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,
<f,
i<9 t
CIHM/ICMH
Microfiche
Series.
CIHM/ICMH
Collection de
microfiches.
Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut canadien de microreproductions historiques
Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques
The Institute has attempted to obtain the best
original copy available for filming. Features of this
copy which may be bibliographically unique,
which may alter any of the images in the
reproduction, or which may significantly change
the usual method of filming, are checked below.
D
n
n
D
D
Coloured covers/
Couverture de couleur
I I Covers damaged/
Couverture endommag^e
Covers restored and/or laminated/
Couverture restaurde et/ou pelliculde
Cover title missing/
Le titre de couverture manque
I I Coloured maps/
Cartes gdographiques en couleur
Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/
Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire)
I I Coloured plates and/or illustrations/
Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur
Bound with other material/
Relid avec d'autres documents
Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion
along interior margin/
La reliure serr^e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la
distortion le long de la marge int6rieure
Blank leaves added during restoration may
appear within the text. Whenever possible, these
have been omitted from filming/
II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajoutdes
lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte,
mais, lorsque cela dtait possible, ces pages n'ont
pas 6t6 filmdes.
Additional comments:/
Commentaires suppldmentaires:
L'lnstitut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemp'aire
qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details
de cet exempiaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du
point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier
une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une
modification dans la m6thode normale de filmage
sont indiqu6s ci-dessous.
n
a
D
D
□
n
This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/
Ce document est film6 au taux de reduction indiqu6 ci-dessous.
10X 14X 18X 22X
Coloured pages/
Pages de couleur
Pages damaged/
Pages endommagdes
Pages restored and/or laminated/
Pages restaur^es et/ou pellicul^es
Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/
Pages d6color6es, tachetdes ou piqu^es
Pages detached/
Pages d^tachdes
Showthrough/
Transparence
I I Quality of print varies/
Quality in^gale de I'impression
Includes supplementary material/
Comprend du materiel supplementaire
Only edition available/
Seule Edition disponible
Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata
slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to
ensure the best possible image/
Les pages totalement ou partiellement
obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure,
etc., ont 6t6 film^es d nouveau de fapon d
obtenir la meilleure image possible.
26X
30X
y
12X
16X
20X
24X
28X
32X
e
§tails
s du
lodifier
r une
Image
IS
The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks
to the generosity of:
Library of the Public
Archives of Canada
The images appearing here are the best quality
possible considering the condition and legibility
of the original copy and in keeping with the
filming contract specifications.
Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed
beginning with the front cover and ending on
the last page with a printed or illustrated impres-
sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All
other original copies are filmed beginning on the
first page with a printed or illustrated impres-
sion, and ending on the last page with a printed
or illustrated impression.
The last recorded frame on each microfiche
shall contain the symbol — ^- (meaning "CON-
TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"),
whichever applies.
L'exemplaire film6 fut reproduit gidce d la
gAnirositi de:
La bibliothdque des Archives
publiques du Canada
Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le
plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et
de la netteti rje l'exemplaire filmd, et en
conformity dvec les conditions du contrat de
filmage.
Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en
papier est imprimis sont film6s en commenpant
par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la
derniAre page qui comporte une empreinte
d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second
plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires
originaux sont filmis en commen^ant par la
premidre page qui comporte une empreinte
d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par
la derniire page qui comporte une telle
empreinte.
Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la
dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le
cas: le symbols — ^> 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 ><tuarj Mill, "does not produce its
worst effects so long as individuality exists under it;
ami whatever cruidies inflivkbidlilj/ is dcspofistit, btj whnlever
mime it is caUed."' This is the form of des]x)tism with
which wo now have to contend — modern despotism,
crushing individuality.
If we have arrived at a correct understanding' of the
words despotism and freedom, let us glance at what is
going on around us, and inquire towards which of the
two \\(^ are inclining. In the first placi^ it is an un-
doubted fact that in th(^ Canada of to-day, it is impossible
to take a step either to the right or to the left without
running up against the Government. At the clubs, on
the stock exchange, in the markets, and at the street
corners the talk is all of " The Government," " Le
Gouvernement." Will not the Government give us a
t
* Uader tlie absolute swiiy of one man, the body was attacked in
order to .subdue tlie soul ; but the soul escaped the blows which
were directed against it and rose proudly superior. Such is not
the course adopted by tyranny in democratic repnbiics ; there the
body is left free and tlie soul is enslaved. Dk TocyuEviLLK.
