Delphi Complete Works of Stephen Leacock, page 474
See Kaye, op. cit. Vol. II, .
The whole summer of 1844 was one of intense political excitement. Agitation meetings, and political speeches became the order of the day, and political demonstrations on a large scale were organized by the rival parties. On May 12th a general meeting of the Reform Association had been held at Toronto. At this Robert Baldwin played a principal part, and in his speech on the occasion reiterated his attachment to the British connection and his belief that the policy of his party was the only one that could lead to permanent imperial stability. He presented to the meeting an address which he had drafted for presentation to the people of Canada, and which was adopted with enthusiasm. Its concluding sentences sounded a note of warning and appeal:— “This is not a mere party struggle. It is Canada against her oppressors. The people of Canada claiming the British constitution against those who withhold it: the might of public opinion against faction and corruption.”
The newspapers during these months contained little else than fiery disputation on the all-absorbing topic of the hour. Pamphlets poured from the colonial press in an abundant shower, and editors, lawyers, assemblymen and divines hastened to add each his contribution to the political controversy engendered by the situation. The Reform Alliance started a series of “tracts for the people” designed to elucidate the leading principles and disputed points of the whole controversy. Hincks, Buchanan, Ryerson, Sullivan and a swarm of others hastened into the fray, iterating and reiterating the well-worn arguments for and against the late ministry and soundly belabouring one another with political invective and personal abuse. The great bulk of the literature of the Metcalfe controversy is of but little interest or novelty. It is somewhat difficult to read through the forty pages of print in which “Zeno” (of Quebec) undertakes to show that the resistance of Metcalfe and his satellites to responsible government was but the “expiring howl of that mercenary class who, by servility, venality and corruption, have marred the prosperity of the colony.” Equally difficult is it to follow the tortuous argumentation of Isaac Buchanan in his Five Letters Against the Baldwin Faction. Buchanan, who was a moderate Reformer now turned against his late leaders, writes with the bitterness of a renegade, and his letters are of some interest as illustrating the wilful distortion of Robert Baldwin’s opinions and objects at the hands of his opponents. “How many are there,” he asks, “who are out and out supporters of Mr. Baldwin who do not conscientiously wish that Canada was a state of the union to-morrow?” “Mr. Baldwin,” he says, “was weakening the very foundations of colonial society,” and supports the statement by an afflicting anecdote of a recent experience in England.
“On the subject of Baldwin’s past character,” says Buchanan, “the question was again and again put to me in England. Did he not prefer his party to his country, at the late rebellion, declining to fight against the former or to turn out in defence of the latter? I remember well the feeling remark of one gentleman of the most liberal British politics, and whose bosom beats as high as any man’s for the cause of freedom,— ‘Well, poor Mr. Baldwin may be a patriot, but he is not a Briton.’”
There is, however, one episode of the Metcalfe controversy — namely, the literary duel between the Rev. Egerton Ryerson and the Hon. R. B. Sullivan, late president of the council — which deserves more than a passing notice. In both Upper and Lower Canada, Metcalfe had spared no pains to win men of prominence of all parties to his cause by flattering offers of public office. Egerton Ryerson, already famous in the colony as a leader of the Methodist Church, as president of Victoria College and as an opponent of the exclusive claim of the Church of England to the Clergy Reserves, was one of those who were said by the Reformers to have felt the “draw of vice-regal blandishments.” The announcement early in 1844 that Ryerson had been interviewed by the governor-general, and that his appointment as superintendent of education with a seat in the cabinet was under consideration, was declared by the Globe (March 8th, 1844) to be an “alarming feeler.” Subsequently, when Ryerson, in the ensuing May, published his famous defence of Sir Charles Metcalfe and was later in the year duly appointed to be superintendent of education, his enemies did not scruple to say that Mr. Ryerson had sold himself to the Metcalfe government for a price, and had become a traitor to the cause of public liberty. But whatever may be thought of the correctness or incorrectness of Ryerson’s views on the ministerial controversy, the contention that his literary services had been bought, cannot stand. His appointment to office rests on a solid basis of merit and had long been under consideration. No one in the province had given more earnest thought to the problem of public education than had Egerton Ryerson, and the question of his appointment as superintendent of common schools had already been discussed by Lord Sydenham. It appears also, on good authority, that Sir Charles Metcalfe had determined to appoint Ryerson to some such position before the rupture with the LaFontaine-Baldwin cabinet occurred. It must, therefore, in fairness be admitted that the defence of Sir Charles Metcalfe was inspired by no self-seeking motives, but proceeded from a genuine conviction that the course adopted by the late cabinet was unconstitutional and dangerous to the public welfare.
