?

was conferred upon the British Colonies as a half-way house to peaceful separation, but much may be said against this view. The earliest and ablest advocate among British statesmen, of full responsible government, was Lord Durham, through every page of whose famous Report there breathes a passion of Imperial patriotism, strange enough at the time. It so happens that the Minister who was mainly concerned with the granting to the Colonies of responsible government, has left behind him (a rare case with English politicians) his considered opinions on the relations between the Mother country and the Colonies. In Lord John Russell's great speech1 in 1850 may be found the refutation of any such charge, though it must be admitted that there was a sting in the tail of Lord John's otherwise admirable speech. After dealing in the most satisfactory manner with present questions, he most unnecessarily concluded with predictions about the remote future which, as we know from Lord Elgin,2 deeply disturbed the mind of Imperial patriots. That the generation with which we are here dealing had much confidence in the permanence of the colonial connection is not pretended, but it does not follow that statesmen were not therefore anxious to postpone as long as possible what they believed to be ultimately inevitable.

So far as Lord Durham and the Wakefield school were concerned, it seems something of a paradox, as pointed out by Merivale, that the same men should have been strongly in favour of preserving to the Empire the benefit of the colonial lands, and should also have been the strenuous advocates of granting to the Colonies full powers of government, amongst which it would be difficult to withhold the control of the public lands. But there can be no question of the honesty and intensity with which both opinions were held. Listen to the language of Lord Durham: "I cannot

1 Hans. N.S., Vol. CVIII., p. 535.

2 Letters and Journals of Lord Elgin, ed. by T. Walrond, p. 115. that sting in the tail!"

3 Note at p. 435 of Lectures on Colonisation and Colonies. 1861 ed.

"Alas for

2

participate in the notion that it is the part either of prudence or honour to abandon our countrymen when our government of them has plunged them into disorder, or our territory, when we discover that we have not turned it to proper account. The experiment of keeping Colonies, and governing them well, ought at least to have a trial ere we abandon for ever the vast dominion, which might supply the wants of our surplus population, and raise up millions of fresh consumers of our manufactures, and producers of a supply for our wants."1 Note, too, the language of Lord John Russell in the Despatch conveying the Queen's assent to the new Australian constitutions: "The colonists... by their avowed desire to assimilate their institutions as far as possible to those of the Mother country, have proved that this sympathy was not merely the expression of a common sentiment arising from common origin, but connected with a deliberate attachment to the ancient laws of the community from which their own was sprung. Whilst continuing, therefore, to pursue their present independent course of progress and prosperity, I have the fullest confidence that they will combine with it the jealous maintenance of ties thus cemented alike by feeling and principle."

1 Report on Can., p. 244.

2 Parl. Pap., 1855.

CHAPTER II

Canada. RETURNING to the history of Canada, it has been already seen in what circumstances of gloom the period opened. In Lower Canada the long conflict between the Assembly and the Executive was hastening to a crisis. The ultimate aim of the Assembly was doubtless to assert a Canadian nationality against the progressive intrusion of the English race, but the unhappy condition of the Constitution enabled it to fight at an advantage. "Having no responsible Ministers to deal with, it entered upon that system of long enquiries, by means of its Committees, which brought the whole action of the Executive immediately under its purview, and transgressed our notions of the proper limits of Parliamentary interference. Having no influence in the choice of any public functionary, no power to procure the removal of such as were obnoxious to it on merely political grounds, and seeing almost every office in the Colony filled by persons in whom it had no confidence, it entered on that vicious course of assailing its prominent opponents individually, and disqualifying them for the public service by making them the subjects of enquiries and consequent impeachments, not always conducted with even the appearance of a due regard to justice; and when nothing else would attain its end of altering the policy or the composition of the Colonial Government, it had recourse to that ultima ratio of representative power, to which the more prudent forbearance of the Crown has never driven the House of Commons in England, and endeavoured to disable the whole machinery of government by a general refusal of the supplies." 1 The practice of passing the most important laws in a temporary form was reduced to a general system, so that by "tacking" their own proposals to necessary measures, the majority might compel the Governor and

1 Lord Durham, Rep. on Can., p. 57.

Council to agree to the former. Another provision of the Constitution led to calamitous results. It was not necessary, as in Parliament, to obtain the previous consent of the Crown to money votes. Hence ensued a perfect scramble among the members of the Assembly to get as much as possible of the public funds for their respective constituents. The revenue was dispensed by Commissioners named by the Legislature, and this patronage was turned by the Assemblies to their own account. In Upper Canada the same constitutional difficulties were at work, although not aggravated by race distinctions. The "family compact" was opposed by a party of reformers, while, in addition, there was a very numerous body of British new-comers, whose sympathies swayed about according to their view of the principle at stake.

In this state of things, Lord Gosford, Sir C. Grey, and 1835. Sir G. Gipps were appointed Commissioners to settle matters, Lord Gosford being appointed Governor. The Commissioners' instructions were of a most conciliatory character, and Lord Glenelg was able to affirm in the following year 1836. that "no single complaint has been alleged which has not been either promptly removed or made the subject of impartial enquiry." Some difficulty arose from the behaviour of William IV., who had not taken to heart the moral of his father's proceedings. Death, however, intervened before it could be known how far his obstinacy would have carried him. In spite, however, of conciliatory measures no good resulted. The ignorant and easily-led Lower Canadian people had thrown themselves into the arms of the vain and shallow Papineau, and in 1837 rebellion broke out. In Upper Canada the rebellion was a very small affair, and even in Lower Canada it was easily quelled. But the more difficult question remained what was to be done.

In 1838 the Canadian Constitution was suspended, and Lord Durham appointed "High Commissioner for the adjustment of certain important questions. . . . respecting the form and future government" of the two Provinces. I have

1 See Melbourne Papers, p. 349.

already freely quoted from the pages of his Report.1 Its extreme ability surprised the London world, which had hitherto seen in Lord Durham only the enfant terrible of the Whig party. It is hardly too much to say that this Report is the most valuable document in the English language on the subject of Colonial Policy. Its final recommendations involved the union of the two Canadas, the constitution of a plan of Local Government by elected bodies, and the establishment of a general Executive on improved principles. "The responsibility 2 to the United Legislature of all officers of the Government, except the Governor and his Secretary, should be secured by every means known to the British Constitution. The Governor ... should be instructed that he must carry on his government by heads of departments, in whom the United Legislature shall repose confidence; and that he must look for no support from home in any contest with the Legislature, except on points involving strictly Imperial interests." Other important recommendations dealt with the Legislative Council, the Public Revenue, the securing the independence of the Judges, and the adoption of the rule that no money votes should be allowed to originate without the previous consent of the Crown. On the disposal of the Crown lands and on emigration, Lord Durham put forward the views to be expected from a powerful supporter of the Wakefield theory. That Lord Durham's mission was a brilliant success few Canadians have ever doubted. Unhappily, however, in the measures he took after the rebellion, while doing substantial justice and satisfying Canadian public opinion, he went beyond the letter of the law, and so, under the party system, could be pounced upon by his adversaries. Attacked by Lord Lyndhurst, by Lord Brougham, and by the Duke of Wellington, who for once seems to have preferred party

1I am aware that contemporary gossip credited C. Buller with the authorship of it, but the conclusive answer to this is that the style is quite different from that of C. Buller's own Report as assistant Commissioner.

2 p. 241. The expression "responsible government" first occurred, I believe, in a petition from Upper Canada presented to Parliament by Mr Stanley in 1829. See MacMullen's Hist. of Canada.