1
little more for our Uiiihvay ? Csui we not pcrsnmlt' tho
Govcnnnciit to incrciise the uraiit lor oiir new Docks i*
AVhnt has the (loveninu'iit done ahout this, and what is
it ffoinsr to do about that? Even the man who wish'S
to mauufaeture bodkins lor the people of Canada must
lirst go to the iJovernment and bcu' its assistance.
with • view to n-e1tinu' the bodkin nianulacture all
to himseir. In whi<hever direetion W(^ turn we lind
the Government interferins' and reii-ulalinii* more and
more ; we liml our local institutions demoralized by
Government grants, and we lind the citizen being- edu-
cated to rely more and mori> on the Government and
less on himself, — in point of fact we lind ourselves face
to face with thai modern (U'spotism whi<h crushes
individuality, and which, though it harmonizes well
with liberty, strikes at the very existence of freedom.
Strange as it may appear, it seems impossible to avoid
the conclusion that freedom, in the best sense of the
word, had a better chance under King (reorge than
it has with us. King George's despotism was very
limited in its range, and the extent of his jiatronage
was quit(^ trilling as comj^ared with that of the
Canadian minister. He had to light every iii<h of
his way, and was always coming into contact with that
spirit of freedom which, as Dryden put it, is the Enulish-
man's prerogative. Fox thundered out in the 1 louse
of Commons that if any of his constituents were to
ask him to what the misfortunes of his country were
ascribable, he should say that the Urst was the in-
(luence of the Crown, the second was the iniluence of
the Crown, and the third was the iniluence of the Crown.
Mr. Dunning declared that the iniluence of the Crown
had increased, w^as increasing, and must be diminished ;
and the Edinburi^h Review assailed most bitterly, once
every quarter, the preponderating iniluence of the Crown
arising from the enormous extent of the patronage vested
8
in the Sovcrt'icii.'^ In point of fact we find that in tho
(lays of Kinii' George, tlic spirit ol' r(\sisianoe to (lovern-
nicnt interference was most active and vi<«-()rous. His old-
fashioned despotism olfered the l)est possible taru'et
for the shalts of the ablest speakers and most intellectual
writers; and notwithstaiidinu' the prevalent corruption,
which was quite as viruh'ut, thouuh by no means so
far-reachim*-, as in our own times, freedom of the best
sort ilourish(>d 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<ly tlirenteninu,*
the very existenee of freedom. In ; vldition to the
control of api)ointments to the Senate, the Supreme
Court, the Jleiuh, th.' Civil Servi and the ^;,llIia. the
C.^'iiidian minister has at his disp(VNi, an immense
Railway paironaue: and, worse than all, even our
local institutions are heinu' uradually dxsorbed. and
their freedom bartered for (Government assistance.
In a mere essay like this it is undesirable to enter
into criticisms of special institutions, but, for th(> 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 and<annot in any way be depended upon
to act as a check on the unscrupulous abuse of power
by a well organized parliamentary oligarchy. Were this
not so we w^ould surely hear more indignant protests
against the aw^ful system of jobbery, corruption and
peculation which we see so unblushingly carried on
around us, and w^hich extends through every nerve of
the body politic from the head in Ottaw^a down to the
remotest hamlet in the Dominion. "^ Public opinion, it
is true, may still exist, but there is no denying that the
vitality has been completely crushed out of it under the
iron heel of modern despotism. In the days ot King
George it may have been in its infancy, but in our ow^n
times it w^ould almost appear to be on its death-bed !
The parallel which has here been drawn between our
own times and those of King Greorge may at lirst sight
appear far-fetched and may even cause offence to those
men who are so blindly attached to popular Govern-
ment as to be unable to see its defects ; nevertheless
• It would be inteioKting to know what Sir Kobt. Walpolt- would think
of it all if he could como back to us. Ho was certainly suj)po8ed to know
something about bribery, but he would find that he still had much to learn,
and at any rate he would have the satisfaction of seeing how easy it is for
a democracy to ape all the worst vices of a despotism 1
14
the comparison may surely be considered interestins; as
showing how easy it is for political extremes to meet and
as indicating the natural tendency of modern despotism
to reproduce all the bad effects oi that old-fashioned
despotism which has now passed away. If such
words as freedom, independence, individuality and self-
help are to be blotted out from our political vocabulary
what possible ditFerence can it make to us wln'ther the
operation is performed by kinu' or caucus-man ? The
latter is really by far the more powerful of the two.
