'.^>'>. IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) // // ^ t'?- i^. ML/. V. 1.0 III I.I IM |||M IM 11.8 1.25 1-4 IIIIII.6 - 6" p>. <^ //. ^/. Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAfN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14S80 (716) 872-4503 m^ .1 CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute tor Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques Technical and BibUographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographinues The Institute has attempted to obtain tha best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographicaSly unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. L'Institut a microfilm^ (e meilleur exemplaire qu'il lu* a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la mithcde normale de filmage sont indiquds ci-dessous. m Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur □ Covers damaged/ Couverture endommag§e □ Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaurde et/ou pellicul6e D D D □ n n Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque Coloured maps/ Cartes g^ographiques en couleur Coloured i.ik (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) Coloured plates and/or iliustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Rel»6 avec d autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La reliure serree peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge interieure 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 6t«it possible, ces pages n'ont pas 4t6 film^es. □ Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur F^t/ Pages damaged/ I I Pages endommagdes □ Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaur^es et/ou pelliculdes j — "/ Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ I I Pages d6color6es, tachetdes ou piqu^es n Pages detached/ Pages d6tach6es □ Showthrough/ Transparence □ Quality of print varies/ Quality in^gale d*> f'impression I I Includes supplementary material/ D D Comprend du materiel supplemenlaire 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 partieliement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont 6t6 filmdes d nouveau de fapon d obtenir la meilleure image possible. D Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppl^mentaires; This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est filmd au taux d:/ reduction indiqu6 ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X 7 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X in ails du difier une lage rrata :o pelure, 1 d D 32X The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: National Library 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 illustrater^ impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original cooies 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. Mtfps. plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entii-ely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, ai. many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: 1 2 3 L'exemplaire film6 fut reproduit cirdce d la g6n6rosit6 de: Bibliothdque nationale du Canada Les images suivantes ont dt6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et de la nettetd de l'exemplaire filmd, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprfmde sont film^s en commenpant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'ilSustration, soit par le second plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont filmds en commenpant par la premidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression r,u d'illustration et en terminant par la dernidre pEjge qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la dernidre image de chaque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbole —^ signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbole V signifie "FIN". Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent Stre film6s i^ des taux de reduction diffdrents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour etre reproduit en un seul clichd, il est filmd d partir de Tangle sup6rieur gauche, de gauche d droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la mdthode. 1 2 3 4 5 6 v. < Ik THE POLITICAL IISTORY OF BETWEEN 1840 AND 1855. A^ LECTURE DELIVERED ON THE iTth OCTOBER, 1877, AT THE llKgUBST OF THK ST. PATRICK'S NATIONAL ASSOCIATION WITH COPIOUS ADDITIONS BY Hon. Sir FRANCIS HINCKS, P.C, K.C.M.G., C.B. |llottlri!al : DAWSON BROTHERS, PUBLISHERS. 1877. > NATIONAL LIBRARY BIBLIOTHEQUE NATIONALE . t. %0 1 Wif*'/'^ THE POUTICAL HISTORY OF CANADA BETWEEN 1840 AND 1855. J^ LECTTJUE DELIVERED ON THE 17th OCTOBER, 18T7, AT THK RBIirBST OP THK ST. PATRICK'S NATIONAL ASSOCIATION WITH COPIOUS ADDITIONS BY Hon. Sir FRANCIS HINCKS, PX., K.C.M.G., C.B. Pontrd&l : DAWSON BROTHERS, PUBLISHERS. 1877. ///t^c^s^ p: i/ A desire having been expressed that the following lecture— delivered on the 17th October, at the request of the St. Patrick's National Association— should bo printed in i)amphlet form, I have availed myself of the opportunity of elucidating some branches of the subjects treated of, by new matter, which could not have been introduced in the lecture, owing to its length. I have quoted largely from a pamphlet which I had printed in London in the year 1869, for private distribution, in consequence of frequent applications made to me, when the disestablishment of the Irish Church was under consideration in the House of Commons, for information as to the settlement of cognate ques- tions in Canada, and which was entitled " Religious Endowments in Canada: The Clergy Reserve and Rectory Questions.- A Chapter of Canadian History." The new matter in the pamphlet is enclosed within brackets, thus [ ]. i«r ^ , F. HINCKe. Montreal, October, 1817. The Poutm Histoby of Canada. 1840 TO 18BB. On Wednesday evening, October 17, a large audience assembled m the Mechanics' Hall to listen tx> the lecture by Sir Francis llincks, on the political history of Canada from the Union of IK t t"'^ ' ^^*'^"^^^ Association. The chair was occu- Pjod by Mr. Mullarky, the President of the Society, and on the t:^ZrTt^''7-7''l' ''''''' Beaudry,MessrLMcMastei Piesident of the Irish Protestant Benevolent Society, John dcnt of St Andrews Society, McEvenue, President of the Catholic Union, Edward Murphy, M. P. Eyan, M. Donovan. Rafferty, Hoffernan, Flannery, Warren, P. Brennan, the Eev. Fathfr Salmon and Capt. Kirwan. Sir Francis Hincks, having been introduced by the Chairman, was most warmly received, and de- hvered his lecture as follows :— ^ , uu Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen,-When I was honored with an invitation from the St. Patrick's National Association, to deliver them a lecture, it occurred to me that I might, without impropriety, avail myself , of the opportunity to carry into effect a iong-cherished purpose, and to place on recoi-d what circum- stances have enabled me to know of the history of Canadian parties during the struggle for, and the ultimate establishment of Parliamentary government, and, during the succeeding years up to the disruption of the party which had obtained the victory in that memorable contest. Having been myself actively engaged m the struggle both before and after the publication of the cSle- brated report of the Earl of Durham, I had peculiarly good opportunities of becomii^.g acquainted with the views of those ! ii who took a proniinont part in public affairs, not only at th© pori(xl of the union of the Provinces, but during the succocding thirteen years. It would obviously be impossible for mo, within the limits of a lecture, to give anything that would oven merit the designation of an historical sketch, but I venture to hope that it may bo in my power to render justice to deceased Canatlian statesmen, as well as to give a general idea of the history of the period to which I have referred. It will be my study to speak truthfully and impartially, and to be careful as to the authority on which I make' statements which conflict with those of others. It is not my intention to dwell on the events prior to the rebel- lions in both Provinces in the year 1837. It will be sufficient to remind you that in Lower Canada a large majority of the repre- sentatives of the people were in confirmed opposition not only to the Government, but to the Constitution as established by the Imperial Act of 1791. The principal remedial measure advocated by the House of Assembly of Lower Canada was the substitution of an elected for a nominated legislative council. In Upper Canada parties were more equally dividetl, and the great majority of the Reformers would have been satisfied with the establish- ment of the existing system of Parliamentary government. EVENTS BEFORE THE UNION OP 1841. In the year 1838 the Earl of Durham was appointed Govenior- General of the North American Provinces, and High Commissioner to enquire into and to report on their political institutions. The- Earl of Durham arrived at Quebec on the 27th of May, and. embarked on his return to England on the 1st November, 1838,. having been little over five months in the country. He made an elaborate report, which gave entire satisfaction to the Reform party in Upper Canada, and as general dissatisfaction to the party bearing the same designation in Lower Canada. Prior to the rebellion of 1837, the Reform party of Upper Canada had fraternized to some extent with the Lower Canada majority. Irk a despatch from Sir Francis Head, dated 27th April, 1836, he- transmitted to the Secretary of State " the copy of a letter which Mr. Papineau, Speaker of the Assembly of the Lower Province, had addressed to Mr. Bidwell, Sjjeaker of the Assembly of Upper Canada," adding, " I conceive that the traitoi-ous and revolutionary *' language it contains as well as the terms in which it speaks of 'I V I " your Tjoniship, need no commont." On tho 30th iVn^UKt, 1837, Mr. liidvvcU haod government. Your groat and powerful exertions in tho cause of liberty and Justice I have noticed with admiration and respect, and I look with dec]) interest on the struggle in Lower Cn»».ada between an oppressed anil injured people and their oppressors. All hope of Justice from tho authorities in England seems to bo extinguished." .«■ In November, 1835, Mr. "William Lyon Mackenzie and Dr. O'Grady, as is stated in tho life of the former, visited Quebec " as a deputation from loading and influential Refonnei*s in Upper Canada, to bring about a closer alliance between tho Roformora in tho two Provinces." It must bo evident from the facts just stated, that prior to tho events of 183*7, there was a ooniial under- standing between those who wore designated as Reformers in the two Provinces. LORD Durham's report. In recommending tho union of tho Provinces tho Earl of Dur- ham was chiefly influence by his conviction that there was an irreconcilable feud between tho Canadians of French and British origin, and as he was thoroughly convinced that it vas absolutely necessary that the future government of tho country should bo conducted in accordance with tho will of tho majority, he came to tho conclusion that tho two Provinces must be united. I de- sire to support my statements by unimpeachable authority, and I shall therefore cite Lord Durham's own language : " Never again will tho present generation of Fr- "h Canadians yield a loyal submission to a British Governmen : never again will tho English population tolerate the authority jf a IIoiiso of Assembly in which tho French shall possess or oven approximate to a majority. ' • Wholly orroncous as were Lord Durham's opinions on the sub- ject of the national feud, there can be no doubt that he enter- tained them honestly, and that the}- Avero fully shared by Lord Sydenham, as well as by the Imperial Ministers of the Crown. Lord Durham, however, differed in opinion with those Ministers I and with Lord Sydenham on a point of considerablo importance, viz., the mode of apportioning the vonrosontation. A Canadian historian, Mr. Louis P. Turcotto, whoso valuable work, Le Canada sous V Union, I have read with great interest, has fallen into an error on thit, subiect, which I shall venture to correct. Before doing so, permit mo to bear my testimony to the value of the work in question, and to express my conviction that any errors which it may contain jiave been unintentional. Mr. Turcotto's work ought to bo translated into English, and I sincerely hope that the author may be encouraged to publish a new edition, and to avail himself of such friendly ci iticisms as I for one would be ready i:> submit to him. Kcferring to Lord Durham's recom- mendations, Mr. Tarcotte observes : — " For the present ho recommended the union of the two Cana- das under one government, giving to each the same number of representatives." Lord Durham himself observes in his report : — " I am averse to any plan that has been proposed for giving an equal number of r'-presentati^'cs to the two Provinces in order to attain the temporary end of outnumbering the French, because I think the same object will l)e obtained without any violation of the principles of representation, and without any such apjiearance of injustice in the scheme as would set public opinion both in England und America strongly against it, and because when emi- gration shall have increased the English population in the upper Province, the adoption of such a principle would operate to de- feat the very purpose it is intended to 8ei*ve. It appeara to me that any such electoral ai'rangement founded on the present Pro- vincial divisions would tend to defeat the purposes of union and perpetuate the idea of disunion." The foregoing passage deserves to be cited as affording evidence of the sagacity oft^^o Earl of Durham. There is another error of Mr. Turcotte's which I think it desirable to correct, and T may observe that Mr. Withrow has repeated it. Both the historiaiis represent Loixl Durham as having recommended a federal union of the British Proviiices in his celebrated report, whereas he ar- gued strongly against a federal and in favor of a legislative union. In viow of the fact that a few years later Lord Durham's views on iosponsible govcrnmcxit wore wholly misunderstood by one of his successors, Sir Charles Metcalfe, it seems desirable to pi*ovo by quotations from his report that ho clearly understood the I 9 dcnco Tor of may Driaxis union e ar- nion. iows no of >rovo the |)rinciplo, the adoption of which he so earnestly rocommended. I shall therefore use his own woi-ds : — " It needs no change in the principles of government, no inven- tion of a new constitutional theory to supply the remedy which would, in my opinion, eom])letely remove the existing political disorders. It needs but tv.^ follow out consistently the principles of the British Constitution, and introduce into the government of these great colonies those wise provisions, by which alone the working of the representative system can in any country be ren- dei-ed harmonious and efficient. * * ^ j^ut the Crown must, on the other hand, submit to the neccosary consequences of representative institutions, and if it has to carry on the govern- ment in unison with a representative body, it must consent to caiTy it on by means of those in whom that representative body has confidence. * * * * This change might be ett'ected by a single despatch containing such instructions, or i^ ail/ legal enactment were requisite, it would only bo one that would render it necessary that the official acts of the Governor should be countersigned by some public fu ictionaiy. This would induce responsibility fior every ajt of the government, and as a natural consequence it would necessitate the substitution of a sys- tem of administration by means of competent heads of depart- ments for the present rudo machinery of an executive council. * * * I admit that the system which I propose would in fact place the internal government of the colony in the hands of the colonists themselves, and that we should thus leave to them the execution of the laws of which we have long entrusted the making solely to them." Nothing can be clearer to my mind than the foregoing pas- -sages, and yet I shall have to call your attention later to state- ments in the despatches of Sir Charles Metcalfe which prove -either that they were wholly misunderstood o^" else deliberately misrepresented. I need not dwell further on Lord Durham's re- ■commendations. LORD SYDENHAJI'S GOV^EaNMENT. *; When the Imperial Government decided to carry them into ■eft'ect, they selected for the office of Governor-General a Cabinet Mi-lister, Mr. Charles Poulett Thomson, who had reprosented Manchester, one of the most liberal English constituencies, in the House of Commons. Before adverting to the critical period of the Government of Mr. Thomson, afterwards Lord Sydenham, it seems desirable to consider the dtate of public opinion in the two Provinces. At that time the Eeform party consisted of almost 10 the whole FrenchCauadian population, an equal proportion of th*^ Irish Roman Catholics, and a British minority equal, if not superior in numbers, to the French-Canatlian and Irish Catholic Conservatives. The great majority of the British population was included in the Conservative party. I am referring at p>esent to public opinion in Lower Canada. It is stated in Turcotto's history that the French-Canadians of Quebec and Three Rivers, supported by their clergy and a considerable number of influential English, petitioned against the Union, and in favor of the Constitution of 1791. The number of signatures was 40,000. A meeting was likewise held in Monti-eal, and an addres.^ carried against the Union on the proposition of Mr. Lalontaine. The maiority of the British population were decidedly favorable to the principle of the Union Act. In Upper Canada the Reformers waa*mly ap- proved of the chief recommendations of Lord Durham's report, which induced a considerable number of the old opponents of Re- sponsible Government to announce their adhesion to that princi- ple. The bulk of the Conservative party avowed their opposition to Lord Durham's views, and a select committee of the House of Assembly made an elaborate report against them. The oppo- sition of that party was not only directed against Responsible Government, but likewise against the Union, as evidenced by a joint address from the Legislative Council and House of Aesem* bly. Such was the state of public opinion when Mr. Thomson assumed the Government, charged specially to endeavor to pro- cure the assent of the respective Legislatures to the re-union of the Pi'ovinces. The Constitution having been suspended in Lower Canada, and the Special Council being composed chiefly of mem- bers of the British party, no difiiculty was experienced in obtain- ing the assent ol the only Legislature in existence in Lower Canada. In L^pper Canada the P.eformei*8 supported Mr. Thomson with great coi-diality, and as he claimed and obtained the support of the officials, he was enabled to carry his measure by a sufficient majority. The Consejwative minority desired to obtain a larger rej: resentation for Upper Canada, and other conditions to which the Gove». nor was unable to assent. Although in the discussion which tx>ok place in the British House of Commons on Lord Durham's report. Lord John Russell had announced that the Gov- ernment could not concur in the recommendation to establish Responsible Government, His Lordship later in the year wrote a 11 despatch, dated 16th October, 1839, in which ho directed that the~ principal officers of the Crown, particularizing the Secretary, the- Eeceiver-General, the Attorney and Solicitor-General, should be informed that hereafter their offices were to be held strictly during pleasure, aud that they would be called on to retire when- ever public policy might render such a step advisable. This celebrated despatch was published, and about the same time the Governor, in reply to an address ft-om the Assembly requesting copies of despatches on the subject of Responsible Government, declined furaishing the despatches, but informed them that " he had received Her Majesty's commands to administer the Govern- ment in accordance with the well-understood 'vishes and interests of the people, and to pay to their feelings, as expressed by their representatives, the deference that is justly due to them." The despatch of 16th October and the reply to the Assembly were generally accepted by the Reformers as an assui-smce that Lord Durham's recommendation would be acted on. It is important, in orJer to understand thr history of the period, to note the changes in parties consequent, on the determination of the Imperial Government to give effect to Lord Durham's recom- mendation to reunite the Provinces. Mr. Thomson was in an exceptional position. He was virtually an autocrat in Lower Canada, and, owing to the position of parties, almost as powerful in Upper Canada. He had divided the Conservative party in that Province, and in addition to a Consei'vative minority,, had as his supporters the Reformers of Upper Canada and the Bi-itish or Consei'vative party of Lower Canada, while the opposition to his Government consisted of the French-Canadians and their British contingent, and the majorUy of the Conservatives of Upper Canada, parties having no sympathy whatever with each other. The tone of the press affords a good indication of the state of feeling. The Montreal Herald declared that Lord Durham's re- port was " the most luminous;, comprehensive and best arranged " document on the affairs of the colonies which has ever been "submitted to the British Parliament." The Montreal Gazette styled it " a document of great reseai-ch, noted impartial* " ity, and fraught with just conclusions with regard to the- " best interests and the ultimate welfare of these Provinces." " I have already noticed the strong opposition of the French- Canadians. The Toronto Patriot refe-i-ei to " the conduct of thfii. 