned until 1859. He
continued to represent the constituency in that House until the Union of
1867, when he was returned for the Commons. He was reëlected at the
general elections of 1872 and 1874. In October of the last-named year he
was unseated, when Dr. Christie was chosen by acclamation. At the
general election of September, 1878, he was again a candidate, but again
sustained defeat at the hands of his old antagonist Dr. Christie. The
latter, however, was unseated, and in February, 1880, Mr. Abbott was
again elected for the county.
For a short time in 1862 he held the post of Solicitor-General in the
Sandfield Macdonald-Sicotte Administration, and prior to his acceptance
of office he was created a Q.C. In 1864, while in Opposition, he was
instrumental in introducing two bills which have added to his fame as a
lawyer. The first of these was the Jury Law Consolidation Act for Lower
Canada. Its principal provisions were to simplify the system of
summoning jurors, and the preparation of jury lists. The other law which
he added to the statute book was the Bill for collecting judicial and
registration fees by stamps. This was the first complete legislation
that had taken place on the subject, and as in the case of his other
measures, the main principles have been retained in the subsequent
legislation which has followed. Besides these, and many less important
but useful measures, Mr. Abbott's political work consists of amendments
to Bills, suggestions and advice as regards measures affecting law and
commerce. His advice at such times has always proved of the greatest
value, and it is in this department of legislation that he has achieved
the most success. He is a good speaker, but of late years has made no
special figure in the House, either as an orator or a debater.
Mr. Abbott is Dean of the Faculty of Law in the University of McGill
College, a D.C.L. of that University, and Lieutenant-Colonel of the
"Argenteuil Rangers," known in the Department of Militia as the 11th
Battalion--a corps raised by him during the patriotic time of the
"Trent" excitement. He is also President of the Fraser Institute of
Montreal, and Director or law adviser to various companies and
corporations.
Twice Mr. Abbott's name came before the public in a manner which gave
him great notoriety. He was the prominent figure, after Sir Hugh Allan,
in the famous Pacific Scandal episode. Being the legal adviser of the
Knight of Ravenscraig, all transactions were carried on through him, and
it was a confidential clerk of his who revealed details of the scheme
which culminated in the downfall of the Macdonald Cabinet. His second
conspicuous appearance on the public stage was in connection with the
Letellier case, when he went to England in April, 1879, as the associate
of the Hon. H. L. Langevin on the mission which resulted in the
dismissal of the Lieutenant-Governor of Quebec.
In 1849 he married Miss Mary Bethune, daughter of the Very Reverend J.
Bethune, D.D., late Dean of Montreal.
THE HON. JOHN BEVERLEY ROBINSON,
_LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR OF ONTARIO._
The present Lieutenant-Governor of this Province is the namesake and
second son of the late Sir John Beverley Robinson, Baronet, a sketch of
whose life appears elsewhere in the present series. He was born at
Beverley House, the paternal homestead, in Toronto, on the 21st of
February, 1819. He was educated at Upper Canada College, and was one of
the earliest students at that seat of learning, which he attended while
it was presided over by the Rev. Dr. J. H. Harris, its first Principal.
His collegiate days, and indeed, the days of his boyhood generally, were
marked by robustness of constitution, and an excessive fondness for
athletics--characteristics which may be said to have accompanied him
through life. During Sir Francis Bond Head's disastrous administration
of Upper Canadian affairs young Robinson was for some time one of his
aides-de-camp, and in this capacity was brought prominently into contact
with the troubles of December, 1837. He accompanied His Excellency from
Government House to Montgomery's hotel, Yonge Street, on the 7th of the
month, when the hotel and Gibson's dwelling-house were burned, and he
was thus an eye-witness of the spectacle so graphically described by Sir
Francis in the pages of "The Emigrant." A day or two later he was sent
to Washington as the bearer of important despatches to the British
Minister there, and remained in the American capital several weeks.
Soon after the close of the rebellion Mr. Robinson entered the office of
the Hon. Christopher Hagerman, a prominent lawyer and legislator of
those days, who held important offices in several administrations, and
who was subsequently raised to the Bench. After remaining about two
years there he had his articles transferred to Mr. James M. Strachan, of
the firm of Strachan & Cameron, one of the leading law firms in Toronto.
