Delphi Complete Works of Stephen Leacock, page 463
There was some debate over the question whether, as the governor-general had not come down to parliament on the day for which it was summoned, it could be said, legally, to have met at all. A motion for adjournment was, however, carried, which practically affirmed the proposition that the House had legally meet.
Next day Lord Sydenham appeared in person, and with no little pomp, in the chamber of the legislative council, and read to the assembled members of the two Houses the speech from the throne. The measures outlined therein showed that the governor and his advisers were prepared to adopt a vigorous forward policy in the administration of the country. They declared their intention to adopt legislation for “developing the resources of the province by well considered and extensive public works,” to obtain a reduction of the rate of postage and a speedier conveyance of letters, and to effect the improvement of the navigation from the shores of Lake Erie and Lake Huron to the ocean. The governor had, moreover, the satisfaction of informing the members of the two Houses that he had received authority from Her Majesty’s government to state that they were prepared to call upon the imperial parliament to afford assistance towards these important undertakings. It was announced that the imperial parliament would be asked to guarantee a loan of one and a half million pounds sterling, to be raised for the expenditure on public works in the province. The intention of the government to complete the establishment of representative institutions in Canada by a law providing for municipal self-government was also indicated, and a promise was given of a law for the establishment of a system of common schools.
Journal of the Legislative Assembly (Canada, 1841), Vol. I., p, 8.
No practical programme could have been better devised at this juncture for enlisting public support, especially among the people of Upper Canada, in whose division of the country the rapid progress of immigration and settlement called urgently for generous public expenditure. It was part of the shrewdness of the concerted policy of Sydenham and Draper that they sought thus to remove attention from questions of theory to questions of practical utility, while the promise of the imperial government to assist the province by a guaranteed loan and by public aid to immigration into Canada, seemed to hold out a strong inducement towards reconciliation and harmonious action. The Reformers, however, were determined that the question of principle, the question of the constitution itself, should not be forced altogether into the background. Before coming to a vote upon the resolutions on which the address in answer to the speech from the throne was to be framed, they pressed the administration for a definite statement in regard to the all-important subject of responsible government. The House being then in committee of the whole upon the speech from the throne, Malcolm Cameron opened the discussion by declaring that “the dry and parched soil is not more eager for the coming shower than all the people of this country for the establishment of the administration of the government of this province upon such a basis as will ensure its tranquillity.” Mr. Cameron, followed by Buchanan, Hincks and others, urged upon the government the desirability of a definite explanation of principle. The attorney-general, fortified with a budget of manuscript notes whereby he might speak the more accurately, then undertook a formal statement of the principle of colonial government as he conceived it. In the first place, he would declare, he said, for the information both of those who act with him and those who act against him, that so long only as he could give a conscientious support to those measures which the head of the government might deem it his duty to submit to that House, so long only would he continue to hold office under the government. . . . . He would next, he continued, state the views which he entertained respecting the duties of His Excellency: he looked upon the governor as having a mixed character, firstly, as being the representative of royalty; secondly, as being one of the ministers of Her Majesty’s government, and responsible to the mother country for the faithful discharge of the duties of his station — a responsibility that he could not avoid by saying that he took the advice of this man or that man. He looked upon it as a necessary consequence of this doctrine, that where there is responsibility there shall be power also. For he could not admit the idea that one man should possess the power, and another be liable for the responsibility. . . . The attorney-general went on to explain that this same doctrine of responsibility corresponding to power, applied not only to the governor but to the ministers below him. “Whenever,” he said, “I find the head of the government and the minister of the Crown desirous of propounding measures which I cannot conscientiously support, honour and duty point out but one path, and that is resignation. There are few men who have long acted in a public capacity, who have escaped animadversion and censure, but a man must indeed be hardened in sentiment and feeling who does not acknowledge a degree of responsibility to public opinion. . . . It is to be desired above all things that between the government and the people there should exist the greatest possible harmony and mutual good understanding. . . . It is the duty of the head of the government to preserve that harmony by all the means in his power. . . . If he find that he has been led astray by incapable or dishonest advisers, he may relieve himself of them by their dismissal.”
The debates of the parliament were not officially reported. What follows is based on the report published in The Church (Toronto), June 26th, 1841.