12 tfi'oward nobloman and his knot of loafer-secretaries and hangers- on," and declared that *' the Ministoi-s have made for themselveH a pretty kettle of fish by employing Jacobins and loafers to regu- iato the affairs of a Conservative and loyal people." This journal was the exponent of the views of the Conservative party of Upper Oanatla, which had been in the ascendant up to the time of Mr. Thomson's assumption of the Government. The British Colonist and Christian Guardian may fairly be considered as representing the views of the moderate Conservatives, who coixiially supported the union policy of Mr. Thomson, and who were not disinclined to -occept Eesponsible Government ; indeed, Mr. Heniy John Boulton, Mr. Hamilton Merritt and Mr. Adam Fergusson gave their formal adhesion to that principle after the publication of Lord Durham's report. I was at that time editor of the Toronto Examiner, and had been contending for Responsible Government against almost the entire press of Upper Canada during the whole period of Lord Durham's government. The Examiner gave a coixlial support to liord Durham's recommendations, and to the Union scheme of Mr. Thomson. In February ,1840, after the close of the session of the Upper Canada Legislature, a vacancy having occurred on the Bench, Mr. Attorney-General HageiTaan was appointed Judge, Mr. Solicitor-General Draper Attorney-General, and Mr. Robert Baldwin, the most conspicuous member of the Reform pai-ty was -invited by Mr. Thomj)8on to fill the office of Solicitor-General. ■- THE LATE ROBERT BALDWIN. All the circumstances of Mr. Baldwin's acceptance of a seat in the Executive Council under Sir Francis Head four yeai**. pre- viously, and his subsequent resignation being well known, the "Offer of office waa a virtual declaration to the country that the '^^Government under the Union would be conducted in accoi-dance ■ .vith the wishes of the majority. Mr. Baldwin's political friends were at the time supporters of the Government, and ho did not feel justified in refusing the offer of office. His opinion, concurred in by his political friends, was that until after the elections under the Union Act, it could not be expected that the Governoi'-Gene- ral could form an efficient administration for the United Province. ■ The Governor had encountei'ed warm opposition fi-om the French Canadians, and there can be no doubt that his belief was that, by *tho Union of the British party in Lower Canada with the moder- MMMNM^WililMiMMl* 13 ate Consei-vatives and Roformei's in Upper Canada, a working*: majority would be obtained in the new House of Assembly. Mr- Baldwin and his friends were of opinion that the natural combina- tion of parties would be the Reformers of Upper and. Lower Can- ada, the latter consisting chiefly of French-Canadians, with w.hom« the Irish Catholics were at that time allied. I cannot introduce the name of Mr. Baldwin without expressing my deep sense of his great merits as a statesman and a patriot. Many of his con- temporaries have passed away, but there are still some 8urvivoi*8 of those who fought the great battle for Constitutional Govern- ment under the leadership of Robert Baldwin. I cannot forbear referring here to a letter which I received a few mouths ago from an old and valued Mend who had been reading an historical lec- ture which was delivered about that time by the Hon.. Mr. Lawier.. He wrote as follows : — " If he (Mr. Laurier) knew as much as you and I do about the- establishment of Constitutional Government, I think he would at least have mentioned the name of Robert Baldwin in his lecture^. Whilst many of the advanced liberals of that day were seeking to rid the country of the irresponsible mode of conducting the Government, which had become intolerable, by advocating elec- tive institutions, Robert Baldwin, from the first contended that the English Constitutional system of responsibility aifoixled the true solution of our difficulties. How zealously and disinterestedly he laboured to save his country from the crushing effects of a rash and unsuccessful resort to physical force — with what contempt and indifference he treated the slanders of his political opponents — how perseveringly he pursued the wise and prudent course he had marked out for himself until the complete establishment of responsible government was triumphantly attained, no one knows better than you, and you, as his colleague, also know the enormous amount of labor which he bestowed on the establish- ment and perfecting of the municipal system and other kindred legislative measures which he considered necessary to solidify and make more perfect the government of the country under that system which he had so long laboured to establish. It seems to me that justice has not been done to the memory of Robert Baldwin, and there is no man now living who knew him as you. did, who can testify in his favor as you can. I hope you will be able to do something to keep alive the memory of our old frien:} and leader, for it seems to me he is almost foi-gotten by the new men who now fill the seats of power and occiriy positions of ' prominence." It no doubt appears strange that any one acquainted with?. 14 •Caniulian hisLory could locturo thereon without bearing testimony to the labors of Robert Baldwin, — but Mr. Laurier, although pro- fessing to I'eview the history of the Liberal party in this country, seems to have been of the opinion that he could do so satisfactorily hy ignoring the existence of the Upper Canada section of that party, and by keeping in abeyance the political questions which leiionts, and although firm in their adherence to cherished political opinions thej' were both highly and universally res- pected. Sir John Kaye assoi-ts that Robert lialdwin " seemed to delight in strife." A xory brief reference to his public career will be the most satisfactory refutation of this statement. At the early age of 24 he was elected, in 1828, member for the town of York, now the city of Toronto, on the reform interest. He is said by Withrow in liis History of Canada, " during the entire coui-se ^' of his public life to have commanded the esteem of both political *' parties. His pei-sonal integrity, his legal ability and his singu- " lar moderation enabled him, as has Ixiien admirably said, to lead '' hi« country through a great constitutional crisis into an era of " l.irger and more matured liberty." In 1830, two yeai'S after his election, there was a sudden dissolution of the Liberal House of Assembly on the ground of the demise of King George the Fourth. The Reformers were defeated, and Mr. Baldwin withdrew entirely from politics for about six years. In 1836 he was invited by Sir Francis Head to become a member of the Executive Council. Sir Francis Head's own despatch, dated February, 1836, is a complete refutation of Kaye's unfounded accusation. Ho writes to Lord Glenelg : — " After making every enquiry in my power, I became '' of opinion that Mr. Robert Baldwin, advocate, a gentleman al- *' ready recommended to Your Lordship by Sir John Colborne for " a seat in the Legislative Council, was the first individual I '' should select, being highly respected for his moral character, *' being moderate in his politics, and possessing tLe esteem and " confidence of all parties." The foregoing character was obtained by Sir Francis Head, not from Mr. Baldwin's political friends, but from his opponents, one of whom (Chief Justice Robinson) is spe- cially referred to. Mr. Baldwin held the office of Executive Coun- cillor in 1836 for about three weeks, he and his colleagues having resigned, as he did nearly eight years afterwards, when he found that the Governor was determined to conduct public affairs ^vith- out the advice of his known and responsible Councillors. A dis- solution of the Assembly having taken place owing to its rupture with Sir Francis Head, consequent on the resignation of Mr. Bald- win and his colleagues, and the Government having been success, ful, Ml*. Baldwin accepted the verdict of the country, and again withdrew entirely from public life, declining to attend meetings m |! 16 or to bo a party to the agitation which culminatod inthe robellioiv of 1837. He continued in retirement until he was again invited by Lord Sydenham to accept the office of Solicitor-General at the time when the union of the two provinces was about to bo consummated. This is tho man who was pronounced by Lord Metcalfe's biographer to have been possessed of " unbounded ari'o- gance and self-conceit;" to have been " serving his own ends by " the promotion of his ambition, the gratification of his vanity or " his spite." It is to be regretted that Canada's most illustrious statesman is chiefly known to English readers by the character given to him by Sij* Francis Head and by the authors of the lives of Lords Sydenham and Metcalfe. I have digressed from my subject in oi-der to pay a merited tribute to the character of one for whom from the period of my first acquaintance, about 45 years ago, I entertained the most profound veneration, which was not in the least abated, during the period in 1841 and 1842, when I was temporarily estranged fi-om him, under circumstances tO' which 1 shall have occasion to advert. SIR LOUIS LAFONTAINE AND DR. TRACY. This is a convenient opportunity to do justice to another highly valued friend, the late Sir Louis Lafootaine. The great Prench- ^\'inadian statesman was of course better known in Montreal than Mr. Baldwin, and many ai-e living in our midst, both old sup- porters and old opponents. I can hai-dly believe that there is a single individual in the ranks of either party who would ailmit that Kaye was correct in attributing to Sir Louis Lafontaine " indecision and infirmity of purpose." I can declare, for my own part, that I never met a man less open to such an imputation. It is true that Kaye acknowledges that " his better qualities were natural to him ; his worse were the growth of circumstances. * * * He was a just and honourable man ; his motives were above all suspicion." Strange, howevei', that Kaye could believe that such a man could be elevated to the leadership of an *' important and united party," without any particular fitness, and •* by the force rather of his moral than his intellectual quali- ties." When lecturing under the auspices of the St. Patrick's' National Association, I cannot omit paying a just tribute to the memory of one who took an active part in the great struggle for Constitutional Government, at the most gloomy period of the when 17 contest ; but who did not live to eharo in the rewards of victoiy. I alhido to our distin^^uished countryman, Dr. Tracy, who wa» cut off in the prime of life, and in the full viji^our of his faculties. I had not the advantage of Dr. Tracy's personal acquaintance, but, from the period of my first residence in Montreal, in 1844, I and my family were privileged to enjoy the friendship of hi* sister, Mrs. Charles Wilson, who still sumves, honoured and beloved by the whole Irish population for her intellectual, as well as her many amiable qualities. When in better health than she has of late yoai-s enjoyed, she was the most active supporter of every project suggested for the benefit of the Irish popu.ation. Those who visit the cemetery are i^jminc .1 by the beautiful monument, erected to the memory of Di*. Tracy, of his patriotic services to the country of his adoption. POLITICAL COMBINATIONS^AFTER THE UNION. I must revoi-t to the period of our history when a political alliance was formed betwt^n Mr. Lafontaine and Mr. Baldwin, which wis only dissolved when they retireil from public life, about the same time, in the year 1851. During the year 1840, in the early part of which Mr. Baldwin accepted oflSce, there were no political events of any importance. There were some com- mimications between the leaders of the Reform party in Upper Canada and th'> principal French Canadians, the object having been to ascertain how far it would be possible for the Reformers of the two Provinces to act in concert. The Lower Canadian Libei'als were unable to accept the Union Act, and were conse- quently in direct opposition to the Government, in which the Upper Canada Reformers very generally professed confidence. Unfortunately for the reputation of Lord Sj'denham, there was not a fair representation of Lower Canada in the first Union Parliament, and for this, to some extent at least, he must be held personally responsible. In the Union Bill, as originally intro- duced by Lord John Russell, it was provided that " the incor- porated cities of Quebec and Montreal " should be represented ; but in the Act, as finally passed, a clause was introduced empow- ering the Governor to define the boundaries of the several cities and towns named in the Act. Under this authority, Lord Sydenham, by a stroke of his pen, disfranchised two-thirds of the inhabitants of Montreal and Quebec, inhabiting the suburbs, and 2 18 secured tho return of inomberH pledged to supjwrt his govern- ment. Some of the counties, but notably Terrebonne, for which Mr. Lafontaine, tho Lower Canadian lewier, was a candidate, were carried by violence ; armed bands of non-residents having been marched to a polling place fixed at a remote ^corner of the county, at a distance from tho centres of tho population. The consoquonco of this policy was tho increased hostility of tho French Canadians to the Government. On tho meeting of the Legislature it was found that tho Reformers of Lower Canada, instead of having a majority, as had been fully anticipated of nearly twenty, wore only about equal to tho number of their opponents. In Upper Canada, the Conservative members who acknowledged Sir Allan McNab as their leader, were few in num- ber, while the Eoformoi*8 had a very decided majority. On tho meeting of Parliament, Mr. Baldwin summoned a meeting of the members of tho Liberal party from both sections of the now united Province. The chief object of the meeting was to ascer- tain whether the Reformers of the two sections wore satisfied with the composition of tho Government, and there w^as almost an unanimous declai'ation of want of confidence. Mr. Baldwin thereupon recommended to tho Governor a reconstruction of the administration; and, on his advice being rejected, resigned, Mr. Baldwin was severely censured by his late colleagues and their friends for tho course of proceeding which he adopted, a course which no one would have more readily condemned than Mr. Baldwin himself, if the administration had boon formed in tho usual way. Tho union of tho two Provinces, thlf looked forward to hucIi changi-s as tho calls of pul)li(! oj lion might afterwards deinuiid, " more particularly wiien attention to such calls formod the very basis of tho new principle to which allusion had l)cen so often made? " A few days afterwards, on the 18th or IDtli of the same month, he had replied that he had to acknow- ledge the i-cceint of the (iovernor-tJenerars note inibrming him that Mis Excellency had done liim the honour of calling him to llu lilxecutive Council of the United Province; that he was still ignoi-ant, oxce|)t from rumour, who the other councillors were to l)e ; that a.ssuming that tlio gentlemen to whom rumour had assigned sets in the new Council were those who His Excellency felt it necessary should " at present " compose it, such an admin- istration would not command the support of Parliamettt ; that he had an entire want of ]»olitical conHdence in all of them, except Mr. J)unn, Mr. fl-irrison, and Mr. Daly, and that hud he reason to suppose that the generally underst^xxl political princi- ples and views of the other gentlemen of the (/ovincil were those upon which tho Government was to be administered, it would be his duty respectfully to decline continuing to hold office under them. At such a critical moment, however, he shrank from every- thing that would be in the least calculated to embarrass tho Govei'nmont. He, therefore, would not feel justiticMl in refusing the place to which he had been appointed. I J is silent acceptance of office might, how ver, be misinterpreted by the members of the Council, in whom he had no confidence, as an expression of Ids coi^fidence. He would take it for granted there could bo no objection to his making them acquainted with his sentiments. He accordingly addressed letters to those gentlemen, informing them of his utter .'ant of political confidence in them. Could he have done more to prevent misconception ? True, he might have retired from the Government at the time ; but so might the gentlemen to whom he objected, who were precisely in the samo position as he was. If he did not take that course, it was because he was impelled to a contrary one by a strong sense of duty. He had felt, as he took it for granted they had done, that the verdict of the country was to decide whether their political views or his were most in accordance with the wishes and interests of the people. The charge of not having interchanged with his temporary colleagues those communications which might have led to a coiToct estimate of tho respective political opinions of «ach, was no charge at all, except upon the supposition that he had entered into a coalition with them. Without that ground of complaint, all tho chai'go amounted to was that he had not acted Ill 22 m m inconsistently with his alreat)y avowed opinion concerning them, and misled them, hy a show of confidence, into a belief that his previously expressed opinions had been modified ; or it resolved itself into a repetition, in a new shape, of the first charge of accepting the office of Executive Councillor at all, to which he had already given a sufficient!}' satisfactory answer. Those ger lemen of the Administration in whom he had felt and avowed political confidence, knew that he had communicated with th m in the fullest and frankest manner upon every topic connected with the state of the country, and upon none more fully than that involved in the subject of the present discussion. The third charge was, that he had not, at an eu-lier period, tendered that advice, upon the rejection of which he haid fvjlt himself called upon to resign. It was Iiard that he was, on the one hand, accused of precipitancy ; and on the other of dehiy. But when the circumstances in which he was p'aceJ were fairly considered ; when it was remembered that, from the time of his appointment to the time of his proceeding to Montreal, he had been actively engaged, first with the Upper Canada elections, and more parti- cularly the contest for Hastings and the City of Toronto, and afterwards with the duties of his office of Solicitor-General a* publif" prosecutor on the Home Circuit ; that he had not only express.