Delphi Complete Works of Stephen Leacock, page 465
Meantime it had become evident even to Mr. Draper that some reconstruction of the ministry and some decided modification of its policy were urgently demanded. French Canada was still loud in its complaints against its lack of proper representation in the cabinet, against the injustice of the present electoral divisions, and against local government by appointed officers. “The government,” said Le Canadien, a leading journal in the Reform interest, “may keep us in a state of political inferiority, it may rob us, it may oppress us. It has the support of an army and of the whole power of the empire to enable it to do so. But never will we ourselves give it our support in its attempt to enslave and degrade us.” The tone of the province was clearly seen in the bye-elections which took place during the recess of parliament. D. B. Papineau, a brother of the exiled leader, was elected for Ottawa, James Leslie, who had been one of the victims of the election frauds of 1841, was elected for Verchères. Most significant of all was the return to parliament of Louis Hippolyte LaFontaine. Baldwin, it will be remembered, had been elected in 1841 for two constituencies, Hastings and the fourth riding of York. He had accepted the seat for Hastings, and the constituency of York was thereby without a representative. He proposed to his constituents that they should bear witness to the reality of the Anglo-French Reform alliance by electing LaFontaine as their representative. LaFontaine accepted with cordiality the proposal of his ally. “I cannot but regard such a generous and liberal offer,” he wrote in answer to the formal invitation from the Reform committee of the riding, “as a positive and express condemnation, on the part of the freeholders, of the gross injustice done to several Lower Canadian constituencies, which, in reality, have been deprived of their elective franchise, and which, in consequence of violence, riots and bloodshed, are now represented in the united parliament by men in whom they place no confidence.”
To his new constituency LaFontaine issued an address in which he urged the need of coöperation between the French and English parties. “Apart from the considerations of social order, from the love of peace and political freedom, our common interests would alone establish sympathies which, sooner or later, must have rendered the mutual coöperation of the mass of the two populations necessary to the march of government. . . . The political contest commenced at the last session has resulted in a thorough union in parliament between the members who represent the majority of both peoples. That union secures to the provincial government solid support in carrying out those measures which are required to establish peace and contentment.” LaFontaine’s candidacy was successful and he was elected in September, 1841, by a majority of two hundred and ten votes.
It was the design of Bagot to meet the impending difficulties of the situation, before the meeting of parliament, by such a reconstruction of his ministry as should convert it into a coalition in which all parties might be represented. To men of moderate views, of the type of Sir Charles Bagot, there is an especial fascination in the idea of a political coalition. To subordinate the petty differences of party animosity to the broader considerations of national welfare, is a task so congenial to their own temperament that they do not realize how difficult it is for others. To gather into a single happy family the radical and the reactionary, the clerical and the secularist, is a hope as tempting as it is fatuous. The initial success which had attended Bagot’s efforts, the enthusiasm of his reception in French Canada, concealed for the moment the difficulties of the peaceful reunion which he proposed. At Montreal the governor had been received by a “procession upwards of a mile in length, while the hundred banners and flags which fluttered in the gentle breeze, together with the animating strains of martial music, formed a tout ensemble which had never before been witnessed in Canada.”
New York Albion, Saturday, June 4th, 1842.
“The millenium,” wrote a British correspondent, a month or two later, “has certainly arrived. Lord Ashburton has settled all difficulties between John Bull and Brother Jonathan, and the lion and the lamb are seen lying down together in Sir Charles Bagot’s cabinet.” This last allusion referred to the elevation of Francis Hincks and Henry Sherwood to executive office. On June 9th, 1842, Hincks was given the post of inspector-general. Previous to the union this position (in each province) had been of a somewhat routine character, the chief duties of its incumbent being to vouch for the correctness of the warrants issued on the receiver-general. But even in Sydenham’s time it was intended that the office should be converted into what might be called a ministry of finance, and that the inspector-general should hold a seat in the legislature as the official exponent of the financial policy of the government. The voluntary retirement of the Hon. John Macauley of Kingston, inspector-general for Upper Canada, had made an opening, and Hincks was accordingly given the position of inspector-general of Canada, while the former incumbent of the office in Lower Canada was made deputy-inspector for the united provinces.
