Delphi Complete Works of Stephen Leacock, page 475
See Turcotte, Le Canada sous l’Union, p et seq.
These facts are admitted by Metcalfe. See Kaye, Vol. II. See also Hincks’s Political History of Canada, p, 36.
Hincks presented a petition to the assembly protesting against the election of his opponent, Mr. Robert Riddell. He claimed that the deputy returning officers had refused to admit the votes of persons who had come to the province previous to 1820, although, under an Act of the parliament of Upper Canada, such persons, if willing to take the oath of allegiance, were entitled to vote. The petition was not granted.
On these terms, for want of any better, Mr. Draper had now to undertake the government of the country. It was a difficult task, and for one less skilled in the arts of political management it would have been impossible. The administration could hardly rest upon a satisfactory footing unless an adequate support could be obtained from the French of Lower Canada: on the other hand, any attempt to gain this support was apt to alienate the Upper Canadian Tories, now definitely in alliance with Mr. Draper and represented in his cabinet by Robinson, the new inspector-general. The leader of the government was therefore compelled to preserve, as best he might, a balance of power in a chronic condition of unstable equilibrium. That Mr. Draper did continue to carry on his government for nearly three years speaks volumes for his political dexterity.
It is no part of the present narrative to follow in detail the legislative history of Mr. Draper’s administration. The seat of government had now been transferred to Montreal, where the parliament was given as its quarters a building that had formerly been St. Anne’s market. It was a capacious edifice some three hundred and fifty feet in length by fifty in breadth, with two large halls on the ground floor which served for the House of Assembly and the legislative council, the hall of the assembly containing ample galleries with seats for five hundred spectators. The parliament came together on November 28th, 1844, and remained in session until the end of March of the ensuing year. During Mr. Draper’s administration under Lord Sydenham, he had maintained himself in office, as has been seen, by adopting the measures desired by the Opposition as his own policy. This method of stealing his opponent’s thunder was a favourite artifice of the leader of the government, and during the present session he made a liberal use of it. Acts in reference to the schools and municipalities of Lower Canada were passed, which carried forward the educational reforms already commenced. In order to conciliate, if possible, the Reformers of Lower Canada, steps were taken towards restoring the French language to its official position. It was known to the government that LaFontaine had it under consideration to put before the assembly a resolution urging upon the imperial government the claims of the people of Lower Canada to have their language placed upon an equal footing with English in the proceedings of the legislature. LaFontaine’s intention was accordingly forestalled, and Denis Papineau, the commissioner of Crown lands, proposed to the assembly to vote an address to the imperial government asking for a repeal of the clause of the Act of Union which made English the sole official language. The motion was voted by acclamation amid general enthusiasm and the home government, after some delay, saw fit to act upon it. The administration was less happy in its attempt to deal with the still outstanding university question. Mr. Draper presented a University Bill, closely analogous to that of Robert Baldwin; but finding the opposition of the Tories was at once aroused against such a proposed spoliation of the Church, the bill was dropped without coming to a vote. With these and other minor measures, and with much wrangling over the crop of contested elections that remained as a legacy from the late conflict, the time of the assembly was occupied until the end of the month of March.
A. Leblond de Brumath, Histoire Populaire de Montréal (1890) p, 380.
Act of Union, Section xli. “All journals, entries, and all written or printed proceedings of what nature soever of the said legislative council and legislative assembly ... shall be in the English language only.” Speaking in French was not, of course, contrary to the law.
See below, page 287.
Before the session had yet come to an end, the news was received that the home government intended raising Sir Charles Metcalfe to the peerage. In view of Metcalfe’s long and useful career in other parts of the empire, such a step was not necessarily to be regarded as a special official approval of his conduct in Canada; but among the Reformers the announcement occasioned great indignation. The violence of party antagonism had by no means subsided: at the very opening of the session Baldwin had endeavoured to carry through the assembly a vote of censure against the governor-general for having violated the principles of the constitution by governing without a ministry. The news that Metcalfe, instead of censure, was now to obtain an elevation to the peerage, drew forth from the members of the Opposition expressions of protest in language which the passions of the hour rendered unduly intemperate. Aylwin declared to the assembly that it would be more fitting that Metcalfe should be recalled and put on trial, rather than that he should receive the dignity of a peer. Even Robert Baldwin made use of somewhat immoderate expressions of disapproval. Utterances of this kind might perhaps have been spared, for the untoward fate that had fallen upon the two preceding governors of Canada now cast its shadow plainly on the governor-general, and it was becoming evident that Baron Metcalfe of Fern Hill was not long destined to enjoy earthly honours. Before coming to Canada he had suffered severely, as has been said above, from a cancerous growth upon the cheek: an operation had for the time arrested the progress of the disease, but all efforts towards a radical cure had proved unavailing. The sufferings of the distinguished patient had now become constant and his sight seriously affected. The rapid decline of his health made it apparent that he was no longer fit for the arduous duties of his position, and his friends began to urge him to ask for his recall. But Lord Metcalfe, with the indomitable courage that was his leading virtue, still held heroically to what he considered to be the post of duty.
