union of the Canadas in 1840, illustrates the folly and misery of
faction, when intensified by racial antagonisms. In Lower Canada the
difficulties arising from a constant contest for the supremacy between
the executive and legislative authorities were aggravated by the fact
that the French Canadian majority dominated the popular house, and the
English-speaking minority controlled the government. "I found," wrote
Lord Durham, in 1839, "two nations warring in the bosom of a single
state; I found a struggle not of principles but of races." It is true
that some Englishmen were found fighting for popular liberties on the
side of the French Canadian majority. Mr. John Neilson, who was for
years editor of the _Quebec Gazette_, was a friend of the French
Canadians, and in close sympathy with the movement for the extension of
public rights, but he was never prepared to go beyond {339} the
legitimate limits of constitutional agitation and threaten British
connexion. On the other hand, Dr. Wolfred Nelson, descended from a
loyalist stock, was one of the leaders of the majority that controlled
the assembly of Lower Canada, and did not hesitate to join in the
rebellion to which his rash and impetuous chief, Louis Joseph Papineau,
led him at last. But while undoubtedly there were many persons among the
British people, who were disgusted with the arrogance of some of the
governing class, and discontented with the methods of government, they
were gradually alienated by the demagogism of the French Canadian
majority, who did not hesitate to profess their desire to make French
Canada exclusively a French dominion. The tyranny of the majority was
exhibited in the assembly by the attempt to impeach Chief Justices Sewell
and Monk, on charges which had no justification in law or justice. Mr.
Robert Christie, the member for Gaspé, who subsequently wrote a useful
history of Lower Canada, was expelled several times because he was
believed to have procured the dismissal from the magistracy of some
members of the assembly who were inimical to the executive government.
On the other hand, Lord Dalhousie, the governor-general, in 1827, refused
to approve of the election of Mr. Papineau as speaker of the assembly,
because he had reflected in strong terms in a manifesto on the public
conduct of the former. Mr. Louis J. Papineau, the future leader of the
rebellion in 1837, was a man of fine presence, gifted with remarkable
powers of rhetoric and persuasion, but {340} he was entirely wanting in
discretion, and in the qualities which make a great statesman. When the
assembly refused to reconsider its action and elect another speaker, Lord
Dalhousie prorogued the legislature, which did not again meet until he
was recalled and sent to India as commander-in-chief. Like other
governors, Lord Dalhousie attempted to govern to the best of his ability,
and what mistakes he committed arose from the contradictory and
perplexing instructions he received from the officials in Downing Street,
who were quite incapable at times of understanding the real condition of
affairs in the province.
[Illustration: Louis J. Papineau, Aet. 70.]
The disputes at last between the contending parties in Lower Canada
prevented the working of the constitution. The assembly fought for years
for the independence of Parliament and the exclusive control of the civil
list and supply. When at last the assembly refused to vote a civil list
and other necessary expenditures, the government were obliged to use the
casual and territorial revenues--such as the proceeds of the sales and
leases of Crown lands--and these funds were inadequate for the purpose.
So carelessly were these funds managed that one receiver-general, engaged
in business, became a heavy defaulter. The governors dissolved the
legislatures with a frequency unparalleled in political history, and were
personally drawn into the conflict. Public officials, including the
judges, were harassed by impeachments. Bills were constantly rejected by
the legislative council on various pretexts--some of them
constitutionally correct--and the disputes {341} between the two branches
of the legislature eventually made it impossible to pass even absolutely
necessary measures. Appeals to the home government were very common, and
concessions were made time and again to the assembly. In fact, the
contest as to the revenues and expenditures ought to have closed, in a
great measure, with the abandonment, in 1832, by the government of every
portion of the {342} previously reserved revenue, but, as Lord Durham
pointed out, the assembly, "even when it obtained entire control over the
public revenues," refused the civil list because it was determined "not
to give up its only means of subjecting the functionaries of government
to any responsibility." The conflict was carried on to the bitter end.
It does not appear, however, that the majority in the assembly at all
understood the crucial difficulty. They devoted their whole strength to
attacks on the legislative council, and to demands for an elective body.