Hincks, Reminiscences, .
It had been charged against Hincks that, even during the preceding session of the parliament, the prospect of this office had been held out as a bait to allure him from his allegiance to the Reformers. But according to his own statement no approaches of this kind were made to him at all during the year 1841. Nor did he intend, in accepting a seat in the executive council, which was to accompany the inspectorship, to forego any of his previous principles. In his address to his Oxford constituents on the occasion of his reëlection on appointment to office, he said: “I have accepted office without the slightest compromise of my well-known political principles, and I shall not continue to hold it unless the administration with which I am connected shall be supported by the public opinion of the country.” Nevertheless the bitter comments of the rival factions on Hincks’s appointment showed already the impossibilities of a general reconciliation. “The appointment of Mr. Hincks to the lucrative and important office of inspector-general,” said a contemporary journalist, “has been received with strong expressions of disapproval by the great bulk of the loyal party of the province. . . . Mr. Hincks has long conducted a journal which has been accused of ministering sedition to its readers, and at the breaking out of Mackenzie’s rebellion he stood with his arms folded, rendering no assistance towards quelling the atrocious attempt of that mountebank. . . . It is for these reasons that the honours now bestowed on him are so objectionable to a great part of the people.” It will be noted that both now and later it was an article of faith with the Tories that they were the only loyal part of the population, a fiction which rendered any political compromise with them all the more difficult to effect.
Reminiscences, .
Correspondent of the New York Albion, July 2nd, 1841.
In order to offset the appointment of Hincks, Bagot at the same time offered the post of solicitor-general for Upper Canada to Cartwright, a leading member of the MacNab party. Cartwright declined the office, and forwarded to Sir Charles Bagot a letter in explanation of his refusal. The recent appointment, he said, had been viewed with disapproval by the Conservative party to which he belonged. He construed it as an evidence that the government was indifferent to the political principles of its supporters, even when their principles were unfriendly to British supremacy. The cry for responsible government was a danger to the country, and was a request incompatible with the position of Canada as a British colony. Of this dangerous movement, Mr. Hincks had been the “apologist.” He had been the defender of Papineau and Mackenzie up to the very moment of the rebellion. To go into a government with “this individual” would ruin Mr. Cartwright’s character as a public man. As Mr. Cartwright’s objections appeared invincible, the post was offered to one of his fellow Conservatives, Henry Sherwood, a lawyer of Toronto. Mr. Sherwood, contrary to the expectation of his party, accepted the office, entering upon his duties in July, 1842. The ministry was therefore (in the month of August, 1842) of a decidedly multi-coloured complexion, containing as it did, representatives of the Tories, the Reformers, and of the old council. But it was the intention of Bagot to carry his principle of combination still further, and to enlist, if possible, the services of the two men most influential in the country, Baldwin and LaFontaine. Of LaFontaine’s support the governor felt a particular need. The ministry contained no French-Canadians, and of the special offices which were concerned exclusively with the affairs of Lower Canada, one (the office of solicitor-general) had been rendered vacant by the elevation of Mr. Day to the bench, while the incumbent of another (Ogden, the attorney-general) was absent in England. It was becoming clear that, unless a reconstruction could be effected, the present ministry would be left almost unsupported in the House. Mr. Draper seems to have accepted the situation with philosophic resignation. He was quite ready, if need be, to resign his own place, and he harboured no delusions about his ability to carry on the government with inadequate support. The meeting of parliament at Kingston (September 8th, 1842) was made the occasion of an attempt on the part of the governor to complete his system of coalition. His speech from the throne, while referring to the prosperous financial position of the government and the rapid progress of the public works undertaken, expressed an ardent wish that “a spirit of moderation and harmony might animate the counsels of the parliament.” The debate on the address in answer to the speech was fixed for Friday, September 13th. On that afternoon the governor, who had already been in personal consultation with LaFontaine, wrote to him in the following terms: —
See N. F. Davin, The Irishman in Canada, .
