Delphi complete works of.., p.466
Delphi Complete Works of Stephen Leacock, page 466
Kingston Chronicle and Gazette, September 17th, 1842.
If, the speaker continued, the ministry believed it but an act of justice to the Lower Canadians to call some of their representatives to the councils of their sovereign’s representative, why had they kept this conviction pent up in their own minds without the manliness to give it effect? They admitted the justice of the principle but had not the manliness to give it effect. Out of their own mouths they stood convicted. Other members joined in the debate. Aylwin denounced the government in unstinted terms. The letter to LaFontaine, he said, was a trick. It was intended to increase discord. Mr. Draper had said that he was unwilling to remain in office as a colleague of Mr. Baldwin. He could not act with the master, but he had no objection to acting with the disciple. This sneering allusion to Hincks provoked from that member an embittered denial of the aptness of the phrase. He had never been, he said, a disciple of Robert Baldwin; the great question on which they had agreed, and for which they had acted together, had been responsible government; that was now settled and conceded. The policy of the administration had been worthy of support, and he had supported it.
The attack thus opened on the government waged hotly through the sitting of the afternoon and evening. Barthe of Yamaska, Viger and others joined in the onslaught. When the debate was at last adjourned, a little before midnight, it was plain to all that if a vote should be taken on Baldwin’s amendment the government must inevitably succumb. It was in vain that Sullivan in the Upper House had undertaken the defence of the government with his usual brilliance and power; in vain that he had tried to show that the Reformers were merely a party of obstruction, bent on impeding the legitimate operation of government for their own selfish ends. “Are we,” he cried, “to carry on the government fairly and upon liberal principles, or by dint of miserable majorities? by the latter or by the united acclamations of the people? We wish to know, in fact, whether there is sufficient patriotism to allow us to work for the good of the people.”
The argument against miserable majorities, whatever it might mean to a philosopher, was powerless to meet the situation or to save the government from its imminent defeat. Great, therefore, was the expectation of the public for a renewal of the struggle on the following day. The halls and galleries of the legislature were packed with an expectant audience. All the greater was the surprise of the spectators to find that the storm which had raged so fiercely in the House had now suddenly and entirely subsided. Very obviously something had happened. The members of the assembly, who yesterday had appeared instinct with an eager intentness, now sat with quiet composure in their luxurious chairs of “green moreen,” meditating in silence or even chatting and joking with their fellows. There was for a moment a thrill of expectation in the audience when Hincks arose; he, if any one, might be expected, with his incisive speech and telling directness, to precipitate an encounter. But, to the disappointment of the listening crowd in the galleries, the inspector-general merely moved that the debate on Mr. Baldwin’s amendment should be postponed till Friday. The quiet acceptance of this proposal by the House showed that the majority of the members were aware of its meaning. The government, unable to face the rising storm of opposition, had capitulated. Mr. Draper’s resignation was again to be handed in, and a general reconstruction of the ministry was to be effected. Some few of the members ventured an immediate protest. Dr. Dunlop, an “independent” member for Huron, known as “Tiger Dunlop,” denounced the contemplated adjustment. The political transformation that seemed about to be accomplished would introduce, he said, within a space of twenty-four hours, changes as extraordinary as those witnessed by Rip Van Winkle after a lapse of twenty years. The new ministry that was in the making would be as composite as Nebuchadnezzar’s dream; he would not be invidious enough to say who would be the head of gold or who the feet of brass, but the greater part of it he feared would be of dirt.
See N. F. Davin, The Irishman in Canada, .
The epithet did not refer to the Doctor’s pugnacity, but to his record as a tiger slayer in India. See W. J. Rattray, The Scot in British North America, Vol. II., p et seq.
In despite, however, of Dr. Dunlop’s sallies and the loud outcry of the Tory press, the proposed arrangement was carried to its completion. Baldwin withdrew his amendment; Mr. Draper resigned, and LaFontaine and his colleague entered upon office. The change effected was not a complete change of cabinet, inasmuch as Hincks, Killaly, Sullivan and three others still remained in office. As Hincks has pointed out, the name, “LaFontaine-Baldwin ministry” commonly applied to the new executive group is therefore inaccurate. Sullivan was in reality the senior member of the council. But in the wider sense of the term the designation, “LaFontaine-Baldwin ministry,” indicates the essential principle of its reconstruction, and, as a matter of historical nomenclature, has long met with a general acceptance. The formation of the ministry involved a certain element of compromise. The disputed question of the pensions was left as a matter of individual voting, and in the sequel was satisfactorily arranged, Ogden being given an imperial appointment and Davidson a collectorship of customs. It was not, according to Hincks, definitely and formally stipulated that the ministers left over from the old ministry should retain their seats on condition of conforming to the policy of their new chiefs. But, with the exception of Sullivan, their known opinions were such as to render this conformity more or less a matter of course. The ministry as finally constituted — the change occupied two or three weeks — was as follows: —
Political History of Canada, .
Op. cit, .
