LORD SYDENHAM'S MISSION.
I have frequently remarked that, although in England any person may pass
a life-time without becoming acquainted with his next-door neighbour, he
can hardly fall into conversation with a fellow-countryman in Canada,
without finding some latent link of relationship or propinquity between
them. Thus, in the case of Mr. C. Poulett Thomson, I trace more than one
circumstance connecting that great man with my humble self. He was a
member--the active member--of the firm of Thomson, Bonar & Co., Russia
Merchants, Cannon Street, London, at the same time that my
brother-in-law, William Tatchell, of the firm of Tatchell & Clarke,
carried on the same business of Russia Merchants in Upper Thames Street.
There were occasional transactions between them: and my brother Thomas,
who was chief accountant in the Thames Street house, has told me that
the firm of Thomson, Bonar & Co. was looked upon in the trade with a
good deal of distrust, for certain sharp practices to which they were
addicted.
Again, Sir John Rae Reid, of the East India Company, had been the Tory
member of Parliament for Dover. On his retirement, Mr. Poulett Thomson
started as Reform candidate for the same city. I knew the former
slightly as a neighbour of my mother's, at Ewell, in Surrey, and felt
some interest in the Dover election in consequence. It was in the old
borough-mongering times, and the newspapers on both sides rang with
accounts of the immense sums that were expended in this little Dover
contest, in which Mr. Thomson, aided by his party, literally bought
every inch of his way, and succeeded in obtaining his first seat in the
House of Commons, at a cost, as his biographer states, of L3,000
sterling. In the matter of corruption, there was probably little
difference between the rival candidates.
The Right Hon. Charles Poulett Thomson, it was understood in England,
always had the dirty work of the Melbourne Ministry to do; and it was
probably his usefulness in that capacity that recommended him for the
task of uniting the two Canadas, in accordance with that report of Lord
Durham, which his lordship himself disavowed.[10] That Mr. Thomson did
his work well, cannot be denied. He was, in fact, the Castlereagh of
Canadian Union. What were the exact means employed by him in Montreal
and Toronto is not known, but the results were visible enough.
Government officials coerced, sometimes through the agency of their
wives, sometimes by direct threats of dismissal; the Legislature
overawed by the presence and interference of His Excellency's
secretaries and aides-de-camp; votes sought and obtained by appeals to
the personal interests of members of Parliament. These and such-like
were the dignified processes by which the Union of the Canadas was
effected, in spite of the unwillingness of at least one of the parties
to that ceremony.
His Excellency did not even condescend to veil his contempt for his
tools. When a newly nominated Cabinet Minister waited upon the great man
with humility, to thank him for an honour for which he felt his
education did not qualify him, the reported answer was--"Oh, I think you
are all pretty much alike here."
In Toronto, anything like opposition to His Excellency's policy was
sought to be silenced by the threat of depriving the city of its tenure
of the Seat of Government. The offices of the principal city journals,
the _Patriot_ and _Courier_, were besieged by anxious subscribers,
entreating that nothing should appear at all distasteful to His
Excellency. Therefore it happened, that our little sheet, the _Herald_,
became the only mouth-piece of Toronto dissentients; and was well
supplied with satires and criticisms upon the politic manoeuvres of
Government House. We used to issue on New Year's Day a sheet of
doggerel verses, styled, "The News Boy's Address to his Patrons," which
gave me an opportunity, of which I did not fail to avail myself, of
telling His Excellency some wholesome truths in not very complimentary
phrase. It is but justice to him to say, that he enjoyed the fun, such
as it was, as much as anybody, and sent a servant in livery to our
office, for extra copies to be placed on his drawing-room tables for the
amusement of New Year's callers, to whom he read them himself. I am
sorry that I cannot now treat my readers to extracts from those sheets,
which may some centuries hence be unearthed by future Canadian
antiquaries, as rare and priceless historical documents.