“Government House,
“Kingston, September 13th, 1842.
“Sir:
“Having taken into my most earnest and anxious consideration the conversation which passed between us, I find my desire to invite to the aid of, and cordial coöperation with my government the population of French origin in this province, unabated. . . . I have, therefore, come, not without difficulty, to the conclusion that, for such an object, I will consent to the retirement of the attorney-general, Mr. Ogden, from the office which he now holds, upon its being distinctly understood that a provision will be made for him commensurate with his long and faithful services. Upon his retirement I am prepared to offer to you the situation of attorney-general for Lower Canada with a seat in my executive council. . . .
“Mr. Baldwin’s differences with the government have arisen chiefly from his desire to act in concert with the representatives of the French portion of the population, and, as I hope these differences are now happily removed, I shall be willing to avail myself of this service. Mr. Draper has tendered me the resignation of his office. I shall always regret the loss of such assistance as he has uniformly afforded me, and I shall feel the imperative obligation of considering his claims upon the government, whenever an opportunity may offer of adequately acknowledging them. . . .
“From my knowledge of the sentiments entertained by all the gentlemen who now compose my constitutional advisers, I see no reason to doubt that a strong and united council might be formed on the basis of this proposition. In this persuasion I have gone to the utmost length to meet and even to surpass your demands, and if, after such an overture, I shall find that my efforts to secure the political tranquillity of the country are unsuccessful, I shall at least have the satisfaction of feeling that I have exhausted all the means which the most anxious desire to accomplish the great object has enabled me to devise.
“I have the honour, etc,
“C. Bagot.”
The promise was given in the same letter that the position of solicitor-general for Lower Canada should be filled according to LaFontaine’s nomination, provided only that the person nominated was British. The commissionership of Crown lands was likewise to be offered to M. Girouard, a former associate and friend of LaFontaine during the constitutional struggle preceding the rebellion. At the same time a pension was to be granted to Mr. Davidson, the previous commissioner, an old servant of the government. That the proposal thus made went a long way towards meeting the demands of the Reform party can be seen by reading the comments on it in the Tory press, when the letter was subsequently read out in the assembly by Mr. Draper as a proof of the intractable attitude of the Reformers. “Incredible and humiliating as it may appear,” said the Toronto Church, “it was really written by Sir Charles Bagot to Mr. LaFontaine. . . . A Radical ministry cannot last long. Loyal men need not despair; they have God on their side. We must begin to agitate for a dissolution of the union between Upper and Lower Canada, or a federal union of all the British North American provinces.” It will be seen from this that the exasperated Tories claimed a monopoly, not only of loyalty to the Crown, but even of the sheltering protection of Providence.
Flattering as was Sir Charles Bagot’s proposal, LaFontaine, after hurried consultation with his future colleague, did not see fit to accept it. It had been the aim of the Reform leaders not merely to obtain office for themselves personally but to force a resignation of the whole ministry, to be followed by a cabinet reconstruction in due form. Even with Draper absent, there were several members of the existing administration, notably Sherwood, the Tory solicitor-general just appointed, with whom they would find it difficult to coöperate. To accept the responsibility of providing pensions for Ogden and Davidson seemed to LaFontaine, wrongly perhaps, a bad constitutional precedent. The suggestion of giving pensions was not indeed without defence, under the circumstances. Davidson was an old public servant who had taken no active part in politics, and who had no wish to continue to hold an office which was now to be made a subject of party appointment and dismissal. The office held by Ogden had also been non-political at the time of his assuming it. But a further objection to the proposal lay in the fact that the united Reformers were in complete command of the situation, and could afford to insist on better terms of entry upon office than those offered by Sir Charles Bagot.