^ communicated to the Head of the Government, at the time of accepting the seat in the Executive Council, his expectations of the result of the elections then about to come off, but had never concealed his opinion that those anticipations had been realised ; that he had, when in Lov/er Caixiuia, the advantage of seeing only a portion of the Reform members who had been returned to the Unitci Parliament, and had not hud an opportu- nity of ascertaining how far the Eeformers of both Kcctious of the Pruvince were prepared to act together — a course on theii* parts which he had always deemed of the most vital iinportance to the best interests of his country ; when these circumstances were considered, he felt convinced that every dispassionate man in the community would acquit him of any unnecessary delay in tendering his advice to Lord Sj'denham.] POSITION OP PARTIES IN 1841. The effect of Mr. Baldwin's resignation wjis to place him in opposition to his old colleagueH, all of whom, Kefonners as well as Conservatives, retained offic^, and although frequently defeat- ed, owing to combinations of parties having little sympathy with each other, the Government succeeded in getting through the session without Herious difficult^'. There were at least five if not six parties in the House, three from each Province. In Upper CanjKla there were, 1st, the old Conservative party led by Sir Allan 23 ling them^ af that his it resolved charge of > which he r. Those nd avowed with tht m connected fully than The third lered that self called 3no hand, But when nsidered ; •ointment \ actively ore parti- onto, and reneral a» not onlj'- iment, at mcjl, his come off, tions had dvantage had been opportu- ctioiis of on their portance mstances tiate man ■vy delay him in ■i as well r defeat- hy with ugh the ve if not Upper ir Allan Macuab ; 2nd, the Ministerial party composetl chiefly of Reformers, with p. few Moderate Consetvatives, under the leadership of Mr. Attoniey-Cleneral Draper and Mr. Secretary Han-ison ; 3rd, the Eeformers who followed the lead of Mr. Baldwin, numbering six to eight. In Lower Canada there were — 1st, the Reformers of French and Irish origin with their allies of the British pa-ty, led by Mr Morin, Mi-. Neilson and Mr. Aj^lwin: 2nd, The British party, including tho Conseiwative French-Canadians and Irish elected to support Lord Sydenham's policy, and almost uniformly doing so that session, although several of them had a decided bias in favor of a Liberal policy, while others were as decidedly Con- servative. I may mention the names of two representative men, boih deservedly respected, and both at the time members for the City of Montreal, the Hon. Geo. Moffatt and Benjamin Holmes. A year later those gentlemen were completely separated as to party connection, the former being as decidedly on the Conserva- tive as the latter was on the Liberal side. At the period to which I am referring, both wei'e supporters of the Administration. The division lists of the session of 1841 cannot fail to strike any one acquainted with the state of parties as extruordinary. Mr. Baldwin on several occasions voted with considorable majorities in oppo- sition to the Government, while as frequently' he was in insigni- ticant minorities. There was a decided ternlency towai-ds a coali- tion with the Reformers of French origin on the part of Sir Allan MacNab and the Upper Canada Conservatives. The Ministerial strength lay in the support which it received from the British party of Lower Canada, and from the majority of the Upper Canada Reformers. On more than one occasion, especially the election bill, the latter followed Mr. Baldwin's lead, and the bill was carried against the Government in the Commons, but was thrown out by the Legislative Council. There was a great contest over the Municipal Bill, which wjis the most important measure of the sossioii, aiul it was on one occasion saved from defeat by the casting vote of the Chairman of the Committee of the AVhole. Sir Allan McNab and his Conservative fi-iends, and Mr. Neilson and many Lower Canadians were wholly opposed to municipal institutions, while Mr. Baldwin was desirous of amending the Government bill so as to make it more Liberal. The Government announced its determination on what I thought at the time, and utill think, justifiable grounds, to withdraw the bill, if any impor- 11 24 tant amendment were carried, and on this, as on several other occasions as the session advanced, I considered it my duly to support the Government. I found on better acquaintance that I had no opinions in common v.'ith Mr. Neilson, who, from his ago and experience, had great .influejiee in the councils of the Oppo- sition paity, and I found several of the Lower Canada British members as thoroughly Liberal us I could wish. The resolutions recognizing Responsible Crovornment were carried with only (seven dissentients, four from U])perand three from Lower Canada. Mr. Neilson did not vote, but he was an avowed opponeni of the principle, and before another year had expired was openly in the Conservative rankt-. Towards the end of the session liord Syden- ham met with the accident which caused his premature death. He was succeeded, after an iniervai of a few months, by Sir Charles Bagot. In June, 18-42, I was invited to accept the office of Inspector-General, and as I had considered it my duty to support the principal measures of the 'Tovernment duriig the preceding session, and as 1 felt bound, under existing circum- stances, to cast my lot with those with whom I had entered into alliance, I did not hesitate to do so. All my leading supporters in the County of Oxford testified theii approbation of my conduct by sujiporting me on the occasion of my re-election. I ;f| i THF SECOND SESSION OF THE UNION. About three months afterwards the second sessioi^ of the First Parliament of United Canada was opened by Sir Charles Bagot. There was no material difference in the state of parties, although the Opposition i.ad gained a few seats, and had been much strengthened by me i-eturn of Mr. Lafontaine, the leader of the French Canatlians, for the North iiiding of York, in Lpper Canada, Mr. Baldwin who had had a double return, having vacated that seat, and having strongly i-ecommended his Lower Canadian ally to the electors. The address in answer to the speech having been moved in due course, Mr. Baldwin proposed in amendment .a vote of want of confidence. Meantime, negoti- aticiis had been commenced for a reconstruction of the adminis- tration. It cannot be denied that they were very clumsily managed. A written proposal was made to Mr. Lafontaine by the Governor, which he felt himself unable to accept, and in the course of tha debate tie Governor's letter was road by Mr. I eral other ly duly to nee that I 11 his age the Opp')- a British Bsolutions 'ith only r Canada, ni of the ily in the [•d Sydeii- re death. IS, by Sir the office ^ duty to iiri.jg the ; circum- 9i'ed into ipporters T conduct he First 8 Bagot. ilthough much leader ''ork, in having i Lower to the roposed negoti- idminis- lumsiiy aino by in the by Mr. n 25 Attorney General Draper, who was able to make out a strong crse for himself. He acknowledged with great frankne.ss that ho had at one time been prejudiced against the Trench-Canadians, but declared that the experience of the previous session had removed all his objections to acting with them. He juimittod the necessity of introducing into the Government gentlemen ])os- sessing their confidence, and as he was aware that under existing <;ircumstances they could not take office without Mr. Baldwin, he stated that he had more than once tendered his own resignation, in order that his office might be offered to that gentleman. There is no doubt that the leaders of the Oppo.^ition, Messrs. Lafontainc and Baldwin, were desirous of forcing the Ministi-y to resign, in the expectation that one of them would have boi (.-ailed on to form a new administration, and it is not improbable that if the Ministers had been weak enough to yield, such a result might h.ive ensued. The Ministers, however, were firm on all essential points. They yielded so far on the proposed pensions to Mr. Ogden, the Attorney General, whose office had been offered to Mr. Lafontaine, and to Mr. Davidson, the Commissioner of Crown Lands, as to consent that their new colleagues and their friends should vote as they pleased, but Mr. Turcotte has fallen into an error in stating in his history that they retain 3d their seats oii the condition of conforming to the policy of their new chief.*. No such stipulation, nor any other, except on the subject of the pension vote, was proposed. [As it became my duty, owing to my official position, to propose the pension vote, and as there seems to exist some misapprehen- sion as to a proceeding which I can readily undei-stand seems extraordinary to those unacquainted with circumstances, I think it desirable to offer some explanation regarding it. Prior to the introduction of responsible government, the principal offices were in practice lield during good behavior, precisely as the non- political offices, such as deputy heads of departments, are now held both -in Canada and England. Tliere was, of course, a difficulty in subjecting such incumbents of offices to political responsibility. In Nova Scotia, if I am not mistaken, one, if not more, of that class was pensioned. Loni Sydenham had induceil Mr. Secretary Daly, Mr. Attorney General Ogden, and Mr. Soiicitor-Gonoral Day in Lower Canada, to find seats in parliament. The Commissioner of Crown Lands, Mr. Davidson, who was an 26 old public seiTant, declined entering political life, but his office was considered one which should be made political. To have simply dismissed such a man, who had taken no part in politics, because his office was wanted, would have been an act of cruelty, exactly similar to the dismissal of any non-political officer under our present government without his having committed a fault of any kind. So little did Mr. Davidson know of the political nego- tiations, that his office had been conferred on another before he even knew that any change was thought of. Mr. Ogden's case was not quite so strong, because he had been returned as a member, and had virtually accepted the political position. Nevertheless, he had accepted the office when it was non-political, and was on leave of absence when the changes took place. If length of service was an element in the case, his claim was much stronger than Mr. Day's, whose tenure of office had been short in com- parison with Mr. Ogden's. During the intei-val betv/een the sessions of 1841 and 1812, Mr. Day was appointed to the Bench, of which for many subsequent years he was an ornament. I believe that under different circumstances neither Mr. Lafontaine nor Mr. Baldwin would have disputed the propriety of awarding pensions to tv/o old public servants deprived of their offices owing to the introduction of a new principle of government. I at all events cordially concurred with my colleagues in thinking that the proposed pensions should be granted. I can quite understand the reluctance of Mr, Lafontaine to accept office on the condition that he was to provide a pension for the previous incumbent. The point was not one on which an important political arrangemen*^^ could be upset. It was agreed that the pension question should be an open one. When I proposed it to the House, Messrs. Ijafontaine and Baldwin were absent, having to be re-elected after acceptance of office, and an amendment to })Ostpone the consideration of the question until the following session was carried on a division. During the recess an oppor- tunity occurred of conferring on Mr. Davidson the office of Collector of Customs at Hamilton, which he readily accepted instead of a pension, and the new ministers willngly consented to get rid of the difficulty in that way. Mr. Ogden's case was disposed of by the Imperial Government, vhich gave him the appointment of Attorney-General to the Isle if Man. Mr. Daly's c.ise created embarrassment a year later. He ought, as an old I fj tl 21 old public officer, to have been pensioned at the Union. He was forced into political life, for which he had no aptitude, and when the Metcalfe crisis took place he retained his office. When he was forced to retire in 1848 he was provided for by the Imperial Government. Mr. Dunn and Mr, Sullivan, who were in the same position, resigned with their colleagues in 1843, the former returning to England and receiving no compensation for the loss of an office conferred on him many years previously as non- political, and the latter resuming the practice of a profession which he had abandoned for a non-political office undei'stood at the time to be permanent. The result was thi.t the change from non-political to political heads of departments in Upper and Lower Canada was accomplished without a single Canadian pension, Mr. Ogden and Mr. Daly having both been compensated by employment under the Imperial (government.] In giving a list of the Ministers, Mr. Turcotte places Mr. Lafontaine's name at the head m "First Minister," exactly as it was properly placed in 1848. In 1842 Mr. Lafontaine, Mr. Baldwin, Mr. Morin, Mr. Aylwin, and Mr. Small became members of the old (Tovernment, six members of which retained their offices and their precedence, without concessions of any kind. Mr: Withrow is still more inaccurate. He states that even prior to the reconstruction '• the principle of double majority, as it was called, was introduced." And why intro- duced ? To counteract, he says, " the domimint influence " of the French membei"s, who, numbering twenty-four, " held the balance of power." Now, it so happens that the French Cana- dian mambers, instead of holding the balance of ])owec, never had BO little influence as dr.ring the first session of the First Pai liameut. This was owing to the disfranchisement of Montreal and Quebec, and to the elections carried by violence. The balance of power was hold by the Reformers of Upper Canada, Avho gen- erally supported the Government, but oci-asionully divided with Mr. Baldwin. A Government of " double majority," instead of counteracting the influence of the French Canadians, would have been the means of securing it. Lisewhore. A'hen referring to Mi*. Baldwin's resignation in 1854, Withro'Y asserts that " since the union, successive Ministers had succeeded in cai-rying their measures by a majority from each Province." The fact is that dui'ing the whole of the second Pai'liament the Government was 28 sustained by a majority from Upper Canada acting with a Lower Canada minority. Mr. Baldwin's resignation is stated to have taken place • in obedience to this principle," but if a principle was at stake, all Mr. Baldwin's Upper Canada colleagues should likewise have resigned, and yet it was his own earnest request that they should not do so. Mr. Baldwin resigned because he was abandoned by almost the entire legal profession ol'Ui>per Canada, on a measure, the Cv)urt of Chancery, which he had himself car- ried through the Legislature, and "or which he held himself per- sonally responsible. I cannot make this allusion to that measure without recording my opinion that the attacks frequently ntade against the late Chancellor Blake as having promoted the Chan- cery Act in order to provide a place for himself, are most unjust. Mr. Blake was not a member of the Administration, and Mr. Baldwin himself was the author of the measure, which was im- peratively demanded by the profession and the country. Mr. Blake, no doubt, rendered valuable aid to Mr. Baldwin in the framing of the bill, which was, nevertheless, inti'oduced on the respjnsibility of the Government, and Mr. Baldvrin especially, and I know that it was at Mr. Baldwin's earnest and pressing solicitations that Mr. Blake, at the very commencement of what promised to be a most brilliant political and professional career, consented to abar.don it, in order to take a post, which no other man in the profession could have filled with so much advantage to the public. I have been glad of the opportunity of stating that up to the time of my leaving Canada in 1855, no political a.lliance was formed on the principle of securing majorities from the two Provinces. It was, of course, considered desirable that the Government should have a majority fron^ each section in sup- poi't of its policy. At the time of the crisis in 1842 thej'e was overy reason to believe that the Miuisterif^' party was the strong- est in the House, and it certainly could only have been defeated by a coalition between the Conservatives, led by Sir Allan Mac- nab, and the opposi)ig Liberals led by Messrs. Lafontaine and Baldwin. Such a coalition would have resembled very much that between Fox and Lord North, but neither Mr. Lafontaine nor Mr. Baldwin would have consented to take oflflce with Sir Allan Mac- nab. The new coalition was one between mei who held common views of public policy, and it was completely successful, having been approved by all but an unanimous vote in the House. It la '4 a al bi hi bi bt 29 a circumstance not unworthy of notice that the Governor, who alone of all Lord Elgin's prodeceasors, is held in grateful remem- brance by the French Canadian population, wars a Conservative in his politics. Lords Dui-ham, Sydenham and Metcalfe, though, all but especially the two first-named, decidedly Liberal, will never be so considered by French Canadians ; while Sir Charles Bagot, I am inclined to think, stands at least as high as any other Gov- ernor in their estimation. Unfortunately that most ujjright and conscientious statesman was prostrated by sickness shortly after the reconstruction of the Administration, and was succeeded by Sir Charles, afterwards Lord Metcalfe. The choice of an Indian states- man of reputed ability, but without any experience whatever of Parliamentary government, was at least singular. It was well known at the time that the Secretary of State for the Colonies, the late Earl of Derby, disapproved of Sir Charles Bagot's policy, and there can now be little doubt that he formed a determination to overthrow Eesponaible Government, and selected Sir Charles Metcalfe as the most fitting agent for the purpose. If, as Mr. Withrow declares in his history, Lord Stanley had really adopted the policy of his predecessors, the Government of Canada pre- sented no extraordinary difficulty at the time of Sir Charles Bagot's illness. The new Ministry had the largest Parliamentary support of any that has ever held office in Canada. The circum- Btauces of Lord Metcalfe's appointment, with the light thrown on them by subsequent events, are calculated to excite grave sus- picion that there was a foregone conclusion to overthrow Re- sponsible Government. In Lord Metcalfe's life, the private note first addressed to him by Lord Stanley is published. His Lord- ship writes on the 14th January, 1843, enquiring a« to Sir Charles Metcalfe's health, and asking him whether ho would be able, and if able, disposed to take upon himself " most honorable, but at the " sarae time very arduous duties in the public service." In case of his consenting to undertake those duties he is requested to call at the Colonial Office, " where I should be happy to enter upon " an uni'eserved communication with yoa upon the subject." Of course, there is no information given as to the unreserved com- munication which was made when Sir Charles Metcalfe expressed his willingness to undertake the " ai-duous duties," but Sir Char- les wi'ote to Captain Iligginson, aftei-wards his Secretary : — " I am not sure that the Government of Canada is a manage- 30 able affair, and unless I think I can go to a good purpose I will not go at all." Such language is inexplicable on any other assumption than that the arduous duty was to overthrow Eesponsible Government. All Sir Charles Metcalfe's correspondence prior to his departure from England is indicative of a feeling that he was going on a " forlorn hope " expedition, and I feel assured that poor Sir Charles Bagot had a foreboding of what was likely to happen when in his last sad interview with his Ministers he more than once appealed to them " to defend his memory." It must be admitted that Lord Stanley could hardly have made choice of a man better suited for his pui'pose. Sir Chai'les Metcalfe's biographer describes him as " a statesman known to bo saturated through and through with Liberal opinions," and such was the estimation in which he was held in England. In India, where his reputation had been acquired, or as Governor of a Crown Colony, he would have ^succeeded admirably, but a more unfit man to administer'a constitutional Government on Lord Durham's principles could not have been selected. Sir Charles Metcalfe himself wrote to his sister: — " Never was man dragged into public'employment more against his will." Again, to his friend Mr. Mangles, he wrote : — " I never undertook anything with so much reluctance or so little hope of doing good. I fear that the little reputation that I have acquii'ed is more likely to be damaged than improved in the troubled waters of Canada. If I succeed in reconciling local dissensions, I shall rejoice in having undertaken the charge; if I fail, which from the state of things is more probable, I must con- sole myself with the assurance that for the rest of my days I shall be left undisturbed in the retirement that I love." I shall dwell as briefly as possible on the Metcalfe crisis. It seems to me important to establish, 1st. The [repugnance enter- tained by Lord Metcalfe to Eesponsible Government. 