The famous ninety-two resolutions of 1834, in which Papineau's party set
forth their real or fancied grievances, did not contain a single
paragraph laying down the principles of parliamentary or responsible
government as worked out in England, and ably supported by the moderate
Upper Canadian Reformers like Robert Baldwin. The home government ought
to have appreciated the gravity of the situation, but they were not yet
prepared to introduce into these colonies the principles of parliamentary
government. In 1835 they appointed a commission to inquire into the
nature of the grievances and the best method of remedying them. The
governor-general, Lord Gosford, was the head of this commission, but it
failed because Papineau and his party were not now prepared to listen to
moderate and conciliatory counsels. When in 1837 the assembly continued
to refuse supply for the payment of public officials, and of the arrears,
which up to that time amounted to nearly one hundred and fifty thousand
pounds sterling, Lord John Russell {343} carried in the English House of
Commons a series of resolutions, rejecting the demand for an elective
legislative council and other changes in the constitution, and empowering
the executive government to defray the expenses of the public service out
of the territorial and casual revenues. This action of the imperial
government increased the public discontent, and gave an opportunity to
Papineau and his followers to declare that no redress of grievances could
be obtained except by a resort to arms. In this year the rebellion broke
out, but before I refer to it, it is necessary to review briefly the
condition of things in the other provinces.
In Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, the disputes between the executive and
legislative authorities were characterised by much acrimony, but
eventually the public revenues were conceded to the assemblies. In
Prince Edward Island the political difficulties arose from the land
monopoly, and the efforts of the lieutenant-governors to govern as much
as possible without assemblies. In these provinces, as in Canada, we
find--to cite Lord Durham--"representative government coupled with an
irresponsible executive, the same abuse of the powers of the
representative bodies, and the same constant interference of the imperial
administration in matters which should be left wholly to the provincial
governments." In the maritime provinces, however, no disturbance
occurred, and the leaders of the popular party were among the first to
assist the authorities in their efforts to preserve the public
tranquillity, and to express themselves emphatically in favour of the
British connection.
{344}
In Upper Canada an official class held within its control practically the
government of the province. This class became known, in the parlance of
those days, as the "family compact," not quite an accurate designation,
since its members had hardly any family connection, but there was just
enough ground for the term to tickle the taste of the people for an
epigrammatic phrase. The bench, the pulpit, the banks, the public
offices were all more or less under the influence of the "compact." The
public lands were lavishly parcelled out among themselves and their
followers. Successive governors, notably Sir Francis Gore, Sir Peregrine
Maitland, and Sir Francis Bond Head, submitted first to its influence and
allowed it to have the real direction of affairs. Among its most
prominent members were John Beverly Robinson, for some years
attorney-general, and eventually an able chief-justice, and the recipient
of a baronetage; William Dummer Powell, a chief-justice; John Henry
Boulton, once attorney-general; John Strachan, the first bishop of the
Episcopal Church in Upper Canada; Jonas Jones, the Sherwoods, and other
well-known names of residents of York, Niagara, Kingston, and Brockville.
It was not until 1820 that a strong opposition was organised in the
assembly against the ruling bureaucracy. The cruel treatment of Robert
Gourlay, an erratic Scotch land-agent, by the ruling class who feared his
exposure of public abuses, had much to do with creating a reform party in
the legislature. Gourlay was a mere adventurer, who found plenty of
material in the political condition of the province {345} for obtaining
the notoriety that he coveted. In the course of some inquiries he made
in connexion with a statistical work he published in later years, he
touched on some points which exposed the land monopoly and other abuses.
He was immediately declared by the "compact" to be a dangerous person,
who must be curbed by some means or other. He was tried on two occasions
for libelling the government, but acquitted. Then his enemies conspired
to accuse him most unjustly of being a seditious and dangerous person,
who came under the terms of an alien act passed in 1804. He was arrested
and kept in prison for seven months. When he was at last tried at
Niagara, the home of Toryism, he was a broken-down man, hardly in full
possession of his senses. A severe judge and prejudiced jury had no
pity, and he was forced to leave the province, to which he did not return
until happier times. The injustice which was meted out to a man who had
thrown some light on public corruption, stimulated the opponents of the
"family compact" to united action against methods so dangerous to
individual liberty and so antagonistic to the redress of public
grievances.