N. F. Davin, The Irishman in Canada, .
Sir Charles Metcalfe Defended Against the Attacks of his late Councillors, Toronto, 1844.
See Egerton Ryerson, Story of My Life (Edited by J. G. Hodgins) Chap. xliii: see also N. Burwash, Egerton Ryerson (Makers of Canada Series) Chap. v.
From the literary point of view, Ryerson’s defence is an extremely able document and is written, not with the ponderous periods of the theologian, but with a vigour of style and a freedom of phrase which drew down upon the head of its author the taunt of being a “political swashbuckler.” The central point of the argument of the pamphlet is the attempt to prove that the conduct of the late ministry was contrary to British precedent. “If the ministry,” argued Ryerson, “objected to the governor’s appointments, the proper course for them consisted in immediate resignation, not in attempting to bind the governor with a pledge in regard to appointments of the future. It was,” he said, “contrary to British usage for them to remain in office twenty-four hours, much less weeks or months, after the head of the executive had performed acts or made appointments which they did not choose to justify before parliament and before the country. It was contrary to British usage for them to complain of and condemn a policy or acts to which they had become voluntary parties by their continuing in office. It was contrary to British usage for them to go to the sovereign to discuss principles and debate policy, instead of tendering their resignations for his past acts.” This line of reasoning, though rendered plausible by an imposing show of precedent and argument, need not be taken very seriously. The ministry had, in fact, resigned on account of the past acts of the governor, not on the strength of any single one, but rather by reason of the accumulation of many. For the entire ministry to have resigned the first time the governor undertook to make a minor appointment on his own account would have been plainly impossible: equally impossible was it to allow the governor to continue indefinitely making such appointments. The essence of the situation lay, therefore, in the future rather than the past.
Ryerson’s pamphlet called forth an answer from an opponent of as good fighting mettle as himself. The Thirteen Letters on Responsible Government, published by Robert Sullivan, are certainly equal to Ryerson’s defence in point of logic and in the presentation of the law, and easily surpass it in facility of style, while the caustic wit, for which the writer was distinguished, adds to the brilliance of his work. Sullivan signed himself “Legion” to indicate that his name was not one but many. He prefaces his work with a mock-heroic “Argument,” or table of contents, in which he endeavours at the outset to put his theological opponent in a ludicrous light. Thus he announces as the subject of Letter IV, the “doctor’s [Ryerson’s] discovery that Cincinnatus was one of the Knights of the Round Table, from which he infers that Mr. Baldwin stole his ideas on responsible government from the days of chivalry.” Later we read that “‘Legion’ repudiates his relatives and absolves his godfathers on the ground of the doctor’s monopoly of the calendar of saints,” while the letters conclude with a “panoramic view of the doctor’s iniquitous career — his death struggle with ‘Legion’ and his hideous writhings graphically described,” after which “‘Legion’ carries off the doctor amidst yells and imprecations.” Apart from witticisms, personalities, and stinging satire, Sullivan’s letters are of great importance in the Metcalfe controversy from the fact that the writer takes issue with Lord Stanley, whose views on colonial government he considers entirely erroneous. As a rule the writers on behalf of the Reform party endeavoured to so interpret Stanley’s expressions as to make them appear favourable to the attitude taken by the LaFontaine-Baldwin cabinet. In the light of what has been quoted above, this will be seen to be a hopeless task. Sullivan takes a bolder, and at the same time a surer, stand. “Lord Stanley’s argument,” he says, “if it proves anything, proves that we should not have representative institutions at all: that public opinion should not prevail in anything, because it wants the ingredient of aristocratic influence. . . . There is not the slightest doubt, in the mind of any one, but that the governor of this province is bound to obey the orders of Her Majesty’s secretary of state for the colonies, however opposed these orders may be to the advice of the council, for the time being. But there is as little doubt but that when a secretary of state gives such orders with respect to the administration of our local affairs, he violates the principle of responsible government as explained in the resolutions of 1841, to which Sir Charles Metcalfe subscribed.”