2nd. His almost inconceivable ignorance of the views of Lords Durham and Sydenham, and 3rd. The improper means taken to obtain a Parliamentary majority. In less than a month after his assump- tion of the Government Sir Chai'les Metcalfe declared in a despatch : — " I find myself condemned, as it were, to caiTy on the Govern- 31 ment to tho utter exclusion of those on whom the mother count: v might confidently rely in the hour of need." A month later ho writes : — "Nowcomea the tug of war, and supposing absolute submission to be out of the question I cannot say that I see the end of tho struggle if the parties alluded to (the Council) really moan to maintain it." Lord Metcalfe's biographer is very frank in his exposition of his Lordship's views. The declarations are so numerous that being unable to quote at much length I have found it difficult to select. I shall take one at random : — " He was called upon to govern or to submit to the Govern- ment of Canada by a party, and the party by which he was to govern was one with which he had no sympathj*. It was rather a combination of parties than a single faction — a combination of two parties — the principles of neither of which Metcalfe could bring himself to approve. Ho had some conception of the state of parties in the Province before he set his foot on Canadian soil, but he had no clear knowledge of the extent to which party spirit was eating into the very life of the colony or the embarrassment which must beset him as soon as ever he attempted to do justice to all classes and conditions of men irrespective of the factions to which they belonged." I might cite many other passages to establish the fact of Sir Charles Metcalfe's opposition to Kesponsible Government as under- stood by the Canadian people and as established by the resolu- tions of 1841. In the extract that I have cited, there is no refer- ence to Canadian public opinion as expressed by the Eepresen- tatives of the people, but, on the contraiy, it is manifest that the personal predilections of the Governor were to be the rule of his Government. I proceed to consider, 2ndly, the ignorance display- ed by Sir Charles Metcalfe of tho vinws of his predecessors on the subject of Kesj ">nsible Government. In a remarkable despatch, dated 6th May, 1843, nearly four months before the resignation of his Ministers, he discussed the whole question. Eegarding, he observes "Loixi Sydenham as the fabricator of the frame of Gov- ernment existing in this Province," he has carefully examined his despatches to ascertain " the precise view " which he took of Responsible Government. He infers from his earlier despatches that Lord Sydenham was wholly opposed to Responsible Govern- 32 ment, and T am bound to admit that Loi-d .Sydenham appears to have mrxlitied his viuwrt voiy conHiderahly during his residonco in ('anada. His views, however, can only bo ascertained from his acts. Sir Charles Metcalfe, professing to believe that Lord Sydenham was opposed to Responsible Govei-nment, observes : — " It is beyond measure surprising that ho adopted the very form of administration that was most assuredly calculato'd to defeat that purpose, and to produce or confirm the notion of Eesponsiblo (rovernment, which he had before reprobated — that is the resjjon- sibilitv of Executive officers of the Government to the popular Legislative Assembly. In composing his Council of the principal Executive officers under his authority, requiring that they should ail bo members of the Legislature and chiefly of the popular branch, and in making their tenure of office dependent on their commanding a majority in the hotly representing the people, he seems to me to have ensured with the certainty of cause and effect that the Council of the Governor should regard themselves as responsible, not so much to *he Governor as to the House of Assemoly. Jn adopting the very form and practice of the Home Government, by which the principal Ministers of the Crown form a cabinet acknowledged by the nation as the Executive Adminis- tration and themselves acknowledging responsibility to Parlia- ment, he rendei'ed it inevitable that the Council here should obtain and ascribe to themselves, in at least some degree, the character of a Cabinet of Ministers. If Lord Sydenham did .lot intend this, he was more mistaken than from his known ability one would suppose to be possible, — and if he did intend it, he, with his eyes open, carried into practice that very theory of Responsible Colo- nial Government which he had pronounced his opinion decidedly against. I cannot presume to account for this apparent inconsis- tency otherwise than by supposing either that he had altered his opinion when he formed his Courcil after the union of the two Provinces, or that he yielded agair^st h's own conviction to some necessity which he found himself unable to resist." It is quite immaterial whether Lord Sydenham yielded to con- viction or to the foree of circumstances ; but no one can read the foregoing extract without acknowledging that in the controversy which Sir Charles Metcalfe subsequently raised with his Minis- ters, he could hardly have doubted that they were acting in accordance with the principle of government which he himself admitted had been fully establishec'. It will always be a matter of uncertainty whether Lord Sydenham really yielded hi^ opi- nions to circumstftnces or whether he purposely concealed them in order not to shock the prejudices which the Consei'vative party of 33 I'oversy Minia- ting in himself matter i< opi- d them party cntoi'tainod ngainnt Ilo.iponsii)lo CJovornmont. It was hanlly pos- nible, in viow of the Mtatc of public opinion in Lower Canada, that the Governor who brou;i^ht about the Union could enjoy (he con- fidence of the French Canjulians. Lonl Sydenham waw too expe- rienced a statesman to have had any doubt as to the necessity oi establishing ParlianuMitary (Joverninent. I)ut the necessities of his position rendered it impossible for him to obtain the cooperation of those fiiendly to that system. I have already described the pai'ties on whoso support he determined to lean, and many of these were no friends to Responsible Government. Moreover, the system was new to the Canadians, and Lord .Sydenham, who had himself been a Cabinet Ministei-, was but too reatly to i-ender all the aid in his ]tower to the Ministers whose chief reliance was on his personal intluence. In a subsequent part of the despatch from which I have last quoted, Sir Charles Metcalfe displays an ignor- ance that is simply amazing. He asserts that " the term Eespon- " sible Government now in general use in this colony was derived, " I am told, from mai-ginal notes of Lord Durham'.s report." Prior to that the Democratic party " had no precise name for the " object of their desires, and could not exactly define their views." Can it be conceived possible that Sir Charles Metcalfe was ignor- ant of the great contest for Responsible Government during Sir Francis Head's administration in 183G, or that the term was clearly understood by the Canadian statesmen both of Lower and Upper Canada long before that time ? The motto of the Toronto Examiner during the whole period of Lord Durham's Government was " Responsible Government," and the precise i*ecommendations of his Lordship's report regarding that principle of Government were perseveringly advocated in the columns of that journal from its commencement in July, 1838 — as a reference to its files would prove. But not satisfied with asserting that Canadian Reformers did not understand what they were contending for, Sir Charles Metcalfe expressed an opinion that Lord Durham himself had no intention of conceding what it was the special object of his report to recommend. He seized on the following expression, which he himself failed to comprehend, as justifying his opinion : — I find that he proposes that all officers of the Government, " except the " Governor and his Secretary, should be responsible to the united " Legislature, and that the Governor should carry on his Govern- " ment by heads of departments in whom the United Legislature 3 S4 \" repose confidence." On which Sir Charles Bngaclously re- marks : " If the Sowetary who iHHued the Governor's onlors wore not responsiblo to the Lo«.^islatiu'o, there would Iki a ^rcat difforonco from the present arrangement under which the Provincial admin- istration generally is carried on through Secretaries professedly 80 rospoiibible." In the extracts which I have cited from Loi*d Durham's report there is no room for misconception, and I would especially refer to the recommendation that " the otficial acts of the Governor should be countersigned by some public functionary," so as to in- sure responsibility. It is hardly necessarj' to point out the differ- ence between his (the Govenior's) Secretary and the Secretary of the Province. The Governoi's have always had the assistance of Secretaries, who of course are in no sense responsible to Parlia- ment. I shall now advert to the thinl point on which history must condemn Loixi Metcalfe, viz., tlio improper means which he adopt- ed to obtain a majority in Parliament, No one can read the biog- i-uphy of Lord Metcalfe and his numerous despatches without be- ing thoroughly convinced of his hostility to liesponsiblo Govern- ment, and yet for months after his rupture with his Ministers he spared no efforts to persuade the people of Canada that ho was a sincere ft-iend to that principle, and that but for the unconstitu- tional demands of his Ministei"s he \\ ould have gone on with them cordially. Among those whom he completely deceived was u venerable French-Canadian statesman, Hon. D. B. Viger, whoso pamphlets afford unmistukeable evidence that ho labored under a misapprehension as to the cause of the rupture. If Mr. Viger could have read the'despatchos of Sir Charles Metcalfe to'the Secre- tary of State prior to the resignation of the Ministers, I am fully l^ersuaded that he wo' Id never have accepted office. I look back Avith feelings of pride » >) 1 satisfaction to the circumstances under which I first took up r:y residence in Montreal about the close of the year 1843. I had previously been connected with the press, and had endeavored to be the exponent of the views of the Ec- formers of Upper Canada, but after the crisis of 1843, it was deemed most desirable, in the interests of the United Liberal party, that there should be a journal at the seat of Government in the confidence of the political leaders of both sections, and I waa '^H 8ft ously rc- worc not ilifforonco al ndmin- •ofossodly I's report illy rofor Grovornor as to in- ho diffor- retary of stance of Parlia- ory must ho adopt- the biog- thout bc- Govenr istors he 10 was a constitu- th thorn was a whoso undor Vigor 10 Secro- im fully lok back s undor closo of press, he Rc- it was Liberal tnent in I was fttrongly urged to ostabliHli Huch a jonrnal, and I readily under- took the work, although fully uwaro of the fearful responsibility wliic'h I incurred at a period when party politicians had to endure an amount of odium of which those of the present day have only ji faint idea. When I commenced my career as a journalist in Montreal early in 1844, an election for the city was pending, the candidates being Mr., afterwards Judge, Drummond, and the late Mr. William Molson, a gentlema:i for whom personally I enter- tained as high a respect as any of his supporters could have done. A great principle was at stake, and I laboured with all the zeal in my power for the popular candidate, who was eventually returneti by 11 majority of !>20. It is stated by Sir Charles Metcalfe, in his despatch of 23rd November, 1844, that — " Tho British party seemed determined to win the eloction, (referring to the general election), or, at least, not to have their suifrages taken from them by the violence practised at Mr. Drummond's eloction in April. The same violence was designed by that gentleman and his party on this occasion, but the British party were resolved to oppose force by force, and organized them- selves for defence. Owing to the spirit and firmness with which they resisted the attacks of tho Roman Catholic mobs of canul laborers hired by Mr. Drummond's party — to the admirable ar- rangement of the returning officers which secured uninterrupted and equal polling for both sides throughout the election, and to the ready attendance of the military when necessary to preserve the peace, the violence attempted entirely failed and the British party triumphed." The foregoing passage would load to the inference that a peace- able majority had been in danger of being deprived of their rights owing to tho violent proceedings of Roman Catholic mobs of canal laborers not possessed of the franchise. But strange to say, Sir Charles Metcalfe in his very next sentence proceeds to destroy his own case. " As it is supposed (he proceeds) that if all tho electors could have voted there would have been u majority in favor of the Op- jiosition candidates, owing to the groat bulk of the French-Cnna- dian and Irish Roman Catholic voters being on their side, tho peculiar circumstances which gave success to the British party require explanation. Tho existing election law, confining the polling to two days, does not allow time for receiving all the votes of so large a constituency. The polling, therefore, being carried on equally in those waixls in which neither party's votes were 36 exhausted, there was a majority in favor of the candidates sup- porting Her Majesty'n Government, which secured their success- without ascertaining on which side the majority of the aggrogato body of electors actually was, as the whole, for want of time, could not be brought to the polls. In the April election, the jjclls^ having been seized b}'^ the hired ruffians of Mr. Drummond, and the British party being unable to resist from want of oi"ganiza- tion, the returning officers also either being paj-tial or devoid of energy and firmness, the Bi'itish part\' had then no chance. On the present occasion the numbers were, f(,r Mr. Moffat 1079, Mr. De Eleury 1075, for Mr. Drunimond 953, Dr. Beaubien 952." Such is Sir Charles Metcalfe's own account of this memorable- election. 1 shall give you that of the Pilot : — " The city is divided into six Avards, three of which are so small that in three hours all the votes they contai!) can be polled. In two 1,'f these tiiree, it is well known that the Tories have alwaya had an aggiegate majoritj'^ of about 100. In the three other wards, which contain five-sixths of the votes of the city, the Liberals ^ould command in one 3 to 1, and in the other two 4 to 1. Now, it will be observed that by means of the alternate vot- ing, without the consent of the Libei'al candidates, it waa utterly impossible to record in two days even one-half of the votes of the great wards, and henco it wat-' that the Liberals of the city have been as effectually disfranchised under the paternal despotism of Sir Charles Metcalfe, as they were under the honest tyranny of a Sydenham, a tyranny whifh Sir Charles Metcalfe, on his arrival in this country, j)rofessed to condemn." You will not have failed to notice that Sir Charles Metcalfe himself admitted that " the bulk of the French Canadian and " Irish Eoman Catholic votes were in favor of the Opposition " candidate," indeed he commenced his account of the election by remarking, " the cariying of the Montreal election in favor of the " Government was hardly expected." The means resorted to are stated with great frankness, except that there was an omission to mention that all the oaths were put by the agents of the Govern- ment candidates to all the voters, old men be,ng sworn to their being of the age of 21, for the purpose of delay. The Opposition candidates maintained that voting by tallies could only be admit- ted when both parties gave their consent, and that it was beyond the power of the returning officer to direct the obsei-vance of such a practice, The disfranchisement of the Suburbs by Lord Syden- ham was an admission that the majority was on the Opposition lates sup- r success aggregate ime, could the pells load, and oi-gauiza- devoid of mcc. On 1079, Mr. 952." emorable 3 so small >lled. In 'e ahvay* ree other city, the two 4 to nate vot- w utterly -es of the nty have )oti8m of liny of a s arrival Metcalfe lian and position ,A ction by )r of the sd to aio ssion tO' j: Govern- "l[ to their iosition > admit- beyond of such iSyden- t )ositioii, — 31 side, and the election of Mr. Drummond a few months previously by a majoi'ity of 920, obtained entirely in the Suburb Wai-ds, could have left no room for doubt as to which party commanded the majority of votes. It may likewise be observed that at the next election Messrs. Lafontaine and Holmes were returned by a majority of 1,300. Some recent references to those old times have partly induced me to place on record a true statement of the successive disfranchisements of the C'ity of Montreal upwards of 30 years ago. Violence at elections has long since entirely ceased, but historical truth and justice render it proper to estab- blish the fact that the great majority of the electoi-s of Montreal were uiiflinching in their oposition to the reactionary policy of Sir Charles Metcalfe, which, neverthelcHs, had a temporary success. During about four years of opposition the united Liberal party wait- ed patiently for another appeal to the constituencies of the country. The Government majority was small, and obtained entirely from Upper Caiiada, the Opposition having a considerable majority in Lower Canada. Lord ]\letcalfe, who had suffered during the whole period of hh government from a painful disease, was at length compelled to resign in November, 1845, his Government having lasted less thaii three }"3ars. He received an assurance from Lord Stanley that "your administi-ation of atfaii-s in Canada " has moi-e than realized the most sanguine expectations vvhich I ■" had ventured to form of it," an assurance strongly confirmatory of what I have already said of Hie Lordship's object in selecting Sir iJharles Metcalfe having been to overthrow Eesponsible Gov- ernment. Earl Cathcart, the Ccmimaiider of the Forces, suc- ceeded to the Government, and dui-ing his short administration made no change. In 1846 there was a change of Government in England, and Earl Grey succeeded Lord Stanley at the Colonial Office, and, shortly after his assumption of office, selected the Earl of Elgin as Governor General of Canada. From the period of his arrival Lord Elgin manifested a fixed determination not to be em- broiled in the personal controversies of his predecessors. Gov^ern- ment House became once more neutral ground, where no party dis- tinctions were recogniz(;d. The general election which took place .about the close