IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 I.I 1.25 IIM 112.5 ilia Ilk |||||Z2 2.0 1.4 1= 1.6 <% V] *^ ^> ,■■'". ■■> y /<^ Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y 14580 (716) 872-4503 Is, signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbole V signifie "FIN". Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre film6s A des taux de reduction diffdrents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seul cliche, il est filmi A partir de Tangle sup6rieur gauche, de gauche d droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images nicessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la mithode. 9rrata to pelure, >n d n 32X 1 2 3 12 3 4 5 6 \ ■ . ■ ' '■ ■ - . ■- ■I\ I PATRONAGE IS POWER. " Athinrs fomlia, parcequf ses erreiirs htl parnrcnt SI (foiiccs quelle ne voulnt pas en gidrir^ M0NTES(^L'lKr MONTREAL: DAWSON BROTHERS, PUBEESHERS. 188G. J' I; *f MONTI! EAL: D. BENTLKY \ >0., I'UINTKRS. F T •' Tlif spirit tif s('lf'-liol|) is tlic mot of nil j^oiiuine trrowtli in tlic imliviiluai, iiiid, exhibited in the lives of tlio many, it constitutes tile true source of national vigour and strcniitli. Help from without is often enfeebliuy iu its effects, but help from within invariably invigorates Whatever is done for men or classes, to a certain extent, takes away the stimulus and necessity of doinu i'or themselves; and witci'c men are sulijcct to over-gw'uhtnct ami arer-gorernvient, the inevitable tendeiin/ is to nndiv them (■oinparatii-c/j/ luJjiless." S.viLKs •' Self-IIklp." PATRONAUl^ IS POWER. It is about one huiulrGd and fifty years ago since Hume wrote a curious essay entitled " Whether the IJritish ji-overnment inclines more to absolute monarchy or to a republic." Al'tcr carefully balancinu" the arguments (m both sides he ( ame to the conclusion that the tendency was towards absolutism, and he based his conclusion on the fact that the immensi' and increasing revenue of the Crown gave it a corresponding increase of patronage, and that patronage was power. It must have appeared a stranov conclusion at the time, as the power ol' the Crown had been shrinking, and it had never belbre reached so low a point as under the (irst two Georges. Nevertheless Hume's forecast proved true to the letter. " Whatever you do, GcMU'ge, l)e a king ! " was the advice which the Princess of Wales gave to her son. King George was not slow to take the hint, and having dis- covered that patronage^ was power he became his own minister and established his own little despotism. If we were to inquire to-day whether the Canadian government inclines more towards despotism or freedom, the inquiry would appear a very strange one. Never- theless there are reasonable grounds for it, ii'wo correctly understand the meaning of the words used. Freedom is a good old Saxon word, signifying that love of personal independence and individual action, so dear to the heart of the Englishman, and it is the stalf out of which great men and great nations hav<' been made. 6 It is somethiniT quite (liflViviit Irom tho idea conveyed by thai mueh-ahusod word iilxTly, which in its niotlcrn sense has come to mean little more than love of equality, a mere />///.s Jatuu^i which has led one nation al'lt^r another into the quagmires ol" anarchy and revolr.tion. The word desi)otism we are at first naturally inclined to connect with th(^ diiys of /rftre^-f/e-rrfclitf and commit- ments to Ihe Tower, — days which have happily passed away; but there is a modern form of it which is far more insidious and iar-roaehing\ as it «'nslaves not the body but the mind.-- It acts by crushinii' cmt individu- ality and self-reliance, and by teaching" the people^ to look constantly for assistance to a central power instead of relying U]>on their own individual elibrts " Even despotism," says John > on the Government and less on himself, — in point of fact we lind ourselves face to face with thai modern (U'spotism whid in spite of it. Modern desi)otism is of a far more deadly type. Dased as it is upon the volun- tary servitude of a people trained to rely more upon the Government tha)i upon individual (^tlbrt, it is destructive of public spirit and renders the whole political landscape as ilat as a prairie. To attack it is to fiuht with air, and any man foolish enough to waste his eloquence in our Hous(> of Commons by pointing out that the patronage of the Canadian minister has increased, is increasing, and must be dim- inished, would merely be crying in the wilderness. What is really w^anted is a healthy spiiit of resistance on the part of the peoi)le themselves to a system whit'h is daily encroaching on their frcH^lom and their individuality, but unfortunately they have become so accustomed to Government patronage, that to urge this view is merely " vexing the dull ear of a drowsy man." The patriot, wiio in time past had the courage to attack the vices of an aristocratic despotism, could always command