Meantime, having got through one parliamentary session, Mr. Draper was anxious to avoid, if possible, encountering another upon the same terms. Draper appears to have realized that the great error of his past policy had been his failure to reckon with the strength of the united French-Canadian vote. This had upset his former ministry under Lord Sydenham, and the experience of the Metcalfe crisis had shown him that, even with the full support of a governor-general, the government could not be satisfactorily carried on without French-Canadian support. Mr. Draper now determined to obtain this support, and to retrieve his past errors by the formation of a new variety of political coalition. Of the Reform party of Upper Canada he had but little fear. Their representation in parliament was now seriously depleted, and even among their remaining members of the assembly, divisions had existed during the past session; on the other hand, the star of the Tories was in the ascendant and that party might always be counted upon to offset in Upper Canada the political influence of the Reformers. If then, Mr. Draper argued, the French-Canadian party under LaFontaine could be induced to break loose from Baldwin and his adherents and to join forces with the Ministerialists of Upper Canada, a combination could be formed that would hold a strong majority in both of the ancient provinces. We have here the beginnings of that system of a “double majority,” — a majority, that is, in both Upper and Lower Canada, — which became the will o’ the wisp of the rival politicians, and which many persons were presently inclined to invest with a constitutional sanctity, as forming part of the necessary machinery of Canadian government. It was characteristic of the ways and means of Mr. Draper, to whom the term “artful dodger” has often been applied, that he was prepared to throw overboard his French-Canadian men of straw (Viger and Papineau) to make way for LaFontaine, Morin, and their friends.
On the principle of the “double majority” see Dent, The Past Forty Years, Vol. II. p et seq. Hincks’s Political History () contains interesting matter in this connection. “Up to the time of my leaving Canada in 1855,” writes Hincks, “no political alliance was formed on the principle of securing majorities from the two provinces.” The Draper-Caron-LaFontaine correspondence here referred to is given in Hincks’s Reminiscences.
In order to attain his purpose, Mr. Draper in the autumn of 1845 entered into indirect negotiations with LaFontaine, Mr. Caron, the speaker of the legislative council, acting as a go-between. In the three-cornered correspondence that ensued the question of a ministerial reconstruction along the lines of the new alliance was fully discussed. Draper at first had interviews with Caron in which he suggested that the ministry might be strengthened by the addition of leading French-Canadian Reformers. Caron conveyed this suggestion to LaFontaine in a letter of September 7th, 1845. Mr. Draper’s ideas, gathered thus at one remove and intentionally expressed with vagueness, may be seen in the following passage from Mr. Caron’s letter. “He [Mr. Draper] told me that Mr. Viger could be easily prevailed upon to retire, and that Mr. Papineau desired nothing better: that both these situations should be filled up by French-Canadians: he seemed desirous that Morin should be president of the council . . . he spoke of the office of solicitor-general, which, he said, ought to be filled by one of our origin . . . he also spoke of an assistant secretaryship, the incumbent of which ought to receive handsome emoluments . . . This was about all he could for the present offer to our friends, who, when in power, might themselves strive afterwards to make their share more considerable. As regarded you [LaFontaine], he said that nothing would afford him greater pleasure than to have you as his colleague, but that, as the governor and yourself could not meet, the idea of having you form part of the administration must be given up so long as Lord Metcalfe remained in power: that it would be unjust to sacrifice a man of your influence and merit . . . but that this difficulty could easily be made to disappear by giving you an appointment with which you would be satisfied. . . . As to Mr. Baldwin, he said little about; but I understood, as I did in my first conversation, that he thought he would retire of himself.”
Such was Mr. Draper’s plan. LaFontaine’s attitude in the dealings which followed is entirely above reproach. Mr. Draper’s method of approach he considered to be irregular and unconstitutional; nor did the glittering bribe of “handsome emoluments” and “an appointment with which he would be satisfied,” conceal from him the real meagreness of Mr. Draper’s offer. The artful attorney-general was indeed merely offering to buy off a number of leading French-Canadians with offers of office and salary. It appears, however, that if Mr. Draper had been willing to go further and entirely reconstruct the Lower Canadian part of his cabinet so as to place it in the hands of the Reformers, LaFontaine would have been willing to make terms with him. This statement must not, however, be misunderstood. The arrangement contemplated was viewed by LaFontaine, not as the purchase of the Lower Canadian party by Mr. Draper, but as the purchase of Mr. Draper by the Lower Canadian party. The plan was fully discussed between LaFontaine and Hincks in Montreal. Nor did LaFontaine conceal anything of the negotiations in question from Robert Baldwin. The plan contemplated by LaFontaine and Hincks would merely have amounted to a further consolidation of the united French and English Reform party by adding to its ranks Mr. Draper and his immediate adherents. The danger of further secession, in pursuance of the example of Denis, Papineau and Viger, would thus be minimized. The undoubted parliamentary talents of Mr. Draper would lend a valuable support to the cause, and the Tories of Upper Canada would remain in hopeless isolation. In a letter of September 23rd, 1845, LaFontaine wrote very freely to Baldwin of the whole matter, and enclosed a translation of his letter to Caron. “Mr. Hincks,” he said, “whom I saw this morning, seemed to be favourable to the plan, if it was effected, admitting that it would immediately crush the reaction in Quebec, and would strengthen you in Upper Canada. For my part I think Mr. Draper would be very glad to have an opportunity to act with the Liberal party: he knows he is not liked by the Tory party and that they wish to get rid of him. However, that is his own business.”