There he remained until the expiration of his articles, when, in Easter
Term of 1844, he was called to the Bar of Upper Canada. He does not
appear to have been admitted as an attorney and solicitor until Trinity
Term, 1869. Immediately after his call to the Bar he began practice in
Toronto, where he formed various partnerships, and continued to practise
up to the date of his appointment to the position which he now holds.
On the 30th of June, 1847, he married Miss Mary Jane Hagerman, the
second daughter of his former principal. He early began to take an
active interest in municipal affairs, and in 1851 was elected as
Alderman for St. Patrick's Ward, which at that time included the present
wards of St. Patrick and St. John. He held the post of Alderman for six
consecutive years; was for some time President of the City Council; and
in 1857 was elected Mayor. At the next general election he offered
himself to the citizens of Toronto as a candidate for a seat in the
Legislative Assembly, and was returned conjointly with the late Hon.
George Brown. Like all his family connections, he was a Conservative in
politics, and yielded a firm support to the Cartier-Macdonald
Administration. While in Parliament he was instrumental in procuring the
passage of several Acts referring to the Toronto Esplanade and other
local improvements. On the 27th of March, 1862, he accepted the office
of President of the Council in the Cartier-Macdonald Administration, and
held office until the resignation of the Ministry in the month of May
following. He has not since been a member of any Administration, but has
always been a strenuous supporter of the Conservative side, and has been
returned in that interest for his native city no fewer than seven times.
At the general election of 1872 he was returned to the House of Commons
for the District of Algoma, which he continued thenceforward to
represent until the dissolution. At the last general election for the
House of Commons, held on the 17th of September, 1878, he was returned
for Toronto West by a very large majority (637 votes) over Mr. Thomas
Hodgins, the Reform candidate. He continued to represent West Toronto in
the Commons until the 30th of June, 1880, when he was appointed to the
office of Lieutenant-Governor of Ontario, as successor to the Hon. D. A.
Macdonald.
Mr. Robinson was for many years Solicitor to the Corporation of the City
of Toronto. He has held several offices in connection with financial and
public institutions, and has been President of the St. George's Society
of Toronto.
HIS GRACE F. X. DE LAVAL-MONTMORENCY.
Francois Xavier de Laval-Montmorency was born on the 30th of April,
1623, at Laval, in the diocese of Chartres, France. From childhood his
thoughts were intimately associated with the Church, and at a very early
age he made up his mind to study for the priesthood. Bagot the Jesuit
may be said to have moulded his career, and directed his studies, with
that object in view. He next associated himself with the band of young
zealots at the Caen Hermitage, whose Ultramontane piety was the wonder
of the time. He studied for awhile under De Bernières, and in September,
1645, was ordained a priest at Paris. Eight years later he was made
Archdeacon of Evreux. In 1657 a bishop was wanted for Canada, and the
Sulpicians, like the Récollets some years earlier, aspired to furnish
that dignitary from their own order. They sent forward the name of
Father Queylus as candidate for the bishopric, and though the suggestion
found favour in the eyes of the French clergy, and was approved by
Cardinal Mazarin, the Jesuits were powerful enough to overthrow all the
designs of the rival fathers. They were strong at court, and so well did
they use their influence that Mazarin was soon induced to withdraw his
good offices, and Queylus was forced to relinquish his opportunity. The
Jesuits were then invited to name a bishop, and Laval was chosen. On the
16th of June, 1659, he arrived at Quebec, carrying the Pope's
benediction and the Vicar-Apostolicship for Canada.
It was his fate, during his lengthened stay in Canada, to dispute with
every successive Governor appointed by the Crown, on questions which
were often contemptible and trifling. He kept the King and his ministers
busy settling petty questions of precedence and church dignity. He was a
man of very domineering temper, arbitrary and dictatorial in all his
acts, a firm exponent of the Ultramontane doctrine which declares the
State to be subservient to the will of the Church on all occasions, and
that even princes and rulers must yield to the commands of the Pope. His
first quarrel was with Argenson, the then Governor of Canada, and was
about the relative position of the seats which each should occupy in
church. The case was sent to Aillebout, the pious ex-Governor, for
settlement, and a temporary reconciliation took place. The quarrel burst
forth afresh, however, from time to time, and Argenson, disgusted at
these constant wranglings between Church and State, and dissatisfied
with other matters connected with his administration, asked the Home
Government to relieve him. His resignation was accepted, and the old
soldier, Baron Dubois d'Avaugour, was appointed in his stead. The latter
soon had his point of dispute with Laval. In his case it turned upon the
much-vexed temperance question. Laval embarked for France in August,
1662, determined to lay the matter before the Court, and to urge the
removal of Avaugour. He was successful, and early in the following year
the Governor was recalled.