an enthusiastic audience, but the critic who ventures to point out the short-comings of a democracy, must be content to lecture to empty benches. No feeling \ * How strangL'Iy all this reads to-day, when the power of the Crown has been reduced almost to vanishing point. It might, however, revive. The English people are still very loyal and if the popular party succeeds in destioying the political power of the aristocracy, the practical effect would probably be to throw ujore inlluence into tht; hands of the Crown 9 1 \ can ho ijroiispd uiiloss, j^ossihly, l)y Hii'^s-i'stinff that the spoils arc not Ix'iiiL!,- lairly dividtMl. There fiiu ])0 no douht. however, t\\;\\ many ihoufifht- fnl men in Canada are hefrinninu' to realize the fact, that patronaii'e is i^nver to-day as it was in th(» days of Kinu; Gi^orii'e, and that the immense patronaii;;e concentrated in the hands of the Cansidian minister (tou'other with the open, nuhlusliinLi' and unscruimlous use made of it, with a view to maintaining' the power of a dominant parliamentary oliuarchyi is seri u sake of illustratinii- the argument, it is well worih our while to glance at the position of such public bodi(^s as our Harbour Trusts, and compare it with the position of similar corporations in the Mother Country. If we go to Li\(»rpool.-f^ [jondon, or Grlass'ow we find that the superb harbour works which have made those cities wealthy and famous, have all been erected by local enterprise, and the corporations which administer their affairs are not only independent * Th<^ CH8C of Livoriiooi is peculiar. Without any cxtraneons assistance the Dock estate becauic? so flourishing tiiat tlie Government stepped in, and with tiie assistance of Manciitster and I^irkenliead, forced it to take over the bankrupt Birkenhead Dock estate. Had it not been ior this, Liverpool might almost iiave been a free port to-day. It is a splendid instance of what may be done by private enterprise in s[)ite of (lovernment interference and is a great contrast to wliat lias been doni' iiere witli its aid. 10 of tho Government, but they actually form a counter- poise to the inllucnci^ of the central Grovernment. It is local corporations of this description which form the con- stant theme of praise in the writings of English consti- tutional historians. They form the basis of constitutional freedom, and, when they lose their independt^nce, the whole fabric is endangered. It is to institutions such as these that we should look for our future politicians, and where they should learn what can be done by the unaided efforts of a free peox)le. The possession of a line harbour has always, both in ancient and modern times, been the making of a great city, and if any object could arouse the enthusiasm of the citizen it should surely be the preservation of the harbour. Nevertheless, if we examine the position of our Harbour Trusts, we lind them hope- lessly dependent on the Government and only too well pleased to accept that assistance from the Government which, as w«' all know, can only be had in return for political subservience. ='• It must be clearly understood •One of the wor.st features of ('loveriinieiit assistance is that it is as demoralizing to the institntion which accepts it as the relieving-officer is to the individual. Should anyhody douht this, let him study the history of the Quebec Graving Dock as set forth in the last report of the Harbour Trust. The water broke into the dock and nearly drowned the men who were at work, and the Engineer attributes the accident '• to the policy which placed the entrance works on a foundation of quicksand of unknown depth.'" The use of the word polici/ here is certainly very droll, and the Engineer who penned the report must surely have been a bit of a wag in his own way. For policy might we not read "reckless imbecility." A graving dock built on a foundation of quicksand of unknown depth ! Could anything so utterly monstrous have happened in an undertaking worked out by private enterprise ? If any reform of our institutions were possible, it would surely be ad- visable to commence with our city corporations. Brilliant theorists tell us that it is a blunder (o speak of taxes as being voted by one class and paid by another, and that taxation ultimately falls on all alike. This is quite true, theoretically, but practically it is a delusion. The man who really pays the taxes is the man viho feels the incidence of taxation, and if economy and good government are desirable things, it is to his hands that the affairs of the city should be entrusted. t n thai no attack is hero moaiit upon the gentlemen who administ«»r our Harbour Trusts. They must work the system as they lind it, and would bo betraying- their trust if they permitted rival ports to get ahead of them in the race for Governm(Mit patronage. But the mere fact of such important corporations being willing to accept a position of dependence upon the central