MS. Letters of LaFontaine to Baldwin. Baldwin Correspondence, (Toronto Public Library.)
If so powerful a combination of parties, and one so obviously advantageous to the interests of his race could have been formed, LaFontaine was perfectly willing, if need be, to retire from his leadership of the party in order to facilitate the new arrangement. “What French-Canadians should do above everything,” he wrote, “is to remain united and to make themselves respected. I will not serve as a means of dividing my compatriots. If an administration is formed which merits my confidence, I will support it with all my heart. If it has not my confidence but possesses that of the majority of my compatriots, not being able to support it, I will willingly resign my seat, rather than cast division in our ranks.” But to meet LaFontaine’s views, Mr. Draper would have been called upon to go further than he had intended. To break entirely with the Canadian Tories and to throw overboard Mr. Dominick Daly, — the “permanent secretary,” as he was now facetiously entitled, — was more than Mr. Draper had bargained for. These difficulties caused the negotiations to hang fire until the recall of Lord Metcalfe changed the position of affairs. “The whole affair,” says a Canadian historian, “suddenly collapsed, and the only result was to intensify the political atmosphere, and aggravate the quarrel between a weak government and a powerful opposition.”
Fennings Taylor, Portraits of British Americans, Vol. I. .
Among the correspondence of Robert Baldwin in reference to the proposed reconstruction of parties, appears a letter of considerable interest addressed to LaFontaine which bears no date, but which was probably written in the autumn of 1845, after the failure of Mr. Caron’s negotiations. Baldwin expresses an emphatic disapproval of any attempt to set up the principle of a “double majority.” Such a system of government would be calculated, in his opinion, rather to intensify than to obliterate the racial animosity and end in precipitating a desperate struggle for supremacy. “You already know,” he wrote, “my opinion of the ‘double majority’ as respects the interests of the province at large. When I gave you that opinion I hesitated to dwell on what appears to me to be its extreme danger to our Lower Canadian friends of French origin themselves. . . . I speak not of the present public men of the province, or of the course which they or any of them may take. Some may be swept away from the arena altogether; others may retire; but in the event of such an arrangement being carried out, all who remain upon the political sea will, I am satisfied, have to go with the stream. The arrangement will be viewed as one based essentially upon a natural, original distinction and equally uninfluenced by the political principles. British and French will then become in reality, what our opponents have so long wished to make them, the essential distinctions of party, and the final result will scarcely admit of doubt. The schemes of those who looked forward to the union as a means of crushing the French-Canadians, and who advocated it with no other views, will then be crowned with success, and the latter will themselves have become the instruments to accomplish it. That this will be the final result of any successful attempt to reorganize the ministry upon such a foundation, I have no doubt whatever. It will not, however, be injurious to the French-Canadian portion of our population alone. It appears to me equally clear that it will be most calamitous to the country in general. It will perpetuate distinctions, initiate animosities, sever the bonds of political sympathy and sap the foundation of political morality.”
Baldwin Correspondence, (Toronto Public Library.)
In the autumn of 1845 the progress of Lord Metcalfe’s malady was such as rapidly to render him unfit for further exertions. His disease had almost destroyed his sight and his constant sufferings rendered the transaction of official business a matter of extreme difficulty. At the end of October he asked for his recall. But the imperial government, aware of his distressing condition, had anticipated his request, and Stanley had already forwarded to him the official acceptance of a resignation which he might use at any time that seemed proper to him. “You will retire, whenever you retire,” wrote the colonial secretary, “with the entire approval and admiration of Her Majesty’s government.” Lord Metcalfe left Montreal at the end of November, 1845, and returned to England. All attempts to stay the ravages of his dreadful malady proved unavailing and after months of suffering, borne with admirable constancy, he died on September 5th, 1846. Not even the melancholy circumstances of Lord Metcalfe’s departure from Canada could still the animosity of his opponents, and a section of the Reform press greeted the news of his retirement with untimely exultation.