The attorney-general, with his usual persuasiveness of speech, had succeeded in talking all round the question of responsible government without really touching upon it. The blunt question, do the ministers resign when they have no majority behind them, was still left unanswered. Not without cause, indeed, had Draper’s oratorical powers earned him the nickname of “Sweet William.” In this instance, the Reformers were quick to see the weak side of the attorney-general’s presentation. Baldwin, rising to reply, brushed aside the subtleties of the leader of the government and forced the question to a direct issue. He agreed, he said, that the head of the government is of a mixed character, and that he is responsible to the home government for the proper administration of the government of the colony. He would admit that, in the administration of the government, questions may arise in which he may not be prepared to adopt the advice which may be tendered to him. But if he (Mr. Baldwin) understood the honourable and learned gentleman aright, that the council of His Excellency are to offer their advice only when it is demanded of them, and on all occasions remain mere passive observers of the measures adopted by the government, he would beg leave from such a system as this entirely to dissent. . . . Such a council would be no council at all. The honourable and learned gentleman, Mr. Baldwin continued, admits that in the event of the administration not retaining the confidence of parliament, they should resign; if he had understood the honourable gentleman aright as intending to go to this extent, then it would seem that the difference between the views of that honourable gentleman and his own amounted only to a difference in terms and not a difference in fact. But should those gentlemen be prepared, notwithstanding a vote of want of confidence should be passed by that House, to retain their seats in the council, then he must say that he entirely dissented from them. . . . If the honourable gentleman had intended to be understood as going to this length, then he would perfectly concur with him.
Baldwin expressed his regret that this important matter had not been made the subject of a distinct communication in the speech from the throne. “It was,” he said “a great and important principle, on the faithful carrying out of which the continuation of the connection with the mother country in great measure depends.” The comprehensive refutation of Mr. Draper’s position thus made by Mr. Baldwin was followed up by a series of “teasing questions” from other Reformers determined to force the attorney-general to a direct answer to the question whether or not he would resign. Brought to bay finally by these attacks and having in the series of seven speeches which he made during the debate involved the issue in as much intricacy as possible, Mr. Draper admitted that he would resign.
New York Albion, July 3rd, 1841.
So prolonged, however, had been the debate, and so confused had become the theoretical arguments pro and con, that at the end of it the members seem to have been but little the wiser. Some supposed that responsible government was now a fact, others that it had been merely the subject of a meaningless wrangle. The Montreal Herald announced that Mr. Draper’s final and reluctant “Yes,” had been “succeeded by a burst of applause from the House. The cry is, responsible government is come at last.” The Kingston Chronicle informed its readers that “the great monster, responsible government, was actually ground into nothing,” but added in a tone of complacent patronage that this “seeming waste of powder ought not to be considered as altogether unprofitable.” The same journal, in its discussion of the great debate, informed its readers that “the perpetual foaming and puffing of the honourable gentlemen reminded us of a set of small steam engines whose safety valves kept them from actually bursting their boilers on the floor of the House.” Then, as if apprehensive of the consequences of its own wit, the journal hastened to add: “By this passing remark we do not mean any disrespect to the honourable House, far from it, for we think it altogether the most talented and respectable House of Assembly that ever met in this section of the province.”
Cited by the Albion, July 3rd, 1841.
Wednesday, June 22nd, 1841.
In despite of the seeming harmony of opinion thus established, the fact remained that the attorney-general had to a large extent come off victorious. His opponents had wished to make the question one of men; Draper had succeeded in making it one of measures. His declaration was in reality an invitation to the members to judge the programme of the government upon its merits, and to accord it their support irrespective of any previous confidence, or want of it, in the originators of the programme. Mr. Draper’s difficulties were not, however, at an end. The Upper Canada Reform party being for the moment placated, he had yet to deal with the French-Canadian section, whose opposition to the terms of the union itself now sought expression. Neilson of Quebec moved an amendment to the address, to the effect that “there are features in the Act now constituting the government of Canada which are inconsistent with justice and the common rights of British subjects.” Although the combined Upper Canadian vote easily defeated this amendment, Baldwin, Hincks and four other Upper Canadians voted in favour of it. Hincks spoke at some length in its support. He attacked the provision of the Union Act whereby the imperial parliament fixed a civil list for Canada. He declared that the basis of representation now established was unjust: in Upper Canada there were forty-two members, twenty-six of whom were returned by constituencies consisting of three hundred and fifty thousand souls, while the remaining sixteen only represented sixty-three thousand. The representation of Lower Canada was equally out of proportion. “It is,” he said, “idle to concede responsible government unless there is a fair representation of the people.” The suppression of the French language as an official medium, he denounced as an “unjust and cruel provision.” Hincks’s speech was, however, but a further “waste of powder.” The amendment was voted down by fifty to twenty-five.
Journal of the Legislative Assembly, Vol. I., .
With the termination of this preliminary debate upon responsible government and the rejection of Neilson’s amendment, the government had safely passed its initial difficulties, and was free to turn to the work of positive legislation. That the issue involved in the debate was not, however, one of merely abstract interest, amply appears from the correspondence of Lord Sydenham and the view which he took of his constitutional position in the government of Canada. In describing the attempt of the Reform party to “ensure a stormy opening” of the parliament, he wrote (June 27th, 1841): “My officers, (ministers!) though the best men, I believe, for their departments that can be found, were, unfortunately, many of them, unpopular from their previous conduct, and none of them sufficiently acquainted with the manner in which a government through parliament should be conducted to render us any assistance in this matter. I had therefore to fight the whole battle myself. . . . The result, however, has been complete success. I have got the large majority of the House ready to support me upon any question that can arise. . . . Except the rump of the old House of Assembly of Lower Canada and two or three ultra-Radicals who have gone over with my solicitor-general, whom I have got rid of, every member is cordially with me and with my government.”