Government is one of the best instances that could be brought forward of the ever-widening circle of Govern- ment patronage and of the increasing helplessness of the citi/en. It would be easy to bring forward instances of other institutions which have dril'r(>d into the same position, but it is unnecessary. The example quoted is quite sufficient for the purpose of pointing out how deeply the love of Government patronage has eaten into the heart of the country, and how completely our modern despotism has succeeded in crushing individu- ality and destroying the spirit of self-help. * What renders this concentration of an extended patronage in the hands of the Canadian minister still more dangerous, is the fact that public opinion is quite • As illustratinjj the helplessness of the citizen, it might perhaps be advisable to examine the working of our city corporations, but the subject is not a pleasant one. The system which entrusts the manage- ment of our city affairs to the hands of men who accept the position rather as a means of subsistence than as a post of honour, can hardly be looked upon as perfect, but the reform of popular institutions is a task not to be lightly entered upon. At the sami; time something might surely be done with a view to curtailing the powers of these [ inveterate jobbers. That they should have the power to vote away millions for the purpose of building railways is surely offering a premium on corruption. The loyal citizen would always pay his taxes without complaint could he only feel sure that the money was honestly applied, bnt "the sting of taxation is wastefulness." A point well worth noting with regard to our civic Government is the fact of our so often hearing it said, " Now we have got a good Mayor, and things will be better done." Nothing of this description could be said if the Mayor were the mere chairman which he ought to be, but the fact is iiitertjsling as showing the tendency to fall back on the one-man power. 12 powerless to act as any check on its improper use. It has often been asserted that there was no such thing as public opinion in the time of the Georges ; but what after all is public opinion, and why should it have played so important a Dart during the last lil'ty years of English political history, while in Canada its inlluence is twen less than when George III was king ? The explanation would appear to be that it is really the outcome of aristocratic institutions combined, with a limited fran- chise and a powerful independent press. There is nothing more easy than to close the door of the political arena as against the influence of education and intelli- gence, but the power of " the people," whether with or without votes is indestructible under any form of G-overnment. Under a restricted franchise the power of the people comes behind the power of the electors, and, interpreted by an independent press, it forms the basis of a public opinion which in this way becomes a real political power. An aristocratic Government (with that unknown quantity " the people " always before its eyes) is necessarily weak as regards its home policy and is easily swayed by the slightest breeze of popular feeling. It is as sensitive as a barometer, and public opinion acts upon it at once and forms an invaluable check upon any abuse of power. With a largely extended franchise, the elector, it is true, possesses a vote, but it is all that he has got, and when he has parted with that his usefulness is gone until the next general election. In this respect he much resembles the human victim offered up on IMexican altars in the days of Cortes. He is petted, pampered and indulged for a month previous to the day of sacrifice, (in other words the day of polling,) after which he is killed and eaten. He has handed over his political existence to the wire puller who becomes the heir of his political power, and who then boldly proclaims that »■ 13 lie is public opinion and that all further discussion is worthless. The relative merits of aristocratic and demo- cratic institutioiis are not here under discussion, and the ultra democratic system may be the best of all possible systems and specially adapted to the wants of the best of all possible worlds. What we have to look at is the fact that a healthy public opinion, such as has exercised so larg'e an iniiuence in England during- the past fifty years, cannot llourish along with it. It may continue to exist in a moditied form, and independent journals such as The Week. The Star and Grip do occasionally chirrup an independent note, but it has ceased to be a political poiver andd power over the administration of imblic aftairs, ujion the sole condition that they are able to secure and retain a majority in the popular branch ol" the legislature. In so far as Caiuida is con- cerned, it would scarcely be going too far to assert that the practical ellect has been to concentrate all the pow«M- and all the ])atronage