The old-fashioned despot had but one head after all, which
could be removed when he became too troublesome, but
his modern representative possesses more heads than the
hydra, more arms than Driannis, and more eyes than
Argus. His influence penetrates into the most remote
corner ot the Dominion, and his pow^er of crushing out
independence of thought and action is unlimited. The
extravagance of the monarch has been a constant theme
of attack, but the reckless squandering of the wire-iniUer
must be permitted to proceed unchecked, and the tax-
payer must submit i)i silence. No monarch of ancient
times ever sat so lirmly, so securely, or so comfortably
upon his throne as his modern representative, and so
long as he there sits let no man say that despotism is
dead. Old-fashioned vices may be called by new^-fangled
names, but they continue to exist notwithstanding.
Let us take a glance at the peculiar political system
under which we are living, for it is a peculiar system,
and differs in some w^ays from anything that has
previously been put into practice. It is not a monarchy,
for we have no monarch, and the Governor-General
(although his limited iniluence is invaluable so far as
it goes) is the mere shadow of a shadow. It is not an
aristocracy, for w^e have no aristocrats, and the suttrage
is almost universal. It is certainly a democracy, and
15
yet it is not a republic. It is in fact a hybrid system, —
the outeomt^ of a most praiseworthy effort on the part
of British statesmen to plant the old aristocratic British
constitution on a democratic soil. But the unfortunate
Jews who were ordered to make bricks without straw,
were well treated as compared with the statesmen who
undertook to embody British tradition in the British
North America Act. Democracies have no respect for
tradition, and the Act is a highroad over w^hich the wire-
puller can drive his coach and six at his leisure.
Volumes have been written about that w^onderful
political system known as the British Constitution, and
Continental nations have over and over again endeavored
to imitate it, but the effort has invariably ended in
failure. It is now, in a modified form, on its trial in the
British Colonies, but what has been the practical result ?
We find, for instance, that in South Australia there
were twenty-nine successive administrations in twenty
years ; in New Zealand, seventeen ministries during
the same period ; in Victoria eighteen administrations
in tw^elve years; in Tasmania twelve administrations
in eleven years ; and in New^ South Wales seventeen
ministries in twenty years. In South Africa the result
has been much the same In Canada w^e have
certainly had more stability, but this may be attributed
almost entirely to the great personal influence and un-
doubted ability of one man, and what we have gained
in stability we have lost in other ways. What is
remarkable is that any other result should h-dyo been
anticipated.
" The Government of England," says Alpheus Todd,
" is conducted in conformity with ccrtahi traditional
" maxims, which limit and regulate the exercise of all
" political power in the state. These maxims are for the
" most part umvril/en and conventional. They have never
" been declared in any formal charter or statute, but
16
" have developed in the course of centuries side by side
"with the written law. They embody the matured
" experience of successive jrcnorations of statesmen in the
" conduct of public affairs, and are known ns the pivcc^pts
" of the constitution."
r
The British constitution, in point of fact, was really
never anythini^' mort' than a voluntary unwrittc^i
compact betw(M^n a free people and a ii'rcat aristocracy.
A traditional constitution, such as this, might be well
suited to the wants of the Enirlishman, who cared little
for equality so long" as his own personal indepinidence
was not attacked, and who was quite willing to leave
the administration of the Government in the hands of
an aristocracy whose names had been connected ibr
centuries with the struggle for political freedom.
But to hand over a constitution of this description
(peculiarly adapted to the wants of a people imbued with
aristocratic traditions) to a young ])eople who neither
know nor care for English traditions, and expect it to be
successfully administered by men uttinly indifferent to
tradition and incapable of respecting anything but an
adverse vote, was surely a perilous experiment. In the
Australian Colonies, at any rate, it has produc(^d some-
thing very like anarchy, and it has given us the Govern-
ment of a ministerial oligarchy '• exercising un(^oiitrolled
power over the administration of public affairs, upon the
sole condition that they are able to secure and retain a
majority in the popular branch of the legislature."
^/'
If we examine the various political influences which
have been working together under the British consti-
tution in England during the last half century, we
find that they may be classed about as follows : —
^ifi'
17
The Monarch, still exercising considerable influence,
mor- e,si)ecially in loreign affairs, ■ and still retaininji' a
certain amount of patronag-e, limited but inlluiMitiul
A powerful aristocracy, acting in the House of Lords
as a valuable check upon hasty legislation, t and capable
of producing men of genius and education, well able to
l)rotect the interests of their class, and furnish able
leaders for the people, both in peace and war.