of the year 1847 resulted in the complete triumph •of the Liberal party, and the consequent return of their leaders to power on the meeting'of Parliament in February, 1848. This aeems e convenient place to refer to the composition of the rival 38 parties, Loi-d Metcalfe invariably, in his despatches, diviaed the population into French-Canadians, Reformors and Conservatives, as if the French-Canadians took no interest in the political ques- tions v/hich divided parties, but were seeking some special objects of their own. It is, I think, a more correct definition to describe the Reform party as consisting of the bulk of the French-Cana- dians, of the Irish Roman Catholics, and a small Prot'^stant minority in Lower Canada, and a majority of the Protestant denominations other than the Church of England in Upper Canada, to which may be added the Irish Roman Catholics of that Pi-o- vince. There was greater division among the Presbyterians and Methodists than among the other denominations, especially (luring the political crises of 183G and 1843-44. The great major- ity of the members of the Church of England, and many Presby- terians and Methodists constituted the Conservative party in Upper Canada, while in Lower Canada the great majority of the population of English and Scotch origin, and of the Irisj; Pr tants were members of the same ]>arty. The administratic ; wli.oa came into office in 1848 had to encounter a most violent opposi- tion from the Conservatfves on tli'^ir bill for granting compen- sation to the sufferers from the wanton destrtiction of property during the rebellions of 1837-38. The excitement was general? but unfortunately, owing to the City of Montreal having been the seat of Government, the manifestations of displeasure were more pronounced in this city, where the buildings in ■which the meet- ings of the Legislature were temporarily held, although the property of the city, were destroyed by some of the irritated citizens in a moment of frenzy, and such further violence display- ed as to enable those who had always been, unfriendly to Montreal to succeetl in effecting the removal of the Goverinnent from that city. It is to be noccd that the violent proceedings of the oppo- sition in 1849 had the effect of strengthening the Ministers with their su])porters in both sections of the Province. Even those who did not fully approve of the Rebellion Lo.ssc bill compre- hended the objection to an ap])eal to England to disallow an act deliberately concurred in by the t'anadian Parliament. The discontented party published u manifesto in favor of annexation to the United States, but it met with little response from the Conservatives of Upper Canada, and was really a mere exhibition of the iiTitation which prevailed very extensively ;»mong th& 89 ivivied the iei*vatives, tical ques- ial objects desci'ibe nch-Cana- *rot'>stant *i'ote8tant r Canada, that Pro- rians and sjiecially tat niajor- '• Prosbj- pai'ty in by of t)io t opposi- compen- l)ro])orty general, been the ere more he meot- ui!:h the irritated disphiy- Vlontreal ■oni tliat he oppo- ors with en those compre- ' an act t. The lexationi com tlio :hibition ong the. British population of Lower Canada, and for which great allow- ance should be made by an impartial narrator of the history of the period. In 1350 the Legislature met in Toronto, and by that time there had been premonitory symptoms of a rupture in the Liberal party. It cannot be expected that there will be the same unanimity among the members of a party of progress as in one formed to resist organic changes. In the formef there will always be a section dissatisfied with what they think the inertness of their leaders. I have to explain as clearly as in my power the principles atid v-ews of those who, though elected as Peformei-s, ccjised to extend support to Mr. Lafontaine's administration, and gradually assumed a still more hostile attitude, anil combined with the Conservative Opposition to overthrow the Government, which succeeded it. This now Opposition, if I may so term it, was composed of members from Lower Canada, chiefly French- Canadians, ?.'-'d members from Upper Canada, but between these sections there was no similarity of views, as I shall be able to show. The foundei* of the Opposition party in Lower Canada Avas the celebrated Louis Joseph Papineau, who, on re-entering Parliament in 1848, placed himself in open and decided opposition to the Government, and to nearly all his countrymen then having seats in the Legislature. I caruiot refer to so distinguished a man as Mr. Papineau without pausing to state the impression which I formed of him during the brief pei'iod of our intercourse. I had never seen him prior to his return from France, whither he had retreated after the rebellion of 1837. It was impossible to avoid being charmed by his conversation and demeai' ur in private life, but his political pri^iclples .vere moulded by c' _ urn- stances, which seemed to remler him incapable of appreciating the conduct of those, on whom the loadershij) of his countrymen had devolved in his absence. I am convinced that his guiding jn'inciple was an utter distrust of all ]']nglisli statesmen. He ' aew that the avowed object of the Union had been to destroy the inflvtenco of his countrymen, and he never would consent to give it a trial. Moreover, he was, after his return to Canada, and possibly at ai. earlier period of his life, a confirmed Kepublican, and never could place the slightest confidence in Responsible Government, as a means of securing local independence. He had no Parliamentary success during the few years that he remained in public life on his return to Camula, but he was the founder of 40 the Lower Canada Liberal Opponition, which became moi'o formidable under the leadership of younger men. In a lecture delivered l few months ago, by the Hon. Mr. Laurier, M.P., reference is made to the history of this party, and it has been satisfactory to me to have had an opportunity of i-eading the account given of it by one, who has derived his information of the events of that period by other means than personal obsei'va- tion. In a great deal of the introductory portion of Mr. Laurier's lecture, I myself entirety concur, but in eulogizing Liberalism it must never be forgotten that it is a relative term. Mr. Laurier has quoted largely from the writings of Lord Macaulay, who was a special favourite of my own, but in iilmost the last speech made in the House of Commons by that eminent man in 1853, he used thes' v'ords : — '* For myself, sir, I hope that I am at once a Libei i i a Conser^'ative politician." I can draw no other inference im Mr. Laurier's own language, than that had he been in public life at the time, he would have been, as I Avas, a Consen-^ative in opposition to the Liberalism of L'Avenir. There 18, it appears to me, a fundamental en-or in Mr. Laurier's history of the Ijiboral party. He pronounces an eulogium on both Mr. Lafontaine and Mr. Papineau as " men v/ho loved their country ardently, passionately, who devoted +hcir lives to it, who were disinterested and upi'ight," and sofiir I entirely concur with him, but when he proceeds to declare further that he " will not under- take to criticize the respective political views of those groat men," and when he recommends his hearers not to enquire which of the two was right and which was wrong, it seems to nio that ho has Avholly failed in a most important part of the task which he undertook. It was obviously the duty of an impartial historian, and one from which 3Ir. Laurier's favorite Lord Macaulay would not have shrunk, to have defined as precisely as possible the grounds on which Mi*. Papineau and his followers deemed it proper to create a division in the Liberal part v. Mr. Laurier, it is true, has been less reticent on the subject of the di^ciplos of Mr. Papineau, those who *' after supporting Mr. Lafontaine in th. glorioiis struggle Avith Lord Metcalfe, abandoned him for the more advanced policy of Mr. Papineau." He states that these founders of the Liberal party, emboldened by ucceas, founded L'Avenir, and issued a programme of not less than 21 articles, which commenced with the election of magistrates and ended 41 with annexation to the United States. In condemning those views Mr. Laurior excuses those who hold them, on account of their j'^outh, although they wore cleai-ly imbibed from the vetoj-an politician Mr. Papinoau. Another excuse is even loss valid. It is not fair to assert that in 1848 the new constitution had not boon applied in good faith by the Colonial Office. Not only had all the utterances of the Earl of Elgin boon most satisfactory, but the presence of Mr. Lafontaino and of his colleagues in the Cabinet o;i~ht to have been held as a sufficient guarantee that Eesponsiblo (rovernmei.i. was fully established. Great stress is laid by Mr. Laiirier on the services rendered by L' Avenir party towards the abolition of the seigniorial tenure. This is, in my judgment, one of the questions on which an immense amount of misconception exists, but it would be wholly impossible for me to discuss it on uuch an occasion as the present, and I will merely state that L' Avenir party sought the reduction of the cens et rentes without compensatioij to the seigniors, and that the bill introduced by the Government in 1854, though coming very far short of the demands of that part}-, was, nevertheless, so objectionable that it was completely remodelled in the Legislative (Jouncil, and the money voted by Parliament applied to the abolition of the casual rights, which woi'o the real public grievance, and not to the extinction or reduction of the cens et rentes. I emphatically den}- that the party of L' Avenir aro entitled to the credit accorded to them by Mr. Laurior, in connection with the sottlemoiit of the Seigniorial question. [Having taken considerable intei'ost in the settlement of ''lo seigniorial question in 1854, and having, while the bill passed b}' the Legislative Assembly was under the consideration of the Legislative C-ouncil, published a brochure entitled '' The Seigniorial Tenure — Present state of the Question ; by a member of the Legislative Assembly of Up])or Canada," 1 shall endeavor to give the substance of that long-forgotten paper. It commenced by noticing the bill which emanated from the Select Committee of 1851, which proposed to define by law the madmiim amount of cens et rentes to which the seignior should be entitled, and to compel him to concede his unoccupied lands at that rate. This bill, which was in the nature of a doclaratoiy bill, was opposed by Mr. Lafontaine, who pronounced it a measure of confiscation. It was reported from the committee so late in the session that 42 legislative action on the subject before the prorogation became impossible. Mr. Lafontaine's retirement from public life took place during the recess, and after the formation of a new government a general election took place. During the session of 1852-3 a bill was introduced which proposed to reduce what were held to be exorbitant rents, and to obtain from the courts of justice a decision as to the legality of such rents, to compensate the seigniors in case they were legal for any excess over 2d per acre, which was in future to be the maximum rent ; if illegal, the seignior was to submit to the reduction without compensa- tion. It is unnecessaiy to enter upon other details, as the burthen of the commutation of the casual rights was tc fall on the censitaires. The bill as passed by the Assembly was rejected by the Legislative Council. The next bill, submitted in 1854 r. was based on a reduction of the cens et rentes to Id per acre, the professed object being to meet the demands of the district of Quebec, where the rents were much lower than in Mo 'I'cal. But while the bill was in committee, the principleof compulsory com- mutation of the casual rights was introduced, and in a manner, as I contended, which would be unjust to the seigniors ; while on the other hand any forced commutation that would have done justice lothe seigniors would have Ixsen most repugnant to the censitaires. It Avas pointed out that the gi'cat objectioji to all the schemes that had been proposed Avas their une(}ual operation, both as regarded the seigniors and tne censitaires, while the liberal indemnity fund would be wasted. It was urged that inasmuch as it had at last been atlmitted that the tenure should be abolished, the wisest policy would be to apply the indemnity to the extinction of the most onerous and at the same time the most odious of the rights, the legality of whicli was nevertheless imdisputed. After pointing out that even the censitaires who were subject to what were held to be exorbitant rents would have no just cause of complaint, it concluded by stating that the julvantage of the proposed plan was that no one would have to pay more annual rent than he actually paid, while all !*ociety would l»e relieved of the feudal burthens. The views which I contended for were substantially those adopted by the Legislative Council, by which body the bill sent from the Assembly was completely changed, and I had reason to believe at the time that my little brochure had been useful. The popular feeling repro 48 Bented by the party of L'Avenir was entirely directed to the reduction of the rente, and not to the abolition of the tenure ; and while I admit I'c the rents were what pressed most on the masses of the people, they were by no means objectionable on public grounds like many of the casual rights, such, especially, as the loih et ventes and the droit de retrait, which was often most unfairly exercised.] In 1852 the Opposition published a new journal, called Le Pays. and it would be interesting to know whether this change of front was caused by pressure from their allies in Upper Canada, who most assuredly had no sympathy with the views enunciated in the programme of L'Avenir. It is certainly most extraordinary that Mr. Laurier should have undertaken to give the history of the Liberal party in Lower Canada alone, although it was, from the time of its foiination, necessarily forced to act in Parliament with men of another origin, and with widely dift'erent views on many points. As I may not tind it convenient to refer again to Mr. Laurier's lecture, I may observe here that his statement that the section of the Liberal party which followed Mr. Lafontaine "finit apres quelques tatonnements par s'allier aux Tories du "Haut Canada," is quite incorrect. There were no " tatonne- ments,"' and the Lower Canada Government party had a consi- derable majority, of which, had Mr. Laurier been then in ^^M'liament, and had he hold the views ex])ressed in his lecture, he would have formed part. A section of the liberal party, including those who had adopted the programme of L'Avenir, and the Upper Canada Eeformers, who had withdrawn their confidence from the Government on other grounds, united with the Conservative opposition to defeat the Ministry. Whether they were justified in doing so, is not now the question. They acted on their responsibility; but the eft'ect of their proceeding was to force the alliance, or coalition, which Mr. Laui-ier con- demns. The Government must be carried on, and all combinations must give way to that supremo necessity. The Ministry having been forced to I'csign, the leader of the Opposition was sent tor, according to usage, and when it appeared, after conferences, that there vv'ere no essential points of ditt'erence between the two parties, ihey united to carry on the Governmeni. My complaint against Mr. Laurier is, that he has represented a proceeding; v/hich arose from inevitable necessity, as one of premeditation. pr< 44 THE CLEAR GRIT DEPARTURE. I must HOW advert to the policy of the Opposition in Uppoi' Oanada. It would bo wholly out of my power, on such an occa- sion as the present, to do more than glance very briefly at the questions on which a portion of the Upper Canada Liberals took a different view from the members of the Government. Some of those questions chiefly aff'ected Upper, others Lower Canada. The former were the clergy reserves, rectory and sectarian school questions ; the latter, grants to charitable corporations, connec- ted with the Catholic Church, and Acts creating what were termed ecclesiastical corporations. On some of these questions wide differences of opinion prevailed between the bulk of the supporters of the Government in Lower Canada and a considera- ble number of their supporters in Upper Canada. All these questions, most fortunately, have been removed from the field of politics; but they were at one time very exciting, and had a most important influence in causing the disruption of the old Eeform party. Complaints of the inertness of the Government ■on the clergy reserve question, which was the most prominent of those engaging public attention in Upper Canada, were assidu- ously made during 1850, although a member of the Government proposed and carried an address to the Crown praying for a repeal of the Imperial Clergy Eeserve Act, so that the whole question might be settled in accordance with Canadian public opinion. I desire, as much as possible, to avoid a recurrence to past con- troversies, and to explain the causes of the rupture of the Liberal party without discussing the merits of the respective views of the opposing sections. I can hardly do this better than by making a quotation or two from the writings of the Hon. George Brown, then conducting the Globe newspaper, which was the «hiof oj'gan of the Liberal Opposition. THE BROAD PROTESTANT CRY. Shortly before the general election of 1851, Mr. Brown ad- dressed a series of letters to me as the Leader of the Government, from which I select the following passage : — " You know that I have been at open issue with you through- out in regard to your systematic disregard of the feelings and wishes of your supporters, and the disastrous effects on the party thereby produced. You know that the Globe's resistance of 45 Roman Ciitholic aggression caused the first open rupture between us." Unfortunately, I complained of the " systematic disregaixl of the feelings and wishes " of our allies in Lower Canada of the Koman Catholic faith, on the part cf the Gbhe and those of the Beform party Avho supported its views. I never could be con- vinced that there was any tendency whatever towards aggression on the part of Roman Catholics. I did not consider that the daim^s on the part of the Roman Catholics to have separate schools in Upper Canada, as the Protestants had always had in Lower Canada, or the claim to have educational or charitable in- stitutions incorporated with a right to hold property, were acts of aggression. I considered, moreover, that, irrespective of the special merits of the questions at issue, great respect should bo paid to the wishes of the great majority of the population of Lower Canada, with whom the Liberals of Upper Canada were in cordial alliance, and on whose support they depended for pro- curing the settlement of questions in which they took an interest. In the same number of the Globe, from which 1 have quoted, in reply to an article in a Ministerial Liberal paper, expressing a belief that on certain questions, " Clergy Reserves, and one or two others," on which the Fj'ench members entertained jireju- dicos, they would be guided by the results of the next elections. It is said : — " Will the American dare say that ' a large number of the lead- ing men ' among the French members have declared their will- ingness to be guided by the results of the next elections on the Rectory question ? or on the Sectarian School question ? or on the Sectarian moneygrant question ? or on the marriage question ? We believe there is some truth in the statement as regards the clergy reserves, but in regard to any other there is none what- ever." It is with no intention of impeaching the accuracy of the fore- going statement that J have cited it, but to establish the cause of the disruption of the Reform party, owing to irreconcilable differ- ences of opinion on important questions between a large section of that party in Upper Canada and the Government supported by the bulk of the Liberal party in Lower Canada, and, if the mem- ber elected were to be considered as a guide, by the majority of the Refbrmera in Upper Canada. I must confess that I was less I 1/ 46 Sui'priBed than disappointed at tho divergence of views to which I have just called your attention among thono who had long formed an united Liberal party in the old Province of Upper Canada. For a period of ten years the absorbing political ques- tion on which the parties had been divided was the establishment of Eesponsiblo or Parliamentary Government, and it must be ob- vious that porscnsdiftering widely on other questions migb+ con- cur in advocating a measur.