Delphi Complete Works of Stephen Leacock, page 477
CHAPTER IX
THE SECOND LAFONTAINE-BALDWIN MINISTRY
THE SECOND LAFONTAINE-BALDWIN administration, which extended from the beginning of 1848 until the retirement of the two Reform leaders in the summer of 1851, has earned in Canadian history the honourable appellation of the “great ministry.” Its history marks the culmination of the lifework of Robert Baldwin and Louis LaFontaine and the justification of their political system. It is a commonplace of history that every great advance in the structure of political institutions brings with it an acceleration of national progress. This is undoubtedly true of the LaFontaine-Baldwin ministry, whose inception signalizes the final acceptance of the principle of responsible government. This fact lent to it a vigour and activity which enabled it to achieve a legislative record with which the work of no other ministry during the period of the union can compare. The settlement of the school system, the definite foundation of the University of Toronto on the basis to which it owes its present eminence, the organization of municipal government, the opening of the railroad system of Canada, — these are among the political achievements of the “great ministry.” More than all this is the fact that the LaFontaine-Baldwin ministry indicates the first real pacification of French Canada, the passing of the “strife of two nations warring within the bosom of a single state” and the beginning of that joint and harmonious citizenship of the two races which has become the corner-stone of the structure of Canadian government. The ministry stands thus at the turning-point of an era. The forces of racial antipathy, separation and rebellion, scarce checked by the union of 1840, here pass into that broader movement which slowly makes towards Canadian confederation and the creation of a continental Dominion.
See note on page 190.
Towards the change of national life thus indicated other and more material forces were also tending. The era of the “great ministry” belongs to the time when the advent of the railroad and the telegraph was unifying and consolidating the industrial and social life of the country. Sandwich and Gaspé no longer appeared the opposite ends of the earth. The toilsome journey that separated the chief cities of Upper from those of Lower Canada was soon to become a thing of the past, and a more active intercourse and more real sympathy between the eastern and western sections of the country to take the place of their former political and social isolation. Lord Elgin once said that the true solution of the Canadian question would be found when both the French and the English inhabitants should be divided into Conservative and Liberal parties whose formation should rest upon grounds of kindred sentiments and kindred interests. For this the changes now operative in the country were preparing the way: the old era was passing away and a new phase of national life was destined to take its place. Looking back upon the period we can see that the LaFontaine-Baldwin administration marks the time of transition, the essential point of change from the Canada of the rebellion epoch to the Canada of the confederation.
The result of the election of 1847-8 had made it a foregone conclusion that the Conservative government must retire from office. Lord Elgin called the parliament together at Montreal on February 25th, 1848, and the vote on the election of the speaker showed at once the relative strength of the parties in the assembly. It having been proposed that Sir Allan MacNab, the late speaker of the House, be again elected, Baldwin proposed the name of Morin in his stead: while paying tribute to the qualifications of Sir Allan in other respects, he held it fitting that the speaker should be able to command both the French and English languages. A vote of fifty-four to nineteen proved the overwhelming strength of the Reformers. The answer to the speech from the throne, as was of course to be expected, was met by an amendment, proposed by Robert Baldwin, to the effect that the present ministry did not enjoy the confidence of the country. The amendment being carried by a vote of fifty-four to twenty (March 3rd, 1848), the Conservative ministers tendered their resignation. Lord Elgin at once sent for LaFontaine and the latter, in consultation with Baldwin, proceeded to form the ministry which bears their names. The ministry as thus constituted (March 11th, 1848) was as follows: —
For Lower Canada: L. H. LaFontaine, attorney-general; James Leslie, president of the executive council; R. E. Caron, president of the legislative council; E. P. Taché, chief commissioner of public works; T. C. Aylwin, solicitor-general; L. M. Viger, receiver-general.
For Upper Canada: Robert Baldwin, attorney-general; R. B. Sullivan, provincial secretary; F. Hincks, inspector-general; J. H. Price, commissioner of Crown lands; Malcolm Cameron, assistant commissioner of public works; W. H. Blake, solicitor-general.
Mr. Blake, who was absent in Europe, did not enter on office until April, 1849.
Frequent mention has already been made of most of the above. Leslie, who had for many years represented the county of Verchères, and Malcolm Cameron, who had been a bitter opponent of Sir F. B. Head and had held a minor office under Bagot, represented the more Radical wing of the Reform party. The name of (Sir) Etienne Taché, twice subsequently prime minister, is of course well known. Taché had formerly been in the assembly for six years (1841-6), had since held the office of deputy adjutant-general, and was now, along with James Leslie, given a seat in the legislative council. Various other additions were presently made to the Upper House in order to redress the balance of parties therein and more adequately to represent the French-Canadian population.