Hincks, Political History of Canada, (a lecture) 1877, .
Foiled in the plan of friendly reconstruction, there was nothing for it for the government but to fight its way with the address as best it might. The resolutions for the adoption of a cordial response to the speech from the throne were the signal for a debate of unusual interest and excitement, during which the galleries of the legislative chambers were packed with eager listeners who felt that the fate not only of the government, but of the system of government, hung on the issue. The newspapers of the day testify to the intense interest occasioned by the prospect of the approaching trial of strength. “This afternoon,” writes the Toronto Herald of September 13th, “the great battle commenced. The war is even now being carried into the enemy’s camp — excitement increases — members rave — the people wax furious — and where it will end no one can guess.” “The House was so crowded,” complained a local journalist, “that we were unable to obtain any space for writing in, and had to rely on our recollection for an abstract of the day’s proceedings.”
Correspondence of Toronto Herald.
Mr. Draper was too keen a fighter to surrender tamely and without a struggle. He addressed the House in what was called by the Kingston Chronicle, “one of the most splendid and eloquent speeches we have ever heard.” He submitted to the consideration of the assembly an account of the unsuccessful attempt to obtain the services of LaFontaine in the government. It had been recognized, he said, that it was absolutely right that the gentlemen representing the population of French Canada should have a share in the administration of affairs. It had not escaped attention that an alliance had been formed between the representatives of French Canada and the honourable member for Hastings. When the government had opened negotiations with the honourable member for the fourth riding of York (Mr. LaFontaine), it had appeared that the inclusion of Mr. Baldwin in the government was made a sine qua non. He (Mr. Draper) had felt that he could not remain in the council if Mr. Baldwin were brought into it. It was for this reason that he had tendered his resignation. Mr. Draper then read aloud the governor’s letter to LaFontaine. On what grounds His Excellency’s proposal had been declined he would leave to the honourable members opposite to explain.
LaFontaine and Baldwin both spoke in answer. LaFontaine spoke in French. At the opening of his speech he was interrupted by a member asking him to speak in English. LaFontaine refused. “Even were I as familiar with the English as with the French language,” he said, “I should none the less make my first speech in the language of my French-Canadian compatriots, were it only to enter my solemn protest against the cruel injustice of that part of the Act of Union which seeks to proscribe the mother tongue of half the population of Canada.” In the course of his speech LaFontaine dwelt upon the unfair position in which French Canada was placed and its lack of representation in the cabinet. He had no wish for office unless his acceptance of it should mean the introduction of a new régime. In default of that, “in the state of enslavement in which the iron hand of Lord Sydenham sought to hold the people of French Canada, in the presence of actual facts which still bespeak that purpose, he had (in refusing), but one duty to fulfil, — that of maintaining that personal honour which has distinguished his compatriots and to which their most embittered enemies are compelled to do homage.”
Baldwin, following LaFontaine with an amendment to the address embodying a declaration of want of confidence, was able to feel that his hour of triumph had come. The government at the close of the last session had acquiesced in the resolutions affirming the principle of responsible government; these they must now repudiate or inevitably find themselves out of office. Baldwin could scarcely be called an eloquent speaker. His language was often cumbrous and was devoid of imagery. But in moments such as the present he was able to present a clear case with over-whelming force. He challenged the government to abide by the principle which they had avowed. In that principle lay the future safety of the imperial connection and the union of the Canadas. “I will never yield my desire,” he said, “to preserve the connection between this and the mother country: and although it is said a period must arrive demanding a separation, I, for my part, with the principle that has now been avowed being acted on, cannot subscribe to that opinion. If a conciliatory policy is adopted towards all the people of this country, such an opinion could have no existence. I was, and still am, an advocate of the union of the provinces, but an advocate not of a union of parchment, but a union of hearts and of free born men.”