The disputes between the reformers and the "family compact" were
aggravated by the "clergy reserves" question, which was largely one
between the Episcopalians and the dissenting bodies. This question grew
out of the grant to the Protestant Church in Canada of large tracts of
land by the imperial act of 1791, and created much bitterness of feeling
for a quarter of a century and more. The {346} reformers found in this
question abundant material for exciting the jealousies of all the
Protestant sects who wished to see the Church of England and the Church
of Scotland deprived of the advantages which they alone derived from this
valuable source of revenue. The British Government for years were on the
side of the "family compact," whose leading adherents belonged to the
Church of England, and who opposed every effort that was made to dispose
of these lands for the support of education and other public purposes.
The Methodists, who outnumbered the Church of England, had for years an
additional grievance in the fact that their ministers were not allowed to
solemnise marriages, and it was not until 1829 that this disability was
removed by the legislature.
[Illustration: Bishop Strachan.]
Among the minds that dominated the "family compact" was the eminent
divine, John Strachan, who was originally a Presbyterian, and came to the
country as a teacher at the request of the Honourable Richard Cartwright,
a prominent U. E. Loyalist, but eventually joined the Episcopalian
Church, and became its bishop. Like his countryman, John Knox, he had
extraordinary tenacity of purpose and desire for rule. He considered the
interests of the Church as paramount to all other considerations. He
became both an executive and a legislative councillor, and largely
moulded the opinions and acts of the governing classes. It was chiefly
through his influence that Sir John Colborne established a number of
rectories out of the clergy reserves, and thereby gave additional offence
to those religious {347} bodies who had no share in these lands. He
hoped to create a state church, and the establishment of King's College,
afterwards secularised, was a part of his ecclesiastical system.
Eventually when King's College became a provincial institution, open to
all denominations--the foundation of Toronto University--he devoted all
his energies to the establishment of Trinity College, which is the
noblest monument of the zealous prelate.
{348}
[Illustration: William Lyon Mackenzie.]
Another Scotchman, who came to the country some years later than the
bishop, was William Lyon Mackenzie, who was always remarkable for his
impulsiveness and rashness, which led him at last into difficulties and
wrecked his whole career. He had a deep sense of public wrongs, and
placed himself immediately in the front rank of those who were fighting
for a redress of undoubted grievances. He was thoroughly imbued with the
ideas of English radicalism, and had an intense hatred of Toryism in
every form. He possessed little of that strong common sense and power of
acquisitiveness which make his countrymen, as a rule, so successful in
every walk of life. When he felt he was being crushed by the intriguing
and corrupting influences of the governing class, aided by the
lieutenant-governor, he forgot all the dictates of reason and prudence,
and was carried away by a current of passion which ended in rebellion.
His journal, _The Colonial Advocate_, showed in its articles and its very
make-up the erratic character of the man. He was a pungent writer, who
attacked adversaries with great recklessness of epithet and accusation.
So obnoxious did he become to the governing class that a number of young
men, connected with the best families, wrecked his office, but the
damages he recovered in a court of law enabled him to give it a new lease
of existence. When the "family compact" had a majority in the assembly,
elected in 1830, he was expelled five times for libellous reflections on
the government and house, but he was re-elected by the people, who
resented the wrongs to which he was {350} subject, and became the first
mayor of Toronto, as York was now called. He carried his grievances to
England, where he received much sympathy, even in conservative circles.
In a new legislature, where the "compact" were in a minority, he obtained
a committee to consider the condition of provincial affairs. The result
was a famous report on grievances which set forth in a conclusive and
able manner the constitutional difficulties under which the country
laboured, and laid down clearly the necessity for responsible government.
It would have been fortunate both for Upper Canada and Mackenzie himself
at this juncture, had he and his followers confined themselves to a
constitutional agitation on the lines set forth in this report. By this
time Robert Baldwin and Egerton Ryerson, discreet and prominent
reformers, had much influence, and were quite unwilling to follow
Mackenzie in the extreme course on which he had clearly entered. He lost
ground rapidly from the time of his indiscreet publication of a letter
from Joseph Hume, the English radical, who had expressed the opinion that
the improper proceedings of the legislature, especially in expelling
Mackenzie, "must hasten the crisis that was fast approaching in the
affairs of Canada, and which would terminate in independence and freedom
from the baneful domination of the mother-country." Probably even
Mackenzie and his friends might have been conciliated and satisfied at
the last moment had the imperial government been served by an able and
discreet lieutenant-governor. But never did the imperial authorities
make a greater mistake than {351} when they sent out Sir Francis Bond
Head, who had no political experience whatever.