That a good many of “Legion’s” shafts had struck home is seen in the furious rejoinder published by Egerton Ryerson. In this the distinguished divine almost forgets the dignity of his divinity. He compares his opponent to Barère and likens the Reform Association to the Committee of Public Safety of the French Revolution:— “Whether ‘Legion’ drank, fiddled and danced,” he writes, “when Sir F. Head was firing the country, or when Lount and Mathews were hanging on the gallows, I have not the means of knowing: but a man who can charge the humane and benevolent Sir Charles Metcalfe with being an inhuman and bloodthirsty Nero, can easily be conceived to sing and shout at scenes over which patriotism and humanity weep.” To Baldwin himself, the writer is almost as unsparing. Baldwin had just delivered an address to the electors of Middlesex in which he exhorted the Tories “to forget all minor differences and to act as if they remembered only that they were Canadians, since as Canadians we have a country and are a people.” This patriotic utterance Ryerson sees fit to misinterpret. “In reading this passage of Mr. Baldwin’s address,” he says, “I could not keep from my thoughts two passages in very different books, the one a parable in the Book of Judges, in which ‘the bramble said unto the trees, if in truth ye annoint me king over you, then come and put your trust in my shadow: and if not, let fire come out of the bramble, and devour the cedars of Lebanon.’ The other passage which Mr. Baldwin’s address brought to my recollection, is one of Æsop’s Fables, where the fox that had lost its tail exhorted his brethren of all shades and sizes to imitate his example as the best fashion of promoting their comfort and elevation.”
The party war of pamphlets, speeches and addresses continued unabated throughout the summer. As the autumn drew on the efforts of Metcalfe and Draper to obtain at least the semblance of a representative cabinet met with better success. Towards the end of August a Mr. James Smith, a Montreal lawyer of no particular prominence, and never as yet a member of any legislative body, accepted the position of attorney-general for Lower Canada. A recruit of more imposing name was found in Denis B. Papineau, brother of the French-Canadian leader of 1837, to whom was given the office of commissioner of Crown lands.
H. J. Morgan, Sketches of Celebrated Canadians, 1862.
Papineau, who had hitherto been an adherent of the Lower Canadian Reform party, shared with Viger the odium of being a renegade from his party, and was subsequently accused by Robert Baldwin on the floor of the House with having approved the resignation of the previous ministry and then usurped the position they had seen fit to abandon. Papineau, whose character had stood high with his compatriots, claimed in reply that his acceptance of office did not rest on personal grounds, but that he had seen fit, on mature reflection, to modify his opinion of the present controversy. William Morris of Brockville accepted at the same time the post of receiver-general. Mr. Draper being now definitely appointed to be attorney-general for Upper Canada, Mr. Viger, president of the council, and Mr. Daly being still provincial secretary, Metcalfe found himself, at the opening of September (1844), with something approaching a complete ministry. It was thought wiser for the present to place no Tories in the cabinet. Mr. Henry Sherwood was, however, given the post of solicitor-general for Upper Canada without a seat in the executive council, and towards the close of the year W. B. Robinson, a brother of Chief-justice Robinson and a Tory of the old school, became inspector-general. Metcalfe was now ready to try conclusions with his adversaries. He dissolved the parliament on September 23rd, and writs, returnable on November 12th, were issued for a new election.
Speech in answer to Address from the Throne, 1844.
See above, .
CHAPTER VIII
IN OPPOSITION
THE ELECTIONS OF the autumn of 1844 were carried on amid an unsurpassed political excitement, and both sides threw themselves into the struggle with an animosity that seriously endangered the peace of the country. Whatever may be thought of the constitutionality of Metcalfe’s conduct during the recent session of parliament, there can be no doubt that he went outside of his proper sphere in the part he took in the parliamentary election. His personal influence and his personal efforts were used to the full in the interests of the Draper government. Indeed, there now existed, between the governor-general and the leaders of the Reform party, a feeling of personal antagonism that gave an added bitterness to the contest. The governor-general had not scrupled to denounce the Reformers publicly as enemies of British sovereignty: in answer to an address sent up to him from the county of Drummond in which reference was made to the “measures and proceedings of a party tending directly in our opinion to the terrible result of separation from British connection and rule,” Metcalfe stated that he had “abundant reason to know that you have accurately described the designs of the late executive council.”