^ calculated to benefit the community at large. Tho questions next in importance were those known as tho Clergy Eeservo and University questions, and as the ob- ject of the Reformers was to wrest public endowments of lands from tho Church of England for the common benefit of all classes of the population, there was no difficulty in securing a concur- rence of action between the Roman Catholics and those Protest- ants who were opposed to the claims of the Church of England. "When, however, other questions engaged public consideration, it (goon became apparent that there were dift'orencos of opinion be- tween tho sections of the Liberal party to which I have referred, which rendered harmonious action between them impossible. The population of Upper Canada was composed largely of immi- grants from the United Kingdom, who brought with them the animosities which they had inherited from thoir ancestors, and which originated in causes with which all acquainted with the past history of tho Mother Country aro acquainted. Cordial co- operation between Roman Catholics and Evangelical Protestants can scarcely be expected when questions are at issue involving scruples of conscience on the part of either, and there is perhaps more cause for wonder that the alliance lasted for more than ten years than that it was at length dissolved. PARTY CONVENTIONS. About the time that Mr. Brown's letters wore published, a convention of delegates was held in the County of Oxford, which I then represented and for which I intended tO be a candidate at the approt\ching election, the object of which was to require their candidate to pledge himself to support the principles maintained by the section of the party in opposition to the Government, which was led by LIr. Brown. I was accoi*dingly applied to by letter and informed of the condition ou which I had been selected as the nominee of the Convention. The 4T coiTospondoncc, in view of subsequent ovonts, may not bo thought out of place as bearing on the history of parties : Honorable Sir, — You will see by the resolutions adopted on the 15th insUint, that I am requested to send you a copy and request your assent to the same. I therefore trust that you will forward the same at your earliest convenience. I remain yours truly, Thomas Hardy. QuKBEC, 2nih Oct., 1851. Sir, — T have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter, without date, enclosing " copy of a political platform resolved upon by the Convention, in convention assembled, in Woodstock, on Thursday, October 15, 1851 ; " and also a copy of certain resolutions adopted by the same convention, one of which is to the effect "that the J Ion. Francis Hincks, the nominee of this Convention, be instructed and required by the Chairman of this Convention to subscribe to the platform of the reform party in the County of Oxford, as expressed in convention this day," while by another I am required, as the nominee of the said Conyontion, to resign my seat in parliament when called upon by two-thirds of the said Convention. I shall, I trust, be excused by the gentlemen composing the Convention refeiTcd to if I reply to your communication at some length, and if I address you with perfect frankness and sincerity, even though my views should be found unpalatable by those to whom I desire to have hem submitted, and for whom individually and collectively I entertain a high respect. You will permit me to say, that I cannot recognize any right in a convention of delegates, appointed in a way unknown to the Constitution, to impose conditions of any kind upon candidates for the suffrages of the freeholders of the county. The course taken bj' certain conven- tions in the western part of Upper Canada has already, I am grieved to lind, enabled the opponents of progressive reform to charge them with attempting, like the socialist clubs of France, to exercise an unconstitutional control over the govei-nment and parliament of the countrj*. It is, I am sure, far from the intention of any of the gentlemen with whom you are associated, to be a party to proceedings which might be fairly so characterized, and L therefore feel great confidence that, on mature consideration, the delegates to the County of Oxford Convention will give me their support without conditions which it would be equally degrading for them to impose and for me to submit to. As an executive councillor I am bound by my oath of oflB.ce to advise the representative of our Sovereign to adopt that policj^ which I believe to be the best. In giving that advice con- scientiously, I must be guided by the circumstances in which 4S the entiio Province is placed, and by 1 lie general state of public opinion. 11" circunistaiuics and the state of public opinion be sueh that it is inexpedient to cai-iy out the j)olicy which I deem most conducive to the common weal, my duty in to retii-e fi-om otlico, HO as to enable othorH to carry on tiio government. Were 1 tO' enter office lettered by pledges to a convention liaving no constitutional responsibility, it would bo obviously impossiblo for mo eilhei- to act in concert with others or to give fieo advice to the representative of my Sovereign. I sliould, in fact, cease to be a minister of the Crown, responsible to parliament for my advice, and be the mere delegate of a convention elected in a manner wholly unknown to the Constitution. While T am bound frankly to assui-e you that nothing could induce me to occupy such a position as that which I have described, it is also my duty to infoi-m you, that wore I to subscribe to j-our conditions, I should Jiave to abandon my seat in thi- Cjililiift. «n(l, W!*h it, the pronpect of advancing that cause which many of you have mucli at lioart. "With regard to my views on the greut questions which have agitated tho public mind, the Convention cannot be in ignorance, as I ha*l an oppor- tunity of addressing them very recently in public, as well as of explaining myself to most of them individually. Since then a new Administration has been formed, wliich will, I trust, receive in my person the support of a majority of the freeholders of tho county of Oxford. I have already warned those persons v*^o hold extreme views — some of them, in my opinion, inconsi' with our present Constitution, if not with British connect! that by pressing those viev.-s against the public opinion of otner parts of the Province, they will endanger the success of measures of vital importance to the country, and secure the triumph of their opponents. My v/arnings may bo disregarded, and the lleform party may, notwithstanding my efforts +o prevent it, go disunited to the Imstings. If so, I shall have the satisfaction of knowing that the responsibility will not rest with me. It is proper that I should here state my views with regard to tho legitimate duties and powers of delegates elected in the manner generally adopted, in Upper Canada. I can recognize the propriety of appointing delegates from the different sections of a county, for the purpose of effecting an amicable adjustment of the claims of rival candi- dates for the suffrages of the freeholders, which candidates enter- tain the same general views and appeal for support to the same party. It must be perfectly obvious that in ray case no such convention Avas called for. In my position, as a member of the Government, all the supporters of that Government must be fav- orable to me ; and it is mj- duty both to them, to myself, and to the entire party supporting the Government, to take the sense of the electors at the polls. The Convention in the county of Oxford was appointed by persons who, for reasons into which I need 48 not enter, had nuMliricd their sujiport to the tiovernment as for- merly conHtitutLMl. Tlit> i-rul qiiewtion wliidi, in my oj)ini()n, tlu't Convention is calli'd upon to di'cide, is, whetlior, mulor existing eircnmstanees, it is cxju'duMit to dividci tlu> Hotitiiu j»artv in tlio county of Oxford hy settin^^ up a candidate in o)»position to me. This is what you and your tVionds must ;anl to the reconstruction of the Cabi- net, was the constitutional modcof strengthenin<^ the (Joverinnent in the opiiuon of those on whose support its existence depends. Should sudi tests as yours ho applied to the Government candi- dates, the desired result will not he attained. To speak j.' didy, you may rely on it that if there bo disuiuon among the Jlefoi-mers of the county of Oxford, the example will ix! followed in other counties, to the serious injury of the entire i)arty. I need not enlai'go on this point. I shall ajipeal to the freeholders of the county of Oxford as a member of the ])resont Government, and claiming for it this mark of contidence; and if the delegates of the Convention think proper to put up a candidate in o])position to "me, I shall cheerfully bow to the decision given at the pollH between that candidate and myself, and any other who may pre- sent himself. I have. abstained in this reply from the discussion of the various questions submitt , to me in- the delegates — on fiome of which my opinions are Unown to be as liberal as those of any member of the Convention — because I feel that the true secu- rity for the public must be the characters '>f the responsible Min- isters of the (Jrown, who have entire contidence in one another, and who feel that they can C(n*dially cooperate in etlceting a set- tlement of all leading questions in a manner that will be satisfactory to the country. I am, sir, ,/ Your obedient servant, F. HiNCKS. Thos. Hardy, Esq. The Convention nominated a candidate, who was afterwards •withdrawn, and I was elected. THE HINCKS-MORIN GOVERNMENT. It was shortly before this time that, in consequence of the retirement of Mr. Lafontaine from public life, I was sent for by the Earl of Elgin to advise him as to the constniction of a new Government. Being well aware of the distrust that had been created as to my intentions on the subject of the Clergy Reserves, I was anxious to obtain the co-operation of 4 60 Eome of those Eeformers in whom the dissatisfied section of the- party had pi'ofessed to place implicit confidence. After some difficulties, all of a personal character, the new Administra- tion was formed, and the result of the general election, was to give it a fair Avorking majority. One of the most urgent measures of refon:i was a bill for increasing the representation, which, although carried by a considerable majority during the administration of Mr, Lafontaine, had not obtained the consent of two-thirds of the Houses, as required by the Union Act. This hill was at last can-ied, and no effort was spared to procure the repeal of ihe Imperial Clei-gy Eeserve Act, During a visit which I paid to England in 1852, I pressed this measure on the Secretary of State with all the ener y in my power, but in vain. [[ think it right, in justice as well to myself as to the memory of the Hon, Robert Baldwin, to dispi-ove the following statement in Withrow's history, which I have reason to think is believed by saany, as well as by the author named and some other con- temporary writers. " The discussion of the Clergy Eeserve question was renewed outside of the House, principally in the journals of the advanced Eeform party, the chief of which were the Globe and Examiner of Toronto, The older and more moderate Eeformers, of whom Mr. Baldwin and Mr. Lafontaine may be regarded as types, opposed the r",-openinoroughly convinced that they were indefensible in Canada, lie was not in public life when tho Clergy Eeserve question was settled in 1840. by an Act of the Imperial Parliament, with which the Canadian Parliament could not constitutionally interfere, and he wi*8 well aware of tho strong feeling that existed among the lemlers of both political parties in England against Canadian legislation on that subject by tho United Legislature. How strong that feeling was vnll appear from Sir John Pakingfon's despatch of December 1852. The first agitation on the subject af^-^i* the passing of tho Imperial Act proceeded from the friends of the Church of England. The Liberal Government had taken steps to have the Clergy Lauds valued, with a view to their prompt sale; but in Januaiy, 1844, Governor-Genei'al Sir Charles Metcalf,^ proposed to the Secretary of State that the Clergy Eeserve Lands should be vested in the religious bodies. Mr. Gladstone, then Secretaiy of State, pointed out that tho Imperial Act would have to be amended, and asked for information. Ob the Gtli April, 1846, the Executive Council recommended the suspension of all sales, and also the raising of the price of the lands valued by appraisers, from 25 to 125 per cent. In the next Session, Mr. Attorney-General Sherwood pro- posed an address to the Crown, praying Parliament to pass an Act authorizing a division of the lands, insteiid of the income arising from their proceeds, among the religious bodies. This was the signal for lenewed agitation against tho Imj^orial settle- ment. I was not a member of the Second ParlianiO'>^ of I'^nited Canada; but Mr. Baldwin and Mr. Price both spoke strongly a^/ainst Mr. Sherwood's address, which was lost by 37 to 14. In 1849, the ycnr of the rebellion losses bill, several petitions were presented against the existing settlement. In 1850, Mr. Price proposed a series of resolutions, on which to found an Addi'ess to the Orown for the repeal of tho Clergy Reserve Act, for all of 52 which Mr. Baldwin voted; and there can bo no doubt that he would have voted for secularisation whenever the proper time came. That he was iirmly convinced that no other seitlement would he satisfactory, I can affirm in the most positive manner; and I trust tnat there will bo no I urtiier assertions or insinuations to the contrarj'. Of course the policy adopted to effect the desired object is fairly open to criticism ; and with rec^ard to that, owing to his withdrawal from the Government in 1851, I have a greater load of responsibility than Mr. Baldwin, although there was entire concurrence between us in the incipient pro- ceedings. Our plan was to obtain, lirstly, the repeal of the Imperial Act, and then to legislate in accordance with Canadian public opinion. Accordingly, during the Session of 1850, Mr. Price a member of the Administration, and one who, as a Congregational ist, had conscientious objections to religious endowments, was selected to move resolutions on which to found an address to the Crown for the repeal of the Imperial Clergy Eeserve Act. The Address contains a narrative of the various attempts made during succes- sive years to settle the question, all of whicl: were frustrated by the action of the Legislative Council. It is unnocessarj^ for me to quote more than the despatch of the Earl of Elgin to Earl Grey transmitting the address, the most important clause of which is embodied in it. That despatch, as will appear from Mr. Brown's letter was made the ground of suspicion against the administration : Copy of a Despatch from the Right Hon. the Earl of i:1l gin and KiNtiAEDiNE to the Right Hon. the Earl Grey: , ■H , Government House, Toronto, July 10, 1850. . My Lord, — I have the honor to transmit herewith, in com- pliance with the request of the Legislative Assembly, to be laid at the foot of the Throne, an Address from that House to Her Majesty, on the subject of the Clergy Reserves. After recapitu- lating the proceedings of the House of Assembly of Upper Canada before the union of the Provinces in connexion with this ques- tion, it concludes with the prayer, that Her Majesty will be graciously pleased to recommend to Parliament a measure for the repeal of the Imperial Act 3 and 4 Yict., chap. 78, and for enabling the Canadian Parliament to dif^poso of the Clergy Re- serves, subject to the condition of securing the stip.^nds or allow- ances assigned from this fund to the clergy of the Churches of England or Scotland, or to any other religious ])odios or denominations of Ohriytians, to the parties now receiving thorn during their natural lives or incumbencies. It was finally carried by a majoi-ity of 4o votes to 23; some of the minority voting against it in consequence of this reservation. 2. It may bo proper, liowever, to observe, that a much closer division took place on tlie passage of the 29th, in the series of re- solutions on which the Address was founded, and which was thus worded : — " Resolved — That this House is of opinion, that when all the cij'cumstances connected with this question are taken into considei-ation, no religious denomination can be held to have such vested interest in the revcinie derived fi-om the ])roceods of the said Clergy lieserves hh should ])i ovent further legislation with reference to the disposal of them ; but this House is nevertheless of opinion, that the claims of existing iuciimbents should be treated in the most liberal manner." This resolution was op2)Osed by three classes of j^ersons : First, by those who desire the existing settlement to be maintained. Second, by those Avho, though they object to the Imperial Act of 1840, and seek its repeal, admit, nevertheless, certain claims on the part of the Protestant clergy undei- the Constitutional Act of 1791. And lastly, by those who are unwilling to recognize even the claims of existing incum- bents. It was cari'ied on a division by a majority of two only ; the numbers being 3G for, and 34 against it. 3. I deeply regret the revival of agitation on this subject, of Avliich Lord Sydenham truly observed, +hat it had been in Upper Canada the one all-absorbing and engrossing topic of intei-est, and for years the principal cause of the discontent and disturbance which had arisen, and under Aviiich the pr ivince had labored. The intervention of the Imperial Parliam* ni m I H40 was doubt- less prompted by a desire to settle on tii-ms which should be equitable and generally satisfactory juihtion which had for so many years disturbed the peace of m. < ulony. While the prin- ciple, howev. r, of an establishment wa^ al'undfnr I b; the Im- perial A( i 3 ;!id 4 Vict., chap. 78, which admit* , all denomina- tions to .;hare in the proceeds of the Clergy Ee^erv*.- aiivantag«!S were given by it to the established Churches of iOngland and Scotland in the distribution of the funds which render them still objects of envy. This feeling has been increased, as regard-; the Church of Scotland, by the largo secession from its ranks, - liich the Free Church movement has occasioned. 1 much feai that the result will justify the disinclination which Loi'd John Eu^sell appears, from the first, to have entertained to any legislation by the Imperial Parliament upon this question. It is an evil wt' " . small magnitude on a subject of this nature, that while the iu.