L. H. LaFontaine, attorney-general for Lower Canada; Robert Baldwin, attorney-general for Upper Canada; R. B. Sullivan, president of the council; J. H. Dunn, receiver-general; Dominick Daly, provincial secretary for Lower Canada; S. B. Harrison, provincial secretary for Upper Canada; H. H. Killaly, president of the department of public works; F. Hincks, inspector-general of public accounts; T. C. Aylwin, solicitor-general for Lower Canada; J. E. Small, solicitor-general for Upper Canada; A. N. Morin, commissioner of Crown lands. The last named office had been declined by Mr. Girouard, whose name had been mentioned in Sir Charles Bagot’s letter, and was, at LaFontaine’s suggestion, conferred upon Morin, his most intimate friend and political associate.
The incoming ministers, in accordance with parliamentary practice, now resigned their seats and submitted themselves to their constituents for re-election. The election of LaFontaine in what the Tories called his “rotten borough” of the fourth riding of York, was an easy matter. Baldwin, on the other hand, encountered a stubborn opposition. The following newspaper extracts (both taken, it need hardly be said, from journals opposed to the new ministry) may give some idea of the elections of the period and the virulence of the party politics of the day.
“The Hastings election commenced on Monday. At half past ten the speeches began and lasted till three. Although Mr. Baldwin came in with a large procession and Mr. Murney had none, yet the latter was listened to with extreme attention, and spoke admirably. Mr. Baldwin could not be heard half the time, there was incessant talking while he spoke. At five o’clock on Tuesday evening the poll stood thus: — Murney, 130; Baldwin, 124. The poll does not close till Saturday night. Let every loyal man consider that on his single vote the election may depend, and let him immediately hasten and record it for Murney.
“The fourth riding election commenced on Monday. William Roe, Esq., a popular and loyal man, resident at Newmarket, opposes Mr. LaFontaine. The poll is held at David-town (fit place!). By the last accounts the votes stood thus: — LaFontaine, 191; Roe, 71. Mr. Roe was recovering his lost ground and will fight manfully to the last. Every out-voter should repair to his aid. Saturday will not be too late.”
“The Hastings election has terminated in favour of Mr. Murney. The numbers at the last were: — Murney, 482; Baldwin, 433. A number of shanty-men having no votes were hired by Mr. Baldwin’s party to create a disturbance. They did so, and ill-treated Mr. Murney’s supporters. The latter, however, rallied and drove their dastardly assailants from the field. Two companies of the 23rd Regiment were sent from Kingston to keep the peace, and polling was most unjustly discontinued for one day. The returning officer, Mr. Sheriff Moodie, is described to us, on good authority, as having entirely identified himself with the Baldwin party. He has made such a return as will prevent Mr. Murney from taking his seat, and no doubt the tyrannical and anti-British majority in the House will sustain him in any injustice, especially if it be exceedingly glaring.”
A less prejudiced journal gives the following more impartial account of the same proceedings:— “On Wednesday, (October 5th), it appears that bodies of voters, armed with bludgeons, swords, and firearms, generally consisting of men who had no votes but attached to opposite parties, alternately succeeded in driving the voters of Mr. Baldwin and Mr. Murney from the polls. . . . One man had his arm nearly cut off by a stroke of a sword, and two others are not expected to live from the blows they have received. All the persons injured whom we have mentioned were supporters of Mr. Baldwin, but we understand that the riotous proceedings were about as great on the one side as the other.”
The Prince Edward Gazette, quoted by J. C. Dent, Canada Since the Union, Vol. I., .
Baldwin was of course compelled to seek another constituency. The election in the second riding of York had been declared void and Baldwin was put up as a candidate by well-intentioned friends, in despite of the fact that he had already arranged to offer himself to a Lower Canadian constituency. The upshot was that Baldwin, who made no canvass of the York electors, was again beaten. But his allies in French Canada were now only too anxious to make a fitting return for his action in this respect towards LaFontaine. For the debt of gratitude incurred, an obvious means of repayment suggested itself. Several French-Canadian members offered to make way for the associate of their leader. Baldwin accepted the offer of Mr. Borne, the member for Rimouski, for which constituency he was finally elected (January 30th, 1843), but not until after the session had closed.
The incoming of the first LaFontaine-Baldwin ministry as thus constituted, offers an epoch-making date in the constitutional history of Canada. It may with reason be considered the first Canadian cabinet, in which the principle of colonial self-government was embodied. This is not to say that it marks the establishment of responsible government in Canada, for to assign a date to that might be a matter of some controversy. Durham had recommended responsible government; Russell in his celebrated despatch had indicated, somewhat vaguely, perhaps, the sanction of the home government to its adoption; Sydenham had evaded, if not denied, it. Even after this date, as will appear in the sequel, Metcalfe refused to accept it as the fundamental principle of Canadian government. Not until the coming of Lord Elgin can it be said that responsible government was recognized on both sides of the Atlantic as a permanent and essential part of the administration of the province. But it remains true that in this LaFontaine-Baldwin ministry we find for the first time a cabinet deliberately constituted as the delegates of the representatives of the people, and taking office under a governor willing to accept their advice as his constitutional guide in the government of the country.
