Delphi complete works of.., p.529
Delphi Complete Works of Stephen Leacock, page 529
The winter was exceptionally severe. “Governor Metcalfe,” said a New York official at Albany, “you’ll admit, I think, that this is a clever body of snow for a young country.”
Fisher’s Colonial Magazine, July, 1844.
J. W. Kaye, Life and Correspondence of Charles, Lord Metcalfe, 2 vols., London, 1854.
He was born on January 30th, 1785.
J. W. Kaye, Life of Lord Metcalfe, .
Metcalfe to R. D. Mangles, January 13th, 1843, Kaye Life, vol. ii., p ff.
Metcalfe to Stanley, April 24th, 1843. Kaye, Life, vol ii., .
Metcalfe to Stanley, April 24th, 1843. Metcalfe’s colonial despatches can be found in the Selections from the Papers of Lord Metcalfe, (London, 1855, Ed., J. W. Kaye).
Metcalfe to Stanley, May 12th, 1843. Kaye, Life, vol. ii. p ff.
For example the addresses from the Talbot district.
April 25th, 1843.
Political History of Canada, . (Montreal, 1877).
J. W. Kaye, Life of Lord Metcalfe. Vol. II., p ff. The errors of fact made by Mr. Kaye in reference to Baldwin’s parentage, etc., need no correction.
By this is meant the Family Compact of which Kaye supposes Dr. Baldwin to have been a member.
N. F. Davin, The Irishman in Canada, . (London, 1877). Hincks also wrote bitterly of Kaye’s estimate of Baldwin. (Hincks, Political History, p ff.)
See The Pilot, September 18th, 1844; also Hincks, Reminiscences, p ff. (Montreal, 1884).
Space will not permit the presentation of the entire document, which may be found (in translation) in Hincks, Reminiscences, p ff.
LaFontaine writes in the third person, speaking of himself as a “member of the executive council,” a “councillor,” etc.
The phrases are taken from LaFontaine’s letter of November 27th, 1843, cited in the following chapter.
Kaye, Life, Vol. II., .
The following extract is illustrative of the amenities of the day:— “Then Mr. Johnston came into full play — right and left he dashed into the supporters of the bill with his peculiar sarcasm — he told one honourable gentleman from Montreal that he never yet had had the manliness to express an independent opinion — told others that they would make good feather breeches to hatch eggs, etc., etc.” — Kingston Whig, October, 1843.
The Examiner, October 25th, 1843. Hincks had severed his connection with this paper on assuming office.
November 11th, 1843.
3 and 4 Vict. c. 35, Sec. xxx.
See Journal of the Legislative Assembly, October 6th, 1842.
See speech of Robert Baldwin (La Minerve, November 16th, 1843) in which he describes the French-Canadian members “sitting at the feet of the honourable knight as a political Gamaliel.”
7 Vict. c. 65.
7 Vict. cc. 16, 17, 18, 19, 20. The statutes are very elaborate: it is quite impossible in the present limited space to give any proper idea of their purport.
4 and 5 Vict. c. 20.
See Kaye, Life, Vol. II., p et seq.
July 8th, 1843.
Gowan’s letter is quoted by N. F. Davin, The Irishman in Canada, .
The Examiner, November 8th, 1843.
Journal of the Legislative Assembly, November 4th, 1843.
7 Vict. cc. 1 and 2.
7 Vict. c. 9 and 7 Vict. c. 29.
The administration of 1848 should more properly be called the Baldwin-LaFontaine administration, since Robert Baldwin was its senior member. But it has been customary to use the designation in the text.
See Loudon, History of the University of Toronto, printed in Canada, an Encyclopædia, 1898.
In 1828 part of the original grant of land was exchanged for an equal portion of land belonging to the Clergy Reserves.
Statutes of Upper Canada, 7 Will. IV. c. 16.
Bagot to Stanley, January 27th, March 27th, 1842, Bagot Correspondence.