Whether the course he pursued be thought creditable or the reverse,
there is no doubt that Lord Sydenham did Canada immense service by the
measures enacted under his dictation. The Union of the Provinces,
Municipal Councils, Educational Institutions, sound financial
arrangements, and other minor matters, are benefits which cannot be
ignored. But all these questions were carried in a high-handed,
arbitrary manner, and some of them by downright compulsion. To connect
in any way with his name the credit of bestowing upon the united
provinces "Responsible Government" upon the British model, is a gross
absurdity.
In the Memoirs of his lordship, by his brother, Mr. G. Poulett Scrope,
page 236, I find the following plain statements:
"On the subject of 'Responsible Government,' which question was
again dragged into discussion by Mr. Baldwin, with a view of
putting the sincerity of the Government to the test, he (Lord
S.) introduced and carried unanimously a series of resolutions
in opposition to those proposed by Mr. Baldwin, distinctly
recognising the irresponsibility of the Governor to any but the
Imperial authorities, and placing the doctrine on the sound and
rational basis which he had ever maintained."
What that "sound and rational basis" was, is conclusively shown in an
extract from one of his own private letters, given on page 143 of the
same work:
"I am not a bit afraid of the Responsible Government cry. I have
already done much to put it down in its inadmissible sense,
namely, that the Council shall be responsible to the Assembly,
and that the Government shall take their advice, and be bound by
it. In fact, this demand has been made much more _for_ the
people than _by_ them. And I have not met with any one who has
not at once admitted the absurdity of claiming to put the
Council over the head of the Governor. It is but fair too, to
say that everything has in times past been done by the different
Governors to excite the feelings of the people on this question.
First, the Executive Council has generally been composed of the
persons most obnoxious to the majority of the Assembly; and
next, the Governor has taken extreme care to make every act of
his own go forth to the public _on the responsibility_ of the
Executive Council. So the people have been carefully taught to
believe that the Governor is nobody, and the Executive Council
the real power, and that by the Governor himself. At the same
time they have seen that power placed in the hands of their
opponents. Under such a system it is not to be wondered at, if
one argument founded on the responsibility of the Governor to
the Home Government falls to the ground. I have told the people
plainly that, as I cannot get rid of my responsibility to the
Home Government, I will place no responsibility on the Council;
that they are _a Council_ for the Governor to consult, but no
more. And I have yet met with no 'Responsible Government' man,
who was not satisfied with the doctrine. In fact, there is no
other theory which has common sense. Either the Governor is the
Sovereign or the Minister. If the first, he may have ministers,
but he cannot be responsible to the Government at home, and all
colonial government becomes impossible. He must, therefore, be
the Minister, in which case he cannot be under the control of
men in the colony."
It is only just that the truth should be clearly established on this
question. Responsible Government was not an issue between Canadian
Reformers and Tories in any sense; but exclusively between the Colonies
and the statesmen of the Mother Country. On several occasions prior to
Mackenzie's Rebellion, Tory majorities had affirmed the principle; and
Ogle R. Gowan, an influential Orangeman, had published a pamphlet in its
favour. Yet some recent historians of Canada have fallen into the
foolish habit of claiming for the Reform party all the good legislation
of the past forty years, until they seem really to believe the figment
themselves.[11]
I am surprised that writers who condemn Sir F. B. Head for acting as his
own Prime Minister, in strict accordance with his instructions, can see
nothing to find fault with in Lord Sydenham's doing the very same thing
in an infinitely more arbitrary and offensive manner. Where Sir Francis
persuaded, Lord Sydenham coerced, bribed and derided.
Lower Canada was never consulted as to her own destiny. Because a
fraction of her people chose to strike for independence, peaceable
French Canadians were treated bodily as a conquered race, with the
undisguised object of swamping their nationality and language, and
over-riding their feelings and wishes. It is said that the result has
justified the means. But what casuistry is this? What sort of friend to
Responsible Government must he be, who employs force to back his
argument? To inculcate the voluntary principle at the point of the
bayonet, is a peculiarly Hibernian process, to say the least.
[Footnote 10: On reference to Sir F. B. Head's "Emigrant," pp. 376-8,
the reader will find the following letters:--
"1. _From the Hon. Sir. A. N. MacNab._
"Legislative Assembly,
"Montreal, 28th March, 1846.