of a strong central Government in the hands of one man. whose ability enables him to maintain an ascendency over his fellow ministers, which was quite beyond the powers of King George. * In a letter written by Aiphens Todd to a friend, to whom he sent a copy of his works, lu- says—" I wish some of our younp writers would ponder over my exposition of the true place and functions of a Governor in our constitutirmal system. It preatiy needs to be urged upon the people of onr Colonies. We are fast driltin() in/o that hate/ul (hiw/, a ministerial oligarchy, whirh ivill turn parliamentari/ (/orernment into a reptiblic of the worst description." All Mr. Todd's efforts to prove the absolute necessity of maintaiuinfT the influence of the Governor have failed. His power has been gradually whittled away, and as both our political factions have a.ssisted at the work, they cannot throw stones at one another. The wire-puller is a terrible despot at heart, and cannot stand the slightest touch of the curb. In the hands of a stroTig man, however, the power of th(; Governor is not yet quite visionary. Lord Duiferiii, for instance, was not the man to accept calmly the position of a mere figurehead. If report speaks truly he did occasionally threaten to take the next steamer home unless he got his own way. But the power of the Governor is so rarely exercised (except when Colonial measures clash with Imperial interests), that our oligarchy remains practically unchecked. "A republic of the worst description" is exactly what we have got. 88 Th«' rt'in('di«'s which arc now boiui*- suffg^stod for our present evils are iudep^'iidcnce or annexation, but it is not easy to sec what we would fj^ain by adopting the former. Without a complete rc-modclling- of our system the only i)ractical clfi'ct of independence would be to abolish the ( rovcrnor-Gcneral and su})stitute a party man in his place, and to do this would be neither more nor less than to cut out the one sound plank (weak though it may l)e) r«'mainin<^ in our constitution. Nor should Wc overlook th<^ fact that with a Conservative Government in power in l^Jii^land, it would be no easy matter to get independence granted to us. The British Conservative party has always placed great value on the Colonial connection and has frequejitly made con- siderable sacrifices with a view to maintaining it. They have always acted loyally and generously towards the Colonies and might fairly look for a kindly feeling in return. So long as they remain in pow^er it might be better — " to bear the ills we liave, Than fly to others that we know not of" With the Liberals back in power, however, the position would be much changed. They have never shown much attachment to the Colonial connection and might be well pleased to let us go. Nor should we forget that the openly avowed object of the popular party in the mother country is to wape out the last vestige of aristocratic tradition, to transform the House of Commons into a Chamber of Delegates, to obliterate the House of Lords, and to render still more shadowy the present prerogative of the Crown ; in other words, to establish the Government of a parliamentary oligarchy on the exact model of the one we enjoy here. Should this programme be carried out. and the tendency would appear to be very much in that t 28 ■I (lin'ction, it setniis difficult to heliove thiil ('iinaabiiity have to he made, but it' that loyalty to the Crown, which up to this time has been so character- istic a icature oi' the Canadian people, is really to be extinguished, it would surely be much better to lace the position boldly and accept annexation, taking the American constitution along with it. The benelits to be derived from this course are many and various. It wor^d at any rate give us a constitution abounding in chcL s, and specially devised by the a))lest men for a democratic community, instead of a traditional constitu- tion suitable only for a i)eople imbued with aristocratic traditions, and adapted to a state of political feeling which is fast passing away, even in the country which iirst pro- duced it. It would tend to throw each I'rovince on its own resources, and dissipate that over-grown patronage which has enabled a powerful minister to rinluce so many institutions, and so large a proportion of the people into mere hangers-on of the Government, and it might in time substitute a national feeling for that jealous provincialism which renders it necessary to brilx^ each Province with its own money to keep on terms with the rest, and which threatens daily the disrux^tion of the Dominion. True it is, that the ingenuity of the wire-puller has succeeded in breaking down many of the safeguards set up by the able men who framed the American constitution, and to supi)ose that we can in any way get rid of him, is of course out of the question. He must be accepted as a great political power and an inevitable evil ; but out- of the leading