>k Lord Dej-by had, as is well known, a majority of supporters in the House of Lords, and the 8ubse((uent jwlicy of that nobleman's Government may be taken as affording proof that if Lord Grey had introduced his bill in 1851 it would have been defeated. No one who impartially studies the parliamentary proceedings of 1851 can arrive at any other conclusion than that the postponement of the Clergy Reserve Bill in that year was a wise determination on the part of Lord John Ru.ssell's (Jovernment, then in a tottering position. It would have be^'U most unwise for the Canadian iieformers to have placed new difficulties in the way of a rainistc! pledged to use his endeavors to comply with ' the address to the Crown which all had concurred in a year before. But secondly. Had an attempt been made to legislate in accordance with public opinion it would have involved the breaking up of the julministration. Mr. Lafontaine, Mr. Cauchon, Mr. Chf uveau and other Lower Canadians hiul voted against the resolution of Mr. Price, which affirmed that " no religious " denomination can be held to have such vested interests in the -" revenue derived from the proceeds of the said Clergy Reserves ^* as should prevent further legislation with reference to the 5G " disposal of then-, " and would have voted against any bill that Mr. Boul ton's committee would have reported. On the other hand, Mr. Laiontaine was strongly in favor of the settlement of the question by the Canadian Parliament, and was willing to go heartily for the repeal of the Imperial Act. It was not deemed prudent to precipitate a disruption of the lieform party on a question on which, by general admission, it was out of the power of the Canadian Parliament to legislate. Mr. Boulton's amend- inent wa« lost on a division of 5 to 52. Mr. AVm. Lyon Mackenzie moved an amendment, the division on which was 4 to 56. Mr. Cayloy and Mr. Sherwood moved amendments in a Conservative sense, which were lost — 13 to 50 and 10 to 4G, and the address was finally carried by 45 to 16, the minority including four or five Keformers Avith the Conservatives. Such was the action of the House in 1851. During that session, Mr, Baldwin resigned as a member of the administration, and Mr. Lafontaine announced his contemplated withdrawal from public life. A general election was at hand, and prior to that the (Tovernor-General entrusted me with the formation of a new administration, which I formed on the clear understanding with Mr. Morin that the secularizatioix of the Clergy Reserves would be a cabinet question. At this critical moment, the Hon. George Brown addressed a sei'ies of letters to me, in which he stated his: reasons for opposing the new administration. I have already made a brief quotation from one, and shall add an extract specially relating to the Clergy Reserves : — / THE CLERGY RESERVES. " I now come to the great question of the Clergy Reserves, I tl\ink you erred greatly in not having it settled with your Fi-encb^ Canadian colleagues that this was to be treated as a Ministerial question, ere you assented to the Rebellion Losses Bill. I do not. doubt, however, that you entertained the full conviction, until immediately preceding the Session of 185C, that Mr. Lafontaine and his adherents would go with you cordially on that subject. When they refuned to do so, it became a question whether you ought to resign. 1 had no cloul»t, at the opening of Parliament^ in May, 1850, that Mr. Price and you. were desirous of settling the Reserves, as the Upper Caiuula Reform pai-ty demand, and that you wei-e much disappointed that you couhl not have that settlement made a Ministerial question ; and I ful.y agreed with you that, in the then state of the question, the Provincial Parlia- 67 meiit had not power of itself to set aside the Tmpci'ial Act of 1840, and that the cotisont of the Iinperial Parliament must be Imd to any Canadian legishition on the subject. I also agreed witli you that, as your colleagues were willing to go with you for an Address to the Crown to restore tlie control of the Eeserves to the Provincial Parliament; and as the ditfercnco between you arose, not on the steps you pi-oposcd taking, but on the argument on which such control should be claimed — and on the future appropriation of the lands Avhen ol)tained — you were not called upon to resign; but were justitied in carrying youi- prcliminajy Address to the Crown as an open question, and taking your stand when the practical question came up, What shall be done with the lands "^ It is still quite clear that this was the right ground ; for if you iiad then resigned, no advance Avould have been made on the question until after a new election, then two years otf; and you would thereby have lost the opportunity, Avhich no true Keformer doubted you would meantime have seized, to place the representation and suifrago on such footing, ere the election, as would free tho U])per Canada Liljerals from their position of dependence on their Lower Canada allies. I also agreed with the contents of Mr. Price's resolutions, though decidedly prefer- ring Mr. Morrison's amendment, asking the control of the Reserves, free from any restriction. I O])posod the pro]iosition to pass an oi-dinary Bill settling tho question, because I did not agree with the friends of that measure when they contended that the Act of 18-40 had not repealed the power given us to legislate by the Act of 1*791. With you, I considered that the Act of 1840 did bar Provincial legislation, and that to proceed in the face of it would bring us into collision with the Home Government. Moreover, I considered that such a Bill must receive, as all Bills have to receive, the assent of tho Mother Country ere becoming law, and that this would be much more easily obtained by a courteous, though hrm, representation of facts, and invitation to_action, than by rudely attempting to force an Act of our own down the Imperial throat. Up to the meeting of Parliament this year, tbei'cfore, I was with you on the Eeserve question, and did not doubt your perfect good faith in regard to it. That opinion has undel"gone a very great change in consequence of your subsequent proceedings; and though I do not doubt that were you to carry out your own convictions you would act as the cause of justice demands, I am satisfied you are prepared to sacrifice your principles and your jjarty, even on this questiim, to subserve your own ends. The speech from the throne at the opening of the Session wa» calculated to excite strong suspicion as to your earnestness on th© subject. In the coldest nuvnner possible, it merely alluded to Lord Grey's reply to the address of the House — expressed tio feeling — indicated no further movement on the subject I The w despatches were, however, promised to be communicated, and when received it appeared that the Home Government assented to the demand of the people of Canada, imd would at some fiitm-e day transfer back the power of disposing of the Eeservos to the Provincial Parliament. No time was fixed, however, — no hurry- about the matter seemed to be conceived necessary, and suspicion was consequently aroused that Lord Grey had received a hint that prompt action would be inconvenient for the Provincial Cabinet. Thoiso suspicions received ten-fold strength when it appeared that in sending Mr. Price's resolutions to the Colonial Office, the Governor General had been advised by you and your colleagues to use language in the despatch accompanying them calculated seriously to injure the cause at home. In this despatch his Lor(lshi]> wrote that he " deepli/ regrets the revival of agitation on this {the Clergy Reserve) subject," — and he goes ou thus : — " It is an evir of no small magnitude on a siiLject of this nature, that while the more violent and unscrupulous oj the opponents of the existing settlement arc enabled to create a prejudice against it by representing it to be the result of Imperial interference in a matter of provincial concern, its friends are tempted rather to endeavor to influence opinion in England than to resort to measures which may strengthen t/ieir position in the colony." Well did it becdme you, indeed, to pronounce the Eeformers of Upper Canjida " violent and unscj-upulous," because they sought to abolish an ''existing settlement " — bless your new-born fastidi- ousness! — by declaiming against which you raised yourself to 3'our present position ! Who was ever more "violent and unscru- pulous " than yourself on this or any other question ? Well it suited you, forsooth, to preach down such language to the Volun- tai-ies of Ui)per C-anada, who placed you on your perch ! And let me not forget your timely hint to the "friends" of the Eeserves, to " resort to meas'ures lohich may strengthen their position " in the colony .'" No man can doubt that this recommendation was thrown to Bishop Strachan and his coadjutors here and in England designedly and of forethought; quite certain is it that the clerical agitation — the "church unions," the "pastoral addresses," and the " lay delegations " — which immediately spi-ang up throughout the land, were the fruit of this despatch from a Reform Administration; and as little doubtful is it now that in this whole att'air you were purposely holding out the right hand of fellowship to High Churchism, and telling her, as you did afterwards by votes and speeches not to be mistaken, We, the present Ministry, ai-e not among "the violent and unscrupulous" opponents of "the Lord Bishop of Toronto" — we are not among the "Pharisaical brawlers" of Upper Canada — wt ai-e in favour of "vested rights," and won't sutt'or them to be touched — wo •"deeply regret" the "strong feeling" against the Church of England, but will " endeavour to do ju&tice to her " — we will ge*^ If the Homo Gcernmont to throw tho Reserve question over the election, aiid meantime you can try to i-aine a storm in tho coun- try — we mean to l:cC|i ottico, and circumstances may occur which will cast us into the same boat with you!" I shall as briefly as possible offer some explanatory remarks on tho foregoing extract. Though tho letter is personally addressed to me, Mr. Baldwin was my leader in 1849, and he, if any one, "erred" in not making his support of the ilobellion Losses Bill conditional on Mr. Lafontuiue's julhesion to the secularization of tho Clergy Reserves. I am perfectly certain that nothing would have induced Mr. Baldwin to adopt such a line of action, and I am equally certain that Mr. Lafontainc would not have sacriticed his convictions on ono measure to secure support for anotlier. Such a proceeding would have been justly characterized as log-rolling. The letter proceeds to justify all our policy on the Clergy Kesei-vo question, tho writer declaring, " up to the meeting of Parlia- " ment this year, therefore, I was with you on the Resei-ve " question, and did not doubt j^our perfect good faith in regard to " it." The question then is, are the grounds stated by tho writer adequate to justify tlio ^'suspicions" which induced him to declare himself satisfied that 1 was prepared to sacrifice my prin- ciples and my party to subserve my own ends? There was suspi- cion aroused that Lord Gi-ey " htul received a hint that prompt *' action would bo inconvenient to the Provincial Cabinet." It is difficult, of course, to defend oneself from suspicions. There never was even the shadow of a ground for them ; aiid Lord Grey, an English nobleman of unblemished honour, declared, in a des- patch made public at the time, that the chief cause for delay was a desire to ensure the success of the measure. Lord Elgin's repu- tation stands, I think, sufficiently high to shield him fioiu the imputation of such a trick, — and Messrs. Ijafontainc and Baldwin, then the leaders of tho Administration, were not men to whom such practices wore imputed bj' those most in opposition to them, Tho speech from the throne made precisely the pi'oper reference to the subject. It promised the despatch in reply to the address from tho House, and left tho House to take tho proper action, which it did in due course, by assuring Her Majesty of their satisfaction at the assurance given them that the ])rayor of their address would bo complied with. But then the suspicions received ten-fold strength from tho Governor's despatch transmitting the CO addroHM fo- which I wrh made rcHpoiisible, nltlioui^h it has never been licld, to my knowledge, by any Canadian Btatosman, that the Governor General of Canada writes hi.s despatches to the Secre- tary of State, on the advice of his Ministei-s. Earl tirey had a right to Lord Elgin's unbiassed opinion of the address of the House of Assembly, whicli he transmitted, and which in terms sufficiently explicit, conveyed the wishes of that body. Lord Elgin's personal opinions were certainly against secularization. I am not of opinion, however, that the despat(*h was calculated to injure the ])()pular cause, and the decision of the Lnperial Government is the best proof that it was not. Be that as it may, I entirely disclaim all responsibility for the Governor's despatch, and yet my condemnation avowedly rested on a document which I solemnly declare Inever saw until about the time when it be- came public. It never entered into the imagination of Mr. Lafou- taine or Mr. Baldwin, or of any other statesman with whom I have been associated, that the administration was politically re» sponsible for the Governor's despatches to the Secretary of State, conveying his opinions on questions of policy. I must proceed to the Mction of the new administration. Early in 1852 I visited England as one of a deputation on the subject of the Intercolonial Eailway. 1 sailed for England on the 4th of March of that year, shortly after my return from the Maritime Provinces, whither I went in the preceding January, accompanied by the Honbles. Col.' Tache and John Young. On the 'Aolh. February, a memorandum was agreed to by the members of the Government as to pressing the repeal of the Imperial Act, although no doubt was entertained as to the intentions of the Government. It was not until my ai'- rival in En '^land that I learned that the Whig Government had resigned and had been succeeded by Lord Derby, who made his exposition of policy on 27th February. I felt the necessity of having my hands strengthened, and immediately communicated with my colleagues, and I shall proceed to submit the various documents commencing with my letter, enclosing the minute of Council : — Copy of a letter from F. Hincks, Esq., to the Bight Honoraile Sir John S. Pakinuton, Bart. Morley's Hotel, London, May 3, 1852. Sir, — I have the honor to enclose a copy of an approved Report of the Committee of the Executive Couticil of Canada, dated tho 61 Yth ultimo, which I recoivocl hy the iant mail. I have iourncd tlirough the miidiiim of tlit^ pnlilic journals, that T[i>i* Majortty'i-i (TOvernincMit lias dctcniiiiu'd to take ii(» action in tlic ([uostioa of the Clergy .Ues(Tvos during tlio i)reseiit nos^ion of Parliament ; and howovor iuikIi 1 may .ci^rct tliat (U'lision, I am woll awai'o that, uikUm- tlio circumstunces, it is irrcvocabk'. I have alroaurpose of being delivered to Her Majesty's Government, it was deemr 1 nnnecessary by his Excellency the Governor General to transmit another copy; but you will, I think, find on enquiry, that his Excellency has communicated to you a copy of a memorandum agreed to at a meeting of tho members of the Council on the 25th February, prior to my departure, b^^ which I was instructed '■' to press upor the considei'- ation of Her Majesty's Government the importance of procuring the assent of the Imperial Parliament as soon as possible, to a Bill for repealing the Imperial Act, 3 ot 4 Vict. c. 78, providing for the sale of the Clergy Eeserves in Canada, and for the distribution of the proceeds thereof, as prayed for by addresses from both houses of the provincial Parliament, and for authorizing the provincial Parliament to legislate on the subject of those Eeserves." I trust that the existence of these Instructions, followed up as they have been by the approved Eeport of Council, which I had the honor to transmit in my letter of the 3rd instant, will be a. sufficient apology for my ottering eome remaiks on your despatch of the 22nd ultimo, which shall be made in a spirit of the highest respect to Her Majesty's Government. Had the addresses from the two houses of the Canadian Legislature prayod for any par- ticular distribution of the income arising from the Clergy Eeserve Fund, there most unquestionably would have been grave ob- jections to any Imperial action to be foundea on the opinions of a Parliament which ha/1 ceased to exist. Bit I would respect- fully urge, that there can be no reasonable gr)und for doubt, i,hat tho great majority of the people of Canada desire that this ques- 65 tion, which is one of local interest, should bo disposed of by their own Parliament. I need not, however, ])ress this point further, because I am well a\vai-e that legislation during the present ses- sion of the Imperial Parliament is now out of the question, and that before any further action could be taken by ller Majesty's Government, the new Canadian Parliament will have an oppor- tunity of expressing its views on the subject. But I am bound by a sense of duty to Her Majesty to express to Her contidcntial advisers, tliat it 'j with the most serious alarm that I have read the coiicluding portion of your despatch. Most devotedly attached as I am to the maintenance of the subsisting connexion between the mother country and the British American colonies, I cannot view without grave apprehension the prospect of col- lision between Her Majesty's Government and the Parliament of Canada, on a question regarding which nuch strong feelings prevail among the great mass of the population. Such a ditti- culty is the more to be regretted, because the question of the Clergy Ee.serves is the only one, so far as I am aware, at all likely to lead to collision. It happens, most imfoi-tunately, that public opinion in England differs very widely from that in Canada, on questions at all partaking of a religious character ; and as the people of Canada are convinced that they are better judges than any parties in England can be, of what measures will best conduce to the peace and welfai-e of the province. Her Majesty's Government will, I trust, perceive that the danger which I apprehend is at least deserving of the inost grave consideration. I cannot have the slightest doubt that the members of Her Majesty's Government are actuated by the most earnest desire to promote the best interet^ts of Canada, and that if they could be brought to believe that I have given a faithful account of the state of public opinion there, they would be disposed to yijld their own wishes for the sake of the peace of the colony. I am quite ready to acknowledge the high respectability of the petitioners against the repeal of the (-lergy Eeserves Act. The bishops, clergy, afid an influential portion of the laity of the Church of England, the clergy and a portion of the laity of the Church of Scotland, are doubtless in favor of the present settlement, Avhich, indeed, confers on the Church of Scotland an income wholly beyond its requirements in Canada; while the majority of the Presl)ylerian population neither receive any share of the endowment, nor desire to par- ticipate in it. While, however, I admit the respectability of the petitioners, I think that I am justified in aftirming that they do not represent anything like a majority of the population of Canada; indeed, the very fact that they on all occasions endeavour to accomplish their wishes by appealing not to their own repre- Bcntatives in Parliament, but to the Imperial Parliament, is con- clusive proof tha,t they are themselves conscious that their views 66 are not in accordance with public opinion in Canada. I forbear from entering into the consideration of the probable action of the Canadian Legishiture on the Clergy Eeserves qu.;stion, because I am anxious to impress on Her Majesty's Government that, although there nuiy l)e wide diiferences of opinion among the opponents of the present arrangement as to the best mode of set- tling the question, a vast majority of the people are agreed as to the necessity of its being effected by provincial legislation ; and I am aware that some of the best friends of the Church of England question the soundness of the policy which has influencetl the promotcj's of the petitions lately presented to Parliament to look for support to their views in England, insteml of using their legiti- mate influence over piiblic opinion in Canada. 