"My dear Sir Francis,
"I have no hesitation in putting on paper the conversation which
took place between Lord Durham and myself, on the subject of the
Union. He asked me if I was in favour of the Union; I said,
'No;' he replied, 'If you are a friend to your country, _oppose
it to the death._'
"I am, &c.,
"(Signed) Allan N. MacNab.
"Sir F. B. Head, Bart."
"2. _From W. E. Jervis, Esq._
"Toronto, March 12th, 1846.
"Dear Sir Allan,
"In answer to the inquiry contained in your letter of the 2nd
inst., I beg leave to state, that, in the year 1838, I was in
Quebec, and had a long conversation with the Earl of Durham upon
the subject of an Union of the Provinces of Upper and Lower
Canada--a measure which I had understood his Lordship intended
to propose.
"I was much gratified by his Lordship then, in the most
unqualified terms, declaring his strong disapprobation of such a
measure, as tending, in his opinion, to the injury of this
Province; and he advised me, as a friend to Upper Canada, _to
use all the influence I might possess in opposition to it_.
"His Lordship declared that, in his opinion, no statesman could
propose so injurious a project, and authorized me to assure my
friends in Upper Canada, _that he was decidedly averse to the
measure_.
"I have a perfect recollection of having had a similar enquiry
made of me, by the private secretary of Sir George Arthur, and
that I made a written reply to the communication. I have no copy
of the letter which I sent upon that occasion, but the substance
must have been similar to that I now send you.
"I remain, &c.,
"(Signed) W. E. Jervis.
"Sir Allan MacNab."
"3. _From the Hon. Justice Hagerman._
"13 St. James's Street,
"London, 12th July, 1846.
"My dear Sir Francis,
"It is well known to many persons that the late Lord Durham, up
to the time of his departure from Canada, expressed himself
strongly opposed to the Union of the then two Provinces. I
accompanied Sir George Arthur on a visit to Lord Durham, late in
the autumn, and a very few days only before he threw up his
Government and embarked for this country. In a conversation I
had with him, he spoke of the Union as _the selfish scheme of a
few merchants of Montreal--that no statesman would advise the
measure--and that it was absurd to suppose that Upper and Lower
Canada could ever exist in harmony as one Province_.
"In returning to Toronto with Sir George Arthur, he told me that
Lord Durham had expressed to him similar opinions, and had at
considerable length detailed to him reasons and arguments which
existed against a measure which he considered would be
destructive of the legitimate authority of the British
Government, and in which opinion _Sir George declared he fully
coincided._
"I am, Sir,
"(Signed) C. A. Hagerman.
"Sir F. B. Head, Bart."
"4. _From the Earl of Durham._
"Quebec, Oct. 2nd, 1838.
"Dear Sir,
"I thank you kindly for your account of the meeting [in
Montreal], which was the first I received. I fully expected the
'outbreak' about the Union of the two Provinces:--It is a pet
Montreal project, beginning and ending in Montreal selfishness.
"Yours, truly,
"(Signed) Durham."]
[Footnote 11: I am very glad to see that Mr. Dent, in his "Forty
Years--Canada since the Union of 1841," recently published, has avoided
the current fault of those writers who can recognise no historical truth
not endorsed by the _Globe_. In vol. i, p. 357, he says:
"There can be no doubt that the Reform party, as a whole, were unjust to
Mr. Draper. They did not even give him credit for sincerity or good
intentions. The historian of to-day, no matter what his political
opinions may be, who contemplates Mr. Draper's career as an Executive
Councillor, must doubtless arrive at the conclusion that he was wrong;
that he was an obstructionist--a drag on the wheel of progress. But this
fact was by no means so easy of recognition in 1844 as it is in 1881;
and there is no good reason for impugning his motives, which, so far as
can be ascertained, were honourable and patriotic. No impartial mind can
review the acts and characters of the leading members of the
Conservative party of those times, and come to the conclusion that they
were all selfish and insincere. Nay, it is evident enough that they were
at least as sincere and as zealous for the public good as were their
opponents."
I wish I could also compliment Mr. Dent upon doing like justice to Sir
Francis B. Head.]