“Canadian” in this sense refers to the two provinces then known as Canada. A responsible ministry had already been seen in Nova Scotia. See in this connection, Hon. J. W. Longley, Joseph Howe (Makers of Canada Series), Chapters iii, iv.
The distinct advance that was thus made in the political evolution of the British colonial system becomes more apparent upon a nearer view of the attendant circumstances of the hour. At the present day the people of Britain and the British colonies have become so accustomed to the peaceful operation of cabinet government that they are inclined to take it for granted as an altogether normal phenomenon, the possibility and the utility of which are self-evident. It is no longer realized that responsible government, like the wider principle of government by majority rule, rests after all upon convention. Unless and until the minority of a country are willing to acquiesce in the control of the majority, the whole system of vote counting and legislation based on it is impossible. In a community where the voters defeated at the polls resort to violence and rebellion, majority rule loses its political significance, for this significance lies in the fact that it has become a general political habit of the community to accept the decision of the majority of themselves. On this presumed consensus, this general agreement to submit if voted down, rests the fabric of modern democratic government. The same is true, also, of the particular form of democratic rule known as cabinet or responsible government: it presupposes that the beaten party recognize the political right of their conquerors to take office; that they will not consider that the whole system of government has broken down merely because they have been voted out of power; nor meditate a resort to violent measures, as if the political victory of their opponents had dissolved the general bonds of allegiance. So much has this party acquiescence become in our day the traditional political habit, that in British, self-governing countries His Majesty’s ministers and His Majesty’s Opposition circulate in and out of office with decorous alternation, each side recognizing in the other an institution necessary to its own existence. But at the period of which we speak the case was different. To the thorough-going Tories the admission to office of LaFontaine, Baldwin and their adherents seemed a political crime. Loyalty raised its hands in pious horror at the sight of a ministry whom it persisted in associating with the lost cause of rebellion and sedition, and one of whose two leaders was under the permanent stigma attaching to an alien name and descent. Even the traditional lip service due to colonial governors was forgotten, and the Tory press openly denounced Bagot as a feeble-minded man led astray by a clique of seditious and irresponsible advisers.
The journals of the autumn of 1842 are filled with denunciations of the new government. “If the events of the past few weeks,” wrote the Montreal Gazette, “are to be taken as a presage of the future — and who doubts it? — Lower Canada is no longer a place of sojourn for British colonists. A change has come over the spirit of our dream in the last few weeks, so sudden, so passing strange, that we have been scarcely able to comprehend its nature and extent. By degrees, however, the appalling truth develops itself. Every post from Kingston confirms the fact that the British party has been deliberately handed over to the vindictive disposition of a French mob, whose first efforts are directed towards the abrogation of those laws which protect property and promote improvement. Every step in the way of legislation since the 8th ultimate, has been a step backward, and the heel falls each time, with insulting ingenuity, on the necks of the British. ‘Coming events cast their shadows before.’ They are cast broadly and ominously, almost assuming in our sad and most reluctant eyes, the mysterious characters of sacred writ — Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin.”
The Montreal Transcript was even more outspoken in its denunciation. “To a governor without any opinion of his own and ready to veer about at every breath of opposition, no worse field could have been presented than Canada. Were His Excellency only resolute, the presence of three or four men in his cabinet could not avail to render him powerless and passive. But from the moment that the patronage of the Crown was surrendered, in such an unexampled manner, to such men — from the moment a seat in the cabinet was offered and pressed upon a man who had fought in open rebellion and faced the fire of British musketry in a mad attempt to carry out his hostility to the government that then was — from that moment the governor placed himself with his hands tied in the power of his new advisers.” Another leading Conservative paper did not scruple to say that the “composition of the present cabinet is the germ of colonial separation from the mother country.”
The reference is to Mr. Girouard who is said to have fought at St. Eustache.
One can understand how great must have been the difficulties of Bagot’s situation. It was not possible for him merely to fold his hands and to announce himself, with general approval, as the long-desired constitutional governor. If he attempted to actually govern, the Reformers would be up in arms; if he left the government to his ministers, he must face the outcry of the Tory faction. The ideal of one party was the abomination of the other. The French press was of course loud in its praise of the new policy. “To-day,” said La Minerve, in speaking of the formation of the ministry, “commences a new era, and one which will be signalized by the administration of equal justice towards all our fellow-citizens and the return of popular confidence in the government.” “The great principle of responsibility,” said the same journal, “is thus formally and solemnly recognized by the representative of the Crown, and sealed with the approbation of the assembly. From this epoch dates a revolution, effected without blood or slaughter, but none the less glorious.” But the more the French press praised Bagot’s action, the more did the “loyal” newspapers denounce it, subjecting the governor to personal criticism and abuse entirely out of keeping with the system he laboured to introduce. “To hear the stupid Aurore and the venomous Minerve lauding a British governor,” declared the Toronto Patriot, “is surely proof plain that he is not what he might be; that he is a changed man and not worthy of the cordial sympathy of the Conservative and loyal press of Canada.” It is small wonder that Bagot’s health began to suffer severely from the anxiety and distress of mind occasioned by these malignant attacks upon his character.