See Egerton Ryerson, Story of My Life, Chap. xiv.
4 and 5 Vict. c. 37.
Journal of the Legislative Assembly, November 6th, 1843.
The Church, November 17th, 1843.
Speech of the Hon. W. H. Draper at the Bar of the Legislative Assembly, November 24th, 1843, in Defence of the chartered rights of the University of King’s College (Kingston, 1843).
CHAPTER VII. THE METCALFE CRISIS
THE NEWSPAPERS OF the early forties, adhering to the decorous traditions of the older school, knew nothing of the modern system of sensational headings and exaggerated type. But the news which, at the close of November, 1843, spread rapidly through the country, startled many of them into large capitals and abundant notes of exclamation. The LaFontaine-Baldwin ministry, with an unbroken majority behind it, had gone suddenly out of office! “Dismissed!” triumphantly shouted the Tories, and forthwith, without waiting for further details of what had happened, an exultant song of praise flowed from the pens of Conservative editors in laudation of the stout-hearted governor who had vindicated British loyalty against the treacheries of aliens and Radicals. “The news from Canada,” sang back in echo the New York Albion, “is of a right cheering character: the Franco-Radical cabinet has gone to the tomb of the Capulets amid the shouts of every loyal man in the province. The governor-general, Sir Charles Metcalfe, (and thrice honoured be his name!) has thrown off the incubus of a disloyal faction and the queen’s representative stands redeemed and disenthralled.”
But the ministry had not, as presently appeared, been dismissed; they had, with one exception only, handed in a collective resignation in protest against what they regarded as the unconstitutional conduct of the governor-general. This was at last the rupture which Metcalfe five months before had told Lord Stanley might “happen any day.” The vexed question of the patronage and the governor’s reservation of the Secret Societies Bill had led the cabinet to force the matter to an issue. It has been seen above that Metcalfe had resolved that the exercise of the right of appointment to office should not be removed from his hands. To this policy he had adhered. Several cases had already occurred in which the governor-general had offered, and even conferred, official positions without any consultation with his ministry. Among these was the important post of speaker of the legislative council, which was offered successively, though without finding acceptance, to two members of the Conservative party. Finally toward the end of November, 1843, it reached the ears of the cabinet that a Francis Powell, the son of Colonel Powell (also of the Conservative party) had been appointed by Sir Charles Metcalfe to be clerk of the peace for the Dalhousie district. The position, in and of itself, was no great affair. But the ministry, considering a principle of prime importance to be involved, decided to bring the matter to a final test.
RESIGNATION OF THE CABINET
On November 24th Baldwin and LaFontaine called upon the governor-general and held with him a long colloquy which was renewed at a meeting of the executive council the next day. The two ministers, to use the words of Metcalfe’s biographer, “pressed their demands with energy and resolution: but Metcalfe, in his own placid way, was equally energetic and resolute.” On the day following (November 26th, 1843) the ministry resigned. As the course of action thus adopted and the crisis which followed constitute a turning point in the political history of Canada, and form the most important episode in the public career of the united leaders, it is well to follow in some detail the threads of the vexed controversy to which their resignation gave rise. At the instance of Sir Charles Metcalfe, LaFontaine drew up an official statement of the reasons of the resignation, which, together with a rejoinder by the governor-general, was duly laid before the Houses of parliament. The ministerial statement runs as follows: —
“Mr. LaFontaine, in compliance with the request of the governor-general, and in behalf of himself and his late colleagues, who have felt it to be their duty to tender a resignation of office, states, for His Excellency’s information, the substance of the explanation which they purpose to offer in their places in parliament. They avowedly took office upon the principle of responsibility to the representatives of the people in parliament, and with a full recognition on their parts of the following resolutions introduced into the legislative assembly with the knowledge and sanction of Her Majesty’s representative in this province, on September 3rd, 1841.” (Here follows a citation of the resolutions given in Chapter IV. above.)