A limited electorate, possessing their votes more as a
trust than as a ri<^'ht.f
" We fortunately have no foruign affairs. Sheltered by British prestige,
we have grown rapidly if somewhat weedily— a wonderful contrast tu the
early career of most nations, which had to accept the position of either
hammer or anvil. Our North -West policy, however, may be looked upon
as a sort of foreign policy. But the Indian agent has not proved a
success. Half-a-dozen Indian agents carefully selected by the wire-puller,
and sent over to manage the British {)ossessions in India, might be
guaranteed to break up the British Empire within six months.
X Bystander (quoted by Doutre) remarks : '• In no single instance, we are
'• persuaded, can the House of Lords he shown to have discharged the
" supposed function of a Senate by revising in a calmer atmosphere, snd
<'in the light of maturer wisdom, the rash resolutions of the Lower
'•House." Coming from so high an authority this is a startling statement,
and the only moral to he drawn from it is that in the midst of the thick
fog generated by political prejudice, it is almost impossible to discern
political truth. However honestly and sincerely a man may strive after
impartiality in treating of political institutions, it is a state of mind to
which he can never attain. He must be satisfied to grope in the dark,
more or less. With regard to the revisionary power of the House of Lords
however, it is a well-known fact that Bills have over and over again been
sent up from the Lower House so covered with contradictory amendments,
that they were utterly unfit to become law until they had been "licked
into shape " in committees of the Upper House. The amount of good
solid work done by Lords' ccmimittees is incalculable. The marvel is how
men of wealth and position (with every inducement to lead idle, profitless
lives) can lie found to take in hand such dry uninteresting tasks.
t This has of course been altered by the last Ileform Bill. It is the
working of the English system during the past half century that is
referred to.
B
18
A considerable uiiropreseutod class, constituting an
unknown, but at the same time a most undoubted
political i)ower.
A powerful independent press, representing public
opinion.
Ileal i)arties, representing- widely different political
opinions, and not mere factions.*
And in addition to this, an honest respect for the
traditions of the British constitution on the part of the
executive.
To recapitulate, we lind working together the mon-
arch, the aristocracy, a limited electorate, the un-
represented class, an independent i^y^s,^, genuine parties,
and a respect for tradition. AH these various influences
are almost absolutely iiidispensible to ensure the correct
working of that curious piece of machinery known as
the British Constitution, and yet in the Colonies we
find not one single one of them. How, then, can we
expect it to flourish on so uncongenial a soil?
In examining the political forces brought into play in
Canada w^e find, in the first place, the faineant power of
the Governor-General exercising the Royal prerogative ;
when w^e get beyond this, all that we find left is the power
of the people registering their votes once in about five
years, and the power of the minister distributing his
patronage, with the wire-puller acting as go-between
• " Dished " by the Tories and afterward by their own allies, the Whigs
have ceased to exist as a party. But Tories and Radicals still constitute
real parties. The Tories represent what still remains of aristocratic
tradition, and the Radicals represent advanced socialism. Many time-
honoured institutions still remain for the former to conserve and for the
latter to destroy. They represent totally distinct political views, and
constitute real parties. In Canada we have nothing of the sort. It is
merely a question of " ins " and " outs,'' and our factions resemble each
other in form and feature as closely as tweedledum and tweedledee.
"
t
n
¥'
and accepting- with perfoct Holi' satislaction the
honoral)lo position of Pandiuus ot Troy. All those
various political inlluenccs which bring about a certain
balance ol pow«'r, as between dillercnt classes and
dillerent interests, are conspicuous by their absence.
Our Senate is not even suj^posed to bear any re-
semblance to the IJritish Upper House. Todd asserts
that a nominated upper chamber, though undoubtedly
preferable in certain respects to an elected body,
constitutes no efficient or etlectual check upon democratic
ascendancy ; ])ut even wen» this not the case, as all
vacancies in the Senate are iilled up by the oligarchy upon
which it is supposed to act as a check, it is quite clear
that it must I'all under the inlluence of any ministry
that can hold on to power for a suilicient length
of time. Even the constituencies are at the mercy
of a powerful minister, (who understands all th«^ mys-
teries of "gerrymandering'") backed up by a working-
majority in the Lower House. One of the inestimable
advantages connected with a limited electorate is the
fact that it enables the member to preserve his
independence by declaring himself to be the representa-
tive of the people, and not the delegate of the electors.