Lord Elgin, although determined not to identify himself in sympathy with either of the Canadian parties, seems, none the less, to have entertained a high idea of the ability and integrity of his new ministers. “My present council,” he wrote to Lord Grey, “unquestionably contains more talent, and has a firmer holder on the confidence of parliament and of the people than the last. There is, I think, moreover, on their part, a desire to prove, by proper deference for the authority of the governor-general (which they all admit has in my case never been abused), that they were libelled when they were accused of impracticability and anti-monarchical tendencies.” The governor was determined to let the leaders of the ministry feel that they need fear no repetition of their difficulties with Sir Charles Metcalfe. In an initial interview with Baldwin and LaFontaine he took pains to assure them of the course he intended to pursue. “I spoke to them,” he wrote afterwards, “in a candid and friendly tone; told them I thought there was a fair prospect, if they were moderate and firm, of forming an administration deserving and enjoying the confidence of parliament: that they might count on all proper support and assistance from me.”
Walrond, Letters of Lord Elgin, .
It was not possible for the ministry to undertake a serious programme of legislation during the session of 1848. Those of the ministers who belonged to the assembly — including LaFontaine and Baldwin — had of course to present themselves to their constituents for reëlection. This proved an easy matter, the elections being either carried by acclamation or by large majorities. But Lord Elgin and his ministers both preferred to bring the session to a close, in order to leave time for the mature consideration of the measures to be adopted on the re-assembling of parliament. The legislature was accordingly postponed from March 23rd, 1848, until the opening of the following year. The parliamentary session which then ensued (dating from January 18th until May 30th, 1849) was unprecedented in the importance of its legislation and the excitement occasioned by its measures. The speech from the throne announced a vigorous programme of reform. Electoral reform, the revision of the judicature system of both provinces, the constitution of the university of King’s College, the completion of the St. Lawrence canals, and the regulation of the municipal system were among the subjects on which the parliament would be asked to legislate. The question of an interprovincial railroad from Quebec to Halifax and the transfer of the postal department from the imperial to the Canadian authorities, were also to be brought under consideration.
Two important announcements were also made by Lord Elgin on behalf of the imperial government. The legislature was informed that the imperial parliament had passed an Act in repeal of the clause of the Act of Union which had declared English to be the sole official language of the legislature. With instinctive tact and courtesy the governor-general demonstrated the reality of the change thus effected, by himself reading his speech in French as well as English, a proceeding which drew forth enthusiastic praise from the press of Lower Canada. The other announcement was no less calculated to enlist the sympathies of French Canada. “I am authorized to inform you,” said Lord Elgin, “that it is Her Majesty’s purpose to exercise the prerogative of mercy in favour of all persons who are still liable to penal consequences for political offences arising out of the unfortunate occurrences of 1837 and 1838, and I have the queen’s commands to invite you to confer with me in passing an Act to give full effect to Her Majesty’s most gracious intentions.”
Journals of the Legislative Assembly, January 18th, 1849.
The debate which followed on the address is notable for the trial of strength that occurred between LaFontaine and Louis-Joseph Papineau, the former leader of the popular party in the days of the rebellion. When the agitation in Lower Canada had broken into actual insurrection, Papineau had fled the country with a price upon his head. For two years he had lived in the United States; thence he passed to France where he spent some eight years, his time being chiefly passed in the cultured society of the capital. As yet no general law of amnesty had been passed to permit the return of the “rebels” of 1837. But in many individual instances the government had seen fit to grant a pardon. LaFontaine, during his first ministry, had urged upon Sir Charles Metcalfe the wisdom of a general amnesty. Unable to obtain this he had secured from the governor-general the authorization of a nolle prosequi in the case of Papineau. This was in 1843. The ex-leader did not, however, see fit to avail himself of his liberty to return to Canada until the year 1847. On his return in that year he had presented himself in the ensuing general election to the constituency of St. Maurice, and the prestige of his bygone career sufficed for his election. He once again found himself a member of a Canadian assembly.
For Papineau’s historic reputation among his compatriots, it would have been better had he never returned to Canada. True, he had been absent from the country but ten years, yet he came back to a Canada that knew him not. The charm of his personal address, the magniloquence of his oratory were still there, but the leadership of Louis-Joseph Papineau was gone forever. There were some in the province who could not forget that Papineau had fled from his misguided followers at the darkest hour of their fortunes. There were others — and these the bulk of his compatriots — who felt that the lapse of time and the march of events had rendered Papineau and his bygone agitation an issue of the past, an issue that could not serve as a rallying-point for French Canada in the altered circumstances of the hour. Of this great change Papineau himself realized nothing. He was still preaching the old doctrine of 1837, the uncompromising hostility to British rule and the veiled republicanism of his former days. In the brief session of 1848 he had angrily inveighed against the prorogation of parliament and had urged, to prevent it, a stoppage of supplies! Now, at the opening of the session of 1849, he rose to utter an impassioned but meaningless attack against the policy of LaFontaine. The great upheaval of European democracy of 1848, of which he had witnessed the approaching signals, had appealed to Papineau’s imagination. It ill sufficed him to live in a country in which there was no ruthless despotism to denounce, no grinding tyranny to oppose, no political martyrdom to attain. In default of a real tyranny he must invent one. He denounced the union of the Canadas, he denounced the legislative council, he denounced responsible government. “The constitution of the country,” he cried, “is false, tyrannical and calculated to demoralize its people. Conceived by statesmen of a narrow and malevolent genius, it has had up till the present, and can only have in the future, effects that are dangerous, results that are ruinous and disastrous.” Most bitterly of all did he denounce those of his race who had accepted and aided to establish the present system and who, for the sake of office and power, had bartered the proud independence of an unconquered race.