“They have lately understood that His Excellency took a widely different view of the position, duties, and responsibilities of the executive council, from that under which they accepted office, and through which they have been enabled to conduct the parliamentary business of the government, sustained by a large majority of the popular branch of the legislature.
“Had the difference of opinion between His Excellency and themselves, and, as they have reason to believe, between His Excellency and the parliament and people of Canada generally, been merely theoretical, the members of the late executive council might, and would, have felt it to be their duty to avoid any possibility of collision which might have a tendency to disturb the tranquil and amicable relations which apparently subsisted between the executive government and the provincial parliament. But the difference of opinion has led STATEMENT OF LAFONTAINE not merely to appointments to office against their advice, but to appointments, and proposals to make appointments, of which they were not informed in any manner, until all opportunity of offering advice respecting them had passed by, and to a determination on the part of His Excellency to reserve for the expression of Her Majesty’s pleasure thereon a bill introduced into the provincial parliament with His Excellency’s knowledge and consent as a government measure, without an opportunity being given to the members of the executive council to state the probability of such a reservation. They, therefore, felt themselves in the anomalous position of being, according to their own avowals and solemn public pledges, responsible for all the acts of the executive government and parliament, and at the same time not only without the opportunity of offering advice respecting these acts, but without the knowledge of their existence, until informed of them from private and unofficial sources.
“When the members of the late executive council offered their humble remonstrances to His Excellency on this condition of public affairs, His Excellency not only frankly explained the difference of opinion existing between him and the council, but stated that, from the time of his arrival in the country, he had observed an antagonism between him and them on the subject, and notwithstanding that the members of the council repeatedly and distinctly explained to His Excellency that they considered him free to act contrary to their advice, and only claimed an opportunity of giving such advice and of knowing, before others, His Excellency’s intentions, His Excellency did not in any manner remove the impression left upon their minds, by his avowal, that there was an antagonism between him and them, and a want of that cordiality and confidence which would enable them, in their respective stations, to carry on public business to the satisfaction of His Excellency or of the country.
“The want of this cordiality and confidence had already become a matter of public rumour: and public opinion not only extended it to acts, upon which there were apparent grounds for difference of opinion, but to all measures of government involving political principles. His Excellency, on the one hand, was supposed to be coerced by his council into a course of policy which he did not approve of, and the council were made liable to the accusation of assuming the tone and position of responsible advisers of the government, without, in fact, asserting the right of being consulted thereupon.
“While His Excellency disavowed any intention of altering the course of administration of public affairs which he found on his arrival in Canada, he did not disguise the opinion that these affairs would be more satisfactorily managed by and through the governor himself, without any necessity of concord STATEMENT OF METCALFE amongst the members of the executive council or obligation on their part to defend or support in parliament the acts of the governor. To this opinion of His Excellency, as one of theory, the members of the executive council might not have objected; but when, on Saturday last, they discovered that it was the real ground of all their differences with His Excellency, and of the want of confidence and cordiality between His Excellency and the council since his arrival, they felt it impossible to continue to serve Her Majesty, as executive councillors for the affairs of this province, consistently with their duty to Her Majesty, or to His Excellency, or with their public and often repeated pledges in the provincial parliaments, if His Excellency would see fit to act upon his opinion of their functions and responsibilities.”
The document written by Sir Charles Metcalfe in answer to this on the following day (November 28th, 1843) runs as follows: —
“The governor-general observes with regret in the explanation which the gentlemen who have resigned their seats in the executive council propose to offer in their places in parliament, a total omission of the circumstances which he regards as forming the real grounds of their resignation; and as this omission may have proceeded from their not considering themselves at liberty to disclose the circumstances, it becomes necessary that he should state them.