This intemperate language brought about the resignation of LaFontaine from his position as queen’s counsel, a step immediately followed by a similar resignation on the part of Baldwin. The resignations were accompanied by letters to the provincial secretary in which the accusation of hostility to British sovereignty was indignantly denied. The same denial was repeated by the Reform leaders in the public addresses to their constituents, inserted in full length, according to the custom of the day, in the party newspapers, in spite of which Metcalfe and the Tories persisted in viewing the contest as one between loyalty and treason. “He felt,” said Metcalfe’s biographer, “that he was fighting for his sovereign against a rebellious people.” For the rank and file of the Tory following, excuse may be found in the exigencies of party warfare; but for Metcalfe, as governor of the country, no apology can be offered, save perhaps the honesty of his conviction. “I regard the approaching election,” he wrote (September 26th, 1844), “as a very important crisis, the result of which will demonstrate whether the majority of Her Majesty’s Canadian subjects are disposed to have responsible government in union with British connection and supremacy, or will struggle for a sort of government that is impracticable consistently with either.”
The result of the election gave a narrow majority to Mr. Draper’s administration, but the contest was accompanied by such violence and disorder at the polls that the issue cannot be regarded as indicating the real tenor of public opinion. In this violence, it must be confessed, both parties participated. The Irish, mindful of their late contest with the Orangemen and the fate of the Secret Societies Bill, were solid for the Reform party, and their solidity assumed at many polling places its customary national form. It was charged by the enemies of Baldwin that gangs of Irishmen were hired in Upper Canada to control the voters by the power of the club. Nor were the Tories behind hand in the use of physical force, and on both sides inflammatory handbills and placards incited the voters to actual violence. “The British party,” said Metcalfe himself, “were resolved to oppose force by force and organized themselves for resistance.”
N. F. Davin, The Irishman in Canada, .
As the issue of the elections became known, it appeared that the Reformers had carried Lower Canada by a sweeping majority, but that the adherents of the government had scored a still more complete victory in the Upper Province. LaFontaine, who had decided to present himself again to the electors of Terrebonne rather than to continue to represent an Upper Canadian constituency, was elected almost unanimously. Out of fifteen hundred voters who assembled in despite of bad roads and bad weather, only about a score were prepared to support a local attorney — a Mr. Papineau — who had been nominated to oppose LaFontaine. A mere show of hands was sufficient to settle the election without further formalities. Morin was elected for two constituencies. Aylwin was returned for Quebec, and of the forty-two members for Lower Canada, only sixteen could be counted as supporters of the government. D. B. Papineau was elected for Ottawa county, but his colleague, Viger, whose prestige among the French-Canadians was permanently impaired, was defeated by Wolfred Nelson, the former leader of the rebellion. The city of Montreal, henceforth to be the capital of Canada, signalized itself by returning two supporters of the administration. But their success was due solely to the arrangement of voting districts made by the government; for the city contained an overwhelming majority of French-Canadian and Irish adherents of the Reform party. In Upper Canada, of the forty-two members elected, the government could count thirty as its adherents. MacNab, Sherwood, W. B. Robinson, John A. Macdonald of Kingston, and many other Tories were elected. Baldwin, who had bidden farewell to the constituency of Rimouski, was elected for the fourth riding of York, but Hincks was beaten in Oxford and remained out of parliament until 1848. John Henry Dunn, also a member of the late cabinet, was beaten in Toronto. The Tories stuck at nothing to carry the elections in Upper Canada. To their affrighted loyalty the end justified the means. Returns were in some cases wilfully falsified. Elsewhere the voters were driven from the polls and violence carried to such an extent that the troops were called out to quell the disorder, while throughout the province the militia were warned to be in readiness for possible emergencies. Only seven decided Reformers, among them Baldwin, Small and Price, were returned to parliament from Upper Canada. Taking the two sections of the province together and making due allowance for doubtful members, it appeared that the government might claim at the very outside, forty-six supporters in a House of eighty-four members. Even this narrow margin of support could not be relied upon. On the vote for the speakership, for example, Sir Allan MacNab was elected by only a majority of three.