The reply of LaFontaine to Papineau ranks among his finest speeches. Inferior perhaps to his former leader in the arts of eloquence, he far excelled him in the balance and vigour of his intellect. The utter futility of Papineau’s adherence to the old uncompromising doctrines of the past, he easily exposed. “What,” he asked, “would have been the consequences of the adoption of this conflict to the bitter end, that we are reproached with not having adopted? If, instead of accepting the offers made to them . . . the representatives of Lower Canada had persistently held aloof, the French-Canadians would have never shared in the government of the country. They would have been crushed. Would you with your system of unending conflict have ever obtained the repeal of the clause of the Act of Union that proscribes our language? . . . If, in 1842, we had adopted that system should we now be in a position to solicit, to urge, as we have been doing, the return of our exiled compatriots?”
It might, perhaps, have been more magnanimous on the part of LaFontaine had he omitted to give his arguments a personal allusion. But the ingratitude of Papineau, who owed it to LaFontaine’s efforts and to the system of conciliation which he denounced, that he was able again to tread the soil of his native country, stung LaFontaine to the quick. He continued: “If we had not accepted office in the ministry of 1842, should we have been in a position to obtain for the honourable member himself, permission to return to his country, to obtain which I did not hesitate, in order to overcome the repeated refusals of Sir Charles Metcalfe, to offer my resignation of lucrative offices I then enjoyed? Yet, behold now this man obeying his old-time instinct of pouring forth insult and outrage, and daring in the presence of these facts to accuse me, and with me my colleagues, of venality, of a sordid love of office and of servility to those in power! To hear him, he alone is virtuous, he alone loves our country, he alone is devoted to the fatherland. . . . But since he bespeaks such virtue, I ask him at least to be just. Where would the honourable member be to-day, if I had adopted this system of a conflict to the bitter end? He would be at Paris, fraternizing, I suppose, with the red republicans, the white republicans, or the black republicans, and approving, one after the other, the fluctuating constitutions of France!”
Speech of January 23rd, 1849. (Translated from La Minerve.)
But though routed in debate by LaFontaine and unable any longer to lead the assembly, Papineau was not without a certain following. Some of the more ardent of the younger spirits among the French-Canadians were still attracted by the prestige of his name and by the violence of his democratic principles, and espoused his cause. There began to appear a Radical wing of the French-Canadian Reformers, pressing upon the government a still greater acceleration of democratic progress and a still more complete recognition of the claims of their nationality. The Radical movement was as yet, however, but a more rapid eddy in the broad stream of reform that in the meantime was moving fast enough.
One hundred and ninety acts of parliament were passed during the session of 1849 and received the governor’s assent. Many of these — the Tariff Act, the Amnesty Act, the Railroad Acts, the Judicature Acts, the Rebellion Losses Act, the Municipal Corporations Act, and the Act to amend the charter of the university established at Toronto — are measures of first-rate importance. With the two last mentioned the name of Robert Baldwin will always be associated. It will be remembered that during his previous ministry Baldwin had brought in a bill for the revision of the charter of King’s College and for the consolidation of the denominational colleges of the country into a single provincial institution. Against this measure a loud outcry had been raised by the Tories, on the ground that it effected a spoliation of the Anglican Church which had hitherto exercised a dominant influence over King’s College, and whose doctrines were taught in the faculty of divinity of that institution. The rupture with Sir Charles Metcalfe had prevented the passage of the bill. Mr. Draper had introduced a measure of similar character, but had seen fit to abandon it on account of the opposition excited among his own adherents. The measure, which Baldwin carried through parliament in 1849, creating the University of Toronto in place of King’s College, has been said by Sir John Bourinot to have “placed the university upon that broad basis on which it still rests.” A former president of the University of Toronto, in a recent history of the institution, has seen fit to disparage Robert Baldwin’s Act, drawing attention to the needless complexity of its clauses, the failure of its attempt to affiliate the sectarian colleges, and to the fact that a revision of its provisions became necessary a few years later (1853). But the great merit of Baldwin’s University Act lay, not in its treatment of the details of organization but in the cardinal point of establishing a system of higher education, non-sectarian in its character, in whose benefits the adherents of all creeds might equally participate.
12 Vict. c. 1.
12 Vict. c. 13.