points of dilierence between the American practical and the British tradiliunal 24 Constitution is the fact, that whereas the former recoir- nizes the wire-puller, the latter does not. Sheltered beneath British tradition he Uourishes like a " green bay tree,'" and there is practically no cheek upon him ; but the men who orig'inated the American Constitution Ibresuw his future niiluence, and set many cheeks on him. He has got the better of them in the struo-gl(», no doubt, even in America ; but although he has succeeded in seriously weakening the original American constitution, hisefibrts have not yet had the I'll'ect of completely break- ing it down. Much still remains that is invaluable, and w<> have nothing to lose by adopting it. It is at any rate suitable to the times and to the people, and differs in this respect from l]nglish institutions which have not proved a success in the Colonies, though it may sound like rank heresy to make such an assertion. It must surely, however, be quite patent to anybody who takes the trouble to look into the matter, that the constant check exercised upon each other by King, Lords, and Commons in the Mother Country has no more than a nominal existence in Canada, and the Iraditiuns of the constitution have become little more than a myth, a mere heap of dry bones. This being the ous mass, and it seems more than probable that in the not far distant future, they must break up and re-form. It is a most remarkable fact, that leading men in the Northern States are bi-ainning to assert openly that the civil war was a dreadful blunder, and that it would have been much better to have let the South go. Edward Everett Hale, for instance, speakino- at the Norfolk club, boldly declared '" Ihat the Southern States are incapable of self-government, that the people have no faculty of administration, that it was a mistake that they were made a part of the Union in th(» lirst place, thai it is a misjbrtinie that they are a part of it now, and that the only security oT national prosperity is that the Norlhern States shall stand together to prevent the South from obtaining any controlling inllucnce in the Government." "If Mr. Hale is riuht.'" says the Boston Advertiser, •' the North made a mistake in refusing to let the South go."' If there be any basis of truth in this statement ol the case, it must be evident that union with Canada would be fraught with advantage to all i)artics. The Northern States would gain in strength, the South might be granted their indei)endence if they wished for it, and the gain to Canada w^ould be incahntlable The Northern and Southern States have neither interests nor feelings in common, whereas the interests of our Maritime Provinces are identical with those of their neighbours across the line, and the interests of Ontario are bound up wath those in the American States. Both Americans and Canadians are still very young as nations, not averse to change, and th(»y would soon settle dovsii under new conditions. Where all parties would be gainers, it seems difficult to believe that the scheme is 26 impracticable, but the question raised is, of course, a very complicated one, and it may he admitted that this portion of the subject is more a matter for the practical politiciaJi than for the theoretical essayist. But if any change is to be made, the impulse must come from the people. Our premier is undoubtedly a great man, and if a statesman is to bo judged by the light of the times in which he lives, and the system which he is called upon to administer, we must admit that he is a great statesman. Apart from political rancour there arc few sensible men who imagine that we would improve matters by putting anybody else in his place. But to ask him to alter a system which makes him one of the most powerful Minist(>rs of modern times is to ask too much. Patronage is power to-day as it ever was, and what we have to contend against is tlie increasing patronage of the Minister, the increasing demoralization of local institutions, and the increasing helplessness and dependence of the citizen. What we are really in want of (in the Province of Quebec at any rate) is not national but personal independence, and until the people can be brought to see this, until they learn to love freedom more and patronage a great deal less, it is difficult to sei> how any change is going to benelit us. It is quite possible that the best course we can pursue is to remain contented as w^e are, but there is no reason why we should deceive ourselves by closing our eyes on the defects of our political system. J^iberty we still have, and plenty of it; but freedom, such as it is described by enthusiastic historians of the British con- stitution, is fast becoming little more than a name. The form of government under which we are now living is Modern Despotism, based upon the corruption of the electorate, and administered by a ])arliamentary oli- garchy. IglS ' tho oli-