Edmund Burke, addressing his constituents at Bristol,
told them that when they had chosen their member he
wasnotamemlier for Bristol, but a member of Parliament,
and that a representative owed his constituents not his
industry only but his judgment, and betrayed, instead
of serving them, if he sacrificed it to their opinion."
These words harmonized perfectly with the traditions
of the constitution and breathed that spirit of freedom
which would appear to be dying out even in the land
* In later times Sir 11. Peel ventured to act upon the supposition that
the British Representative was a Delegate, but he apologized afterwards
and admitted that his private feelings had got the better of his judgment.
^
20
of its birth. But what aspirant lor political honours
would venture to address such words as these to his
constituents in Canada? The liritish r\'presentative
has in Canada become a mere Delegate, resembling in
this respect the member ol' the short-lived States (reneral
who could not even remonstrate against the most
oppressive grievance of which the previous instructions
oi' the constituent ])odv had not instructed him to
complain, and who possessed about as much individuality
as a pawn on a chess-board, llo is a perl'ect specimen
of that crushed individuality which is the jiroduct of
modern despotism, and is incapable ol acting otherwise
than as the passive instrument of the dominant oligarchy.
It might be sujiposed that a iVee press woiild still
continue to exercise a large iniluence, but its iniluence
is completely paralyzed by its adherence to party lines,
and to suggest that tlie daily outpourings of our party
press have any prett'ntit)ns to represt'nting public
opinion would be an absurdity. Even our Executive
declines to be bound bv the traditions of the constitution*
and the only check of any sort upon the power of the
minister, is the power of the prerogative as exercised
by the Crovernor-General. It does at lirst sight seem
a strange turn in the course of events, that this same
prerogative which threatened the liberty of the subjei't
in the days of King George, should now^ be the only
check on the i)ower of the minister. The explanaiion,
however, is simple enough. The patronage of the
Crown has been transferred to the minister, and patron-
age is power. Power divorced from patronage can
count for very little from a political point of view, but
* No man in Canada is better ivad in ronstitutional History than onr
Premier, but althoiigli be toiuted the luaiiJen aH.siduously, bi.s iuteutions
were bcarcely honourable. When he declared that Mr. Leteilier's useful-
ness was gone, he declared in the same breath that the usefulness uf
English tradition went with him,
I
I
'(
21
whnt it loses in influence it gains in purity, and under
our present system I lie prerogative ol" the Crown, as
ex«'rcised by the (.rovcrnor-treneral, is almost the last
satt'guard of our Irecdom. The more we examine the
workino- of our political system, the more is the con-
clusion forced upon us that the practical eilect of trans-
planting- the aristocratic liritish constitution to a demo-
cratic soil, is to produce the Government of an olio-archy,
exercising uncoutroll(>d 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 ('iina<li!iiis
would he preptirt'd to iicccpt a Govfiiior-dcnt'iiil
i'rom the hands of another oligarchy precisflv
similar to their own. In this case some chaimc wouhl
in all pro}>abiiity 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 <ase
it is quite certain that we would lose nothing by
adopting Republican institutions, and that by doing so.
we would be substituting a live political system for
one that is practically etfete. ■ .
* In a speech made by Sir J. Maidonald (quoted by Bourinot, Parlia
nientary Procedure, page 81) lie .says, •' I am strongly of opinion that we
have in a great measure avoided in this system which we propose for the
adoption of the people of Canada, the detVtts which time and events havi'
shown to e.xist in the American Constitution. That we have avoided
some of the defects of the American system cannot be (ienieil, hut have
we not substituted worse ones? The President, Stiiate, and House of
Representatives each possess their own jjolitical individuality, and act
unmistakeably as a check upon each other. In Canada we have nothing
of the sort. The system which concentrates power (practically unchecked)
in the hands of the Canadian Minister, may appear an excellent system to
the Minister, but should it appear so to us? Herein lies the whole giet of
the argument.
1
25
rr.
Hi
LV
1<
11
1.
fc.
II
The material advantages of annexation are so self-
evident as hardly to need discussion. Neither Canada
nor the United States, as at present constituted, can be
said to form a politically honiogen(>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-