From the beginning to the end of his administration he did nothing but
blunder. He alienated even the confidence of the moderate element of the
Reformers, and literally threw himself into the arms of the "family
compact," and assisted them at the elections of the spring of 1836, which
rejected all the leading men of the extreme wing of the Reform party.
Mackenzie was deeply mortified at the result, and determined from that
moment to rebel against the government which, in his opinion, had no
intention of remedying public grievances. At the same time Papineau,
with whom he was in communication, had made up his mind to establish a
republic, _une nation Canadienne_, on the banks of the St. Lawrence.
The disloyal intentions of Papineau and his followers were made very
clear by the various meetings which were held in the Montreal and
Richelieu districts, by the riots which followed public assemblages in
the city of Montreal, by the names of "Sons of Liberty" and "Patriots"
they adopted in all their proceedings, by the planting of "trees," and
raising of "caps" of liberty. Happily for the best interests of Canada
the number of French Canadians ready to revolt were relatively
insignificant, and the British population were almost exclusively on the
side of the government. Bishop Lartigue and the clergy of the Roman
Catholic Church now asserted themselves very determinedly against the
dangerous and seditious utterances of {352} the leaders of the
"Patriots." Fortunately a resolute, able soldier, Sir John Colborne, was
called from Upper Canada to command the troops in the critical situation
of affairs, and crushed the rebellion in its very inception. A body of
insurgents, led by Dr. Wolfred Nelson, showed some courage at St. Denis,
but Papineau took the earliest opportunity to find refuge across the
frontier. Thomas Storrow Brown, an American by birth, also made a stand
at St. Charles, but both he and Nelson were easily beaten by the
regulars. A most unfortunate episode was the murder of Lieutenant Weir,
who had been captured by Nelson while carrying despatches from General
Colborne, and was butchered by some insurgent _habitants_, in whose
custody he had been placed. At St. Eustache the rebels were severely
punished by Colborne himself, and a number burned to death in the steeple
of a church where they had made a stand. Many prisoners were taken in
the course of the rebellious outbreak. The village of St. Benoit and
isolated houses elsewhere were destroyed by the angry loyalists, and much
misery inflicted on all actual or supposed sympathisers with Papineau and
Nelson. Lord Gosford now left the country, and Colborne was appointed
administrator. Although the insurrection practically ended at St. Denis
and St. Charles, bodies of rebels and American marauders harassed the
frontier settlements for some time, until at last the authorities of the
United States arrested some of the leaders and forced them to surrender
their arms and munitions of war.
In Upper Canada the folly of Sir Francis Head {353} would have led to
serious consequences had Mackenzie and Rolph been capable of managing a
rebellious movement. The Lieutenant-Governor allowed all the troops to
go to Lower Canada, and the capital was entirely at the mercy of the
rebels, had they acted with any spirit or energy. Dr. Rolph, a clever
intriguer--who was to be the president of the new republic--was playing a
fast and loose game, and temporised until the loyal forces from Hamilton
were able to advance to the assistance of Head. Had the rebels, who were
concentrating at Montgomery's tavern on Yonge Street, marched immediately
on the capital, it could have been easily captured, in consequence of the
neglect of Head to take the most ordinary precautions against surprise.
Toronto was mainly saved by the men of the Gore district, led by Allan
MacNab, an ardent loyalist, afterwards a baronet and premier of Canada.
The insurgents, who at no time exceeded eight hundred in all, were routed
at their headquarters. Rolph had previously thought it prudent to fly,
and Mackenzie soon followed. Several lives were lost during this
_émeute_, for it was hardly more, and a considerable number of prisoners
taken. Among the latter were Samuel Lount, an ardent reformer, the first
to arm for the rebellion, and Colonel Von Egmond, one of Napoleon's
soldiers, the leader of the "patriot army." Marshall Spring Bidwell, an
able and moderate leader of the Reformers, for some years speaker, does
not appear to have taken any active part in the rebellious movement, but
he availed himself of a warning given him by Head, who wished {354} to
get rid of him as quietly as possible, and hurried to the United States,
where he remained for the remainder of his life. Mackenzie also fled to
the Republic, and industriously set to work to violate the neutrality of
the country by inciting bands of ruffians to invade Canada.
As in the case of the Fenian invasion many years later, the authorities
of the United States were open to some censure for negligence in winking
at these suspicious gatherings avowedly to attack a friendly country.