Laval's next conflict was with Dumesnil, an advocate of the Parliament
of Paris, and the agent of the Company of New France. While in Paris,
the bishop was instructed by the Government to choose a governor to his
own liking. He selected Saffray de Mézy, of Caen, for the governorship,
and with him he sailed for the colony, arriving on the 15th of
September, 1663. Immediately on arriving, Laval and the Governor
proceeded to construct the new Council. Virtually all the nominations
were made by the bishop, who knew everybody, while the Governor knew
absolutely no one in the whole country. The new Council formed, Dumesnil
at once pressed the long pending claims of his company for settlement.
The Council was composed of ignorant and corrupt men, several of whom
were actually defaulters to the company represented by Dumesnil, and
Laval was much blamed for placing them in an office which rendered them
judges in their own cause. The Attorney-General demanded in Council that
the papers of Dumesnil should be forcibly seized and sequestered. To
this the Council at once agreed, and that night Dumesnil's house was
entered and ransacked for the papers, which on being found were seized.
The agent himself barely escaped with his life. He fled to France, and
succeeded in gaining the ear of Colbert, the King's minister, who
promptly moved in the matter.
Mézy, though he owed everything to the bishop, determined that he would
be his mere instrument and tool no longer. The old war between Church
and State broke out again. Mézy was a bigot, who stood in mortal terror
of the power of the Church, and whose whole life was made up of the
veriest superstition, but he rebelled against Laval. Discovering that
the Council was composed of creatures of the bishop, he, on the 13th of
February, 1664, ordered three of the most notorious members to absent
themselves from the Council. At the same time he wrote to the bishop and
informed him of what he had done, and asked him to acquiesce in the
expulsion of his favourites. Of course Laval refused to do anything of
the kind. Mézy then caused his declaration to be announced to the people
in the usual way, by means of placards posted about the city, and by
sound of the drum. The bishop, however, had the best of the encounter.
Mézy learned to his horror and consternation that the churches were to
be closed against him, and that the sacraments would be refused him. In
his despair he sought counsel from the Jesuits, but the comfort which he
received from them was to follow the advice of his confessor--also a
Jesuit. In the meantime Laval had become unpopular through a tithe which
he had caused to be imposed, and the people were clamouring for a
settlement of the difficulty. Mézy called a public meeting, appointed a
new Attorney-General, and declared the old one excluded from all public
functions whatever, pending the King's pleasure in the matter. All
through this conflict of authority, the sympathy of the people was with
the Governor, though the latter was denounced from the pulpits. Mézy
appealed to the populace for justice, and by this act signed the warrant
of his own doom. Laval reported the circumstance to the King, and the
Governor was peremptorily recalled.
In 1663 Laval founded the Seminary of Quebec, and by this act endeared
himself to the priesthood. The King favoured the project, and with his
own hand signed the decree which sanctioned the establishment. Laval's
heart was in this great educational project, and not only did he secure
substantial aid from his friends at home, and from the King himself,
but in 1680 he gave to the institution of his creation almost everything
he possessed. Included in this gift were his enormous grants of lands,
which comprised the Seigniories of the Petite Nation, the Island of
Jesus, and Beaupré, all of immense value.
In 1666 Laval consecrated the Parochial Church of Quebec. In 1674 he
returned to France, and the height of his ambition became realized. He
was named Bishop of Quebec, a suffragan bishop of the Holy See, by a
bull of Clement X., dated the first of October. The revenues of the
Abbey of Meaubec, in the diocese of Bourges, were added to those of the
bishopric of Quebec. The new dignitary, armed with all the power and
influence of his office, set out for Canada, and proceeded, on arriving
there, to set his house in order. Of course, it was not long before
hostilities again broke out between the rival forces of the country.
Frontenac was Governor then, and the prime cause of the disturbance was
the old brandy trouble. Then honours and precedence were the questions
at issue between these two obstinate and high-spirited men. Precedence
at church, and precedence at public meetings were fought all over again,
and referred to France to the great disgust of the King, who losing all
patience at last, wrote a sharp letter to Frontenac, directing him to
conform to the practice established at Amiens, and to exact no more.