Thus established on a fair working basis, with the question of responsible government for the moment set aside, the administration was able to proceed with its programme. In the ensuing session, which lasted until September 17th, 1841, it managed to make good a large part of its promises. A vigorous programme of public works was instituted. Backed by the imperial guarantee of the interest on a £1,500,000 sterling loan, the province undertook an expenditure of £1,659,682 on works of public utility. The Welland Canal, hitherto in the hands of a private company, was bought up by the government, which spent £450,000 on its improvement. The navigation of the St. Lawrence, which, as has been seen, was still obstructed by intervening rapids, was aided by a vote of £696,182 for the construction of canals at Cornwall and Lachine; £58,500 was laid out upon deepening the channel in Lake St. Peter; and £25,000 on the construction of roads in the Eastern Townships and in the Baie des Chaleurs district. A sum of £45,000 was devoted to the Burlington Canal. The remainder of the money was appropriated largely to the construction of new roads in Upper Canada. This question of public works introduced serious divisions among the members of the Reform party. Hincks who was, to use his own phrase, a “warm supporter” of public works, voted with the government. The French-Canadians, on the other hand, opposed the policy of public expenditure wherever it seemed, in their opinion, to favour Upper Canada unduly. Baldwin, for the sake of party cohesion, was inclined to side with the French-Canadians, and so preserve a united opposition. Aylwin endeavoured to secure a vote of the House to the effect that no debt should be incurred on public works save with the consent of a majority from Lower Canada. Baldwin voted in favour of it, but found only one of his Upper Canadian followers prepared to go to this length. On the matter of road building in western Canada, Baldwin and Hincks again found themselves voting on opposite sides. Thanks to the divisions in the ranks of their opponents, the ministry were enabled to carry on the government with a fair show of support.
Reminiscences, .
Certain other measures of the session were also of considerable importance. The criminal law was modified by measures reducing its severity. The pillory was abolished and the number of capital offences considerably reduced. The provincial tariff was revised, the duties on imported merchandise being advanced from two and one-half to five per cent. A resolution of the House of Assembly affirmed the necessity of abolishing seigniorial tenure in Lower Canada and a commission was appointed for its consideration. A bill in reference to the corrupt practices which had been prevalent in the recent election, excited great public attention and caused more difficulty to the government than any other measure of the session. Petitions had come up to the House from Terrebonne (where LaFontaine had been defeated) and elsewhere praying the assembly to cancel the elections. Technical flaws in the petitions prevented their reception. A bill brought into the House to overcome the difficulty and permit the reception of the petitions was passed by a large majority, receiving the support, not only of the entire Reform party, but of Sir Allan MacNab and the Upper Canadian Tories. The influence of the government caused the bill to be rejected in the legislative council. This was only one of eighteen measures rejected during the session by the Upper House, a circumstance which served to show that on its present nominated basis it might prove an obstructive influence.
But the measure of the greatest importance adopted during the session was the law in reference to municipal government. As this was a subject with which, in the sequel, the LaFontaine-Baldwin administration was intimately associated, a brief account of the legislation under Lord Sydenham is here necessary. The institution of democratic self-government is nowhere complete until it is accompanied by the establishment of self-governing bodies for local affairs. Parliamentary reform, therefore, naturally goes hand in hand with municipal reform. This had already been seen in England, where the great reform of parliament in 1832 had been followed in 1835 by the introduction of municipal self-government. It was now proposed to take an initial step in this same direction in regard to the local government of Upper Canada. Until this time there existed in the districts into which Upper Canada was divided, no elective municipal bodies. The justices of the peace, nominated by the Crown, had exercised in their quarter sessions a supervision over local affairs and had levied local taxation. In the Lower Province local taxation had not been raised previous to Lord Sydenham’s administration. The latter had sought to insert into the Act of Union provisions for district government but, finding the imperial parliament averse to such detailed legislation, he had, by means of the special council, created in Lower Canada municipal bodies consisting of nominees of the Crown. It was not proposed to alter the system thus established in Lower Canada, where the government still felt apprehensive of giving full play to the principle of election. The bill presented to the united parliament referred, therefore, only to Upper Canada. This occasioned a peculiar difficulty. If the local bodies established were to be entirely elective, the French might with justice complain of the special privileges thus accorded to the British part of the province. If, on the other hand, the municipal institutions of Upper Canada were framed after the model of those already created by the special council in Lower Canada, the British section of the province would cry out against the denial of representative government.
