from Joseph Hume, the radical politician who had helped him with Lord Goderich, in which Hume anticipated a crisis in Canada which [would] terminate in independence and freedom from the baneful domination of the mother country and the tyrannical conduct of a small and despicable faction in the colony Mackenzie's indiscretion hurt the reforming party at the elections held in October 1834. Indeed the publication of Hume's letter corresponds in a degree to the issuing of the Ninety-two Resolutions in Lower Canada. Constitutional reformers were alarmed and did not feel secure concerning the future. Ryerson and the Methodists began to separate from what might be considered the Papineau platform. As it was, the reformers were in the majority in the new assembly. But the Baldwins, Jesse Ketchum, and Rolph had refused to stand, and the party were thus split over Mackenzie's policy. Mackenzie succeeded in having a select committee of the assembly appointed to inquire into grievances. He was elected chairman and all the members were his close followers. The report which this committee brought forward was never formally approved by the assembly, but it may be considered as representing the opinions of the Mackenzie group of reformers.

The Seventh Report of Grievances covered most issues in Upper Canadian politics. Patronage, salaries, the church of England, the land department-all were subject to severe criticism. It cannot be denied that there were grievances, but no concessions were made to conditions, and any good results were overlooked. The family compact' were nothing if not competent, and while crumbs fell from the rich man's table, there was no real organized public peculation under their régime. The interest of the report lies largely in its discussion of constitutional questions. The committee felt that the machinery of government 1 Colonial Advocate, May 22, 1834.

2 See an address from the Wesleyan conference condemning Hume's letter which Colborne forwarded to Stanley, July 1, 1834, State Papers, Q. 382-2, P. 449.

was behind the grievances. They were justified in complaining that little respect was paid, even in subordinate matters, to the wishes of the assembly. On the other hand, there is no clear suggestion for reform. Under the influence of Lower Canada an elective second chamber was asked for, but there is no hint of the recommendation of cabinet government. The executive council was to be rendered responsible to public opinion, but the method was vague. The committee noticed that some witnesses suggested ministerial responsibility, and the terms approach the idea of cabinet control; but there is nothing in the report which can be interpreted as an acceptance of this suggestion. The report was at once printed and copies were sent to Lord Glenelg, now colonial secretary, and to the members of the imperial parliament. The cabinet was alarmed. Colborne was censured for having misjudged the situation and for withholding full information from the imperial government. He defended himself as best he could. He regretted the attention paid to Mackenzie and his party, who, he was convinced, could not be attached to the government by concessions.1 He recalled his suggestion of 1832, of filling up the country as speedily as possible with staunch British settlers, as such a policy would eliminate all anxiety about the Canadas and would counteract factions.2 The cabinet was convinced that a new policy must be begun, and Colborne was recalled to make room for Sir Francis Bond Head, who was sworn in at Toronto on January 25, 1836. Colborne left the next day to assume command of the military forces in British North America.

Colborne did not leave before he carried out an act which was singularly inopportune. He established and endowed out of the clergy reserves forty-four rectories for the church of England. The history is rather confusing. In 1831 the British government

1 Colborne to Glenelg, September 16, November 9, December 2, 1835, State Papers, Q. 387-1, p. 98 ; Q. 387-2, pp. 279, 349, 410.

2 Colborne to Hay, September 21, 1832, ibid., Q. 374–4, p. 887.

decided to abandon the idea of endowment, as the system had proved not only financially futile, but had a direct tendency to render odious to the inhabitants' the ministers of religion.1 A bill was prepared for the provincial legislature repealing the clauses of the Constitutional Act dealing with the clergy reserves and transforming them into crown lands.2 The bill was actually introduced by the attorney-general, but it disappeared in Colborne's prorogation of the legislature. In February 1832 Colborne suggested the use of monies from the clergy reserve funds to build rectories or churches. In the following April Goderich concurred in this view. In November 1832 Goderich stated that the imperial government had abstained from endowing literary or other corporations until he should obtain advice from the representatives of the Canadian people. In 1834 and in 1835 the assembly passed bills for the sale of the clergy reserves and for the application of the monies received to education, but the legislative council blocked the scheme. In January 1836, on the eve of his departure, the executive council recommended to Colborne the creation of fifty-seven rectories and patents were issued for forty-four. Colborne and the executive council could plead implicit approval; but the whole thing was carried through without the immediate knowledge of the imperial government. At any rate, while Colborne had the law on his side, there can be little doubt that the action was impolitic and frictional. The idea of creating rectories and endowing them was at least as old as Maitland's time; but the fact that there had been varieties of opinion even in imperial circles made Colborne's last official act take on the appearance of a challenge. The province began to view the church of England as a subtle schemer taking advantage of a situation before conciliation could become an active policy.