The raiders seized an island just above Niagara Falls, on the Canadian
side, as a base of operations, and a steamer, called the _Caroline_, was
freely allowed to ply between the island and the mainland with supplies.
It became necessary to stop this bold attempt to provide the freebooters
on Navy Island with the munitions of war, and a Canadian expedition was
accordingly sent, under the command of Colonel MacNab, to seize the
_Caroline_. As it happened, however, she was found on the American side;
but at such a time of excitement men were not likely to consider
consequences from the point of view of international law. She was cut
from her moorings on the American side, her crew taken prisoners, one man
killed, and the vessel set on fire and sent over the Falls of Niagara.
Until the month of December, 1838, Upper Canada was disturbed from time
to time by bands of marauders, instigated by Mackenzie and others, but
they were easily beaten back by the bravery of loyal Canadian volunteers
commanded by Colonels Prince, MacNab, Cameron, Fitzgibbon, and other
patriotic {355} defenders of the country. Whatever sympathy may have
been felt for Mackenzie by some persons at the outset of the
insurrection, was alienated from him by his conduct after he crossed the
border. He suffered much misery himself while he remained in the United
States, and was a prisoner for some months when the American Government
awoke to the necessity of punishing a man who had so nearly embroiled
them with England by his violation of the municipal law of a friendly
territory, and of the obligations that rest upon political refugees.
When Sir Francis Bond Head was very properly recalled from the province
whose affairs he had so badly administered, he was succeeded by Sir
George Arthur, who had been governor of Van Diemen's Land. Both Samuel
Lount and Peter Matthews suffered death. Von Shoultz, and a number of
Americans who had invaded the country in 1838, were also executed, and
some persons in both provinces were transported to New Holland or sent to
the penitentiary, but in the majority of cases the Crown showed clemency.
The outbreak was an unfortunate episode in the history of Canada, but it
caused the "family compact" to break up, and brought about a better
system of government.
The immediate result of the rebellion in Lower Canada was the
intervention of the imperial authorities by the suspension of the
constitution of that province, and the formation of a special council for
purposes of temporary government. Lord Durham, a nobleman of great
ability, who had won distinction in imperial politics as a Reformer, was
sent out {356} to Canada as governor-general and high commissioner to
inquire into and adjust provincial difficulties. This distinguished
statesman remained at the head of affairs in the province from the last
of May, 1838, until the 3rd of November in the same year, when he returned
to England, where his ordinance of the 28th of June, sentencing certain
British subjects in custody to transportation without a form of trial,
and subjecting them and others not in prison to death in case of their
return to the country, without permission of the authorities, had been
most severely censured in England as quite unwarranted by law. By this
ordinance Wolfred Nelson, Bouchette, Viger, and five others, then in
prison, were banished to Bermuda, while Papineau, Cartier, O'Callaghan,
Robert Nelson, and others beyond Canadian jurisdiction, were threatened
with death if they returned to the province. Lord Durham's action was
certainly in conflict with the principles of English law, but it was an
error of judgment on the side of clemency. He was unwilling to resort to
a court-martial--the only tribunal open to the authorities. A trial in
the courts of justice was impracticable under existing conditions, as it
was shown later. Lord Durham left Canada in deep indignation at the
manner in which his acts had been criticised in England, largely through
the influence of Lord Brougham, his personal enemy. The most important
result of his mission was a report, the credit for the authorship of
which was long denied to him through the misrepresentations of his
enemies, though it is now clear that he and not his secretary was the
author.
{357}
Soon after the departure of Lord Durham, who died a few months later, Sir
John Colborne became governor-general. He was called upon to put down
another rebellious movement led by Robert Nelson, brother of Wolfred
Nelson, then in exile. At Caughnawaga, Montarville Mountain,
Beauharnois, and Odelltown the insurgents made a stand from time to time,
but were soon scattered. Bands of marauders inflicted some injury upon
loyal inhabitants near the frontier, but in a few months these criminal
attempts to disturb the peace of the province ceased entirely. The
government now decided to make an example of men who had not appreciated
the clemency previously shown their friends. Twelve men were executed,
but it was not possible to obtain a verdict from a jury against the
murderers of Weir and Chartrand--the latter a French Canadian volunteer
murdered under circumstances of great brutality while a prisoner.