“On Friday, Mr. LaFontaine and Mr. Baldwin came to the government house, and after some other matters of business, and some preliminary remarks as to the cause of their proceeding, demanded of the governor-general that he should agree to make no appointment, and no offer of an appointment, without previously taking the advice of the council; that the lists of candidates should, in every instance, be laid before the council; that they should recommend any others at discretion, and that the governor-general, in deciding after taking their advice, should not make any appointment prejudicial to their influence. In other words, that the patronage of the Crown should be surrendered to the council for the purchase of parliamentary support; for, if the demand did not mean that, it meant nothing, as it cannot be imagined that the mere form of taking advice without regarding it, was the process contemplated.
“The governor-general replied that he would not make any such stipulation, and could not degrade the character of his office, nor violate his duty, by such a surrender of the prerogative of the Crown.
“He appealed to the number of appointments made by him on the recommendation of the council, or the members of it in their departmental capacity, and to instances in which he had abstained from conferring appointments on their opponents, as furnishing proofs of the great consideration METCALFE ON PATRONAGE which he had evinced towards the council in the distribution of the patronage of the Crown.
“He at the same time objected, as he had always done, to the exclusive distribution of patronage with party views, and maintained the principle that office ought in every instance to be given to the man best qualified to render efficient service to the state; and where there was no such preëminence, he asserted the right to exercise his discretion.
“He understood from Messrs. LaFontaine and Baldwin, that their continuance in office depended upon his final decision with regard to their demand; and it was agreed that at the council to be assembled the next day, that subject should be fully discussed.
“He accordingly met the council on Saturday, convinced that they would resign, as he would not recede from the resolution which he had formed, and the same subject became the principal topic of discussion. Three or more distinct propositions were made to him, over and over again, sometimes in different terms, but always aiming at the same purpose, which, in his opinion, if accomplished, would have been a virtual surrender into the hands of the council of the prerogative of the Crown: and on his uniformly replying to these propositions in the negative, his refusal was each time followed by ‘Then we must resign,’ or words to that purport, from one or more of his council. In the course of the conversations which, both on Friday and Saturday, followed the explicit demand made by the council regarding the patronage of the Crown, that demand being based on the construction put by some of the gentlemen on the meaning of ‘Responsible Government,’ different opinions were elicited on the abstract theory of that still undefined question as applicable to a colony — a subject on which considerable difference of opinion is known everywhere to prevail; but the governor-general, during those conversations, protested against its being supposed that he is practically adverse to the system of responsible government, which has been here established: which he has hitherto pursued without deviation, and to which it is fully his intention to adhere. . . . If, indeed, by responsible government the gentlemen of the late council mean that the council is to be supreme, and the authority of the governor-general a nullity, then he cannot agree with them, and must declare his dissent from that perversion of the acknowledged principle. . . . Allusion is made in the proposed explanation of the gentlemen of the late council, to the governor-general’s having determined to reserve for the consideration of Her Majesty’s government, one of the bills passed by the two legislative Houses. That is the Secret Societies Bill. If there is any part of the functions of the governor in which he is more than any other bound to exercise an independent judgment, it must be in giving the royal assent to Acts of parliament. With regard to this duty he has special instructions from Her Majesty to reserve METCALFE AND STANLEY every Act of an unusual or extraordinary character. Undoubtedly the Secret Societies Bill answers that description, being unexampled in British legislation. The gentlemen of the late council heard his sentiments on it expressed to them. He told them that it was an arbitrary and unwise measure, and not even calculated to effect the end it had in view. He had given his consent to its being introduced into parliament, because he had promised, soon after his assumption of the government, that he would sanction legislation on the subject as a substitute for executive measures which he refused to adopt on account of their proscriptive character: although he deprecates the existence of societies which tend to foment religious and civil discord. The gentlemen of the late council cannot fail to remember with what pertinacity those measures were pressed on him, and can hardly be unaware of what would have followed at that time, if, in addition to rejecting the proscriptive measures urged, he had refused to permit any legislation on the subject.”