Head's appointment provides an opening for criticism of the

1 Goderich to Colborne, November 21, 1831, Series G. 68, p. 251. * Colborne to Goderich, February 3, 1832, State Papers, Q. 374–1, p. 177.

colonial office. Unknown in any capacity save as a poor law commissioner, no one was more surprised than Head himself when he was roused from his bed to receive the king's messenger offering him the lieutenant-governorship of Upper Canada.1 He had the common sense to decline the offer, but Glenelg was insistent, and there began in January 1836 a régime almost tragical in its fatuity. Its only redeeming feature is the comic figure of the lieutenant-governor, who within a few weeks developed to his own satisfaction theories of colonial government childish in their folly. Head ostensibly came to Canada to carry out concessions in answer to the report on grievances. It was little wonder then that he was received in Toronto as a popular hero and as a tried reformer '.2 The length to which Lord Glenelg was prepared to go can be seen from his instructions issued to Head.3 Patronage could not be abandoned entirely, as every person in office must be held subordinate to the head of the government. Whatever patronage was unnecessary in preserving that principle might be given up. A general retrenchment in expenditure was recommended in so far as compatible with efficiency. The cabinet refused to interfere in relation to the dispute over the clergy reserves, which was a local matter and not of such vital importance as to demand imperial legislation. With regard to responsible government, Glenelg was a strict constructionist. He held that there was plenty of responsibility. The lieutenant-governor was accountable to king and parliament- a responsibility which was second to none,' and the assembly could bring it into active operation at any time by address or petition. Every public officer must hold his position at the pleasure of the crown, and he must be

1 There is a tradition that the appointment was made in error and was intended for Sir Edmund Head. Cf. Hincks, Reminiscences of his Public Life, pp. 14 ff. (Montreal, 1884).

2 He was actually recommended as such to Mackenzie by Hume: Hume to Mackenzie, December 5, 1835, Robinson Papers, [A], E. 22-3, ii. 10 (1) (Ontario Archives). See F. B. Head, A Narrative, pp. 32 ff. (London, 1839). 3 Glenelg to Head, December 5, 1835, Kennedy, op. cit., pp. 412 ff.

6

removed if he opposed the lieutenant-governor's policy. These principles, according to Glenelg, constituted an effective system of responsibility'.

Before long Head grasped the implications of the scheme. He was viceroy, responsible to no one in Canada. Downing Street had given him an excellent system and one free from ambiguities. Almost at once he took a violent dislike to Mackenzie and Bidwell, but in his rôle as tried reformer' some public act was necessary, and he called to the executive council Robert Baldwin and John Rolph. Head's theoretical popularity now became actual. He was hailed as the father of responsible government, and there can be no doubt that Baldwin and the reformers believed that Head had inaugurated a new constitutional régime. The appointment of executive councillors', wrote Bidwell, 'gives us great satisfaction. It was with our full approbation, and I may say at our request, that these gentlemen accepted office. They have our entire confidence and go in without the least sacrifice of principle.' 1 Appearances had been deceptive. Head had no idea of being guided by an executive council. He went his own way, and when he asked advice he rejected it as lightly as he had requested it. On March 4 the entire executive council protested, and asserted that they were held responsible in public opinion for measures which had never received their approval. Head replied in the strict letter of his instructions: The lieutenant-governor maintains that the responsibility to the people (who are already represented in the house of assembly) which the council assume is unconstitutional; that it is the duty of the council to serve him, not them; and if on so vital a principle they persist in a contrary opinion, he foresees embarrassments of a most serious nature for as power and responsibility must, in common justice, be inseparably connected with each other, it is evident

1 M. S. Bidwell to A. N. Buell, February 26, 1836, Jones Papers, [A], E. 36, 2 (5) (Ontario Archives).