1 do not by an}' means desire to conceal from Her Majesty's Government that, saving always the i-ight of existing incumbents, a very strong feeling prevails, especially in Upper Canada, in favour of the secularization of the Clergy Eeserves ; but I ought not to omit reminding them that, although it is true that the portion of pub- lic lands known as Clergy Eeserves Avas set apart for the religious instruction of the people at a very early period, and M'hen there were very few inhabitants in the colony, it is likewise true that power was expressly given to the Provincial Legislature " to vary or repeal " tlio clauses in the Act 31 George III., setting apart these lands; that successive Houses of Assembly remons- trated against giving effect to them, and that so firmly were the jidvisers of His late Majesty King "VYilliam IV. impressed with the necessity of getting rid of this most perplexing question, that Secretary Viscount Goderich, in a despatch dated 21st November, 1831, communicated the Eoyal instructions that a bill, framed in England, should be submitted to the Provincial Legislature for the pu]i->08e of getting I'id entirely of the endowment. The people of Canada know Avell the cause of the failure in carrying out the gracious intentions of His late Majesty, as well as their own repeatedly expressed wishes. The opinions of the mass of the people have never Avavered during the last twenty-five years, although circumstances have from >ime to time induced them to pause in their efforts, in order to concentrate pul)lic opinion on questions more deeply affecting their constitutional rights. 1 cannot, therefore, conceive that ariy action which the Canadian Parliament may take of the nature referred to in the despatch, could be correctly designated as the result of an accidental majo- rity. All the great questions which have been settled in Englanil during the hvst fifty years might be said, with equal justice, to have been carried by accidental majorities; and if a supposition on the part of Her Majesty's Government that any majority in the Canadian Parliament expressing views antagonistic \o their own was an accidental one, were deemed a sufficient groi. nd for resisting that majority, I would most respectfully submit that 67 I In thei'o would be no security whatever foi- constitutional govern- ment. J am well convinced that Her Majesty's advisers have «vory disposition to attach due weight to the clearly expresiscd opinion of the people of (y'anada, and I am therefoi-e anxious to remind them of, and to urge upon their consideration, the past history of the Clergy Eo«orves question, which I have endeav- oured to glance at as briefly as possible. Thei-e is a passage in the despatch to the Earl of Elgin which seems to nic calculated to lead to some misconception. I refer to the paragra])h describ- ing the Clergy Eeserves as the only " public fund, except that devoted to the endowment of the Kofiian Catholic Church." lam not aware that any public fund has ever been devoted to the • endowment of the Jloman Catholic Church in Canada. AYhatever property may be in possession of Jlomau Catholics has been obtained principally by private donation or bcqrest, although in some cases there were additional grants from the French Crown, Avhich were secured to the possessors at the Conquest. These grants were made to commxinitics consisting of ecclesiastics or religious ladies, either for charitable or educational purposes, or for the conversion of the Indians. If I am correct in this statement, as I believe that I am, I most I'CspectfuUy sul)mit that such grants, as those to which I have referred, l»ear no analogy to the mise made by their predecessors ; and this House is confirmed in this hope by the suggestion in the despatch of the Kight Honourable Sir John Pakington, that Her Majesty's Ministers are prepared to recommend amendments to the Imperial Clergy lieserves Act, Avith a view to satisfy the wishes of the Canadian people. 5. That this House can scarcely doubt that, the principle of amending the present Act being admitted, H«;r ^lajesty's Minis- ters will yield to the strong feeling which ])ervatles the Canadian people, that any new legislative onactnients regarding the Clergy Keserves should be framed by their own repi'esentatives, instead of by the Imperial Parliament, which, being necessarily un- acquainted with the state of public opinion in Canada, cannot be expected to concur in a measure that will give permanent satis- fiaction to its inhabitants. 6. That this House desires to assure Her Majesty, that in thus giving expression to the public opinion of the country, it is actuated by the strongest feelings of loyalty to Her Majesty, and by a sincere desire to prevent those lamentable consequences which mast be the result of a collision between the Imperial and Provincial Parliaments, on a question on which very strong feel- ings are known to prevail among the people of this Province. The Address founded on the above resolutions was received in England very shortly before the resignation of the Earl of Derby; biit a draft despatch, which had been prepared by Sir John Pakington for transmission b}' the mail, IGth December, 1852, Avas laid before Parliament, and as Sir John moved for its pro- duction, justice to him requires its insertion here. Draft of a Despatch from Sir John S. Pakington to Governor- General the Earl of Elgin, 2)repared for transmission by mail of 16th December, 1852. Downing Street, December, 1852. My Lord, — I have liad the honour to receive your Lordship's ■despatch,* No. 85, of the 22nd September, forwarding an address to the Queen from the Commons of Canada, in Provincial Parlia- ment assembled, on the subject of the Clergy Eeserves. • Page 7 of Papers rela.ive to "Clergy Reserves, Canada," presented to ^both Houees of Parliament, by command of Her Majesty, Uth February, 1853. 70 2. I have laid this Address before Her Majesty, who was pleased to receive it very gi-aciously. 3. It is with sincere regret that Her Majesty's Government feel themselves unable to advise Her Majesty to comply with the wishes of the Assembly, for the introduction of a Bill into the Imperial Parliament, to repeal the Act 3 and 4 Vic. c. 78. 4. In arriving reluctantly at this conclusion, Her Majesty's advisers disclaim any intention of " violating the constitutional rights " of the Canadian Parliament. On the contrary, they regard those rights with the high respect which is justly due to them, and they fully and distinctly recognize both the justice and the propriety of the general I'ule that in those dependencies of the British Crown, which enjoy the advantages of represen- tative institutions, questions which affect exclusively local interests, should be decided and dealt with by the Local Govern- ment and Legislature. ' i V' ;', 5. But Her Majesty's Government are not less clearly of opinion that the question of the repeal of the Imperial Act 3 and 4 Vict, c. 7S, involves interests, and is connected with circumstances, which make it fairly an exception to this general rule. 6. It is the earnest desire of Her Majesty's Government, not only to avoid any serious " difference of opinion " with the Legislature of Canada, but to act with them, if possible, in friend- ly concert, upon a subject of such great and enduring importance to the Canadian people, especially of the Upper Province. 7. Her Majesty's Government desire to call the attention of the Commons of Canada to the circumstances under which the Imperial Act was passed. 8. After a long period of agitation, and frequent attempts at legislation on the part of the Upper Canadian Assembly, an Act was passed hy the Parliament of that Province for placing the disposal of the Clergy Reserves in the hands of the Imperial Parliament This Act was not confirmed, for reasons statetl in Loi'd John Russell's despatch to Lord Sydenham of the 7th February, 1839. Another Act, providing for the sale and disposal of the Clci'gy Reserves, was subsequently passed by the Provin- cial Legislature. This Act would have received tie Royal Assent, but for a legal objection which was found to be ins-uperable. 9. In consequence of the legal difficul. v to the confirmation by the Crown of the Provincial Act, the Act 3 and 4 Vict. c. 78, similar in principle, though ditfering in detail fron the Act sent from Canada, was passed by the Imperial Parliament. 10. Her Majesty's Government cannot fail to remember that not only was the Imperial Act similar in principle to the Pro- vincial Act, but that the former was passed and regarded at the same time, both in Canada and this country, as a final settlement of a long agitated and most difficult question ; and the settlement of which" had moreover been pressed upon the Imperial Govern- n ment by successive Governors of the C-'auadian Provinces, and by the general wish of the Canadian people. 11. Ker Majesty's Government would further remind tlie House of Assembly that the generally admitted necessity of permanently settling this long debated question, had reference, not only to the manifest evils of prolonged agitation, but also to the circumstances under which the reunion of the two Provinces of Canada was then about to take place. 12. It was held, and in the opinion of Her Majesty's Govern- ment it was wisely held, to be of paramount importance, that a permanent settlement of the Clergy Eeserve question should precede the Act of reunion. 13. In considering, therefore, how far it is right or expedient to reopen this question, it is impossible for Her Majesty's advisers to overlook the fact, that since it has been decided, the two Provinces, with a population for the most part distinct both in race and religion, have been united under one representative Government. 14. Her Majesty's advisers have pleasure in expressing their high sense of the loyalty and good feeling of the French-Canadian population of the Eastern Province. They have the satisfaction of believing that friendly feeling between the French and British population is steadily and constantly increasing ; and they would depx'ecate, in the most earnest manner, any course of action on the part of the Provincial Parliament, which might have the least tendency to interrupt those amicable relations which now so happily subsist between the two races. 15. The French population of the Lower Province enjoy the blessing of an exemplary, a "Well educated, and a numerous priest- hood, with ample endowments for the support of the priests, and for the maintenance of exclusive educational institutions. 16. From the period of the conquest of Canada till the present day, those endowments have been scrupulously respected. 17. Her Majesty's Government have no disposition to question the right or to imjnign the motives of such of the representatives of the French pt)piilution of the Eastern Province in theCnnadian Parliament, as may deem it their duty to vote, either for the repeal of the Clci-gj' Eeserve Act, or for the seciih.rization of the Clergy Eoserves. But they feel a deep interest in the peace and welfare of all classes of Her Majesty's subjects in Canada, and with pist struggles and contentions fresh in their recollection, they would e iruostly pre.^s on tho consideration of the Canadian Parliament, in no unfriendly spirit, whether thei-e would not be danger of reviving feelings of animosity and discontent if the British inhabitants^of the Upper Province were deprived by the Imperial Parliament of that fund for the support of Protestant worship which they have so long enjoyed, ajid which is now, whether for general or for missionary purposes, more than ever necessary. 72 18. I cannot thus communicate the views of ITer Majesty's Government with respect to the Address of the JJouse of Assem- bly which I have now to acknowledge, without repeating, in the most distinct terms, that nothing wouhl lie more painful to Her Majesty's advisers, or more at variance with their real feelings, than to bo involved in any ditforence, or controversy with the Parliament of Canada, and that their only wish upon this difficult subject is to co-operato with the provincial authorities in pro- moting the permanent interests of all classes of Her Majesty's Canadian subjects. — I have, &c. »• ' ■ John S. Paki.voton. " It seems unnecessary to insert the Dako of Xowcastlo's despatch of 15th January, 1853, announcing the decision of the new Minis- try to pi'opose the repeal of the Imperial Act of 1840, which was successfully accomplished. The decision of the Ministrv, Avhich was most fullv' concurred in by Lard Elgin, was not to propose legislation in the expiring Parliament; but there was some busine.^s of an urgent nature, particularly a Bill for giving ctfoct to the Keciprocity treaty, that it was deemed advisable to dispose of before the dissolution-, The House met in 1854, shortly after Lird Elgin's return from Washington, to which place ho had been accompanied by tho writer, as the representative of Canadian interests, during tho negotiation of the treaty. ' ' ' ' "' ' It soon became apparent that there would bo an attempt to carry an amendment to the address in answer to tho Governor- General's speech, in wliich the Conservatives, Clear Grits, and Eouges, could concur. The following despatch from the Earl of Elgin to the D;ike of Newcastle, contains a clear statemant of the circumstances which led to a dissolution of the Canadian Parliament in 1854 : Copy of a Despatch from Governor-General the Eari, of Eloin AND Kincardine to the Duke of Newcastle. Govei-nmont House, Quebec, Juno 22, 1854. ' My Lord Duke, — I have the honor to enclose herewith the •copy of a speech which I delivered from the throne this day in proroguing the Parliament of the ])rovince, and I begat the same time to solicit your Grace's attention, while I state as succinctly as I can the grounds on which I formed the resolution which has ^ivon occasion for tho delivery of this speech. 2. It may probably be in your Graco'n recoUoction, that during the course of the hwt session of the Provincial Parliumont, two Acts were passed, which had i'ov their object to effect very material chancuI iarly circumstanceii, and the Ministerial pai-ty might reasonably have been expected to assort in op])osition the views on this subject for which they had incurred the sacrifice of office. Moreover, the position of the House of Assembly itself, in reference to the point which bad been raised, was an anomalous one. On the issue, whether or not it was seemly that a certain class of y^ucstiona ')v^5j;i 76 should l»o dealt with bofopo tho dissolution, which would bring into operation a more porfoct sjHtom of popuhir ropruHontation, that body mii^lit bo said to bo a party to tho suit. Its verdict,, therefore, in tlio particuhir case, could hardly bo held to carry with it the authority which, under ordinary eircunistances, would attach to the decision of tho po|)uIar branch of the Jjegislaturo. It is further to be observed, that the liogislative (>ouncil, by tho tonus <»f their adilress in reply to the speech from tho throne which I transmitted in my Despatch No. 5, of tho 15th instant, liad vii'tually expressed their approval of tho policy adopted by the Administration. 10. IJniler these circumstancos, when the Mombci'S of tho Executive Council informed mo that they were prepaj-od to ask the judgment of the country on the policy of the postponement of the ('ler<.^y Reserve and Soii^niorial Tenure ([UostioJis, which they had adopted with my full ai)proval and sanction, I did not think that I should be justitied in refusing to act on the advico tendered by thorn, and to dissolve Parliament fortius i)urpose; and having obtained from tho Law Otlicora of tho Crown a joint opinion in favour of tho lo;j;ality of the course recommen*sem!»ly to tho Council Chamber in the usual manner, and delivered the speech, of which tho eopy is herewith enclosed. — I have, &c. (.Signed) Elgin and Kincardine. The Duke of Newcastle, &c., &c. "ov v".. .1. • -,;■),. Enclosure in No. 2. ■. ,,; ,i.ij..?H,.,. rv.4>; ■-:;}, Honourable CTontlemon of tho Le_<(islative Council. " uu i'mi Gentlemen of tho Legislative Assembly. When 1 met you at the conimoncment of the present session, I expressed tho hope that you would proceed without delay to pass such a law in reference to the period appointed for intro- ducing the amended franchise, as would have enabled nio to bring at once into operation those important measures atlccting the representation of the people in Parliament, which were adopted by you with singular unanimity last session. ILiving been disap- pointed in this expectation, I still consider that it is duo to the people of the province, atid most respectful to the decisioi of the Legislature, that 1 should take such steps as are in my power to give effect to the law by which the Parliamentary roprese.itation of tho people is augmented, before calling tho attention of Parliament to quo.stions on which the public mind has been long agitated, and tho settlement of which it is most desirable to eflfect in such a manner as will be most likoly to secui'e for it the con- fidence of tho people. I have come, therefore, to meet you on the present occasion for the purpose of proroguing this Parliament with a view to an immediate dissolution. n T hIiuII commoiit hut briefly on tlio foiegoln^ pftporR. T can readily boliove tiiat ])aHMa^os in my letter to Sir John Pakin^ton might bo cited as jiiHtifyint^ suspicions as 1o my intentions regarding Hocuhuization. I was not of opinion that in discussing the Clergy Koserve ([uestion with the Imperial Ministers I was called upon to express my individual opinions, or even those of the administration of whieh I was a nu'inl)er. I contended that as between England and ('anada it was a ([uestion of constituti(;nal right, and that the soundest policy was to adhere strictly to the one point, the repeal of the Imperial Act. The policy which my opponents jireferred would probably have caused the disruption of the J{eform party a couple of years sooner, and, judging I'rom events, might have postponed the i-epeal of the Clei'gy Jtesorvos Act for a long period of years. I can hardly be'-evo that after reading the foregoing statement ' .'facts it will be contended that either Mr. Baldwin or Mr. Lafontaine opposed the reopening of the (piostion, or sought to maintain the Imperial settlement. Mr. Baldwin voted for the tleelaration that no religious tlenom- ination had any vested interests to prevent future legislation. It is now a matter of indifference as to whether our policy was right or wrong, but oven those who think that wo were wrong in the mode whicli wo luloiited, under circumstances of considerable difficulty, should at least refrain fi'om eharging us with being opposed to the secularization of the Clergy Reserves. My old surviving friends will I am sure bear in mind that the motto of the old Toronto Examiner was, in the darkest period of our hi.story, "Responsible Covornment and the Voluntary Principle," the motto of the party of which Mr. Baldwin was the recognized leader and from which neither he nor I over wavered. With regard to the position taken in 1854, that such viuestions as the Clergy Reserves and tho Seigniorial Toimro ought only to be dealt with by tho Reformed Parliament, I rest my justification on English practice on tho occasion of their Reform acts, but Lord Elgin has put tho case of his Ministers so ably in his desi)atch that I need not add a word. On the other points of difi'eronco, such as the right of Roman Catholics to separate schools, to Acts of incor- poration for their charitable and educational institutions, and to money grants in aid so long as such grants were given at all, I need only observe that my opiniorm are unchanged, but I have no complaint to make as to their having been misrepresented as they have been in the case of the Clergy Reserves.] 78 In the "Parliament elected in 1851, there wore occasional eviden- ces of a disposition, o.i the part of the Liberal Opposition, to coalesce with the Conservative Opposition to embarrass the Government. The number inclined to take this course was still small ; but the publif'ation of the votes was, of course, not without its effect in Hhaking confidence. The minority on the sectarian school clause was 8m?iM, eleven to forty-six; but it is worthy of note that of the eleven, sevei\ were Coiiscrvatives and four atlvanced Liberal In 1853 the Earl of Elgin ])aid a visit of some months to Engk..d, returning in 1854, charged with the negotiation of a treaty of reciprocity with the United States. As a carious instance of the errors into which writers of history fall, Withrow chai'ges the Ministry with deferring the meeting of Parliament until the 13th June, because they were " conscious of waning influence," 'ilthough, in the very same page, it is correctly stated th